Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

I deplore the Soviet departures from democratic equality but I condemn them less than legal discrimination based on factors which men cannot change or escape no matter what they do. Men can always change their minds, their views on politics or economics, and free men frequently do; they can acquire and lose property, the poor among them can become conservatives and the sons of the rich can turn Communist. But one cannot possibly change the color of his skin or the race of his grandfather; to exclude men from equality on such grounds is to put them in a hopeless position, it is to punish them not for doing but for being; it is .stupid, cruel, and the very antithesis of democracy.

I might add that I have often been criticized because I did not include such countries as China and India among the founders of the union which I proposed in Union Now. But there was no color line in my choice of founders. My choice was based on political principle. I proposed to begin the union of the free with the most experienced democracies, and so I omitted not only India and China but Russia and many other white countries. I also made it clear, however, that the union should admit other nations to it, regardless of color, as they grew ripe for.it, always from the standpoint of the political principles they practiced.

I know of no more powerful principle than the equalitarian principle with which our United States began. I am not so foolish as to think that we can master so great a principle quickly, but I am very proud that our founding fathers did not say “all white men are created equal, or "all English-speaking men are created equal,” or “all Americans are created equal”—did not hedge, but roundly proclaimed: “All men are created equal."

They set up there an ideal to which there were many flagrant exceptions—the fact of slavery, the fact that women had no political rights, the fact that white men without property could not vote. Yet they set up that ideal; they gave us in our Federal Union Constitution a practical means of approaching that ideal and we have gone through our history wiping out the exceptions to that ideal. Now it behooves us to wipe out the exception to it that our discrimination against the people of India is.

If any of you doubt the power of this equalitarian principle, I suggest that you read De Tocqueville's classic, Democracy in America. This principle touches the thing that is dearest to every man with a spark of manhood in him, his self-respect, nis dignity, his value. That is why its appeal is so certain and so powerful, everywhere on earth. I shudder to see that principle abandoned by our people, and used against us.

And now the Communists have picked up this powerful principle. They are applying it much more than we are where color is concerned. They are much more advanced than we are now in this regard. I would not question their motives. I believe that many of them are misguided idealists, but their system, in my judgment, is a dangerous form of slavery—the form that is most dangerous to peace. To me, the equality the Russian Communist system offers to men of all colors is a spurious equality, for it is equal enslavement to the state. Even so, I can well understand that people in Asia should find it better to be enslaved equally with the Europeans than to be discriminated against all alone.

The dangers to human freedom inherent in Communist exploitation of this equalitarian principle at this stage of human development can hardly be exaggerated.

The rise of Japan, Russia, and Nazi Germany shows that we are teaching the ignorant victims of long ages of autocracy the techniques and machines of modern mass production much more rapidly than we are teaching them to govern themselves freely under a bill of rights. We have seen what powerful military force can quickly be organized by the combination of our mechanical inventions with regimes that enslave their masses equally. Yet these masses are not so great as the masses of India.

We urgently need to learn how to spread our democratic principles of equality with freedom and union as rapidly as we teach men how to run our bombers. If we fail to do this, Heaven help both east and west. To succeed, we need not only union of the democracies but, among other things, we need to encourage Indian students to come here to study and learn first-hand the advantages of our free way of life.

But how can we expect our political lessons to take root if they find that we continue to discriminate against their people as we do now-while professing that "all men are created equal'' ?

The bills before your committee form a very small but essential step in the right direction. I see no possible danger in them. I see immense danger in failure to make them law. I hope you will approve them by an overwhelming majority.

CLARENCE K. STREIT.

STATEMENT MADE BY DR. ANUP Singh, SECRETARY NATIONAL COMMITTEE

FOR India's FREEDOM AND EDITOR, VOICE OF INDIA, ON MARCH 7, 1945, BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION

Sir, in support of the House bills, H. R. 1584 and H. R. 173, I wish to submit the following for your consideration:

There are less than 3,000 nationals of India now living in the United States. The vast majority of them have lived here from 20 to 30 years, and have identified themselves with America, their land of adoption. In 1923 these people of ancient race and culture were barred from American citizenship.

It is a simple story, a sad story. The first recorded entry of an immigrant from India to America, according to the United States Bureau of Immigration report, was in 1899. From then to 1906 the annual entry ranged from 17 to 216. The highest, 1,782, was reached in the year 1910, after which there was a gradual dropping off. Then by the act of February 5, 1917 (39 Stat. 875, sec. 3), India, along with Siam, Indochina, parts of Siberia, Afghanistan, and Arabia, the islands of Java, Sumatra, and various lesser groups, were placed in the barred zone from which further immigration was prohibited.

On February 19, 1923 (in U. S. v. Thind, 261, U. S. 204), the late Justice Sutherland, himself a Canadian-born naturalized American, declared that a "Hindu” is not a "free white person” within the meaning of the Revised Statute 2169, relating to the naturalization of aliens, and hence is ineligible to American citizenship. The Immigration Act of 1924 established the present quota basis, determined on the "national origin” principle. And finally, in the Nationality Act of 1940, section 303, it was reaffirmed that the nationals of India are ineligible to American citizenship. The end of the chapter. No longer could anyone come from India to settle here, and those already settled here could no longer enjoy the benefits of American citizenship, excepting those born here (at present about 400 persons), and those coming under the ruling of 1935 which extends citizenship to aliens ineligible to citizenship who had enlisted in the armed forces of the United States during the First World War, and those serving in this World War II. Of course, there are also a few students, visitors, etc., allowed to come here on temporary visas.

Those who suffer most from ineligibility to American citizenship are the Indian farmers of California, who by their labor have contributed so much to the prosperity of the State, but may not own nor lease land in their own names. They have been exploited by unscrupulous persons. The businessmen from India are a'so at a disadvantage. The United States has treaties of commerce and navigation with a number of European countries, and also with China, Japan, Thailand, Liberia, and Borneo, but not with India. Under such treaties merchants of all these countries except India are free to enter the United States with their wives and minor children. While Indian merchants are thus discriminated against here, merchants of the United States enjoy a specially privileged status in India. The Convention of Commerce of 1815 between the United States and the United Kingdom provided for reciprocal liberty of commerce between the two countries, and gave the United States most-favored-nation status in India, but without a reciprocal status for Indians in the United States. This convention was revised in 1936, but the status of India was not improved thereby.

Now that the Chinese, who are admittedly not of the "white race," have been rendered eligible to American citizenship by the recent congressional act, it should no longer be necessary to examine Justice Sutherland's decision and his notion of a "free white person,” but a passing reference may be made about the discrepancy between the previous attitude of the courts and that of Sutherland which brought the present hardships upon the Indians.

Prior to the Thind case, the courts in the United States held generally that the term “free white person” as used in section 2169 of the Revised Statute that provided that the Naturalization Act applied to "Aliens being free white persons and to aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent" was synonymous with “Caucasian." And that interpretation allowed the nations of India to become citizens (Re Mohan Singh, 257 Fed. 209 (D. C. Cal.); Re Akhay Kumar Mozumdar, 207 F. 115 (D. C. Wash.); Re Najour, 174 Fed. 735 (D. C. Ga.) a Parsee; Ú. S. v. Balsara, 180 Fed. 694 (D. C. A. (2d)). Then, in the Ozawa case, November 3, 1922 (Ozawa v. U. S. 198), Mr. Justice Sutherland declared that the words “white person” indicate a person of the Caucasian race. So the Japanese after these decisions were declared ineligible for naturalization. Three months after this decision concerning the Japanese, the same Justice Sutherland declared in Thind's case that, “the conclusion that the phrase 'white person' and the word 'Caucasian' are synonymous does not end the matter." And after delving

into a number of ethnological theories as to the racial origin of the Indian, the learned justice neatly disposed of the Thind case thus: “That the words 'free white person' are words of common speech, to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man, synonymous with the word 'Caucasian' only as that word is popularly understood.” And, reading into the minds of the fathers of this Republic and appraising their learning, Justice Sutherland thus clinched the matter: “Their intention was to confer the privilege of citizenship upon that class

persons hom the fathers knew as white. The fathers perhaps were unfamiliar with the word 'Caucasian.'

Today, as a result of that decision, American citizenship, which is open to every European, Syrian, Armenian, the Negroes, and now the Chinese, is not. open to the people of India. It is a decision based primarily on racial grounds, upon the imaginary popular prejudice of the "common man.” It is as unscientific as it is un-American.

It is very doubtful whether the present Supreme Court would uphold Justice Sutherland's interpretation if a similar case were to come up before it. But the late Chief Justice Taft not long after the Thind case suggested that the best remedy lay with the Congress who should enact legislation in favor of naturalization for the Indians.

These bills have already elicited the hearty support of a large number of prominent Americans-civil leaders, educators, businessmen, clergymen, and labor leaders. And the response of the press is highly encouraging.

The Government of India has expressed its support. The Indian Legislature has voiced its concern and hope that justice will be done. And, finally, the Department of State has expressed its sympathy for the pending bills.

The issue is simple. This microscopic minority of 2,500 Indians includes farmers, machine workers, writers, students, and lecturers, and at least 10 scientists of note—men whose achievements are considered top rank. The contribution of these people is out of all proportion to their numbers. The small quota of less than 100 from India annually is infinitesimal.

The people of India should never have been deprived without sufficient cause of the rights they once enjoyed. And there was no cause. In his recent letter of resignation the Honorable Earl G. Harrison, United States Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, said: “The pattern set by the act repealing the Chinese exclusion laws is a commendable one.” He declared it “not only necessary but desirable to place reasonable limitation on the number of persons of all races and nationalities who may immigrate into the United States.” But he asserted “there should be no racial discrimination in the limitation on immigration and in the qualification of citizenship.

It is the opinion of the retiring Commissioner that these bills are correct in principle and should be speedily enacted into law. The only other country that observes racial discrimination similar to that reflected in our laws in matters relating to naturalization is Nazi Germany, and all will agree this is not very desirable company.” Americans are accorded full rights and opportunities in India. Is there any just reason why the handful of the people of India here should be discriminated against?

All the arguments that prevailed in the case of China are equally pertinent in the case of India. But above all, America cannot afford to deprive any people of their rights on account of race, creed, or color without jeopardizing her own ideals of freedom, equality, and fair play, and without undermining people's faith in the world of tomorrow--of which America must be the chief architect.

*

STATEMENT OF William D. PAWLEY, PRESIDENT OF THE INTERCONTINENT COR

PORATION, NEW YORK, N. Y., To BE PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 1584

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am exceedingly sorry that, because of transportation difficulties, I am unable to appear before your committee in person and give you my views in connection with the legislative proposal you have before you. The subject matter of this bill is of great interest to me and it is my hope that your committee will find it consistent with the best interests of the United States to report the bill favorably to the House of Representatives.

I have been asked to preface my statement by identifying myself to you. I am the president of the Intercontinent Corporation, with headquarters ať 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York City. I have spent the better part of 14 years in the Far East and during that time I was actively engaged in aviation activities, having constructed and operated China's first and only aircraft factory and subsequently India's first and only aircraft factory. In addition, in 1941, at the request of the Chinese Government, I returned to the United States and began the organization of the American Volunteer Group, known to all of us as the Flying Tigers.

Gentlemen, I believe I can best serve you by telling you of my activities in India. I shall be as brief as possible.

In 1939 the Viceroy and Governor General of India, Lord Linlithgow, invited me to India to discuss with the War Board aircraft manufacturing for the Government of India. I reached the summer capital of India on July 2 and after a series of conferences with the War Board, on July 4 signed a contract to build and operate India's first aircraft factory.

Before reaching Simla, the summer capital, we stopped off at Calcutta and Bombay and visited several factories and plants where the Indians were engaged in the art of manufacturing. We had operated aircraft factories at three different locations in China where aircraft manufacturing had never been done before and we became convinced that the Indian would be as capable in precision work as the Chinese and they had turned out to be extremely skilled technicians and artisans.

I must admit that the War Board in India was a little skeptical of the Intercontinent Corporation's ability to build this first aircraft factory and train Indian personnel in the art of aircraft manufacturing. However, I am extremely happy to say that both the English and Indian members of the War Board were exceedingly kind and considerate and gave us every possible cooperation necessary to the success of this venture. I do not believe I have ever had a business experience that was more satisfactory. The officials in Delhi shall always be remembered by our company and our American staff (approximately 38 men originally, and later increased to 200) as being the finest people to work with in our entire business experience.

We broke ground for this factory at Bangalore, India, on January 11, 1940. We established two training schools and operated them on a 24-hour basis of three 8-hour shifts. We tried to pick Indian boys with high-school education, or its equivalent. We picked college graduates for our staff and trained them in a separate school. any of these men who applied held degrees from universities in other parts of the world-England, United States, Germany, and France. Of this group, we finally employed approximately 400. They took to aeronautical engineering like ducks to water. This was India's first aircraft-manufacturing venture and they were terribly proud of it. They were exceedingly anxious that it succeed. Our time-clock system for controlling the arrival and departures showed us that the chief staff averaged 50 minutes per day overtime without pay. The ordinary workmen frequently contributed extra time without pay. As the work became increasingly important, we found it became necessary to put in overtime with pay in order to meet the schedule.

We had been asked to build three types of airplanes and a 10-place glider, all at the same time in a small new factory and in a country where no aircraft industry had previously existed. Every one of you familiar with the aircraftmanufacturing industry will understand what a difficult job had been assigned to us.

Our first program called for the manufacturing of Curtiss P-36's—the forerunner of the P-40; the Vultee single-engine attack bomber; the Harlow allmetal 2-seater trainer; and a 10-place Army glider of our own design.

Upon completion of our original construction program, as was the case with the entire aviation industry, we immediately discovered that the facilities were inadequate. The program was enlarged. The original 300,000 feet of floor space had to be expanded. More ground was acquired, additional buildings designed and constructed; 9 miles of railway was engineered and constructed. The number of employees increased from 4,000 to 14,000. Quarters for more than 4,000 had to be built; wells had to be dug: cafeterias, commissaries and many additional units were added to the factory. Our set-up at Bangalore was a complete one. We made our own ingots, pulled our own wire, built our own batteries, made our own castings and forgings. In most countries of the world where aircraft is manufactured, these items are subcontracted from other manufacturers, but there were no industries in India producing these items.

By this time, the American Air Force was expanding and India was becoming an important base of operations. Their maintenance and overhaul facilities were meager. They looked upon Hindustan Aircraft at Bangalore as a salvation. Here was a factory operated by American technicians, at which thousands of Indians had been taught the American way and upon American aircraft. The inch system was used instead of the metric. All of the machine tool equipment and supplies had been imported from America. It was a natural. They needed it and immediately started negotiations to take over.

By this time we had established India's first assembly line. We were building P-40 dropable belly tanks. It was amazing how the Indian technician took to this type of work. We reached the man-hour per tank of Curtiss' Buffalo, N. Y., factory and within a few months exceeded it. The cost per tank was a fraction, because the aluminum was_manufactured in Travancore, rolled in Calcutta, constructed at Bangalore by Indian labor and shipped to Assam for use across the "Hump. This assembly line was turning out 4,000 belly tanks per month. The propeller division grew equally as fast. When I left Bangalore, nine types of American aircraft were being repaired. The schedule was 400 engines, 250 airplanes a month to be overhauled, consisting of several types. This is a mansized job in any country, but to be doing it in India with newly trained Indian technicians, was miraculous. On September 15, 1943, the United States Army Air Force took over. They asked that all of the Intercontinent personnel remain to contribute to the war effort in that theater.

At this point, I would like to bring to the attention of the committee that we were fortunate indeed in selecting Bangalore as the location of India's first aircraftmanufacturing undertaking, in that it was the home of India's leading scientific institution—the Indian Institute of Science-and its president, Sir Jnan Chandra Ghosh. The Institute and Doctor Ghosh were of tremendous assistance to us in forming a technical chief Indian staff of ability. Many of the institute's staff assisted us in our aeronautical development program, resulting in a request that we design and build India's first wind tunnel. Out of my association with the staff and students at the institute, I gained new vision of India's possibilities through higher education, and this resulted in my offering four scholarships of $5,000 (United States dollars) each per year to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The offering of this scholarship was with a view to permitting these young Indians, who had already completed the prescribed courses of the Indian Institute of Science, to come to the United States for additional aeronautical technical training. They will, I am certain, return to India with a better understanding of America's democratic principles and the American "know how" in industrial endeavor.

My experience at Bangalore has convinced me beyond any question of a doubt that India is destined to have a tremendous industrial development, post-war. At the present time, my organization is engaged in the construction of a multimillion dollar chemical (ammonium sulfate) plant in the State of Travencore, South India. We are enjoying the same cooperation, the same keen interest, the same enthusiasm which we enjoyed in the construction of Hindustan Aircraft at Bangalore.

During my 342 years in India, I had an opportunity to meet many of India's leading industrialists, scientists, educators, and statesmen. I found a real sympathy for American methods, American production, American speed, and American know-how. We had done a good job at Bangalore. Throughout India this plant was well known and I found splendid collaboration between our American technicians and our Indian staff. They worked together in complete harmony and understanding. Hundreds of times I have been told by leading Indian industrialists that they greatly appreciate the American approach to the Indian situation.

The committee may be interested to know that I agreed to do the Travencore chemical plant on a no-profit basis because I felt it was essential that it be done, and much opposition could develop if it could be demonstrated that our only objective was a selfish one of profits. I did feel, however, that there is and must be great opportunity, post-war, in India and other similar parts of the world, where American ingenuity and American technicians could assist in post-war world industrialization and rehabilitation.

I have been repeatedly told by important industrialists and statesmen of India that America would be welcome in India's post-war rehabilitation and development. To me, this is essential to the United States, in that millions of people now engaged in the war effort must return to civilian occupation. There is not sufficient opportunity and jobs unless we participate in world development and post-war rehabilitation.

The United States has been the leader in the promotion of democratic principles throughout the world; of good fellowship; of the creation of a better world; of higher standards of living and of higher education. I am of the opinion that these principles can best be carried on by putting into practice the theory of "give and take." India has suffered much; as much as any other nation, as a result of the world conflict in which we are now engaged. The starvation rate is probably the highest of any country in the world, and much of this condition is directly brought about by the war and the lack of transportation for foodstuffs.

71330-45- -9

« ÎnapoiContinuați »