country. Those who are eligible to go into the armed services have gone into the armed services, regardless of whether they were born here, or have come here. I know of students who have come here during the last 5 years who are eligible, and have gone into the armed services. I know of people who have completed their student status and who were affected by the technical provisions of selective service, and they have gone into the armed services.

These people are perfectly willing to render service to Uncle Sam, and I think it is only fair to expect Uncle Sam to do a little for them.

2. I am rather curious about certain conflicts, shall I say, in the administrative and in the legislative branches of this country. When the Supreme Court decided that the Hindus were not eligible to citizenship, in 1923, then around 1927 or 1928 I know a friend of mine from India who did get his citizenship in the State of Wisconsin, and he is an American citizen in good standing, after the Supreme Court decision had been handed down. Not so long ago, about 2 years ago, a fellow countryman of mine here in the United States received his citizenship by establishing his right as a high caste Hindu, and the Federal court, or the Supreme Court, granted him citizenship rights, and he is now an employee of Uncle Sam in one of the Federal Government departments.

I am rather curious. What is the problem? On the one hand, there is the Exclusion Act. On the other hand, there is this ineligibility of Hindus to become citizens, and on the third part we have some people actually admitted to citizenship. I am not saying the Federal court is wrong. I am not saying that Congress is wrong.

The CHAIRMAN. They both have been wrong once in a while, and we have been wrong once in a while, so that makes two wrongs.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. I also can be wrong, sir. So I think it is better that we establish a general principle as to what is what, and the principle I should like to see established is that the people of India be put on a par with the people of Europe and the people of China in regard to immigration and naturalization. I am convinced it would not do any harm. On the other hand, I suspect, and I humbly submit that it may do a great deal of good, both for India and for America.

The New England School of Transcendentalism was the result of the reactions of Hindus to this philosophy and outlook of this new world. Some of us have been here for a long time, and in our humble fashion have been living in America, contributing our little share to preserving the heritage of this land, even though we are denied the right to participate in the political activities of this country.

So far as India is concerned, I want to have the discriminatory provision changed, not on the basis of the war effort she has contributed, although that is magnificent, nor how successful your missionaries are. That is irrelevant. The problem is, is India a devoted disciple of the gospel of democracy, for which the United States stands. And I say, very definitely and emphatically, yes, that the American people may well be proud of the fact that they are looked up to as exemplars of civil rights and liberty, freedom, democracy and self government, and that the heritages of Washington and Lincoln are conceded by the people of India as part of their heritage, of which they want to be an integral part.

I think that is enough glory for America, to feel that there are people anxious to take on the American pattern in their own lives, and enrich

their lives thereby. I hope in the process America may learn some little from India, from what her teachers, her great leaders, ber great scholars, may have to contribute.

I think there are other things that could be said, but perhaps questions might bring them out better.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the only question here involved is to remove the exclusion act against your people?

Dr. MAZUMDAR. Yes, sir. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. That would settle the whole question. Had that act not been in force, some of these people here could have become citizens. Am I correct in that, Mr. Shaughnessy?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes, sir.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. At this point, I would like to say, somebody made the statement that this policy has been 50 years old. It was adopted in 1917, during the last war.

The CHAIRMAN. That is old enough.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. When it is claimed you would be violating the law, I do not know what is meant. England ruled in this country for a hundred years or more. George Washington did not feel that way when he violated that rule. Lincoln did not feel hurt when he had to deal a death blow to the institution of slavery.

How about the quota system itself? It was developed in this country after an experience of a hundred years or more of the Federal Government. And the quota principle itself has existed since 1921 to 1924. So that I think there is no question involved of the violation of any law of the United States. It is a question of trying to bring the thinking of the American people in line with the demands of the international situation.

Mr. ALLEN. With reference to my statement about the exclusion policy, I think if the witness will reflect, he will find the exclusion policy was originated as to the Chinese more than 50 years ago, not as to all others, but as to the Chinese, and that is what I meant.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. Yes. And the Chinese people are now eligible to citizenship, and also eligible to immigrate to this country.

Mr. ALLEN. The point I was trying to make is that, right or wrong, the policy of exclusion was originated more than 50 years ago.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. Only with reference to the Chinese, and there were economic problems involved.

Mr. ALLEN. The policy originated more than 50 years ago, not as to all, but at least the policy was originated then as to the Chinese people.

Mr. McCowEN. I would like to emphasize what Mr. Allen hus said, and that is that the Chinese Exclusion Act, as I recall, was passed in the eighties.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. The treaty was in 1880, and the first act was in 1882.

The CHAIRMAN. A long time ago.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. And, of course, prior to the exclusion of the Chinese, the Government entered into a treaty with the Chinese Government-I have the exact wording, if anyone is interested-in which it was stipulated by the high contracting parties, the United States and Chinese Governments, that it was right and proper for the citizens or subjects of one country to reside peacefully and carry on activities in the country of the other. So that we in fact allowed

Chinese to emigrate to this land earlier. And then we felt we ought to exclude them. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that I said "we." I cannot help myself, even though Uncle Sam has not given me citizenship.

The CHAIRMAN. We will let the word stand. I do not want to cut you off. If you have anything more, I will permit you to put it in the record.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. I might finish with one word, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. And that is that in these days, perhaps the best policy would be the policy of the defining of objectives and setting forth the principles we believe in. There is altogether too much expediency in the national outlook and in international affairs. And if we believe, as I hope and pray we all believe, that the human race is one, that we are all children of God, I think within the limits of national policy we ought not have any discrimination against any people.

The CHAIRMAN. I fully agree with you, Doctor. As to the East Indians who have been here since prior to 1924, they cannot be deported. They are here. They are part of our population.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. And they are rendering service to America. The CHAIRMAN. And they have intermarried with Americans. They have American-born children here.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And it might be for the best interests of this country to permit them to actually become part of the country. Am I correct in that statement, Mr. Allen?

Mr. ALLEN. Well, I assume so. I did not get all of your statement. The CHAIRMAN. You assume so. All right.

Mr. KEARNEY. I have a question I should like to ask the gentleman, if he is connected with the India Welfare League, Inc.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. Yes, sir. In fact, I was one of those who came earlier. Mr. Dickstein would bear me out. He had the first hearing, when Mr. Khan and myself and several others appeared.

Mr. KEARNEY. This is for my own information. I received a letter from Dr. Khan, the national president. In the second paragraph of that letter is this: "This refers to the hearing on Congressman Walter A. Lynch's bill, H. R. 1624. Please understand clearly that our organization is not interested in the quota bill, or the bringing of immigrants from India. Our only problem is to clean our own sidewalk first."

I should like to have, Mr. Chairman, an explanation of that particular paragraph, if I may. That is for my own information. Í do not understand it.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. I can give my personal opinion. I cannot speak for anybody else. My opinion is-I am interested in the quota bill because I want India to be on a par with China, and the countries of Europe. I also want India and America to be friendly and develop trade relations and good will, and there is no better mechanism than admitting India under the quota system.

Mr. KEARNEY. But this letter speaks against the quota bill.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. That is the point of view of the particular gentleman who wrote it.

Mr. LYNCH. May I interrupt? I do not believe, Congressman, that is intended to be against the quota bill.

Mr. KEARNEY. It says so.

Mr. LYNCH. When he says he is not interested, he means it is not his chief interest.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. He would not push it.

Mr. KEARNEY. "Our only problem is to clean our own sidewalk first."

Mr. LYNCH. I will have Mr. Khan testify at the hearing next week, and he will explain.

Mr. ALLEN. I would like to ask the doctor a question. Just briefly, how active are your people in community affairs, church and lodge affairs, and various things?.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. Well, now, that depends upon which community you refer to, and what the status of the people is. In metropolitan areas, such as New York and Chicago and Philadelphia, you will find them actively participating in many activities of American citizens, community activities.

Mr. ALLEN. Do most of them take part in church activities? Are they affiliated with some cnurch?

Dr. MAZUMDAR. I cannot say most. I know quite a number of people who do. Whether they identify themselves with the church, I have no right to speak for them, because it is a matter of their conscience. But they do, quite a number of them.

Then in California, in Stockton, we have a Sikh depot, where our Sickh people have built a very lovely temple. They get together, invite American friends, and farmers from far and near, come together every now and then to discuss matters about India, about their problems, and have Americans meet with them.

Mr. ALLEN. Doctor, you and your people have never been discriminated against here in America, have they?

Dr. MAZUMDAR. Not I personally, so far as I know, but our people have been discriminated against, in this sense, that they cannot go to the polls. My wife can go to the polls. She is from Minnesota, and happens to come from Mayflower ancestry. I cannot go to the polls. Mr. ALLEN. And your children are able to go to the polls?

Dr. MAZUMDAR. Yes; they can go to the polls.

Mr. ALLEN. Aside from the right to vote, you have not been discriminated against?

Dr. MAZUMDAR. Except, suppose I might want to run for Congress some day? I cannot.

The CHAIRMAN. There is a good point.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. I can teach in the college. I can lecture. I can go to the Rotary Club, the Kiwanis Club, to church groups, and to various forums, but I cannot vote or enjoy the privileges of American citizenship.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you would be crazy to want to be a Member of Congress.

Dr. MAZUMDAR. Well, I would be in good company, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Mazumdar.
Dr. MAZUMDAR. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you call your next witness, Mr. Lynch?
Mr. LYNCH. I will ask Mr. Bajpai, to take the stand.

STATEMENT OF RAMLAL B. BAJPAI, VICE PRESIDENT, INDIA WELFARE LEAGUE, INC.

Mr. RAMLAL B. BAJPAI. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am a chemist by profession. I was a chemist before coming to this country. I came here in 1915. I came as a first-class passenger on an American boat, the S. S. China. My immediate object in coming then was to see the Panama-Pacific Exposition in San Francisco. Then I went to Minnesota University to finish my education in chemistry.

In the last war, I wanted to volunteer my services while I was a student in the Minnesota University, but I was convinced that I could render better service being in the university than actually in the service. Minnesota University in those days was interested in manufacturing medicines for our boys then fighting in France and across the seas, and I was assisting my professor, Dr. Newcomb, who was in charge of the botanical garden and manufacturing medicines. My professor thought my work was more important than my actually joining the service. So at that time I did not join the service. And this time I am too old to render my services in the armed forces.

We all

This is my third time to appear before the Congress on behalf of my countrymen, those who are already here, 3,000 or more. wholeheartedly support Congressman Celler's bill.

India is not a small island, but a vast territory containing one-fifth of the world's population. Let us remember, further, that the people of India are predominantly of the same race as the Greeks, the Romans, and the Americans, i. e., Indo-Europeans or Aryans; though their skin has been browned by the tireless suns, that India was the motherland of the Aryan race and Sanskirt the mother of European languages. America has been the haven of free institutions and asylum for the disowned and oppressed of the human race. In view of this noble heritage of this great democracy it would seem inconsistent indeed to find that people from India who have entered the United States and lawfully resided for periods of 15 to 25 or more years, engaging in the free and legitimate pursuits of life and sharing in the blessings as well as difficulties peculiar to this land, are subjected to a legal discrimination that denies them the privilege of naturalization.

Today, American citizenship, which is open to every European, Syrian, Armenian, the Negroes, and now the Chinese, is not open to Indians.

This microscopic minority of about 3,000 Indians includes farmers, machine workers, writers, and at least 10 scientists of note-men whose achievements are considered top rank. The contributions of these people is out of all proportion to their numbers.

Since July, 1924, these people of ancient race and culture were barred from American citizenship. Those who suffer most from ineligibility to American citizenship are the Indian farmers of California, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, and Arizona, who by their labor improved what was considered worthless alkali swanps by making them into profitable rice, wheat, vegetable, and cotton fields. These experienced Indian farmers contributed so much to the prosperity of the States.

Over 35 percent of the people from India in the United States have been married to native-born American citizens and raised families. Their wives and children are American citizens by birth.