{"id":1219,"date":"2021-04-28T07:39:18","date_gmt":"2021-04-27T21:39:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/chinozhistory.org\/?page_id=1219"},"modified":"2021-05-02T06:56:16","modified_gmt":"2021-05-01T20:56:16","slug":"debating-white-australia","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/chinozhistory.org\/index.php\/debating-white-australia\/","title":{"rendered":"Debating White Australia"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\"Inform\"<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the \u201cIndian Community, resident in Victoria\u201d, thought [1]<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 1901, a group of \u201cBritish Indian subjects\u201d living in Fitzroy, Melbourne at the time the Immigration Restriction Act was being debated in the Federal Parliament then located in Melbourne, wrote to the Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, MP. This letter perfectly comprehends the\u00a0debate<\/a>\u00a0held between the Colonial Secretary and the Australian colonial premiers only a few years previously and underlines the compromises and hypocrisy that was the outcome of this meeting. Claiming to represent \u201cthe Indian Community, resident in Victoria\u201d the writers requested the Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain to \u201clend your assistance in a matter which is of vital importance to our welfare.\u201d The matter of vital importance was of course the possibility that the new immigration restrictions would restrict people such as themselves from coming to Australia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The writers, Walite Shah and ten others went right to the heart of the matter by asking:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is the difference between an Indian and any other member of the British nation?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

They followed this up by outlining a history of membership and loyalty to the British that would have been well known to the recipient. Chamberlain would have been \u201cwell aware\u201d that Indians had been \u201cmembers of the nation and under British rule\u201d for \u201cthe whole of the past century\u201d. Perhaps laying it on a bit thick, Walite Shah and his associates added that they were \u201cproud to be under the wise and merciful rule\u201d of the British because they knew that \u201cthere is no other in the world which is so good\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having staked their claim, the representatives of the Indian residents of Victoria then asked why \u201cour own government\u201d would \u201cwish to separate us from herself\u201d and put \u201cus as strangers with the outside nations of the world\u201d. For these proud members of the British nation it was \u201cvery painful\u201d to be \u201cput along with the Chinese\u201d who they felt (writing just after the events of the Boxer Rebellion), were a \u201cdefeated and dying race\u201d. The writers claimed that before the introduction of this proposed immigration restriction, we considered \u201courselves\u201d, and \u201cespecially those who do the bulk of the fighting of the Empire\u201d, as \u201call people under British rule\u201d and as \u201cpart of the British nation\u201d. The writers now pleading that it seems \u201cwe are separated by the will of the British Government\u201d from \u201cthe nation\u201d while the actions of the \u201cCommonwealth Government\u201d are \u201cputting us amongst the outside peoples of the world\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At this point Walite Shah and his fellows asked:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who has the right to call Indian people \u201coutsiders\u201d?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The letter emphasises again that Indians are \u201cvaluable subjects of the British Government\u201d, as proven by the desire of Russia to \u201cput her teeth on India\u201d and its inability to do so because the Indian people are \u201cobedient and faithful\u201d, as well as the willingness of many Indian subjects to \u201cgive their blood\u201d and \u201cif necessary, to die for the Empire, including against the Chinese. The recent preparedness of \u201cIndian subjects of the King, in Victoria\u201d to volunteer for service in the Boer War after the defeat of the Battle of Colenso is specifically cited as an example of the inclusiveness within the \u201cBritish nation\u201d the writers wish to prove.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the willingness of Indian subjects to serve the British, the writers state they are \u201cgreatly pained\u201d by \u201cso much talk of a white Australia\u201d. Having \u201cdark-coloured skin\u201d is not a reason for being \u201ccast off and put along side Chinese and Japanese\u201d while outside nations such as \u201cGermans, Russians, French, Italians\u201d are not mentioned. Once more a pointed question is asked:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do the Members of Parliament consider the justice of this side of the question?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The willingness of the Indian people to fight for what are the quarrels of \u201cthe British Government with someone else\u201d are again asserted and seen as part of a bargain where it was \u201calways understood that we were members of and helping the British Nation\u201d. The remorselessly logical questions continue:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we are members of the British nation, then why should we be denied equal rights with any other members of the same? Other members of the British nation can go wherever they like and do whatever they please within the limits of the British dominion; so should this right be denied us? Is it just that the bargain be all one-sided?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This appeal to the Colonial Secretary ends with an all too sharp analogy of a family where one brother it appears \u201cis not so handsome as the others\u201d but in every way endeavours to \u201cplease his father\u201d only to find his brothers \u201cthrough some motive which has the appearance of family jealousy\u201d do not \u201clike him to come into their homes\u201d while they \u201ckeep the right to go and do whatever they like in his house\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The letter ends stating that the writers are \u201canxious to know how it is that we who are members of the British nation are denied equal rights\u201d and with masterly understatement:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We do not think this is fair, although the Government seem to.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only reply we have apparently to this appeal on behalf of the equality of subjects of the British Empire is a letter appended to the copy sent onto the Australian Governor-General and passed by him to the Australian Prime Minister.[2] The Colonial Secretary had himself argued, abet weakly, the cause of British Indian subjects at the\u00a0Imperial Conference of 1897<\/a>, and had urged the Australian colonies to adopt the Educational Test now incorporated into the just passed Immigration Restriction Act. None of this prevented Chamberlain, with an astonishing lack of shame only a member of the British ruling class it seems could manage, from asserting that the legislation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 does not appear to cast any reflection upon any class of His Majesty\u2019s subjects.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Chamberlain the well put and sincere questions contained in the appeal, similar to, yet more strongly asserted than his own, were apparently so indisputable, that these arguments of His Majesty\u2019s \u201cIndian residents in Victoria\u201d could only be dismissed by ignoring them in the grand fashion of imperial hypocrisy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[1]NAA: A8, 1902\/182\/1, Walite Shah, et al., to Joseph Chamberlain, 25 October 1901.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]NAA: A8, 1902\/182\/1, Joseph Chamberlain to Lord Hopetoun, 24 December 1901.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What the \u201cIndian Community, resident in Victoria\u201d, thought [1] In 1901, a group of \u201cBritish Indian subjects\u201d living in Fitzroy, Melbourne at the time the Immigration Restriction Act was being debated in the Federal Parliament then located in Melbourne, wrote to the Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, MP. This letter perfectly comprehends the\u00a0debate\u00a0held between the Colonial … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Debating White Australia”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1219","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/chinozhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1219","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/chinozhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/chinozhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chinozhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/chinozhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1219"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/chinozhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1219\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1303,"href":"https:\/\/chinozhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1219\/revisions\/1303"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/chinozhistory.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}