/
Y4-. Jm ^/2-Xn
PEOPLE FROM INDIA RESIDING Ifl
THE UNITED STATES TO BE NATURALIZED
IV I ui
â– SOVERto/ltNl RUiAiCATIONS
UNIV. OF WARM LIBRARIES
HEARING
before a U.S. DEPOSITORY COPv
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
SEVENTY-NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 236
A BILL TO i PERMIT ALL PEOPLE FROM INDIA
RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES
TO BE NATURALIZED
: to
.22
00
JCU
o
£X0
APRIL 26, 1945
Printed for the use oUthe Committee on Immigration
CO
CO
o
74996
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1945
COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION
RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Georgia, Chairman
CHARLES O. ANDREWS, Florida
GEORGE L. RADCLIFFE, Maryland
BURNET R. MAYBANK, South Carolina
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi
J. W. FULBRIGHT, Arkansas
CLYDE R. HOEY, North Carolina
HIRAM W. JOHNSON, California
HAROLD H. BURTON, Ohio
.JOSEPH H. BALL, Minnesota
C. DOUGLASS BUCK, Delaware
HOMER FERGUSON, Michigan
FORREST C. DONNELL, Missouri
MILTON R. YOUNG, North Dakota
Leeman Anderson, Clerk
n
PERMIT ALL PEOPLE FROM INDIA RESIDING IN
UNITED STATES TO BE NATURALIZED
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 1945
United States Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Immigration,
Washington, D. C.
The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to call, in room 412,
Senate Office Building, Senator Burnet R. Maybank presiding.
Present: Senators Maybank (presiding) and Eastland. .
Senator Maybank. The bill on which this hearing is based is S. 236,
introduced January 10, 1945, by Senator Langer of North Dakota.
It is entitled “A bill to permit all people from India residing in the
United States to be naturalized.”
I will ask the reporter to insert the bill in the record at this point.
(S. 236 is as follows:)
[S. 236, 79th Cong., 1st sess.]
A BILL To permit all people from India residing in the United States to he naturalized
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding the provisions of section
303 of the Nationality Act of 1940 (U. S. C., title 8, sec. 703), any native of India
residing in the United States may become naturalized upon compliance with all
other provisions of the naturalization laws, subject to the following exceptions:
(a) No declaration of intention or certificate of arrival shall be required, and
no additional residence shall be required before the filing of petition for certificate
of citizenship;
(b) The petition for certificate of citizenship shall be filed within one year
after the enactment of this Act; and
(c) There shall be attached to the petition a certificate from a naturalization
examiner stating that petitioner has appeared before him for examination.
SeDator Maybank. Should we hear from Shaughnessy first?
Senator Langer. I would like to hear from Mr. Shaughnessy first.
Senator Maybank. All right. Will you go ahead, Mr. Shaugh¬
nessy?
We have got the Attorney General’s report. We would like to have
your Department’s report.
I am waiting for Senator Eastland.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. SHAUGHNESSY, SPECIAL ASSISTANT
TO THE COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
SERVICE
Mr. Shaughnessy. Mr. Chairman, the complete views of my De¬
partment are set forth in the Attorney General’s letter of April 18,
which has just been presented to the clerk.' That about tells tho
story.
We offer a few minor amendments. If you would like to have &
discussion of the amendments, I would be very glad to do it.
2
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
Senator Maybank. That letter offers those amendments, and I
would appreciate it if for the record you would explain-the reason
and explain the slight amendments.
Mr. Shaughnessy. Yes, sir; I would be very happy to.
Would you like to have just a word as to the necessity of this bill?
Senator Maybank. Yes; whatever you think Mr. Shaughnessy.
, Mr. Shaughnessy. Under an act of March 26, 1790, which was the
first naturalization statute, the privilege of naturalization was limited
to free white persons.
On July 14, 1870, as amended on February 18, 1875, aliens of
African nativity and descent were added to the classes racially eligible
for naturalization.
On October 14, 1940, persons of races indigenous to the Western
Hemisphere, which means American Indians of all the Americas, were
made racially eligible to naturalization.
On December 17, 1943, in the last Congress, persons of Chinese
descent were made racially eligible to naturalization.
Now, we have the four classes since 1790—the white man, the
African black man, the Western Hemisphere Indian, and the Chinese
person.
It is true there have been minor exceptions for special classes like
veterans, and so forth. But these are the four races now eligible to
naturalization.
It was disputed for years as to whether the East Indian, incorrectly
referred to as the Hindu, was racially eligible to naturalization'.
That was decided in the Thind case (261 U. S. 204), in which the
Supreme Court said, in substance, that for ordinary purposes the
East Indian was neither white nor African black because as of that
time only those two races were racially eligible to naturalization.
They recognized that from a scientific and ethnological standpoint,
and other purposes, the question was debatable.
In the meantime, prior to that, a few courts had differed on the
question and had naturalized a few East Indians.
After the Thind case, the Department of Labor brought a few
cancellation cases, but in the case of U. S. v. Pandit, decided by the
third circuit in 1926 (15 Fed. (2d) 285), and later on by the Supreme
Court (273 U. S. 759), the Court held that because these few people
were naturalized in good faith, there was an equitable estoppel against
the cancellation.
That is why you see a few naturalized East Indians. That explains
the reason why there is a necessity for a bill of this nature if some
relief is to be given to the East Indians presently in the United States.
My department has approved the principle of the bill. It recom¬
mends a few amendments.
The first is to amend the title by striking out the words “all people
from India,” and inserting the words “Eastern Hemisphere Indians of
India or persons descended from Eastern Hemisphere Indians of
India,” and it points out that there are other natives of India who
belong to races now eligible and who would not be affected by this
measure. In other words, a British white man bom in India is racially
eligible to naturalization. Therefore, this amendment more correctly
describes the purpose of the proposed legislation.
Senator Maybank. What is the exact meaning of “Eastern Hemis¬
phere Indians”?
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 3
Mr. Shaughnessy. That is rather difficult to say. But in similar
bills in the House, and in discussions with various interested people,
it was decided that the purpose of this bill is to benefit substantially
East Indians, and it was feared that there might be all kinds of com¬
binations of oriental races in the Orient that might claim the advantage
of this bill.
Yet for the purpose of clarification and limitation as to what is
generally accepted as the true East Indian
Senator Maybank. Thank you.
Now, the next amendment was on line 5, was it not?
Mr. Shaughnessy. The next amendment was on line 5 and is to
conform to the title and to require 5 years’ residence in the United
States.
Senator Maybank. That is right. “Native of Tndia”?
Mr. Shaughnessy. Yes.
The next amendment was merely a more complete statutory citation.
Senator Maybank. Of who they are?
Mr. Shaughnessy. No; of the acts we are amending by adding
54 Statutes 1140 and 57 Statutes 600.
Next and last suggested amendment was on line 2, page 2. It was
suggested that the term “one year” be changed to “five years”.
That says:
the petition for certificate of citizenship shall be filed within five years after the
enactment of this Act.
It is a very short time and sometimes a public act does not come to
the attention of “many persons until well after a year.
We thought that if there was merit to the measure and it should
pass, that the beneficiary should have the benefit or privilege for 5
years after its enactment to take advantage of the act.
Gentlemen, that concludes our statement.
Senator Maybank. Are there any questions you would like to ask,
Senator?
Senator Langer. You know some of these people personally, do
you Dot?
Mr. Shaughnessy. In the past year or two I have become ac¬
quainted with a number of the gentlemen right here and I know a.
number of other gentlemen. Last week I had the privilege of having
lunch with Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai.
Senator Langer. For the purpose of the record, will you state who
he is?
Mr. Shaughnessy. He is the Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy
Extraordinary for India. He is also Agent General for India. He is
the ranking officer in the United States for India.
Senator Langer. He is in favor of this bill, is he not?
_ Mr. Shaughnessy. He is in favor of this bill, and I have been ad¬
vised by Sir Girja that Lord Halifax is perfectly willing to write a
letter to the House committee endorsing the broader East Indian bills
in the House which would make East Indians, all East Indians, racially
eligible to naturalization and permit them to come under the present
small quota of 100 a year for India. I add that because that was part
of my conversation with Sir Girja, and as soon as the printed hearings
on the House bills are received, Lord Halifax will send a letter to the
chairman of the House committee showing that the British have no
objection to the principle involved.
4
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
That came up in the discussion and some of the House committee
members asked what the British point of view was.
Senator Maybank. I wonder why anyone would presume that
England would not?
Mr. Shaughnessy. I do not know, Senator Maybank, except that
when we were dealing with the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act, we
were dealing with an independent nation whereas India is a possession
of Great Britain. You see the difference?
Senator Maybank. Canada is also.
Mr. Shaughnessy. But we have never had the same problem in
Canada.
Senator Maybank. No; but they would not dare interfere.
Mr. Shaughnessy. I am only an Immigration man.
Senator Maybank. Are there any further questions?
Senator Langer. Have you investigated the record at all of any
of those who have been here as to being good, loyal, law-abiding
citizens?
Mr. Shaughnessy. Senator Langer, I really am not qualified to
answer that except from my personal experience and acquaintance
with some of these gentlemen here and a few others. We have had no
occasion and we would rather rely upon the advice of such persons as
the Governor of Arizona and of yourself, who have made these investi¬
gations.
Senator Langer. In any event, you have had no complaints?
Mr. Shaughnessy. No. Well, there are less than 5,000 in a popu¬
lation of 132,000,000.
Senator Langer. How many of these 5,000 do you think would
qualify under this law?
Mr. Shaughnessy. Well, under the bill as written, Senator,
without
Senator Langer. With the amendments?
Mr. Shaughnessy. With the amendments, where it is not necessary
to show that they have been legally admitted for permanent residence,
I would say that quite a few of the some 4,000, a little over 4,000 who
are here, could try for it.
How many of that 4,000 could pass the so-called educational qualifi-
* cations in the actual naturalization proceedings and meet the standards
of the various judges before whom they will appear for naturalization,
I am not competent to say because I am not personally familiar with
the educational standards of most of these people, who are agricul¬
turists. You would know more about that than I.
Senator Langer. How many of them are. already admitted? You
said some were already naturalized?
Mr. Shaughnessy. I suppose not over a dozen or so. There were
very few.
Senator Langer. Those soldiers who are fighting in the war, they
will all be eligible?
Mr. Shaughnessy. They are all eligible.
I have not checked the statistics on the soldiers.
Senator Langer. That is so. That is the figure.
You would not want to venture a guess as to how many of the 4,000
might come in?
Mr. Shaughnessy. No; for the reason I just stated. Most of those
folks are in the far West. They are on the farms, and I am not in a
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 5
position to gage the average mentality or educational standards of
these folks.
Senator Langer. I was under the impression the last time you
testified that there were several hundred eligible to naturalization.
Mr. Shaughnessy. Senator Langer, I would be very happy to
submit for the record the number of those who were admitted in error,
because it was an error, as established by the Thind decision heretofore
discussed.
But as I said, I could furnish that.
Senator Maybank. Would you furnish that?
(Note.—At this portion of the bearing some of the testimony was
missed. The reference to “a dozen or so” refers to the East Indians
who were erroneously naturalized prior to the Supreme Court decision
in the Thind case. At about this time. Senator Langer mentioned
the number of East Indians who are serving in the armed forces of
the United States and have been legally naturalized under title X of
the so-called Second War Powers Act as being about 250. Mr.
Shaughnessy said he would check both figures. As a result, we find
that we have a record of only 14 East Indians erroneously naturalized
before the Thind decision, and slightly less than 50 East Indians who
have been legally naturalized under the Soldier Act.)
Mr. Shaughnessy. I would be very happy to; yes.
Senator Langer. That is all.
Senator Maybank. Thank you, Mr. Shaughnessy.
All right, Senator.
Senator Langer. Father Cooper.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN M. COOPER, PROFESSOR OF ANTHRO¬
POLOGY, CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D. C.
Dr. Cooper. My testimony can be very brief.
Senator Maybank. All right, Father.
Dr. Cooper. By .a “race” we understand, in scientific circles at
least, a large group of people with common physical characteristics
that are hereditary.
Now, on this basis we distinguish three main human races, the
Caucasoid, the Negroid, and the Mongoloid, and these three races
include probably around 95 percent of mankind.
The criteria for distinguishing them are many. The chief ones
are skin color, in its extreme forms. I will come back to that in a
moment. Hair texture, shape of the nose, and a number of other
characteristics.
So far as the people of India are concerned, they are predominantly
Caucasoid, belonging to the same race that we do.
In the far north of India there are a few Mongoloids up near the
Himalayas in the northeast.
In the central peninsula there are some remnants of peoples who
are apparently very ancient inhabitants of the area and their exact
racial affiliation we do not know. They represent a relatively small
pioportion.
The branch of the Caucasoids to which the overwhelming mass of
the peoples of India belong are a little darker skinned. Within the
Caucasoids we have a very high range, a wide range of skin color,
from the very light complexion so common in northern Europe to the
6
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
darker complexion of southern Europe, a little darker in parts of
India.
But the people themselves, as far as we can see, are predominantly*
and distinctly Caucasoid.
Senator Maybank. This is Senator Eastland.
The father was testifying as to the way they determined the
different races.
Dr. Cooper. That is the end of my testimony.
Senator Maybank. I wish you would repeat it for the Senator.
Dr. Cooper. The whole story? I will do it very briefly.
Senator Langer. Repeat some of it.
Senator Maybank. If there are any high lights that you would
like to tell us about, feel free to do so.
Dr. Cooper. I will do it very briefly.
There are three general races that we distinguish by their char¬
acteristics: The Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid. The peoples of
India are predominantly Caucasoid. Their features* hair texture,
hairiness, the shape of the nose, mouth, and so on, are all distinctly
Caucasoid.
It is only in some of the far, out-of-the-way places of .India, as in
this country, that you find certain traces of other races.
The main difference that appears to us is that of a slightly darker
skin color. This merely follows a curve
Senator Eastland. Slightly darker?
Dr. Cooper. Slightly darker, yes. Considerably darker than us
around this table who represent the northern European skin color;
that is, tending toward the very light or blond.
As you get down into southern Europe, then you have a distinctly
darker skin color ranging toward the tans and as you pass over the
area, the same Caucasoid race in India, that is a slightly deeper tan.
But the range of skin color between the Caucasoid race is very wide.
In fact, we have some small groups of peoples within pure Caucasoids
who are extremely dark. But they are rather rare.
Senator Maybank. What, for example, would be an instance of
that kind?
Dr. Cooper. For instance, the Bishari, near the Red Sea; pure
Caucasoids but extremely dark. In fact, practically as dark as the
Negro. We do not know what caused that. Some development,
perhaps.
Senator Eastland. The Caucasian is a branch of the Caucasoid?
Dr. Cooper. We use the terms as synonymous.
Senator Eastland. Are the Indians Caucasian?
Dr. Cooper. Distinctly, yes. There is no other race there.
Senator Eastland. Sir?
Dr. Cooper. I say there is no other race there except these little
pockets which I mentioned far up toward the northeast of India.
You find a certain spilling over of the Mongoloid. But that is among
the hill tribes. The overwhelming mass of the Indian people in the
valleys of the Ganges and the Indus and along the coast lines are
purely Caucasoid.
Senator Eastland. Could the Indians of this country be as¬
similated?
Dr. Cooper, No; they are Mongoloid; distinctly Mongoloid, the
Indians in this country. There is no relationship whatsoever racially.
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 7
Senator Eastland. I said the Indians in this country, the subjects
of this bill, we could not assimilate?
Dr. Cooper. I misunderstood you, sir. We could assimilate.
Senator Eastland. We could not?
Dr. Cooper. Racially?
. Senator Eastland. Yes.
Dr. Cooper. They are the same race. I am not sure there whether
I get the point of your question, assimilation. They are the same
race and, consequently, they would be assimilated.
Senator Eastland. I think—and I am just speaking frankly—
that citizenship in this country should go to people who intermarry,
assimilate, become part of the white race.
That is the reason I asked you if they could assimilate.
Dr. Cooper. I should say distinctly yes.
Senator Maybank. Will you proceed, Father?
Dr. Cooper. That was the end of this testimony, sir. I made it
brief.
Sneator Langer. You say we are of the same race?
Dr. Cooper. Yes; as the peoples of India.
Senator Langer. We are?
Dr. Cooper. Completely the same race. There is no difference in
race. „
Senator Langer. You have testified here a great many times in
favor of similar bills, have you not?
Dr. Cooper. Yes. In fact, I am afraid, Senator, that they may
bring me under the law as a repeater.
Senator Langer. What is your position? Which college are you
with?
Dr. Cooper. I am head of the department of anthropology at the
Catholic University, Washington.
Senator Langer. In Washington?
Dr. Cooper. In Washington.
Senator Langer. How long have you held that position?
Dr. Cooper. Since 1928 I have been professor of anthropology, and
I have taught it a great many years before that.
Senator Langer. Which school did you graduate from?
Dr. Cooper. I graduated in Rome. I did my work there in 1905,
at the American College in Rome. If I need to validate my status, so
to speak, I have been president of the American Anthropological Asso¬
ciation and president of the Anthropological Society of Washington.
I do not like to talk about my own status.
Senator Langer. We want to get it in the record. The Senate is
interested. It shows your qualifications.
Dr. Cooper. I am speaking purely as an anthropologist here, from
a scientific standpoint.
Senator Maybank. I understand this photograph is the photograph
of a wedding of one of the Indians in Arizona?
Senator Langer. That is right.
Thank you very much. I guess that is all.
Senator Maybank. Have you got anything further?
Senator Langer. I would like to make a statement.
Senator Maybank. Certainly. Take your time.
74996—45-
-2
8
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
Senator Langer. I want to say that how I happened to get inter¬
ested in this matter is as follows:
Two years ago I was invited to Arizona by the Democratic Women
of Maricopa County, Ariz., to talk. I had never been in Arizona but
once before in my life and that was when I was a young man.
When I got out there to Arizona, to Phoenix, Ariz., where this meet¬
ing took place, I found they had all the former Governors of the State
who were alive. There were both Democrats and Republicans. The
meeting was presided over by Governor Osborn, the present Governor
of Arizona. I would say that maybe 500 people were at the meeting.
After the meeting, because of the fact that I was United States
Senator, apparently, not because they knew me personally at all, the
discussion came up of some 150 or 200 of these Indians living right close
to Phoenix, and in the general discussion all of them said that they
were very fine citizens; none of them had had any trouble at any time.
They were small farmers; some of them had truck gardens, some of
them had quarter sections of land where they were raising lettuce.
They asked me why they could not be admitted to citizenship,
and I told them I would certainly check into it very carefully when I
got back.
Upon my return I did so. I had met Mubarek Khan, who is
here today, whose father used to be Minister of the Interior of India,
and who is president qf the India Welfare League of America. Before
I left Arizona, they took me out to a few of these places.
Going into the home of Mr. D. J. Khan—what is his address?
Dr. Khan. Route 4, Box 351.
Senator Langer. I saw this picture on the piano and I asked per¬
mission to take it. He said he would have some extra ones sent to
me. He said that his son was in the Army and had married this girl.
This is a wedding picture of his own son. I would like to present that
into evidence.
After I saw that, I asked him whether he did not have photographs
showing their general life around there. He said, surely. He sent
one of his daughters to get me this album. It, of course, shows these
groups, mostly where the children are in school; either in primary
grades, and then later in the consolidated grades and then later in
the high school; you will note here typical scenes down there in
Arizona.
I became interested, and Mr. Khan drove me to Caloosa, Calif.,
up through the Imperial Valley, in his car and he had a lot to say as
we went through the Imperial Valley, how the heat up there got as
high as 120 in the shade and that these Indians he mentioned were his
friends and they had gotten in there and they developed that country
where the average fellow could not because he had not been accli¬
mated as some of these folks from India had been.
Of course, that interested me even more. Then we went up further
from the Imperial Valley to Caloosa, and I went to Governor Warren
and I said, “I do not want to get into this thing unless I know more
about it.”
The Governor suggested I go over to Caloosa and over to El
Centro, into the rice fields.
He said that in 1908 in California they had these alkali lands and
the swamplands which were valueless and that these Indians went to
some college in California. They got some men there who knew the
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 9
soil pretty well in California, and the first crop they seed of rice they
knew would be an absolute failure.
But they went in there, they waded into the water with hip boots
and they threw the rice down. Of course it was a failure. The next
season it receded and they got a little bit better crop. They kept
doing that until today the rice crop is a tremendous item in California.
They showed me great, enormous buildings. Was that at Caloosa?
Dr. Khan. No. Yes, that is at Caloosa. That is at Willows.
Senator Langer. Willows, that is right.
I spent half a day with the manager, who was born in California;
who is an American citizen. He could not speak too highly in praise
of the people living around Caloosa who were raising that rice. It
just seemed to me a matter of simple justice to give these people a
chance to become citizens.
I went to a lawyer named Geyer and with this lawyer I went to
various judges and States’ attorneys, and they told me that they were
law-abiding, fine citizens and that they had had very, very little
.trouble with any of them. Mr. Geyer showed me, for example, that
they had a Red Cross drive in that locality and he gave me a local
newspaper that I have here, if you are interested in this, showing the
amount of contributions and the average contribution of those
Indians was $50 apiece that these people had donated to the Red
Cross. The figure of 250 I got from Mr. Khan and from Mr. Geyer,
the lawyer.
The newspaperman came to see me at Caloosa and he said that
they were very much interested in seeing that they had a right to
become citizens.
I talked to the bankers and over at Sacramento, in talking with
Governor Warren, he said that they had about 1,200 of these people.
Senator Eastland. How many are involved in the bill?
Senator Langer. About 4,000. They had about 1,200 living- at
Sacramento and he said they are' working in the war plants, they are
working in the shipbuilding plants in California and they, as far as
he knew, were very fine citizens and he knew of no reason why they
should not be allowed to take the examination. He thought some of
them were able to pass and some of them would not, but they cer¬
tainly would have a chance to become naturalized.
Senator Maybank. When you said there are 4,000, there are 4,000
who would be eligible to have a chance, but nobody knows how many
of those 4,000 would pass, of course.
Senator Langer. That is right.
Senator Maybank. Senator, let me ask you a question.
What percentage of these 4,000 would you believe to be in Arizona
and California? From all the testimony I have ever heard or listened
to, it seems like practically all—or am I wrong?
Senator Langer. Yes.
I would say two-thirds of them are in California.
Senator Maybank. In California or Arizona?
Senator Langer. In California or Arizona. There are about 17 at
Aberdeen, Wash., and 20 at El Paso, Tex. They have got their own
church in Detroit. I did not go over to Detroit.
Senator Maybank. How many in Detroit?
Dr. Kahn. 218.
Senator Maybank. But the vast proportion are in California and
Arizona, the several thousand?
10 PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
Senator Langer. That is right. There are a few in New Jersey
and a few in New York City.
In New York, I was amazed; some of them are graduates of Har¬
vard. In New York City they are doctors. I met a man named
J. J. Singh, who graduated from Harvard, who makes a business of
going around lecturing all other the country. He testified here at
the last hearing. You have his testimony.
Senator Maybank. Yes.
Senator Langer. And they are all in the trades and scientists;
dentists. I met a leading dentist in New York City who is one of
them. It just seemed pitiful to me that these people should not
have a chance to become citizens, because they seemed to want it
very, very badly, in discussing it with them.
I might add that Mr. Kahn’s brother, who is here, is a delegate to
the San Francisco Convention, appointed. The brother of the man
who is here.
When I got back here, I got an invitation from—what is the name of
this Indian agent?
Dr. Kahn. Ramlal B. Bajpai.-
Senator Langer. He invited me to come down to. the Shoreham
and have lunch with him, and when I went down there, I naturally
expected to be a guest, because he is representing England as much as
he is representing India. To my surprise he was wholeheartedly in
favor of this bill and he said it would make a tremendous impression
in creating good feeling between the people of India and the United
States.
He said it was unbelievable the feeling they had. He said that they
felt they had traded together for years and years and years and that
it would be a splendid gesture on the part of America if these people
who were here should be allowed to become naturalized; that the
peoples of India would, of course, know about it; that the papers of
India would tell them about it, the public press of India, and that it
would cement and make much more cordial the feelings between the
people of India and the United States of America.
Then at the hearing, why, Cordell Hull wrote a letter in favor of
it from the Department of State.
Senator Eastland. Is that in the record here?
Senator Langer. Is that in the record?
Dr. Kahn. It is here.
Senator Langer. This is a copy?
Dr. Kahn. Yes; this is a copy.
Senator Langer. The original must be in the record.
Senator Maybank. What record?
Senator Langer. A short time after this, this man, this Indian
agent, Bajpai, invited me down to his home, and I remember he must
have had 200 people there. I met his family and I remember Senator
Guffey, of Pennsylvania, was there with his two sisters. A lot of other
outstanding people were there. There I met his family and I found
that one of his boys is a student at Harvard, one is a student at St.
Albans, and one is in the war, and he had two of his daughters there.
One is, I should judge, about 19 and one about 21, and I noticed that
they apparently got along very nicely with everybody who was there.
I simply feel that it is just absolutely a matter of justice to those
people. Their friends are fighting in the war and there are 2% million
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED H
Indians who are fighting side by side with our troops over in Europe,
fighting side by side over there, and it did seem to me simply an act
of justice to give them a chance. Maybe only a thousand would
become naturalized in this country.
I might add also tha t one day Warren Atherton, the commander
of the American Legion, after I had introduced the first bill, came in
to see me and told me that he was unequivocally in favor of the passage
of this measure and if this committee wanted him to, he said he would
be glad to speak in favor of it.
He said, “1 lived at Stockton, Calif.; knew some of these East Indian
people that had lived around there for a good many years, 35 and 40,”
and he said he knew them well and he said they ought to have a chance
to become naturalized.
Senator Eastland. I am sure they are good people.
Senator Maybank. Anything further, Senator?
Senator Langer. No, sir. We had the testimony last time of
everybody who was here.
I wish that Senator Eastland would ask Mr. Shaughnessy, of the
Department of Immigration, some questions in connection with it.
You were not here.
Senator Eastland. I will get it. I will see the report.
Senator Maybank. That is all that I have, Senator.
Senator Langer. Mr. Chairman, may we put this into the record?
Senator Maybank. Certainly. Without objection, this material
will be put into the record.
Senator Langer. I offer all these photographs.
Senator Maybank. Of course, you cannot put those in the record.
Senator Langer. I offer these for your perusal later on.
Senator Maybank. All right.
I move that this be printed.
Senator Eastland. I think we ought to have it.
Senator Maybank. The reporter is requested to insert into the
record the letters from Franklin D. Roosevelt, Cordell Hull, and the
office of the Attorney General.
(The letters referred to are as follows:)
The White House,
Washington, March 5, 1945.
Hon. Samuel Dickstein,
Chairman, Committee on Immigration and Naturalization,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that your committee soon will hold
hearings on legislation to authorize the admission into this country under a quota
of persons of the East Indian race, and to permit persons of this race to become
naturalized citizens.
I regard this legislation as important and desirable, and I believe that its enact¬
ment will help us to win the war and to establish a secure peace. I am sure that
Sour committee is aware of the great services that India has rendered to the United
rations in their war against the Axis. The Indian Army, raised entirely by
voluntary enlistment, has fought with great skill and courage in Europe, Africa,,
and Asia. India has also furnished. and will continue to furnish substantial
amounts of raw materials and manufactured products of great assistance in the
prosecution of the war.
The present statutory provisions that discriminate against persons of East
Indian descent provoke ill-feeling, now serve no useful purpose, and are incongruous
and inconsistent with the dignity of both of our peoples.
The quota for East Indian persons would be approximately 100 immigrants a
year. There can be no real danger that this small number of immigrants wilL
cause unemployment or provide competition in the search for jobs.
12 PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
It is my hope that the Congress will take steps to remove the present provisions
of our immigration and naturalization laws that discriminate against persons of
East Indian descent.
Very sincerely yours,
Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Hon. Richard B. Russell,
Chairman, Committee on Immigration,
United States Senate.
January 22, 1944.
My Dear Senator Russell: I have received your letter of December 16,1943,
requesting the views of this Department on S. 1595, a bill to permit approximately
3,000 natives of India who entered the United States prior to July 1, 1924, to
become naturalized.
No objection is seen to the passage of this bill.
Sincerely yours,
Cordell Hull.
1 Office of the Attorney General,
Washington, D. C., April 7, 1945.
Hon. Richard B. Russell,
Chairman, Committee on Immigration,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Senator: This is in response'to your request for my views relative
to a bill (S. 236) to permit all people from India residing in the United States to
be' naturalized.
Pertinent statutory provisions limit the right to become a naturalized citizen
•of the United States to “white persons, persons of African nativity or descent,
■and descendants of races indigenous to the Western Hemisphere” (Nationality
Act, 1940, sec. 303; 8 U. S. C. 703). By the act of December 17, 1943 (57 Stat.
600), the following provision was added to the foregoing enumeration: “and
Chinese persons or persons of Chinese descent.”
The Bureau of Naturalization, a predecessor of the present Immigration and
Naturalization Service, regarded Hindus as barred from naturalization, although
many of them contended that they should be regarded as being of the white race
from an ethnological standpoint. Most district courts upheld the position of
the Government and excluded Hindus from natrualization, although in a few
instances the courts took the contrary view and sustained the contention of the
applicants.
Eventually the matter came before the Supreme Court for definitive deter¬
mination. On February 19, 1923, the Supreme Court held that a Hindu was
not a white person within the meaning of the naturalization laws and, therefore,
was not eligible for naturalization. The Court pointed out that the term “free
white person” was to be interpreted in accordance with popular understanding
and not on any technical scientific basis, United States v. Bhaget Singh Thind
(261 U. S. 204).
The purpose of the present bill apparently is to meet the effect of this decision
of the Supreme Court by amending the existing law so as to extend the privilege
of naturalization to natives of India.
I am in favor of the purpose of this legislation, but I should like to suggest the
following amendments as to matters of detail:
1. Amend the title to read as follows: “To permit Eastern Hemisphere Indians
of India or persons descended from Eastern Hemisphere Indians of India residing
in the United States to be naturalized.” The objective of the bill is to make per¬
sons of East Indian stock racially eligible to naturalization. There are other
natives of India who belong to races now eligible and who would not be affected
by this measure. The foregoing modification'of the title would clarify the state¬
ment of the purpose of the proposal.
2. For the reasons just stated, the words “native of India” should be stricken
from page 1, line 5, and the following inserted in lieu thereof: “Eastern Hemis¬
phere Indian of India or person descended from Eastern Hemisphere Indians of
India.”
3. On page 1, line 4, the citation should be amended to read as follows: “(54
Stat. 1140; 8 U. S. C. 703; 57 Stat. 600)”.
4. The bill proposes to relieve applicants thereunder from the requirement of
■“additional residence” in the United States. Existing general law, however,
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 13
requires a residence of 5 years in the United States as a qualification for the natural¬
ization of any alien. No reason is perceived why East Indians who have resided
in this country for a shorter time should be granted the privilege of naturalization.
In the light of this circumstance, it is suggested that after the words “United
States” on page 1, line 5 of the bill, the following clause be inserted: “and who has
resided therein continuously for a period of at least five years on the date of filing
his petition.”
6. Paragraph (b) of the bill would require petitions for naturalization to be
filed within 1 year after the enactment of the legislation. Consideration should
be given to increasing this period to 5 years, so as to afford the privilege of natural¬
ization to persons who may have become residents of the United States during
the past 5 years.
I have been advised by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget that there is no
objection to the submission of this report.
Sincerely yours,
Francis Biddle, Attorney General.
Senator Hayden. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the courtesy of
permitting me to appear and testify, because I have two other com¬
mittee meetings this morning.
I first desire to have inserted in the record a letter from the Honor¬
able Sidney P. Osborn, Governor of Arizona, the full text of which
may appear but of which I would like to read you one paragraph:
There are, as you know, approximately 150 of these East Indians in Arizona.
Most of them are small farmers or agricultural laborers. They are intelligent and
loyal people, helping this country to raise critically needed foodstuffs and com¬
porting themselves in our society in an exemplary manner. I personally know
some of them, who have been in'the Salt River Valley for nearly two decades.
(The letter referred to is as follows:)
Executive Office, State House,
Phoenix, Ariz., May 10, 1944-
Hon. Carl Hayden,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Senator: My attention has been called to the fact that Senate bill
1595, permitting approximately 3,000 natives of India who entered the United
States prior to July 1, 1924, to be eligible for citizenship, has been reintroduced
in the Senate.
It is my hope that this bill will be passed. The bill, which I have read, merely
provides that these natives of India, who legally entered the United States prior
to the banning of immigration from India, shall be eligible for citizenship on the
same basis as' other aliens.
There are, as you know, approximately 150 of these East Indians in Arizona.
Most of them are small farmers or agricultural laborers. They are intelligent and
loyal people, helping this country to raise criticially needed foodstuffs and com¬
porting themselves in our society in an exemplary manner. I personnally know
some of them, who have been in the Salt River Valley for nearly two decades.
That these good people should forever be men without a country seems to me
tragic. The question of further immigration is not at all contained in the bill;
there are no questions of diplomacy involved. It is only a matter of common
humanity.
With the above facts in mind, it is my earnest hope that you will do whatever
you deem fit to aid in the passage of this bill. 1
With all good wishes, I am,
Sincerely,
Sidney P. Osborn.
Senator Hayden. Mr. James Hammond, former publisher of that
great newspaper, the Memphis Commercial Appeal, has a winter home
in Phoenix, and he became interested in the case of a man whose name
is Gul Aklimad, a former soldier in the British Army, whose applica¬
tion for citizenship has been denied under the conditions that now
prevail.
14 PERMIT RESIDENTS EROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
I would like to place in the record part of a letter that I wrote to
Mr. Hammond explaining what I learned about Mr. Gul Akhmacl.
I am not personally acquainted with him, but he is described by Mr.
Hammond as a fine-appearing man, blue-eyed and a good citizen of
Phoenix. Mr. Hammond gave me a copy of a letter from Mr. C. R.
McFall, clerk of the United States district court in Phoenix, dated
December 28, 1928, wherein his petition was denied because it was
decided he is neither black nor white. I also have his military record,
an extract from the Long Roll of First Battalion, Twelfth Frontier
Force Regiment, Prince of Wales’ own Sikhs, which is correct except
that I could not read the captain’s signature.
I would like to have that included in the record.
Senator Maybank. So ordered.
(The extract referred to is as follows:) .
Reglt.: No. 1356.
Rank: Sepoy.
Name: Gul Akhmad.
Religion and Caste: Musalman; Pathan Khattak; Seni Khunaus.
Country: Trans. Indus.
Age when enlisted: 17 years.
Height: 5-7)4.
Village: Isak Khumanki.
Purgunush: Banda Dand Shak.
Dist.: Kohat.
Date of Enlist.: 23-4r-1904. /
Discharged at his own request from 16.5—1909.
Character: Very good.
Certified true extract.
(Signed:) Captain (Signature illegible).
. Lahone Cantl.
Dated 13. 1. 1932.
For: Commandant 1st Bn: 12th Frontier Force’Regiment (Prince of Wales’
own Sikhs).
Senator Hayden. The extract from the letter that I wrote to Mr.
James Hammond, of Phoenix, is as follows, in addition to which, I
shall include in the record copies of two letters from the United States
Immigration Service relating to the case of Frank Musa, whose name,
according to his British Army record, is Gul Akmad and not Gul
Ahmed.
The headquarters of the United States Immigration Service has been moved
from Washington to Philadelphia for the duration of the war, but I have just had
an opportunity to talk with Mr. E. J. Shaughnessy, who is Special Assistant to
the Commissioner, about Mr. Frank Musa, whose original name was Gul Akhmad.
I told him that according to Lippincott’s Gazetteer, Mr. Musa was born west of
the Indus River in the District of Kohat, the town of that name being about
25 miles south of Peshawar. That district probably was once a part of Afganistan
but the British .took it in order to have better control of the Kyber Pass.
Mr. Shaughnessy said that Mr. Musa had undoubtedly been denied the right
to become an American citizen because the Supreme Court of the United States
has decided that East Indians are not members of either the white race or black
race and consequently, under existing law, are ineligible to citizenship. He
promised, however, to get me a full report on Mr. Musa’s case.
United States Department op Labor,
Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Los Angeles, Calif., June 5, 1934â–  -
Mr. E. L. Thomas,
Phoenix, Ariz.
Dear Sir: In response to your inquiry of June 2, concerning naturalization of
Gul Ahmed, you are informed that Mr. Ahmed’s petition for naturalization was
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 15
dismissed by reason of the fact that under section 2169, Revised Statutes of the
United States, Mr. Ahmed is not deemed a white person. As the right of an
alien to naturalization is limited, among other things, to “free white persons,”
the construction of the courts has made him ineligible.
Trusting this satisfactorily answers your inquiry, I am
Respectfully yours,
V. W. Tomlinson,
Assistant District Director, Los Angeles District.
United States Department of Labor,
Immigration and Naturalization Service,
El Paso, Tex., May 5, 1938.
Mr. Frank Musa,
Phoenix, Ariz.
Dear Sir: With reference to your application to file a declaration of intention
to become an American citizen, and to the statement made by you before a
representative of this Service on April 22 regarding your racial history, please be
advised that, while there seems to be some authority for the view that Afghans-
are not eligible to citizenship under section 2169 of the United States Revised.
Statutes, arrangements are being made for the filing of your first paper at this-
time, as set forth in the copy of the letter to clerk, United States district court at
Phoenix, herewith.
When your petition for citizenship, which may not be filed until your first paper
is 2 years old, comes before the court for final hearing, the question of your
eligibility under section 2169 will be a matter for the court to decide. When
filing your first paper you should sign it in the name of Gul Ahmah, known as
Frank Musa. When applying for your second paper, 2 years* later, you may
request the court to change your name to that you are now using.
Respectfully,
G. C. Wilmoth,
District Director, El Paso District. ‘
. Senator Hayden. I would like to ask Mr. Shaughnessy whether
this bill, as introduced, would cover the case of Gul Akhmad. I
know that it is recommended by the Department that the bill be
amended to provide that instead of saying “any native of India,”
which I believe would include him, because, as I have stated, in the
letter, he was born and raised in a part of India acquired by the
British a good many years ago. Although he is of the Afghan race.
It is proposed to strike out the words “any native of India,” and
insert “Eastern Hemisphere Indians of India or persons descended
from Eastern Hemisphere Indians of India residing in the United
States to be naturalized.”
Would that mean that this bill, instead of providing that natives of
a territory known as India may become citizens of the United States,
that certain races residing in that territory may become citizens? Is
that your interpretation?
Mr. Shaughnessy. Senator Hayden, my copy says “to permit all
people from India.” Is that your copy?
Senator Hayden. No. That is the bill as i troduced.
Mr. Shaughnessy. Yes.
Senator Hayden. But the Attorney General recommended
Mr. Shaughnessy. Suggested that we strike out that language.
Senator Hayden. Strike out that language and insert “Eastern
Hemisphere Indians of India or persons descended from Eastern
Hemisphere Indians of India.” Is a person bom in any part of India
an Eastern Hemisphere Indian?
Mr. Shaughnessy. I would say not. I am quite familiar, of course,
with the case that we are talking about.
74996—45 3
16 PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
Senator Hayden. Yes.
Mr. Shaughnessy., And the court twice turned this man down on
the ground that he was of the Afghan race, and I think I quoted a
court decision right in point showing that persons of the Afghanistan
race are among those races ineligible for naturalization.
Senator Hayden. Where is the line drawn? According to what
you say, it would include all of India; then it would include
Afghanistan.
Mr. Shaughnessy. No. This would include India proper and
only part of Afghanistan.
Senator Hayden. No. I mean the present law would include
natives of Afghanistan. Does it include the Persians; does it include
the Turks?
Mr. Shaughnessy. Are we talking about the so-called barred zone
from which Persians cannot come?
Senator Hayden. Yes.
Mr. Shaughnessy. That is an immigration provision and Persia
is not included in the barred zone, but most of Afghanistan is. That
is separate and apart from our naturalization laws.
Our naturalization laws deal solely with the question of race, whereas
the barred zone deals with place of birth.
Senator Hayden. Let us start toward the east and we get to Italy,
An Italian may be naturalized.
Mr. Shaughnessy. That is right.
Senator Hayden. Then we get to Greece. A Greek may be
naturalized.
Mr. Shaughnessy. That is right.
Senator Hayden. Now, we get to Turkey; may a Turk be natural¬
ized?
Mr. Shaughnessy. A Turk is eligible for naturalization; an Arab is.
Senator Hayden. When we get to Persia, is a Persian eligible?
Mr. Shaughnessy. I could not say offhand, sir.
(Later ascertained that Persians are eligible.)
There have, been court decisions on practically every known race,
and it is by race entirely, not where they are born, but by their
established race. The court decisions have held that persons of the
Afghan race, so-called, are among the ineligible races.
Senator Hayden. Where does the western line of the barred zone
run?
Mr. Shaughnessy. I think there is a map. It takes a page and
a half to describe parallels and longitudes and latitudes [referring to
book]. I could read from section 3, describing it, but it would have
no meaning, of course, unless you had a detailed map before you.
Senator Hayden. If you do not have a map, how do you remember
it?
Mr. Shaughnessy. Well, you have to take the statute itself and
read the description of the parallels and the latitudes and longitudes
and go right down. That is why some of these editions do have a
map. - This one does not, unfortunately.
Senator Hayden. You might insert a map for the record. AIL
that I am interested in is to know where the line runs, north and south
through central Asia. People of a race residing on the west side of
the line may enter the United States and people east of the line may not?
Mr. Shaughnessy. I will put that in.
MAP SHOWING ASIATIC ZONE PRESCRIBED IN SECTION THREE OF IMMIGRATION ACT, THE HATTVES OF WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE UNITED STATES, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS.
(Section indicated by diagonal lines covered by treaty and laws relating to Chinese. The Philippine Islands are United States possessions and therefore not indndBd in barred zone.)
74996 O - 45 (Face p. 17)
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 17
Senator Maybank. How about a map? Would it be too much
trouble to put a map into the record? Then we will have it here.
Mr, Shaughnessy. How about your printing authority on the
map? I think you would have trouble getting- authority.
Senator Maybank. This comes up so often.
(Map subsequently inserted in original transcript.)
Senator Hayden. For instance, if the line started at the eastern end
of the Persian Gulf or the mouth of the Euphrates River and went
north?
Mr. Shaughnessy. Let me give you just an idea of how the law
reads. It is right here.
Persons who are natives of islands not possessed by the United States adjacent
to the continent of Asia, situated south of the twentieth parallel latitude north,
west of the one hundred and sixtieth meridian of longitude, east from Greenwich
and north of the tenth parallel south.
Then you have, here, half a page or a page of that.
Senator Hayden. Now, for the purposes of the Gue Akhmad case
I am curious to know just who is eligible to come into the United
States.
Mr. Shaughnessy. May I say this, Senator?
Senator Hayden. Yes.
Mr. Shaughnessy. Practically all of Afghanistan is within the
prescribed zone from which natives cannot come to the United States
as immigrants. But. the fact remains that this man has been found
by the court to be of the Afghan race, whether he is born in that small
portion of Afghanistan which is without the barred zone, from an
immigration standpoint, or within it, it is the racial bar that prevents
him from becoming naturalized.
Senator Hayden. This bill, if amended as suggested by the Attorney
General, would continue to maintain that barrier?
Mr. Shaughnessy. That is correct, sir, as originally drafted or as
amended.
Senator Hayden. Because it simply applies to persons——
Mr. Shaughnessy. Of East Indian race.
Senator Hayden. Of the East Indian race?
Mr. Shaughnessy. Neither in the original bill or the amended
form would it help out your case because we are dealing with a race
other than Afghanistan. Like in the last Congress you made persons
of the Chinese race eligible to naturalization. The East Indian races
now come along.
It seems to me if it is a question of the Afghans—there are prac¬
tically none in the United States—unless you do something for persons
of all the other oriental races, then it is a piecemeal proposition.
Senator Hayden. I wanted to be sure about that so I asked these
questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Maybank. Anything further, Senator?
Senator Hayden. I thank you very much for the courtesy and the
attention that you have given me.
Senator Langer. You have known these people yourself, have you
not?
Senator Hayden. I know a few of the East Indians that I have met
in Arizona. All that I do know are engaged in farming.
Senator Langer, What is your opinion of them?
18
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
Senator Hayden. They seem .to be an orderly, law-abiding, indus¬
trious people. I have heard no comment that racially they were
undesirable.
It is my understanding that practically all of. the persons who
would become eligible for citizenship under this bill came to this
country as single men and a great many of them have married in
this country to women who are American citizens. Of course, the '
children born here are citizens.
Senator Langer. That is one of your constituents, D. J. Kahn,
right near Phoenix. It is his son. You would endorse this bill,
then?
Senator Hayden. I think, in view of the position already taken
by Congress with respect to members of the Chinese race, that this
legislative proposal would be advantageous to our Government in
connection with our foreign relations, inasmuch as it involves only a
few men who I understand have been in this country a long time.
There is one question about which I am not quite clear. Does
the bill permit any person to be naturalized, whether he was lawfully
in the United States or not?
Senator Danger. Yes. Of course, the bill provides for that.
But when they come up for naturalization, they are investigated.
Senator Hayden. I would like to ask Mr. Shaughnessy a question.
This bill would authorize the naturalization of persons of the East
Indian race. But if the person was unlawfully in the United States,
he would be in the same status as a German or a Frenchman or of
any other race unlawfully in the United States, insofar as naturaliza¬
tion is concerned?
Mr. Shaughnessy. No. A person unlawfully in the United States
under this bill could be naturalized, because it says:
no certificate' of arrival shall be required.
Senator Hayden. But the Attorney General says:
The bill proposes to relieve applicants thereunder from the requirement of
"additional residence” in the United States. Existing general law, however,
requires a residence of 5 years in the United States as a qualification for the
naturalization of any alien. No reason is perceived why East Indians who have
resided in this country for a shorter time should be granted the privilege of
naturalization. In the. light of this circumstance it is my suggestion that after
the words “United States” on page 1, line 5 of the bill, the following clause be
inserted: “and who had resided therein continuously for a period of at least five
years on the date of filing his petition.”
Mr. Shaughnessy. That is correct. But (a) says:
no declaration of intention or certificate of arrival shall be required. ’
Under the law as to all applicants for naturalization, it is a lawful
admission for permanent residence as a condition precedent to the
filing of either a declaration of intention or a petition for naturaliza¬
tion. But this waives those two. Therefore, it waives unlawful
entry.
The amendment only suggests that the beneficiaries of the bill
must have resided here for 5 years before the date of the filing of
his petition for naturalization.
Senator Hayden. What are the facts about the presence of these
members of the East Indian race in the United States? Were they
permitted to come here years ago?
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 19
Mr. Shaughnessy. Prior to the act of February 5r 1917, there
was no restriction on East Indians coming here. Under section 3,
which I read from, that is what we call the barred zone, and after that
all natives of that barred zone were denied the right to come as immi¬
grants. They could still come here in excepted classes: professors
and businessmen, and so on and so forth.
Now, some of these folks who will benefit by this bill came before
1917 and some came lawfully after 1917. There was a provision in
the 1917 act that the excepted classes must maintain the status under
which they were admitted.
But then, reading in another provision of the act, if they maintain
that status for 5 3Tears, they were no longer members of the deportable
classes. So they were here legally. Does that answer your question?
Senator Hayden. Yes. That is a question that this committee
will have to consider, as to just what the effect will be. I do not know
whether the Congress would be willing to grant a special privilege
that is not granted to other races of men throughout the world in the
enactment of legislation of this kind. If we do that, we Pught to
know just what we are doing.
Senator Ma’ybank. Let me ask you this, since you brought that up.
How was the Chinese law written, the one that we passed here last
year?
Mr. Shaughnessy. As far as naturalization is concerned, the
Chinese have to meet all the requirements. They have to meet all
the requirements that the other races do. A Chinese person has to
show that he is lawfully admitted in the United States for permanent
residence. Of course, that is permanent legislation, in the future as
well as in the past.
Senator Hayden. Whereas this bill is designed to be a relief bill
for a certain group.
Senator Maybank. A group that is in this country.
Senator Hayden. In this country, a limited number.
Senator Maybank. How many are there?
Mr. Shaughnessy. My figures show that under the Alien Regis¬
tration Act of 1940, as of June 30, 1943, there were 4,060 noncitizen
East Indians and 810 native-born who, of course, are citizens of the
United States through birth. Just a little over 4,000.
Senator Maybank. If there is nothing further, Senators, we want
to thank Father Cooper for coming down and thank everybody for
being here. '
Senator Langer. I want the record to show that I thank the com¬
mittee for their courtesy in permitting me to appear here. I appre¬
ciate it. very, very much.
Senator Maybank. Thank you, Senator.
(Certain data submitted are as follows:)
National Council, t
Junior Order United American Mechanics,
Philadelphia, Pa., April 30, 194-5.
Hon. Burnet R. Maybank,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator Maybank: It is our understanding that the Senate Committee
on Immigration has before it a bill, S. 236, introduced bjT Senator Langer, having
for its object to permit all people from India, residing in the United States, to
be naturalized.
20 PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
It is our further understanding that you are the chairman of a subcommittee
of the Senate Immigration Committee, which has conducted hearings on this bill,
and is giving it consideration.
The Junior Order United American Mechanics, is opposed to this proposed
bill, S. 236. We believe it would be unwise to permit the naturalization of
people of India for several reasons, as follows:
The Revised Statutes of the United States prohibit naturalization of people of
African descent, or people of color. This is a law, and a well-established one,
which has been reviewed and interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United
States, and has been upheld. If we remember correctly, this section of the Re¬
vised Statutes to which we refer was contested by a Chinaman in several Federal
courts, and finally reached the Supreme Court, which denied the Chinaman per¬
mission or right to be naturalized. So far as our information goes, no change
has been made in this fundamental law, prohibiting people of color to become
naturalized citizens of the United States, unless it was done in the repeal of the
Chinese exclusion laws. The long precedent or prohibiting the naturalization of
people of color, which seems so well established, and a fundamental part of the
laws of our Nation would make it unwise to amend or change this law. There
must have been a good reason for prohibiting people of color from becoming
naturalized citizens of our country. This law was aimed primarily at people of
Africa, but it applies with equal force to people of India, because they have been
properly classified as persons of color.
Another cogent reason against the enactment of this proposed bill, S. 236, is
that the people of India have grades and castes in their social set-up; so much so
that some of what the upper class term “untouchables" are given little or no
social or political status. We submit that people of Indian origin who are now
residing in this country, and have been for a number of years, are not well suited
nor qualified for American citizenship because of their Hindu religion, their wor¬
ship in some grades of society of animals, their lack of understanding of freedom
and democracy,'and particularly their upper classes’ disregard for the common
people, gives unmistakable indication that we have no place in our social, politi¬
cal, or religious life for people who hold such views and follow such ideologies.
A further reason is that these people, if the privileges of naturalization were
granted to them, would contribute little or nothing to the welfare of America.
It would simply be the introduction of more foreign ideologies and people imbued
with the idea 6f a form of government incompatible with that of our own. Surely
the granting of naturalization of all Indian people here in this country would add
nothing to our economy. We submit that people who are eligible for naturaliza¬
tion under the laws of the United States should be those who will add something
to the general welfare, and that it will not be a one-sided affair, which would
grant all rights and privileges to those seeking naturalization, to the detriment of
our body politic.
Somewhat similar bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives;
and, so far, none of them have been favorably reported by the House Immigration
Committee. The Junior Order was represented at hearings some 2 years ago,
when such bills were under consideration before the House Immigration Com¬
mittee, and tabled, by vote of the committee. Since the beginning of the present
Congress, similar bills have been introduced in the House and referred to the
House Committee on Immigration. The Junior Order was also represented at
these last hearings. These bills affected principally East Indian people who came
into the United States prior to 1924. The Langer bill, S. 236, is more compre¬
hensive and proposes to permit naturalization of all East Indian people in this
country. While the Senate Immigration Committee, and particularly your sub¬
committee, may not be convinced or guided by the action of the House Immigra¬
tion Committee on East Indian bills, we submit that the action of the House
Committee on Immigration gives a clear indication of public sentiment regarding
the conferring of full American citizenship, through naturalization, upon East
Indian people.
Our further opposition to S. 236 is that it is too broad in its terms; for instance,
line 8 (a) would absolve these people from filing a declaration of intention or cer¬
tificate of arrival, and do away with additional residence before the filing of peti¬
tion for certificate of citizenship. It occurs to us that this is letting the bars down
too low, and making it entirely too easy for these strange people to acquire citi¬
zenship in the United States. We see no reason for the setting aside of the re¬
quirements of the immigration laws of the United States, in order to confer the
privilege of naturalization upon East Indian people now residing in the United
States. We object to this bill in its entirety.
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 21
We respectfully request that this brief or letter be made a part of the hearings
of your subcommittee on this bill, and we further express the wish and hope that
your committee will disapprove S. 236.
We have the honor to be, with considerations of respect,
Obediently yours,
The National Council of the,
Junior Order of United American Mechanics of the
United States of North America,
James L. Wilmeth, National Secretary.
India, June 16, 1945.
Senate Committee on Immigration,
Washington, D. C.
Gentlemen: For the first time in my life I feel compelled, as an American
citizen, to write to your honorable body in protest against a proposed piece of
legislation. I refer to the bill which would permit Indian nationals to enter the
United States as immigrants.
Ordinarily, in stating an opinion, I claim to speak for no one other than myself.
In this case, however, I feel that I can safely say that I speak the mind of
practically every member of our armed forces who have served in this theater of
war. The principal reason that you havp not received a flood of letters from
soldiers over here is that very few of us have, until quite recently, known of the
proposed legislation.
Our fighter group has served in India and Burma for over 2 years and we have
had opportunity to get to know at least a little about the people in this part
of the world. The ignorance of the average American concerning India is apalling.
Even after 2 years we ourselves find that we have learned little. However, we
have learned enough to make us almost unanimously opposed to Indian immigra-
ion. I use “almost” on the promise that there must be someone in favor of it—
o far I have found none.
Immigration of Indians into other countries has proven a source of trouble in
every instance. The present agitation against Indians in South Africa and the
Middle East are typical examples. In Burma I found the Indians to be an
unwanted race. For one thing, they remain an alien race after immigration and
are never assimilated into the population. They retain their own modes of living
and standards of morals and ethics, all of which are objectionable to even the
primitive natives of north Burma. I refer, of course, not to the masses of In¬
dians—their life of poverty, ignorance, disease, and hunger cannot help but inspire
a certain amount of pity. These are not the people who emigrate. I do refer
to the more or less educated class—small merchants, money lenders, etc.
We realize the small number of immigrants being considered. We also realize
that the consequences would be all out of proportion to the numbers involved.
We feel that a thorough investigation and careful thought would condemn this
piece of legislation. Consequently, its passage would appear to be a bit of hap¬
hazard lawmaking based upon sentiments and not on reasoning or logic. Such
acts inevitably affect the citizen’s confidence in their elected leaders. The best
alternative would seem to be the shelving of this bill until we come home after
the war and are able to speak for ourselves. For the sake of our country do not
cause a lot of bitterness by making tens of thousands of men feel they have been
let down at home while they were away fighting for a home and a decent standard
of living.
Respectfully, Walter J. Klingenberg,
First Lieutenant, Air Corps.
India Welfare League, Inc.
New York City
Hotel Ambassador, Washington, D. C.
To the Senate United States
April 26, 1945
PETITION FOR INDIAN CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS
Whereas all natives of India dwelling in the United States have been denied
the right to become naturalized citizens by the Exclusion Act of 1917 and by
Supreme Court decision, and
22 PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
Whereas there are now over 3,000 Indians living in the United States—the vast
bulk of whom have been here for many years and, through working at honest
trades and professions, have earned the right, we feel, to participate as American
citizens in the government of their country as to grant all Indians dwelling- in
America the right to become naturalized citizens.
The people of India residing in this country have suffered from illegal discrimi¬
nation since the last 21 years.
Our people adopted this country as their second motherland and they are going
to live and die here.
We are appealing to the Senate and Congress for justice and fair play to remove
this discrimination against our people residing in the United States.
Very fraternally yours,
Dr. Mubarek Ali Ivhan,
National President,
Kamlal B. Bajpai,
Vice President,
India Welfare League, Inc.
Background of Mubarek Am Khan
Born of noble family-—Chutri—Chutries being ancient rulers which are still
ruling in the interior of India.
1914. Khan educated in Agra University, majoring in economics, and later
went to China and to Europe to study the social conditions of the common people.
1916-17. Served in World War I and became prisoner in Germany, remained
there until 1919, the purpose being to learn the language and the people.
1920, October 15. Came to the United States as a seaman because the Home
Secretary for India, in London, England, who was also an Indian, refused to issue
a passport to Khan for the United States. However, Khan was desperate and
determined to visit the promised land. Finally he succeeded.
1921. Went to night school, New York City, to obtain some English education.
Same year organized India Labor League of America for the betterment of
working class and farmers in this country.
Khan’s exile from India was due to his desire for India’s freedom and his people.
This has been his inherent longing from childhood to the present day.
1937, October 27. India Welfare League Inc., a humanitarian organization, was
organized for the social contact and welfare for the Indian nationals residing in the
United States.
Khan was first leading party amongst Indian leaders in this country to unite
against Japan.
SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES PRESS
(The pending legislation lias received support from some of the
leading newspapers in the country. The editorial comments of some
of them follow:)
[From the New York Times, February 8, 1944]
In Justice to India
One of the undeniable achievements of the present Congress was the repeal last
year of the Chinese exclusion acts and the modification of other statutes prohibit¬
ing the immigration of Chinese and their admission to citizenship. The long
heroism of the Chinese people, our comrades in war, prompted this retraction
The annual quota of Chinese immigrants is but 105. The Chinese don’t deny our
right to restrict immigration. They resented the stigma that marked all of them,
a people of ancient civilization, as undesirable and inadmissible. They were
gratified by its removal.
Another ancient people, the people of India, is still subject to our taboo. Indian
soldiers—mighty good soldiers, too—have fought for us in Burma and north
Africa. They are fighting forms now in Italy. In land operations against the
Japanese in southeastern Asia their aid will be of great value. Are the Indians not
entitled to ask, as they are asking, no longer to be excluded from entry into the
United States and from American citizenship? They seek this enlargement of
right as a token. Their yearly quota of immigrants would be about 75.
The removal of a mark justly offensive to their pride and self-respect will be not
merely testimony of our gratitude for their armed aid but a matter of justice and
equality of treatment. We have lifted the bars for the Chinese. We can afford
to do the same for the Indians. We can’t afford to do otherwise.
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 23
fFrom the Los Angeles Times, March 21,1944]
There is a bill pending in Congress which would extend to natives of India the
same concession of quota immigration and of naturalization recently extended
to China. It seems worthy of adoption, for much the same reason as in the case
of the Chinese—it would remove a discrimination against a people who are
fighting hard side by side with American soldiers.
While India’s part in the war so far does not compare with China’s, Indian
troops have already served gallantly in many sectors. In north Africa and in the
recent fighting in Italy they have particularly distinguished themselves; in the
coming campaigns in Burma and Malaysia they will be called on for heavy
sacrifices. Removal of discrimination against them may well boost Indian
morale.
There is no danger of a flood of Indian migration here, since the quota would
admit but 75 Indian natives a year. The permission thus would mean little in
terms of immigration and much as a graceful gesture of fraternity.
[From The Baltimore Sun, February 22,1944]
Why Not Equal Status for the People of India?
Back in December the bill to repeal the Chinese exclusion acts became law.
Subject to quota restrictions, the Chinese now have the right of entry into the
United States; and persons of Chinese origin may be admitted to citizenship.
The repeal of these restrictions on the citizens of one of the United Nations
removed a piece of discrimination that had been a source of chronic irritation and
was most certainly in conflict with the lofty declarations of the Atlantic Charter.
But this repeal only serves to emphasize the continued existence of another
restriction of similar character.
This is the restriction on the nationals of India., to which the full force of the
Immigration Act of 1924 and the Nationality Act of 1940 still applies. Indians
are denied entry into the United States, except as tourists, students, and so on;
and persons of Indian origin may not be admitted to citizenship.
Now that the discriminations against the Chinese have been removed, it is
difficult to find any reason for discriminating against the nationals of India.
Their contributions to the war, in money, in materials, and in fighting men, have
been substantial. Indians fought the Japanese in Burma, the Germans and
Italians in Africa. Indian contingents are now fighting the Germans in Italy,
alongside American troops. And the rebirth of nationalist sentiment among the-
people of India makes the continued existence of these discriminations a rich source
of grievance and suspicion of our motives. If the motives which led to the>repeal
of our discriminations against the Chinese are sound, then the same motives
apply in the case of India. ,
To repeal these exclusions would not, of course, mean special status for the
Indians. Quotas would apply to them as to all other countries (and the Indian
quota would allow the entry of about 70 Indians a year). But simple justice
suggests that the least we do is to grant them the same status as the Chinese.
Until this is done, the professions of scorn so often encountered in the United
States in connection with the British treatment of India will sound very hollow.
[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 15, 1944]
A Dangerous Philosophy
Repeal of the Indian exclusion law, proposed in bills introduced in Congress
by Senator Langer of North Dakota and Representatives Luce of Connecticut
and Celler of New York, is a logical sequel to repeal of the Chinese exclusion law.
As in the Chinese legislation, the numbers involved are so small that what is
proposed is more token than substance. Only 75 nationals of India a year would
be permitted entry into the United States, and the number of nationals in this
country who would become eligible to citizenship is estimated at only 2,000.
The principal basis on which the reform is being urged by the India League of
America is that it would proclaim to the world that the United States stands for
racial democracy. This would offset propaganda by which the Japanese are
attempting to persuade the people of India—as they earlier tried to persuade
24
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
the Chinese—that their military ally is their racial enemy. The Japanese inva¬
sion of the Indian State of Manipur, on the Burma border, gives timely emphasis
to the importance of a testament of racial good will by us.
As a matter of good democracy and of good military strategy as well, Congress’
whole duty is plainly to remove all barriers that are based on the arbitrary factor
of race alone. Such a gesture is favored by Dr. Rufus V. von KleinSmid, presi¬
dent of the University of Southern California and chancellor of the Institute of
World Affairs and of the Los Angeles University of International Relations.
Our Asiatic exclusion discriminates against the people of Afghanistan, Burma,
India, Indochina, Japan, Korea, Malaya, Netherlands Indies, Philippines, and
Thailand. No proposal has been made, or is likely to be made, which would
permit sizable—or indeed more than token—immigration from these countries.
But blanket exclusion of races represents an undemocratic philosophy which is
now dangerous as well, for it stands in the way of the international understandings
on which we hope to build a peace. Have we ourselves the understanding to
make this start?
[From the Washington Daily News, May 4, 1944]
Insult to India
In Italy and on most fronts crack East Indian regiments fight for us. Also,
American troops are giving their lives to prevent Jap invasion of India. They
are accomplishing much with little. But they are not getting the proper support
in psychological warfare. Jap propaganda there, as elsewhere in the Far East,
is more effective.
Americans are apt to blame that on the unpopularity of British rule in India—
admittedly a major factor. But America also has given the Japs propaganda
ammunition, particularly our immigration-law insult to India.
Under the present law certain Far Eastern peoples are singled out for exclusion.
Only recently the ban on Chinese was lifted, with excellent results for our inter¬
national relations and closer friendship with the ally diverting most of the Jap
army. The pending Luce-Celler bill would remove discrimination against
Eastern Hemisphere Indians.
Of course, nobody is suggesting that East Indians be allowed to flood this
country, and there is no evidence that they wish to do so. The question is one
of their self-respect and our fair play. The proposal is that they be put under
the regular immigration quota system. That would work out to a maximum of
about 75 East Indian immigrants a year—the Chinese quota comes to 105.
Though our State Department is quite properly interested in this reform as an
immediate war measure, it has important postwar ramifications also. When
peace comes, American prosperity will depend, in part, on foreign trade. We
shall have a vastly expanded industrial plant needing orders. The richest
untapped markets in the world are in the Far East, including India’s 400,000,000
inhabitants.
[From The Columbia Record, April 7, 1944]
Unfinished Business
The Council of State, upper chamber of the Government of India, has passed
and submitted to the Secretary for External Affairs a resolution urging that steps
be taken to obtain the right of American citizenship for Indian nationals living
in the United States.
Soon after the enactment of the bill to repeal the Chinese Exclusion Act last
December, several proposals for equal treatment of East Indians, were introduced
in the House. These proposals were turned over to the Immigration and Natural¬
ization Committee which has not even asked for the factual reports usually
requested in such cases in preparation for open hearings. The bills are still in
committee.
What is proposed is simply the enactment of legislation extending to East
Indians the same treatment granted to Chinese by the repeal of the Chinese
Exclusion Act—the right of entry into this country under the established quota
system and the right of application for citizenship on the same basis as other
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 25
foreign-born residents. The total of East Indians now in the United States is
estimated at about 2,500. The number that would be admitted annually under
the quota system is not more than 75.
The same reasoning which led to the repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act is
applicable here. The resolution of the Indian upper house serves as a reminder
to our Congress that on the subject of citizenship for Oriental peoples, it still has
some business to do.
[From The Kansas City Star, March 11, 1944]
A Gesture to India
' Congress recently, with national approval, removed the restrictions which
prevented Chinese from entering the United States except as temporary visitors,
and from being eligible to citizenship. Only a handful of Chinese, 105, were in¬
volved. But the act was accepted as a gesture of good will and one calculated
to remove a chronic source of irritation.
Now news comes from India that a feeling of resentment is growing because
some similar gesture is not made to the people of India who remain under the old
taboo. India troops have fought against our common enemies in Burma and
north Africa. They are fighting beside American troops in Italy. There would
seem to be no reason why we should not apply the quota principle to the Indians
as well as to the Chinese. Only about 70 Indians would be permitted to enter
every year under the quota. To make such a gesture would seem a warranted
recognition of the part of the people of fndia in this war.
[From The New Republic, May 22,1944]
Would Place East Indians Under Quota Provisions
When Congress lifted the racial bars against Chinese Immigration and natural¬
ization a fewr months ago, American Christians generally applauded a great act
of justice. At the same time, however, they realized that this was only partial
justice. Hundreds of millions of Asiatics remained in a special class held on
purely racial grounds unfit for entrance into this country or citizenship here.
It was even possible to interpret the effort to do racial justice to the Chinese as
no more than a sop ffung to an offended ally whose aid had suddenly grown
indispensable to victory. As a further step toward racial justice, and as a denial
of this cynical interpretation of the earlier act of Congress, Representative Celler,
of New York, has now introduced into the House of Representatives a bill (H. R.
4636) which would bring East Indians also under the quota provisions of the
American immigration law and would make those thus admitted eligible for
citizenship. It is estimated that this would open the doors to about 75 natives
of India a year. Hearings on Mr. Celler’s bill are to be held soon. At these
it is expected that church representatives will throw their full weight in its
support. Certainly it is time that Americans ceased criticizing British failure
to deal generously with India so long as this country continues to deny Indians
the same quota status it affords to most of the peoples of earth.
[From The Christian Century, May 17, 1944]
Let the Indians Come In
The United States has at last rectified its long-standing insult to the Chinese
people. They are not now excluded from this country as immigrants; instead,
they may come in under the quota, to a possible maximum of 105 per year. Now
it is high time that we should do as much for the people of India (whose quota
would be 70 per year). All the arguments that applied to the Chinese are just
as valid regarding the Indians. They are our allies in the war; their soldiers are
fighting gallantly in Italy, India, and Burma, and have already fought gallantly
in other quarters. A bill has been introduced in Congress to wipe out this unjust
discrimination. We hope it is promptly passed.
26 PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
SUPPORT OF LEADING UNITED STATES CITIZENS
We have received several thousand letters from all over the United
States supporting the pending legislation.
Among the signatories are:
EDUCATORS
California:
W. T. Boyce, president, Fullerton Junior College, Fullerton.
A. J. Cloud, president, San Francisco Junior College, San Francisco.
C. Ernest Davis, president, LaVerne College, LaVerne.
Frederick Hard, president, Scripps College, Claremont.
E. Wilson Lyon, president, Pomona College, Claremont.
R. H. Whitten, president, Woodbury College, Los Angeles.
Colorado:
C. F. Gates, president emeritus, Robert College, Denver.
Horace J. Wubben, president/Mesa County Junior College, Grand Junction.
Connecticut:
E. Everett Cortright, president, Junior College of Connecticut, Bridgeport.
Mrs. Maude Lytle, president, Beecher College, New Haven.
W. A. Neilson, president emeritus, Smith College, Falls Village.
Mrs. Anita Lawrence Simpson, dean, New London Junior College, New London.
Nathan B. Stone, president, Stone College, New Haven.
Washington, D. C.: Susie A. Elliott, dean of women, Howard University.
Hawaii: Gregg M. Sinclair, president, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Illinois:
Harold C. Coffman, president, George Williams College, Chicago.
Carter Davidson, president, Knox College, Galesburg.
T. O. Firing, president, Evanston Collegiate Institute, Evanston.
Algoth Oklson, president, North Park College, Chicago.
E. E. Rail, president, North Central College, Naperville.
Indiana:
I. J. Good, president, Indiana Central College, Indianapolis.
Donald B. Prentice, president, Rose Polytechnic Institute, Terre Haute.
Iowa: Cecil E. Hinshaw, president, William Penn College, Oskaloosa.
Kansas:
P. S. Goertz, dean, Bethel College, North Newton.
W. W. Peters, president, McPherson College, McPherson.
Charles E. Sehotfield, president, Southwestern College, Winfield.
W. A. Young, president, Friends University, Wichita.
Kentucky:
Julia Allen, dean, Berea College, Berea.
Albert G. Weidler, dean, Berea College, Berea.
Louisiana:
Fred C. Frey, dean, Louisiana State University, New Orleans.
A. S. Soule, president, Soule College, New Orleans.
Maine: Paul Nixon, dean, Bowdoin College, Brunswick.
Maryland: Henry J. Stahr, president, Hood College, Frederick.
Massachusetts:
Jane Brooks, president, Mary Brooks School, Boston.
J. D. Thibodean, president, Thibodean College, Fall River.
Dr. Joseph Vaskas, president, Marianapolis College, Worcester.
G. B. Williamson, president, Eastern Nazarene College, Quincy.
Michigan:
Joseph Brewer, president, Olivet College, Olivet.
John A. Hannah, president, Michigan State College, East Lansing.
V. K. Nikander, president, Suomi College, Hancock.
Minnesota:
Alcuin Deutsch, president, St. John’s University, Collegeville.
O. H. Gibson, president, Eveleth Junior College, Eveleth.
Mississippi: M. L. Smith, president, Millspas College, Jackson.
Missouri:
H. E. Blaine, dean, Junior College, Joplin.
William H. Stead, dean, School of Business and Public Administration;
Washington University, St. Louis.
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 27
Nebraska:
Rev. Bryant Drake, president, Doane College, Crete. t
Benjamin F. Schwartz, chancellor, Nebraska Wesleyan University, Lincoln.
New Jersey: Eugene H. Lehman, president, Highland Manor Junior College, West
Long Branch.
New York:
Henry Allen, president, Keuka College, Keuka Park.
Henry J. Arnold, president, Hartwick College, Oneonta.
W. H. Cramblet, president, Bethany College, Bethany.
Dr. Mary E. Wooley, president emeritus, Mount Holyoke College, Westport,.
Conn.
Jessica Cosgrave; president, Finch Junior College, New York City.
North Carolina:
S. H. Campbell, president, Campbell College, Buies Creek.
D. D. Carroll, dean, School of Commerce, University of North Carolina.
Chapel Hill.
H. S. Hilley, president, Atlantic Christian College, Wilson.
David D. Jones, president, Bennett College, Greensboro.
James E. Shepard, president, North Carolina College, Durham.
Ohio:
Miss Helen D. Bragdon, president, Lake Erie College, Painesville.
Paul H. Fall, president, Hiram College, Hiram.
W. S. Gamertsfelder, president, Ohio University,. Athens.
Herbert C. Hunsaker, president, Cleveland College, Western Reserve Univer¬
sity,-Cleveland.
Lloyd L. Ramseyer, president, Bluffton College, Bluffton.
D. T. Schronover, president, Marietta College, Marietta.
Earl Vinie, president, Schauffler College, Cleveland.
Ernest H. Wilkins, president, Oberlin College, Oberlin.
Oregon: *
Edward L. Clark, president, Multnomah College, Portland.
W. C. Giersbach, president, Pacific University, Forest Grove.
Pennsylvania: Robert F. Galbreath, president, Westminster College, New Wil¬
mington.
Rhode Island: Margaret S. Morriss, dean of Pembroke College, Brown Univer¬
sity, Providence.
South Dakota: John L. Baitlers, D. D., acting president, Sioux Falls College,.
Sioux Falls.
Tennessee:
James L. Robb, president, Tennessee Wesleyan College, Athens.
Hugh C. Stuntz, president, Scarritt College, Nashville.
Texas:
J. J. Delaney, president, Schreiner Institute, Kerrville.
W. H. Elkins, president, San Angelo College, San Angelo.
C. F. Schmidt, president, Blinn College, Brenham.
Vermont: Stephen Freeman, vice president, Middlebury College, Middlebury.
Virginia: H. G. Noffsinger, president, Virginia Intermont College, Bristol.
West Virginia: John W. Elliott, president, Alderson-Broaddus College, Philippi.
Wisconsin: Dr. L. Christensen, dean, Wisconsin College of Agriculture, Madison-
Support of religious leaders:
Carlyle Adams, editor, the Presbyterian Tribune.
Reuben Alley, editor, the Religious Herald, Richmond, Va.
David D. Baker, editor, the Messenger, official organ, Egangelical and Reformed
Church.
H. W. Baker, editor, the Messenger, official organ, Evangelical and Reformed'
,Church.
Eugene Barlow, general secretary, international committee, YMCA:
Howard J. Baumgartel, executive secretary, Church Federation, Indianapolis.
Aubrey N. Brown, editor, the Presbyterian Outlook, Richmond.
J. Henry Carpenter, Brooklyn Church Federation.
Samuel McCrea Cavert, general secretary, Federal Council of Churches of Christ,
in America.
Harold Chance, American Friends Service Committee.
Alden H. Clark, secretary for India, American Board of Commissioners for Foreign;
Missions
28 PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
Dr. Henry Sloan Coffin, president, Union Theological Seminary, New York, N. Y,
Hugh Darsie, president, Brooklyn Church and Mission Federation.
E. P. Dandridge, bishop coadjutor of Tennessee.
John Warren Day, dean, Grace Cathedral, Topeka, Kans.
J. W. Decker, secretary, International Missionary Council, New York City.
John K. Denton, dean, School of Religion, Vanderbilt University.
Milton C. Early, executive secretary, Omaha Council of Churches.
Sherwood Eddy, former YMCA national secretary in India.
Harold Fey, field editor, Christian Century.
Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, Riverside Church, New York City.
Robert W. Frank, president, McCormick Theological Seminary.
Harlan M. Frost, executive secretary, Council of Churches, Buffalo and Erie
Counties.
Walter H. Gray, suffragan bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut.
Edgar N. Greenebaum, president, Chicago Siani Congregation.
Rabbi Isidor Hoffman, Columbia University.
Ralph L. Holland, general secretary, Indian Council of Churches.
Dr. John Haynes Holmes, Community Church, New York, N. Y.
Paul Hutchinson, managing editor, Christian Century.
Dr. Rufus M. Jones, American Friends Service Committee, Philadelphia, Pa.
D. H. King, Methodist bishop, Atlanta, Ga.
Homer W. King, editor, the Protestant Voice, Fort Wayne.
Ben R. Lacey, Jr., president, Theological Seminary, Richmond.
Father John LaFarge, editor, America, New York City.
Dr. Ward Willis Long, moderator, Presbyterian Synod of California.
Rev. Elmore M. McKee, rector, St. George’s Protestant Episcopal Church,
New York City.
Frank S. Mead, editor, the Christian Herald, New York City.
Dr. John R. Mott, International Missionary Council, New York, N. Y.
A. J. Muste, secretary, Fellowship of Reconciliation, New York, N. Y.
Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr, Union Theological Seminary, New York, N. Y.
Rev. J. P. Neilson, president, Trinity Theological Seminary, Blair, Nebr.
Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, president, Federal Council of the Churches of Christ
in America.
Edward L. Parsons, bishop of California, retired.
Rev. Allen Pendergraft, canon of Grace Cathedral, San Francisco.
Orval D. Peterson, president, Washington Council of Churches.
David Philipson, dean, American Reformed Rabbis, Cincinnati.
Rabbi David De Sola Pool, Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue, New York, N. Y.
Liston Pope, Yale Divinity School.
Elinor Purvis, chairman, Commission on International Justice and Good Will.
J. McD. Richards, vice president, Federal Council of Churches, Decatur, Ga.
Rev. Paul Roberts, dean, St. John’s Cathedral, Denver.
William P. Runningham, Bishop of Eastern Oregon.
Edward W. Schramm, editor, the Lutheran Standard. ,
Luman J. Shafer, board of foreign missions, Reformed Church, New York City.
Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, Cleveland.
John A. Tate, editor, the Chesapeake Christian.
Prof. Chaim Tschernowitz, Jewish Institute of Religion.
Worth M. Tippy, visiting professor, Chicago Theological Seminary.
Bishop Henry St. George Tucker, presiding bishop, Protestant, Episcopal Church
in the United States of America.
Walter W. Van Kirk, executive secretary, Federal Council of the Churches of
Christ in America.
Howard G. Wiley, secretary, Minneapolis Church Federation. '
O. M. Wingate, executive secretary, Cleveland Church Federation.
Mrs. John C. Young, president, Michigan Council of Church Women.
Support of publishers, writers, etc.:
Louis Adamic, author. *
Margaret Culkin Banning, novelist.
Bruce Bliven, editor, New Republic.
Van Wyck Brooks, critic, Pulitizer prize winner.
Struthers Burt, author.
Dr. Henry Seidel Canby, chairman, board of editors, Book of the Month Club
Cass Canfield, president, Harper & Bros.
William Henry Chamberlain, foreign correspondent and author.
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 29
Stuart Chase, economist and author.
Charles Halliwell Duell, publisher.
Max Eastman, author. i
Marshall Field, publisher.
Dorothy Canfield Fisher, author.
Waldo Frank, author.
Joseph Freeman, author.
B. W. Huebsch, publisher.
Fannie Hurst, novelist.
Josephine Johnson, novelist, Pulitzer prize winner.
Frank Kingdon, commentator, author.
Freda Kirchwey, editor, the Nation.
Israel Knox, editor, Workmen’s Circle Call.
Max Lerner, chief editorial writer, PM.
Thomas Mann, novelist.
Leonore G. Marshall, poet, novelist.
Rose Pesotta, author.
Porter Sargeant, author.
Upton Sinclair, author. '
Samuel Sloan, publisher.
Edgar Snow, foreign correspondent, author.
Herbert Solow, journalist.
Leland Stowe, foreign correspondent, author.
Christine Weston, novelist.
Support of leading businessmen:
Augustine A. Austine, president, Antillean Holding Co., New York, N. Y.
DeWitt W. Barlow, president, Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co., New York, N. Y.
William Benton, vice chairman, Committee' for Economic Development, New
York, N. Y.
Robert T. Browne, president, Pillsbury Flour Mills Co., Minneapolis, Minn.
R. D. Calkins, dean, Columbia University School of Business, New York, N. Y.
J. R. Clairmonte, export manager, Lambert Pharmacal Co., St. Louis, Mo.
J. Lionberger Davis, chairman, Security National Bank Savings & Trust Co.,
St. Louis, Mo.
H. H. Dewax, investments, San Antonio, Tex.
P. D. Dixon, manager, foreign department, Orvic Bros. & Co., New York, N. Y.
V. A. Dodge, president, Dodge & Seymour, Ltd., New York, N. Y.
William G. Dwyer, president, Burlap and Jute Association, New York, N. Y.
G. W. Fennebresque, vice president, Pro-phy-lac-tic Brush Co., Jersey City,
N. J.
Louis Gelders, Phelps Stokes Co., New York, N. Y.
Dr. Henry F. Grady, president, American President Lines, San Francisco, Calif.
Bois C. Hart, vice president, National City Bank, New York, N. Y.
H. Herts, president, Muller & Phipps (Asia), Ltd., New York, N. Y.
Arthur P. Hirose, McCall, Corp., New York, N. Y.
H. H. Hirschfeld, president, Richards & Hirschfeld, Inc., New York, N. Y.
Ira A. Hirschmann, vice president, Bloomingdales, Inc., New York, ,N. Y.
Paul Hoffman, president, Studebaker Sales Corp. of America, Detroit, Mich.
Edward Y. Horder, Oak Park, Ill.
Walter Hoving, president, Lord & Taylor, and president, Fifth Avenue Association,
New York, N. Y.
Norman Houston, secretary-treasurer, Golden State Life Insurance Co., Los
Angeles, Calif.
Henry H. Ketcham, president, H. H. Ketcham Lumber Co., Seattle, Wash.
Archibald E. King, vice'president, Isthmian Steamship Lines, New York, N. Y.
Dr. A. W. Leschohier, president, Parke-Davis & Co., Detroit, Mich.
F. G. MacGowan, Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio.
William T. Morris, president, American Chain & Cable Co., Inc., New York, N. Y.
John W. Murray, Textile Export Association, New York, N. Y.
Frank Noyes, president, Twentieth Century Association, Boston, Mass.
G. H. Pape, cotton merchant, Waco, Tex.
E. C. Riley, general manager, General Motors Overseas Operations, New York,
N. Y.
William H. Stead, dean, School of Business and Public Administration, St. Louis,
Mo.
William Thorp, trustee, Associated Gas & Electric Co., New York, N. Y.
30 PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
W. H. White, president, Thomas Cook & Sons, New York, N. Y.
V. L. Whitney, director, Standard Vacuum Oil Co., New York, N. Y.
J. Preston Willis, export sales manager, organic chemicals department, du Pont
de Nemours Co., Delaware.
C. J. Winton, Jr., president, Winton Lumber Co., Minneapolis, Minn.
Milton S. Yondorf, president, S. Yondorf Co., investments, Chicago, Ill.
Support of prominent persons:
Irving Abramson, chairman, CIO War Relief, Washington, D. C.
George Baldanzi, vice president, Textile Workers Union of America.
Gordon Brinley, author, New Canaan, Conn.
Dr. Putnam Brinley, New Canaan, Conn.
Edward C. Carter, general secretary, Institute of Pacific Relations, New York.
N. Y.
Leo M. Cherne, director, Research Institute of America, New York, N. Y.
E. A. Collyer, educator, Susanville, Calif.
Josephus Daniels, president, the News and Observer, Raleigh, N. C.
Russell W. Davenport, former chief editorial writer, Life Magazine, New York.
N. Y.
David Dubinsky president, International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, NeVv
York, N. Y.
Dr. W. E. B. DuBois, author, educator, Atlanta, Ga.
John Foster Dulles, chairman of Commission on Just and Durable Peace, New
York, N. Y.
Julius Hockman, vice president, International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union.
New York, N. Y.
Albert Einstein, scientist, Princeton, N. J.
John Erskine, author, New York, N. Y.
Prof. Carl J. Friedrich, Harvard University, Massachusetts.
Mr. and Mrs. Thomas R. Gaines, Women’s Society Presbyterian Church, Pasa¬
dena, Calif.
Kenneth M. Gould, editor in chief, Scholastic, New York, N. Y.
Mrs. J. Borden Harriman, president, American Free World Association, Wash¬
ington, D. C.
Arthur Garfield Hays, attorney, New York, N. Y.
Col. Louis Johnson, former personal representative of the President to India.
Washington, D. C.
Hon. Alfred M. Landon, former Governor of Kansas, Topeka, Kans.
Owen Lattimore, former adviser to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, 'Baltimore.
Md.
Walter H. Mallory, executive director, Council on Foreign Relations, New York.
N. Y.
Ben Marsh, People’s Lobby, Washington, D. C.
Elsa Maxwell, columnist, New York, N. Y.
Stanwood S. Menken, lawyer, New York, N. Y.
Dr. R. A. Milliken, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif.
Arthur E. Morgan, Yellow Springs, Ohio.
Clarence Muse, writer, director, Los Angeles, Calif.
Dr. William F. Ogburn, University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill.
Mrs. William S. Paley, civic leader, New York, N. Y.
Robert Parker, director, CIO War Relief Committee, Philadelphia, Pa.
J. A. Stokes Phelps, New York, N. Y.
Molly Picon, actress, New York, N. Y.
Cornelia Bryce Pinchot, Washington, D. C.
A. Philip Randolph, president, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.
Antonio Reina, editor, Justicia.
Victor Reuther, manpower director, UAW., CIO., Detroit, Mich.
Walter P. Reuther, vice president, International UAW., CIO., Detroit, Mich.
Will Rogers, Jr., former Member House of Representatives.
Mark Simkovitch, Greenwich House, New York, N. Y.
Vilhjalmur Stefansson, Explorers Club, New York, N. Y.
Sol Stetin, Textile Workers Union of America.
Herbert Bayard Swope, New York, N. Y.
Hon. Henry A. Wallace, former Vice President, Washington, D. C.
Dr. James P. Warbasse, president emeritus, Cooperative League of LT. S. A.
Mrs. James P. Warburg, New York, N. Y.
Orson Welles, columnist, actor, Hollywood, Calif.'
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 31
Excerpts from some of the letters of prominent Americans:
Louis Adamic, author: “I favor equal status for nationals of India with all other
groups in our immigration and naturalization laws.”
William Benton, vice chairman, Committee for Economic Development: “I am
in sympathy.”
Bruce Bliven, editor, New Republic: “We are in favor of permitting immigration
and naturalization of Indian nationals, and we intend to say so editorially in the
New Republic.”
Pearl S. Buck, Novel Prize winner: “I endorse with all my heart and mind the
admission of people from India into our country on a quota basis and with the
same opportunity as any other to become citizens if they wish. This I do not only
because I believe discrimination of all sorts should be removed but because I think
that the Indian contribution to our American life would be valuable and en¬
riching.”
Henry Seidel Canby, chairman, Book of the Month Club: “I believe that the
nationals of all countries should be admitted to the United States on a quota basis;
that is there should be no absolute discrimination against any country or race.”
Cass Canfield, president, Harper & Bros.: “It is wrong and harmful to exclude
Indians from this country except as travelers.”
William Henry Chamberlain, foreign correspondent and author: “The mainter
nance by this Government of any form of official race discrimination places a stamp
of hypocrisy upon our war aims and is a great handicap to our fighting men in
Asia.”
Dr. Henry Sloan Coffin, president, Union Theological Seminary: “I am heartily
in favor of ending what appears to be racial barriers.”
Charles Duell, publisher: “A minimum obligation toward a great nation.”
Dr. Stephen Duggan, educator: “I approve strongly.”
John Foster Dulles, chairman of Commission on Just and Durable Peace, New
York, N. Y.: “I favor this legislation.”
Sherwood Eddy, former YMCA secretary in India: “I cordially and enthusiastic¬
ally approve.”
Albert Einstein, scientist: “An advantage for the United States and in general
for the stabilization of peace and prosperity in the international sphere.”
John Erskine, author: “I heartily approve.”
G. W. Fennebresque, vice president, Pro-phy-lac-tic Brush Co.: “Feel that the
discrimination against Indian nationals should be corrected as the earliest possible
moment.”
Marshall Field, publisher: “I hope very much that Congress will act favorably.”
Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdxck, Riverside Drive Church, New York City: “I hope
that these bills may secure immediate passage.”
Carl J. Friedrich, Harvard University: “I sincerely hope that the bills will be
passed.”
Dr; Henry F. Grady, president, American President Lines: “Most happy to be
listed as supporter of this legislation.”
Mrs. J. Borden Harriman, president, American Free World Association: “It
gives me great pleasure to express to you on behalf of the American Free World
Association, my wholehearted support of the legislation.”
Arthur Garfield Hays, attorney: It is about time that we removed this dis¬
crimination against one of the mostly highly civilized and cultured people on
earth.”
H. H. Herts, president, Muller & Phipps: “We fully endorse Luce-Celler bills.”
Ira A. Hirschmann, vice president, Bloomingdales, Inc.: “Happy to join in
support of legislation entitling people of India to become naturalized American
citizens.”
William Ernest Hocking, Harvard University: “We should lose no time in
recognizing their value as residents in, and citizens of, the United States.”
John Haynes Holmes, minister: “A matter of elementary justice.”
Walter Hoving, president, Fifth Avenue Association: “I am very much behind
the principle of removing the prohibition now excluding the nationals of India
from this country.”
Col. Louis Johnson: “I do favor principle of this legislation.”
Rufus M. Jones, president, American Friends Committee: “I am heartily in
support.”
Alvin S. Johnston: “I am heartily in favor.”
Charles S. Johnson, Fisk University: “This would be a practical demonstration
of our democratic conviction and principle of government.”
32 PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
Archibald E. King, vice president, Isthmian Steamship Lines: “It is my strong
belief that this action should be taken promptly as a matter of equity and correct
an unjust and discriminatory condition.”
Rev. John LaFarge, editor, America: “An important token and recognition of
a kinship with the people of Asia which, in the coming epoch, our country cannot
afford to overlook.”
Henry Smith Leiper, executive secretary, American Committee for the World
Council of Churches: “Absolutely in line with democratic convictions and Chris¬
tian ideals.”
Robert M. Maclver, Columbia University: “I am entirely in favor.”
Katrina McCormick, publisher: “We must pass this bill to help give meaning
to the freedom for which we are fighting.”
Dr. R. A. Milliken, California Institute of Technology: “Will exert every influ¬
ence I can to help in seeing that this highly desirable legislation is enacted.”
John R. Mott, International Missionary Council: “Timely, desirable, and'
worthy of support.”
Reinhold Niebuhr, Union Theological Seminary: “It is highly desirable that
the provisions which place the Chinese under our quota law should be extended
to include all Asiatic peoples.”
Dorothy Norman, columnist: “I am heartily in accord.”
William F. Ogburn, University of Chicago; “A most important step in the
interests of humanity and also for our own country.”
Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, president, Federal Council of the Churches of
Christ in America: “I have long been on record as favoring the revision of our
immigration laws to place all people upon the quota basis and to eliminate all
restrictions based upon color or other discriminatory factors.”
A. Philip Randolph, president, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters. “This is
just and sound.”
Mary K. Simkovitch, Greenwich House, New York City: “I am heartily in
favor.”.
Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver: “An act of simple justice in consonance with the
basic traditions of America.”
Upton Sinclair, author: “It seems to me a wise policy for any people to make
friends whenever and wherever they can—and especially in cases where the price
is so very cheap. All the Indian nationals whom I have met in my country were
persons whom I should be very pleased to accept as fellow citizens.”
Edgar Snow, author, war correspondent: “There is no reason why Indians
should not enter this country on the same basis as every other friendly people.
There are important reasons why Indians should be admitted to citizenship here
on a quota basis. The present discrimination is a blot against our record for
fairness and it is a disgrace to a nation like ours to deny equality of treatment
to a people of such historical and cultural greatness as the Indians.”
Herbert Bayard Swope: “I am opposed to a continuance of discrimination
against Indian nationals.”
Norman Thomas, chairman, Postwar World Council: “I am wholly in favor of
this justice. We Americans can contribute little tdw'ard winning a just peace
if our conception of humanity is subject to geographical qualifications.”
Henry A. Wallace, former Vice President: “Of course I am in favor of such
legislation.”
Richard J. Walsh, editor, t Asia: “Not only simple justice but also American
self-respect demand that we assert our equality with the people of India and our
friendship for them by immigration quota and citizenship privilege such as we
extend to Europeans, Africans, and Chinese.”
James P. Warbasse, president emeritus, Cooperative League of USA: “Democ¬
racy that does not embrace all mankind is a sham democracy. We need the
Indian people among us as fellow citizens and neighbors.”
Christine Weston, author: “If Congress passes the Celler-Luce bill it will be
more than a most generous gesture—it will be an historic one and a noble one.
Americans and Indians have a great deal to give each other.”
Ray Lyman Wilbur, former Secretary of Interior: “I am most sympathetic with
the program of dealing with natives of India on the same basis that we have dealt
with the Chinese.”
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 33
SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES ORGANIZATIONS
The following organizations have informed us that they are in full
support of the pending legislation:
American Asiatic Association, 1 Hanover Square, New York, N. Y.
American Board of Commission for Foreign Missions, 14 Beacon Street, Boston,
Mass.
American Civil Liberties Union, 170 Fifth Avenue, New York City
American Free World Association, 144 Bleecker Street, New York City
American Friends Service Committee, Philadelphia, Pa.
Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, A. F. of L., 217 West One hundred and
twenty-fifth Street, New York City
Common Council for American Unity, Inc., New York City
Council for Community Action, 1 East Eighty-fifth Street, New York City
Fellowship of Reconciliation, 2929 Broadway, New York City
Greater Detroit and Wayne County CIO Industrial Union Council, Detroit,
Mich.
Institute of International Education, 2 West Forty-fifth Street, New York. City
International Missionary Council, 156 Fifth Avenue, New York City
Jewish Labor Committee, 175 East Broadway, New York City
Knitgoods Workers Union, A. F. of L., Brooklyn, N. Y.
Massachusetts State CIO, Industrial Union Council, 73 Tremont Street, Boston,
Mass.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 69 Fifth Avenue,
New York City
National Committee on Postwar Immigration Policy, 36 West Forty-fourth
Street, New York, N. Y.
Postwar World Council, 112 East Nineteenth Street, New York City
The Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, 297 Fourth Avenue,
New York City. ' '
The Federation of Churches of Rochester and Vicinity, Inc., Rochester, N. Y.
•The. National Board of the Young Women’s Christian Association of the United
States of America, 600 Lexington Avenue, New York City
United Automobile Workers, CIO International Headquarters, Detroit, Mich.
United Brethren Parsonage, Frankfort, Ind.
Women’s Division of Christian Service of the Board of Mission and Church
Extension of the Methodist Church, 150 Fifth Avenue, New York City
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, 1924 Chestnut Street,
Philadelphia, Pa.
World Council of Churches, 297 Fourth Avenue, New York City
Below are resolutions passed by some of the above-mentioned
organizations:
The Watumull Foundation
»
(Established by Mr. G. J. Watumull, Honolulu, T. H., United States of America,
July 1942)
For many years Mr. and Mrs. Gobindram J. Watumull, of Honolulu, T. H.,'
have been planning to do something in the interest of better understanding
between the peoples of the United States and India, and to promote the cause
of cultural and economic cooperation between the two countries. With this as
one of its primary objects, Mr. Watumull established the Watumull Foundation
in July 1942, to be operated exclusively for charitable, scientific, literary, or
educational purposes, or for exclusive public purposes of the United States or
any political subdivision thereof. The present plans of the foundation include
the following projects:
1. Provide scholarships for outstanding and deserving students from India,
enabling them to carry on advanced studies in the best educational institutions
in the United States in order that they may become leaders in their respective
fields upon return to India.
2. Provide support for a chair of Indian culture (established July 1942) in the
University of Hawaii to be held by an outstanding Indian scholar. This chair
may not be able to function until after the end of the war.
3. Provide traveling fellowships for eminent scholars and professional men
and women from India to visit American educational and industrial institutions
â– 34 PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
to widen their knowledge and experience, and to promote the cause of cultural
and economic cooperation between the United States and India.
4. Provide funds for founding a chair of American history‘and civilization in
a leading university in India, and for traveling fellowships and visiting professor¬
ships for eminent American scholars, public men and women as research scholars
and visiting professors to Indian universities, .in the interests of better under¬
standing between India and the United States.
5. Provide funds for other educational, philanthropic, and charitable work,
such as support for the Honolulu Symphony Orchestra, the Honolulu Academy
of Arts, famine relief organizations, etc.
Mr. Gobindram J. Watumull came to Honolulu in 1917 from India to manage
the business already established there by his older brother, Mr. J. Watumull.
Throughout the years he has been deeply interested in the problems concerning
his country, and feels that the United States has educational resources for Indian
students unequaled elsewhere in the world. Since the need in India in the fields
of medicine, public health, agriculture, education, technology, and allied subjects
is critical, it seems imperative at this time to bring students to the United States
to take advantage of these opportunities. This work will need the cooperation
of American universities, technological institutes, businessmen, professors, even
of governments in arranging travel facilities, visas, research facilities, opportuni¬
ties to experience the best in American life, etc.
We have recently received a letter from the office of the Commissioner of
Internal Revenue in Washington stating that, based upon the evidence presented,
if the foundation is oeprated strictly in accordance with its stated purposes, it
will be entitled to exemption from Federal income tax under the provisions of
section 101 (6) of the Internal Revenue Code as an organization organized and
operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational,
purposes. And, further, that contributions made to the foundation will be de¬
ductible by the donors in arriving at their net income in the manner and to the
extent provided by section 23 (o) and (q) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Generous contributions to the foundation have been made by Mr. J. Watumull,
Mr. Ramchand Watumull, and Mrs. G. J. Watumull.
Mr. Ernest R. Cameron, certified public accountant, and Mr. Milton Cades,
attorney-at-law, both of Honolulu, are the trustees of the foundation. Mrs.
G. J. Watumull is the chairman of the distribution committee.
The scholarship division, which constitutes the most important phase of the
foundation’s work, was organized under the able direction of a committee of
recommendations.
Successful candidates for scholarships will be selected according to their ability
to meet rigid requirements, among which are:
1. Scholastic and professional qualifications in the required fields.
2. Health standards. .
3. Personal recommendations, both from their universities and from people
in public and private life.
The scholarships offered are generous, permitting the students: (1) To attend
the best institutions in the United States; (2) to maintain an excellent standard
of living while in this country; and (3) to travel from India to America and return
to Indian if they are unable to pay for such travel themselves.
The object of this scholarship division is to develop the highest type of leader¬
ship in provessional, industrial, and educational fields in India.
All inquiries and communications in regard to scholarships should be addressed
to: Mrs. G. J. Watumull, chairman, distribution committee, Watumull Founda¬
tion, 937 Malcolm Avenue, Los Angeles 24, Calif.
Scholarships for Indians in American Universities
The Watumull Foundation, established by Mr. Gobindram J. Watumull of
Honolulu, T. H., and Los Angeles, Calif., for carrying on philanthropic and edu¬
cational activities which will help to increase national efficiency of India, and,
further better understanding between the United States and India, offers 1
traveling fellowship for 1 year, and 10 scholarships to Indian men and women to
carry on higher studies and research in American universities and institutions for
advanced agricultural and technical education for 2 years.
I. A traveling fellow will receive a stipend covering traveling expenses from India
to the USA and return to India, and an allowance of $250 a month for a year.
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 35
An applicant for a traveling fellowship must be a professor in an Indian univer¬
sity or . college, or a recognized scientist with the highest type of professional
attainments, and must indicate in his application the nature of research work,
investigation, or special study which he or she intends to pursue during the stay
in the United States. Each applicant must provide:
1. Certificate of good health.
2. Small photograph.
3. Two testimonials from public men.
4. Academic record.
5. Evidence of achievement in the chosen field of study.
6. Personal letter of application.
II. Scholars receiving stipends from the Watumull Foundation will be divided
into two groups:
Group A.—Scholars in this group will receive traveling expenses from India to-
the U. S. A. and return to India, tuition and laboratory fees, and an allowance
of $150 per month for 2 years.
Group B.—Scholars in this group will receive traveling expenses from India to
the USA and back to India, tuition and laboratory fees, and an allowance of $100
per month for 2 years. Recipients of group B scholarships must provide a guar¬
anty from two responsible persons to the effect that, in case of securing a scholar¬
ship of $100 a month, the balance of required expenses will be provided by them.
Only graduate students of the best type, such as first class or second class M. A.
or M. Sc. from Indian universities with research experience, graduate medical
students with M. B. degree from Indian universities and with research experience,
graduate engineers with B. E. or B. Sc. degree in engineering, and graduates of
agricultural colleges are eligible for these scholarships. Special exceptions may
be made for some students who may not have the highest academic standing, but
have done considerable original work of value to establish their merit as first-
class scholars. The applicant must be a person of good moral character and good
health and must provide: ,
1. A certificate of good health.
2. A small photograph.
3. Testimonials from two professors or businessmen.
4. A copy of the academic record.
5. Choice of subject in which graduate work is to be pursued.
6. A personal letter of application.
These scholarships are open to men and women students of Indian parentage
without any discrimination of class or religion. All successful candidates will be
chosen by a special committee on the basis of merit only. Each candidate should
stipulate his choice of subject, preferably in the following fields: Medicine, sani¬
tation, public health, agriculture, engineering, education, hydraulics, mining, or
economics. This list is not intended to be all-inclusive, but will indicate the
fields in which there is need in India in order to increase her national efficiency.
Applications for the traveling fellowship and for scholarships should be sent
by air mail to: Mrs. G. J. Watumull, chairman, distribution committee,
Watumull Foundation, 937 Malcolm Avenue, Los Angeles 24, Calif., U. S. A.
Watumull Foundation,
, Scholarship Division,
Los Angeles. 24, Calif.
announcement of scholarship awards
The Watumull Foundation of Honolulu and Los Angeles announces the award
of 13 scholarships and 1 traveling fellowship to the candidates from India listed
below who were chosen from over twelve hundred applicants for this year’s
scholarships. A special selection committee composed of eminent educators and
scientists in the United States chose the candidates on the basis of outstanding
scholastic achievement in their respective fields regardless of sex, religion, caste,
or province. The subjects in which awards were granted are nation building in
character and include agriculture, medicine, sanitation, biochemistry, engineering,
education, etc.
The traveling fellowship is granted for 1 year only and covers traveling ex¬
penses from India and return and a grant of $250 a month.
36
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
The scholarships fall in two classifications. Class A scholarships receive travel¬
ing expenses, tuition, and fees and an allowance of $150 a month. Class B
scholarships receive traveling expenses, tuition, and fees and an allowance of $100
a month. The recipients of class B scholarships must provide a guaranty that ’
the balance of their expenses will be met by either their families or other respon¬
sible people. All scholarships are awarded on a 2-year basis.
The successful candidates and their subjects are as follows:
I. Traveling fellowship
Dr. J. K. Makhijani, Ph. D., University of Edinburgh, now animal geneticist
in Hissar, Punjab, will study genetics in dairy industry.
II. Agriculture
(а) Dr. J. V. Bhat, Ph. D., Bombay University, professor at St. Xavier’s
College, Bombay, will specialize in agricultural bacteriology with special reference
to plant nutrition. Class A scholarship.
(б) Mr. Amar Singh Rathore, B. Sc., from Allahabad Agricultural Institute
now stationed at the Government Cattle Farm, Patna, who will do research in
cattle breeding and management. Class A scholarship.
(c) Mr. Punyamay Sen, M'. Sc., Calcutta University, now on the faculty of
Visva-Bharati, the famous international university founded by Rabindranath
Tagore. Mr. Sen will study antierosion and soil conservation. Class A scholar¬
ship.
III. Medicine
(а) Dr. I. N. Purshottam, M. B., B. S., University of Madras, now practicing
medicine in New Delhi, will specialize in pediatrics. Class A scholarship.
(б) Dr. Zubaida Nasir-ud-Din, M. B., B. S., Punjab University, will do ad¬
vanced study in medicine and surgery. She will receive the scholarship given in
honor of Dr. John Haynes Holmes of New York City. Class A scholarship.
(c) Dr. Mahendra J. Bhatt, M. B., B. S., University of Bombay and D. T. M.
University'of Calcutta, for research in tropical medicine. The Dr. J. T. Sunder¬
land Memorial Scholarship is awarded to Dr. Bhatt. Class A scholarship.
IV. Engineering
(a) Mr. Amiya Kumar Chatterjee, B. E., assistant professor of electrical
engineering, College of Technology and Engineering, Bengal, who will study elec¬
trical communications. Class A scholarship.
(b) Mr. S. A. Trivedi, B. Sc., University of Bombay, for the study of chemical
engineering in relation to paper and pulp technology. Class B scholarship.
V. Biochemistry
Mr. A. N. Bindal, M. Sc., Punjab University, at present research assistant at
the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. Mr. Bindal will receive the Dr.
Upindra Kumar Das Memorial Shcolarship for the study of fermentation bio¬
chemistry. Class A scholarship. •
VI. Education
Miss Tara Deodhar, B. Sc., Bombay University, has been awarded the scholar¬
ship given in honor of Mr. G. J. Watumull’s mother, Mrs. Hekandbai Jhamandas,
who is 95 years old and at present is living in Hyderabad Sind; India. Class A
scholarship. '
VII. Fisheries
Mr. H. D*. R. Iyengar, M. Sc., Central College, Bangalore, will do research in
fishery. Class B scholarship.
VIII. Special scholarships awarded to Sind, the Province from which Mr. Watumull
comes
(a) Mr. M. I. Gurbaxani, B. Sc., Bombay University, at present doing research
in the department of biochemistry in the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
He will specialize in sanitation. Class A scholarship.
(b) Mr. M. K. Hingorani, B. Sc., Bombay University, assistant mycologist at
the Agricultural Research Station, Dokri, Sind, will study mycology and plant
pathology. Class A scholarship.
Alternates have been selected for each of the scholarships in the event any of
the winners are unable to accept.
The foundation is arranging for the admission of its scholars into the American
universities and technological institutes offering the finest courses in the subjects
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 37
the scholars have chosen for research. It is expected that these students will
arrive in the United States in the early fall of 1945.
Ellen Watumull,
Chairman, Distributidn Committee.
[The New India, New York 2, N. Y., December 1944]
EDITORIAL
Today India’s economic and social situation is progressing rapidly. It is true
that India was backward, largely because the Muslims were not interested in
India’s welfare. They were satisfied under the British Raj because they knew
of nothing better, thanks to the Muslim mullahs or priests who kept the people
ignorant of the western knowledge by which the masses might attain greater
freedom and knowledge. It was only after the First World War, after the Khilafat
movement, after Amritsar, after 1920-21, that India returned to the'road from
which she had been driven when the East India Go. came to India some huu-
dreds of years before. India once more lived. •
India only now realized her mighty heritage and her mighty possibilities. The
India of Mohenjo-dao, of Asoka, of Akbar, of Shivaji, of the Lord Gautama
Buddha, of Gandhiji, of Tagore; of the Quaid-e-azam—“the great leader”—Mo¬
hammed Ali Jinnah—that India began to think of a future where she would be
playing her rightful part in the affairs of Asia and of the world. She would not
be the nonviolent granary, the role that the Boses hoped for her, and she would
not be the milk cow for foreign interests that others wanted her to be.
Today the Indian Army and India’s merchant navy is to be found on all the
"battle fronts of this global war. Not only French and Dutch and British and
other foreign uniforms are to be seen on the streets of New York and other major
American towns today, but India’s flag flies as high as all others, India’s uniforms
are as much represented as others, and Indian seamen regularly bring Indian
ships and Indian war materials into our ports here in the United States. Despite
the verbal smokescreens thrown up by some of our students and lecturers here,
India is a part of the world, India is a part of the war effort, and India is a member
of the United Nations. The Germans and the Axis have found out that the 2,000,000
Indian soldiers under arms are no dream and they have also found out that our
60,000 merchant marine men are very much alive.
Still we find that the Indian national is unrecognized and unwanted in many
parts of the world. While'it is true that India will some day compel other nations
to recognize her for the great nation that she is, India today still must speak in a
soft voice, and often even through leaders in whom we cannot always have much
faith. While the people think in terms of the nation many of these leaders, in
the community here as well as in India herself, think in terms of themselves first
and of the people last. As I have said before, we need fighting leaders, not talking
and scribbling leaders, military men—not book writers, if we are to escape from
this swamp and attain the recognition, at home and abroad, that is due us.
We. must not only talk therefore, we must fight for our rights.
Our Indian brothers have died for the United Nations in Burma, in north
Africa, in Italy, in the deep waters of all the oceans—died willingly and gladly
in order that democracy should really triumph. But here in the United States,
while Chinese are now freed from the stigma of exclusion, while Filipinos are
now also to be recognized—we Indians, we Indian nationals, who lost our natural¬
ization privileges in 1924, are still barred; we are still unwanted. Why? We are
living human beings.
We are not part of any postwar world problem. We are living today and we
have been living, excluded and unwanted, for the past 20 years.
The subject of our exclusion is not a classroom subject; it doesn’t belong in
textbooks; it belongs in our homes, in our hearts, in our lives. Exclusion has
meant broken homes, it has meant father being separated from son, mother from
child, husband from wife. It has meant a life of fear for those who hoped, despite
everything, that America was not only an immigration inspector waiting to catch
them, but that America was really and truly the haven of the oppressed that they
had always dreamed, and that America was truly the Goddess of Liberty welcoming
them to her shores with outstetched arms.
Which America shall conquer? The America of reaction? The America of
isolationism? The America of exclusion? Or the America that is the inspira¬
tion of the world today—the America of Eisenhower, the America of the late
38 PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
Wendell Willkie, the America of Henry Wallace, the America of our great Presi-
ident, Franklin Delano Roosevelt?
Mubarek Ah Khan.
A List of Supporters of Indian Naturalization Bill Pending Before
Congress now, Namely, Governors, Mayors, Religious Leaders, and
Prominent People, Endorsing Petition for Citizenship Rights for
Natives of India Residing in the United States
Governor Lehman, former Governor of New York.
Mayor LaGuardia, of New York.
Hon. Sydney P. Osborne, of Arizona. i
Father John M. Cooper, dean of Catholic University and president of Anthropo¬
logical Society of America.
Dr. Harry L. Schapiro, associated curator of American Museum of Natural
History of New York.
Gov. A. Harrimore, State of New Jersey.
Gov. Harold G. Hoffman.
Gov. Charles Edison.
Richard P. Reading, mayor of Detroit, Mich.
Rev. E. J. Flanagan, founder of Boys Town, Nebr.
Angelo J. Rossi, mayor of San Francisco.
Culbert L. Olson, Governor of California.
W. B. Hogan, city hall manager, Phoenix, Ariz.
Harry M. Moore, Phoenix, Ariz.
Dan B. Butler, mayor of city of Omaha, Nebr.
R. T. Jones, Governor, Phoenix, Ariz.
L. D. Dickinson, Governor of Michigan.
Mayor Kelly, Chicago, Ill.
M. J. Dean, city manager, Sacramento, Calif.
Tom B. Butler, mayor of Sacramento, Calif.
John H. Fallen, Marysville, Calif., city councilman.
F. A. Hanan, mayor of Fresno, Calif.
C. T. Thaw, mayor of Hollywood, Calif.
Norton Ambidero, president, Brooklyn Doctors Hospital, New York.
Nelli Comas, Young Men’s Christian Association, Sacramento, Calif.
Robert W. Patton, mayor of El Centro, Calif.
Local Union CIO 1733, State of New Jersey.
The following newspapers: Washington Pbst; East Side News; New York
City; New York Times; World-Herald, Omaha, Nebr.; Arizona Gazette and
Republic; Sacramento Bee; Fresno Bee; Sacramento Union; Jersey Journal;
Jersey Union; Jersey Evening News; Journal American; New York Herald
Tribune; Imperial "Valley Evening News; Bombay Chronicle, Bombay, India.
Wholehearted support of Dr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, president of the All
India Muslim League and leader of 90,000,000 muslims in India. *^j
Favorable support by the Government of India, 20 Agbar Road, New Delhi,
India.
Support of Hon. Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon visited the United States in 1941
as India’s High Commissioner; also endorsed the pending legislation for Indian
citizenship rights.
Sir Girja Shanka Bajpai, Minister Plenipotentiary and Agent General for
India to the United States of America.
Including support of 58,000 Americans.
State of California
governor’s office
, Sacramento, July 19, 1939.
Mr. Mubarek Alt Khan,
President, India Welfare League, Inc.,
New York City, N. Y. t
Dear Mr. Khan: I have at hand your letter of July 15 in which you request
that I meet with you during the latter part of August and that I express my views
on H. R. 7110.
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 39
I am pleased to inform you that I approve of this measure as introduced in the
House of Representatives by Congressman Lesinski, and I hope for its adoption
by the Members of the National Congress. I shall be happy to so express my¬
self to the Representatives of the State of California who may make inquiry of me.
I regret that I shall be absent from my office during the latter part of August
and early September, due to previous commitments. If, at any other time, you
visit our State, I shall be delighted to meet and talk with you.
Cordially yours,
Culbert L. Olson,
Governor of California,
City of Phoenix
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Phoenix, Ariz., September 5, 1939.
Mr. Mubarek Ali Khan,
President, India Welfare League, Inc., '
New York City, N. Y.
Dear Mr. Khan: I want you to know that I appreciate the visit paid me by
the Good Will Commission of the India Welfare League.
I am heartily in favor of an amendment of our Nation’s naturalization laws
so as to enable the conferring of citizenship upon natives of India who came here
prior to July 1, 1924. Most of these have reared families and have children
attending our schools, and have every intention of residing in our country perma¬
nently. Under these circumstances I believe in all fairness and justice they
should be privileged to enjoy the rights of citizenship through naturalization as
do people from other countries.
Assuring you of my full sympathies with the movement sponsored by the League
and you, I am, with all good wishes for its success.
Sincerely yours,
Walter J. Thalheimer,
. Mayor of Phoenix,
Malabar Hill, August 27, 1941.
Mubarek Ali Khan, Esq.,
President, India Welfare League, Inc.,
New York, N. Y’.
Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of the 18th of July 1941 and thank
you very much indeed for your sympathy for and appreciation of the work that
the All-Indian Muslim League has done and is doing. I am sending you by
separate parcel all the literature that is available and which might be useful to
you.
As regards the efforts of the India Welfare League for the betterment of the
Indians and particularly of the Musalmans, I need hardly say that you have our
warm sympathies and support in your struggle for acquiring the status of full
fledged American citizens.
Wishing you all success.
Yours faithfully,
Mahmmed Ali Jinnah.
Office of the Secretary of State, State House,
Phoenix, Ariz., October 16, 1940.
Mr. Mubarek Ali Khan,
President, India Welfare League, Inc.,
New York City, N. Y.
Dear Mr. Khan: I very much appreciate the honor of having you call upon
me in your capacity as president of the India Welfare League.
It is my hope that Congress will pass H. R. 1624 and S. 236 or legislation similar
to it, giving citizenship rights to approximately 3,000 natives of India who entered
the United States prior to July 1, 1924.
Yours very sincerely,
Harry M. Moore, Secretary of State,
40
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED
Department of State,
Washington, March 27, 197+1.
Mubarek Ali Khan,
President, India Welfare League, Inc.,
New York, N. Y.
My Dear Ali Khan: I have received your letter of March 11, 1941, requesting:
my support for the passage of a bill by Congress which would permit the naturali¬
zation as citizens of the United States of natives of India who have resided in this
country continuously for a period of 20 years.
After carefully considering your letter and the enclosures thereto, I am con¬
strained to say that it has long been the opinion of the Department that the
matter of the classes of persons who may become naturalized as citizens of the
United States is one which should be determined primarily by the legislative
body. In accordance with such opinion I and my predecessors have considered
that it would be inappropriate to express an opinion in such a matter. I may
add, moreover, that the administration of the naturalization laws of the United
States does not come within the scope of the duties of this Department.
Sincerely yours,
i Sumner Welles, Acting Secretary.
India Office,
Whitehall, S. W. I., May 31, 1944.
Mubarek Ali Khan, Esq.,
India Welfare League, New York, N. Y.
Dear Mr. Mubarek Ali Khan: Thank you for your letter of May 17. I was
very glad to get all the news from you and to recall my visit to America.
I hope I am not divulging in official secrets when I tell you that the Government
of India in Delhi are doing all they can to help our countrymen in the United
States of America with regard to the matters you mention in your letter. Sir
Girja Shankar Bajpai, who is our representative in Washington, is doing his utmost
to serve his country and his countrymen. If you ever happen to go there you must-
call on him—he is an old friend of mine and you will like him.
Yours sincerely,
, The Honorable Malik Sir Firoz Khan Noon,
' K. C. S. I., K. C. I. E., India’s Representative on the War .Cabinet.
Washington, D. C., June 29, 1944-
Mr. Mubarek Ali Khan,
India Welfare League, New York, N.Y.
My Dear Mr. Mubarek Ali: Very many thanks for your letter of the 27th
of June. I need hardly say that I am in full sympathy with the bills now before
Congress and shall give them whatever support I properly can. I was also
delighted to see the copy of Sir Firoz Noon’s letter to you which you were good,
enough to forward to me. With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Sir Girja Shankha Bajpai,
Minister Plenipotentiary and Agent General for India to the United States.
State of New Jersey,
Unemployment Compensation Commission, â– 
Trenton, N. J., June 2, 1939.
Mr. Mubarek Ali Khan,
President, India Welfare League, Inc.
New York City, N. Y.
Dear Mr. Khan: Confirming telephone conversation which one of the assist¬
ants in my office had with you this afternoon. I regret exceedingly that it is
impossible for me to meet with your delegation tomorrow morning. Sometime
ago I committed myself for our-of-town engagements and it is impossible for mo
to spend any time in Trenton tomorrow.
Perhaps at some later date I may be able to meet with your people for a dis¬
cussion of their problems. 1
Very sincerely,
Harold G. Hoffman.
PERMIT RESIDENTS FROM INDIA TO BE NATURALIZED 41
[The New India, vol. 2, No. 1, September-October 19421
Unite Against Japan
SPEECH OP MUBAREK ALI KHAN ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1942 "
This is not a Hindu meeting and this is not a Moslem meeting. This an Indian
meeting—a meeting in the name of my people, the people of India.
Pei'haps because I am not a lecturer and because I am not a very educated
man—I am a worker after all, like all of us here—I can't always understand our
great leaders in India. The entire world is in danger—even the United States is
in danger—but they back home continue to fight each other instead of fighting
the Japanese. These men who are the leaders of 400,000,000 people—are they
fighting each other in the interests of the national welfare, or do they fight from a
blindness and an inability to see the writing on the wall?
We know that we have many things to settle with England some day—but
I can’t see how India’s leaders are going to protect India today without the-
cooperation of England. If my enemy and I are both threatened by a greater
and mutual enemy—I am not going to continue fighting my weaker foe. If I
want to live—if he wants to live—we must in our own interest combine to fight
the enemy that menaces us both—and it is not impossible that out of that coopera¬
tion against a common foe will come an understanding that wall finally settle our
own differences. Irrespective of wdiether that does happen, the fact remains,
however, that there is a very old proverb that has always been true and will always
be true—“Divided we fall, united we stand.” When I remember the many
Japanese leaders wrhom I heard in Japan in 1912—when I think of what wre know
has happened since then, I wish my country’s leaders at home—your leaders too—
wrould remember that proverb.
It is true, as I have said, that w*e in India have been oppressed under the British
Raj for the last 200 years—but this is a time w'hen wre in India have tw*o choices
offered to us—good evil and bad evil. Under the good evil we have at least
lived. Under the other—we. know that our people would never again have a
decent piece of bread or plate of rice. My sisters and your sisters, my family and
your families, would be torn from their homes and their land. We who have
lived in villages and towns our fathers founded hundreds and hundreds of years
ago, would see our people homeless and destitute. The traditions and the rights
that are left to us would vanish. The sound of Brahmin priest chanting or of our
owrn calling us to prayer would be gone writh the wdnd. Japanese men wrould sit
in your fathers’ villages—Japanese women would W'ork where your mothers
worked—Japanese children would play where you and you once played—and your
people would be the slaves of the conquerors.
I don’t believe in talking to the Japanese—I don’t believe in trying to negotiate
with them. I am a Moslem and a believer and supporter of the Moslem League
and I believe that our only chance of salvation lies in our uniting and cooperating
writh the United Nations. We must fight for victory—fight for the lives of our
people; after victory we will talk about freedom.
Phoenix, Ariz., April 12, 1945.
Senator Richard B. Russell,
Senate Building, Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator Russell: Recently Mr. Mubarek Ali Khan visited me and’,
explained bill S. 236 to me.
After his explanation I was satisfied that this bill should be passed and woulcL
favor it.
Very truly yours,
J. R. Fleming, Mayor.
Senator Maybank. The meeting is now adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 11:15 a. m., the conjmittee adjourned.)
X