The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt you at this point?
Mr. CELLER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your contention that the Indians feel that there is a discriminatory statute against their people, as a people and that by granting them a quota-as we have granted other nationals we would remove that stigma or that discrimination so far as India is concerned? Am I correct? Is that your argument?

Mr. CELLER. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. According to the 1943 census, there are only 4,049 East Indians in this country, 910 of whom are native-born.

Mr. CELLER. You mean native-born in this country?

The CHAIRMAN. Native-born in this country. So there are approximately 3,139 aliens of East Indian descent."

Mr. CELLER. Well, you would not call those native-born people aliens.

The CHAIRMAN. No; I am not calling them aliens. I am merely giving you the figures. We only have about 12 aliens and 538 United States citizens of East Indian descent in our possessions, like Hawaii, for example. Now in granting this minimum quota of 100, because that is all we could give them, they would still come under the provisions of the immigration laws having to be morally, mentally, and financially responsible people.

Mr. CELLER. There is no doubt about it.

The CHAIRMAN. And they would be subject to all of the requirements, under our immigration and naturalization laws, like every other alien, of Great Britain or any other country.

Mr. CELLER. They would have to satisfy all the immigration requirements with reference to mentality, moral character, economic stability, and so forth.

The CHAIRMAN. Does your bill have the same provisions as the Luce bill?

Mr. CELLER. It is similar to it.

The CHAIRMAN. Or the Dirksen bill?

Mr. CELLER. The Dirksen bill is practically the same as the Celler and Luce bills.

The CHAIRMAN. There are some other bills on the calendar for tomorrow-I do not know if we can reach them-that deal with the naturalization of East Indians in this country, which I assume would refer to the 3,139 now here. Can you give us something on that? Mr. CELLER. I will briefly comment on that bill.

The CHAIRMAN. I am only suggesting that. You do not have to go into it.

Mr. MASON. That is also in your bill?

Mr. CELLER. No; not quite. There is a difference.
The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you explain the difference.

Mr. CELLER. For example, that bill, offered, I think, by the gentleman from New York, our distinguished colleague, Mr. Lynch, provides that when it comes to application for naturalization, the applicants need not satisfy compliance with the very restrictions you speak of. They need not submit a certificate of arrival. And in other ways it lifts some of the restrictions which apply to all applicants for citizenship. And I do not believe you want to create a preference like that.

No; I do not, for the Indians, want to create a preference like that. To lift them out of the realm of all naturalization applicants and say they do not have to satisfy those very requirements that you very succinctly outlined, would be unfair. That would put the stamp of approval upon a discrimination for the benefit of a few favored Indians. That would favor those who are here, many or some of whom have jumped ship, for example. That would put imprimitur of approval upon illegality. I do not believe you want to do that. The CHAIRMAN. So you are not supporting the Lynch bill?

Mr. CELLER. The inference to be drawn from my words, I leave to you.

Mr. MASON. Mr. Celler, may I ask you to explain what section 303 in your bill would accomplish, if it does not accomplish the naturalization of all Indians who are now residents of this country, permanent residents? It certainly gives them the right to become naturalized citizens, does it not?

Mr. CELLER. Gives them the right to become citizens, but they must then satisfy all of the provisions of the immigration statutes. Mr. MASON. It gives them the right?

Mr. CELLER. It gives them the right to apply.

Mr. MASON. And that, as I understand it, is what the Lynch bill does.

Mr. CELLER. The Lynch bill provides for exemption from the very important provisions of the naturalization statute.

Mr. MASON. I have not the Lynch bill before me, but certainly we would not want to remove or eliminate any of those provisions, any of those requirements for naturalization.

Mr. CELLER. You would not, for example, wish to eliminate the necessity for furnishing a declaration-of-intention certificate of arrival. Mr. MASON. Not at all.

Mr. CELLER. That is what the Lynch bill does.
The CHAIRMAN. We will get to that tomorrow.

Mr. CELLER. With all due respect to the gentleman from New York, his bill would, as far as Indians in this country, prior to 1924, set up a favored class-a sort of Brahman group of Indians who would be preferred to all others from all over the world-preferred over all classes and all races in that a declaration of intention and a certificate of arrival would be waived.

Mr. MASON. I had understood that this committee had already practically approved of the matter of permitting the Indians now resident here to become naturalized citizens, but we had not gone as far as to permit or approve a quota for other Indians who may wish to come here. And those are the only two things I thought were in your bill.

Mr. CELLER. That is right. It provides first for permission to those Indians who come here legally to beocme naturalized citizens. Mr. MASON. That are already here?

Mr. CELLAR. That are already here and who may hereafter come here. And it also provides for a quota of 100 with 75 of that 100 going to Indians born and resident in India or its dependencies.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be 100 if we grant this legislation. Mr. CELLER. Yes. Of course, if you approve the Lynch bill, then you would be setting up discrimination which I think

Mr. MASON. I certainly would not be willing to approve the Lynch bill if it waives any of those naturalization qualifications.

1

A

Mr. CELLER. Let us assume that you strike out the provisions of the so-called Lynch bill that waive those requirements of certificate of arrival, and so forth, and then permit the Indians who are here to become naturalized if they satisfy the naturalization statutes. That would be in the nature of creating a discrimination which would benefit a favored few Indians. It would not touch Indians now in the United States. It would not reach the purpose of my bill, namely, create good will between India and the United States, primarily for enlargement of our foreign trade.

Mr. MASON. Well, they are a favored class, if they are already here, permanently located and established here. We would say they are in a favored class, would we not?

Mr. CELLER. There is no doubt about that. But it would be creating a few Brahmans, if I may use an Indian term, and leave all the other vast number of Indians as sort of untouchables, which I think would be wrong.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a matter which will have to be determined. Mr. CELLER. Still, men like Nehru, Tagore, or Gandhi, many distinguished men and women, women like Mrs. Pundit, who is here now, a very charming, wise and sagacious lady, would be barred.

But the very purpose underlying my bill is to create a feeling of good will, that we will so need after the war. We must increase our exports-remember that.

The CHAIRMAN. No one is arguing that point, Mr. Celler.

Mr. ALLEN. In other words, your position is that to grant citizenship to those already here would not create any good will in India at all?

Mr. CELLER. No; it would not.

Mr. ALLEN. It would probably make them feel worse?

Mr. CELLER. It would be discrimination, would be creating a few Brahmans, which is the thing the Indians in India want to do away with. They want to eliminate the barriers existing between family and family, and relation and relation, in India.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, then, there are two major points to the whole argument, Mr. Celler, in all the bills: First, a minimum quota must be established, and secondly, the right to become naturalized must be given to those who are in this country and have become established, as Mr. Mason has pointed out? Those are the only two points involved?

Mr. CELLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MILLER. Maximum, not minimum.

The CHAIRMAN. You are right.

Mr. KEARNEY. Mr. Celler, it is true, is it not, that there is an organization composed of Indians in this country, who is interested solely in securing the right to naturalization for those Indians who are in this country now?

Mr. CELLER. I think there is such an organization, and it is rather a selfish organization. They seek to feather their own nest, and I think they do a woeful injury to their own people, and in my humble estimate they should bow in shame.

Mr. KEARNEY. But they are Indians?

Mr. CELLER. That is right. But they are a pitifully microscopic few in comparison with the others who want the larger bill. The

State Department is wholeheartedly in favor of this bill. In communication with officials of the State Department, they say they cannot too strongly endorse the bill.

Mr. MASON. Should we not have a State Department official here to testify?

Mr. CELLER. Yes, we have, and also the Department of Justice. strongly favor the bill. Our President favors my bill. Mrs. Luce asked me to read her statement. It is not too long. May I have the privilege of reading it?

The CHAIRMAN. She is absent. We had some other bill introduced by her, and we have called her several times. She never comes here. Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman, if she wants to shed her brilliance, and charm and beauty upon others, and not this committee

The CHAIRMAN. I will accept your apology.

Mr. CELLER. Regardless of that, the lady, a distinguished and able Representative, is wholeheartedly in favor of this bill, and I think it would not be amiss for me to read her statement. She speaks out of a wealth of knowledge.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Read it. Without objection, it will be incorporated in the record.

STATEMENT BY HON. CLARE BOOTHE LUCE, REPRESENTATIVE, STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mrs. LUCE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, establishment of a quota for admission of natives of India to the United States is an act of justice which we should not withhold. The prac

tical fact is that the total immigration of native British Indians into the United States on a regular quota basis will not exceed 75 per year. However, the psychological effect may well be out of all proportion to this infinitesimal gain in our population.

As it now stands, Eastern Hemisphere Indians are legally classified by us as undesirable residents, along with our enemies, the Japanese. Yet India has been, and is today, of immense value toward our joint victory over our enemies. The Indian Army is not only the largest single volunteer army in the world, it is the largest single volunteer army in all history. There are now more than 2,000,000 native Indian troops-all volunteers fighting in the Allied ranks, and more than 500,000 of these are on duty outside of India.

The Indian Air Force, and the Indian Navy have been estimated to total about one-third of a million men. Also, there are 59,000 Indians in the British merchant marine, enough to man a quarter of Britain's merchant fleet.

That is the numerical contribution of India. The valor of Indian soldiers is unexcelled, man for man, by any other fighters in the world. Indian troops were the backbone of Field Marshal Montgomery's invincible Eighth Army in north Africa. In that campaign the Fourth Indian Division suffered 100 percent casualties, and captured 10 times its own number in enemy prisoners. In this World War, as in the First, India has contributed more soldiers than all the other parts of the British Empire, exclusive of the British Isles.

Nor are manpower and valor India's only contribution to our victory. In the 5 years of the war, industrialization of India has advanced more than in all the 6,000 recorded years of previous Indian history. For example, now India produces 80 percent of its own war equipment,

as well as 30,000 of the 40,000 separate ordnance items used by Great Britain. And in addition, 8,000,000 garments a month to clothe British and American, as well as Indian soldiers. In India, Indian labor has built nearly 2,000 miles of concrete runways for airport installations of the Allied forces.

All this has not been accomplished merely by the order of the Indian Government. Much of it has been done by the voluntary effort and the intelligent cooperation of individual Indians. Failure to extend to this people the same recognition we give to the Chinese is to work an injustice; a continued affront to the pride and self-respect of a valuable ally.

Admission of Indians on a quota basis acknowledges their partnership with us. We recognized the moral value of such an act in the case of Chima when we repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act. I think few Americans will fail to realize its equal justice with regard to India. It is seldom that a nation has the opportunity to obtain so great a profit at so little cost.

Indian good will, however, and our own moral satisfaction is not all we shall gain by the adoption of this resolution. Our position at the San Francisco Conference will be greatly strengthened in regard to discussing colonial policies of our allies. The criticism voiced frequently and widely in the United States against the colonial policies and imperialism of other nations has a certain degree of hypocrisy so long as, in our immigration laws, we ourselves refuse to treat all our allies on a basis of equality. We cannot successfully deplore a policy which we practice.

The practical aspect likewise should be taken into consideration. Next to Russia and China, India offers us the greatest potentiality for foreign trade during the rest of this century. During the war our troops, and in particular our technicians, have had opportunities to exhibit American products to young India. This rising generation of Indians has been greatly impressed by the efficiency of our railroad rolling stock, our automotive transport, and the speed with which we can establish ground facilities for aircraft.

Some headway has been made even toward overcoming the age-old prejudices of caste against modern medicine. All this predisposes ambitious young Indians toward a respect for, and interest in, American products and American production methods.

This goodwill could be, and should be made the foundation for a mutually profitable exchange of ideas and goods between the peoples of the United States and of India. It cannot develop so long as Indians are legally classed by us as undesirables.

For these reasons I introduced H. R. 1584 to permit immigration of native British Indians into the United States on a regular quota basis, and I wish to emphasize again the number so admitted will not be more than 75 Eastern Hemisphere Indians a year.

Mr. CELLER. May I call some witnesses?

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Celler some questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly, Mr. Allen.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Celler, how many Indians are there in India, about how many? Perhaps nobody knows exactly.

Mr. CELLER. About 390,000,000.

Mr. ALLEN. About 390,000,000. How many are covered in your bill?