THE INDO.

;BURMA
IMMIGRATION- AGREEMENt:
,

,~

-'if

A NATION IN REVOLT.
' :1'

"

!~"

"An Unhappy Agree~ent," "Panicky and Penal,"" Sprung up;n

a.fl, 'Urisusp~cting P~blic," "A~

underserved: Slur\>oth' on India

'"
' and Burma," "A Brutal Retp.inder th,at both India and ~urma
.

.".

.'-'';:'"

are .under the British H:~el," "It breaks every~aho~ of Inte~-..,

.'

national Propriety," "It l)e~omes les~ defe~sible.,..in that an

, " Indian instead
~

"

?f an.
:'; .,'

the

'.

.....,

<, ......

' \ "

*"

Rngli$hman, was sent to negotiate '

' .- .?

, '

:~

Agreeme~t:]/~~ ';~~ " old

and familiar

tr~ck,

"-

).

c'
(

, c:-",J

tWat of putting up 'aq Indian to perf6rm a

~

'
bl e "t'as k"
'
f'" IS
.
,d
. IsfJreea
, , ." Th e A greemen
an In~~lt to the 'whole Nation~"
"i :"

"

tv\'F~520;\2040959\

'

.~ .

\ND
1941.

...

.:'

, -

Sectk)o ,__
' _

--~--

. Bo, k No ..._ _ _ _ __

Accessicm No ______

ti>1:._~---

CON

The Burma Government Resolution appointing- the Baxter Commission

Letter dated the 9th August, 1939, from the Federation of Indian
Chambers of Commerce and Industry to the Government ()f India
The Reply of the Government of India dated 16th September, 1939, to
the Letter of the Fer,eration of Indian Chambers of Commerce and
Industry

Extract from the statement of Policy made by the Hon'ble U Saw, Premier
of Burma on the subject of Immigration into Burma

The Hon'ble U Saw's interview in the" Hindu" dated 13th Febmary, 1941
regarding Indian Immigration into Burma, ...
The Government of ~ndia Press Communique of 10th June, 1941, announcing the appointment of Bajpai Delegation to Burma

10

Sir Girja Shanker Bajpai's intervi~w at Calcutta, dated the 12th June, 1941,
regarding the proposed talks being "Exploratory"

1.2

Inaugural Speech of the Hon'ble U S~'w, the BUrma Premier, opening the
Indo-Burma Immigration Talks, on the 18th June, 1941

14

Reply to the Speech of the Bm'ma Premier by Sir Girja Shanker Bajpai,
Leader of the Indian Delegation

18

(In vivid contrast please see the ,'eply made by Dr. Tu Yuen Tan on behalf of the
Chinese Delegation to the speech of the Burma Pt'emie1" opening the
Sino-Bm'ma ImmigraUon Talks, on page
197).
- - -- - --._-- - --- . - - - ~

-- ---- -_

_----_ ._- . ..-- - . --- - --

....

- - . _---

--_._- --- -- _._

'-. -' ~- --- - ..,-- - - .

Joint Statement by the Government of India and the Government of Burma

regarding the Agreement reached

20

The Text of the U Saw-Bajpai Agreement

22

lb. Ratilal Desai, one of the two Assessors with the Baxter Commission,
explains his position that he, as an Assessor, was not consulted while
the Chapter on recommendations was prepared

31

Telegram dated 2&th July, 1941, by the Ad Hoc Committee of Burma

Indians reg'arding New and Staggering Terms of the ' Agreement

<-

RU

il~rmlillir
B02853906K

39

11

Page.
Proceeding's of the All Parties' Public 1\'Ieeting-, held in Madras on 28th
July, 1941, to protest against the U Saw-Bajpai Agreement

33

"Memorial presented to the Viceroy by the Oommittee appointed by the

All Parties' Public Meeting of 28th July, 1941, held at Madras

59

The lIuslim League Working Oommittee Resolution condemning the

U Saw-Bajpai Agreement

73

Joint Representation regarding the U Saw-Bajpai Agreement made by

The Federation of Indian Ohambers of Oommerce and Industry, the
Oommittee of the All Parties' Meeting- held at Madras and the Imperial
Indian Citizenship Association to the Government of India

74

Annextures to the a.bove Memorandum being' Oertain assurances and pledges

given in the Part five of the Government of Burma Act, the Report of
the Sub-Oommittee No. 4 relating to Burm~ The First Round Table
Oonference etc.

94

Note.-For fuller particulars of certain Pledges and Assurances please refer

to pages 183 to 190 as also the Appendix, page 1H9.
The Resolution passed in the Bengal Oouncil against the U Saw-Bajpai
AgTeement

102

Extract from the Proceedings of the Bengal Legislative Assembly, 2nd

September, 1941, on the Special }Iotion of Mr. Abdur Rahman
Siddiqui, 1\f.L.A. (Muslim Ohamber of Oommerce) on fhe Indo-Burma
Immigration Agreement

104:

Procedings of the Oalcutta Oitizens' Protest Meeting against the U SawBajIPai Agi'eemenr ll.eld-on 8th-September, 1-9-41,in--theBtHmeilHaU
of the Oorporation of Oalcutta ...
131
'fhe Resolution protesting against the U Saw-Bajpai Agreement by the
Working Oommittee of the Indian Overseas Oentral Association, New
Delhi, 16th September, 1941

153

The Resolution condemning the U Saw-Bajpai Agreement passed by the

General Body Meeting of the Provincial Federation of Trade Unions,
Madras, held on 20th August, 1941, in Gokhale Hall, Madras

155

lIahatma Gandhi on the Agreement

157

f.

i,

III

Page.
]tlemorandum on behalf of the Immigration Committee of the Burma Indian
Chamber of Commerce, the Burma Indian Association and the
Nattukottai Chettiars' Association, Rangoon
163
l\:Iemorandum submitted by the Burma Indian Delegation to the Standing
Emigration Committee at Sbnla on 7th October, 1941

175

Assurances given both inside and outside Parliament that there shall be no
restrictions on the free entry of Indians in general into Burma

183

Assurances given during the time of the lndo-Burma Trade Talks that the
Political and Economic Status of Indians in Burma will be maintained
in the Future as in the Past
190
Opinion of Sir Aladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, Advocate General of Madras, on
certain legal aspects of the Agreement

191

How the Chinese Delegation Proceeded f01' a similar Immigration Agreement (in contrast with the Speech of Sir Girja Shanker Bajpai on
page 18)
..
..

197

APPENDIX
Relevant Sections of the Government of Burma Act (1935)
Relevant Clauses of the Instrument of Instrnctions issued
Governor of Burma

199
to

the

208.

FOREWORD.
"Knowledge is strength". I am, therefore, publishing, thissel'ies
of documents in connection with the so called ludo-Burma "Agreement", with a view to inform all those concerned, and particularly
the members of the Government of India and of the Indian Legislatures, and of the Burma Government and Burma Legislatures, not
only of the strong feeling in India on this matter, but also of the
powerful, and in my judgment, irresistible arguments against the
acccptance ot this "Agreement" by the Government of India, if it is
at all to act reasonably and on behalf of the people of India-and
of Indians in Burma.
I lay stress on the word "agreement" because without an
agreement by the Government of India, there can be no Order-in..,
Council embodying the terms of this Agreement. Section 138 of the
Government of Burma Act provides for the issue of an Order-inCouncil by His Majesty for restricting Im.migration into Burma from
India, for a specified period, the restrictions to be mutually agreed
between the Governor of Burma-in-Oouncil and the Governor-General
of India in Council, or in default, by agreement prescribed by the
Secretary of State. Such an Order-in-Council is now in force, and
will lapse on the 31st :l\1arch 1942. The proviso to the above section
provides that such order maybe varied by a subsequent Order-inCouncil, in such manner as appears to His Majesty necessary to give
-BffB_ct__tfLallY agreemflnt_~hatJtehalf, after. the_jm!!o~ition. oC this_
part of the Act, by the Governor of Burma with the assent of the
Governor-General of India or the Governor-General of India in
Oouncil. The important point I want to make in this introduction
is that in default of assent by the Governor-General or the Governor
General of India in Oouncil, no Order in Oouncil can be passed after
the lapse of the present Order-in-Council. Therefore it is upto the
Governor-General or the Governor-General of India in Council to
take note of the public feeling, and of the sound arguments against
the very fundamental basis and against several of the prOVISIons
of the Agreement, before they assent to this Agreement. A.lthough

VI

the Governor-General of India is mentioned in this proviso, 1-'

presume that the Governor-General of India in Council alone
acts in such matters; indeed that is my information.
It is claimed that, for the first time, the Governor-General of
India in Council has a non-official majority. It is a fact. It is
therefore the duty of the Indian non-official members of the Council to
say that they are no parties to this agreement. Thank God, there is no
Hindu-Muslim question here, and I hope, therefore, that the Indian nonofficial members of the Governor-General's Executive Council will definitely
say that they would rather have no agreement than this agreement.

If they say so, they will find the entire public opinion of India and
Indians in Burma behind them.

We have all along been assured that there shall be no rest'rictions on the right qffree ent1'Y qf Indians in general into Burma, an
assurance which Indians ha've eartr~ed on grounds qf equity and
Justice as 'Well as qf se?~vice rendered to Burma. As a matter qffact
there should be no restrictions in the future as in the past, on the
free rnovements of Indians between India and B~trma, ivhether
residing in Burrna to-day Q1' 'Whether residing in India now, except
qf those who come under' the category qf ~tnskilled ~vorker's. I need
not add that no Govm'nment qf India would clesire to. du,mp Indian
labou?' in B'LLrma.
---In---answer to- Ollr-various-protests -wBc a,-re--t6d-that I-ndiatlB--a:l"e
in a very large number in Burma, and the economic future of the
Burmese is sought to be affected by Indians staying there in large
numbers, and by continued unrestricted Indian Immigration. I
refer the readers of these documents to the findings of the Baxter
Commission, which completely disprove these statements.
I need not specify the other objections to the Agreement.
I am glad the operation of agTeement has been suspended. The
whole question sh0ulc1 now be re-examined. I appeal to the Indians
in Burma not to yield to panic. Right is Right and :Might can

vu
never conquer Right. I agree that Burma should have the right
and has the right to choose the future composition of its population,
but the Burmese, I hope, will not forget that India and Burma were
one country till only the other day, that Indian labour and capital
have helped to develop Burma, and that long before the British came
on the scene, India and Burma had strong cultural and other
relations, which are bound to continue in the future also. J\tIoreover
no such restrictions are imposed on Britistre:rs or other foreingers
entering Burma.
We are often told that, if tbere is no Agreement, the situation
will be worse than it may be with an Agreement. I respectfully
dissent. I feel that, if there is no agreement now, a good agreement
luay come later. I have sufficient faith in human nature, Burmese
and Indian. But, apart from that I think the Indo-Burmese
Trade Talks were concluded with the distinct assurance tbat, if.
India made trade concessions in favour of Burma, as she did in
that Agreement, tbe political and economie status of Indians in
BLlrma will not only be duly safeguarded but will be maintained. In any future Trade Talks, we can make thjs question
part and pa.rcel of those talks. Moreover, if we agree to an unsatisfactory agreement, that is to say, the Government, acting on behalf
of the people of India do so, we lose the right of constitutional
agitation for a proper agreement at the proper time. Above all,
in the absence of a satisfactory agreement, Indians can faH back on the
pro1edion gi-v-en to them, under Part V of the Government of Burma
Act, and in this connection, I would invite the attention of the
readers of these documents to the opinions of emin.ent lawyers of
B-)mbay and of Madras given in the following pages. These lawyers have come to the conclusion that the Burmese Legislature
cannot impose any restrictions on the right of a British Indian
subject or a subject of an Indjan state, now residing in Burma, to
I'etuI'n to Burma, whether he is carrying on any occupation, trade
business or'profession or whether he holds a public office or whether
he holds property, after leaving Burma temporarily for a holiday or
for any other purpo.c::p, Therefore Indians should rather stand on

Vlll

their legal, constitutional and other rights than agree to an unsatisfactory agreement.
These documents are being published in the hope that the Indian
Legislature will be satisfied that this agreement is completely unsatisfactory, and therefore entirely unacceptable, that this agreement ought
not to be ratified by the Government of India and that if it is not
ratified, there is ample scope for a far better agreement, which would
not sacrifice the fundamental rights of Indians as the present Ageement
does, and that in any case, without an agreement, the position of Indians in
Burma cannot be worse, hut on the other hand, will in due time he mucD
hetter. I also hope that the lVlembers of the Government of India

will look at these documents, read them carefully and stay their
hand. Above all, may I also venture to express the hope that the
:Members of the Burma Government and of the Burma Legislature
'will also co-operate in a spirit of goodwill 1 We wish Burma well. We
wish Burma and India to be' friends. Let not the Burmese, even unconsciously, be parties to allow Burma to become the happy hunting ground of
every foreigner by seeking to keep out of their country their own brethren
in culture, in outlook, and even in economic interests.

S. SATYA1\1URTI
P ff'esident,
Indian Overseas Central Association,
New Delhi. '

THE STORY IN BRIEF OF A "THRICE CONDEMNED" AGREEMENT

Prologue to a Betrayal.

i>

As early as the First Round Table Oonference, when the Oonference Sub-Oommittee No. 4' was deliberating the relations with
Burma, it had unequivocally stated, that "Sub-Oommittee also
especially stress the importance of there being no discrimination as
regards Indians entering Burma."
This assurance was frequently repeated during various stages
which led finally to the enactment of the Government Burma Act
(1935), both inside and outside Parliament, by responsible
speakers like EarlWinterton, Sir 'rhomas Inskip, Mr. Butler, etc., all
reiterating the Principle that there were to be no restrictions on the
movements of Indians III general between Burma and India in the
future as in the past.
The detailed account of similar pledges and assurances will be
found in the body of this small volume, and will amply illustrate the
hideousness of the betrayal perpetrated on the unsuspecting Indian
nation by the U Saw -Bajpai Agreement, officially described as
the Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement.
Baxter Commission report-Assessors' views not includedrecommendations not even shown to them.
The scope of enquiry by the Baxter Oommission, consisting of
Mr. Baxter and two assessors, one of whom was Mr. Ratilal Desai,
was to report on the volume of Indian immigration and to ascertain
the extent to which it was seasonal and temporary 6r permanent.
It was further to report as to what occupations Indians were mainly
employed in, and the extent of employment or unemployment.and
whether there was any displacement of Burmans by Indians, and to
state "whether in the light if the statistics obtained wnd other

1"elevant factors any system of equating the supply

unskilled labour to Burma (requirements is needed.

of Indian

x
The findings of the Baxter Commission were on the sole respon.
sibility of 1XIr. Baxter, as stated by himself, and one out of the two
assessors to the Commission, namely :1\1r. Ratilal Desai, has made
the following statement, viz: "After the whole enquiry was over,
and when only the 10th and the 11th Chapters - the last relating to
Mr. Baxter's recommendations, were to be considered, 1\1r. Baxter
wrote to me that the 11th chapter (which ,contained his recommen~
dations) Was (evidently under Orders from the Government of
Burma) confidential and the Assessors were not consulted."

Indian Apprehensions - Government's Assurance.

Getting apprehensive by the rather wide terms of reference laid

down for the Baxter Commission, the Federation of Indian ('~hambers
of Commerce and Industry addressed a communication, dated 9th
August, 1939 to the Government of India, pointing out, inter alia
that" Both the Royal Commission on Labour in India and Braund's
Riot Inquiry Committee had, however, the immigration of unskilled
labour in their mind " and requesting the India Government to represent to the Burma Government to restrict the scope of Baxter
Commission enquiry to the problem of Indian immigrant labour only.
<

The Government of India, in their reply of the 16th September,

1939, to the above, said that they "had already reserved to themselves the right to consider, criticise or resist, any proposals, that may
be formulated on the basis of the Commission's findings".
The Burma Premier also allays apprehensions.

,1\'leantime the Hon'ble U Saw, the Premier of Burma, who had

declared his policy on Immigration, on 20th September 1940, in the
Burma Legislature, gave an interview to the Indian Press, in
February, 1941, and remarked -that some kind qf (regulation cif inuni~
gration qf Indian unskilled lab01tr seen~ed necessary and held out
an assul;ance in the following terms: "I can assure India howevB1~,
that, whatever be our decision rega1'cling immig1~ation qf IndiaT/,s,
there ~vill be no discrimination against I ndicms, cmd as fa?' as,

Indians resident and settled in Burma are concerned, they will be .

entitled to every right and privilege enJoyed by the sons of the soil".

Bajpai Delegation and its avowed ostensible mission.

On 10th June 1941, the

Government of India announced the

personnel of the Indian Delegation to Burma. Sir Girjashanker
Bajpai was. the sole delegate with three official advisers. The
Government of India did not include even one non.,-official Indian
adviser like the Government of Burma, in appointing the Baxter
Commission. Perhaps they believed with Premier U Saw, that
Sir Girj ashanker was the "Best Negotiator in the vVorld"
. for them.
En route to Burma, Sir Girjashankergave a press interview in
Calcutta, on 12th June 1941 and said that the present negotiations
'were more or less of an exploratory nature, and it was their aim to
secure as complete an exchange of views as possible on the many
. complicated questions connected with Indian immigration "into Burma.
He also added that the Baxter Report's findings would undoubtedly
have a place in the discussions,- and admitted that sInce the Government of India's views on it had not yet been made known, it
would not be right to criticise the Report.
The Baxter Report was all along treated as a "Purdah" or
" Gosha " document, and it has been publicly stated, without the
statement being controverted, that even the members of the Standing
--EnilgTation- Committee--were nofsupplied with a- copy-ortn:at-report.---- -------- The story of the Assessor Mr. Ratilal Desai, as to how he was politely
shown the door when the final chapters of the Report were written,
has already been narrated above.
Bajpai Exchanges Compliments with U Saw.
Sir Girjashanker arrived in Rangoon and the Immigration Talks
opened with a speech by the Burma Premier, on 18th June, 1941.
The Indian Delegate' plenipotentiary,' also made a speech in reply.
cc The Government which I have the honour to represent today,"
I

I'.
..

said solicitous Sir Girja, "has only one' desire-::----th~desi'i'e to

ascertain ctnd comprehend the difficulties that1:mmigration from
India may be creating joryou, and help you, to the best qf thei1"
ability, to solve them."
Mark the words: Sir Girja evidently was not so solicitous to
help the Indians as to help the Government of Burma. It is
certainly not out of place here to transcribe a portion of' the speech
made by Dr. Tu Yuen Tan, on behalf of the Chinese Delegation for
the Sino-Burma Immigration Agreement Talks, only a few weeks
later. - "I wish to point out "said Dr. Tu Yuen Tan, "that the
National Government is keenly interested in the welfa1'e er! the
Chinese abroad, and so while taking into full consideration the views
and aims qf the-Burmese Govwf'n'fnent and people, we have to
protect the legitimate 'i-ights and inte'rests, as well as maintain
the status of the Chinese residents in Burma, in accordance with
treaty obligations between Great Britain and China." The contrast
is striking.
"?bile the Leader of the Chinese Delegation considered it his
first and supreme duty to protect" the legitimate rights and interests"
as well as to maintain " the status of the Chinese residents in
Burma," t be Indian Leader of the official Delegation from India
expressed his great concern "to ascertain and comprehend the
difficulties that immigration from India may be creating" for
___ , Burmans ..... N"otQnly has this striking contrast its own moral tale to
tell but it also signifies the tragedy that is enacted every day in this
country in the absence of a really national responsible Government.
Further comments are needless.
-~

-,-

---

---

---,

-----

---

-----

---,-

--

---

The Indo-Burma Agl'eement was duly reached, initialled and

eventually published.

A Nation in Revolt.
The pUblication of the Agreement was signalised with a storm'
of protest, reverberating throughout the length and breadth of India

XIII

and outside India. The Indians In Burma were amazed and

staggered, but of that anOll,
Unrelenting protests and uncomprOlIllsmg criticism poured
forth from the platform and the press. An all parties' protest
meeting was held in Madras, where the JUsticites, Congressmen,
Muslim Leaguers, noparty-men, all joined in the protest.
The
Federation of Indian Chambers and the Imperial Indian Citizenship
Association joined by the Madras All Parties' l\1eeting's Committee,
sent a weighty and claborate joint representation against the Agreement.
Bengal Council and Bengal Assembly passed resolutions
condemning the Agreement .. The Bengal :Ministry publicly stated
that the Bengal Government was not cOllsulted on the Agreement.
"Indian intere~ts have been badly let down" said Sir Mahomed
Usman, ex-Governor of Madras.
'.'We asked for bread, they came back and gave us a stone" said
Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan, ex Mayor and Leader of the Madras
Assembly, and added "Not the Burmese, mind you, but our
own men. I feel inclined to cry out 'you too Brutus ! ' "
"The European in Burma is a wanted man, and bitterness has
been created between the Indians and the Burmese as the Indians
today are unwa~ted in Burma" said :Mr. K. V. Naidu, Deputy
President of Madras Council.
-~.

- -

-,---

--

--~

"At a gathering in Burma," said Kumararajah Sir Muthia

Chettiar of Ohettinad "Sir Girjashanker Bajpa,ire~retted his inability
to disclose the terms of the Agreement, but assured his hearers that
he had not done anything prejudicial to the interests of Indians.
From those circumstances they were forced to conclude that such a
statement was an idle boast. It also demonst''lated hmv one person
was able to inflict incalculable inJury on a whole nation."
The Joint Representation, mentioned above, .gave full expression
to the universalfe,eling of keen disappointmental1d grave concern.

XIV

:NIr. Abdur Rahmal1 Siddiqui speaking in Calcutta, described the

AgTeement as a "betrayal unprecendented even in the annals of
Anglo Indian History,"and added that it "hade made us hang
down our heads in shame! ".
The Working Committee of the :Muslim League condemned the
AgTeement and spoke about the "the offence it has given to the selfrespect of the peoples of India".
Mahatma Gandhi in his statement on the agreement described
'ky and pena1""
I't as "An unhappy agreement""
; panIc
; sprung upon an
unsuspecting public"; "an undeserved slur both on India and Burma";
H a brutal reminder that both India and Burma are und~r the British
heel" ; "breaking every cannon of international propriety"; "an insult
to the whole Nation. "
The protests are still continuing and are as stormy as they
are unanimous in condemning the Agreement as entirely unacceptable
on fundamental principles.
Contrast the anguish of the soul of the .Nation, as depicted
above, with the self-complacency of Sir Girja Shanker who on the eve
of his departure for Burma stated with perfect sangfroid, as if nothing
was going to happen~ " Let there be mutually satisfactory agreement7first. Any agreement based on equity and justice will, I am
sure, satisfy Indian opinion. .Wish me well that our cause may sucj}eBJ1,__not~nr_my_sake,_bllt-for__lndia~s._~' .
The Agreement has been brought about by him, and as it
stands, it is universally condemned by book, by bell and by candle.
Even in a country inured to abject humiliations, 'there is' none so
humble, as to do it reverence! '
Burma Indians' Protest.
Le~

the Indians in Burma speak for themselves as to how their

feelings revolt against this Agreement. In the memorandum which /
they subnutted to the Governnlent of India, they stated-

xV

"the consensus of opinion among the members of the Ad Hoc

COIDluittee is that, if they had known all the terms as
published, they w:ould have had no hesitationin advising
breaking off of the Agreement".
Again in their representation to the Standing Emigration Committee
they made it clear that" if no agreement could be arrived at which would fully recognise
among others the above fundamental points the Government of India should be no party to any agreement and
should now make representations to the Secretary of State
that he should take no action in connection with the
promulgation of the Order-in-Oouncil intended to pring the
}\ greement into operation" .
The soul of India is in revolt against this Agreement. It is
acceptable to none, to no Indian in India and to 110 Indian in Burma.
Will the Government of India, even now, note the signs of the
times, and do justice to the cause of Indians abroad, in accordance with
their legitimate claims and the services rendered by them in the past
to Burma, and in consonance with all the assurances, pledges and
promises solemnly given both inside and outside Parliment ~

By Resolution of luly 15th, 1939, the Government of Burma

appointed a Commission of Inquiry to examine the question
of Indian immigration into Burma. The terms of the
Resolution ,were as follows :-

GOVERNMENT OF BURMA.
DEPARTMENT OF OOMMEROE AND INDUSTRY.
POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS BRANCH.
Extract from the Proceedings of the Government of Burma,
No. 151V3g, dated the 15th July 1939.

Resolution: In purf:mance of the decision of Government, already

publicly announced, to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to examine
the question of Indian immigration into Burma, the following
gentlemen have been appointed by the Governor of Burma to
compose the Commission :-.

C01n1n'issioner:
The Hon'ble Mr. J. Baxter.

Assessors.
U Tin Tut, Bar-at-Law,
Mr. Ratilal Desai,

I. O. S.,

M. A.,

The terms of reference to the Commission are as follows :To enquire into and to report on the following matters :-

(1)

the volume of Indian immigration;

(2) to wha~ extent it is seasonal and temporary, and to what

extent permanent;

(3)

in what occupations Indians are mainly employed and

the extent to which they are unemployed or- under-employed;

2
(4)

whether in such employment Indians either have displaced

Bllrmans or could be replaced by Burmans, due regard
being paid to both the previous history of such occupations and their economic requirements; and

(5) whether in the light of the statistics obtained and other

relevant factors any system of equating the supply of
Indian unskilled labour to Burma requirements is needed.
I

By Order,

J. H. WISE,
Secretary to the Government of Burma,
Department of Commerce and Industry.

Letter No. F. 1395 dated the 9th August, 1939, from the
Federationoj Indian Chambers of Commelce and Industry,
New Delhi, to the ' Government of India, Department of
Education, Health, and Lands, Simla.

" vVith reference to the recent appointment of 1\fr. J. Baxter,

:Financial Adviser to the Government of Burma, as the sole
Oommissioner assisted by one Burman and one Indian assessor to
conduct an inquiry into the alleged Indian penetration into Burma,
the Oommittee of the Federation find that a grave apprehension is
being expressed amongst responsible Organisations representing
commercial interests in Burma and India as regards the actual
scope of the inquiry by the said Commission. The Committee had
an access to the correspondence that passed between the Government
of India and the Indian Merchants'Ohamber, Bombay, on this question
and they feel that the explanation given by the Government of India
in their letter dated the 29th June, 1939, to the Indian 1\!Ierchants'
Oh amber, does not clarify the situation.

,
1

The Government of Burma, in announcing the appointment

of, the Oommission, admit that the question of Indian Immigration
into Burma was pointedly brought to their notice by the Burma
Riots Inquiry Oommittee. The Burma Riots Inquiry Committee
vv4i1~ _~isssi!!gihe~ _ J)ackgr()'l1nd__ ji() __ __~h~ __:B_l!!ma ___ r~ots' _ E~f~!,~ed __
particularly to the question of immigration of Indians into Burma.
They however, made it clear that in this class of "immigrants",
they did not intend "to include that class of domiciled Indians living
in Burma who have made Burma their homes." As regards
the question of , the alleged penetration of Indians into Burma,
they observed that "the remarkable figllres of the annual import
into Burma of Indian labour throughout this period constitute
rather the measure of the rapidity of the development of
Burma's economic resources than of any real Indian penetration
of Burma".

Both the. Royal Commission on Labour in India and the

Braund Riots Inquiry Committee had, however, the immigration of
unskilled labour in their. mind when they were dealing with the
question of the industrial labour in Burma. The Royal Commission
stated that they agreed "with the Burma Sub-Cnmmittee of the
Indian Round Table Conference' that adequate attention should be
paid to the question of immigration of Indian labour, and that
provisions should be made for the regulation of the condition of both
the work and life of the immigrants', " and they further pointed out
that "the Sub-Committee also especially stressed the importance of
there being no discrimination as regards Indians entering Burma."
They ultimately recommended that "the question be examined by
the Governments of Burma and India, in consultation with all the
interests concerned." This view has been endorsed by the Riots
Inquiry Committee.
The Riots Inquiry Committee have all along before them the
question of Indian labour immigration, i. e., unskilled labour, in view
of asking for the reliable statistics to examine the extent to which
the Indian immigrant labour has affected the Burmese labour
market, and they have therefore recommended an examination of the
whole question with a view to explore the conditions of labour in
Burma, for the purpose of ascertaining at what point or points, if at
ail, Indian labour immigration is in conflict with the interests of
Burmese labour, and to discuss what measures, if any, such a conl1ict,
if it Bxista,_maY_Iilliuire to he taken i~JlliLil1t..erest.Suf buth cDuntl'iefL
and communities. The Burma Riots Inquiry Committee endorsed
the opinion, expresed by the Royal Oommission of Labour, that
further statistical information regarding immigrant labour was
urgently required and it would be impossible to do justice to the
question unless further statistical information was obtained.
The Governnlent of Burma seem to be fully aware .of this
fundamental aspect of the recommendations of Burma Riots Inquiry
. Committee, as they themselves admit in their communique that the
question of ascertaining the true facts with regard. to the alleged

5
penetration of Indian labour into Burma, has become a matter of
urgency, and since it is only on a basis of facts that sound policy
regarding the immigration question can be found.

The Committee -of the Federation, therefore, fully share the

view expressed by the Indian Merchants' Chamber, BOlubay, that
both the. Royal Oommission on Labour in India in, 1931, and the
Burma Riots Inquiry Co~mittee: in their Interim Report in 1939,
recommended the collection of reliable statistics ' and a thorough
investigation into the question of unskilled labour into Burma only,
and not with the immigration of all classes of people who went from
India into Burma. The history of this question clearly establishes
the fact that the right of an Indian to enter into Burma was not to
be. questioned, but the Governments . of the two countries were to
consider .whether any restrictions could be imposed on the right of
entry of unskilled labour from India into Burma in the interests of
the " two \ countries. In this connection the Oommittee of the
Ifederation would like to invite your attention to the debate in the
House of Commons on the 10th April, 1938, when an amendment to
restrict the power of the Burma. legislature to legit:llate for the
immigration of the unskilled labour only, was moved by Earl Winterton. The debate clearly showed that at the instance of the AttorneyGeneral, the principle underlying Earl Winterton's amendment was
accepted and that he promised to incorporate the necessary clause to
Secnre the object of Earl Winterton's amendment in the Instrument
m--Ins-t-r-uetiofls. - I-t -Wa-s-i-B- pR-r-8UaRGe--e--that-ll-nd.gl..t.aki:lJg--that ~the- . .
Committee find from Clause XX of the Instrument of Instructions
dated the 8th March, 1937, to the Governor of Burma, that the
question of immigration into Burma relates to that of unskilled
Indian labour which is alleged to come in direct conflict with the
interest of the Burmese labour market.

The Committee, therefore, regret to observe that they cannot

agree with the statement made in the letter of the Government of
India, dated the 29th June to the IndianlVlerchants' Chamber that
"the terms of reference are virtually identical with the recommenda-

tions of the Royal Commission on Labour in India:', and they strongly

feel that there is strong justification for the apprehension which is
widely entertained that the Baxter Commission have been entrusted
\vith a. much wider enquiry into the position of Indians in all
occupations in Burma, an enquiry which is not justified by what has
been stated either by the Royal Oommission on Labour in India or
by the Braund Riots Inquiry Committee.
The Committee, therefore, trusts that the Government of India
would represent to the Government of Burma to restrict the scope of
the terms of reference to the question relating to the Indian
immigrant labour, and that the inquiry should not be conuucted in
respect of all occupations in which Indians, other th3Jll Indi<JJll
unskilled labour, are engaged. They further hope that the Government of India would not be a party to any such inquiry which is
against the definite recommendation of both the Royal Commission
on Labour and Brallnd Committee, and which, in the opinion, of the
Committee, contravenes the expressed spirit of 'Clause XX of the
Instrument of Instructions issued to the Governor of Burma. The
Committee will much appreciate if early' steps are taken by the
Government of India to secure clarification of the issues at the hands
of the Government of Burma."
)

LetterNQ. F144-1/38-0-S. dated Simla, the 16th~eptentber,

1939, from the Government of India, Department of
Education, Health and Lands, to the Federation
of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry
New Delhi.

I am directed to acknowledg the receipt of your letter No.

F.1395, dated the 9th August, 1939, and to say that the Governme11t
of. India had already considered the arguments brought to their
notice by the Committee of your Ohamber. As has already been
explained to the Indian ]\![erchants' Ohamber Bombay, the work

of the present Commission will be to collect the necessary

authoritative data without 'which no future poUcyin regctJ~d to Indian
immigration into Burma can satisfactorily be considered or deternnined.
The Governnzent of India have already reserwd to themselves the right
to consider, criMcise ,or resist, any proposals that lnay be formulated on
the basis of the Commissions' findings. TheOommittee of your
. Ohamber will, therefore, realise that any attempt at present to
limit the scope of the enquiry in the manner suggested might be
regarded as an attempt to prejudge the issue. ]\![oreovel', the
Government of India and public opinion in India have always held,
in regard to immigration of Indians to other countries (e.g. Malaya
and Ceylon), that no distinction should be made by the Governrnents

.()i thoseqountri~s_Qetweer/;skill~if!,1!rJ.

un~~~lled~migran tS__a,tyd

_that 0__
country needing unskilled Indian labour should itnpose no restrictions
on the immigration of skilled Indian labour, traders and others. It

would therefore be inconsistent with that view if they were now to

propose any such discrimination in the case of a fact-finding inquiry
into immigTation into Burma. The views of your Ohamber have,
however, been comnlunicated to the Agent of the Government of
India in Burma, who will in accordance with the terms uf the Press
Communique dated the 17th June 1939, advise and assist the
spokesmen of the Indian community and supplement the evidence
given by Indian Associations and individuals:

8
Extract fl'om the Statement of Policy made by the
Hon'ble U Saw, Premier of Burma, to the BUrlna Legislature
on September, 26th, 1940.

I cannot omit to make mention of the important question of

immigration. No country in the world can permit unrestricted
immigration. The new Government is, however, anxious to continue
to maintain both cultural and commercial relations with India, Ohina
and the other countries. This policy, however, need not preclude us
from safeguarding our interets by jmposing such restrictions on
immigration as might be considered necessary. The question of
Indian immigration in particular has engaged the attention of the
people, and is a matter which the Government shall attempt to solve
adequately alld fairly with the least possible delay. The Baxter
Commission Report on Indian Immigration is already in tbe press,
and the country may rest assured that the Government shall not
shirk their ressponsibility in the matter, and that they will persue
such measures of control and restrictions as m ay be found necessary
on the facts reported by the Oornmissi')n and as the case may warrant .
. In this connection I wish to emphasise that the new Ministry's policy
shall be, to try and secure the greatest good for the greatest number.
We desire to see no class or group exploiting another; on the other
hand, we desire all classes and communities to co-operate and work
together for the common good of the people of Burma. III an matters
affecting the minorities we shall proceed to carry out our duties with
---tneiTco-opera tionana--g6od\vln~-- ana-shalr-nof-al1ow--aiiyClass-or
community to suffer any disability on account of race or religion.
We appeal to the minorities, especially to Anglo-Burmans and
Burma-Muslims to throw in their lot with the indigenous people of
the country, Burmans, Karens, rrauugthus, Bhans, Ohins, Kachins
and others.

WHAT THE PRIME MINISTER U SAW SAID

WHEN INTERVIEWED
Referring to the question of immigration of Indians to Burma,
U Saw said that both the Governments agreed to discuss that question separately without linking jt with the trade talks. After the
result of the trade talks is known, it is the intention of the . Government of Burma to invite the Government of India to send delegation to Rangoon for a discussion of this question with a view to
securing a mutually satisfactory agreement. He expressed it as his
personal opinion that the question of trade relatiolls should not be
mixed up with the complexities involved in the immigration problem.
"No Discrimination Against Indians".

Declining to discuss the findings of the Baxter Report, since it

remained confidential till its publication was decided on, U Saw,
however, said it was his personal opinion that some kind of regulation of immigration of Indian unskilled labour seemed necessary both
in the interests
of Indian labour and those of Burmese labour in
.
order to maintain satisfactory wage levels, and prevent suicidal
competition in the labour market. Unrestricted immigration had
often led in the past to a glut in the labour market in Burma and
the attendant consequences were neither good to Indians nor to
Burmans. "I can assure Inda, however, that,whatever be our decision
regarding immigration of Indians, there will be no discrimination
againstliiClians and(is~far as Inazans7lreaay -settt-ed --an-d~ -resident -in'
Burma are concerned, they will be entitled to every right andprivilege enjoyed by the sons of the soil."
The "Hindu" dated 13th February 1941.

10

INDIAN MISSION TO BURMA.

Immigration Problems to be discussed.

Sirnla, June 10, 1941 .

"

"The Government of India and the Government of Burma, says

a Press communique, are anxious, if possible, to reach an agreed
solution of the various problems relating to Indian immigration
into Burma.
As a result of pr~liminary discussions, both Governments are
of. the opinion that a stage has been reached where persoLal
negotiations offer a reasonable prospect of success. The Government
"of India have, therefore, gladly accepted the invitation of the
Government of, Burma to send "delegation to Burma. The
delegation will consist of the Hon. Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai,
with Mr. R. H. Hutchings, Agent of the Government of India in
Burma, and" Mr. G. S. Bozman, O.I.E., LO.S., as Advisers, and
Mr. V. Viswanathan, LO.S., as Secretary.
The delegation will leave India shortly, and the negotiations
are expected to start in Rangoon about the middle of this month.
The Burma delegation which will meet the Indjan delegation
will be led by the Hon. U Saw, the Premier, and will include
the Hon. UBa-Than, the (:!ommerce 1\1imstei:,-the Hon. U :Sa On,
the Labour Minister, and the Hon. U Htoon Aung Gyaw, the
Finance Minister. U Tin Tut, LO.S., Oommissioner on special duty
will be Adviser, and U Kyaw :Min, LO.S., the Labour Se6retary,
will be Secretary to the delegation.
Inquiry Suggested.
The question of Indian immigration into Burma has been
before the public and the authorities for some time. Even before
the separation of India from Burma, the Royal Oommission on

11

Labour, had made a specific recommendation suggesting an inquiry

into Indian immigration into Burma.
The Burma riots further accentuated the problem. Mr. Justice
Braund, who iuquired into the causes of the Burma riots, referred
to the apprehensions of the Burmese, that the presence of a large
number of Indians in Burma, and their unchecked entry in large
numbers was detrimental to the best interest of the Burmese.
Burmese had asserted that they were no longer averse to
mannual labour and were prepared to work in docks and fields.
It was represented to Mr. Justice Braund that the presence of
a large number of Indians in Burma WaS not conducive to the
stability of relations between the two countries. Mr. Justice
Braund had suggested a further inquiry into this aspect of the
question. This was done and, with the concurrence of the Government of India, Mr. Baxter, with the assistance of an Indian and a
Burmese, investigated the whole problem and has made a report.
His report is still being examined by both Governments.

12
DELEGATION TO BURMA.
Problems for discussion.

Sir G. S. Bajpai on his Mission.

Calcutta) June 12, 1941,

Sir G. S. Bajpai accompanied by Lady Bajpai, Mr. G. S. Bozman,

Adviser and Mr. V. Viswanathan, Secretary of the Indian Delegation to Burma, arrived to-day at Calcutta en route to Burma. Mr. Hutchings, the other Adviser to the Delegation: will join it- at Rangoon.
The Delegation which is 1eaving Calcutta for. Rangoon to-morrow
expects to stay in Burma for a week or longer if necessary.
Sir Girja Shanker, ill the course of an interview, said that the
present negotiations were more or less (if cm exploTatory nature and
it was their aim to secure as complete an exchange of 'U-iews as possible
on the many complicated questions connected with Indian immigration into Burma. He was not in a position to say whether the
present negotiations would result in an immediate agreement between
the two countries. "That would pU1tely depend on the questions
Taised, the terms offered by Burma and the spirit of accommodation
and understanding displayed by the BU1'rna Government. In any
case, the Government of India's obJect is to secure on the question qf
Indian immigration into Burma an ag1~eement that wouldsatiify
general Indian opinion in this country."
Outlining the nature of some of the problems to be discussed,
Sir G~--S~Bajpai said -that-questions conn-ectedwith conditions -ofdomicile, the class of Indiana migrating from and returning to India,
whether outgoing labour is for casual or permanent employment, etc.,
would have to be discussed. Asked whether the conclusions of the
Baxter Report would form an important basis of the discussion, Sir
Girja Shanker said thatthe Report's findings would undoubtedly have
a place in the discussions, but since the Government of India's views
on it had not yet been made known, it would not be right to criticise'
the Report, though he knew that there was apprehension in the
country about the Report's finding. He re-called that the Baxter

13
Commission was setup merely to find facts about immigration into
a.nd migration from Burma of Indians and nothing more. Statistics
about the nnmber of Indians entering, and leaving Burma and the
number of the floating Indian population, and the number of Indians
remaining behind in Burma, would doubtless be essential in considering problems connected with immigration.
To the question whether if any agreement were reached, it
would be submitted to the Central Assembly for discussion, Sir G. S.
Bajpai replied, "Let there be a mutually satisfactory agreement first.
Any agreement based on equity and justice will, I am sure, satisfy
Indian opinion." Wish me well that our c~use may succeed - not
for my sake," he added after a moment's pause, "but for India's."
Th.e (( Hindu" dated th.e 13th June, 1941.

[
!

14
Speech of the. Hon'ble U Saw, Premier of Bunna, at the
inaugural Meeting of the Delegations from India and
Burma held on Wednesday, the 18th June 1941,
to discuss the Question of Indian
Immigration into Burma.

Sir Girja Bajpai and Gentlemen of the Indian Delegation:

Let me first of all, on behalf of the Government and the people
of Burma, welcome you to our land which has through the long ages
of the past been linked to your own great country by the closest ties
of religion, culture, and commerce. Apart from the importance of
the subject which you and we are here to discuss, your advent to
Burma marks an historic occasion as this is the first time since
Burma attained the status of a separate unit of the British Empll'e
that she has had the honour of welcoming a Government Delegation
from her great neighbour across the Bay of Bengal.
Unemployment among Burmans.

The immigration question has been on the mind of Burmese

people fOl' a long period. There was a time in the past, when Lower
Burma was sparsely populated, and full of fertile land remaining
as jungle for want of people to clear and cultivate it. The sparseness
of the population also made labour scarce and industrial labour in
particular needed in the past a preponderance of non-Burman recruits.
1~hese conditions are, however, rapidlychangIDg--anci we have-now in
Burma a substantial class of Burmans who have to be labourers for
want of land and who in some cases find themselves unable to get
employment either in agl'iculture or in industry owing to the
competition of non-Burmese labour. The bounty of Nature has
enabled the Burman so far to live in comfort, and, compared to that
in many countries in the East, the Burman enjoys a high standard
of living. The steady influx of non-Burmese labour has naturally
tended to impair these happy conditions for the Burman who is now
faced with the prospect of lowering his standard of living and of

15
working in conditions approximating to those in countries of the
East more thickly populated and less favoured by the bounty
of Nature.
Need for Controlling Immigration.

The experienoe of other countries of the world has proved that

a country in the circumstances of Burma cannotaifol'd indefinitely
to admit without control and regUlation wor~ers belonging to other
countries, and we need look no further than Thailand for an example.
Self-preservation being the first law of Natu.l'e, I feel sure, Gentlemen,
that you will not fail to appreciate the necessity of Burma
embarking on some form of hnmigration control.
A Question of Particular Complexity.

lYly colleagues and I are considering separately the question of

controlling immigration from countries other than India. The
concern of our present Oonference, however, is Indian immigration
into Burma, a question of particular cOITlplexity involving many
factors occasioned by the close economic bonds which bind us
together. And here I gladly acknowledge the economic value to
Burma of having' near at hand a country which is a member of the
same Empire and from which she has been able hitherto to obtain an
almost unlimited supply of efficient labour at moderate cost.
Riots of the Past.

The measures of control, that we have now to propose, are

dictated by stern economic necessity. The many Indians, who are
settled in Burma enjoying in the fullest measure the political and
civic rights of the people of the country, are evidence of the goodwill and toleration with .which Burmans have always treated the
Indian immigrant. On a happy solution of the problem of Indian
irhmigl'ation depends the weJiare not only of the indigenous races of
,Burma, but also of the thousands of Indians who have made Burma
their home. The Indo-Burmese riots of the past are indications of
what could happen if the problem is neglected and Heaven forbid

16
that the relations between Burmans and Indians should be embittered by a repetition of these incidents which I trust are buried
in the past.
The Four Major Problems of Burma.
While in Bombay last February, it was my privilege to explain
in the Indian Press, the four major problems on the solution of which
depends the peace and good order of mY country and which are all
connected with the presence of Indians in Burma. These problems
were, firstly, the agrarian problem, for the solution of which the
Burma Land Purchase Act has been successfully enacted; secondly
the problems arising from inter-mnrriage between Burmese women
and non-Burmans, a problem which has, been largely solved by the
enactment of the Buddhist 'Vomen's Marriage Act; thirdly the
problem of industrial labour, in regard to which two important
Committees of Enquiry have completed their labours, and, fourthly,
the question of Indian immigration, the problem which is now
before us.
A Solution Acceptable to the Burmese People.
The importance of the problem to India is clearly evidenced by
the preeence here of your distinguished Delegation led by so eminent
a nlember of the Government of India. In seeking a solution of the
problem, we on our side will be mindful of the strong and natural
desire, which__th~GoVeI'nID~lltJ)f India have tha_'ttheir nll.~ioJ:lals_iIl
other countries should be well treated, and thstt they should not be
subject to harsh and humiliating restrictions and disabilities. We
have watched with admiration the gallant stand which the Government of India have taken for the proper treatment of Indians in
South Africa and elsewhere and you, Sir Girja, have as we all know,
taken for many years a great and noble part in the fight for the
welfare of Indians settled overseas. It is a happy augury that the
Indian Delegation should be led by an Indian whose name should be
so closely associated with the welfare of Indians abroad.vVe on our
part feel sure that our own difficulties will meet with the sympathetic

17

consideration of yourself, the members of your Delegation and of

your colleagues in the Government of India. As Ministers forming
a representative and responsible Government, it is our duty to seek
and to secure for the Burmese people, a solution which will be
acceptable to the people whom we represent and serve.
Agreement based on Goodwill and Mutual Sympathy.

The recently concluded trade negotiations between our two

countries is a happy indication of the results, that can be achieved,
when representatives of two countries bound by the closest of econo..
mic ties, come together to seek with the utmost goodwill the solution
of an important problem affecting the welfare of: both countries.
The same measure of goodwill, I am sure, pervades our two Delega,..
tions and it is my ' earnest hope that the same kind of result will
emerge, and that at the end of our discuss ions, we shall be able to
reaeh an agreement based on goodwill and mutual sympathy and
designed to serve the highest interests of both countries.
We thank you all for having undertaken a troublesome journey
from Simla to meet us, and may it be the proud privilege of us all to
render a service of the greatest political and economic value to our
two countries by securing an agreed settlement of a question of such
great difficulty and importance.

- -I--

18
~EPL Y

BY THE HON'BLE SIR GIRJ! SHANKAR BAJPAI,

LEADER OF THE INDIAN DELEGATION.

I should like, Mr. Premier, on my own hehalf and that of the

gentlemen who sit beside me, to thank you for your warm' and gra,.
cious words of welcome. You have referred to the long distance
across land and sea thatwe have travelled to come here, and the
discomforts of that journey during this season of the year. I assure
you that the discomforts have been more than repaid by the cordiality of your reception of us, by the charm and abundance of your
hospitality, by glimpses of the beauty of this colourful land. It
gives me no less pleasure to see you, in the midst of your oivn people, actively dedicating your great energy and ability to the pr'omotion ofthei1" welfare by a Judicious exercise if the responsibilities
and powers vested in you by your new Constitution, Sentiments,
such as those you have so felicitously expressed, move not only us
but will, I am sure, stir the hearts of my fellow countrymen in
India. Geographically neighbours, spiritually akin to each other in
many respects, politically separate, but still members of one larger
political entity, we have much in cOl1lmo~ from the past and much
in common for the future. Nature and history have destined us to be
friends, it is up to us to fulfil that destiny in true sincerity of feeling
and, in matters of common interest, by complete harmony of effort.
You have been at some pains, Mr. Premier, to describe the
problem of )m_rnigrfj,!i9n as itaffects:l?"I.lrm~to-4~._ Let me aSSUI'e
you that we fully appreciate both its emotional background, and its
economic possibilities. The key to friendship between nations, as
between individuals, is readiness and reciprocity of understanding.
~rhe Government which I have the honour to represent today has
only One desire-the desire to ascertain and comprehend the difficulties that imnligration from India may be creating for you, and help
you, to the best of their ability, to solve them. They regard this
not only as an obligation of equity,but as the dictate of ordinary
,prudence and a demand of that relationship of amity between Burma
and India which they wish maintained. What I have said of the

19
Government reflects, I feel sure, equally the will of the people of
India. They are no less anxious to preserve your goodwill through
a just and Jair settlement of questions still outstanding between us
You, J\ir. Premier, and those colleagues whom you recently sent to
India had practical proof of this spirit on our side in the negotiations
. thar happily resulted in a Trade Agreement between us. Any propo:;;als that you may care to place before us will, I can assure you,
receive the most careful and sympathetic attention. You will find
in us the same steadfastness of friendly purpose in the negotiations
that start to-day. We want the Burman to have unhampered
opportunity in his own land to prosper materially and morally. If,
at the same time, we seek protection for the legitimate rights and
status of our fellow countrymen, I am sure that our claim will not be
considered extravagant and incompatible with true Burman interests.
You have been good enough to mention, in terms far too generous, my share in the defence of the legitimate claims of my fellow
countrymen in different parts of the British Commonwealth. Such
measure of success as has attended my efforts in this difficult task
has been due to a firm faith that justice, like truth, is great and
shall ultimately prevail. Someone asked me the other day to give
a pen-picture of you, and I shall presume to quote my reply:
Rugged and resolute, but Just. To be resolute in doing the right
thing is a great quality-a quality ~vhich if more frequently and
firmly rrwnifested in the past might have saved the world
jrom its p'~esent-catast~()-phe. -:F-l'om ~0uanEl--~0y.-l"--~0Ueagtles,
Mr. Premier, I crave no more than that you enter this conference
with the single purpose of meting out even-handed justice to
the Burman and the Indian. I make that appeal with confiidence because I have no fears for the response. Your colleagues and
mine achieved a fine feat of constructive statesmanship in India.
It is my earnest desire and it will be my unfaltering endeavour
to help you to repeat that success. If, as I devoutly trust, we
succeed-given the repuisite measure of understanding and
goodwill, there is no reason why we should fail-then I believe
we shall have served Burma and India well.

20

JOINT STATEMENT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

.ND THE GOVERNMENT OF BURMA.
In two &eiP.9rts issued at the end of 1938 and early in 1939,
the Riot Inquiry Committee, under the Ohairmanship of the Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Br3Jlnd, drew particular attention to the existence of a
serious apprehension iu the minds of many Burmans, that Indian
immigration, was largely responsible for unemployment or underemployment ~mong the indigenous population of Burma. The
Committee reC.9llllllended that, in the interests of both countries,
SOllle public examination of the grounds for the existing apprehensiQn in Burman minds, should be undertaken urgently.
2. Accordingly, the, Government of Burmain a Resolution,
dated the 15th July 1939, after consultation with the Government of
India, appointed the Hon'ble Mr. James Baxter to examine the
question of Indian immigratiou into Burma, with the assistance of
two Assessors, U Tin Tut, I. C. S., and 1\'lr. Ratilal Desai M. A.
Mr. Baxter presented his Report to the Government of Burma in
October 1940. His recommendations were carefully examined by
both Governments, and it was agreed "\"ithout c.ommitment, on either
side, that these recommendations formed a suitable basis for negotiation.The Government of Burma, therefore, invited the Government of India to send a delegation to Burma and the invitation was
gladly accepted.

3.' As a result of the conversations, the two Governments have

agreed upon certain measures which in their view are calculated
both to remove from Burman minds any reasonable apprehension that
Burma may be subjected to undue economic competition by reason of
Indian immigration, and at the same time to secure for the Indian
community settled and resident in Burma, recognition of their legitimate rights.
4. The text of the agreement is attached to this statement.
The agreement is based upon two main principles, firstly that Burma

21
has, subject to the prOVISIons of the Government of Burma Act,
1935, the right to determine the composition of her ownpopu:lation,
and secoJlily that Indians who have wholly identified themselves
with the interests of Burma, should enjoy the same rights as members of the permanent population.
5. It is obvious that in the peculiar circumstances of the two
countries, tn.!ir geographical proximity, their cultural and economic
ties, and titeir long political association, the problems arising from
regulation of immigration, are of special complexity and delicacy.
Both Governments have approached these problems in a spirit of
cordiality and mutual understanding, and are agreed that in giving
administrative effect to the measures now proposed, the closest cooperation will be required in the same spirit of mutual adjustment
and identity of purpose, which characterised the negotiations. It is
their earnest desire that the agreement now achieved will serve to
remove any causes for misapprehension, which may have arisen .
either between the two countries or between the two communities
in Burma, and may furnish a lasting foundation for the development
in the future of the firmest ties of friendship and goodwill.

22

AGREEMENT.
Definitions.
In this Agreement, unless there is anything repugnant in
. the subject or context,1.

(a) "dependant" means a person who is wholly and directly

dependent for maintenance and support on a person
who holds or is about to be granted a permit under the
provisions of this Agreement and is related to such
person as being(i) his wife, or

(ii) his or his wife's parent, or

(iii) his 01' his wife's daughter or grand-daughter who is
either unmarried or widow or is divorced, or
(iv) his or his wife's son or grandson who is under the age
of 18 years or, being over that age, is permanently
disabled and incapable of supporting himself;

(b) "Indian" means a British subject domiciled in India or

the subject of an Indian State;

(c) "work", "skilled work" and "unskilled work" shall have

the meanings assigned to them in Section 2 of the Indian
Emigration Act, 1922.

Restr'iction in rega1'd to the termination qf the Goverrnrnent of

_}3urma{Im_mi[}J:!JItion) Ord0J'--"-_
2. The Government of Burma agree th:tt the notice given by
them to terminate the operation of the Government of Burma
(Immigration) Order, 1937, with effect from April 1st, 1942, will be
treated as withdrawn, and that notice to terminate the same will
not be given before October 1st, 1945.
Date qf Operation qf Measures qf Control.
3. Indian immigration into Burma will, with effect from the
1st October 1941, be subject to regulations and restrictions in the
manner hereinaflier explained.

23
Passports.
No Indian may enter Burma without a valid Indian passport containing his photograph and other particulars sufficient to
establish his identity .
4.

Passport Visas and Immigr'ation Permits.

5. No Indian may enter Burma without a passport visa issued
by or on behalf of the Government of Burma or an immigration permit issued by or under the authority of the Government of Burma.

Passpor't Visas.
6. (1) The Government of India, or officers employed by them,
may issue, on behalf of the Government of Burma and subject to
terms and conditions imposed by the Government of Burma, visas
on passports granted to Indians desiring to enter Burma ,as visitors
or as students in educational institutions.
(2) A visa on an Indian visitor's passport will be valid for three
. ,. months but this period may be extended by or under the authority.
of the Government of Burma up to a total stay in Burma of twelve
months.
(3) A fee of Rs. 20 will he charged for visitors' msas but no
fee will he charged for extensions.

_____ _{4} .~ ~~l!<!~pt'~ vi~_l!willQe_"Yalid fQl'__ ~- ~~a,teq.p~liodu<?i -cex..-ceeding five years.

(5) Nofee will be charged for a student's visa.

Immigration Permits.
7. ( 1) Save as otherwise provided by the terms of this
Agreement no Indians may enter Burma without one of the following
classes of permits:(i) "A" permits, which will entitle -the holder to
Burma for an indefinite period and to

.LV ...LL ...........

24
ment therein. .No bar will be placed on the acquisition
of a Burma domicile by holders of "A" permits;
(ii) "B" permits, which will entitle the holder to remain in
Burma for an indefinite period, and to accept empl<?yment therein. "B" permits, being for limited periods,
will not allow the holders to acquire a Burma domicile.
They will be issued for a maximum period of three years
and may be extended at the discretion of the Government
of Burma for further periods which, with the original
period, may not exceed a total of nine years. The holder
of a "B" permit may apply for an "A" permit on the
same terms~as an original applicant for an "A" permit.

(2) The issue of immigration permits will be subject to the

terms and conditions set out in this Agreement and also to such
other terms and conditions as the Government of Burma may

prescribe after consulting the Government of India, provided that

any other terms and conditions so prescribed shall not be inconsistent with the objects of this Agreement. The acceptance of these
'terms and conditions shall be a condition for the entry of the
immigrants into Burma.
Restriction.~

on the nurnbers

of Pe?~mit.'J and

Visas.

8. (1) The number of "A" permits to be issued win be at the

discretion of the Government of Burma and they will be issued only
-cto--personswhom- theB.o@.rllment--Q---Burma--ggRs-ider~--tQ--be---of- -_.
sufficient financial standing, or possessed of assured income in
Burma of sufficient amount and to be persons who are likely to be
suitable for permanent residence in Burma.
(2) "B" permits will be issued within such limits as may be
prescribed in any year or other period by the Government'of Burma
after considering the advice of an Immigration Board.
(3) The Government of Burma reserve power to imppse . limits
on. the nu.mber of students and visitor's visas to be issued by the
Government of India on their behalf.

Dependants of Immigrants with" A" Permits or "B" Permits.

9. (1) Applicants for ,; A" or "B" perm its will be required

to declare particulars of dependants whom they intend to bring to
Burma either with them or at some future dat~.
,

Declared Dependants.
(2) Should the applicants receive his permit, dependants declared under sub-clause (1) will be granted oil application by the
former the same class of permit as the applicant.

Undeclared Dependants.
(3) Other dependants of the applicant may also, on application by him. and at the discretion of the 'Govel'nment Burma, be
granted the same class of permit.

himit validity of Dependants' Permits.

(4) The period of validity of a permit granted to a dependant
will not extend beyond the period of validity of the permit held by
the person on whom they are dependent.

Land Frontier Migration.

The two Governments will co-operate in devising and
eff!3cting measures to deal with and to control immigration across the
land frontier between the two countries. It is understood that this
wi-l-l-reql1ire-c<3nStl-lta-ti0B-by-the---G0v:el'-Bme-Bt-Of~nd.ia-With~ .th.e .ErO':.
vincial Governments concerned.
10.

,
,.

Immigration Boafrd.

The Government of Burma will institute at an early date

an Immigration Board to examine the relevant data, and to tender
advice to the Government of Burma generally on matters of policy
relating to Indian immigration into Burma and in particular on
the fixing of quotas for the grant of permits. The Board will be of
mixed racial composition and Burmaris, Indians and Europeans will
be represented on it

f'

11.

26
Penalties for Unlawful Entry Or Unlawful Residence in Burma.
The penalties imposable under Burma Legislation shall
not exceed imprisonment of six months or a fine of Rs. 1,000 or
both, on persons convicted before a Magistrate of an infringement of
the immigration rules or of a breach of the conditions of a permit,
or of making a false statement in order to obtain a permit or other
privilege, relating to entry to or residence in Burma to secure
registration as a privileged immigrant.
12.

Literacy Test.
13. The Government of Burma may Impose a literacy test on
applicants for " A " permits:
Provided that such a test shall not be made
any other language indigenous to Burma.

Burmese or In

In

J.llG/rriages or cohabitation between Indian male immigrants and

women belonging to the indigenous races qfBurma.
Marriage or cohabitation with a woman belonging to the
indigenous races of Burma established to the satisfaction of the
Government of Burma may be made a condition for the cancellation
of a permit or visa grantej to a male Indian immigrant:
14.

Provided that exceptions will be made of marriages entered

into with the sanction of the Government of Burma and that such
sanction will be given if the immigrant makes, before. the proposed
. ;-prOVi.Si6n-W-U-ICll-lS-Sthtl(h~nt--1-n'
...........1... h '
.re'
.
h
..
f t1.. n
m-arr ra-ge
te-epIR10B-9 ... l..g,U'QV-e-r-llment of Burma for the permanent maintenance of the woman he
desires to marry.
,

'

Feesfor Pertmits.
15. The following' scale of fees will be charged for immigration
permits : -

" A" permiis.-Rs. 500.

" B" permits.-For unskilled labourers, an entrance fee or
a visa fee, of Rs. 12 plus a residential fee of Rs. 5 for

27
every year or part of a year for which the permit will
be valid. For other" B "permits, an entrance fee
or a visa feeofRs. 30 and a residential fee of Rs. 20
for every year or part of a year for which the permit
is valid. Arrangements will be made to enable
immigrants to pay the residential fee in yearly instalments if they so desire.
Dependants.-Half the rate per dependant of the fees payable by the immigrant himself.

Collectionftom Employers of visa or Entrance Fees for" B" permits.

16. The Government of Burma accept the principle that the
incidence of entrance or visa fees and of the stamp duty charged in
respect of" B "permit holders should fall on the employer and
undertake to collect such fees from the employer or prospective
employer in cases where a permit is issued at his instance.
Deposits.
17. Before entry into Burma a deposit of Rs. 20 will be made
to the Government of Burma by persons who are granted "B"
permits, and by their dependants, to cover the cost of repatriating
them. Repatriation will be at the choice of the repatriated Indian,
to the ports of (a) Oalcutta, (b) Ohittagong, (c) Madras, (d) Vizagapatam, and (e) Gopalpur. The deposit will be refunded if the person
concerned leaves Burma of his own accord or obtains an " A " permit.
Stamp Duty.
18. Applications for all classes of permits under the immigration control arrangements shall be subject to stamp duty under the
ordinary law of Burma.
Provisions relating to Indians already in Burma.

Indians who are born and bred in Burma and who have made
Burma their permanent home.
19. The Government of Burma recognise that Indians who are
born and bred in Burma, have made Burma their permanent

28

and :regard their future and the future of their families as bound up
with its interests are entitled to be regarded as having established
a claim if they wish to make it, to a' Burma domicile and therefore
to the benefit of Section 144 of the Government of Burma
Act, 1935.

Acquisition of Burma domicile by Indians in Burma.

20. No restriction will be placed on the acquisition of a Burma
domicile under due process of law by Indians lawfully residing in
Burma excepting those who by the terms and conditions of a permit
which entitles them to reside in Burma are not given the right of
residence beyond a specified period.

Privileged Immigrants.
21. Indians who prove a .total residence in Burma of seven
calendar years between the 15th July 1932 and the 15th July 1941,
will be tHmed "privileged immigrants."
Such privileged immigrants shall have the right to further
residence and to the acceptance of further employment in Burma
without limit of time, but they will lose their status as privileged
immigrants should tbey}Je.absent from Burma. for a continuous
period exceeding one Yf3ar after :the 15th July 1941.
---A-pr~v-iJeg-ed- immigl!a-nt,sQ--l-Ong~as

he--r--eta-ins-hisstatns,_wilL

be given the right of free re-entry into Burma on his return after an
absence of less than twelve months-

Dependants of Privileged Immigrants.

22. The following classes of dependants of a privileged immigrant will be given "A." permits, free of charge, for entry into
Burma:-

(i) One wife if there is no other wife residing in Burma.

2.9
(ii) His sons below the age of 18 by the wife who is granted
an " A" permit under this clause orby a wife residing
with him in Burma.
(iii) His unmarried daughters by the wife who is granted
an J' A" permit under this clause or by a wife residing
with him in Burma.
"

Indians who are already in Burma but have not qualified .as
P'riviZeged Immigrants.
23. Other Indians who are in Burma on the 15th July 1941
will be entitled to remain in Burma indefinitely and to accept work
for an indefinit~ period and will retain their privileges under
Section 44 of th.~ o-overnment of Burma Act, 1935.

Should an -Indian of this class leave Burma for any Veriod, 4i~
claim to re-entry will be dealt with in the same manner as an
application for entry by a new Indian immigrant and if re-admitted
into Burma, such person will be treated as a new Indian immigrant
with the exception, that he will have a preferential claim to a " B"
permit over new Indian immigrants.

Transition P'r'Ovisions.
24. During the transition period , pending the constitution of
an Immigration Board and the consideration by the Government
of Burma of proposals to be made by the Board for the quotas for
permits---to-Ee -issneaUto -lndian- -lmmigr ants, -tnetiovernnrent -ofIndia will prohibit the emigration to Burma of Indians for th{'
purpose of unskilled work from the 21st July 1941, with the exception of seasonal labourers who may, at the instance of the Government of Burma, be granted passpo.rts up to numbers agreed upon
between the two Governments.

Registration ~ Indians in Burma.

25. The Government -6 Burma will institute at an early date
a system of registering Indians in Burma.

30

General.
Power

of Exemption.

The Government of Burma may exempt any person frOln

any or all the conditions and restrictions that may be imposed
under this Agreement.
26.

Go-ope1ration between the two Governments.

27. The two Governments will act in close co~operation to

achieve the object of the Agreement and will freely consult each
other on points of difficulty that may arise.
In. particular, the Government of Burma will grant the Government of India an opportunity of commenting on proposals to fix
quotas; and on the recommendations of the Immigration Board on
which such proposals are based.

31

MR. RATILAL DESAI'S EXPLANATION RE: BAXTER REPORT .

. ASSESSORS NOT CONSULTED REGARDING
RECOMMENDATIONS.
"xxx Incidentallv I should like to make my position clear with
regard to this report. I was an Assessor on the Baxter Commission.
\Vhat exactly that meant, none of the three of us knew. But we
agreed at the very outset of our work that the three of us form a
Committee, and that in the Report the views of the Assessors be
incorporated even where they differed from the views of the Commissioner. However after the whole inquiry was over, and when
only the 10th and 11th Chapters-the last relating to Mr. Baxter's
recommendations, were to be considered, Mr. Baxter wrote to me
that the 11th Chapter (which contained his recommendations) was
(evidently under Orders from the Government of Burma) confidential, and the Assessors were not consulted. It is a great pity
because I believe that that Chapter would have been very materially
modified had he hoo the benefit of the Assessors' views and suggestions. Anyway the Baxter Report has provided the immediate
foundations for this Agreement. xxx"

(The Rangoon Times, Tuesday, August 19, 1941.)

_1
t

32
TELEGRKM DESPATCHED ON 26th JULY, t941, BY THE PRESIDENT
OF THE AD HOC

1.

COMMiTTEE,RANGOd~ 'ro:-

THE HONOURABLE MElIBER IN CHARGE OF EDUCATION,

HEALTH, AND LANDS, GOVERN1\{ENT OF INDIA.

2.

THE

HONOURABLE

MEMBER

FOR

INDiANS OVERSEAS,

GOVERNMENrr OF INDIA.
3. . HONOURABLE SIR GIRJA SHANKAR BAJPAI.

SI M LA
"RE IMMIGRATION AGREEMENT PUBLISHED 22nd JULY:SEVERAL
TERMS CAME AS SURPRISE SOlIE ENTIRELY NEW STOP BURMA
lNDIANS STAGGERED STOP VARIOUS TERMS OBJECTIONABLE SUCH
AS LITERACY TEST VAGUE LIKELY TO BE ABUSED IF INEVITABLE
TEST

MUST

BE

IN LANGUAGE

KNOWN

TO IMMIGRANT STOP

ENTRANCE FEES PROHIBITIVE RESIDENTIAL FEES CONSIDERED

HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE AND DISCRIMINATORY STOP LIST
DEPENDANTS

OF

PRIVILEGED

IMMIGRANTS

EXCLUDES

OF

MANY

LEGITIMATE DEPENDANTS EVEN EXCLUDES WIVES IF MORE THAN

ONE STOP EXPRESSION SEVEN CALENDER YEARS IN CLAUSE 21
SHOULD BE SEVEN YEARS STOP PRIVILEGED IMMIGRANTS LOSING
STATUS BY MERE ABSENCE FOR TWELVE MONTHS WILL CAUSE
GRAVE HARDSHIP URGE THE PERIOD SHOULD BE LEAST THREE

---EA-RS---8"-P8P----wH R-E-GI-S-PR-A-':Pf0N-0F---m-IHANS--WfIf0K-lse0NSf;
DERED DEROGATORY REQUEST NECESSARY STEPS BE TAKEN TO
RECITIFY DEFECTS STOP ARRANGING BURUA INDIAN DEPUTATION
FOR DISCUSSING MATTERS WITH YOU PERSONALLY."

33
Madras All Parties' Protest against Indo;.Burma Immigration
Agreement. A Public. Meeting was held on Monday the 28th
July, at 6 p.ln. at GokhaleHall, under the Presidentship
of Sir Mahomed Usman Saheb Bahadur, K.C.I.E~

PROCEEDINGS
Mr. G.Janakiram CheUiar, Mayor of Madras in proposing Sir Mahomed
Usman-Saheb to the Chair said as follows:" vVe' have assembled here this evening to express our feelings
of disappointment and dissatisfaction at the recent Indo-Burma
Immigration Agreement. It is in the fitness of things that Sir
. Mahomed Usman should preside over this meeting. Sir Mahomed
U sman has been taking a leading part in the public life of our
province for nearly a quarter of a century. He was for a long
number of years, Home lVlember with the Government of Madras
and was the first Indian to have the honour of being elevated to
the hig'h position of the Governor of Madras. I have, now, great
pleasure in proposing Sir l\lahomed to the Chair."
,

..

Diwan Bahadur V. Shunmuga Mudaliar, Sheriff of Madras in seconding

the proposal said as follows:" I have great pleasure in seconding the proposition moved
by my friend the l\layor. vVe are going to consider at this meetin-g--a- questi"<m- -uf- gre-at---inrpurtanc-e-- w-hich---retaies -to-- ihe la-r-ge num ber of Indian emigrants to Burma. The occasion has arisen
as you all know from the hastily concluded Agreement between
the Government of India and Burma, on the question of Indian
Immigration into Burma. As my friend the :Mayor pointed out a
little while ago, I feel that no one is more competent to occupy the
Chair, and guide the deliberations of tonight, than Sir Mahomed. I
have great pleasure in seconding the proposition."

Amidst thundering applause from the audience Sir Mahomed

Usman occupied the chair.

34

Sir Mahomed Usman, K.C.I.E., M.L C., (Vice-Chancellor, University of

Madras) in opening the proceedings said as follows:"I thank you for the honour you have done me in asking
me to preside over this meeting. I have come to participate in
the proceedings of thi~ evening. because I feel and feel strong'ly,
that the recent Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement is hig'hly
detrimental to Indian interests, and has caused great dissatisfaction
in all circles. The large and representative gathering' assembled
here proves what I say.
It is unfortunate, that the Government of India did not care
to take the people into confidence at any of the stages through
which the negotiations leading to the Agreement have passed.
The Baxter Oommittee was appointed with a view to gather
materials which would form the basis of an Agreement and the
Report of the Committee was in the hands of the Governments
of India and Burma as early as October 1940. "Vhy was this
important document withheld from the public until. the Agreement itself was brought to light? After the Baxter Oommittee
Report, Came the appointment of the Indian delegation consisting
entirely of officials. This is quite against th~ spirit of the times.
The right course would have been to include non-officials also as
members of the delegation. Again, it was expected and announced
that the talk between the Indian and Burmese deleg'ation ,vould be
merel;, explDratory and l1()t concltlsiy~. :t3ut~o our I~inful sllrpri~e,
the two delegations straightaway passed from the exploratory talks
to the conclusion of a momentous Agreement of se1io118 consequences.
Even the draft Agreement was not published fol' eliciting public
opinion; and suddenly on the 21st .July '41 we found onr emigrants
who were waiting at various ports in India, after coming over long
distances from the interior villages 1 shut out by the new regulations
from embarking. Why were an unprepared public presented with an
accomplished fact in this manner? Nothing \yould have been lost
and much gainecl had the wiser course of consulting public opinion
been followed.

35
I do not want to take you through all th.e terms and conditions
of the Agreement in detail" as the speakers who follow me will
explain them to you. However, I wish to say that some of
the provisions are very hard on Indians, and Indian interests have
been badly let down by the Government of India. The '. Agreement,
th6refore, requires to be revised without any loss of time, and
I sincerelv trust that the Government of India will not hesitate
"
to take necessary steps to undo the harm done. Other~vise, the
Agreement will not furnish a lasting foundation for the development
of rea] friendship and goodwill between India and Burma, in the
future.
Indians have a very real and abiding interest in the
prosperity of Burma, and any Agreement between the two countries
should not miss the fundamentals that would make for the happy
relationship between the two peoples of India and Burma".
Sir Mahomed Usman then read messages received from Sir
K. V. Reddi and Rao Bahadnr M. o. Rajah, supporting the objects
of the meeting and regretting their inability to attend it.
Mr. Ahdul Hamid Khan, M.L.A. (Ex-Mayor of Madras; Leader, Madras
Legislative Assembly; Muslim League Party, Vice-President, Madras
Presidency l\~uslim League; Leader, United Municipal Party,
Corporation of Madras; Vice-President, Muslim Chamher of
Commerce) moving the first resolution made the following speech:-

lVII'_._J~l~sid~l1j; ~ngQ~}l~L~lll~~'
I shall first read out to you the draft Resolution which
I propose to place before you for your acceptance : -

RESOLUTION
" This meeting of the people of Madras condemns the recent
Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement in as much as, among
other things : (1) The Government of India did not publish, until the
Agreement itself was published, the Baxter Committee Report

36
which has bee:n
October 1940;

III

the hands of the Government of India since

(2) The negotiations in regard to immigration were separated

from those relating to trade-a procedure prejudicial to Indians;
(3) Non-Officials were not included in the Government of
India Delegation to Burma, as was done in the case of the trade
negotiations with Burma;
(4) The Delegation of the Hon'ble Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai
which was meant to conduct only exploratory talks, concluded
straightaway an Agreement and presented the country with a fait

accompli;
(5) An unduly long period has been prescribed for a person
to acquire the status of a 'privileged immigrant', which status he
will lose if he should be absent from Burma for a period of
12 months;
(6) A fee of Rs. 500 for ' A ' class Permit is prohibitive, and
this and other conditions for the grant or 'A' Permits are harsh
and calculated to keep out a large number;
(7) Provisions in respect of ' B' Permits are unduly drastic
and. will cast an unbearable burden on numerous persons proceeding
to Burma, especially on labourers who are required to layout over
Ri 60 foreiirance,-repatnation all(rresidence fees-and raih\ray-fare
and passage money;
(8) Wide powers are given to limit the number of persons of
all classes entering Burma, and this is indefensible in view of the
fact that many have to go to Burma for work in established businesses and in connection with lands and properties, with employment
assured beforehan d;
(9) Penalising
discriminatory;

of

marnage ]s

unjust and unfair

and

37

(10) Provisions in regard to cohabitation are unusual and

drastic, and may lend themselves to grave abuse;
The
unsatisfactory;
(11)

provision for a literacy

test

IS

vague and .

(12) The Agreement does not take into account the assurances
given before separation, in regard to the way in which Indian
immigration would be restricted.
The action of the Government in suddenly preventing, without
notice, the embarkation of Indians on and from the 21st July 1941,
while yet no machinery has been set up here, and in Burma, for the
. pUrpose of regulating immigration, has .caused hardship to hundreds
of labourers who were turned back, and therefore this meeting is
strongly of opinion that the operation of the Agreement should be
stayed, until it is suitably modified in the light of public opinion, and
that no Order-in-Council should be passed giving effect to the
Agreement.

,
I

And this meeting is further of opinion, that in the atmosphere

of distrust and doubt, which has been created in consequence of the
sad experience of the Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement, the
sending of a delegation to Ceylon,for the purpose of concluding an
Agreement, should be postponed to a more favourable opportunity,
when a Delegation composed of the Hon'ble the Commerce Member,
-andthe-ifon~bte--lVfem-bef'iles-ig-n-at-e f{H-J-nd-ia-Il-s--O-\Lel:sea-&,anrl__
a_le~y
non-officials may be sent to negotiate a settlement on the subjects of
immigration and trade together at the same time."
The President has already explained to you the object of
this meeting. It is to protest against the Indo~ Burma Immigration Agreement, which has recently been concluded between the
Government of India and the Government of Burma. It is one of
the most amazing Agreements which have ever been concluded
between two high contracting parties. . Those who were responsible
for negotiating this Agreement, appear to have had no consideration

38
for the vast number of their Indian fellow subjects, whose interests
had been committed to their care. I could not believe my eyes
when I saw the Agreement in cold print. When the separation of
Burma was decided on, we knew that some kind of restrictions upon
Indian immigration might come to be placed in course of time.
But, We had all along believed, and in fact, we had been led to
expect that such restrictions would be confined to unskilled labour.
The Indo-Burma delegation which proceeded to England in 1935
under the leadership of Dr. Rajah Sir Annamalai Ohettiar of
Chettinad, appears to have discussed the matter with the Rt. Hon'ble the Secretary of State. On the occasion, the great part played
by Indians, and especially by South Indians, in developing Burma,
was freely acknowledged by the Secretary of State himself; and the
hope was expressed that a free flow and interchange of thought
would continue between Burma and India. Everything that has
taken place, tended to encourage thp, belief, that whatever steps
Burma might feel called upon to take, it would not go to the extent
of placing unheard of restrictions upon Indians entering' Burma as
heretofore for purposes of trade and business. In fact, the Governmentof Burma Act concedes to Indians several important rights
which is a statutory recognition of their claim to fair treatment.
It was said that the internal economy of Burma requires some kind
of check upon the inflow of labour into Burma. I am not satisfied
that it is so. I remember that the Baxter Committee itself says
tE-~~Indian Im~igratio_~_i~_~ot~he mena_~~j~i~_s_upjl_~sed ~o~~! bu~

assuming it is, there was absolutely no justification for the irritating

and vexatious restrictions and conditions sought to be imposed by
the Agreement. There are two classes of Permits and for these
high fees are demanded. Poor labouring class men are expected to
plump down as much as sixty rupees, for going to Burma to work
on lands, for which enough labour is not available in Burma.
Permit fees of Rs. 12, residence fee of Rs. 5 per annum, repatriation fees of Rs. 20 have to be paid and to this must be added railway and shipping charges. It would have been better if Sir Girja
Shankar Bajpai had asked our labourers and peasants not to go to

39
Burma at all. And no person, unless he be a privileg'ed immigrant
or 'A' Permit holder can stay on in Burma for more than 9 years.
That is, a man who has spent 9 years in Burma must leave the
country, return home and whistle for work. 'rhis is an amazing
prOVISIon. If a man marries a woman of one of the indigenous
races of Burma orhappens to have relations with a Burmese woman,
his permit will be cancelled and he will be sent back to India. I
am not pleading for laxity in morals but I do wish we understood
human nature aright. vVith the best will in the . world, one may
lapse into an occasional indiscretion; one is often the dupe of time
and circumstance. Are you for that reason to bundle a man out of
the country, bag and baggage, ruining his business, his prospects and
blasting his entire life? Surely, the men of India are not so bad,
the men and ,yomen of Burma are not so bad, that this kind of
unnatural penalty should be imposed. It only means that those
who were charged with the task of making this Agreement took no
account' of realities. I cannot help wondering whether an Indian
delegation could have been so unkind to the men of this country.
There are thou~ands of Indians in Burma engaged in trade, big and
small~ employed in menial service as public servants, and in the case
of all of them, the Burmese have sho'wn uniform friendliness, so that
I cannot bring myself to believe that the people of Burma really desired that Indians should be treated in this shabby fashion. In any
case it was up to the delegation to have stood by the people of this
country, and pleaded and fought for them and their just rights.
A~di~k-~t - th-~toThey\ferefo - noTu
exploratory talks; they were expected to come back and report for
orders; instead of which they finish the business there, and come
and say it is all over and done with. vVe asked for bread, they
come back and give us a stone. Not the Burmese, mind you, but our
own men. I feel inclined to cry out, like Cesael:, "You too, Brutl~s I"~
The only decent thing to have done was to take the people .of this
country into their confidence, have had a few non-officials on the
delegation and to have striven for a just and equitable Agreement.
That was not done. The Agreement now presented to us is not

-,vaythey,venf 'vork. -

40
worth looking at. It must be modified, altered, made acceptable, if
grave dissatisfaction is to be avoided. I am moving a resolution
condemning the Agreement, and asking for its immediate rectification.
I understand that the same delegation, headed by the same gentleman
Sir G. S. Bajpai, is about to visit Ceylon for negotiating an Agreement. I hope that the delegation, will not go. The present time is
not suitable at all. Knowing as we do his performances in Burma,
we cannot but be dissatisfied with the idea of his leading the
delegation to Ceylon, for a similar purpose. Under the circumstances
I earnestly hope, that the Government of India will wait for some
time, so that a fully authoritative and representative delegation
consisting of representatives of non-officials, particularly from South
India, may be sent to Ceylon for the purpose. I beg to move the
above resolution.

Mr. K. Venkataswami Naidu (Deputy President, Madras Legislative

Council, Leader, Madras Municipal Congress Party) in seconding the
resolution made the following speech:"Mr. President and Friends,
On this occasion, I think a greater voice than myself must speak
on behalf of the Congress. The Congress has always been speaking
in everyone of its sessions for the last 52 years of its existence, that
the questions of Indians abroad was a matter of utmost importance,
ana that was-why -ollr-Indian-leaders
been frYIng to get
co-operation of other Governments, to see that they are able to secure
the best interests of our countrymen safeguarded there. But this
dismemberment of the Indian Empire and taking away Burma, is such
a tragedy, that we feel to-day that political opinio~l should be
mobilised against the same. The Indo-Burma Agreement is "hasty
and immature". Though Burma and India were politically separated,
they al'epart and parcel of one country, and it should be our duty to
promote cordial relations between the people of Burma and India. I
think it is the duty of everyone in India to raise a voice of protest,

have

41
and also to appraise the public that, this Agreement IS no good and
must be scrapped, f'specially at the time ofvVar, when everything is
so disturbed that no lasting AgTcement can be made. I do not know
why this delegation has not taken mature consideration of nonofficial opinion also, before concluding the Agreement. Instead, this
Agreement has been foisted upon this country. If one read carefully
the various clauses of the Agreement, one would see that Indians
alone in Burma 'Yould be put into great difficulties. The Agreement
"\vould practically result in shutting off Indians from going to Burma,
. and the people of Burma from coming to India. The European ' in
Burma is a wanted man, and bitterness has been created between the
Indians and Burmese, as the Indians to-day are unwanted in Burma.
That is really unfair in any Agreement between these two countries.
On the other hand, whatever may be the political barriers that ar~
created, it must be the endeavour of the two Governments to see
that their people live amicably side by side in the interest of both
the countriee. vVe have been helping each other so long that it is
very necessary to see that the cordial relationship is maintained.
What we see now is that labour is practically shut out and restriction are so great with regard to repatriation, ' marriage, cohabitation,
etc .. that it is impossible for poor labourers to go there. The sudden
prohibition of unskilled lahour from July 21, before establishing an
Emigration Board, and fixing a quota for unskilled labourers, has
caused hardship to hundreds of penwns who were not allowed to
Bmbark. _ Indian int~r~t~ have been badly letdown by the Government. Oommercial interest~--~v~;~--~l;~-g~~atiiand 'The
Agreement was not fair to them, who had done so much for the
prosperity of Burma. . Large Indian business interests 'would be
grievously affected by this Agreement. On this occasi9n, when
our leaders are not here, it is necessary that we have to make this
protest, a loud protest, that this Agreement is not at all acceptable
and shOUld be modified suitably. I hope that all parties would join
together in recording their emphatic protest against the Agreement,
which is unduly (lrastic, and see that it does not become a settled
fact. With these few words I support this resolution."

affected-,'

42

Diwan Bahadur R. Srinivasan (President, Madras Provincial Scheduled

Castes Federation, Member, Round Ta~le Conference, Burma SubCommittee) in supporting the resolution spoke as follows : "In supporting this resolution, I propose to confine myself to
one or two salient features of the Agreement, which vitally affect
Indian unskilled and agricultnral labour interests.
As a member of the Burma Sub-Oommittee of the Rounel Table
Conference, I have studied this question and I am a:ware of the
complexities of the problem. I myself have stayed in Burma fOl'
some years and have toured the place and I have an intimate
knowledge of the needs and difficulties of my countrymen th,ere.
The recent Agreement brings out prominently one fact and
that is, that Indian interests have been badly let down. In the
first place the procedure adopted 'Nas wrong. Indian public
opinion was not at all consulted and the Baxter Committee Report
which was submitted to the Government of India as early as
October 1940, and which formed the basis of the present Agreement
was not published until the Agreement itself was published. ''le
were lead to believe that the talks initiated by Sir Girja Shankar
Bajpai were purely exploratory. We were under the impression
that we would be consulted before the final Agreement was reached.
But here we were sadly mistaken, The Agreement was thrust.
upon the country as a fait accmnpli. Our countrymen had no
.. -opportllnit: - to--criticise.--O-I-4.ffer ::i!u.ggetio il-s-totR--,.Q%lggatioll-.----Iu
conducting delicate negotiations of this nature, association of I1onofficials in the delegation would have been very helpful. But this
was not done, with the result that Indian interests have been
betrayed. Ample time, at least a period of 5 years must be allowed
for Indians in Burma and India to adjust their matters, to settle
themselves in one or the other country.
The imm.igration of unskilled and agricultural labourers to
Burma affects several lakhs of our countrymen. Most of those
people who go to Burma as labourers are extremely poor, and

43

they belong to the scheduled castes. These labourers have

contributed iil a large measure to the prosperity of Burma by
bringing large areas of land under cultivation. But I am grieved
to find that they have been treated most unfairly and their rights
have. not been adequately safeguarded. Regarding the provisions
in the Agreement with reference to unskilled labour the scale of
Permit fee is prohibitive. Under the Agreement the labourer has
to pay Rs. 17 during the first year and a repatriation deposit of
Rs. 20. In addition to this, he has to incur for the purpose of
proceeding to Burma, railway and shipping charges amounting to
nearly Rs. 30. It is quite obvious that a -poor labourer will not be
in a position to raise this amount. Further, no employer will ever
care to spend this amount on labourers as the labour is purely
seasonal and they do not work continuously under a single
employer. This is not due to any fault of the labourer but is due
entirely to the want of continuous employment under the same
employer. Therefore, Gentlemen, the effect of this provision will
be to prevent Indian labour from migrating to Burma. UUEkilled
and agricultural labourers should be allowed to migrate freely with
safeguards of identification passes.

r, ---

The provision regarding cohabitation IS unprecedented and

is sure to work as an engine of oppression. This provision,unfortunately is thought of only in the case of Indians. It will
not only work great hardship but is also an insult to the se1-respeot of-- Inaians. -Furtl:i.er-iu -the-Agreement-there- is -no
adequate provision for the protection of labourers to be repatriated.
Such a provision is essential.
In view of the facts stated, the Agreement is totally
,. unacceptable to us. A grave injustice has been done to Indians.
Therefore it is absolutely essential that the Agreemen.t must be
suitably modified in consultation with Indian pub,lic opinion."
The President before requesting Kumararajah Sir M. A.
Muthjah Ohettiar to speak on the resolution congratulated him on

44
the recent conferment of Knightwood and wished him all prosperity
and success.
Kumararajah Sir Muthiah Chettiar of Cbettinad (Pr~5ident, Southern
Indian Chamber of Commerce, Leader of the Opposition in the
Madras Legislative Assembly) expressed his grateful thanks to the
President for his kind words about him and addressed the gathering
in Tamil. An English version of his speech is as follows:"That the relationship between Indian and Burma dated back
to hundreds of years; but he did not wish to cleal with that subject
on this occasion. After the separation of Burma from India,
several legislations had been enacted by the Burma Government
about which they would have read in the papers. The future
relation between India and Burma affected them vitally. Publit~
opinion in this country was opposed to separate negotiations with
the Burma Government, one on the matter of trade, and the other
on the question of immigration. The question of trade was settled
last March and now they were presented with this Agreement on
the question of immigration, which was harmful to Indian interests.
It had been estimated that there are about 31 lakhs of
Indians Overseas. Of them fourteen lakhs are in Burma, eight
in Malaya and eight in Oeylon. Only one lakh of people are in
other parts of the world. It would thus be seen that nearly half
the number of Indians Overseas live in Burma, three.fourths of
--whom-are -from Bet1th--l-1a-i-a.!:.f1-hei.'efere, .ttli-s-<1-Restion Gt'--i-B1-l-R-i~
gration affected South Indians more than any on3 else. VVhile he
addressed the meeting on behalf of Nagarathal's,who had a stake
in Burma, he was also pleading on behalf of the other communities
of South India who were connected with Burma.
Continuing, Sir Muthiah Ohettiar said that it was evident.
that the Baxter Committee had not at all considered the
question of seasonal migration of agricultural labour to Burma.
'rhey, as wen as other classes of immigration to Burma, were
seriously handicapped by this Agreement. \Vhen the future of

j
I
I

45
such a large number of Indians was at stake, it was surprlsmg
that the Government of India did not t,hink fit to publish the
B~xter Heport earlier to
dicit public opinion. r:Che delegation
that was sent to Burma had no . non-officials on it. Further, it
was announced that the delegation would not conclude any
Agreement. Bu~ contrary to their expectation, the delegation signed
an Agreement. Speaking at a ga.thering in Burma, Sir Girja
Shankar Bajpai regretted his inability to disclose the terms of the
Agreement, but assured h is hearers that he had il( It done anything
prejudicial to the interest of Indians. From those circumstances,
they were forced to conclude that such a statement was an idle
boast. It also demonstrated how one person was able to inflict
incalculable harm on a wbole nation.
Proceeding, Sir l\1uthiah Ohcttiar said that, while they
could' agree to some sort of restriction on inlmigration, the sort of
restriction contemplated in the Agreement was wholly unacceptable. Agricultural labourers went from India for short periods.
They went to work under several people one after another and
returned to India with small savings. According to the Agreement, such a labourer would have to find about Rs. 70/- before he
could think of going to Burma. If he were able to find that sum,
there would be no necessity at all for him to leave India. As for
, A 'class Permits, even the speaker might find it difficult to go to
Burma, on account of the various conditions imposed for granting the
-PeTm-it. -Gft -th-whole,-tUe A,gre~m~11t_ VYQ.3h9.ir~nful to }Ildian
interests and it contained enough provisions to send out all Indians
from Burma if the Burma Government so desired.
After referring to the hardships caused to a large number of
people by preventing without notice, embarkation from :Madras Ports
on July 21, Sir :Muthiah Ohettiar said that the Government of India
would have done their duty by the people, only if they modified the
Agreement in accordance with public opinion on the subject. He
hoped that at least the Secretary of State for India would give heed
to public opinion and not ratify the Agreement.

i
I

46

Referring finally to the proposal to send a delegation to Cey Ion,

Sir l\futhiah Chettiar said that, when the Ceylon Delegation came
to India, a public meeting was held in :Madras to welcome the
members and wish them success. But no Agreement could be
reached that time and the Governmentof Indiahad rightly published
the trend of discussions that took place. The experience of the
Indo Burma Agreement was disappointing, and the public viewed
with disfavour the sending of a delegation to Cey10n before steps had
been taken to modify the Indo-Burma Agreement. There was
nothing to be lost by postponing th~~atteI'L and hehoped tha~th~ __ __ __
---~ . -.- -- - --Governmen~-"\Vouid- give weight to public opinion expressed at this
meeting and desist from sending a deJegation at th:s juncture."
Mr. V. Chakkarai Chettiar, (Alderman, Corporation of Madras) in further
supporting to the resolution spoke as follows in tamil:"Mr. President and Gentlemen,
My friends have asked me to speak in Tamil. -1 am not well
read in that language. Therefore I am likely to commit mistakes if
I speak in Tamil. In that case I want you to excuse me.
Friends! You know the reason for this all Parties' Conference.
I wish to commend those who have convened this meeting. At this
meeting there are present, members belonging to all parties. The
reason why, in spite of differences of opinion, leading men of all
parties have come to condemn this Agreement is that it will affect
the-ricl} and pOC)l:- alike of ourcou~try~e~ -;-~-ry-badly :- -( h;p~-that -members of all the parties here will join together and work for the
advancement of our motherland. Mr. Venkataswami Naidu, the
previous speaker, is a Oongressman. Janab Abdul Hameed Khan
belongs to the Muslim League. Our leader, Kumara.rajah Sir
Muthiah Chettiar, is a Justice p~rty man. The Goverment of India
has thus given an opportunity for leaders of all parties to come
together on one platform and speak with one mind. I offer my
thanks to Sir Girja Shanker Bajpai, the gentlemen who was responsible for making this all Parties conference a necessity (Laughter).

47

We must take note of one matter. Sir Girja is a Member of the

Government of India. He is a North Indian. He does not know
anything of matters relating to South India. Moreover about 14
lakhs of people have gone to Burma from the Tamil Nad. This
new Agreement affects all the 14 lakhs of people.. The chief person
responsible for this Agreement is Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai.
The Government did not consult any leader in South-India.
There must be two parties to an Agreement. This is so acc:Yrding
to law. But the Agreement concluded by Sir Bajpai cannot be said
to be an Agreement between India and Burma. Because as an
Agreement which affects ~hf' Tamil Country was concluded without
consultation of the Tctmils, it can be only an one sided and
unilateral Agreement.

li
I

I
I

Last night I was studying this Agreement for two hours.

Then I remembered one thing. Some three years ago an Agreement was concluded between England and Germany at Munich.
That was done by 1\1:r. N eville Chamberlain. He was given a
magnificent reception when he returned to Englalld on the
conclusion of that Agreement. \Vhen 1\1r. Chamberlain got down
from the Aeroplane with an umbrella in one hand and the Agreement of Hitler in the other, it appears that he waved the Agree- .
ment before the eyes of the people. Even so Sir Girja Shankar
Bajpai is now waving this Agreement before our eyes. (Laughter. )
I have not seen the horoscope of this Officer. But I believe
he is now under the influence of a good star, because the very
same Bajpai is about to go to America as the Agent of the Indian
People. We have to shake in our shoes, afraid of what he is going
to do in that country (laughter). \Ve are greatly concerned
about how he is going to maintain our interests and save our
honour in that land. The reason for this is the great harm that
this Gentleman has caused us by the Agreement with Burma. I
do not wish to speak much. There are others who are waiting to
follow me. But I wish to stress one or two points.

48
This Agreement is divided into 4 parts. First, visitors and
students. These may enter Burma if they wish. But they must
have Permits for that purpose. There are two kinds of Permits'A' Permit rmd 'B' Permit. Thirdly nobody can stay in Burnla
for more than 9 years. Besides these, there are severe rules for
becoming privileged immigrants. I wish to tell you of one thing.
If a man goes from here to Burma he may _ take his wft'e with him.
But if he has two wives he must take only one with him and leave
the othel' here. (laughter). He may take his SODS with him. But
if his sons are more than fs years old be cannot take them. Even
those sons must be the sons of the wife whonl he takes with him.
He cannot take the sons of the wife v17 hom he leaves behind! Only
Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai should explain the meaning of this.
Another point-No mention is made in this Agreement about
the daughters. \Vhat is a mall to do if he has daughters?
Is he to take them or not? There is a rule of interpretation in
English law which says, males include females. Are we to import
this interpretation here also ? (laughter).
Friends, I wish to say one word in conclusion. India and
Burma were united for several years. In every way-in culture,
education, civilisation and all other matters-they are like each
other. vVhat was one country for centuries, the British Government has divided into two. vVe cannot say that the Burmans
agreed to this partition. The Indian Government not only divided
u_ usbl1t _also_ se~kJt_way tQ_prev~nt u~lrom enpering Bllrll~:1--' ___ Ap_a,rt __ _
from this result, neither to this country nor to Burma is this
Agreement going to do any good? That is why we are condemning
this injustice. That is why wo are conveying by means of these
public llleetings our condemnation to the British Government."

Diwan Bahadur K. S. Ramaswami Sastri (Retired District and Sessions

. Judge, .President, Hindu Mahasabha, Madnls branch) in supporting
the resolution in Tamilsaid : " :Mr. President and Gentlemen,
I have great pleasure to associate m.> self with the proceedings
of this mcebing which has been convened to enter our protest

49

against the Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement. - I am very glad that leaders of all parties have joined together to express their feelings of resentment and dissatisfaction over this Agreement. If this
Agreement had been concluded between the Premiers of a free India
and free Burma, ;.t would have altogether taken a different shape and
the interests of all of us wonld have been properly safe-guarded. To
arrive at an Agreement between India and Burma, I must say, trade
and imm~gration matters should not be separated and they must go
together. The classification of Permits into 'A' and 'B' is only a
device to eliminate the immigration into Burma of Indias of both
)icher and poorer classes. Burma owed very "much to the Nagarathar
community for her present prosperity. They have invested in
crores thero to build up their business. The Agreement which had
now been signed would only strike a blow on the business carried on
hitherto by this community. vVe have therefore to carry on a
countrywide and persistent agitatation against this Agreement."
Mr. G. Selvapathy Chettiar, (Employees' delegate to the League of
Nations, Councillor, Corporation of Madras', and Labour leader) in
further supporting the resolution spoke in tamil as follows:-

" :1\1r. President and

G~ntlemen,

This huge meeting has been convened, as you are all aware In
order to protest against the recent Indo-Burma Agreement. I can say
that the Governments of Burma and India have conspired together
.. _to _ thrllst_-.t.hi ... :un}V(mte<l.furreeJ:!l.en.t l:lI>Qu- us,._~specia~ly .Sollth
Indians, who are much affected on account of this. Po;)r labourers
who are going to Burma to seek their livelihood cannot afford to pay
Rs. 70 by way of deposit etc. If only they have this amount ready
-on hand, many would not prefer to go out of India seeking labour.
1f an Indian labour there dares to touch a Burmese woman, his
passport will be immediately cancelled according to one of the terms
of this Agreement. Even in highly civilised European conntries,
there is no such discrimination against Indians. Unless therefore
a vow of Sanyasinis taken, no labourer or others could go to Burma.
:Many of the provisions of this Agreement' are highly prejudicial to

50
the Indians and we should not allow this to be placed in the Statute
Book. I therefore heartily support the resolution before the House."
Mr. P. Balasubramania Mudaliar~ (Editor, Sunday Observer),' in further
supporting. the resolution spoke as follows:"Mr. President and Com,rades,
",Ve have met here to record our protest under the auspices of
the All-Party meeting and I am particularly happy myself to
associate with the conference to record my protest against the unfair
treatment meted out to Indians in Burma. You must have by
now seen, that papers in North India have not supported our
protest, on the other hand they have tried to support the Agreement. It is because it is South Indians who suffer much in Burma.
Therefore it is our duty to agitate and tell the Government of India
that we cannot tolerate this one-sided Agreement. Our united
voice must reach not only Simla, but Whitehall also, and "vhat had
become a settled fact must be unsettled. vVith these few words,
I support this resolution."
Mr. Parameswaran, (Secretary, the Madras Provincial Scheduled Castes
Federation, and President, The Scheduled. Castes Youths' Association)
said as follows:" Chairman and Gel1tlelnen,
____ I do nQt _wallt to 1!aJ1~ l!Qon the j.loints so ~learly dealt ~vith. by
the previous speakers. I shall, however, say a word or two on the
Indo-Burma Immigration AgTeement which marks the end of free
entry of Indians into Burma and the restrictions of future emigrants
and unskilled labQur. Several provisions of this Agreement, apart
frOlll their vagueness, are highly detrimental to Indian interests,
particularly the Scheduled Oastes who form the bulk of the agricultural and unskilled 'labour population in Burma. Sir G. S.
Bajpai has not understood our economic miseries. This Agreement
concluded in the dark by one man has come as a rude shock to
Indians. By the action of one man the interests of a great country

51
has been betrayed. This Agreement which is an insult to Indians
cannot be called Indo-Burma Agreement but should be called
'Bajpai-Burma' Agreement. Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai, by this
agreement has gTeatly strained In do-Burma relations and has killed
Indian 19Jbour, Indian enterprise and Indian interests. This Agreement is being condemned by representative Indians belonging to all
parties, communities and interests. 'Vith all the emphasis at lUY
command, I denounce this most dishonourable Agreement eVer
entered into, and most vehemently protest ag;ainst this dangerous
Agreement. which, if implemented, will on1y result in disastrous
consequences. I whole-heartedly support the resolution before
the house".

Mr. ,Basheer ALmed Sayeed, B.A., B.L., (Member, Madras Legislative

Assembly, Member, Sy~dicate of the Madras University, Member,
Senaieof the Annamalai University) in support of the .resolution
said as foliows:" Mr. President and Gentlemen,

I don't think I can detain you for a very long time. Various
speakers that preceded me have said that an inequity had been
perpetrated on India, especially South India by the Agreement now
under discussion. This is one more betrayal of the cause of India.
The prime caUse of it is, that we had not the power to choose our
own representatives and delegations that this thing had happened.
IL3LchDJ3~u delegationh~d~ep .sen/i,}Ve . couldhay~_had 11_ diff~re!lt_
Agreement altogether. If, we could unite in other causes, as, on
this evening, people of different parties, different shades of opinion
had united against this Agreement, We could easily achieve Our other
objects also. Disunity among us would bring us further and
far greater insults. This Agreement is one-sided and selfish. The
Burma Government had the right to get as much agricultural labour
as it pleased on any terms, but if Indians had to go there, they had
to pay different sums and were under the handicap that they could
not come back to stay on in this country for a period extending more
than a year. I do . not .think that the Burmese Government has

52
invented such discriminatory measures against other people who
inhabit that country. Indians had made Burma's condition far
better than it would otherwise have been, and this was the gratitude
which was shown in return. This was the result of ' Separation'
engineered bya foreign agency. If such public meetings, as the
present one would proceed to agitate against what was called the
established fact of separation, we could made that 'settled fact',
unsettled. . I do not know of any such discrimination made against
other people who have inhabited Burma for example, Chinese,
Japanese, }\![alayas etc Before concluding this Agreement, it was
open to the Government to publish the Baxter Oommittee Report
which was in their hands as early as October 1940, and that important document was withheld from the public until the Agreement
itself was brought into lighb. }\![any of the provisiont; contained in
the agreement are highly detrimental to our interests and we must
go on agitating until it is suitably amended. Let us try to see that
there are no further betrayals of the Indian cause, like the present
one, by agents of a foreign Government".
Mr. T. Chengalvarayan B.A., LL.B., (CounCillOl", Corporation of Madras)
in further supporting the resolution spoke as follows:-

"Mr. President and Gentlemen,

You do not know so much of the Burmese language, as I do.
The subject matter of this meeting should be addressed, not to the
English knowing public, not to the Tamil knowing public, but to the
Burma N atioiI and the - Burm~- Governlnellt. fthink-Uie next---best
language I can address is in English. I have great pleasure in
supporting this resolution. I firmly believe that unless the problem
of Indian freedom is solved, the problem of Overseas Indian could
not be solved in the way it should be. This Agreement has neither
body nor soul. Some say the Government of India is the soul and
the Government of Bnrma the body. Even assuming it has got a
body and a soul, the body has to be buried and the soul damned.
}\![y first charge on the Government of India is bhat no chosen representative was included in this delegation, to whichever political party

"

"

he may belong. Secondly this Agreement was necessitated not,

because of the clamonr of the Burmese people, but because of the
illquitous separation of Burma from India. I charge the Government of India and the British Government for having djsturbed
the cordial relationship that existed between the two great peoples.
Thirdly, my attack upon this Agreement is that it places a gTeat
premium upon people from this country to go to Burma. Further
this Agreement is going to be a great handicap to the normal and
international relationship of the two glorious countries. We have
been hit hard by this unwanted Agreement. I am therefore firmly,
convinced that unless the question of the freedom of our country js
settled, unless we become master of our country, the problem of
Indians Overseas could not be tackled successfully to our advantage.
Then the question of Burma Indians, Oeylon and South African
Indians also will be solved automatically. 1 am longing for the
day, when our sons and daughters will go out of India, not as '
scavengers and coolies, but. as AmbassadorR Agents.

1,"
.

f -

I find that no discriminatory legislation hasbeen made by the

Burma GoverI?ment against European settlers. Therefore they have
no reason, as to why they should particularly discriminate viSItors
from India. I warn the British Government, that if the provisions
of the Agreement are not suitably amended to the satisfaction of all,
we have to resort to boycott of all Burmese goods, such as Petrol,
Timber, Teakwood, etc. \Vith these remarks, I have great pleasure
h'
l'
. 111 SU12PQ~t1ngJ_l~_l~_()_l:!:t~<?~_ '"..,. _,
.

Mr. C. N. Annadorai (Editor, Viduthalai) speaking next said:Nearly 95 per cent. of Indians in Burma are people from
Tamilnad and the rest may be from the other parts of India.
Therefore North Indians are not in a position to properly present
Our case since they are not accustomed to our mode of living and
thoughts. All the North Indian papers, except the 'Star of India'
have supported this Agreement. I would therefore appeal to you
all, especially those who have come from interior villag.es to attend
this meeting, to hold similar ,meetings in every uook and corner ..:of

54

their villages and explaint0 them the disastrons consequences of

this Agreement. If such an agitrution is started against the Agreement, we are bound to succeed. I therefore associate myself with
the leaders of other parties in denouncing this Agreement.
Mr. P. Gopalratlmam, (Secretary The United Municipal Association,
Madras), in further supporting the resolution said:-

President and Friends,

I have been authorised by the President to speak only for one
or two minutes. 1Vly friend ~1r. Chengalvaroyau has already explained to you in full about the injustice that is being meted out
to Indians Overseas. I must say that the person fitted to conduct
nego)ciations and conclude Agreements is :N[r. ]);1. S. Aney, MemberDesignate for Indians Overseas. I join with you all in wholeheartedly condemning this unwanted Agreement and I pray that this
should be scrapped immediately.
Mr. Swaminatha Iyer:FU1,ther supported the resolutjon and said that the Agreement
is fundamentally wrong,
The President Sir Mahomed Usman put the resolution to vote,
which was carried unanimously with great acclamation.

Mr. T. S. Nataraja Pillay in moving for the constitution of a Committtee to

make representations to their Excellencies the Viceroy and Governor
-of -Madras- to---suiiabfy amcmfthe provisi~~~--~fthe Air~ement --;ad-~
the following speech:"Mr. President and Gcntlemen,
VVhen the rights of immigrants of other countries are backed
up by armed forces and invasions, we have in India, the sorry
spectacle of an Indian giving up the legitimate and established
rights of his countrymen in Burma, without any effort made to
defend theln or one blow, albeit a verbal one, struck to enforce their
claims. Immigration to Burma affects mainly the South Indian

55
who by his labour and toil, by his huge. investments of 8Ocrores of
rupees and by the shedding even of his blood in addition to the
sweat of his brow, has converted impenetrable forests haunted by
robbers, reptiles and wild beasts into smiling lands of plenty. A
North Indian was hardly the fittest person to represent them or to
solve their difficulties.
Sir G. S. Bajpai, conscious of his individual strength and disdaining the help of more informed Indians sallied majestically alone
and in imitatjon of a conquering hero, went, saw and compromised.
Never did it strike him that he was cODlpromisillg by his action
the position of the Indians in Burma. 14 lakhs of peoples, 40% of
whom were born .and bred up there, are now deprived of
their individual rights or left in doubt as to whether they
have any political rights in that land and are branded as emigrants
who can only be suffered to remain on the soil by the indulgence ot the Burman and by the jSl)ue of a Permit with
an indentification photograph, even like the ticket of leave of a
convict, which has to be acquired at a great cost. Steeped in the
traditions of the vVest, we are apt to forget, that we have some
other kith and kin, besides our wives and children, who have claims
on our support. If a man goes to earn a living in BUl'ma or to
embark upon a useful trade there, he has to take up \vith him
besides his wife and children, his father or mother, widowed
or unmarried sisters or his minor brothers. \Ve Ctmnot link hjs
figg~ withtl1~t of his wif~~]1Clc~~rch magnifici(3ntlyalong.~ If in
addition to the 500 rupees which he h.as to pay for himself, he has
to pay also Rs. 250 for each of his dependants, including the
servants whom he has to take with him, he will have to pay by
way of fees alone thousands of rupees. Is he to invest all his capital
in payment of fees and try to eke ont a livelihood by borrowed
capital and thus begin his career, with a great handicap, at its very
threshold ~ What again is to happen to a young man who gets
an employment as a Government servant 01' as a clerk, as
Mr. Baxter has recommended iD the Port Trust of Rangoon? Under
the Agreement of Sir G. S.Bajpai he cannot remain for more than
!~

""';

~L-':,~

56
9 years at the most in Burma. vVhat profit can he derive by being
fortunate enough to obtain that post. Some charitabl:y minded
authority may confer a benefit, but Sir G. S. Bajpai will not allow
the beneficiary to enjoy it. Similar difficulties beset the path of
the poor labourer.
What can we' think of a gentleman who consents to have his
countrymen driven out of a land, if by chance he' is seen in the
company of a Burmese woman. In no other land have we heard of
su.ch a legislation. Living near the Himalayas Sir G. S. Ba,jpai
must have lost his worldly ,visdom and become yogic in habits and
thoughts. A recluse i::; scarcely a fit person to lay down laws to
erring humanity as is shown by Shakespeare in his 'Measure for
l\1easure'. A few conspirators, and a willing wanton woman backed
up by a complacent Burman policeman) can easily compass the
expulsion of any Indian from Burma.
rrime does not permit me to examine the other provisions of
the Agreement-the manna which has so unexpectedly fallen in
our mi~st, which is the result of hasty and ill thought out decisions
of one individual. But, I wish before closing,to harp on one aspf'ct,
even though attention had been drawn to it by the other speakers,
which may have serious consequences on the future of our country.
In England, even .In War time, "when ultimate disclosures might
imperil the very lives of the people, Members of Parliament insist on
the public being taken into confidence of the Ministers and full
. -p-a-Ftieu-}al'sa-l'e-bef.IlgL-given-- oTwha-t- -is-g(li-ng --to 'bedo-ne~- -In--Illd-ia,
which is said to be at the very threshold of great reforms, which are
going to usher in democratic Government, one person is sent without
the consent of, or consultation with the Legislature to make a
preliminary investigation of affairs in Burma. He comes back, flaunting before the eyes of a "wonder-striken and dumb-founded public, a
concluded Agreement which he claims to be the panacea of all ills of
the Indian. Can contempt of public feeling go further?
Now there is shortly to be a visit by Sir Bajpai to Ceylon. The
problem of . Indians in Ceylon is more complicated than that in

57
Burma. Already there is Repatriation of Indians there, the village
Franchise Act has deprived many an Indian of his political rights;
hostile tariffs have been imposed and legislatiol1 to evacuate Indians
has also been undertaken. In every way Ceylonproblems presesnt
greater difficulties. \Ve cannot allow Sir Bajpai however well
intentioned he may be, to make a jolly flight to Oeylon and throw
away the rights of Indians without getting in return even the
proverbial mess of pottage.
These gentlemen, South Indians by birth, men of great
experience in the business, people who know and are intimately
connected with both Burma and Oey lon problems, we are sending to
the Viceroy and Governor-'General, the Governor and the Secretary
of State (if necessary) to place our case before them and get a
modification of the Agreement before it is ratified by an Order-inOouncil and to secure a proper settlement of the Oeylon question. I
have great pleasure in moving this resolution

RESOLUTION
"Resolved that a Oommittee consisting of the following gentlemen with power to co-opt be constituted for the purpose of making
representations to His Excellency the Viceroy, His Excellency the
Governor of )\iadras, the Governments of India and :Madras and to
the Rt. Hon'ble the Secretary of State for India in regard to the
Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement and to take such other steps
aSTIlay-be--ne-cessa-ryto lUft-her-tfre-e-hjeets-e:E-this-IIle@ting-::----

Mernbers:Sir Mohamed Usman.

Sir K. V. Reddi.
Rajah Sjr Annamalai Ohettiar of Ohettinad.
Mr. G. Janakiram Ohettiar (Mayor of Madras).
Diwan Bahadur V. Shanmuga Mu,daliar (Sheriff of Madras)
Janab Abdul Hameed Khan Sahib.
Diwan Bhadur K. S. Ramaswami Sastriar (Retd. Dist. Judge)
Mr. B. Pocker.
\

I
(

58
Mr. Basheer Ahmed Sayeed.
Rao Bahadur M. O. Rajah.
Khan Bahadur Adam Hajee Mohamed Sait.
Mr. V. Chakkarai Chettiar.
Kumararajah Sir Muthiah Chettiar of Chettinad .
. Mr. K. Nagarajan. B.A., B.L. ( Secretary)."

Mr. N. Gopal Menon, (President, Kerala Samaj, Madras, and Councillor,

Corporation of Madras) seconded this resolution, which was carried
unanimously.
Sir Mohamed Usman in bringing the proceedings to a close held that
our cause was just and expressed the hope that we will succeed
ultimately.
Khan Bahadur Adam Hajee Mohomed Sait ( Vice-President, Southern
India Chamber of Commerce, Director, Reserve Bank, Central Board)
in proposing a vote of thanks said as followsIt is my very pleasing duty now to convey to Sir Mohamed
Usman, our united and sincere thanks for having presided and lent
lustre to the great gathering. It is indeed gratifying that there
has been complete unanimity in regard to the resolutions passed,
and I do hope that the Government of India will adopt speedy
measures to redress the grave wrong that has been done to Indian
interests in Burma by the recent Indo-Burma Immigration
Agr-eement~--LJJa:yenow.Y--Br;y_great__pleasllrfl in_PIDposing_lk hearty
vote of thanks to Sir Mohamed Usman, our distiDgui~hed President.
I must also thank the various leaders and speakers who bave
participated in to-day's meeting and made it a great success.
The President then declared the meeting dissolved.

59
Memorial respectfully submitted by theComlllittee
appointed at the public meeting held at the
Gokhle Hall, Madras on Monday, the
28th of luly 1941,
To
His Excellency
The Governor-General-in-Oouncil,

NEW DELHI.
May it please Your Excellency,
\Ve, the Members of a Committee appointed at a public meeting
of the people of :Madras held at the Gokhale Hall on :Monday, the
28th July, 1941, to make representations to Your Excellency on
the subject of the Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement recently
reached between the Government of India and the Government of
Burma, beg respectfully to submit this memorial, for Your Excellency's kind consideration.
2. Having given our best attention to the matter, we. feel
constrained to state that the Agreement amounts, in important
particulars, to a surrender of the just claims of Indians, who are
residents in, or have business connections with, Burma and own
property there. After making every allowance for the delicacies
said to be inherent in the situation, we cannot agree that the very
-d-r-a-s-t-i-e- pr0visio-R-S -w-high -th~ - Agr-eement-emhodieK__aL~~alledJor ,_
either by the needs of the situation, or justified from the point of
view of Indian interests.
3: We agree that an autonomous state normally has the right
to determine its population. In regard to the position of Indians in
Burma, however, there are certain equities which have a paramount
claim to consideIation and which, in our view, appear to have been
completely lost sight of. The negotiations which led up to the
separation of Burma, the undertakings in part explicitly, and in part,
impliedly, given at the time of the passing of the Government of

60

Burma Act, and the essential friendliness prevailing between the

Burmese~and the Indians, were calculated to engender the belief
that, whatever restrictions on Indian immigration the Government
. of Burma might feel called upon to impose, it would not be allowed
to go to the length of laying the axe at the very foundations of
Indian business in Burma. For, the Agreement in question, III
essence, amounts to that and the point is elaborated below.
4. At the time of the Round Table Oonference, and at the
time of the passing of the Government of Burma Act, apprehensions
were entertained that, in the absence of suitable safeguards, such as
had been prescribed in the case of British business and men of
British nationality, there was a possibility of unfair, discriminatory
legislation being passed against Indians and that improper restrictions might come to be placed on the right of Indians to enter Burma.
Hepresentations were made to the Hon'ble the Secretary of State in
this behalf, and the matter was ventilated on the floor of the House
of Commons. Assurances were, however, given that what was
contemplated was only some check on the immigration of 'unskilled
labour' and that, in view of the difficulty of giving a satisfactory
definition of the term' unskilled labour' in a legislative enactment, the
relevant provision (Section 44)of the Government of Burma Act would
be left worded generally, but that suitable instructions, in the sense
intended, would be given in the Instrument of Instructions to the
. Governor. Throughout the debate and, frequently, in personal
negotiati()nLemnhajs was l:iicl_Qn the f!LctJlIatwlmtwas aimedatw-as
surplus unskilled labour coming from India, and a reassuring feeling
was created that, even after the lapse of the interim period fixed for the
. trade Agreement, no attempt would be made to strike at businessmen and their employees going to Burma as theretofore for
business and other purposes.
5. The present Agreement gives no indication that the said
discussions were borne in mind. It appears as though little or no
thought was given to the enormous interests owned by Indians,
and which are put in imminent jeopardy by the Agreement just

.
61
reached. That Indian immigration is a menace to Burma is a .
bogey, which has been suffi.ciently dispelled by the BaxterOommittee Report. That report itself, which . was submitted to the
Government as far back as October, ] 940, was not made available
in time to the public, who could have offered helpful comments
thereon. Its pUblication synchronously with the Agreement serves
no useful purpose.
6. The delegation to Burma, from the outset, suffered from
the handicap of lack of expert non-official assistance. lVIen who
knew where the rub lay, who could have drawn attention to the
manner in which the Agreement might injure' legitimate Indian
rights, were not on the delegation either as original members
or as advisers.

7. We cannot also escape the feeling that the delegation

exceeded their instructions. This, at any rate, is the conclusion
forced upon us by authoritative announcements made before the
delegation left for Burma. The delegation, it was believed, would
only hold exploratory talks and, with the knowledge gained thereby, return to India and report for orders, instead ' of which they
have presented the country with a fait accompli, which is hardly
fair. The result is, if ,ve may say so with great respect, judgment
has been given, so to speak, ex parte.
8. On the merits, we humbly submit, the Agreement has
---i-i-i-t-le -to -reeam-meIHl--i-t.- --rr:'-h@@lahQJ'ate --SJ"stem.Of. _p_as_s_p_Qr.i.s_ and_
visas seems designed not to control the inflow of undesirable persons or of an excess quantity of unskilled labourers. ~1hey have
every appearance of being designed not only to prevent Indian
immigration but to drive out of the country, thousands of Indians
who have carried on business in Burma for . generations, acquired
property and, to , all intents and purposes, become as good as
domiciled Burmans.
9. The rules as to permits ere drastic in the extreme and
.ammount to a notice to quit. "B" permits which will be issued to

62
the ordinary trader or businessman, for instance, can be gIven
for a maximum period of three years only and can be
extended at the discretion of the Government of Burma, for a total
period of nine years, after which, presumably he should obtain an
"A:' permit, for which the most stringent qualifications have been
prescribed. The result would be that no Indian-unless he is a
privileged immigrant who takes care not to lose the privilege by
visiting India for a longer period than one year-can carry on any business there for a period longor than nine years. If our interpretation
of the rule is correct, it would grievously aff~ct Indian businessmen
and property owners in Burma. Persons who would have spent the
bf'st dart of their lives in Burma "\vould automatically become
unavailable for work just at a time when their experience would
make their services invaluable.
The larger volume of Indian
business in Burma is conducted by agents and trained staff, and if
their employment at the end of nine years' service is barred, the
result would be ruin to Indian businessmen and property ovYners.
Such a provision is unfair to the employees themselves who would
be cut off, so to speak, in mid-stream, left to drift aimlessly -with
little or no chance of finding new employment. South Indian
businessmen, especially the members of the Nagarathar community,
will be gravely affected thereby. rrheir firms have been established
in Bnrma for over 70 or 80 years now, and the result of withholding
permits would be to deprive them of the services of experienced
men. rrhis, we hope, was not the intention of the framers of the

Ag'I'eem eni-;----H--tha-twas n(J-ts(J, im m-edia-te-el-ar-i-fi-eati (J-ll is neces sary-,-and if it was, an immediate modification should be made, if a scare
is to be avoided and dislocation of business averted.
10. The pprmit system, we submit, iR badly designed. To
the issue of permits, as such, we have no objection but what we
respectfully maintain is, that the discretion to grant permits must
be confined to the case of unskilled labour. In other cases, there
ought to be no discretion to refuse permits and these should automa.tically be given. This difference in treatment can be referred to a
principle. As submitted in paragraph 4 abuve, what was contemp-

63
lated in regard to future immigration was control of the immigration
of unskilled labour , which ,vas supposed to be assuming dimensions
unfavourable to Burma. While it can truthfully (or speciously)
be urged that the uncontrolled influx of cooly labour was calculated
to foster Burmese unemployment, the same cannot be said of the
numerous persons who proceed to .Burma to work in business houses
and firms to render what may be called ~'skilled services." These
never were a menace to Burma, and it was never suggested that they
kept Burmans out of employment which was legitimately their due.
So there can be no objection to the free entry of such persons into
BUrma. But as a means of having some kind of check upon the
immigration of Indians in general, permits may be granted, but these,
we respectfully submit, ought to be automatically granted in the case
of persons who go to Burma on assured employment in business
houses, firms and other fields. The same considerations apply to
cooks, attelldants and watchmen and such other persons who attend
upon their Indian employers and render menial personal services.
11. Arising out of the same principle is the absence of any
justification for the levy of fees for permits. Here, we think, skilled
and unskilled labour stand on thp. same footing. The former class,
we have endeavoured to point out, ought to get their permits as a
matter of course, almost as a matter of right, which would make the
levy of fees improper. So far as unskilled labour is concerned, if its
immigration is to be controlled, that is, allowed to the extent and in
.. the degre~..r~q!liI~1Qy9~~ditions
in Burma, then what is allowed
,------ - _------- -- will be just the number of labourers . required to perform necessary
functions for which there is not an adequate supply of labour locally.
In our opinion, to tax labouring men who come to answer an urgent
demand would be most improper. In point of fact, their repatriation
ought to be a charge on the Government revenues. It is a well
known fact that there is a considerable shortage of agricultural
labour in Burma. Harvesting and other operations have usually to
be conducted with the help of Indian cooly labour, which comes over
in the cold weather. Should they be prevented from coming-' as
they will be by the imposition of permit fees and other burdens on
- ------ _

..

..

.-- - ~ ... -.-.-

-.. --

- - --

--- ----

_. ---- - - - - --- _ ..__ .. _----

-.-

----------- - -- -----_

..

-- ---------

64

them-agricultural operations will suffer, the out-turn will be poor

or nil, and land-o"\vners will incur grievous loss and there wiil be
corresponding detriment to the public revenue. As it is, Indian
landowners pay nearly a cro1'e of rnpees as land revenue in Burma.
Any fall in agricultural income earned in Burma by Indians will
result in loss to the Indian Exchequer, as a fall in agricultural
income earned in Burma, will lead to diminished income-tax revenue
in India. Thus, so far as permit fees are concerned, we respectfully
submit that they ought to be ruled out altogether.

12. A question, however, might arise as to how Government

could get rid of person who, having been allowed to enter, turn out
to be undesirable. To meet such cases, rules may be devised in
consultation with committees appointed for the purpose. In the case
of what 'we have called skilled labour, men who go on engagements
entered into beforehand, a declaration may be obtained in advance
from the employer that, should the permit-holder misbehave himself
and has to be sent back to his country, the .charges of repatriation
will be borne by the employer. These and other details may be
worked out by suitably constituted committees.
1'he condition of the grant of 'A' permits are, again, a
negation of the right of several Indians to enjoy the benefits they
have earned by long years of residence and service in Burma. The
insistance upon a certain financial standing is very vague, while the
.requirem~ntas tosuitabilitY~Dx BnrmesB-ilmnicilej.s-}.v...OrdRd in_....Snch general terms as to leave the position nebulous and dangerously
elastic. The insistance ona photograph is an irritating formality
which could be dispensed with.

13.

14. The proposal to register Indians is not called for. To

treat them as though they were enemy aliens, is uncharitable, and
we hope that Your Excellency's Government m.ay be pleased to
impress upon the Government of Burma that it would not be proper to insist upon the registration in Burma of the Indian fellowsubjects of the Burmese people.'

65
15. The prOVISIOns regarding the dependants one is allowed
to take, are illogical and calculated to cause extreme hardship.
A man cannot take all his wives if he has more than one, nor
can he take his children by any wife other than the one he is per-"
mitted to take with him to Butma. The reasons for the limitation
imposed in this regard are unintellig ible, and beyond causing
extreme annoyance and irritation, can serve no purpose whatsoever.
This provision should be abrogated altogether, as there can be no
objection to a man taking all his dependants with himself wherever
he goes, having regard to the fact that family feeling is very strong
among Indians, as among the Burmese. If permit fees are abolished,
this anomaly will go.
16. There is one important particular in which the Agreement
offends against what may be termed guaranteed rights. Section 44
(2) of the Government of Burma Act gives to British Indian and
Indian states' subjects immunity from any Act of the Legislature as
imposes any disability, liability, restrictions or conditions in regard,
among other matters, to the holding of property. Property-holding
involves the idea of the due administration of the property, by employing suitable men and any restriction placed upon the right of
Indians to enter Burma, for the purpose of managing and administering properties there, would derogate from th.e right. statutorily gi ven
The Agreement also offends against the spirit of Sections 46 and 51
of the Act.
~-

..-..-- -- - -

.. - .--

-----

does-

17. The Agreement is open to the further criticism that it

not adequately safeguard the rights of Indians who may have to
proceed to Burma to work in India-owned firms and businesses on
assured employment. Firms and other business houses which have
been long established-in some cases for over 70 or 80 years-have
to send in a steady flow of employees and if permits to them should
be unjustly withheld, incalculable hardship will ensue. Chettiar
business is a case in point. These are generally run by agents
assisted by a trained staff of sub-agents, clerks,accountants and
.others. They are sent out on engagements to serve for three years

66
which in practice, involves an extension of the contract period for
any additional term extending from 6 months to 2 years, at the
conclusion of which they return to India on an understanding,
g'enerally observed, that they should return to Burma and resume
work at the end of three years, on the same terms as before. In
this way, continuity in policy and methods is kept up, and it is of
the first importance that nothing should be done to interfere
with the mode of business to which the community is accustomed.
Not only should permits be automatically given to such persons, but
express . provisions should be made safeguarding Indian business
against being interfered with by arbitrary refusal of permits.

18. The rule as to the length of residence required to enable a

person to acqujye the status of a 'privilpged immigTant' is unduly
severe. \Vhile the Baxter Committee itself recommended only five
years' residence for a person to acquire the status of a 'privileged
immigrant', the Agreement insists on seven years and this again is
limited to the cases of persons who have already put in the required
length of residence between the 15th July 1932 and the 15th July
1941. A verylarge number of Indians, the members of the Nagarathar
Community '( Chettiars) for example, carry on business in Burma by
agents and suitable assistants and their own residence in Burma is
intermittent. It ought to be made possible for them to acquire the
same privilege as their employees, and it is submitted that the
required length of stay be prescribed as a total of five years during
- -a ~e-ried-w-fi-fweIl- years.
19. The penalising of marriag'e and the severe penalties for
cohabitation with a \voman of any of the indigenous races of
Burma cannot be justified by any stretch of reas'oning. Casual
lapses, which do not point to any rooted wickedness but occur naturally and without malice prepense, ought not to be treateo. in the
drastic fashion proposed in the Agreement: It shows a lack of
understanding of human nature and seeks to take advantage of momentary weaknesses forbring'ing about the expUlSion of persons
who would otherwise be reputable members of society. In the

67
absence of adequate safeguards, it would become a dangerous
weapon ip. the hands of unscrupulous persons who might try to
blackmail even innocent Indians regardless of their status. Regulation of irregular sexual relations by introducing Brothel Acts and
similar legistation is understandable, but not the unheard of penalties
proposed in the Agreement. This rule is discriminatory and calclllated to give offence. So far as marriage is concerned, the ordinary
la w of the land ought to apply and, if any departure is made, it
ought to apply to all non-Burmans alike.

20. The literacy test for which provision is made can become
another weapon of abuse. By requiring a standard of literacy in
English, for instance, which the average Indian trader or businessman may not possess, several very desirable and respectable persons
can be barred from entering Burma. This rule deserves to be
amended.
21.. The arrangement for bringing the Agreement into effective
operati.on, in part straightaway and in part from the 1st October
1941, has little to commend it. No breathing-space is given for
making representations to the Governments concerned, or to secure
needed modificatIons. Hundreds of people who had purchased their
passages were turned back the other day from the Port of :Madras.
And a few days ago, about 500 labourers were prevented from
embarking at Vizagapatam. Grave and irreparable hardship is sure
to ensue from the unrestricted restrictions placed upon the immi-gratilTlI -of~th-e-1-aho-u-ri-nge}a-sses-;~
22. While some kind of provision is made for the Government
of Burma t~ act in close co-operation with the Government of India,
it is to be regretted that no provision is made for the setting up of
an Immigration Board on this side to tender advice to the -Government of India on the fixing of quotas and other matters relating to
immigration from India. We cannot help feeling that all powers
and privileges have been made over to the Government of Burma,
leaving this Government merely to register the decisions of the
former and faithfully to carry them out. It is of the utmost

68
importance and urgency that a corresponding body should immediately be set up at New Delhi to tender advice, suggest modifications
and generally to help in the adminis tration of the rules in a spirit of
fairness and equity.
23. In short, the framers of the Agreement in question have
completely shut their eyes to the peculiar position of Indians in and
in relation to Burma, their long and honourable connection with it,
their immense services to that country and the part they have played
in its development, The connection between India and Burma is
centuries old, and there has been through the centuries a constant
and unceasing flow and interchange of ideas and thought which have
contributed to the common good. Coming to recent times, ever since
the British occupation of Burma, Indian enterprise in the Province
has been unremitting and productive of great good. South India has
not been behindhand in this respect.. The members of the Nagarathar Community, for instance, have given freely of their best to
Burma. fl'hey went there at the instance, invitation and inducement
of the Government and helped to reclaim vast areas of land and make
the Province richer and more prosperous than it ever had been. l'he
services which this community has been privileged to render in the
past have always been the subject of eulogy by high-placed officials
from Governors downwards. It was a lively sense of such services
that was responsible for the acknowledgments made on the floor of
the House of Commons with one voice by disting'uished members,
including the Secretary of State himself. In the work of land
reclamation atHlin development of traue-ancl Commerce, Indianlabour has played no mean part. It was their devoted service which
helped to develop the ports and cities of Burma and bring vast
areas of unreclaimed land to cultivation. In these circumstances,
it is respectfully submitted that the Government of India should
take an possible steps for ensuring that nothing is done to prevent
Indians from enjoying the properties which they have been compelled to acquire and the businesses they have been conducting for
nearly a century now. The unduly seven~ restrictions now sought
to be place(i upon the inflow of peasant labour is bound to result

69
in large areas remaInIng uncultivated, consequent l6s8 of great
magnitude to landowners, their employees and , labourers, and
presumably also, of loss of .Government revenue. This along with
the Permit system which has been devised is calculated to bring
ruin to Indian business in Burma. Business will not only be stifled '
and scotched, it will be remorselessly ~illed. It will not be possible
to start new businesses in Burma, and this can hardly ' be regarded
as the best way of rewarding those Indians who have been connected with Burma for several generations now. That is hardly the
treatment which Indian traders and businessmen and Indian labour
expected at the hands of the Government. We cannot escape the
feeling that, if the representatives of India had only taken the stand
they ought, in fairness and justice to have taken, a more satisfactory
arrangement could have been devised and Indians given the protection due to them from their own Government. As it is, Indians
stand to suffer very greatly by the Agreement now concluded and it
is urgently necessary that the Agreement should be suitably and
satisfactorily revised if Indian interests are to be saved from
languishing.
24. We would therefore respectfully suggest that the Agreement be revised as indicated hereunder;
(1) No fess to be levied for passport, visas or permits.

(2) Permits to be granted at the discretion of the Government

of _- Burma,
acting in consultation with the _- Government
of
- - - -_._ .
India, to unskilled labourers proceeding to Burma. Photographs not to demanded.
.- .------_. _----- _..

- -.---

-- -. --- - - ~- - . - - .. . ..

---' -

---

- -

- - - --

--.--

- -_.__ ....

- -- - .--- ~

(3) Permits to be granted as a matter of right to persop.s

proceeding to Burma for purpose of trade or business or
property management on engagements entered into beforehand, assuring them of employment and to personal servants, such as cooks attendants, watchmen, etc.
(4) The rule as to the issue of 'B' perIllitsbe amended by
making it clear that the nine-year period indicated therein

70
refers only to a person's stay on a given permit and that
there will be no bar to his proceeding again or, as often as
he likes, to Burma) on fresh permit.
(5) That in all cases of Indians, other than those answering to
the description of unskilled labour, the employers to give
an undertaking in writing beforehand- that they would be
liable for the expenses of the return to India of such their
employees as are declaJed unfit for further residence
in Burma.

(6) That no embargo be place,d on persons proceeding to trade

or do any kind of business in Burma.
(7) The literacy test to be abolished and, if that cannot be
done, it be made clear that a certain. standard of literacy in
the mother-tongue of the permit-holder, to be vouched for
by a suitable Indian authority, be considered sufficient.

(8) The provisions for the cancellation of permits, in the event

of an immigrant's marriage or cohabitation with woman

of any of the indigenous race.s of Burma, be cancelled.
(9) Indians who prove a total residence of five years out of a
period of fifteen years be termed 'privileged immigrants' .
and that the status once acquired not to be lost except by
continuous absence for three years .

...~ {-le;--Permits- -to--be--gi-venfreely --taal-l- tae-- dependan-tsef-a

permit-holder.
(11) The transitory provision for prohibiting immigration from
21st July 1941 be cancelled.
(12) The Agreement as modified, to come into operation from
such date as may be fixed by the Government of India and
the Government of Burma not laterthan 1st April 1942.
(13) That an Indian Immigration Board be set up at New Delhi
consisting of representatives of concerned interest to advice

71
the Government of India in all matters relating to the
working of the Agreement.

(14) Before ratifying and giving effect to the Agreement, the

Government of India to call a meeting of respresentatives
of. concerned interests in all the provinc~s and from Indians
in Burma to settle details and sugg'est rules for the
working of the Agreement.

(15) To suspend the operation of the Agreemen

pending'
consideration of this lVlemorial and final settlement of the
terms of the lndo-Burma Agreement.

(16) 1'hat no Order-in-Council be obtained till the Agreement

is modified suitably.
We therefore humbly pray that Your EX,cellency may graciously
be pleased to consider the points herein submitted and modify the
Agreement suitably and pendin'g such modification to suspend
its operation.
MADRAS.

vVe beg' to subscribe ourselves

2nd August, 19.41.

Your Excellency's most humble servants,

Sir Mahomed Usman Saheb Bahadur, K.e.I.E., M.L.C.,

Vice-Chancellor, University of :Madras.
Sir Kurma Venkata Reddi Naidll Garu,

K.C.I.E., 1t'LL.C"

Yl(;~JJh~cellQI~l4:!l:na~ll~~iJlp!Y~l'sit:y. ~ .

Rajah Sir Annamalai Chettiar of Chettinad, M.L.A. (Central),

President, Nattukottai Nagarathars' Association, l\fadras.
lIr. G.Janakiram Chettiar, lIayor of lVladras.
Diwan Bahadur V. Shanmuga Mudaliar, Sheriff of lVIadras.
Vice-President, Southern India Chaniber of Commerce.

1.fr. Abdul Hamid Khan,

lLL.A.,

Leader, Madras Legislative Assembly Muslim League Party,

Vice-President, Madras ProvinciallVIuslim League,
Vice-President, lfuslim Chamber of Commerce.

72
Diwan Bahadur R. Srinivasan, M.L.C.,
President, Madras Provincial Scheduled Castes Federation,
Member, Round Table Conference (Burma-Sub-Committee).
Khan Bahadur Adam Haji lIahomed Sait Saheb Bahadur.
Vice-President, Southern India Chamber of Commerce,
Director, Reserve Bank (Central Board).
Rao Bahadur M. C. Rajah, M.L.A.,
President, All-India Depressed Classes Association ..
lTI'. B. Pocker,

B.A., B.L.,

Vice-President, :Madras Provincial Muslim League,

I>resident, Malabar Muslim J ama-ath.
Diwan Bahadur K. S. Ramaswamy Sastry,

B.A., B.L.,

District and Sessions Judge (Retired).

Mr. Basheer Ahmed Sayeed,

M.A., B.L., l\LL.A.,

Advocate.

Kumararajah Sir M. A. l\futhiah Chettiar of Chettinad, B.A., M.L.A.,

President, Southern India Chamber of Commerce,
Leader of the Opposition in the Madras Legislative Assembly.
Mr. K. Nagalajan,

B.A., B.L.,

President, Bar Association, Plldllkottah,

/'

73

Resolution Re-ludo-Burma Agreement, passed by the

Working Coirunittee of the All India Muslim League in its

three-days session in Bombayon Sunday, Monday & Tuesday
dated 24th, 25th & 26th August 1941.
"The Vv orking Oommittee of the All India Muslim League
condemn ' the recent ludo-Burma Agreement concluded without con-
suIting the Indian Legislature or the Provincial Governments
concerned and other responsible public opinion in the country, with
the result that the vital economic interests of India in general, and
the trading interests and civic-rights of the l\1uslim community in
particular, enjoyed by them for over a century, have been sacrificed
and irreparably damaged, The Working Oommittee urge upon the
Governor-General and the Secretary of State for India not to ratify
the aforesaid agreement, and thus remove the serious discontent,
which it has caused in all Indian trading circles and the offence it
has given to the self-respect of the peoples of India."
T

( The Bombay Chronicle, 27th August, 194.1.)

74
Joint representation regarding Indop Burma Agreement on
Immigration to the Government of India, Department.oj
Education, Jlealth and Lands,' Simla, by the Federation of
Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry, the Committee
of the All Parties' Meeting held at Madras on 28th
July 1941, and the Imperial Indian
Citizenship Association.
Bombc~y,

21st August, 19.41.

" 'rhe Committee of the Federation of the Indian Chambers of

Commerce and Industry, the Council of the Imperial Indi.an Oitizenship Association and the Oommittee appointed at the All Parties
:Meeting held at Madras on the 28th July, 1941, have given their
careful consideration to the Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement recentlyconcluded between the Government of India and the Government
of Burma. All the three bodies have had the advantage of meeting
the Indian Delegation from Burma, whicb has specially come over to
this country to place their case before the Government and the
public, and have understood from them the situation in Burma, the
sentiments of the Burmans and the view-points and requirements of
Indians in that country in connection with this question. The Council
of tbe Association as well as the :Madras Oommittee have also had.
the benefit of hearing the Honourable Member for Education, Health
and Lands who concluded the Agreement and discussing with him
the implications of the various clauses of that Agreement. All the
_thT-c.e_ho_dies_1LO.~Y_b_eg tQ.8nhmit. fur_the -1llostserio-us--c-O-rlsid el'atiQ.ll-Q-f
the Government of India their views on the scope and provisions of
the Agreement.
2. ,\Ve have to invite the attention of the Government of India,
at the very outset, to the universal feeling of keen disappointment
and grave concern of the Indian public, and the Indian commercial
community regarding this Agreement. It is undeniable thrt the
Agreement has astonished and shocked Indian public opinion both in
India and in Burma and has aroused spontaneous and genuine feelmgs of anxiety, resentment and even indignation. Even after

.,
75
weighing carefully the implications of Burma's new status, and
recognising fully her economic needs and sentiments, we are
convinced that the Agreement is absolutely unfair and inequitable to
India. The Agreement is open to the grave objection that it is
essentially discriminatory in character,and that it ignores the rights
guaranteed to Indians at the time of the passage of the Government
of Burma Act, and is bound to affect most adversely their social and
economic conditions in the future. Moreover, some of its provisions
are humiliating and calculated to wound the self-respect of Indians.
We, therefore, consider it our duty to lodge our emphatic protest
against the conclusion of such an Agreement on the part of the
Government of this country whose primary obligation is to safeguard
the interest of its people and uphold the honour and dignity of India
in
parts of the world. .

all

3. Before we proceed to examine the Agreement, we cannot

help expressing our surprise at the unusual and extraordinary
procedure adopted by the Government of India in negotiating this
Agreement. The Comission of Enquiry to examine the question of
Indian immigration into Burma was appointed with the knowledge
. and consent of the Goyernment of India. The recommendations
made by Mr. Baxter as a result of that enquiry "formed a suitable
basis for negotiation" as mentioned in the joint statement issued by
the two Governments after the conclusion of the Agreement. It
_ .was,jheIefor~,-)IllR-~ratLv:~~_hat the Report should ..have been made
available to the public at least- ~-~~~ tim; b~f6re- thenegotmtlons fOl~ -the Agreement started. We do not know when the Report was
made available to the Government of India although it was in the
hands of the. Government of Burma in October,
. 1940. It is, however,
deplorable that so far as the public are concerned, the Report, despite
repeatp-d requests from several public and commercial bodies, was not
made available to them until its simultaneous pUblication with the
Immigration Agreement itself. We do not know whether the Report
was supplied to the Standing Emigration Committee, whose opinion
was sought before the Government of India Delegation left for
I

76

Burma. We are, however, definitely informed that even the acl hoc
Committee of Indians in Burma which was informally consulted by
the said Delegation was also not supplied with a copy of lVIr.
Baxter's Report. We cannot see any justification for the withholding'
of the Report which was said to form the basis for the negotiation
of an agreement. We are constrained to observe that serious injustice
has been done to the public, the commerr.ial community, and to all
particularly interested in the problems of Indians overseas. They
were thus deprived of the opportunity of studying the Heport and
expressing their considered opinion on its various recommendations
on matters vital to the interests of over a million of our countrymen
in Burma before the negotiations for an agreement were started or
even when the negotiations were being conducted. Incidentally, we
may observe that although the Commission was appointed originally
merely as a Fact Finding Enquiry, and was requested to state
whether "any system of equating the supply of Indian unskilled
labour to Burma requirements" was needed, it reached decision of a
more or less final character affecting' the rights of Indians in regard
to Burma. We strongly feel that this is a procedure to which the
Government of India ought to have taken serious exception.

4. It was essential in the interests of India, that outstanding

questions between India and Burma in connection with a commercial
treaty and emigration to Burma should have been settled together.
T11a-t was-i-fi-erea-son--'lvhy-s-t-ress wa~ -la-i-d-5Ilt-hefa-ct that considera-.;;
tion of the subject of Indian immigration into Burma should not be
separated from the question of the trade relations between the two
countries. The a~titude, howeY~r, taken up by the Government of
India in this connection was in striking contrast to that adopted
during the Indo-Ceylon negotiations which, as a matter of fact,
were broken off in the absence of a satisfactory solution of the
question of the status of Indians in Ceylon. The non-official
advisers to the Indian Delegation which carried on the negotiations
for an Indo-Burma Trade Agreement were anxious to know how it
was proposed to maintain and safeguard the constitutional and

77
economic rights of Indians in Burma and they, therefore, naturally
expected to be supplied with a copy of Mr. Baxter's Report which
would have enabled them to determine their attitude towards the
question of trade relationship between the two countries. It is
regTettable that no such copy was supplied to these non-official
advisers. They were, however, told by the Honourable Member for
Education, Health and Lands that a trade agreement with Burma
would prove an effective means of securing Burmese goodwill and
would thus assist in maintaining the political and economic status of
Indians in Burma. This view was also endorsed by the Honourable
the Oommerce lVlember. 'l'his assurance was, we understand, really
responsible for determining the final attitude of the non-official
advisers who .agreed to make certain sacrifices in the hope that it
would help to reach a satisfactory understanding on all other
cognate matters affecting Indian rights in Burma. It is, therefore,
singularly unfortunate that these hopes and expectations have been
frustrated and that a grave and grievous wrong has been clone to
the just rig'hts of Indians in Burma through the Immigration
Agreement now concluded.
I

5. ,Vhen the conversation in connection with the negotiation

for the Immigration Agreement commenced, the country was given
to understand that they were purely of an exploratory nature. In
a press interview at Calcutta, the Honourable the Leader of the
In uia-n -jJelegati-(Jn - isrep-ortmtto-ha-ve -statefi-t-ha-t- lte-w-arS-f)l"0&eeu-i-ng
to Burma for exploratory talks with the Burma representatives.
\Ve understand that the Leader of the Government of India Delegation also gave the SUb-Committee of the ad hoc Oommittee in Burma
to understand, eluring the initial stages) that he had come there to
have exploratory talks with the representatives of Burma. '}'he
public, therefore, never thought that these exploratory talks would
be turned into a final settlement. The report of the conclusion of
an Immigration Agreement, therefore, came as a complete surprise
both to the public in India as well as Imlians in Burma who were
faced with a fait accompli.

78
6. Vl e should also like to point out that it was unfortunate
that the Delegation which proceeded to negotiate the Immigration
Agreement was not accompanied by any non-officials as Adviser~
who could not only have voiced effectively tbe Indian view-point on
several of the clauses of the AgTeement but could have also
strengthened the hands of the Leader of the Delegation in effecting
a satisfactory and honourable settlement. The Government of India
should have at least taken note of the fact that, the Burma Ministry is
responsible to the Legislature of the country, and that the issues involved \yere so immense that an official Delegation should have shared the
great responsibility with accredited and representative Indian
leaders. \Ve must regretfully observe that the Government of India'
have in this respect failed to take the Indian public into their
confidence. This is all the more astonishing when it is remembered
that the question of the status, rights and interests of Indians
overseas has been one on which there has been in the past fruitful
co-operation, despite constitutional difficulties and political differences between the Government and the Indian pUblic.

7. \Ve are aware of the fact that the Government of India

Delegation informally consulted an ad hoc Committee appointed by
Indians in Burma in regard to some of the points of the Agreement.
The ad hoc Committee was informed,as mentioned above, that the
talks with the Government of Burma were merely exploratory.
They appear to have been told by the': Honourable l\1ember that in
view of the international situation, the British Government would be
inclin eel to attach more than ordinary importance to Burmese
susceptibilities, so that the question of an agreement was deemed an
urgent matter. No adequate time or opportunity was given to this
Committee to consider the implications of the various clauses of the
Agreement placed before them, and in fact, several points embodied
in the Agreement were not even mentioned to them. Th~
Committee did not have even a complete picture of the whole'
question and their attitude was sought to be prejudiced from the
start by emphasis on the international aspect of the question. It

- ---_.,'-

------

-------,-----~-~---

--"----.-~-- -

-_-'.!_----

-----~-

--------------""---

79
was after such casual and hun-ied consultations with the acl hoc
Committee in Burma, and under such abnormal international condi-.
tions in the Far East, that the Agreement was initialled by the
Honourable :Th1ember on the one hand and the Government of Burma
on the other.
After these negotiations were concluded, the
Committee was shown a copy of the Agreement as finally published,
but they were then advised that no change in that Agreement was
feasible at that stage. So great was the surprise of the Committee
at such an Agreement being reached that they immediately lodged
their protest with the Go;vernment of India ag-ainst several of its
provisions. Indian public in Burma was naturally staggered when
the whole Agreement was published_ . This. can be easily understood as no account appears to have been taken of the strength of
the Indian sentiment, or of the enormous interests involved in this
matter. It passeE our comprehension how the Honourable Member
seems to have lost sight of the fact that India had her own part to
play in this war and that her importance from 'a military and
strategic point of view entitled her to at least as much consideration
as Burma.
8.

Much emphasis is unfortunately laid by the Honourable

~1ember on the fact ~hat the Standing Emigration Oommittee has
approved of this Agreement. We do not know whether they were
supplied with the Report of the Baxter Committee and given time
to study it. It is very likely that the Standing Emigration
Committee were -driv.en_to lODk_upflnit_asa jLii accQmpUwhich lIlay __
have appeared to them impossible to change in view of the absence
of most of the elected members of the Legislature, and of the
erroneous impression given to them that Indian opinion in Burma
had on the whole generally approved of this Agreement.
I

l.

9. It is the unprecedented procedure adopted in connection

with this Agreement, as mentioned in the above paragraphs
which deprived the country of the necessary opportunity to express
an opinion on it. The country, therefore, has to face today a situation full of dangerous possibilities. But we still hope that the

80
Government of India will even now realise their serious responsibility in the matter, and retrieve the position by a radical revision of
the Agreement in its fundamental aspects.
10. \Ve need not dwell at any length III tilts communication
on the old and historic connection between India and Burma, or
emphasise the significance of the fact that Burma was only until
four years ago administratively a province and part of India. Mr.
Baxter at the very commencement of his report remarks : "Migration from India to Bu<:'ma is no new thing. It has been
going on as far back as Eurmese history can be traced
through its chronicles and legendary lore."
Numerous authorities including even the testimony of British officials could be cited to show how Indian capital, Indian talent and
lndian labour have made valuable and lasting contribution towards
the economic development of Burma, and how their efforts have
made that country prosperous. All this is a matter of contemporary
history which is well known. It is important to remember and
recognise that the political separation of Burma from India did not,
therefore, mean the end of their age-long connection, and did not
contemplate the severance of economic ties between the two countries. It is essential to view the issues raised by the Indo-Burma
Immigration AgTeement against this background.
11. The main obj8ct of the Commission of Enquiry was "to
ascertain the true facts with regard to the alleged penetration of
Indian Iab-oui~int()Burma" and to cTeterniinetne extent a-nd nature
of its economic competition with the Burmese people. It is, therefore, important to note the conclusions of Mr. Baxter that:

"There is no evidence of any kind to suggest that Indians have

displaced Burmans from employment which they had previously obtained."
and that
"Indian labour in the past has been supplementary rather than
alternative to Burmese labour."

81
MT. Baxter himself acknowledges the services rendered by Indi~il
labour to Burma and states : " There is, in fact, no parallel in the modern world to the present position of Burma vis-a-vis the problem . of immigration from India. In this country for generations Ihumans
and Indians have grown side by side, joint contributors to
a progressive economic development but associated primarily by the historic accident of a .JoInt control exercised by
a British Administrator. "
~Mr.

Baxter does hot think that immigratitin from India has affected
economic conditions in Burma adversely and accepts the view
"that on the whole the volume of immigration from India
adjusts itself to the conditions of 'economic prosperity III
Burma. "

He sounds a significant note of warning in the concluding paragraph

of the Report when he says:"I venture to call attention to an aspect of the immigration problem which is frequentlY neglected; General discussion
too often limits itself to that simple and negative word
, restriction' overlooking the probability that hasty and i11judged action in this way may lead to economic maladjustments far more serious than the evils which they are
---i-ll-te-nGSG tG-r-e-m-@d*. . -Such-a -negati~a-rielY is_.-<lftBn. based ..
upon a superficial and pessimistic view of the possibilities
for the future development of Burma. There is a wide
field on the other hand for fruitful positive action by the
opening up of additional avenue of employment for the
people of the Country. "
It is really inexplicable how the representatives of the Government
of India did not or could not avail themselves of these important
observations of an officer appointed by the Government of Bnrma
themselves for emphasising the fact that the problem of the penetra-

82
tion and unfair competition of Indian labour, as alleged did not exist
in Burma and for persuading, therefore, the authorities in Burma of
the need of taking a fair and statesmanlike view of the whole problem of Indian immigration into that country. Apart from the direct
contribution made by Indian capital, and Indian labour, towards the
economic prosperity of Burma, it must be remembered that the
Indian Exchequer has borne the expenditure of administering and
financing the deficit province of Burma. l\10reover, the defence of
Burma is even now mainly the responsibility of India. We do not
know how far these well-known facts were emphasised during the
course of these negoti~tions by the Government of India delegation,
so as to present the problem of future Indo-Burma relationship in its
correct perspective. "Vhatever the growing Burmese national consciousness may demand today, and whatever may be the ulterior forces militating against the cordial relations between the two peoples,
the fact cannot be ignored that Indians have long been settled in
that country, have been moving to and fro Burma and during the
past half a century and more have been doing so with the assurance
of common citizenship and with confidence in the protection of common laws. Any measures which would therefore involve or affect
Indian interests in Burma must, in fairness and equity, take into
careful consideration the past association of Burma with India, the
manner in which Indian interests have been built up and established
in what was until recently a province of India, and the rights and
privileges embodied in the Government of Burma Act, and assured
.them-d-l1yiug,-and- stl:hsB'tuen-t t6-the-pass-age--6f -th-at-A-et~
-- ... .__.
12. At this stage. we would like to emphasise certain wellknown facts having an important bearing on the question of Indian
immigration into Burma. What was contemplated all along was the
regulation of the immigration of surplus unskilled Indian labour into
Burma. It is true that sub-section (3) of Section 44 enables the
Government of Burma to impose restrictions "on the right of entry
into Burma of persons who are British subjects domiciled in India or
subject of any Indian State" or to impose any restriction It as a condition of allowing any such person to enter Burma." ,Vhile this is
t.

i.......
.11.

83
so, there has always been a definite understanding and undertaking
. that the right of frep, entry of Indians in general into Burma would
not be restricted. Assurances to that effect were .giving by Sir
Thomas Inskip, l'Iinister for Co-~rdination and Defence, in the course
of his speech on the discussion of the above Section of the Government of Burma Act in the House of Commons in April 1935.
Amongst other things, he stated:"That will be one way in which unfair discrimination, whatever powers the Burma Legislature may have to deal with
immigration, may be controlled for the professional or
business man who comes from British India or the
Indian Stateo"
The words" whatever powers the Burma Legislature may have to
deal with immigration" deserved to be specially noted. Earl
Winterton in fact moved an amendment to restrict the powers of the
Burma Legislature to the regulation of the immigration of unskilled
Indian labour only into Burma, and whileit was not accepted for the
reason that it was difficult to define" unskilled labour," Sir Thomas
Inskip gave the assurance that
"the proposals contained in this clause together with certain
suggestions which were made by the Joint Select Committee
in their report, are intended to be incorporated in the
Instrument of Instructions, which, together with one or
two ()therClauses IntheBilTwill~- if-iS-nopea, effect-the
desjred object."
When the Instrument of Instructions was under the consideration of
the House of Commons in November 1936, Mr. Butler, speaking on
behalf of the Government, gave the further assurance that
" Therefore I think, the fear that has been felt on this score by
Indians who .wish to enter Burma may be quietened in
view of the contents of Paragraph XX of the Instrument
of Instructions."

84

and added
"the reason that we cannot make a simple rule is that we have
to make this differentiation in rega.rd to unskilled labour
while at the same time we do not want to stop the free
entry of Indians in general."
We would like to draw your pointed attention to the assurance "we
do not wp,nt to stop the fr~~ entry of Indians in general." \Ve have,
however, no option but to assert that the infringement of the right
of free entry of IIldil1ns in general constitutes the very basis of the
proposed Immigration Agreement. Not only is it, therefore, a breach
of the definite ~nderstanding reached both inside and outside Parliament, but it is also a flagrant violation of the assurances given and
protection promised by 1I:ipisters of His Majesty's Government. The
real intention and the Pfomisedl1rrangement, therefore, was that
Section 36 of the Government of Burma Act coupled with Paragraph'
XX of the Instrument of Instructions gave the charter for free
entry to Indians in general into Burma without saying' in terms that
the Burma Legislature may not restrict the entry of Indians into
that country. An invasion on this constitutional right of vital
importance deprives Indians in Burma as well as the Indians having
business connections with that country of the rightsg'uaranteec1 to
them under Part V of the Government of Burma Act.'vV e fail to
understand why the Government of India did not feel themselves
fully
pound __ to__ see_~l1! __these assurances and undertakings were---implemented and observed in their proper spirit in the Agreement.
----

---

---.'.--------

------

---".

--------'''-----

13. Under SUb-section (3) of Section 44 of the

----,-

Gover~ment

of
Burma Act of 1935 no "<Lisability, liability, restriction or condition"
can be imposed on British subjects domiciled in India and sl1bje.cts
of an Indian State "in regard to travel) residence, the acquisition,
holding or disposition of property, the holding of public office or the
carrying on of any occ,1;lpation, trade business or profession." The
prqposed Agreement leaves it to the discretion of the Government
of Burma whether to allow an Indian resident in Burma or an Indian

85
living in India and h~ving business connection with Burma to go or
to return to that country. The Indian is thus d~prived of the rights
which are gnaranteeq. to him under Section 44 (3) referred to above.
We are, therefore, pf the opinion that unless the rig'hts of free entry
of Indians iq. general in consonance with the assurances and pledges
given in the past is assured, the Agreement would be entirely unacceptable to us. 4- Note is enclosed along with this communication
which embodies tll~ ~sf:\urances and safeguards referred to. in this
and the above para,g:plphs. ( Appendix I. )
14. In view of the general intention expressed at the time of
the passage of the Government of Buqna Act, we wOl~d not be
opposed to any arra:p.~ement about unskilled Indian Immigration into
Burma in accordance with the understanding reached at the time.
We must, however, state that it was extremely unfair to have prohibited a large number of labouring men from proceeding to Burma
from th\3 21st July, 1941. Whatever arrangement for the regulation
of the Immigration of unskilled labour may eventually be evolved,
it is only fair that a sufficient long notice should be given before
such a regulation comes into force. \Ve hope that in the evolution
of a final arrangement for this purpose, the warning sounded by
:Mr. Baxter 'a bout" hasty and ill-judged action" leading to " economic
maladjustments" will be borne in mind in the common interests of
India and Burma.
15.

4-noth~r

ill,lportant feature of the Agreement is the division

"oT .the" Indians' reSldlng .in BlITilla-iito "tllree categones~" Tli8first
category consists of those who are born and brtd in Burma, have
,m,ade Burma their ;permanent home and regard their future and the'
future of their f~Jllil~es as bound up with its interests. The second
category consists of those who have resided in Burma for seven years
out of nine years iI!,llllcdiatel,Y preceding the 15th July, 1941. The
third category comprises those who were residing in Burma on the
15th July, 1941. Different treatment is to be accorded to each of
hese classes in regard. to their status as well as the right of re-entry
into Burma. Apaxt from the fact that such an attempt will result

86
in Indians living in Burma forgetting their identity of intere~ts, it
constitutes a negation of the rJghts guaranteed to them under Part V
of the Government of Burma Act. Moreover, persons desirous of
proceeding to Burma from 1st October, 194-1) will be classified under
two classes of permit holders called A and B. Not only is the
number of the A and B class permit holders to be determined by
the Government of Burma, but it will also be for that Government
alone to decide to whom the A and B permits should be given from
amongst the total number of permits fixed for each of these classes.
Not only does this strike at the very root of the right of fn~e entry
assured to Indians as referred to in the above paragraphs in the
light of tIle assurances and pledges given, but it is also calculated
seriously to affect the business of Indians established in Burma.
16. Part V of the Government of Burma Act gnarantees to
Indians right in regard to travel, residence, acquisition, holding or
disposition of property: the holding of public office or the carrying
on of any occupation) trade, business or profession. It also
guarantees certajn rights to Joint Stock Companies, incorporated by
or under the Laws of British India, and to ships and aircrafts
registered in British India. If the right of preventing the entry of
persons proceeding to Burma on assured employment in business
houses, firms and other fields is to be given to the Government of
Burma as contemplated in the Agreement, it would result in not
merelY~"h~~topping _~f any competiti~~ of IIl~ia~}abour, but it may
also involve the steady elimination of the trade, business. and
industry of Indians by driving out of the country and preventing
the entry of those engaged or employed therein. :Moreover, rights
guaranteed to Joint Stock Companies, ships and aircraft registered
in British India are not subject to Section 44 of the Government of
Burma Act empowering that Government to restrict the right to
entry of Indians into that country. vVe, therefore, submit that any
indirect attempt thus made by the provisions of the Immigration
Agreement to restrict the movements of the Officers and employees
of these Joint Stock Companies, ships and aircrafts is ultra vires of

87
the Government of Burma Act. The pbrmit system will also strike
at banking and several other business houses which require a steady
and continuous flow of employees, both experienced and fresh, who
will have to be sent from India to Burma. The nine-year limit
fixed for B permits would involve irreparable injury by depriving
these businesses of the services of experienced employees by the
simple device of declining to permit tllem to re-enter or reside in
Burma after a period of nine years.
17. Although we do not propose to examine in detail several
other objectionable features of the Agreement, we would like to
stress that so long as the fundamental basis of the Agreement is not
altered, it will remain unacceptable. There is another aspect of the
matter to which we would invite your attention. The Agreement,
we are advised, is ultra vires of the Government of Burma Act in
several particulars. The acquisition of immigration permits before
entering Burma, the imposition of A and . B permits on Indians
resident at present in Burma or on those who have business
connections with Burma, the restriction of the period for which the .
permit may be given, the fixing of quotas . for persons other than
those' coming under the category of unskilled labourers, the imposition of a literacy test, the demand for the payment of residential
fees and deposits, the insistence of the clauses "have made Burma
their permanent home" and" regard their future and the future of
their families as bound up with its interests " as conditions precedent
-for- the--acqlusitlon -ofthe BUf!ila --doIlllcile -are- not--only-in - conflict
with the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed to Indians under the
Government of Burma Act, but are ultra vires of that Act itself.
'Ve consider it quite essential that these aspects of the Agreement
need to be specially examined in the light of the Government of
Burma Act, and the assurances and pledges given in connection
therewith. vVhatever may be the legal vie,v taken on these points,
we must however make it clear that India cannot and will not be a
party to any agreement, which will deprive Indians resident in
Burma, or Indians . having business connections with Burma and

88
desirous of proceeding' to that country of the rights guaranteed to
them under the Government of Burma Act. -We would) therefore,
earnestly urge upon the Government of India to get the fundamental
basis of the Agreement chang'ed and to secure tor those Indians who
have got property or business in Burma or' ::who are engaged in
trade, business, profession,occupation, service, etc.~ in that country
as well as to their officers and staff, and to their family members
and dependants, both now and in the future, fi'ee and unfettered
right of entry and re-entry into Burma. Indians should in this
respect be granted the same right of entry and re-ent.ry as Britishers
carrying on trade, business or profession or engag'ed in occupation,
service, etc. vVe would, therefore, most strongly appeal to the
Government of India to weigh the implications and the effects of the
Agreement in the light of what we have stated in the above
paragraphs and get the agreement radically revised in such a
manner as will not only" secure for the Indian community settled
and resident in Burma recognition of their legitimate rightR" as
mentioned in the joint statement issued by the hvo Governments,
but also ensure the continuance of the enjoyment of those rights
now and hereafter.

18. Although we have stated above that we do not propose

to examine all the clauses of the Agreement, as we are opposed to
its very basis, "'Ye cannot help referring to Clause 14 of the Agree
111ent whichpres~ripes a new moral code for Indians in .1?urma in
the matter of marriage or co-habitation with women belonging to an
indigenous race of Burma, which is not prescribed for people of any
other country living in Burma. \Ve are const:rained to remark that
not only is this dause humiliating and insulting to India, but it is
full of potentialities. for enormous rnischiefagainst Indians residing
in that country. N o people with any sellseof self-respect left in
them can tolerate it. vVe wonder how the Honourable ~Memher,
who was anxious to do nothing that was illcompatibl~ with the
honour of India, could have overlooked the implications of this
clause, and been a party to it. We would, therefore, emphatically

89
urge upon the Government of India to 'see that a clause which, in
effect, brands Indians as morally depraved, does not disfigure any
Immigration Agreement between the two countries.
19. Apart from the d~tailed examination of the different
clauses of the Agrep,ment, there are certain matters of principle and
policy which deserve serious consideration. It is 'stated in subsection (2) of Clause 7 of the Agreement that the ,acceptance of the
terms and conditions set out in the Agreement as well as other
terms and conditinns as the Government of Burma may prescribe
shall be a condition for the entry of immigrants into Burma. We
are naturally anxious that those other terms and conditions, which
IDay be prescribed by the Government of Burma, should not deprive
the Indians of the rights guaranteed to them under the Government
of Burma Act. It is, therefore; quite essential that any terms and
conditions, which may ultimately be agreed upon, should not only be
not inconsistent with the clauses of the Agreement, but should also
be in consonance with the Government of .Burma Act.
20. The procedure, which it is apprehended, might be adopted
for bringing the Agreement into operation is to set the machinery
for the issue of an Order-in-Oouncil into motion as provided for
under Sections 138 and 157 of the Government of Burma Act.
It will, however, be recognised that the procedure that may be.
adopted for bringing the Agreement into force should not deprive
Indians of any of their rights guaranteed to them under the
G~~e~~m~~t~ Burma Act: As the-Order-rn-CouncilwilIbe--in -tlie
nature of an Act of Parliament, it is doubtful whether any action
can be taken against that Order for the enforcement of the rights
guaranteed under the Government of Burma Act. We would,
therefore, earnestly request the Government of India to examine
the position from that view-point, and if the procedure suggested in
the Agreement is likely to affect those rights, or any action which
may be proposed to take thereunder, the suggested procedure should
be dropped and the Agreement tllat may be eventually arrived at .
should be brought into operation by an Act of the Burma Legislature.

90
There is one very important point in connection with this procedure,
'which requires immediate reconsideration. An Order-in-Council
would give the right to the Government of Burma to determine the
Agreement by giving 12 months' notice, after the period, for which
the Order is to remain in force, is over. It is, however, imperative
that the Government of India should also have the right to give
such notice and this important point should, therefore, be embodied
in the Agreement whatever the procedure may be ultimately adopted
to bring the Agreement into force whether by an Order-in-Council
or by an Act of the Burma Legislature.
21. The Agreement is open to the further objection that it
lays down a test of domicile as commonly understood. It even has
the effect of endangering the domiciliary status which an Indian in
Burma may validly have acquired under the International Law.
Clauses 19, 20, 21 and 23 of, the Agreement run counter to the
accepted conception of the law of domicile. ,Ve shall, therefore, be
obliged if the Government'of India keep this point in mind and see
that no conditions are prescribed which are contrary to the recognised law of domicile.
22. The Agreement as it stands, is entirely unacceptable to
the country. It requires to be radically revised in its fundamental
aspects. We have already indicated those aspects in the above
paragraphs. We would, therefore, most earnestly request that the
Agreement may be considered- -de- - -n6V')
in consultation with the----_
accredited representatives of all interests concerned, and that a
Conference for that purpose be convened at as early a date
as possible.
-------

------,-

------~--.

... _--' -

------------- - - - - -

-------~--

... -------."--

23. We' have referred above to thf' Agreement as far as it

concerns India and Burma. 'Ihis representation, however, ,vould
be imcomplete if we did 'not refer to a matter of grave importance
to some of the Provinces which have already been and would be
affected directly by this Agreement and particularly by the
indecently short notice at which the Agreement' is sought to be

91
brought into operation. The subject of regulating emigration from
India lies WIthin the sphere of the nentral Government. "\Vhile the
bulk of the emigrants, and particularly those of the poorer classes,
are proceeding to Burma from the Provinces of l\'1adras and Orissa,
the sudden stoppage of labour emigrating from these Provinces to
Burma has caused them not only avoidable .inconvenience but also
entailed severe economic hardships. rrhe prospects of a large
number of our countrymen living in lVIadrasand Orissa who are
likely to be deprived of their normal and traditional means of
livelihood when the ImmigTation Agreement comes into force, cannot
but cause us very serious concern. The large economic interests
. which are likely to be adversely affected as a result of the present
Immigration Agrer.ment requires to be seriously weighed. VIe
con'sider it, therefore, singularly unfortunate that the Central
Governmpnt should have taken decisions which completely upset
the economic equilibrium and conditions in these two Provinces and
militate against the very means of livelihood of large masses of
people without consultation with all the interests concerned, and at
such short notice. An Agreement about immigration is sought by
Burma in order to provide larger employment for their own people.
To such regulation of surplus labour, India does not and should not
object to, . within due limits. But we venture to inquire whether
the Government of India have taken or propose to take any steps to
see that those who would be .thrown out of employment in the
various Provinces, as a result of this Agreement, can possibly find
emploiment-intnose Provinces -mtnifcsllcha-shurtp-eri-od.- "\eare
constrained to remark that the Central Government cannot, therefore,
escape their responsibility for the unemployment, economic hardships
and maladjustments likely to be caused by the sudden and drastic
measures of control of emigration provided for in the Agreement
which, in fact, is tantamount to virtual prohibition of people
going to Burma.
The conclusion of such a vital Agreement also involves
constitutional issues of great importance as between the Oentre and

92

the Provinces in India, and its gravity is enormously enhanced by

the fact that in the two Provinces most directly affected, namely,
Madras and Orissa, Ministries have for so~e time at least not been
functioning. No agreement restricting emigration from lndia to
Burma could, one would have thought, have been considered while
the Ministries and the Legislatures are not functioning in these
Provinces. 'Ve feel that this important aspect of the matter should
not have been lost sight of by the Central Government.
As regards Bengal, which is also a province interested in this
question, but where the J\llinistl'Y and the Legislature are in power,
we can hardly do better than attach an extract from a Press report
of the proceedings in th~ Bengal Legislative Council of 15th August,
1941, which will show that according to the Revenue Minister~ the
, Government of Bengal Were not actually consulted before the Agreement was entered into by the Central Government (Appendix n.)

24. Vl e feel that until the Government of India have carefully

considered this representation as well as other views submitted by
Indians in India as well as in Burma, they should request the
Secretary of State not to issue an Order-in-Council embodying the
terms and conditions of the Immigration Agreement. We are aware
that any modification of the Agreement now cannot be unilateral, and
will have to be with the consent of the" Government of Burma. We
feel confident, however, that if the Indian viewpoint is fully and
fairly urged upon-the Burma authorities, it worildbe feasible to
arrive at a satisfactory settlement of the question so as to reconcile
the growing aspirations of Burmese nationalism with the legitimate
interests of Indians. We are definitely of the opinion that any such
agreement should also take into account not only the sentiments but
also the econoinic interests of India as well as Burma. In the event,
however, of the Burma Government, proving obdurate, either on its
own initiative or at the instance of other interests, who prefer to
remain in the background, the Government of India should not
hesitate to give notice of termination of the Trade Agreement

93
concluded last February, in order to vindicate their stand on the
immigration question, and to safeguard the fundamental rights
of Indians.
We ' have the honour to remain,
Sir,
Your most obedient servants,
,CHUNILAL B. lVIEHTA,

President,
The Federation of Indian Chambers
of Commerce & Industry.
MAHOMED USMAN,

Chairman,
The -Committee ' of the AH 'P arties'Meeting held
at Madras 'on the 28th July, 1941.
PURSHOTAMDAS THAKURDAS,

Chairman,
The Council of the Imperial Indian
Citizenship Association.

94

APPENDIX I.
Accompaniment to the representation submitted to the Secretary
to the Government of India. Department of Education, Health and
Lands, by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce a.nd
Industry, the Imperial Indian Citzenship Association and the
Committee appointed by the All Parties l\1eeting held at Madras on
the 28th July, 1941, dated 21st August, 1$l41, containing certain
assurances and pledges given in the Round Table Conferences and in
the House of Commons and elsewhere in regard to the right of free
entry of Indians into Burma.

How the rights of Indians in Burma are guaranteed.

Under the sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Government
of Burma Act 1935, no "disability, liability, restriction or condition"
can be imposed on British subjects domiciled in India and subjects
of an Indian State Hin regard to travel, residence, the acquisition,
holding or disposition of property, the holding of public office, or the
carrying on of any occupation, trade, business or profession."
1.

How the Indians in Burma will be prevented from the e.cercise of the
rights guaranteed to them under the recent Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement.
--2-;--. -'F-h-e-mt>-st--sweel~+ng-a-nd--radica-Icha-n-ge-mad-e-by~t-he-recen-t- --.

Agreement is that Indians carrying on trade, business, profession,

etc will not have the right of free entry into Burma as enjoye~
by them hitherto.
.
3. The joint statement by the two Governments is a.nxious "to
secure for the Indian community settled and resident in Burma
recognition of their legitimate rights." As the very right of entry
or r~-entry of these Indians is at stake, they will not be able to
exercise their legitimate rights regarding business, etc., in that
country.

-- -. . ._ .-

95
Provision for imposing restrictions on the right of entry of Indians
into Burma.
4. It is true that sUb-section (3) of Section 44 enables the
Government of Burma to impose restrictions "on the right of entry
into Burma of persons who are British subjects domiciled in India or
subjects of any Indian State" or to impose any restrictions' "as a
condition of allowing any such person to enter Burma."

Immigration . Agreem,ent ignores past promises and al3surances.

5. The proposed Agreement goes counter to the promises and
assurances given in the past, and to the safeguards provided for in
the Government of Burma Act, and in the Instrument of Instructions.
~Ko

discrimination as regards Indians entering Burma.

6. The Report of the Sub-Oommittee No. 4 relating to

Burma, of the First Round Table Conference in 1931 stated, for
example, that
" The SUb-Oommittee also especially stress the importance of there
being no discrimination as regards Indians entering Burma."

Equal rights and opportunities for all British subjects in Burma.

7. The principle was also enunciated by the Prime :Minister,
at the Round r;Va-bl@--C(lIl~l~~I1.-C~, when 1V!r.Hamsa;y-M-acd-o-nald stated
on behalf of the British Government that,
" The main principle to be followed must be that of equal rights
and opportunities for any British SUbjects, ordinarily reSIdent, or carrying on trade or business in Burma."

Bri#sh Indians denied these equa11ights and opportunities .

. 8. While Britishers are given these opportunities, the proposed
Agreement takes away those opportunities from British Indians.

96
Intention was to regulate Immigration of Unskilled LaboU1~el's.

9. It was all along the intention that there should be the

regulation of the immigration of unskilled labour into ' Burma. 'The
right'of free entry of other Indians was not in question.
Power not to be given to the Government of Burma to restrict the
right of entry of Indians into Burma.

10. During the course of the passage of the Goyernment of

Burma Act in the House of Commons, Earl Winterton' moved the
following amendment on the 10th April, 1935 : "Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall affect any
restriction lawfully imposed on the right of entry into
Burma of such .Indian subjects of His l\'Iajesty domiciled
in British India as enter Burma, whether by previous
engagement or otherwise, to perform unskilled labour for
hire in Burma, not being domestic or menial servants, and
members of their families and dependants."
11. Earl
remarked:-

Winterton

during

the

course of his speech

" V\l e are willing and so are the Indians concerned-those

whom I have been able to consult-that the ,right should
be given to the new Burma Legislature to deal with the
question of the immigration of manual labour into Burma,
---lfut---we C dofiot~h:inkth:at powerss-lruuJd- be--given-to--pla-c-erestriction upon other Indians coming into Burma."
I

No discrirnination against the right oj entry oj Indians generally into

Burma-How the same is to be achieved.

12. Sir Thomas Inskip, Minister for Co-ordination and

Defence, during the course of his speech made the following
remarks :"Nobody wants to discriminate ', between British subjects
domiciled in India or Indian States' subjects when they go

97
to Burma,any
. more than one wants to discriminate between
British when they go to British India. At the same time, you
have to reconcile the desire not to have unfair or unreasonable discrimination withthe right that must be preserved by
the Burman Legislature to deal with this question of
immigration. Every self-governing State requires to have,
power to prevent its internal economy being deranged by the
immigration of persons, who, by reason of their activities
or numbers, may be an inconvenience. The proposals
contained in this clause, together with certain suggestions
which were made by the Joint Select Committee in their
Report, are intended to be incorporated in the Instrument
, of Instructions, which together with one or two other clauses
in the Bill, will, it is hoped, effect tho desired object."
,

No restriction 'upon professional or business men to carry on their

profession or business. '
'13. Sir Thomas Inskip added: "The general plan is that
there shall be no interference, nothing to prevent the Burman
Legislature from making suitable laws as to immigration. At the
same time it is proposed, as Honourable lVIembers will have observed
when perusing Clause 332 in the process through which we were
passing a few moments ago, that the Governor has in his discretion
to give or withhold his sanction when any Bill is introduced in
connection with or affecting immigration into Burma. That will be
~-;~' w-;;y - i~-- whTch --unfaii"discrfminatlon, -whatever powersTfie
Burman Legislature may have to deal with immigration, may be
controlled for the professional or business man who comes from
British India or the Indian State. It is also proposed in conformity
with the proposals of the Joint Select Committee that, there shall be
inserted In the Instrument of Instructions a direction to reserve any
bills which contained racial discrimination, and to reserve also bills
which contained restrictions upon professional or business men, who,
while India and Burma have been united, hav~. carried on business
in either country."

98
Assurance given that there UJould be no undue discrimination against
immigration ot Indians into Burma.
14. When the draft Instrument of Instructions was under
discussion in the House of Commons on the 17th November, 1936,
Mr. Butler, on behalf of the Government, stated:"I understand that the apprehensions of Indians in Burma have
been aroused by the fear that there will be undue discrimination against the immigration of Indians into Burma."
Mr. Butler further assured the House:
"That there can be no discrimination against Indian immigration into Burma without prior consultation with the
Governor-General of India, who himself will take care of
the interests of Indians who may wish to enter Burma.
Therefore I think the fear that has been felt on this score
by Indians who wish to enter Burma may be quietened in
view of the contents of Paragraph XX ( of the Instrument
of Instructions )."

The House of Commons did not want to stop the further entry of
Indians in general.
15.

Mr. Butler further added:

"In connection with unskilled Indian labour, the Governor of

Burma iSJ;lsked to confer with the Governor-!te!!~l.'al __~yith
a view to regUlating the immigration of unskillp.d labour
into Burma. We do that because it is necessary, for
reasons that we gave during the passage of the Burma
Act, to consider possible restrictions in certain cases of
unskilled Indian labour. The reasons we cannot make a
simple rule is that we have to make this differentiation ~n
regard to unskilled labour while at the same time we do
not want to stop the free entry of Indians in general.
'fhat is why we include the general reference to the
Governor-General. "

99
The words "we do nnt want to stop the free entry of Indians
in general" deserve to be specially noted.
Bow the obJect of restricting immigration of unskilled labour only to
be achieved.

16. Sir Thomas Inskip also gave similar assurances in the

same debate and remarked:
" Apart from that, there is the provision 'in Paragraph XX of
the Instrument that the Governor before exercising his
discretionary power of leave to intr()duce shall consult the
Governor-General of India. That is not inconsiderable
safeguard. Then there is the provision under Section 36
(1) of the Act, which provides that no measure affecting
immigration into Burma shall be introduced without the
previous sanction of the Governor. The Governor is to
act in his discretion, and that means direct responsibility to
the Secretary of State and this House. Those safegnards,
taken together, really effect' the purpose which was behind
the Amendment moved by the Noble 'Lord, the Member
for Horsham, so as to give protection' from undesirable
immigrants."
How to stop the Burma Legislature from restricting the ent'l'Y of
Indians into Burma without saying so in actual words.

17. Earl Winterton, who was again approached by the President

ofTnelndianOllamber orDommerce-in Greal;--Bntain,forwaroed tothat President on the 19th November, 1936, a Note prepared by the
Indja Office. The position was thus summarised in that Note : -

I
,,

"The position achieved by the Act and the Instrument of Instructions is this : -

"By Section 36 (1) (h) of the Act, no measure which affects

immigration in Burma at all may be introduced unless the
Governor in his discretion gives his previous sanction to
its introduction. This provision _is supplemented by the

100
instruction in Paragraph XX of the draft Instrument that,
if any immigration measure is proposed to be introduced
which would be likely to restrict Indians' right of entry
into Burma, the Governor shall consult the Governor-General of India before he allows it to be introduced. These
provisions seem to us to meet the Indian claim as fully as
is possible without saying, in terms. that the Burma Legislature may not restrict the entry of Indians into Burmaa provision which would certainly evoke protests from the
Burmans-and with justice, since the power to control entry
into its territory, is one which we cannot well deny them."
It is necessary to mark the words "these provisions seem to us to

meet the Indian claim as fully as js possible without saying, In

terms, that the Burma Legislature may not restrict the entry of
Indians into Burma." It is contended that in view of the assurances given and the safeguards provided, it is quite unfair that the
right of free entry of Indians other than unskilled labour into Burma
should be restricted, and that the Government of India should be a
party to the same.
How the apprehension aroused by the wide terms of 1'eference of the
Baxter Commission, that they would bring in the question of restrictin g the immigration of Indians, other than the unskilled laboure;'s, into Burma was allayed by the assurance given by the
Government of India:-

18. The Government of India in their letter dated the 16th

September, 1939, addressed to the Federation of Indian Ohambers of
Commerce, and Industry stated :"As has already been explained to the Indian :Merchants'
Chamber, Bombay, the work of the present Oommission
will be to collect the necessary authoritative data without
which no future policy in reganl to Indian immigration
into Burma can satisfactorily be considered or determined.
The Government of India have already reserved to them-

101
selves the right to consider, criticise or resist any propo:.
sals thatmay be formulated on the basis of the Ootnmis~
sion's 'ftndings. The Committee oiyour Chamber will,
therefore, realise that any attempt at present to limit the
scope 'of the inquiry in the manner suggested might be
regarded as an attempt to prejudice the issue."

..~

Extract from the Report submitted by th~ non-official Advisers in

connection with the Indo-Burma Trade negotiations.

or

The Member Education, Health and Lands, has expressed the

"'View that a trade agreement with Burma should prove an effective
rneans of securing Burmese goodwill and should thus assist in
maintaining the .political and economic status of Indians in Burma,
which view has been cmdorsed by the Hon'ble the Commerce lVIem~
ber. We have therefore thought it desirable to make any sacrifice
that may be necessary in arriving at a settlement with Burma to
safeguard the position of Indians there.

102

APPENDIX 11.
Extract from the FIindu (1\!Iadras), dated 16th August, 1941:-

IMMIGRATION INTO BURMA.

"TERMS OF AGREEMENT DISCRIMINATORY."
RESOLUTION PASSED IN BENGAL COUNCIL.
(ASSOCIATED PRESS OF INDIA.)

Calcutta, August 15.

"Varions terms of the Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement, such
as the literacy test, the payment of high entrance and residential
fees, and registration of Indians are highly objectionable and discri
minatory. "
This was the unanimous verdict given by the Bengal Legislative Council (Upper House), in the form of a non-official resolution,
on the recent agreement between the Government of India and
Burma on the question of Indian Immigration into Burma. The
resolution, which was moved by Mr. Nur Ahmad (Coalition) nrged
the Central Government to take necessary steps for their satisfaction
before the Agreement was ratified.
$

Expressing the views of the European Group on the matter,

Mr. W. B. G. Laidlaw said that although they could not support the
re-soiutiuu, tlrey--shouI-d--itlre-to put on record arur-cofivey-to tile-Government of India that the country was entitled to be consulted in
matters of such far-reaching importance, before authority was gIven
to anybody to initiate an Agreement of this nature.
He strongly criticised the Government order issued in a notification published in the Gazette of the 21st July, to the end that
with effect from August 1, all persons were prohibited from leaving
British India for Burma by sea for the purpose of unskilled work.
The result of this "peremptory" order had been hardship on labourers,

103
who had, in all good faith made their ,way to the port, only to find on
arrival,that they would not be allowed to leave this country.
Furthermore, Mr. Laidlaw continued, not only did the Government
give the public no indication beforehand that this prohibition would
shortly be coming into force, but no official arrangements whatever
seemed to have been made to determine who was and wlio. was not
an unskilled worker. It was actually left to the public to do the
best they could to carry out the terms of the order.
The resolution was supported on behalf of the Krishak Proja
and Progressive Nationalist Parties .

Minister's Reply.
Intervening in the debate, the Revenue Minister, Sir Bijoy
Prosad Singh Roy, informed the House that the Governmenfof
Bengal were not actually consulted before the Agreement was entered .
into by the Central Government. He assured the House, that the
Government of Bengal were always anxious to discharge their
duties to the province, and they could not do anything or would not
agree to any terms, which might adversely affect the interest . of the
people here. He wanted that there should be no misapprehension as
regards the Government attitude towards the interest of the Bengali
immigrants in Burma.

104
Extract from the Proceedings

of the

Bengal Legislative

Assembly dated the 2nd September, 1941, on the Special

Motion of Mr. Abdur Rahman Siddiqi, M.L.A.
(Muslim Chamber of Commerce) on the
Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement.

Mr. Abdur Rahman Siddiqi: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to protest

against a wrong done to India, recently, through an inhuman document, containing the terms of the Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement, to which, by an irony of fate, an Indian has affixed his
signature, for and on hehalf of this great Dependency of the British
Crown, in Asia. My story is a sad and pathetic one. It deals with
a betrayal unprecedented even in the annals of Anglo-Indian history.
The Indo-Burma Imm igration Agreement is a settlement, arrived
at~ secret.ly and in haste, which seeks, as between two memhers of
the family of nations called the British Empire, namely, Burma and
India, to regulate and" examine the question of Indian immigration
into Burma ", and" to secure for the Indian community, settled and
resident in Burma, recognition of their legitimate rights". As a
matter of fact, a proper examination of the question did not take
place at all and there was hardly any negotiation. The regulation
of the immigration, legally of unskilled labour only, transformed
itself into prevention and almost prohibition af immigration for the
people of India generally, at the hands of a man, who had gone to
discuss problems which, in his own words, "were mostly factual and
----negot:iatio-ns-tllat would be carried on--nowwere- in the--nature- -of
exploration" and would be accepted only when they were "consideredby the Government of India, just and equitahle and acceptahle
to the Indian opinion." Factually, Sir, the leader of the Indian
Delegation was bamhoozled hy the clever men in Rangoon, for, in
the hurry and excitement of his coming departure for the Unibed
States of America, as the Agent General .of the Government of
India, he signed away the rights and privileges of his countrymen
and sold his country. ,Ve have yet to find out whether he had the
authority of the Government of India to sign the document, when,
.,."

.,]
;11

'... .....,.,il
I!

105
.

. ~.:

on his own admission, he was on a fact-finding missiori. ofa purely

exploratorY' character, ami' whether he did submit the:. Agree1uent
be "considered by the Government 6f Il1dia just and eqliitable", -and
ifhe tried at all to find out vvhetherhis handiwork was(' ~:cc~ptable to
the Indian opinion". vVhen the whole world to-day is talking of
freedom of trade, freedom of the seas, breaking of .tariff walls, free
access to raw materials by every nation and of "open,. door" policies,
our representative comes back from Burma,smiling attdhappy, with
the unique distinction of having put his hand and seal
a "closed
door" Agreement.

'to

to

The settlement has made us hang down our heads in shame .

In spite of the efforts that are being made, deliberately to mislead
the public in India, through prevarieation and half-truths, the feel:.
illgS of disgust, indignation and bitterness surging in the minds of
the people of this country, have not been appeased. It has been
broadcast, far and wide, that the Standing EmigrationOommittee
and the Burma Ad hoc Oommittee, had agreed to the terms of the
settlement. It was, perhaps, this that led, the Hon'ble the Revenue .
Minister, to state; in the Legislative Oouncil,bn the 15th August,
that "the Agreement arrived at between the Governments of Burma
and Indict had the unanimous suppprt of the Indian residents in
Burma". rfhis is far from the truth. The Burma Indian Oh amber
of Oommerce, the' Burma Indian Association and the Nattukottai
Ohettyars' Accociation have protested against it in no uncertain
-- -langllage--and _thejr__re_pr_eB_entBJi~wiLlli'ft, in _India to-ciax,- to ..acg uaLn t __ __
the Government of India of their "deep discontent" over the Agree-'
ment. . I have authority .: to state that the Standing Emigration
Oommittee was never shown the Baxter Report and, what is still
-more reprehensible, the Oommittee Was coerced into acquiescence by
being told that the Burma Ad hoc Oomnlittee had' given its consent
to the terms of the Agreement.
Viewed on the background of the fight, our leaders have put up
. for the removal of the restrictions imposed upon us On grounds . of .
, race and colour, described, enphemistically, as "e~onomic reasons",

106
in parts of the British Empire controlled by the Whites, the entire
effort, of more than half a century, appears to have been made in
vaIn. It was left to a son of India, to undo the great wOl'k done by
them. With one fell stroke of his pen, he has given justification to
the euphemism and admitted it as correct. The wide expanses of
the globe have been narrowed down and the world has become
shrunken for us. Thousands upon thousands of square miles lie
uninhabited and barren with the legend "Thou Shalt not enter,"
prohibiting Indians and Asiatics from entering into them. Sir Gir
ja Shankar Bajpai's great settlement will encourage the Dominionsand Colonies and even some foreign countries, to tighten Llp their
anti-Asiatic legislation still more"vigorously,and to put more powerful steel bars behind the doors closed aga inst us" By introducing
this pernicious doctrine of "economic reasons", for the first time into
Asia, the Indian Delegation has laid foundations of inter-racial and
international discord which may lead to disasters. If Burma hangs
its doors against us, why should Siam, :Malaya, Java, the Phillipines
and other Asiatic countries, not follow suit ~ The' Indo-Burma
Immigration Agreement will supply them with sufficient reaRon for
a change of policy. The Urdu adage :the pauper's wife is the sisterin-law of everybody-seems to fit in well with our position and
status in the British Empire to-day.
Let us, ]\11'. Speaker, examine this fiction of "economic reasons",
which has led our' erstwhile compatriots in Burma, to adopt such an
unfriendly attitude towards us. Whether they have done so on
their own initiative or under the--d}ctation ofTnterestedp~rties~ ~ isbeside the point. It has, nevertheless, been given out that the. Bur:man fears that Indian immigrants, both unskilled labourers and businessmen, will inundate the country and deprive the denizens of the '
land of their means of livelihood. The point deserves careful and
sympathetic consideration at our hands.
-

- - - - - - -- - - -

Out of a population of 14,667,146 the number of Indians in

Burma in 1931, was 1,017,825, of which 318;000 were Bel1galis.
The ratio of Indians to the total population was 6.9, say, 7 per cent.

107
Three separate estimates, prepared by Dr. Bernardelli, afterthe1931
census, placed the total Indian population in Burma, tdwardsthe
end of 1939, at 918,000, a clear decline of 100,000,' in nine years.
The . figures for, the 1941 census, will, in all probability, show a
further decline.
The Report on Indian Immigration into Burma, however,
records, on page 94, that "there is undoubtedly a widespread but
erroneot(,S view in Burma of the dangers of ever~increasing immi.gration of large numbers of Indians into their country. The
experience of the last century is sufficient to refute this beliif'" . On
page 105, the author of the Report, the Honourable Mr. J. Baxter,
Financial Adviser to the Government of Burma, goes on to say: " I
acc~pt the view that on the whole the volumeqf immigration from
India ad;'usts itself to conditions if economic prosperity in Burma."
He continues: "There is no evidence if any kind to svggest that
Indians have displaced Burmansfrom employment w1lich they had
previously obtained. 'rhe whole history of the development of Burma,
during the last few generations, suggests that there has been a
general division if worrk between the two races and, therefore,. Indian
labour in the past has been supplementary rather than alternative to
Burmese labour."
Where, then is the justification, even on "economic grounds",
for the restriction imposed on Indian entrants into Burma and the
~e~~s-sityfo-;':-th~ reg~latioIl.- o I;;:di;1;-labour, even- of the unskilledvariety? 'Ve _shall have to probe deeper into the problem if we wish
to arrive at the truth. I cannot, however, refrain from saying that
the Agent-General-designate for 'India in the United States of
America, has left a cumbersome legacy for his countrymen, which
every self-respecting and honourable Indian will reject with contempt.
He has also left an ugly baby for the newly appointed l\fember for
Overseas Affairs to carry, as best as he can. Discrimination is writ
large across this Agreement and, as Gandhiji has pntit, it is "penal"
in character.

108
The three Government of India officials, who formed the Incli~m
Delegation to Burma, did exceed, on. their own admission, the
powers entrusted to them,in that they proceeded from explOl:ation
to finalisation and signature.

Mr. Aiul Chandra Kumar: On a point of order, Sir. We have

read the whole speech which appeared in the "Star of India" of
yesterday's date.
Mr. Speaker: flow did it strike you in the middle of the speech?

Mr. Abdur Rahman. Siddiqi: Without realizing that, besides

undermining India's status in a foul luanner, they were doing a
positive disservice to the Empire, at a most critical junctnre. 'l'heil'
h.asty and ill-advised action, viewed in the light of the present
Armageddon, in which Western Democracy and Totalitarianism are
at death-grips, belies the oft-repeated and pleasing statements on
Dominion Statns of the Statue of Westminster variety, and Equal
Partnership within the Empire, for this country, although as far
back as 1921, the Imperial Conference had held that "it was
desirable that recognition should be given to the rights of citzenship
of Indians domiciled in other parts of the Empire.

The injury caused by th.isgreat wrong done to India, does not

stop at this checkmate. Whatever the opinion of the law officers of
the Government of Iudia, there is the opinion that the Agreement is
illegal and ultra vires, notwithstanding the efforts of the high
coiitractiligparties to circumvent the provisions of sectio118 36 and.
44, of the Government of Burma Act, of 1935, by trying to legalise
it by an Order-in-Oouncil, and depriving the Legislatures in Burma
and India fronl discussing it. Moreover, the Agreclllcnt goes counter
to the letter and spirit of His Majesty's "Instructions under Onr
Sign lV[anual and Signet", which lay down that "discriminatory or
penal treatment," of India, or "differential restrictions on imports"
frOIl?- India or "measures which, though not discrim~natory or penal
in form, would be so in fact", should be avoided by the Governor, "in
eht discharge of his sp~cial r3sponsibility. In Article XX of the

109
Instrument of Instructions; His 3iajesty was pleased to express his
desire in these words :-'''Our Governor shall not, before he has consulted onr GovernorGeneral of India, give his sanction to the introduction, in either
Ohamber of Legislature, of any measnre which, in his iudgment, is
likely to r:est'rict the right c! entry iibto B~LJ'rna cif subJects of Elis
jl![aJesty domicile cl in BTitish Indict 01' of the snbJects cif cmy Indian
State, and it is Our desire that our Governor of Burma shall, as soon
as may be found expedient, confer with our Governor-General of
India, with a view to the 'J'egtdation cif the emigration from India
and inbmig1~atio'n into Burma cif unskilled Indl;Ct/n labot[1"."
lb,;vill be observed, Sir, that a clear distinction has been ma,de
here betvveen unskilled labourers and other Indian subjects of
His "Majesty.

It was to cl~rify the position that the right of free entry into
Burma of "other Indians ", was not in question, that Earl Winterton, moved, On the 10th April, 1935, his Amendment, which
provided : " Nothing in this, sub-section shall affect any restriction lawfully
imposed on the right of entry into Burma of such Indian subjects of
His Majesty domiciled in British India, as enter Burma, whether by
previous agreement or otherwise to perform tms7cillecl labmcr'jo'r hire,
in Bwrma, not being domestic or menial servants and members of
their families or dep@RG@utS."
My contention gets added strength from the explanations and
repeated assurances given to us by His :Majesty's lVIinisters, in
Parliament and outside it, to allay our fears and sU$piciol1s. The
~ Burma Sub-Oommittee of the First Round Table Conference, in 19~ 1,
especially stressed" the importance ()f there being no discrimir.ation
as regards Indians entering Burma." The. recommendation was
accepted by His Majesty's Government and no les" a person than the
Prime Minister, Mr. Ramstty MacDonald, declared that" the main
principle to be followed must be that of equal rights "and opportuni.,

110

tics for any British subject ordinarily resident for carrying on trade
or business in Burma." Sir Thomas Inskip, speaking on behalf of
the Government, stated in the HOuse of Commons that "nobody
wants to discrriminate between British subJects domiciled in India
01' Indian State subJects when they go to Burma, any more than one
wants to discriminate between British, when they go to British
India."
:Mr. Butler, speaking on the Debate, on the Instrument of
Instructions, on the 17th November, 1936, after referring to "the
apprehensions of Indians that there will be undue discrimination
against them," regardil1g their right of free entry into Burma, stated
categorically that" ther'e can be no discrimination against 1ndian
immigTation- into Burma without prior consultation with the 00vWr'rwT-GeneTal who will take every care of the inter'ests qf Indians
qvho 'may wish to enter Bur'Jna. Therefore, I think that the fear
that has been felt on this score by Indians who wish to enter into
Burma, r;nay be quietened in view qf the contents of Parragraph
.XX." He further declared: "liVe do not want to stop the free
entry of Indians in general. That is why we include the general
reference to the Governor-General."
Referring to the distinction made between unskilled labourers
and "other Indians", Mr. Butler added: "the reason why we
cannotmake a simple rule is that we have to malce this diJJerentiarregard to unskilled labattr while at the same time we do not
tion

in

--'Want -UJ- sf)P:-tib<7;fi'ee-enMy-ej--indi(1ft/iS-in gen-eral-},

- --- -- -

In the light of section 36 (1) (h), of the Burma Act arid Paragraph XX of the Instrument of Instructions: the resultant position,
as summarised by the India Office, for the London Indian Chamber
of Commerce, was declared to be that" these provisions seem to us
to 'rneet the Indian claim as fully as is possible without saying in
terms, that the Burma Legislature may not restrict the entry of
Indians . into Burma-a provision which would certainly evoke
protests from the Burmans." I ask, in all conscience, Sir, whether
the Agreement we are tlscussing to-day has any-even the remotest

iJI,

111

-relationship with these utterances made by responsible Ministers

of the Crown, on behalf ofRis Majesty and his Government ~
I have been wondering whether both India and Burma have
been fooled, in the matter of this Agreement, by the City of London
and its agents in Delhi and Rangoon. In negotiating a Trade
Agreement with Ceylon, the Government of India was adamant that
Trade and Immigration be taken together. The process was reversed in the- case of Barma, which has a larger Indian population and
wider bl1.siness connections. I ask, "Why this somersault ~" If
what the Indiq,n loses were to go to the Barman, we could, in a
spirit of generosity, overlook the loss. But to shut the Indian out,
and leave the door open to others will bring him no benefit. The
co~petition is not between the Burman and the Indian but between
the Britisher and other foreigner:; on the one side, "and the Indian on
the other. So long as no restrictions are placed on the right of free
entry of Britjshers and others doing business in Burma, our categOirical and unequivocal demand is that no restrictions shall be
placedon the Indians entering that country. By signing the Trade
Agreement first, our bargaining power, in the matter of Immigration
into Burma, became ineffective and l'esulted in the BaJpai Fiasco .
.,

The services rendered by India to Barnla in men and money,

which have brought prosperity to the land, entitled us to a preferential treatment. Ever since the connection began, India has
poured crores of rupees into Burma, to Inaintain its administration
-aaa-dencit province.-- -Tne-:llila:r-settTemel1t" of "the -accouilt, --so-gene-rOllS to Burma, was made with a view to help the new Government
stand on its own legs. vVe have "yet to receive about 50crores of
the settled debt. Indian soldiers have stood sentinel on the frontiers "
of Burma, for decades and, even to-day, our countrymen are keeping
the dogs of war away from its doors. I do riot wish to base my
claim for equal treatment with others on these grounds. I do
however, expect reciprocity with a tinge of gTatefulness and equal
opportunity for _alL "The Burman should not "make a free gift of
my industry and labour, of almost a century, to my rivals. "It has

112
been stat.ed that" the power to control entry .into it.s territory is
one" which (;annot be denied to any.count.ry. I am prepared to
g~'al:l.t, this power to Burma but where I join issue is that "this power
shaJl not be used against. me alone.
The less said about the actual terms of the Agreement the
better. I shall, however, give one or two instances. I have, in my
df~y, read a good few international and inter-state documents, but
nowhere have I come Hcross a more disgraceful clause, than Olause
14, of this Agreement, which lays down that "l\1arriage and
cohabitation with a woman, belonging to the indigenous races of
Burma, established to the satisfaction of the GoverI).ment of Burma,
maybe made a condition of the cancellation of a permit or m:sc"
granted to a male Indian Immigrant." For a parallel, we shall have
to go to the anti-Jewish madness of. Adolf Hitler. Human nature
being what it is, we should have been s1Jared the sordidness of this
article. I can appreciate the desire of the Burman to keep the
purit.y of his race in tact, but why isolate the Indian ~
The Agreement has tried, in clause 22, deliberately t.o interfere
with the personal law of the Hindus and the Muslims, as guaranteed
to them under the Queen's Proclamation, of 1858, by restricting
them to one wife only, whereas "the existence of polygamy, among
the Buddhists of Burma, is beyond dispute". The Dhammathat
"recognizes t.he custom of polygamy" and "a Bllrman Buddhist
man can marry as many wives as he likes." I wish Sir Girja
_Shank3Jrhad taken t.h.e-troubleto inOlw himselLo.Il-the-subjectheOl'e
he accepted this condition. :H'urther, ,if the Indian male immigrant
happens to be a widower and takes into lawful wed':'lock a female
entitled to an A permit, the Bajpai Settlement will not allow this
male person to take to Burma freely his offsprings lawfully begotten
of a deceased Indian female. Could there be anything more fantastic
or more ridiculous than this?
. The Agreement impinges upon the rights of British Indians and
Indian Indians, reserved to them under section 44 (3), in regard to
travel, residence, the acquisition, holding or disposition of property,

113
the holding of public office or the carrying on of any occupation,
trade, business, or' profession. How can these rights be enjoyed
when the party holding them will not be allowed to enter Burma
freely ~ The question, whether entry includes the right of re-entry,
is of paramount importance; but a correct solution of the fundame~.tal
contention, that Indians other than unskilled Indian labourers,
should be treated in Burma exactly in the same manner as foreigners
and members of the Fritish Empire, is the acid test of Briitish
sincerity and the crux of the whole problem. Nothing less than
equal treatment with others will satisfy India.
If the Government of India has failed so hopelessly to safeguard
the interests of "other Indians" , it does not take long to imagine
how its Agents will deal with unskilled labourers. I hope it is not
the intention of the Government of India to reintroduce, by means
of this Agreement,the system of indentured labom;, through the
backdoor. The tale of we of the Indians in Fiji, Malaya, and elsewhere, is still fresh in onrminds. Regulation of unskilled labour
should not degenerate into a revival of that accursed form of modern
. slavery. The rights and privileges of these fellow countrymen of
ours, howsoever humble and poor they be, must be protected and
safeguarded with as much care and attention a~ those of their better
placed brothers.

~ .

L
L..:.

Until the new Member for Overseas Affall's, and until Indian
representatives are allowed to have a say in the matter, no action
should be--talmn lu--L()ndon; Delhioi1tangoon;ln pursuance-ofthis--Agreement, nor should effect be given to its terms in the form of an
Order-in-Council. India is sore at heart that the Governor-General
who, in the words of Mr. Butler, was "to take care of the interests
of Indians who may wish to enter Burma," should have accepted
this impossible Agreement without demur and in utter disregard of
public opinion and further to have aggravated our exasperation by
deciding to commence conversations with Ceylon. We are anxious
to inforIn the Government of India that no conversations shall be
held with Ceylon, until the Burma Affair 1'3 concluded satIsfactorily;

114
and that Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai shall have no part or lot
them, directly or indirectly.

III

The Trade Agreement between India and Burma can be terminated at six months' notice by either side. If the Government of
India fails to secure terms consistent with the dictates of justice,
fairplay, and cordial neighbourly relations, there is no other course
left open to it except to denounce the Trade Agreement without any
avoidable delay.
A rumour, that the Government of Bengal had given its support
to the terms of the Agreement, has been going round t he country
notwithstanding the assurance given by the Hon'ble the Revenue
Minister, in the Legislative Council, that "the Government of
Bengal would not do anything or agree to any term which might
.affect the interests of the people of the province."
May I request him to reaffirm'that statement to-night, and also
to inform the Government of India of that wise decision?
I beg to propose the resolution which stands in my name :-"This Assembly is of opinion that the, recent Indo-Burma
Immigration Agreement is detrimental to Indian interests and
discriminating in its provisions and further that it undermines the
honour of Indians abroad and will have injurious and harmful
repercussions on the status and rights of Indians settled in British
-Domimons; -Colonies ana in -foreign- --coulltri-es~- lrr-v-i-ew--of -u-he--aetthat the Agreement will affect large numbers of the people of Bengal,
this Assembly urges upon the Government of Benga] to represent to
the Government of India, the feelings of resentment and apprehension .aroused by the Agreement, and to impress upon them the
necessity of taking early steps for its modification. "
Mr~

SyedJalaluddin Hashemy: l\1:r. Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point

of order. Is it permissible for a newspaper to publish the speech

of a member of this House in advance? Sir, I have compared the
speech of Mr. Siddiqi-

115
Mr. Speaker: I have heard you. I am issuing a notice to the
newspaper to show cause why it has published a speech without care
and forethought as to whether it has been delivered in the
I-Iouse or not.

Mr. Abdur Rahman Siddiqi: May I submit in explanation ' that

I sent the resolution to you about four weeks ago. Unfortunate
incidents came in and delayed the utterance of this speech.
I was definitely promissed that it would come up for discussion
before the HOl.l$e yesterday. Unfortunately the sad death of the
Maharajadhiraja Bahadur of Burdw3n intervened. At 4-15,
I was given to understand that the House would not adjourn
altogether but that we would just adjourn for 15 minu
tes. I had this information verified through the Associated Press,
and. they alHo informed me that the Government had decided
not to adjourn because there had been so many adjournments.
Sir, the Editor did not mean any disrespect. If an evening paper
has to publish anything on a particular day, there is no other way
but to print it on that day.
Mr. Speaker: I have heard Mr. Siddiqi carefully. In spite of
all his arguments, I think that the Bengal Legislative Assembly
functions , in its own' ipdependentright and not according to the
calculations and volition of others. I feel that a newspaper functioning in Oalcutta should not have released a speech, until it was
, delivered in the House. That being the point, the newspaper
.-@x-istingin -Calclltta,~as_ nQright _to__publish _it earlier ._.1.9:Q.. ,not
mind its being published, I do not mind members sending speeches
for publication, but the the speech should not have been published
, in advance. In fact, I went home yesterday at about 5-20 p.m.'
and I found it printed in the paper. In any case I feel that SOme
explanation is due to the House and I have called for it.
Dr. Nalinaksha Sanyal: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the
, motion g'iven notice of by my esteemed friend Mr. Abdur Rahman
Sic1diqi which through his enthusiasm he has forgotten to read out
to the House.

116
Mr. Abdur Rahman Siddiqi ~ I moved the motion at the cnd
of my speech.

Mr. Speaker: It is not through his enthusiasm that he has

forgotten, but it is through your enthusiasl11 that you have forgotten
that he has llloved it.

Dr. Nalinaksha Sanyal: The nlotion reads thus:

"This Asselnbly is of opinion that the recent Indo-Burma
Immigration Agreement is detrimental to Indian~interests, and
discriminatory in its provisions and further that it undermines the
honour of Indialls abroad, and will have injurious and harmful
repercussions on the status and rights of Indians settled in British
Dominiol1s, Oolonies and in foreign countries.
In view of the fact that the Agreement will affect large
numbers of the people of Bengal, this Assembly urges upon the
Government of Bengal to represent to the Government of India the
feelings of re,sentment and apprehension aroused by .the Agreement,
and to impress upon them the necessity of taking early steps
for its modification."
Sir, it gives me great pleasure in associa~ing myself on behalf
of the Oongress with the motion that has been given notice of, and
. moved with such ability as cannot ordinarily be surpassed. It gives
us greater pleasure still to find an esteemed member of the Muslim
LeagJle,~aJUemher_Qf . theexecutiv-B_oLt1te_Mllslim .. Laag~a,_i]L8L~ay- __ ...

to declare that he dislikes the Agreement, which has behind it the

problem of dissecting India into different provinces, and I hope that
my friend will remember how this and similar kinds of things might
crop up in course of time, if the proposed idea of two nations or several
nations, popularly known as the Pakistan idea, is g~ven encouragement
to be propagated throughout the length and breath of this country.
Sir, the Agreement that was made available to us towards the
beginning of the first week of August for the first time, and which
was talked of in the middle of July last, has astonished and shocked
,
~.

117
Indians to the greatest possiLle extent. , Mahatma Gandhi, who can
be considered as an expert in immigration problems, has characterised
this Agreement as an undeserving slur both on India as, well as on
Burma. The Agreement, as has been explained by my friend Mr.
Abdur Rahman Siddiqi. is absolutely unfair and inequitable to '
Indians. It is essentially of a discriminatory character, not merely
because jt places Indians in a different category from otherimmi-:grants into that province or that country, but ,it also takes away \
certain rights and privileges proposed to be secured .to Indians ,' and
others in the' Government of Burma Act itself. It ignores ' the
gUl1ralltees that statesmen had , assured to India at the time of the ' '
passing of the Act, and it further contravenes some of the actual'
provisions of the legislation itself. Further, the Agreement ha.s
certain clauses that are definitely humiliating and are calculated to
wound the self-respect of Indians, however small a degree we may have the sense of self-respect in some directions. The procedure in
; particular adopted in coming to this Agreement is quite unusual and
extraordinary, and the Governluent of India went over the heads of
the Legislature to come to some agreement for which there was
no immediate hurry. We want to bring to the notice of the
authorities that are in the Government of India, as well as to the
Secretary of State in Oouncil, that this is a procedure to which we
take the strongest exception.
The recommendations of the special Oommission of Mr. Baxter,
which formed the basis of the negotiations, were not made available to
.tne-p11 bIlc-e arlier, -and-tnep uolicli-aa-no-opp orfllnityoCsenaiIig their- observations on the' findings of that report. The Oommission was
originally appointed as a mere fact-finding enquiry, but unfortunately
it reached more or less final decisions, decisions that ultimately took a
final character. The points raised at the time of the Indo-Burma
Trade Agreement by non-official advisers, and the point that was
pressed from different Chambers of Commerce not to dissociate the
Indo-Burma immigration 'guestion from the question of trade were
ig'noredand the apprehensions then entertained , were ultimately
found to have been based on good grol1nds.

118
In the case of this Indo-Burma Agreement again, the procedure
has been specially unfortunate, because the delegation was not
accompanied by any non-official adviser, and the delegation could not
get the opinion of non-official Indians either in business or otherwise.
The sudden order, in particular prohibiting a large number of
labourers from proceeding to Burma from the 21st July, 1941, a date
previous to the actual pUbJication of the Agreement, has led to
immense hardship to a very large number of people who, not knowing that they would be stopped at the ports, started from their homes
and went on with arrangements to proceed to Burma in the usual
course. Indians living in Burma or trading in Burma, even at the
time when the Agreement was signed, have been treated with scant
respec~, and they have been classified improperly into several classes,
which preclude the possibility of some of them being permanently
employed in the engagements that they are now carrying on either
in trade or profession or business. The classes of permits that have
been introduced are not well planned and some of these permits are
contrary to ordinary canons of international justice. The fees chargeable also are prohibitive. The result has been that many business
houses that have head offices in India, but belong practically to
Burma have been put to immense difficulties. It is quite possible
that although it was never contemplated in the Government of India
Act, or in the Government of Burma Act, that there should be or
could be a.ny expropriatory measure adopted by the Burmans to oust
Indian business and trade from Burma, the net effect of the IndoRllrma .Inunlg.I'ati QIl--A.gI'~@.m.ent,wil1b.g-that.it- will---pl'actical1Jr--puta- __ ..
stop to the maintenance or advancement of Indian business in Burma.
This has been done when no similar disability is contemplated or
placed on any other national,not to speak of Britishers. Even
.Japanese and the Germans would be in a position to carry on their
trade and pusiness in Burma under much better terms than the
Indians would be in a position to do at the present moment.
Further, Sir, a new moral code for Indians has been set up to
which an eloquent reference has .been made by Mr. Abdul Rahman
Siddiqi ; that should bear repetition.

.,',""' X-:;' :'~'(?"1

"

119
In clause 14 of the Agreement, the Hon'ble sponsors of the
Agreement , had laid down that marriage or cohabitation with a,
woman belonging to the indigenous races of Burma will have to be
established to the satisfaction of the Burma Government. "Co ha,.
bitation" mind you, "will have to be established to the satisfaction
of the Govern.ment of Burma." That may be made a condition for
the cancellation of a permit or a visa granted to a male Indian
immigrant. If any Indian would like to enter into marriage negotiations with a woman of Burmese domicile, he will have, before the
proposed marriage, ' to make provision which is sufficient in the
opinion of the Government of Burma for the permanent maintenance
of the woman he desires to marry.
Sir, provisions of this eharacterone can sympathise with,
particularly when one remembers the incidents that hadunfortunately
led in some cases to riots and the like in the unfortunate country of
Burma in recent years; and yet although We have the fullest
sympathy for the Bnrmesein their attempt to protect their womanhood from irresponsible encroachments, I might submit that this is a
kind of clause which nobody.could dream of even in Great Britain.
Indian seamen freely go to Great Britain and freely have cohabitation
with British women; they can never think of putting a stop to that.
I cannot understand--Mr. Speaker:

You, better leave that point.

Dr. Nalinaksha Sanyal: Thank you, Sir. Similarlr Bl'itishers

, , ' come a-nd-go- to -Uie'teagaraens or-Assam -ana ' indulge ' inexce-sses -- --which have not called for a condition precedent for the Assam
Government to prescribe, in order to prevent their entry into A,ssam.
(Maulvi ABUL HASHIM: What about Hitlerian theory of race and
blood?) It is surprising, Sir, that when we are fig'hting the Axis
powers any of their ideas, e.g., Hitler's ideas should be referred to
and Hitler's ideas should be attempted to be followed by the sponsors
of the Agreement who are struggling on the anti-Axis basis.
Sir, I would not take a long time to delineate the numerous ills
and evils that are likely to followfrorn ,the present agreement.

120
,This agreement if it is at all to be allowed, should be matter for
the Indian Legislature to ratify and for the Burma Legislature to
. put through in the form of law. There is of course apr,OVlSlon in
the Government of Burma Act for Orders-in-Council of this character,
but surely when the Legislature is in session, the Secretary of State
in Council will take the reasonable attitude of not taking recourse
to theOrder-in-Oouncil for ratifying agreements of this character
which are bound to lead to serious repercussions in every field of
Indian economic and social life. The Secretary of State. for India
'would do well to leave things to the respective Legislatures to decide.
Sir, the Government of Bengal has a special res'ponsibility in
this connection, becauge a very large number of Bengalees reside in
Burma and go there for trade and profession. I understaed that
from 60 to 70' thousand men from Chittagong itself have to make
their living in Burma. I also learn that, to our shame, the Government of Bengal was not even consulted in the matter before the
agreement was entered into. In reply to a reference made in the
Council, the Hon'ble Minister on behalf of the Government made
that announcement. It should now be the attitude of Government
of Bengal to see that this humiliation is properly recompensed and
they should refuse to be a party to any arrangement that they may
be called upon to make to prevent overland movements to Burma
across the borders of Bengal.
Mr. C. Griffiths: Sir, I rise to speak on behalf of the Anglo.. -fIl:(1-ian-C5IDTItltni-ty-.c-

Mr. Speaker: I am not thinking of Hindus or Anglo-Indians

for the time being.

We are too much pressed for time.

Dr. Naiinaksha SanyaI : Sir, Mrs. Sen Gupta should be allowed

to speak.
Mr. Speaker:

All right; she can speak for five minutes.

Mrs. NeUie Sen Gupta: :Mr. Speaker, the time is so short that
I would not have taken up the time of the House if 1 did not feel

'/

121
'so strongly on this ,matter; perhaps, we in Chittagong feel more
strongly than the people of 'any other part of India, at least I believe
so. When Dr. Sanyal says that 66,000 Chitta,gonians live in
Burma, I would, tell him that there are no less than 252,000
Chittagonians in Burma, against the 66,000 mentioned by him.
The distance between Burma and India is s6 little and
the friendship is so great that I cannot for a moment think
that' the Burmans themselves have willingly agreed to this
measnre, and I do feel most strongly that they have been persuaded
and coerced to agree to a measure which, they will certainly realise,
is not for the good of their land. The Indians have worked in
Burma for many years, there has never been any feeling that they
have been continuonsly' taking money out of Burma; they have
worked there, they have lived there, and they have spent their
money there, and now this measure that has been brought forward
.is a most humiliating and insulting measure that could be meted
out to anyone, and yet it has been meted out only to Indians and
not to anyone else. We know what has happened in South Africa,
shall we wait and see whether Indians, our people, are going to be
treated in Burma as they have been treated in South Africa? Is it
not a disgrace that one of onr own people should have agreed to this
measure? There are other speakers who will put forward their
points on this question much better than I, but I feel that I must
protest most strongly against this disgraceful and humiliating
measure.
,

-----MI' :-SaratCliandta.-Rose:- -.-}vIr .-~ve-aker; ii-gives---me-v-ery grea.-t- pleasure to support the motion placed before this House by my
honourable friend representing- the Muslim Chamber of Commerce.
I condemn the Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement because it is
essentially discriminatory in character; I condemn it because it
ignores the, fundamental rights of India and Indians; I condemn
it because it ignores the rights of India and Indians: which were
guaranteed at the time of the passing of the Government of Burma
Act of 1935; I condemn it because some of its provisions are
humiliating and calculated to wound the honour and self-respect of

122
India and Indians. Lastly, I condemn it because SOme of its
provisions really amount to a negation of the elementary prin~iples
of justice so far as India and Indians are concerned.
This House will no doubt bear in mind that this Agreement will
vitally affect the interests of over a million of Indians resident in
Burma, and if I may give briefly the history of this Agreement, it is
this. Some time back the Government of Burma appointed, with
the consent of the Government of India, a Commission of Enquiry to
examine the question of Indian immigration into Burma. One would
have expected, ,sir, that when that Commission submitted its report,
that report would have been available to Burma and also to India.
But what was the procedure adopted? The report was available, as
I see from the facts published in the papers, to the Government of
Burma as far back as October,1940. I do not know, Sir, the exact
date when a copy of that report was ' made available to the Government of India, but I take it that it must have been some considerable,
time back Still no copy of that report was published for the
consideration of the public, and it was not until the Indo-Burma
Agreement-the Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement-was published that that report was made available to the pUblic. It was
published at a time when there was no opportunity for consideration
of that report.
Sir, I hope the House will bear with me if I qnote a few
extracts from the report of Mr. Baxter of the Oommission of Enquiry.
i\1r. Baxter"inhls-ieporfsiiid ," TMIgrati6n--irom~ In'dla-io'-Rurlmi'isno't a new thing; it has been going on as far back as Burmese hi:'!tory
can be traced through its chronicles and lAgendary lore." He added:
" There is no evidence of any kind to, suggest that Indians have
displaced Burmans from employment which they had previously
obtained and that'~Tndian labour in the past has been supplementary
rather than alternative to Burmese labour." He further stated:
" There is, in fact, no parallel in the modern world to the present
position of Burma vis-a-'uis the problem of immigrati0n from India.
In this country for generations Burmans and Indians have grown

side by side; joint contributors tOa progressive economic development, but associated primarily by the historic, accident of a ' joint
control excercised by a British administrator," and that "on the
whole the volume of immigration from India adjusts itself to the
condition of economjc prosperity in Burma." Re did not fail, Sir, to
sound a significant note of warning which was not heeded to either
by the Governmtnt of Burma or the Government of India.' He said,
"I venture to call attention to an aspect of the immigration problem
which is frequently negl~cted. General discussion , too often limits
itself to that simple and negative word 'restriction' overlooking
the probability that a hasty and ill-judged action in this way may
lead to eeonomic maladjustments. far more serious than the evils
which they are intended to remedy. Such a negative view is
often based upon a superficial and pessimistic view of the -possibility
of future development ef Burma. There is a wide field on the other
hand for a fruitful positive action by the opening up of additional
,avenues of employment for the people of the country."
Sir, as I have already said, that report waS available to the
Government of Burma as ,far back as October last year but still it was
not available to the Indian public until the Indo-Burma Immigrntion
Agreement was published. 'Vill it surprise the Housa if I ' say
that a copy of Mr. Baxter's report was not available either to nonofficial Burmans or non-official Indians resident in Burma? It was
not even made availabla to ~the non-official advisers to the Indian
-Trade_neleg.atiQn.,~yhich had to ,discus~_ matters._yitalJ.Q _th~ ~~n teres~_
of trade, industry and commerce relating both to Burma and India.
Andw hat do we find? The result is this, the Government of
India adopted a policy of silence-a policy not of discreet silence,
but-a policy o! most harmful silence. When the:Member in charge
of this matter, Sir Girja Sankar Bajpai, the Member in charge, of
Education, Health and Lands, proceeded to Burma in persuance of
that policy of harmful silence-harmful to , the interests of both
Press interview
in Calcutta ,that
a"_ Burma and India-he declared ina'
.
..
he was proceeding to Burma on an exploratory mission-not for the

purpose of concluding an immigration agreement: but purely on an

exploratory mission .. If 1 may repeat the exact words of Sir Girja
Sankar himself, what he said at the Press interview in Calcutta
was that he was proceeding to Burma for exploratory talks with
the Burma representasives. He went even further in persuauce of
that policy of harmful silence. The leader of the Goyernment of
India Delegation as he was, he also gave the Sub-Oommittee of the
Ad hoc Oommittee that had been appointed in Burma to understand
during the initial stages that he had come to Burma to have
exploratory talks with the representatives of Burma.
Now, Sir, the Delegation as we know, was not accompanied by
any non-official advisers, was not accompanip,d by any represfmtatives of Indian trade and industry, was not accompanied in fact
by anyone who could speak with authority on the subject. Sir
Girja Sankar Bajpai goes there possibly-if I may borrow an
expression from Sheridan-with a pedlar's pack of garbled evidence
received from interested bodies in Burma and surreptitious affidavits
running down India's case. HeproceeJs to Burma with that
pack on his back and negotiates and concludes an Immigration
Agreement.
Sir, I have read to you important extracts from the report of
Mr. Baxter. I shall now draw the attention of the House to one
point and that is as regards the guarantees. I believe this House is
aware that there are certain guarantees given to India and Indians
under the Government of Burma A.ct:~As-regarclstlios~eguaranfees,
I shall say shortly that all the guarantees that were given to India
in the Houses 'of Parliament in England, either by Mr. Butler or by
Sir Thomas Inskip, or by Mr. Ramsay M.acDonaldhave been broken.
Part V of the Government of Burma Act guarantees to Indians rights
in respect of travel, residence, acquisition, holding or disposition of
property, the holding of public office or the carrying on of any
occupation, trade business or profession. It also guarantees certain
Tights to joint-stock companies incorporated under the laws of
British India and to ships and aircraft reg'istered in British India.

125
Now, Sir, what does this agreement do? 1t does it indirectly
no doubt, but doing a thing indirectly is sometimes even mOl~e .
dangerous than doing a thing directly. It indirectly attempts to
nullify those guarantees which were given by the Government of
Burma Act. This Immigration Agreement in effect restricts the
movement of officers and employees of joint-stock companies, ships
and aircraft. Apart from the qnestion as to whether such an agreement is, or is not, ultra vires of the Government of Burma Act, it is
significant, Sir, that whereas joint-stock companies incorporated in
India are practically put under the ban, British companies are not
under the ban. . Britishers and representatives of British joint-stock
companies will go on with their work, will go on with their
acquisition, holding and disposition of property, will go on with
their occupation, trade, business or profession just as merrily as
before. . That is only another instance of the "divide and rule" policy
of British Imperialjsm. India, which is the parent of Burma in
more respects than one, Indians, who profess a religion which is the
parent of Buddhism, are to be put under the ban, but Britishers are
to be allowed to go on with their avocations, normal, abnormal or
subnormal, worldly or under-worldly, in Burma, and yet there is no
ban placed on them.
Now"Sir, my honourable friend Mr. Siddiqi drew attention to
another matter, and that is what he de&cribed as a new moral code
for Indians in Burma in the matter of marriage or cohabitation with
wemeueekHlgBg. tesn iIlEl.-igeRgu..s--l'a~e. A.s--QIlewhQ--pr-O-fessgs.a .
religion which I just now described as the parent of the religion to
which Burmans subscribe, I am entirely in sympathy with all their
attempts to preserve the honour and integrity of women; but may I
ask why this ban which is placed on India and Indians is not placed
on people of any other country living in Burma1 Is it another
instance of the racial superiority policy that we find in British
Imperialism1
Sir, the last submission I desire to make to the House is this.
In a matter which affects so vitally the interests of Indian Indians

126
none of the Indiitn prOVInces were consulted. Madras is vitally
interested, Orissa is vitally interested, and, as my honourable friend
1VIrs. Nellie Sen-Gupta reminded the House, Bengal is also vitally
interested, and yet none of these provinces were consulted in respect
of this vital m~tter.
Sir, I would say in conclusion that when you consider the clauses of this Immigration Agreement, you cannot but come to the
conclusion that it is another in3tance of the divide and rule policy,
which was the policy of Roman Imperialism and' of its successor
British Imperialism, a poHcy which has wrought havoc in India and
in other parts of the inhabited globe. That policy is being put to
the test at the present moment. And I say, Sir, in all seriousness
and after mature consideration, to British Imperialists, whose hand is
noticeable in this Agreement, that if you do not change yoUl~ policy
of divide and rule so far as India and Burma are concerned, Nemesis
will very soon overtake you.

Mr. C. Griffiths:
Mr. Speaker:

Mr. Speaker, Sir, can I say a few words ~

No.

Sir Bijoy.

The Hon'ble Sir Bijoy Prasad Singh Roy: Sir, Government have
listened with very great interest to the speeches of the honourable
mover of this motion and-.. -..--D.l'.Nalinaksha_Sany.al~_Sir,thBJ~e.is...Btil1smne_.timB.Jeit .arui_ our
friend Mr. Griffiths may speak for five minutes.

Mr. Speaker: The time was fixed by the consent of the House
and I have no r~ght to extend it.
Dr. Nalinaksha Sanyal: He has been on his legs several times.
Mr. Speaker: I do not mind if the House carries on till 6-30.
Mr. Niharendu DuUa Mazumdar: Sir, he has asked for five minutes.
He may be given at least two minutes.

127'

Dr. Nalinaksha Sanyal: This is a matter in which

particular

Inember belonging to a special community wants to speak.

Mr. Speaker: There should not have been two speakers from one
group. I allowed Mrs. Sen-Gupta to speak at your request. In fact,
you took a lot of time. However, I do not mind it if the House
wants to hear Mr. Griffiths. (Ories of "no no" from the Coalition
Benches.) 'Vill you be able to finish, Mr. Griffiths, in two minutes'
time ~
Mr. C. Griffiths: I will take six minutes.

Khan Bahadur Maulvi Jalaluddin Ahmad: Sir, I also want t() speak,
because I come from a district which is vitally concerned in this
matter.

" Mr. Speaker: Anyway, I allow Mr. Griffiths, to speak for 5

minutes.
Mr. C., Griffiths: Mr. Speaker, Sir, in supporting Mr. Siddiqi's
motion regarding the agreement and treatment of Indians in Burma,
I would like to state that it should be the proud claim of all citizens
within the British Empire, that they be accorded the rights and
privileges of the Colony or Dominion they may desire to settle in
within the Empire, whether they, be Indians in Burma or Burmese in
India. It may be said that Burma should be for the Burmese just
as India is ,for Indians, but, Sir, as the British Empire is made
up of all races and creeds therefore, these two factors, race
, -'., ' ~;;:d- religl0n;-sliouT([not'-bethe.cm-~ln 'principles-on whlchthequesti;;;:
of nationality should be decided. It should be decided on one's
domicile as well. Otherwise Jews would be only in P alestineand
Moslems in Arabia. In this House, we have people who by race and
creed are not Bengalees, but by domicile they are, and who have
rendered good work to Bengal more than her original or earliestsons,
the Dravidians could do. If we are to be narrow-minded and
restrict ourselves to only those who by race and .creedorigjnally
belonged to a place, then we would never improve. Americawould
be run by Red Indians and the great American nation would not be

<.
t,'

128
in existenc..e to-day, Australia would be run by the negroid aborigines; and there would have been no Australian troops to fight the
Italians in Africa on behalf of the Empire. Our Bengal Cabinet
would not be represented by the present Ministers. France had
N apolean, not a Frenchman in the restricted geographical sense but
, a Corsican that is an Italian to lead her to glory. To-day Germany
is led by Hitler, an Austrian, and not a German, to destroy
Bolshevism.
England's greatness is due to the fa,c t .that she recognises the best.
that Scotland, Wales and Ireland could produce, as well as those from
her overseas dominions. She recognised Disraeli, a Jew and to-day
England's hold on the Suez Canal shares is due to his foresight.
American greatness is also due to the fact that she recognises merit.
Burma and Bengal can only rise to the occasion if they also accept
the cest of those who domicile in the country, and treat them as
countrymen. To-day with a great war on, our Cabinet in Bengal
should be more representative including the Domiciled Community
whose interests are in the country (" hear It, "hear" from the Congress Benches). Again India is considered the" Brightest Jewel"
in the British Crown and Calcutta the second city of the Empire.
India is the pivot on which the Empire's economic system moves.
Without India the British Empire would be broken up. If we lost
any other part of our Dominions, the Empire could survive. It was
Lord Curzon who said "If we lose India, the Sun of the Empire will
___ h&ye set' '-,- __TherefoJ:(3_Indil:l,ns_ang.A.nglQ:Indians.__shQuld _}'~ceive _~ _
fair deal in every British Dominion. We do not ask for preferential
treatment, we ask to be treated as citizens of the Empire, with full
rights where we may desire to settle down.
Finally, Sir, regarding our fighting forces, the Indian Army is
referred to by Englishmen of mark, associated with the "Daily Mail"
including Viscount Rothermere as the finest native force that has
existed in the world since Rome raised her provincial legions. India
supplies two soldiers to everyone the rest of the British Empire can
place on the field. Burma needs Indian troops to protect her so

129
that she may el1joyProvincialAutonomy within the British Empire.
Burma might accord a fair deal to all Indians who domicile there.
, These Indi~ns . are an asset to Burma. .They develop the country
adding to its wealth and prosperity and they do not exploit the
country as is said by some. '
To-day no ' country can stand selfishly isolated. It is necessary
that the British Empire shollld stand united, pooling and sharing its
resources. We lTIUst be prepared to accept the best and consider the
question of domicile within every part of the Empire. If we are
narrow and selfish-minded we cause a division and destroy ourselves
maki;ng rOOlTI for another Empire that can .work on broader and more
generous lines. United the Empire stands, divided she falls.

'Kban Babadur Maulvi Jalaluddin Ahmed: Sir, I only rise to

associate myself with motion, because it affects my constituency
primarily. I am grateful to Mr. Siddiqi for sponsoring this motion
for which, I have heard from him that he had to go round the.
Speaker and some members of the Cabinet. I am also grateful to
members of the Opposition, particularly . Mr. Bose and Dr. Sanyal
for the manner in which they have supported this motron condemning
the most inhuman agreement that has been devised. At a time
when the world is thinking of world union, the .India Government
and the Burma Government have come t~ an agreement to impose
]Jrqvincial divided autonomy with vengeance!

.-~~ith-th@gg~Ql..d8,--I--aG(}(}t~dm-y--':8u.pPQIt-withall.-the -eniphasis- - '

that I can command to the motion that has been moved by
lVIr. Siddiqi~

The Hon'ble Sir Bijoy Prasad SinghR~y: Sir, I have listened with
great respect to the speeches of the honourable mover of this motion
and of those honourable members who have supported it. ImmigTation is a Central subject. So following the usual practice, Go~
vernment do not propose to express any opinion on the merits of
this motion. They will forward the proceedings of this debate to
the Government of India. Government, however,do realise that

" .,

130
some of the provisions of the Indo-Burma Agreement will affect the
Bengalis who are now domiciled in Burma, or who have trade
and other business connections with Burma very vitally. Government propose to submit their views on the Indo-Burma Agreement
after taking into full consideration the views expressed on this
agTeement in this House. Sir, the legal position o Government, I
.mean about our legal right to be consulted by the Government of
India before an Order-in-Oouncil is passed, is not very clear. We
do propose to have the matter carefully examined, but I can assure
the House that Government will certainly convey to the Government
of India, the views of this House and will press for safe-guarding the
rights and interests of the people of Bengal in Burma and of immigrants to Burma.
The motion of Mr. Abdur Rahman Siddiqi that "this Assembly is of opinion that the recent lndo-Burma Immigration
Agreement is detrimental to Indian interests, and discriminatory in
its provisions, and further that it undeJ~mines the honour of Indians
abroad and will have injurious and harmful repercussions on the
status and rights of Indians settled in British Dominions, Oolonies
and in foreign countries. In view of the fact that the Agreement
will affect large numbers of the people of Bengal, this Assembly
urges. upon the Government of Bengal to represent to the Government of India, the feelings of resentment and aprehensions aroused
by the Agreement, and to impress upon them the necessity of taking
early steps for its modification", was then put and agreed to.

/'

131
CALCUTTA CITIZENS' PROTEST AGAINST

INDO-BURMA IMMIGRATION AGREEMENT.

A meeting of the citizens of Calcutta. was held. on ~1onday the
8th September, 1941 at 5 P.M. at the Council Hall of the Corporation of Oalcutta, to prot~st against the Indo-Burma Immigration
Agreement was convened by :
Mr. M. - A. H. Ispahani, M.L.A., Deputy Mayor of
Calcutta Corporation.
Dr. B. C. Roy.
Mr. A. R. Siddiqi, M.L.A., 'President, Muslim Chamber of
Commerce.
Dr. N. N. Law, President, Bengal National Oh amber of
Commerce.
Mr.R. L.Nopany, Vice-President, Indian Ohamber of
Commerce.
Khan Bahadur Abdul Momin.
:Mr. A. L. Ojha.
The Hon'ble Hajee Abdul Rezack Haji Abdul Satter, Member,
Council of State.
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee.
Mr. Faizulla Gangjee.
Mr. A. C.Sen.
Mrs. Nellie Sen Gupta, M.L.A.
Khan Bahadur Jalaluddin Ahmed, M.L.A.
Mr. Sibnath Banerj~e, M.L.A.---- -------- -- --- ------ ---- -- -- ---Mr. M. L. Shah.
Mr. Sarat Chandra Bose, M.L.A.
Sir Adamjee Hajee Dawood.
Mr. Kiron ShankarRoy, M.L.A.
Sir Hari Shankar Paul, M.L.A.
Mr. Mangturam J aipuria.
Sir A. H. Ghaznavi.
Dr. Shyama Pros ad Mukherjee, M.L.A.
Mr. Shamsuddin Ahmed, M.L.A.

1'32

1\11'. D. P. Khaitan, M.L.A.

J\1r. G. L. Mehta.
Mr. B. O. Chatterjee~
Khan Bahadur Anwar-ul Azam, 11.L.A.
:Mr. Ramananda Chatterjee, Editor, 1fodern Review.
Mr. 1\1aganlal Kemka.
In the absence of the :Mayor who was indisposeu, the Deputy
Mayor took the Chair.
Those present included Raja Bhupendra Narayan Sinha
Bahadur of Nashipur, Sir Adamjee Haji Dawood, Sir 'Harl Sankar
Paul, Mr. G. L. Mehta, Mr. Abdur Rahman Siddiqi, Dr. N. N. Law,
:M.r. Shamsuddin Ahmed, :Mr. D. P. Khaitan, Khan Bahadur
Jalaluddin Ahmed, Mr. D. N. Sen, Mr. Mangturam Jaipuria,
Mr. Adam Oosman, Mr. K. L. Dhanbhania, Rai Bah~durP. N.
Mukherjee, :Mr. Haji Abdool Razzak Haji Abdool Sattar, 1\11'. S. R.
Dhadha and 1\1r. S. R. Biswas.

Dr. N. N. Law :-Gentlemen, the Mayor of Oalcutta was to have

presided over this meeting to~day, but unfortunately he has been
unable to come owing to indisposition,. So I propose that the
Deputy Mayor, do take the Ohair. You all know that the terms
of the ludo-Burma Immigration Agreement, which has recently
been concluded between the two countries, are extremely iniquitous
so far as India is concerned. These terms are so harmful to Indian
interests, that they .have evoked condemnation from all sections of
the- 1>eople~---lrresi)ective--ofcaste-and -creed, -throughout tne-Tengtn
and breadth of India. Commercial organisations as well as political
organisations in different parts of India, have expressed themselves
against this iniquitous and one-sided Agreement, -and it is only. in
the fitness of things that the citizens of Oalcutta, irrespective of
caste and creed, should meet . together and record their emphatic
protest against this Agreement. For that reason, we have met
here to-day, and it is in the fitnesss of things that _the Deputy
Mayor as representing the Mayor of Calcutta, should preside over
this meeting

133

The Hon'ble 'Haji Ahdool Razzak Haji Abdool Sattar seconded the
motion, which was carried unanimously.
The Depuly Mayor :-Gentlemen, our Mayor should have
presided over the deliberations of this meeting. Unfortunately he
is laid up,and he has asked me to represent him here, and to inform
you that he is second to .none in his sympathy with the object of
this meeting. He has, asked me to tell you how very sorry he is
for this enforced absence of his. lIe wishes the meeting every
success, and he prays that Hindus and Muslims, the. rich and poor,
and members belonging to every political organisation in the
country, will act as one man in fighting for the honour and dignity
of the country.

Gentlemen, I know, T cannot replace Mr. Brahma, but I am

glad to say that whatever views I shall place before you, have his
unqualified support and complete concurrence.
Before I proceed further, I propose to read to you two telegrams
which we have received: one is from K.umararaja Sir Muthiah
Ohettiar of Chettinad (Pres ident, Southern India: Chamber of
Oommerce, and ex-lVlayor of Madras) regretting inability to attend
the public meeting in Oalcutta, and suggesting that the Bengal
Oommittee be authorised to form an All-India Deputation to the
Viceroy, jointly with the Federation of Indian Ohambers of Commerceand Industry, the Imperial Indian Oitizenship Association and the
Madras Oe)inm+t;t-ee~~Phe6t-her telegra-mreeeiyeais-fr6111--Mr. VeHi-an
Chettiar, Member of the Indian Delegation from Burma and President
of the Nattukottai Ohettiars' Association, (Rangoon) w'ishing success
to the meeting and regretting inability to attend owing to previous
engagements.
Gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to welcome you to this
meeting, convened for the purpose of. protesting against recently
c.oncluded Indo-Burma ImmigTation Agreement, an Agreement
signed in haste, by the Government of India, when the negotiations
had been described as being exploratory in character. I ~m glad to

134
see that all parti~s and sections of various commercial and public
interests of Oalcutta, Ohittagong and several districts of Bengal and
Assam, are represented here to-day, which makes it evident that a
serious note has been taken of this most obnoxious piece of document.
You are perhaps aware that a few weeks ago a similar meeting of
protest was held at Madras, where all the various parties were
represented. Another n1eeting of protest was held at Bombay.
A deputation waited on His Excellency the Viceroy at Ootacamund,
to explain the iniquitous clauses of the Agreement. A joint
representation on the subject has been submitted to the Government
of India by the Federation of Indian Oh ambers of Oommerce and
Industry, the Imperial Oitizenship Association, and the Madras Oommittee. Similar protests have been lodged by almost all the leading
commercial and political organisations in India, against the Agreement, and it was only a few days ago that the Bengal Legislative
Oouncil' as well as thc Bengal Legislative Assembly passed resolutions condemning it .

The Agreement has done a grave injustice to the legitimate

rights and interests of more than a million of our countrymen
resident and settled in Burma. As you are aware, India and. Burma
have not only had historic relations, and social and economic
connections, but during recent times Indian capital and labour have
;met an essential demand in Burma, and have played and important
role in the economic development and prosperity of that country.
-Burmaw-as,IDOrOyer,JOI_many y_~_aJ?~Dvince __of India and .
during that time, year after year, the cultural and economic bonds
uniting the two countries became closer and more and more intimate.
It is but proper, therefore,that the Ba.xter Enquiry which recently
investigated into the problem of Indian immigration into
Burma said :. " There is in fact no parallel in the modern world to the present
position of Burma, vis-a-vis the problem of immigration from India.
In this country for generations, Burmans and Indians have grown
side by side, joint contributors to a progressive economic development,

135
but associated primarily by the " historic accident of joint control
exercised by a British administrator. "
<You are perhaps aware of the fact that when Burma formed'
part of India, the Indian Exchequer had throughout to bear the ,
expenses for administering it, as a deficit province. Not only that,
but even now after the separation of Burma, the special responsibility
for the defence of Burma is being shouldered by the Government of
India, and how can we forget that Indian soldiers are now standing
guard for ,the defence of Burma? '
Gentlemen, the Agreement is, if I may use the words of
Mahatma Gandhi, "a slur both on India and Burma" . Bengal
being nearer to Burma and having close business relations with that
country, is vitally affected by the terms of tpe Agreement. There is '
a large Bengali population in Burma, and unless and until the terms
and conditions of immigration intended to ,be imposed under the
Agreement , are 'modified radically, their lot and condition will be
difficult and sad indeed.
I do not propose to dwell on the various terms of the Agree' ment,but I feel it necessary that I should emphasise the fact, that
in the consideration of the Agreement, the many assurances and
pledges given during the passage of the Government of Burma Act
have unfortunately been completely ignored. It had been specifically
stated and the Indians had been assured that nothing would be
done which would in any way affect the right of free entry of Indians
--<-other than unskilled labour into
It -Ji,tlerefore-:- surprising-
that the Government should have set at naught all these assurances
and promises, and that they should have concluded such a discriminatory and humiliating Agreement with Burma, which overrides the
rights and status of Indians in Burma. ' Although the assurances
given on behalf of His Majesty's Government in Parliament were not,
in so many words, incorporated in the status of 1935, they constitute
a pledge which the British Government must honour. Mr. Amery ia
the Secretary of State for India as well as for Burma, and the duty
rests upon, him to See that the injustice done to Indian nationals IS '

]3urma:---

",:,

136
rectified. '1 cannot help saying that Sir Girja Sbankar Bajpai, who
went on an exploratory mission,. exceeded. his brief by bringing the
negotiations to a sudden close and signing away the rights of Indians
with a single stroke of the pen~ The Agreement, viewed in the light
of the Baxter Report, seems illogical because it goes against the
findings of Mr. Baxter, which establish that the presence of Indians
in Burma does Dot menace the economic progress of the Burman
people. The Agreement came like a bolt frOln the blue, and Indian
unskilled. labour passengers to Burma, who were about to embark,
\ were told on the eve of sailing that their journey had been cancelled
under the new Immigration Agreement. Gentlemen, a grave
injustice . has been done and the manner of doing it accentuates the
.damage inflicted on Indians. vVe are here to protest against .it
(A ppla use). .
I would now call upon Mr. Siddiqi, to move the resolution
which, I am sure, will have your unanimous support.

Mr. Abdur Rahman Siddiqi said :-Mr. President and Gentlemen,

I consider it a privilege and an honour to address this distinguished
gathering composed of the representatives of the province of Bengal,
its commercial community, legislatures, landowning classes and.
peasants and labourers. The presence of our friends from the sister
port of Chittagong is specially welcome, for that city and Calcutta
are the two lllost badly hit centres of the province by the recent
Agreement with our nextdoor neighbour, Burma, the boundaries of
which-ai:-e -coIlterminoll-sW:i'th - ()iirs~ Tlie-Iriao=Bnr-ma-lmnllgratl()n Agreement has hurt our national sentiment and pride deeply and
grievously; but there is an element of hope even in the tragedy.
In the present state of our disrupted political life in the country,
when nothing seems to go right, it has been revealed to me forcibly
that the heart of India is still sound and can throb with noble
pulsations when the honour of the country is assailed. 'rVe have
among us to-day men who belong to every shade of political opinion
and yet we have all united to right the wrong done to our mothercountry. Let us hope, this spirit will grow broader and wider, and

the sons of India will "enter into the post-war settlement, hand in
hand, determined to protect a?d uphold its prestige and legitimate .
status among the nations of the world.
The incompetence and indifference shown by the emissaries of
the Government of India to Burma sent, primarily, to prepare the
ground for Agreement, are unpardonable. They approached the
task entrusted . to them with fears jn their heart.s and ignorance in
their brains. They did not study the history of the relations
between India and Burma in the past. They ignored the policy
and the provisions of the law governing the two countries and they
brushed aside the assurances andpromi&es given to us in the name
of His :Majesty's Government. The repercussions of this Agreement
wil~ affect not only our rights and privileges as Indians; . but they
will bring into disrepute the pledged word of Great Britain. The
mischief let loose by it will . not remain confined to Burma either.
It will supply a useful handle to the Governments of countries,
within and without the British Empire, and encourage them to
treat our countrymen as pariahs and helots. We shall be relegated
to a lower class of humanity and considered unworthy of association
and equality with others.
..
We haNe met in this conference to-day to consider, coolly and
carefully, how we can retrieve the position. :More than any other
part of India, the responsibility on the shoulders of the people of
__Beng:~Xuif3__ he~vy___~?d _._~_~ri0!1s. _._..QalcuttaL__!.~~~m pori~~ ___oi_th~_
- pr6auceortlie ~-lanaswatereaoyt1:ieUanges ana~Branmaputra~--ana.the gateway through which commodities come and go, has to speak
for Bengal as well as for Assam, Bihar and the United Provinces~
We have to speak with courage, determination and persistence until
this Agre"ement is scrapped and torn to pieces. Do not let us be
disloyalto our -Indian brothers in Burma, who number 10,17,825 of
whom 3,18,000 are from Bengal alone.
I cannot bring myself round to believe that the happy~go-lucky
and amiable Burman has all of a sudden developed a dislike for us

13&

History and the temperament of the Burmese people support my

view that the reality is otherwise than the fiction we are asked to
believe. Burma was a land of petty chieftains and Phoongyis until
an Indian, by name Abhi Raja, entered it, centuries ago, and gave
it a king and its first unified and stable government. Migrations
from Indiathroughqut the centuries, much before the annexation
by the British, are well known.
Indians have co-mingled with
and merged into the people indigenous to the land. Large communities such as the TALAINGS, the outcome of the intermixture
between the people of Telangana and Burma, the MONS, of Indians
and the Burmese and the ZERBADIS, of Muslims and BUrmans, are
still extant and bear witness to the friendly relations that have
existed for "long between India and the Land of the Pagodas. The
process is still continuing. We are out not to disturb these happy
:relations. We have no intention to deprive the Burman of his
rights and privileges in his own country. On the contrary, we
should like to help this permanent neighbour and co-sufferer with
us in slavery, to control the destinies of his fatherland without
outside interference.

I do not propose to discuss the details of this iniquitous Agreement at any lengbh here to-day, for I have done so in my speech
in the Bengal Legislative Assembly. I shall, however, detain you
for a few minutes to expose the emptiness of the reasons given by
its sponsors and supporters in justification of the decision taken.
For instance, the approval of the non-official body called the Standing-Emigration-Com-mittee,attlie centre-;- is troetea.-out nauseatingly
to overawe and silence us. It would be pertinent to inquire whether
this Oommitte was ever permitted to sit down, and cogitate over
the Baxter Report, and the actual terms of the Agreement, before it
was initialled 1 It might also help us to unravel the mystery of the
signature of the document if we were told whether their consent
was obtained under duress and the threat of the- urgent necessity
of an immediate settlement in view of the international situation
and the abnormal conditions prevailing in the Far East 1 Were they
also misled into' acquiescence by any statements to the effect that

., . ,
~

139
the Burma ad hoc Committee had blessed the Agreement with its
consent ~ 1\11'. Vellayan Chettiyar, President of the Nattukkottai
Chettyars' Association of Burma, a member of th(Burma Rouse of
Representatives but above all a member of the Burma ad hoc
Committee, has exposed this subterfuge iri telling phraseology.
He says: "If there is any impression abroad that Indians in
Burma are satisfied with the Immigration Agreement it would be an
ent.irely wrong impression. They are anything but satisfied with
the Agreement. . Their disapproval of it is complete and strong, nor
would it be right to say that they were consulted about it unless you
call a casual, fitful and piecemeal consultation with regard to it, an
item here and an item there, a consultation at all. The talks, which
we had with Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai did no~ deal with the problem
in all its aspcts. He caught us, so to speak, napping. We were
told at the outset that the talks were exploratory in character. The
whole picture was not presented to us at any time and the matter
was rusked -through hurriedly."
The reason why the Indian Delegation adopted plenipotentiary
powers and concluded the Agreement is still more interesting. We
are actually asked to believe that Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai came to
know, after arrival in Rangoon, that a General Election was
imminent and, if he did not inveigle the existing Council of Ministers
into a settlement then and there, none could say what would happen
to the members of the orphan Indian nation under a new Government, especially if it showed a more pronounced anti-Indian bias.
-He:t1l.us:-liacrtoh.av-ean-Agreement-afanycos~-wlietllefT:ild-ia-lil{ea

~'

it or not. But he need not have gone to Rangoon for finding out
whether an election was really imminent. The meanest intelligence
in the Chandni Chowk or on the steps of the Juma Masjid, in Delhi
would have informed this Honourable Member of the GovernorGeneral's Executive Council, that no general elections were to be held
during the pendency of the war. One may again reasonably ask
whether, in the face of the situation in the Atlantic and the Pacific
,Oceans, and the so-called inpending catastrophe of the General
Election, it was worthwhile or at all wise to go to Burma ~ Indi~

140
could have waited for a suitable opportunity. The Arabs say,
"Hurry belongs to the Devil." Things done in a hurry are liable to
mIscarry.
The secretiveness of the infamous transaction is so baffiing, and
the clumsiness of its achievement so contrary to the established
practice of deciding questions of grave national importance, and to
the decencies of public life, that we cannot but look with suspicion
on the whole episode. Is it true that the Agreement was never
placed before the Council of the Governor-General for final approval
and sanction ~ It has been reported that the Leader of the Indian
Delegation sent a secret report to the Governor-General from
Rangoon, and the two of them brought about the settlement. If this
is true, why not publish the report ~ What is therein it to hide~
Nothing can be worse than the Agreement itself. The time has
come for the Governor-General to take the people oCTndia into
confidence.
The admirers and friends of the perpetrators of this Agreement
are rep.orted to have laid claims to cleverness and diplomatic acumen,
on the part of the signatories of the document. Were it not so
preposterous) we would have laughed it out. It is claimed seriously
that by manIpulating the emigration of unskilled labour from India,
it will be possible to bring Burma to its knees and compel it to revise
the terms of the settlement favourably to India. This appears to be
an after-thought, but even as such, those who recommend this device
-_. a-Ie---ca-Jcl-i-Rg -ignem.-4ny-te-iBB-ll-lt--and-inju-I'-oc- T-h-e-y-alsO-seemjjf} forgejL
th.at unskilled labour is available to Burma through other sources,
election or no election, and Burma can afford to forego the pleasure of
w.elcomingour unskilled labour and working class counbrymen, now
rotting in the many seaport towns on the eastern coast of India.
Gentlemen, the In doBurma Immigration Agreement must go,
for it is built on discrimination and race prejudice. It humiliates us
in the eyes of the whole world. It militates against the spirit of the
historic document published under the joint names of the President
of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. The

141

. gloss put upon it by the Deputy Prime Minister, l\lajor AttIec,

on behalf of the' British Empire, removes the last vestige of any .
doubt regarding its applicability universally. Our rulers in India
have committed a blunder. The sooner they rectify it the better,
even to the extent of denouncing the Indo-Burma Trade Agreement.
We cannot allow little Burma to undermine our world position in the
New Order, now being hammered out and cemented into shape On
the many war fronts by the youth of India and its blood (Applause).
'With these words, I place for your cODStderation and support
the resolution which reads thus:
(a) This meeting of the citizens of Calcutta condemns the
Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement, recently concluded
without consulting public opionion, and the Oentral
Legislature in India.

(b) 'This meeting is of the opinion that the said Agreement

ignores the fundamental rights of Indians settled in or
having connections with Burma; violates the assurances
and pledges given at the time of the passage of the
GovernIient of Burma Act in regard to the rights of free
entry of Indians into Burma; is discriminatory arid
humiliating in its provisions and detrimental to the
interests of India .
. ( ~LThismeeti!!g_ cali.l.lp'oll_ the_GoverJ:!mentQ.(Jnqia tQ.
revise the Agreement radically so as to make it
acceptable to the people of India, and for that purpose,
to convene 'at an early date, a conference of accredited
representatives of the interests concerned.

(d) This'meeting earnestly urges the Goverment of'India not

to implement the Agreement, as it stands at present,
and requests the Secretary of State not to promulgate
an Order-in Oouncil, giving effect to the Agreement until
it is suitably revised and., modified.

:142

Sir Hari Sankar Paut, seconding the resolution, said: 1\1r President and Gentlemen-I feel I must raise my voice of protest
against the much hated and ill-born document presented by the
India Government to the Indians both here and in Burtna-. I mean
the Indo-Burma Immigration AgTeement just concluded. The misleading assertion of the leader of the India Government Delegation
as to the nature of its mission when going to Burma in connection
with this matter, the indecent haste with which the Agreement has
been rushed through, and the strange way in which the Indian public
have been kept in the dark all along about the terms proposed and
the progrebs of negotiations regarding th is Agreement and its publication, naturally have taken us all by a painful surprise. From the
utterances of the Hon'ble the Revenue Minister in. the Bengal
Oouncil, a few days back, we find that even the Bengal Government
was not actually consulted beforehand. In all progressive countries
measures of s:ach far-reaching importance and consequence, before
being crystallised and given definite shape, pass through stages of
consultation with bodies representing the vital interests affected,
with a view to preventing any subsequent maladjustment in any
sphere of the national life. What justification can the Oentral
Government have for this unholy action in studiouly keeping back
from the Indians here, and overseas, the ba'sis and contents of such an
important Agreement-a measure that so vitally affects their
interests now, and promises to be disastrous in its consequence in
future~ The Indian public and the Indian Mercantile community
na\Te been stunnea--at-tne extent of the-grievoTIs-Wrong sought tone
perpetrated on them through this ill-advised document. The widespread agitation that has followed the publication of the Agreement,
which is so glaringly unfair and inequitable to India, has been spontaneous and intense. The Agreement tramples u:aon the normal
rights and previleges enjoyed by the Indians in establishing and
maintaining their social and commercial relations with Burma and
her people. Those rights and privileges have been sought to be
destroyed even in the face of the protection assured by the Ministers
of the Orown in safeguarding Indian interests in Burma, and the free
t

143
.entry of Ind~ans into it, as a.1so ignoring the clear findings of the
Baxter Oommittee.
India's intimate connectiou with Burma h'a8 a traditional and
historical background, and it would not be very untrue when it is
asserted that India's abiding contribution to the economic advancement of Burma cannot be brushed aside as insignificant or inconsiderable. In fact, Indian capital, labour and talent have undoubtedly
gone a long way to add to the well-being and. prosperity of Burma,
and all this is no mere conjecture, but is well-known and has been
borne out by historians and numerous authorities including British
officials competent to speak on the subject. The recent political
separation, after the passing of the Government of Burma Act, In
,1935, cannot erase the past and does not do away with the traditional tie of mutul:1.1 trust and good will which this ill-conceived
Agreement has sought to do. The problem of penetration and
unfair competition of Indian labour has been artificially magnified,
and held before its natural consequence of rousing a false suspicion
and fear driving the Burma authorities to take an unnecessary and
. unreasonable attitude unwarranted by facts and circu,mstances.
It would be idle to ignore the extent of benefic. accruing to
Burma in her present relation with India. India imports more
from Burma than what is exported from here, and this advantage
extended by India should have a due consideration. The Indo-Burma Trade Agre~ment entered into a few months .ago having .become
an accbmplis1iea-fact~lna-ia fma:snerselfln a somewliat -unmvoul'a;15le
position, in that, she cannot adequately press her just claim to the
recognition of her rights and to a more proper and equitable treatnlent at the hands of Burma. In the fitness of things, both those
aspects of the question of Indo-BurmaTelations, as reflected in the Indo~
B llrHla Trade Agreement, .and the Indo-B urma Immigration Agreement, should have had a simultaneous consideration, in which case
the enormity of the wrong envisaged in the Immigration Argeement
could have been subdued and forced down to a minimum. Depending on India for the very defence of her shores against the thr0aten-

..

144
-ing menace at her doors, Burma's attitude as revealed in the Agreement is untenable and in all propriety calls for a revision .
. ~rhe pernicious consequences of the arbitrary and discriminatory
way, in which the Indians already in Burma have been placed under
three categorics hedged i~: with 'restrictions, are unreasonable and
hard conditions regulating their domiciles, are obvious. What is
more to be condemned is the impossible restrictions and conditions
imposed on those Indians intending to proceed to Burma from the
next month, and the damnable way of classing them under two
arbitrary heads requiring them to posseses "A" or "B" Licences before
proceeding. I do not mean to go into details exposing the vagaries
of the measure, but I am sure I voice the scntiments of the meeting
when I express deep concern and indignation at the open twisting
and flagrant breach of the solemn pledges held out by the highest
authorities regarding the f~ight of Indians to free entry into Burma.
None is so blind as not to see that this terribly wicked move involves the gradual stamping 'out of the trade, business and industry
caitied on by Indians in Burma, by forcing out of the country, and
stopping entry into it of thpse Indians engaged in them. This
entirely unacceptable and ultra vires measure, calculated to prove so
highly prejudicial to Indian interests, must come in for modification.
Let us all combine to raise our voice of protest against the nefarious
measure and approach the Secretary of State to prevent the Agreenlent, as it is, being embodied in an Order-in-Oouncil.

Khan Bahadur Jalaladin Abmed said: Mr. President, ]; ri~e to

lend my whole-hearted support to the resolution which has been so
eloquently moved by Mr. Siddiqi. I come from the District of Ohittagong which really connects India with Burma and I can say that the
worst sufferers under the Agreement will be my constituents who
have made Akyab their home. To the people of Ohittagong, in the
main, Burma owes much of her present prosperity and if this
iniquitous Ageeement is allowed to stand, it will be very difficult for
them to have any connection with Burma in the future.

145
Mr. D. N.Sen said: lVIr. President and Gentlemen, I support
the resolution before the House which has been moved so ~blyby
Mr. Siddiqi and seconded by Sir Hari Sankar Paul. I have great
pleasure in supporting it, and in doing so" I have to say that the
various Chambers of Commerce throughout India had sent up representatihns to the Government of India pressing for postponement
of the ratification of the Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement~
pending an examination of the terms of the . Agreement by the
general public and the commercial community . . I regret to state
that the Government of India had already taken steps to implement
some portions of the Agreement with effect from the 21st July last
and the Agreement is now more or less a fait accompli. I shall now
deal with certain grave implications of the Agreement. At the outs~t, I shall enter my strong protest against the extraordinary
procedure that Government has followed in the ' matter. The Hon'ble
Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai, left for Burma towards the end of June~
The public were given to understand that he had gone there for an
exploratory talk and not for the purpose of concluding an Agreement.
Therefore, it was with great surprise that we learned that an Agreement had really hee?- signed by the Hon'ble Member on behalf of
the Government of India. No repres~ntative non-official enjoying
the confidence of the general public and the ' commercial '~l?ommunity
in the country was associated with the Government of India Delegation. Nor was non-official opinion consulted when a commitment.
of such a far-reaching character and importance was ID:ade. The
'R~port - orthe .-Baxter-Commlttee, --whlch - formea .,tlie -b
-asis-- or ,.,
discussion between the two' Governments, had not till then been
published. I do not deny Burma her right to determine the composition of her population. But I need hardly say that it should be
subject to certain wel1-recognisedpl.'inciples which I regret have been
completely ignored by the Agreement. . Burma is not only a comember of the British Commonwealth but also a close uejghbour of
India. Till recently it was a Province of India subject to the
superintendence of the Government of India. People from different
parts of India had gone to Burma and had acquired large interests

146
there. The contributions that Indians have made to the economic
development of Burma are not inconsiderable. Burma has to depend
very largely on 1ndia for her military defence. I am conscious of
the necessity of maintaining good will with a neighbour like Burma.
But I am of opinion that, this objective can only be attained by
negotiating an Agreement on reasonable terms. It would not do for
one party to surrender all along the line. There must be mutual
accommodation. In this connection, I would also like to point out
that India's bargaining power was distinctly weakened when the
Government of India agreed to deal separately the question of a
Trade Agreement with Burma. As a matter of fact, both these
questions are two different aspects of the same problem of IndoBurma relations. With these words, I support the resolution and
commend it to the acceptance of the flouse.

Mr. Shamsuddin Ahmed said: Mr. President, I must congratulate my friend Mr. Siddiqi, for launching the agitation against the
Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement. Sir, I feel the agitation
against this iniquitous Agreement has not yet assumed the proportions, that it ought to do. The terms of the Agl'eement are known
to the public at large. They are not only humiliating but the more
I have pondered over them the more I have wondered how it can
possibly be described as an agreement. The parties to the Agreement
are the Government of India on the one hand, and the Government
of Burma on the other. And who is the signatory to the Agreement
on behalf of India ~ A servant of the Government of India. Neither
. the-peopleoCIna-ii-nor- tlie-people -ofBuflnaknew an5'tiling aoouttt:
T~ey had no say or hand ill the matter. ~rhey were kept ill the
dark over it. The conclusion of the Agreement came as a shock
and surprise to us. We have been taken unawares as it were. At
a time when war is raging; at a time when England is .eng8.ged in a .
life-and-death struggle with a most deadly foe, it is passing strange
that the Government of India should have gone out of the way, and
conclude such an Agreement, which has turned out to be a veriliable
apple of discord and dissension. I must say that the Ageement
has stirred the feelings not only of Nationalists and so-called

I
.>

147
,

.' agitators in the conntry, but also of the docile commercial community.
.If you' read the text of the Agreement, yon will find that the prohibition clause therein is humiliating to an intolerable degree. Under
the Agreement a foreigner could go to Burma, and do whatever he
liked. But not so the poor Indian. There are clauses in the agreement which will operate as a great hardship on the Indian trading
and comm.ercial community in Burma. It will bring about a
deadlock in the joint-stqck business of Indians in Burma. I shall
ask Mr. Siddiqi, to carry on the agitation. I find there is a resolution on the Agenda which says that a deputation should wait on the
Governor-General. To my mind, passing resolution either from the
Oorporation Oouncil Oh amber , or from :Madras will not mend matters.
I find before me a galaxy of leading merchants of the city. I ask
them to consider the humiliating treatment accorded to them. If
you want to undo the wrong done to you, it lies in you to do it. If
the commercial communities all over India join hands with Indian
Nationalists to fight tooth and nail against this measure, I am sure
the Agreement could be scrapped. You must carry on agitation
against this Agreement throughout the length and breadth of the
country. Let the Government of India feel that they have set their
seal of approval on a document which is not worth the paper it is
printed on. The Government of India should pause, take stock of
the situation and scrap this Agreement, or else Indians will not take
it lying down, Whr or no war. If you take it up in right earnest ,
I am sure the remedy will come.
- -- - ----

(~ -

--- .-

. . .. ....

.._ --

- ---- -

- - - --

The resolution was put to the vote and declared carried

unanimously. ;

The Chairman: I now call upon :1\11'. Gaganvihari M:ehta to move

Resolution No. 2. '
Mr. Gaganvihari L. Mehta moved the following resolution:-

(i) This :1\!Ieeting supports the joint representation addressd by

the Federation of Indian Ohambers of Commerce and Industry, the
Council of the Imperial Citizenship Association-and the Committee

148
of the All Parties' meeting of ~1adras in regard to the Indo-Burma
Agreement and trust that the said representation will receive the
immediate and careful consideration of the Government of India.
(ii) This meeting suggests that an An India Deputation of a
representative character should wait on the Governor-General in
order to place the Indian case before him and that such a deputation
should,besides those organisations mentioned in the first part of the
resolution, include representatives from Bengal, which is vitally
interested in the problem.
(iii) This meeting urges that, the Standing Emigration
Committee should meet at an early date to reconsider the Agreement in the light of public criticism offered since the publication.
, Introducing the foregoing resolution, Mr. Gaganvihari L. Mehta
said: NII'. President and Gentlemen, after the very strong criticisms
that you have heard this afternoon, I need hardly say very much
about this Agreement. But there are certain aspects of the question
which I shall put, before you briefly. The resolution w~ich I have
moved is divided into three parts. The first part relates to the joint
representation submitted by the three bodies mentioned in the
resolution. This representation is a very .comprehensive and detailed
one. It sets forth the Indian case very moderately and yet very
forciQly, and as it has been published in some of the leading Indian
papers, I need not dwell upon it. Then in the second part of the
Resolution, it is proposed to have an All-India Deputation to wait
on His Excellency the Viceroy, in connection with the Agreement,
. . -and If tIliS- proposal materialises - -representativesor--t1l1s1v.reet~mg
should be associated with the proposed Deputation and should work
in conjunction and in c<Foperation with the other three bodies; for,
Chittagong, if not the whole of Bengal, is vitally interested in this
question.' In the third part of the Resolution, we are stressing the
imperative necessity of convening a me8ting of the Standing
Emigration Committee. As Mr. Siddiqi has pointed out, the
Standing Emigration Oomluitte's attitute vis-a-vis this Agre'em.'ent
has been very much misunderstood. Whatever it is, the fact remains
that the Standing Emigration Committee was given to understand
~.

..'

149
that Indians in Burma had approved of this Agreement and it was
that factor which, more than any other, determined their attitude.
On the other hand, it has been stated that at least two of the
members of the Standing Emigration Committee namely Pandit
Kunzru and Sir Raza Ali, have been moving for a reconsideration
of the matter in th~ light of public criticism since the Agreement
was made. You have no doubt seen extracts from the Baxter Report
about the condition of Indian immigration. I wish to place before
you the fact that the necessity for an agreement has not been made
. out at all in the Baxter Report. Over and over again Mr. Baner
states that there are no statistical data available about this or that
point on which a policy of immigration could really be based. To
cite an instance in point, Mr. Baxter states: "It is not known what
proportion of Indians born outside Burma had settled down in Burma
and regarded it as their permanent residence". Again, he calls
attention to "the inadequacy of the greater part of the material
upon the basis of which a judgment of the problem of Indian
Immigration Inust be based". He emphasis'~'j repeatedly in his
Report the paucity of available statistics to which attention must
be given. And yet, despite the fact that no accurate statistics are
~vailable, on which to base a policy of immigration, these drastic
proposals have gone through. These quotations will show you that
there are no asceJitained facts and figures on the basis of which a
really scientific policy of immigration could be devised. Therefore,
the first thing that would have str~k one was that what was
- --iiecessary-as ulie-fir"St-essentlarWaSUD.ff estanllslnnent"ot--a -macnlfiery-- .
to collect facts and figures as to the volume and nature of Indian
Immigration. Even Mr. Baxter points out that the total population
of Indians in Burma during the last 10 years has . declined. Census
in Burma will take place next year. But he says that on the basis
of informa:tiion available the number of immigrants coming to Burma
has declined as also the excess of immigrants over emigrants. It is
therefore evidelltthat the drastic proposals put forward in the
AgTeement are utterly uncalled for and unwarranted at least on the .
basis of the facts adduced by Mr. Baxter.

150
I think Mr. Sen referred to the question of the Indo-Burma
Trade Agreement having been separated from that of Immigration.
The one bargaining power we had with Burma was surrendered
in advance and the position now is that save and except
denunciation of the Trade Agreement, there is no other weapon
in our armoury. The non-official advisers, who assisted Government
in connection with the Trade Agreement, repeatedly stated that
they were vitally interested in the preservation of the rights and status of Indians in Burma and they acquiesced in that Trade Treaty
although they considered it unsatisfactory, because they thought it
would help in establishing good relations and securing political
and economic rights of Indians in Burma. Not merely that.
Sir GirjaShankar Bajpai told them that a trade agreement
WQUld help them to secure Burma's goodwill.
These hopes
have been completely frustrated. Mr. Siddiqi, both he1'e and
i~ the Assembly, pointedo ut the various assurances and pledges,
which were given by Sir Thomas Inskip and others when the
Government of Bu:fma Act was on the legislative
anvil. I t appears
that pledges and assurances can be cast to the winds, but are a
cause of war only when broken by England's enemies. A Minister
of the Crown cannot unfortunately qe sued for breach of promise.
The status accorded to the Indians by the Agreement is inferior
not only to British subjects of the United Kingdom but to all
foreigners. This is what Indians in India and Burma resent most
strongly, that they are being treated in a manner differet from and
--- -- Inferiorto- the:p~ople-orother -countries:- - Certairi-fea'i5ures bl-tne
Agreement are more objectionable than some of the worst racial
legislation in South Africa. What is still more objectionable is the
fact that even the rights of the existing population in Burma have
not been adequately recognised. This is the crux of the whole
question. People resident in Burma or employed in trade or business
cannot be and should not be subjected to any restrictions and
treated as if they are llew entrant. Anyone who has studied the
question fron1 the time of the Round Table Conference knows that
the right of free entry is the basis of the whole question. Once
~

151
the right of free entry is surrendered, restrictions of all sorts will be
possible. You know htat apart from seasonal immigration of labour
in _B urma many merchants go there every year, stay for 6 nionths
and then comeback here. Similarly, Indian firms in Burma have
to replace members of the staff or recruit new hands from India.
Members of the Legal and :Medical professions have also to go there.
All these movements are now restricted. The original intention was
that only the flow of unskilled labour was to be restricted. VVhat
the presen Agreement involves in its various clauses is, withou
legislation, power to the Burma Government to~ indulge in various
kinds of discrimination. Today the Government of Burma has tqt
power in theory to prevent the entry of Sir Adamji Raji Dawood
himself into Burma _! The Agreement interferes with the steady and
continuous flow of population between the two Oountries concerned,
and the Burma Legislature can, if they so wished, utilise this Agreementfor compelling the employment of Burmans. So far as the personnelof business concerns in Burma is concerned, at least freedom of
movement should be allowed. So far as again the question of the
em igration of unskilled labour is concerned, the heayy fees lived on
such jmmigrants makes it a very inequitous system. This Agreement
once more illustrates the fact that inspite of tall talk about common
citizenship, Indians have no self-respecting place in the British
Oommonwealth. Out of a total of about 30 lakhs of Indians
abroad, more than 10 lakhs are settled in Burma alone and today
we wish that we had Minister responsible to the Oentral Legislature
toIace-tliern---wiTih siicli - an -AgreemeIlt~- - T - wotiTa -- re ciiTliIi -tliis --connection the words of a famous British St9Jtesman Lord Balmerston,who during the Don Pacifico incident stated tha't "as the
Roman in the days of yore held himself free frOln indignity when
he could say 'civis Romans s~tm/, so also a British subject in
whatever land he may be shall feel confident that the watchful
eye and the strong arm of England will protect him from
injustice and oppression". \Ve demand that the Government of
India should do nothing more and nothing less for Indians
(applause).

.,
,

. 1

I
152

. Mr. Adam Osman seconded the resolution, which was put to the
meeting

a~d

declared carried unanimously.

Mr. D. P. Khaitan moved the following resolution:

"The Chairman is hereby authorised to forward the proceedings
to the Secretary of State for India, His Excellency the Viceroy, the
Hon'ble Member for Education, Health and Lands and the Government of Bengal."
\Vhile introducing the foregoing resolution, J..7J1r. Khaitan
said: 1h. President and Gentlemen, you have already passed the two
main resolutions on the Agenda and the resolution that I have
been asked to move is of a consequential nature. But before I
move it, I wish to add one word, namely, that it is obvious that
Indians stand to lose a great deal in their commerce
and industries as a result of this Agreement. It has been made
under duress. That takes aWay from the real value of an Agreement of this nature. It should never have been made under
duress. It is therefore necessary that a copy of the Proceedings of
today's meeting should be sent by the Chairman to the proper
authorities, and accordingly I move that, the Chairman be
authorised to forward the Proceedings to the Secretary of State for
India, His Excellency the ViceroY,the Hon'ble Member for Education,
Health and Lands, and the Government of Bengal.
- - -~ -

.. -. . - - --- -------

---

- - ~ - - -.

Mr. Mohanlal Shah

-- --

seconded--themotlon, -whicIi w-as~pnt -to-tlie

meeting and declared carried unanimously.

\Vith a vote of thanks to the Chair, the meeting terminated.

"

"

A meeting of the Working Comniittee'ofth~ Iridian !Oversea~:

Central Association was held on the 16t~ .Septeul.ber, 1941,
at 13, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, ,w ith .Shti Lala .,
Narain Dattaji in the Chair. The following resolution
was unanimously passed re. Indo-Burma
Immigration Agreement.

"(a)

l'his meeting of the Working CQInmittee of the Indian

Overseas Central Association is of opinion that the lndo-Burma
Immigration Ag-reement is most unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it is
highly detrimental to the legitimate rights and interests of Indians,
who have been largely responsible for the development of Burma;
it is further of opinion that the Agreement is not only against the
solemn declarations made and undert~kings given by His Majesty's
Government for safeguarding Indians' rights and interests, but
also against the letter and spirit 'of the Government of Burma
Act of 1935.

,(b) The Working Committee urges upon the Secretary of

State for India and Burma, that no Order-in-Council for the
ratification of the said agreement be issued, unless full ' opportunity is
given to Indian public to represent their grievances to the authorities,
and that no agreement between the two countries should be arrived
at, which does not guarantee the same rights and privileges,which
an~enjQyedby~ the Britisl1 Subj~gts<lomi~ileQ in_ lInit~~_ !\:ipK~_~l!l- _
under the Government of Burma Act of 1935.

(c) That with a view to securing an effective reVISIOn of the

said agreement, it is further resolved that a Sub-Committee consisting of Sjt. S. Satyamurti, ~I.L.A., (Oentral) as Chairman and Kunwar
Sir Maharaj Singh, M.L.A., (U.P.), Sir A. H. Ghuznavi, M.L.A.,
(Central), Seth Huseinbhai A. Lalji lVI.L.A., (Central), Seth
Pad amp at Singhania M.L.A., (D.P.), Hon. Mr. P. N. Sapru M.C.S.,
Dr. P. N. Banerjee ~I.L.A., (Central), Shri Lala NarainDattaji,
Seth G. L. lVlehta, Lala;Ganpat Rai, Advocate, Rai Bahadur La]a

154
. Hatish Chandra, Advocate, as members, the latter to act as the
Secretary of the Sub-Committee, algo be formed and they be
authorised to wait upon His Excellency the Viceroy in deputation
to represent grievances of Indians regarding the said agreement, and
to take such steps as they may consider necessary or advisable .
. The Committee shall have the power (1) to co-opt two members
who mayor may not be the members of the Association; (2) to
fill up any vacancy that may occur in the Committee. Three
members of the Committee shall form a quorum."

155
Resolution on , the lndo-Burma Agreement passed ai . the
meeting of the general body of the ProvincialF ederation
of Trade Unions, Madras held on the"
20th August, 1941.

"This meeting of the general body of the Provincial Federation

of Trade Unions, Madras, strongly condemns the Indo-Burma
Immigration Agreement, especially the clauses relating to the
immigration into Burma, of unskilled Indian labour, which, this
meeting considered to be such, as would, in actual operations, have
"all the evils of the barbarous system of indentured labour. This
agreement is shameful and humiliating to Indian nationalism, and "
harmful economically and culturally, to Indians and Burmans, alike.
Immigration of Indian labour into Burma having always maintained
a self adjusting equation of supply and demand, the impositions and
restrictions laid down by the agreement are entirely uncalled for"
and li~ble to create grave hardships amongst the poorer classes of "
the country.
This meeting further considers this agreement to be not only "
one sided and humiliating, but also mischievous in so far as it
constitutes total surrender to the political and commercial opportunism, calculated to further imperialistic policies in the Far East
and appeals to the people, especially the working people of Burma
not to allow such a disruptive imperialist piece of legislation, fraught

~ .. "__!.it~_~~?a~?_1:Llab!~_~ar.~--,to Burm~.a,.ndJnd~~~~~~_!~ fi.?d_~_ J~!~~~ ~~.." ..

the Statute Book of their country.
This meeting appeals to the Indian public to denounce this
unheralded and surreptitious agreement, and urge upon the Government of India, the grave necessity of radically revising the terms of
the agreement, so that it may be compatible, not only with the
common interests of India and Burma, but with the honour of both
the contracting parties.
This meeting is of opmlOn that all strategic and economic
avenues and means be explored by accredited representatives of both

J56
countries to achieve the above object, as the enforcement of the
unwilling
people, is bound to lead. to the
present agreement, on an'
.
demand for political and economic retaliation, a position that India
would be reluctant to adopt, unless driven to it by such iniquitous
and provocative measnre ....... '"'
.

'

157
MAHATMA GANDHI'S STATEMENT

lORTHE

INDO~BURMA

IMMIGRATION AGREEMENT.
Wardha, Augu$t 24, 1941.

The Following .isthef~ll text ~f the statement issued

by ' Mahatma Gandhi
.
in connection with the Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement:- . . . ,
...

",

" Being vitally connected with immigration problems and having

been in South Africa for 20 years, . lam naturally interested in,the
lndo-Burma . Immigration Agreement. It has caused me. deep' pain.
I have .collected as much literature as I could on the subject. I have
studied as much of it as was necessary to enable me to form an opinion, and as was possible during the very limited tillle at my disposal.
My study has led me to the conclusion,. ,that it . is an. unhappy
agreement. It is ,. panicky and penal. ' In the papers I find no,- reason
to warrant any panic, nor do I find any warrant for the severe
punishmentmeted'out to the Indians resident in Burma. Theburden
. of proving the right to remain in Burma has in every case been
thrown on ' the Indian resident. One would have thought that the
least that should ~have been done was to have automatically recognised as fllllydomiciled every Indian found in Burma on the ,date of
promulgation of the Agreement. I am . acquainted with the .Immi-
gl'ation Laws of8outh Africa and other countries. In every case the
_ ,!~strjcti~ns _ha~~ __})een i~~osedJ~ll~gi~)ati~Il:! an4 . ~fter __ i~i~lYJuR
:oppor~unity being ,given Jor the expressio,n 'of. :public opinion. Legislation has been preceded by considerable lapse of time for the
ventilation of v:iews on the mere proposal for legislation .
.

. " In this case, secrecy and mystery have surrounded:, tbe Agree.ment which , has been sprung' upon an ' un,suspecting pUblic. .The
whole thing appears stillmore hideous when we recall the fact that
only .a f~;W years a~o Burma was an integral part of India. Does the
.pa!~it~oJ?ll,la:.e!npia,a l~pe~ country, the presence of whose inha,bi~ants must carry heavy penal~i.es; , incluqingthe ticke~sof.leav~ such

158
as criminals carry? They do not cease to be less offensive because
they bear the inoffen8ive name of passports and permits. I should
be prepared to understand the validity of the permit and passport
system when the necessity is clearly established.
I must refuse to believe that, this .Agreement is in response to
a vital cry from the great Burmese nation, with which the people of
India never had any quarrel and with which India had enjoyed
cultural contact long before the advent of the foreigner from the
West. We can never be in Burma, or the Burmans in India, foreigners in the same sense as people from the West. There has been free
commerce and emigration to Burma for hundreds of years. This
drastic agreement is an undeserved slur both on India and Burma.
This agreement is a brutal reminder that both India and Burma are
under the British heel, and that the Government of India Act and
the Government of Burma Act give no real freedom to the respective
peoples. They give no scope for full growth to us.
"I f~ar that this statement of mine will not please the Premier
of Burma, who may think that the Agreement is a popular Act. He
will soon discover the error, if he has not already, that he has not
served his people, but that he has played himself into the hands of
those who would want to exploit Burma to the exclusion of any
-rivals. I must admit that Indians have been partners with the
Westerners in the exploitation of Burma, but with this fundamental
_. .!lifferenQ~_ th~t th~Jy'este!!er~~.!!.t~()~!!~~_l:l._wi~~l!i_~ _g'lln _!:llilc.tll~
Indian went on sufferance, as he hasal ways done in every part
of the world.
We cannot exist in Burma for one single day without Burmese
goodwill. I would plead with the .Burmese Ministers and the
Burme~.e people that they should wait for the regulation of immigration till both of us are free and independent for such regulation. I
flatter myself with the belief that when that happy day arrives, as it
must, .such matters will regulate themselves, for we shall never want
to impose our nationals on one another.

_ __

159
"But I have strayed. l\1:y purpose just now is to show that
this Agreement must be undone in as much as it breaks every canon
of international , propriety. It becomes less defensible in that an
Indian, instead of an Englishman, was sent to negotiate the Agreemen t. It is an old and familiar trick, that of putting up an Indian
to perform a disagreeable task. Nor is it relevant that the Agree-,
ment had the approval of local Indian opinion~ For the Agreement
is an insult to the whole nation, not merely to the particular in'dividuals whose material interests lie in Burma. But even if it was
relevant, there should be evidence to show the volume and character
of that opinion.
.
"When I come to examine the Baxter Report, which became
the prelude to the Agreement, it contains nothing to justify the
Agreement. This was the reference made to Mr. Baxter:'The inquiry will be directed to ascertaining
(1)

The volume of Indian Immigration;

(2)

To what extent it is seasonal and temporary, and to what

extent permanent;

(3) In what occupations Indians are mainly employed, ' and the '
extent to which they 'are unemployed or under employed;
(4) Whether in such employment Indians either have displa... _ ce'l~J:trma,!!~Q.r~()lll~ be !,epl~~~d bY~l!rma_ll~_.Qu~_ !~@!'~
being paid to both the previous history of such occupations, and their economic requirements;
and

(5) Whether in the light of the statistics obtained and other

relevant factors any system of equating the supply of
Indian unskilled labour to Burman requirements is needed.'
.Thus, it . was purely a fact finding commISSIOn.
fact found by theOommission: -

Here is the

160
'There is no evidence of any kind to suggest that Indians 'have
displaced Bnrmans from employment which they had previously obta.ined. Indian labour in the past has been'
supplementary rather than alternatiye to Burmese labour.'
That surely does not justify the restrictions imposed by the
,
Agreement on the movement of Indians in Burma. 'Ihe recommendations made in the Report appear to me to be in, excess of the reference and, therefore, of no effect. Add to this, the fact that the
opinion of the assessors finds no mention in the Report. It may not,
have weighed with the Commissioner) but suroly.it should have.
found mention in the report.
N O'W, let me,for a moment,examine pertinent' sections of the
Act. Here they are:-,
Section 44 (3) of the Government of Burma Act. 1935, says:'The provisions of SlIb-Section (2) of this Sect'ion shall apply in
r~latio~ tQ British subjects domiciled in -India and, sul;>jects of any
Indian' ;Stateas they apply in relation to British subject~ domiciled
in the United Kingdom, but with the substitution in: the proviso to
the said" sub':'sectiori for references to the United Kingdom of references to British India OY, as the case may be", that Indian State,
provided that nothing in this Sub-Section shall a~eet any restriction
lawfully imposed on the rightof entry into Burma" of persons: who
'1tre ']jritisil-suojects-d-o mi-ciledin I-n-d-ia-o Y'-s-a-bjeeis0t ftny-I-BEt-ia-IlState, or any' restriction lawfully imposed as a co~dition of allowing
any such person to enter Burma.'
Section 138, of the same Act reads:
I

'His '}\IIajesty may by Order-in-Council, dIrect that, during

such period as may be specified in the Order, immigration into
Burma 'from India shall be subject to such' restrictions as may be
specified in the Order (being, such, restrictiQ-ns, as may' have 'been
mutually agreed to before the commencement of this Act between

'1

",

'~

-;~
~~

161
the Govern'or of Burma in-Council and the Governor-General of
India in-Council and approved, by the Secretary of State, . or in de ..
fanlt of Agreement as may have been prescribed by the Secretary of
State), ,and no other restrictions, provided' that any such Order may
be varied by a subsequent Order-in-Council in such manner as
appears to His lYlajesty necessary to give effect to ' any agreement in
that behalf made after the commencement of this Act by the Governor-with the Governor-General of India or the Governor-General of
_India in-Oonncil'.
The first, read as a whole, does not appear fo contemplate ' any
interference with the present Indian population. The second is
decisive. According to this Section, restriction by agreement cannot
'be imposed on the present Indian settlers.
I have no doubt whatsoyever that the Secretary of State for
India should not pass the Order-in-Council and should withhold his
assent to the Agreement. Any restriction should be a matter for
legislation by the Burmese Assembly in consultation with an cooperation of the Government of, India.
It is pertinent to the examination of the Agreement to know
what declarations were made by His Majesty's Ministers V! hen the
Burma Act was passed. Here is the assurance of Sir Thomas In,;,
skip, the then Minister for Oo-ordination and Defence on the subject:- ,
'Nobody wants to discriminate between British subjectS- doiiifci=
led in India or Indian State' subjects when they go to Burma, any
more than one wants to dincriminate between the British when they
go to British India',
lVIr. Butler (then Under-f3ecretaryof State for India) also stated
in the House of Commons:'In connect!on with unskilled Indian labour, - the ' Governor of
Burma is asked to confer wit.h the Governor-General with a view to

162
'regulating the immigration of unskilled labour into Burma. The rea:son why we cannot make a simple rule is that we have to make this
differentiation in regard to unskilled labour, while at the same time
we do not want to stop the free entry of Indians in general.'
Such declarations may have ~ no validity in the interpretation
of the Act in a Oourt of Law. But politically considered, they have
or should have the effect of promissory notes. The Agreement is a
clear breach of the declarations quoted by me. I am glad that
responsible Indian public opinion is being expressed in unmistakable
terms in condemnation of the Agreement.

163

Memorandum dated 7th August 1941; on the Indo . .Burma .

Immigration Agreement, on behalf of the -Immigration
Committee, representing the Burma Indian Chamber
of Commerce, the Burma Indian Association
and the Nattukkottai Chettyars' ASsliciation.

This Memorandum is presented on the occasion of the

publication of the lndo-Burma Immigration Agreement, on behalf of
the Indian Immigration Committee, representing
. 1.

the Burma Indian Chamber of Commerce,

the Burma Indian Association and
the N attukkottai Ohettyars' Association of Rangoon.
It

The considerations which led the Government of India to

hasten this Agreement are stated in a Press Communique issued at
Simla, on the 11th of June 1941 which inter alia stated:
2.

"The stand which the Government of India took

ano. are likely to take with Burma is that
are permanently settled in Burma or have
stake in that country should be assured
treatment."

with Ceylon
Indians who
a permanent
of equitable

"With regard to others, the Government of India have no

desire to see the country flooded with Indians, and given
-ev-i-cl:enee-tfi-a-t--s-uch--fieeEl-i-ng--i-s---tak-i-ng---plaGe-,-- tooy- wiI1-be-quite willing to consider how the flow of immigration
into Burma could be regulated in the interest of both the
countries."
Dealing with the latter statement, we beg to say that the only
material, before the Government of India and the Standing Emigration Committee, available for study of the Indian Immigration
problem in Burma, was provided by the Baxter Report which at
.that time. had not been published. So the chances are that the
members of the Standing Emigration Committee were not provided

164
with a copy of the Baxter Report but were probably given an idea
of the main recommendations of the Report. But in view of the
fact that copies of the Report were not made available to the
members of Ad Hoc Committee in Rangoon, it is not likely that the
members of the S~anding Emigration Committee were also in the
same unfortunate position of not knowing what recommendations .
were made by Mr. Baxter in the light of his latest study on the
subject. When further it is remembered that Mr. Baxter is an
official of the Government of Burma, the arguments which the
Burma Government put forward to extend the period of five years
recommended by Mr. Baxter, are not known. The Baxter Report
which has been officially regarded as the foundation for the AgTeement might as well not have been written. If, therefore, studied
facts have not. been utilised in the makingof the Agreement, it is
not understood as to what were the basic facts that were heeded.
A perusal ofthe terms of the Agreement would show that they have
been governed by a desire to meet so called 'sentiments' of the people of Burma, as expressed by the Ministry in power. -Even in such a
case, however, if fundamental major national issues were to be
decided on a sentimental basis, reciprocity required that the Indian
" sentiment" on the qilestion should also have been borne in mind.
Apart from" the old cultural and historical association between the
two countries, India has since the annexation for a numbers of years
paid for the maintenance of Burma, as a properly administered
unit of the Government of India. India has provided men and
. mouey-for-the-ee(Jfl0mie-a&vel(}pmgnt -Q.-Bu-l'.ma ....~ Bnt. By-en_officially .
the Government of India has spent during the period of their control
so m.any millions of Indian money in administering the deficit
Province that in the settlement of accounts between the two
countries -- which has been deliberately favourable to Burma,-.
Burma has to pay a debt of 50 crores of Rupees to India, which IS
even now being paid.
Moreover, both in peace time and certainly in war time as the
present conditions have well shown, the defence of Burma is, though
theoretically a concern of the British Government to whom Burma

165
is now ' directly subordinate, the crux of the burden largely ' falls
upon India and it can be asserted without challenge that the
Jargest number of troops protecting the ,frontiers of , Burma today
consist of Indian regiments. These then are some of the fundamental factswhichshould have been borne in mind when 'sentiments'
for Burma based on racial and political considerations were
stressed during the deliberations. There is reaSon to believe that
the main strength which would accrue to the Indian case has never
been conside'ted at all.
Not only have the privileges, which India waS entitled to
expect as a result of the above factors, have not been taken into
consideration, but the provisions of the Government of Burma Act
which were , designed ,to safeguard ,the historic Indian rights in
Burma in part V of the Government of Burma Act, were not given
the importance they deserved on the plea that in the opinion of the
Law Officers of the Government of India the clause~ did not provide for the safeguards intended, as is made specificially clear in
the speeches 'and the commitments of the responsible office;rs of the
Crown on the floor of the House of Commons when the Government
of India Bin was being considered. Such being the case,it Was the
bounden duty of the Government of India not to remain satisfied
with the opinion of their own law offi,eers but they should have
taken the necessary step to get, the opinion of the Law Officers of
the Crown in London and also represent the Indian case from the
point of view of the speeches and the commitments of Cabinet
-, ~ -1YIiiiisters -a-if"tne -'-time -ortne -passing "of-tne --tiovernment ,of~1naia
Bill. It does not seem as if this has been done. There $eems to
have been undue hurry and secrecy in the procedure adopted. , A
rather sudden announcement was made in June that a Government
of India Delegation was coming, and that it had already consulted
, ~he Standing Emigration Committee on the subject matter of the
discussions of the Government of Burma. The ' discussions which.
according to the announcements made both in Calcutta and in
Rangoon during the earlier parts of the stay of the delegation which
were intended merely to be exploratory ended within a few days, In

166
the initialling of an Agreement. The probable reason why the
Indian Delegate, who arrived merely to explore the subject, ended by
finalising the Agreement, lay in the fact that the Burma Delegation
had kept ready for his approval a documfnt prepared on their lines,
one which appears to have formed the basis of the discussions and
in which the Indian delegate seems to have failed to get any
important alterations made. This preliminary initiative taken by
the Burma Delegation in the absence of a counter document from
the Indian side forced the Indian Delegation, in view of the desire
to complete AgTeement, into a very undesirable position.
As the Delegation had obtained the advice of the Standing
Emigration Oommittee, so on his arrival, the Delegate obtained the
informal advice of an Ad Hoc Oommittee formed under the auspices
of the Burma Indian Ohamber of Oommerce, including not only its
own members but also other representative Indians in Rangoon.
"\Vhat transpired between the Government of India Delegate and
this Ad Hoc Committee has since been made clear in terms of the
telegrams sent by the Committee and other public bodies to the
Government of India since the publication of the Agreement. As
the telegrams make it clear the Committee was from time to time
consulted on such few points as the delegate though needed such
consultation.. The published document, which was put forward
before the members of the Ad Hoc Committee, the day previous to
its realease to the press, with a definite suggestion that not even a
c01l1~_e~)Ul<L_~~ .changed, was never put before the Committee,
and according t;th;-detailed information now -available theimpor-=
tance of the few subjects on which the Committee was consulted,
was magnified out of all proportions to their real value as compared
with the other many more equally important terms which were
never mentioned to the Committee.: Most of these latter terms are
discriminatory according to the constitution, and detrimental to the
interests of the Indians in Burma. Even the agreement of the Ad
Hoc Oommittee to such parts of the Agreement, as were shown to it,
was based upon the feeling that it was being taken fully into confidence and that if the points on which it was consulted were accept-

167
ed the Agreement would divulge nothing so shocking as its later
publication has done. The consensus of opinion among the mem.bers of the Ad HOG Committee is that, if they had known all the
,terms as published, they would have had no hesitation in advising
breaking off of the Agreement.
Under the circumstances nothing less than a thorough revision
of the Agreement will ally the deep discontent roused in India and
the basic requirements of the Indians in' Burma. Just as the. background to the present Agreement is a desire to earn the goodwill of .
. the people of Burma,. it is hoped that in its revision an equal
amount of atte'ntion will be paid to the need to Burma of the
\ goodwill of Indians both in India and in Burma.

NOTES ON CLAUSES OF THE AGREEMENT.

Clause 1 (a):

The Olause is unsatisfactory in as much as :-

(a)

It is not clear whether "his wife"

. (i)

means "his one wife" or "his wives."

It should be made clear that when a man has more

. than one wife, all his wives are his dependants.

(b)

The following classes of dependants should be

added:-

.(i) Sons and Grandsons, dependants on the immi'--- ---grant,-iu-espe.cthz:e-oLtheagB limit--oflB-. - It- ...
is not often that a son or grandson can earn
an independant living at the age of 18.

Because of the Undivided Family System, an immigrant

may have to provide for a number of relatives for whom
provision could not be made in a general clause; but
arrangement should be made to enable Government to '
'. exempt from the necessity of obtaining the relevant Permit,
such persons even though not falling within the definition of
a dependant.

T (0)

Under 1 (0) it may Le stated that as the definitions of

"Skilled and Unskilled" work are not exhaustive, difficulty
would particularly during the transitjonal stage, be found by
such immigrants to obtain the relevant Permit. It is therefore desirable at once to elaborate the list of skilled workers
so as to include certain categories of workers such as
workers trained in special works such as lower grade assistants in shops.
Persons already in e:J;nployment should on no account be
delayed, as they may lose their employment and therefore
suitable machinery be devised.

Clal1se 2: Elucidation is required on this Clause, as to whether

the new Order-in-Oouncil as distinct from the previous one
will contain a provision for bilateral giving of notice, or
whether such notice of termination can be given only by the
Government of Burma. The Government of India must
reserve .to itself the power of terminating the Agreement
equally with the Government of Burma.
Olause 3: The date of 1st October 1941 seems to be too early a
date. It is clear that if the Order-in-Council is not passed
within that date, and or if the complete machinery in India
and Burma is not organised to deal with so large a matter,
a later date should be fixed, preferably 1st April 1942.

I-n-fact-t-hel'e i-s- averyst-I'0B.g'-feel-ing- th-at . . lst ~tQ001'

is too early and also a very unsatisfactory date from the
point of view of the International position in the East.
Firstly, during the rains it is inconvenient for people to
. return to Burma.
Secondly, ships are irregular; .
Thirdly, during the beginning of this year, a large
number of persons were induced by the Authorities ot
evacuate from Rangoon to India.

169
Fourthly, the threat of War, or conditions of War, will
prevent thousands from -returning to Burma and consequently
losing their privileges under the Agreement, or of undergoing
innumerable difficulties later to obtain Same.
Clause 4: Expenses incidental to the obtaining of Indian Passports
should be nominal.
Clause 5: Immigration permits are ultra vir-es under the provIsIons
of Part V of the Government of Burma Act, 1935.
Clause 6: 'rhe Visa Fee on an Indian Visitors' Passport of RI'. 20/is too high. It should be nominal. Dependants - half the '
rate per dependant of the fees payable by the visitor himself. ' No Visa fee should be charged in respect of minor
dependants.
Clause 7: (I) (i & ii)

(a) Any imposition of 'A' and 'B' Permits on Indians

ordinarily resident in Burma at the date of commencement
, of the operation of the Agreement appears ultra vires.

(b) It is stated in Olause 7 (i) that" no bar" will be placed on

the acquisition of Burma Domicile by holders of 'A' Permits,
and it is also stated that in sub-clause 2 that 'B' Permit
holders will not be allowed to acquire Burma Domicile. These
t'W<L_Pl'Q~_i~!9ns_ ar~entirely opposed to the Law of Domicile,
according to the L~-~{E~gla~d which'lsthe-Law-app1iCaole ",
to the term domicile as used in the Goverp.ment of Burma
Act, 1935.
The limit of nine years placed on 'B' Permits goes
against this interpretation of the term" Domicile " and any
legislation in support of thLg restrictive period by the Government of Burma would be ultra vires. In any event the limit
should. attach to the permit and not to the person of the
immigrant and such permits should be renewable for as long

170
a period as the immigrant desires. These renewals should
not be at the discretion of the Government of Burma as
stated in the Agreement.
Indians and Indian families who are not now here, and
have been persuaded to depart for Evacuation purposes from
Rangoon, call for special treatment. It would be impossible
to state which family left Burma with the intent to
evacuate'. However, whether families have gone with intent
to evacuate or not, it is a fact that no person in Burma had
any idea of so rapid an introduction of restrictions on immigration, for everyone understood that the period at which
any change in immigration may be effected, would commence
at some date not earlier than the date of expiry of notice of
termination by the Government of Burma of the present
Order-in-Council. It is therefore quite necessary to make
special arrangements in respect of such Indians and Indian
families not now present in Burma, but who desire to return
to Burma.
Clause 7-(2): With reference to the proviso "that any other terms
and conditions prescribed shall not be inconsistent with the
objects of the Agreement, it is suggested that it should read
as under:"Provided that any other terms and conditions prescribed shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the
ofBurlna Act."

GO-\Ternment

Clanse 8-(2): The system of quotas, for persons other than those
coming under the category of unskilled labour, is totally illegal and unacceptable. It should be confined to unskilled
labour but if this contention fails the following classes of
persons though included in the quota should be given preferentiall'ight of entry viz., substitutes for pennanent employees,
additions to permanent staff and employees of. firms, public
or private offices or business concerns, or men in professions

171
on leave whose presence in Burma by a certain date is necessary, and per$ons who have obtained permanent interest in
Burma 'prior to the date of Agreement.
Clause 11: It is suggested that as the composition of the Board
will be of great importance to the Indian population in Burma, and in India, the number of Indians on the Board should
at least 00 half, representing Trade, Commerce, Labour and
Professi ons.
Clause 12: Pena1ties fixed under Clause 12 are excessive and must
be reduced. Such high penalties will inflict the greatest
hardship on labour.
Clause 13: . This Olause being bassed on language is ultra vires.
It is suggested that the Government of India would persuade the Government of Burma to drop this clause.
Literacy test is uncalled for, and derogatory~ 'A'Permit
holders are bound to be people of means and respectability
and would re$ent such a test. If it has to be applied, the
test must be in a language known to the immigrant such as
his mother tongue.
Olause 14: This matter should not form the subject of a Clause in
an Agreement between two Governments. It is a libel on
--b0-t-h-the--r-aee-s.
The term 'indigenous' is not understood. It should not
include persons of mixed origin, ' such as Burma-Muslims,
Anglo-Burmans, Kales (descendants of Madrasi men and
Burmese women), etc.
Clause 15: The fee of Rs. 500/- is prohibitive; besides residential
fee would be ultra vires if imposed by the Burma Legislature
. as being discriminatory. 'A' Permit should no~ exceed
Rs. 100/- and no fee should be charged' for dependants.

172
Olauses 15: ('B' Permits) and 16 : Residential fees appear to be
ultra vires -of the Burma Legislature. The fee levied on
unskilled labourers who are 'B' Permit holders is too high.
With the residential fee it would work as a serious hardship.
These amounts would not be recoverable from one employer
as a majority of labour is casual.
The other fees mentioned in these clauses including fees
on dependants are likely to be prohibitive in most cases.
They ought to be substantially reduced to a suitable minimum for the three classes.
It is presumed that the visa fees would be levied only
once.
Clause 17: Refund of deposits should be made easy and no deductions should be made.
Clause 19 : and 20: Domicile under Clause 19 should be decided on
the principles of common law of England. To establish this
right the affidavit of the claimant and any other formal proof
of his claim should be accepted. The claimant should not
ordinarily have to go to a Court of Law to establish it.
It is very necessary for the Government of India to
obtain legal opinion on these clauses which deal with
Domicle. because they appear to be ~dtra vires. The Com-.mitt.eeis--.adyis.e.d_th&t_t.hBsft-.iwo_clauses _ ar~_~ontrary ..to . the . .
principles underlying the Law Domicile. Attention may be
drawn to the statements in Clause 19 viz. "and regard to
their future and the future of their families as 'bound up
with its interest," and in clauses 20 viz. "those who by the
terms and conditions of a permit which entitles them to
, reside in Burma are not given the right of residence beyond
a specified period."
Clause 21: 1. . The term Oalendar Year used in Clause 2L is
obviously wrong. The period preferred to as calendar years,

173
really means the total of all the periods of residence, including broken periods of a year as expl ained in the Government
of Burma Communique of the 8th August 1941.
The expression Seven Calendar Years should be deleted
and in its place "Seven years in all" should be substituted.
2. A privileged immigrant should not lose his privileges as

such, by absence of more than twelve months.

3. The period ofseven years in nine is too long and the period

should be five years in nine.

4. As already pointed out the division of immigrants into
privileged~ 'A' Permit and 'B' Permit holders goeR contrary

to the principle of domicile according to English Common

Law arid is therefore ultra vires.
5. Any person who has entered Burma lawfully should be
allowed to exercise all the rights mentioned in Section 44 of
the Goverment of Burma Act, 1935 and should also have the
rights to acquire domicile an~ when once he has acquired
privileges under Part V of the Goyernment of Burma Act, he
should. Dot be made to lose that right by reason of mere
absence from, and re-entry into Burma.
Clause 22:

The following are serious objections to this Clause:

. 1.

.OJJ.ly . .one_.wife of the immigr..ant.js._allowed to

enter Burma.

ii.

It excludes sons above 18 though they may be

dependant upon the father.

111.

It" excludes the deceased wife's children and

several dependants and relatives who are normally
members of the immigrant's family.

Clause 23: r ~he provisions of the second paragraph of Clause 23

. of the Agreement, particularly deprives an immigrant who

174
. has acquired privileges under Part V of the Government of
Burma Act, 1935, before 15th July 1941. This is illegal
for reasons already given.
Clause 24: The method of fixing quotas for permits to be jssue~ to
immigrants, other than those who come under the class
unskilled labour, is likely to cause great hardship if it is
worked unfairly and would be ultra vires if it is applied to
the case of persons who have acquired privileges under Part
V of the Government of Burma Act, 1935.
Clause 25: The registration of Indians is unconstitutional as it is
discriminatory, and is strongly resented by Indians.
Clause 26: The Government of Burma in the exercise of its powers
to grant exemptions under this clause should as soon as
possible exempt amongst others privileged immigrants under
Clause 21 who lose their status by continuous absence from
Burma for more than the period specifled if such absence is
due to the follOWIng reasons:-

(a)

leave under service rules taken by any Government

servant.

(b)

absence of persons other than Government servants due to

i. periodical leave
ii. travel
Ill.

study

IV.

sickness

v. business

(c)

absence due to any other sufficient cause.

It is understood that these notes have been elaborated, and added to, by the

Burma Indian Delegation, during its interviews with the Hon'ble Member in Simla.

175
Memorandum Submitted .to the Standing Emigration
Committee by the Burma Indian Delegation on
7th October, 1941.

I.
1. The Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement affects the interests and future of more than fourteen lacs of Indians in Burma,
whosevested interests amount to nearly two hundred crores of
rupees. . In no other part of the British Empin~ is there such a large
Indian population with interests so vast as those in Burma.
2. The procedure adopted at the time of the Indo-Burma
Trade Agreement, viz., to associate non-officjal accredited representati ves of Indians, was unfortunately not followed thoug'h a request
for it was made. The conseqllences of the omission have been
obvious.
3. . In Burma, the Delegation did consult a sub-committee of
nine members of what was known as the Ad Hoc Committee appointed by the Bur;ma Indian Chamber of Commerce. The opinion of the
Sub-Committee was taken only on such terms of the Agreement as was
considered necessary. This exchange of views was in strictest
confidence and the members of the Sub-Committee had thus no
opportunity to consult other members of the Ad Hoc Committee or
other Indians whose opinion was worth taking.
4. It was under these conditions and circumstances -that
the
- - - -Bub=-Committee~-agreed -to-snch-oftE;-ier~~- ~fth~ -Ag-r~ement as
were from time to time discussed with them. The agreement as a
whole or the draft of any part thereof was at no time placed before
the Qommittee. The Agreement as finalised was shown to the
Committee for the first time by the Agent to the Government of
India on the 21st July 1941, just twentyfour hours before its
publication. On going through the Agreement as it finally emerged,
it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that, if they had
known all the terms as published, they would have requested the
Hon. Member .to break off the negotiations.

176
5. From the Joint statement issued by the 'two Governments,
viz., of India and Burma, along with the Agreement, it appears that
the Report of Mr. Baxter formed the basis of the negotiations.
Unfortunately this Report was not at that stage available to the '
public, and the Sub-Committee at the time of expressing the views had
no knowledge of the contents thereof and recommendations therein.
6. The views expressed by the SUb-Committee on the few
points they were consulted about, were based on the advice given by
an expert on the qnestion of Indian immigration, like the Hon.
Member, to the effect. inter alia:1.

that in the light of the opinion' expressed by the law officers

of the Government of India, the rights and privileges, which
the members of thc Sub-Committee thuught part V of the
Government of Burma Act extended to Indians, were illusory;

11.

in the event of an agreement not being entered into at

that time, the Government of Burma would be at liberty to
introduce legislation, the terms whereof might be worse
than those secured by the Agreement, and owing to the
peculiar conditions arising out of the war, as for example,
the strategic importance of Burma in the Far East, the
Government of India may not be in a position to influence
the British Government to safeguard the Indian interests
as it would be able to do in normal times;

..th ~
on the floor of the House of
:Ministers and Officers of the
upon for the purpose of the
Parliament.

-. iii: . --th-e- -assu-ra-nees- --g-i-v-en- -lur-ing'Government of India Bill

Commons by responsible
Crown could not be relied
interpretation of an Act of

-th-e- -consideI'atifm _~

Since the publication of the agreement, its terms have been

fully examined, and legal opinion (printed elsewhere) of eminent
lawyers in India has been taken, and it is now found that,
to say the least, the aforesaid opinion of the law officers of the
Government of India is not free from doubt. As regards the question
7.

177
whetherTeference~ouldbe

made to Joiut Select Committee's Report,

Sir Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer says "The Chief Justice -. of India,
in some of the recent cases before the Federal Court (vide e.g,.,
1939 Federal Law Reports page 47 ) ' has referred the Joint Select
Committee Report as a permissible -aid to the interpretation of the
Constitution Act."
8. It is submitted that apart from the legal phase, the moral
values of these assurances should not be so lightly ignored.
9. - '1'he Agreement does not take into account the equity,
justice and moral claims resulting from th'~ long historical, economical, cultural and political associations of Indians in Burma. It
does not recognise the fact that Indians have added to the prosperity
of Burma nor is due weight given to the part which India plays
particularly today in the defence of the people of Burma.
In this connection we beg to draw the attention of the Standing
Emigration Committee to - the attitude - adopted by the Chinese
Delegation recently on behalf of their nationals when the Chinese
immigration question was discussed at Rangoon. The head of the
Chinese Delegation is reported to have said as follows : "I wish to point out that the National Government is keenly
interested in the welfare of the Chinese abroad and so
while taking into full consideration the views -and aims of
the Burmese Government - and the people, we have to -p-I'-otect--the- -1egitimate-.-.rightR--..an.d,__ jnter.ests. _aK__Kell___AS__.
maintain the status of the Chinese residents ill Burma in
ac'Cordance with treaty obligations between Great Britain
and China".

11.
Why the Agreement as it stands is unacceptable: \

General Grounds.
It is not based on equity, justice and moral claims resulting
from the long historical, economic, cultural and political associations
1.

178
of India with Burma. It also does not recognise how Indians have
added to the prosperity of Burma and the part which India plays
even today in the defence of it~ pp-ople.
2. It ignores the fundamental rights of Indians resident in
Burma and Indians having business and other connections with
Burma guaranteed to them under the Government of Burma Act.
3. It violates various assurances and pledges given in the
past, particularly those given by the responsible Ministers of the
Crown, at the time of the passage of the Government of Burma Act,
in regard to the right of free entry of Indians in general into Burma
except those who came under the category of unskilled workers.
4. It goes counter to the very definite assurances given by
the Hon. lVlember when he called upon the non-official representatives at the time of the Indo-Burma Trade talks to make sacrifices
in the conclusion of the Trade Agreement so that it would assist "in
Inaintaining the political and economic status of Indians in Burma."

5. The Trade reh1.tions and the Trade Agreement between

India and Burma cannot accord with the proposals for restrictions
in the entry into Burma of those who are carrying on or are
interested in such trade.
6. Its terms are such as are likely to eliminate the long
standing Indian ~nterests from Burma in the near future.
-not- orfly- aiscrin1inatary --but-a-lsohumiliating and hurt the sense of dignity and self-resp~ct of India.
--7~-

--Variousprovisionsare

8. It does not ensure equitable treatment to those. " who are

permanently settled in Burma or have a permanent stake in that
country", as assured in the Press Communique issued by the
Government of India on the 11th June, 1941.
9. It does not evE'\) " secure for the Indian Community settled
and resident in Burma recognition of their legitimate rights" as
mentioned in the Joint Statement of the two Governments.
.

179
It is not at all justified- by the facts mentioned in lVIr.
Baxter's Report.
10.

It is deeply galling -to India and Indians that India

alone, despite the services it has rendered to. Burma and the long
selected
and close association between thetwoconntries, should
for such humiliating treatment, which is 4etrimental to its interests,
in the theoretical plea that each Government should have the right
to control the composition of its own population by means of. restriction on immigration from any of the other Communities.
11.

be

Why the Agreement, as it stands is unacceptable.

Specific grounds.
Clallse 1. The definitio~ of the word "Dependant"
able as it is not comprehensive.

IS

not accept-

Clauses. 7,8,21, & 22. Should be deleted as the division of Indian

immigration into privileged immigrants and" A and B
permit holders is not justifiable and i~ ultra vires. It will
lead, together with the operation of the quota system, to an
elimination of the Indian element in the population of
Burma, for the following reasons :-

( i)B permit holders will form about

90% of the Indians

in Burma and the permit being limited to 9 years . will

prevent their residence in Burma after that period.

( ii) The-grant-of these permits is in tne-discretion of the

Government of Burma.
(iii) The quota system will also tend to reduce the Indian
element as the fixing of this quota will be solely in the
discretion of the Burma Government.
Clause 13 .. Literacy test - Literacy test for a man asking for an
'A"permit atRs. 500/~can only be intended. to limit the
number of such applicants and is_ unacceptable for the
following reasons :-.

180
( i)

Such a test
qualified.

(ii)

Boing applicable to Indians only it is discriminatory.

IS

unnecessary for a man otherwise

Clause 14. The marriage clause being a libel on both Indians and
Burmans should not find a place in the Agreement and IS
discriminatory being only against Indians.
CIa use,15. This clause levying high fees providing a source of
revenue is unacceptable. Such lavy of fees is against section
45 of the Government of Burma Act as it amounts to a tax.
The amount, likely to be collected thus, will run into several
lacs per annum in the early years.
Clauses 19 and 20. Domicile ... These two clauses are unacceptable
as they go counter to the normal procedure to obtain domicile as known to the law now operative in Bm'ma.
Olause 23. This clause enabling. Indians to live in Burma indefinitely if they do not leave Burma even for a day is unacceptable as it is tantamount to a virtual imprisonment of the
unfortunate Indians in Burma.
Clause 25. Regarding registration of Indians in Burma,
acceptable being discriminatory and derogatory.

IS

un-

In view of the points mentioned above, the Agreement, as it

stands, is entirely unacceptable to us and we may add that our
- "Vie~- fi~d;~~PP6~t-' throughout -tne country' wnere-- it- -nas-"Eeen '
universally condemned by all parties and by all shades of Indian
public opinion.

Ill.

WHAT INDIANS WANT.

1.

The consideration, of imposing restrictioll on immigration

from India into Burma should be postponed till the war
IS over.

~:'>1r2.:.

".i

111.

I !
t,

'

,11 \'

I 11 ~

t l1Ij' j

181

filII
t

\'

2.

If that is absolutely impossible} the following fundamental

points among others must be fully recognised in any agreement that may be made :-

ii.

Ill.

The political and economic rights of Indians, resident in

Burma, and Indians residing in India but having property,
trade, business and professional connections and other interest3 with Burma, should be maintained as hitherto and
that no restriction should be placed on their m0vement as
between India and Burma and that they should be allowed
to go from one country to the other in the future, as in
the past.
That the right of free entry granted to Indians in general,
except those who come under the category of unskilled
workers, as is clear from the various assurances, pledges,
etc., given at the time of the passing of the Government
,of Burma Act, should not be affected in any way.
The imposition of restrictions on the entry into Burma in
general may be considered only provided similar restrictions
are imposed on immigrants from Britain and other
countries. In this connection it would not be out of -place
to say that, a proper immigration agreement between India
and Burma should treat the nationals of India on the
footing of that partnership between Great Britain, Burma
and India, upon which the present constitutional position
-, 'of Burma'rests:'-andto wliicn .BurmanaEl a'ccorded 'a:' willing' "
acceptance; (clause Xln of the Instrument of Instructhns
to the Governor of Burma). * .

1 11

diI .I' I':

i 1
i/!tlll\'
i.

''..1'\ 1
1. [. .
,t11
illj:
'\1
1.:11'
. ;
i' ~

. 1.

'

I.hi;

, n 'illl
i~1l
I.'. 1I

~ ! 1:

~ - ! l-i'- 'U':
:[111
Pilll
(ij-.lrj'j-l
l_,l-I,!'! ,! '(111

1".II'.ll.1t.'.II!. .
!.' 11'1
11

i.\'I)IH.

11'.

'.,1
HI"
1
i: 1i lIl
i!I!lj i]

;. mi!l il j

1'1 \'1. i
'LVI
'1"'1
I.d' .
lql)J 1'111 .
'111l .
'.:';
li"'I
l'!.,'ii.'lI]"
:Ipl li l!
t 1111 j IIH

,pi, i i i :
i 11 IIPI !11
I I

fiji l.!.

'11"1
' :II!: I'

., Ij!f!,I
(l;li\UJ
; 11

Ihl llll
' ,l'iil
I1
i. l;i l" l i

'I

~l I 1, _l ,
ir!I,:I,
.!,
I' t

I.

I,~_ ; ')-1

': "

HIl-j t.,.I:

,.li\III''1 1

'IIII!I)I.
' 1.11111 .j.1
I h I) '.. 1
; ri,

:, !Iilhi,l/IIIIl
1

, 1:Ulll '

ilHi[ .I

'..IIjiil.. '.:'
:lq,~
I 1' ,.!I'

!t .1\
.. ' :
i. -l-- .'t
. . ... .. -

!-II "
It>!
1tl ' .. :

!I<

l.lIA.ll..I '. '

-j- . ".

iv.

Arrangements may be made for the imposition of instrict~

ions on the immigration of unskilled workers as may be

* The relative

extract from Clause XIII reads: "Our Governor shall, further~

more, bear always in mind the partnership between Burma, India and the United
Kingdom within our Empire, which has so long subsisted and the mutual obligations
which arise therefrom".

l.1 - P
-' .

. .-

..,..11 I'.'

11 11'.' "
1
......11
.1. .1.1I''.. :j
.:I'jiT

]'.1:, .

182
considered necessary in the interests of Burma but they
should not have a violent clash either with the past or
with the existing position in this matter.
v.

If . no agreement could be arrived at, which would fully

recognise, among others, the above .fundamental points, the
Government of India should be no party to any AgTeement
and should ,now make representations to the Secretary of
State that he should not take any action in connection
with the promulgation of the Order-in-Oouncil intended to
bring the Agreement into operation.

183
Assurances given both inside and outside Parliament
that there shall be no restrictions on the free
entry of Indians in general into Burma.

How the rights of Indians

in Burma are guaranteed ..
I
1. Under the sUb-section (3) of Section 44 of the Government
of Burma Act 1935, no "disability, liability, restriction or condition"
can be imposed on British subjects domiciled in India and subjects
of an Indian State "in regard to travel, residence, the acquisition,
holding or disposition of property, the holding of public office, or the
carrying on of any occupation, trade, business or profession."

'.

How the Indians in Burma will be prevented f,'om the e:cercise of the
rights guaranteed to them under the recent Indo-Burma Immigration Agreement.

2. The most sweeping and radical change made' by the recent.

Agreement is that Indians carrying on trade, business, profession,
etc. will not have the right of free entry into Burma as enjoyed
by them hitherto.
3. The joint statement by the two Governments is anxious "to
secure for the Indian community settled and resident in Burma
recognition of their legitimate rights." As the very right of entry
or re-entry of these Indians is at stake, they will not be able to
.exercise--flieir~Iegitima te-riglits-re~gardrngousi.ness-,-etc.;-in -tfiaf
country.
"

Provision for imposing restrictions on the right of entry of Indians

into Bu,;ma.

4. It is true that sub-section (3) of Section 44 enables the

Government of Burma to impose restrictions "on the right of .entry
into Burma of persons who are British subjects domiciled in India or
subjects of any Indian State" or to impose any restrictions "as a
condition of allowing any such person to enter "Burma."

184
Immigration Agreement ignores past promises and assurances .
..

5. The proposed Agreement goes counter to the promises and

assurances given in the past, and to the safeguardspro-vided for in
the Government of Burma Act, and in the Instrument of Instructions.

No discrimination as 'l'egm'ds Indians entering Burma.

6. The Report of the Sub-Committee N 0.4 relating to
Burma, of the First Round Table Conference in 1931 stated, for
example, that
" The SUb-Committee also especially stress the importance of thel'e
being no discrimination as regards Indians entefingBurma."

Equal rights and opportunities for all British subjects in Burma.

7. The principle was also enunciated by the Prime Minister,
at the Round Table Conference, when }\IIr. Ramsay Macdonald stated
on behalf of the British Government that,
"The :n:J.ain principle to be followed must be that of equal rights
and opportunities for any British subjects, ordinarily reSIdent, or carrying on trade or business in Burma."

British Indians denied these equal rights and opportunities.

8. While Britishers are given these opportunities, the proposed
Agreement takes away those opportunities from British Indians.

I-nte-ntion .was-to-regulate Immigr'atia~of- Unskilled LabQurers~

9. It was a.11 along the intention that there should be the

regulation of the immigration of unskilled labour into .Burma. The
right of free entry of other Indians was not in question.

Power not to be given to the Government of Burma to restrict the

right of entry of Indians into Burma.
10. During the course of the passage of the Government of
Burma Act in the House of Commons,Earl' Winterton moved the
following amendment on the 10th April, 1935 : -

185
"Provid.ed that , nothing in ' this sub-section shall affect any
restrictio~ lawfully imposed on the right of entry into
Burma of such Indiansnbjectsof His Majesty domiciled
in British India as enter Burma, whether by previous
engagement or otherwise, to perform unskilled labour for
hire in Burma, not being domestic or menial servants, and
members of their families and dependants."
11. Earl
remarked: -,

\Vinterton

during

the

course of his ,speech

" We are willing and so are the Indians concerned-those

whom I have been able to consult-that the right should
,be given to the new Burma Legislature to deal with the
question of the immigration of manual labour into Burma,
but we do not think that powers should be give~,to place
restriction upon other Indians coming into Burma."
No discrimination against the right of en'try of Indians generally into
Burnw-How the same is to be achieved.
12. Sir Thomas Inskip, Minister for Co-ordination and
Defence, during the course of his speech made the following
remarks :-

"Nobody wants to discriminate between British subjects

domiciled in India or Indian States' subjects when they go
any -more--fIian -one-wantstodiscriIriinateoetween '
British when they go to BritishIndia. At the same time, you
have to reconcile the desire not to "have unfair or unreason. able discrimination with the right that must be preserved by
the Burman Legislature ' to deal with this question of
immigration. Every self-governing State requires to have
power to prevent its internal economy being derang~d by the
immigration of persons, who, by reason of their activities
ornunibers, maybe an inconvenience~ ' The ,proposals
contained in this clause, together witheertain suggestions

to--:surma;

.. .

186
which were made by the Joint Select Committee in their
Report, are intended to be incorporated in the Instrument
of Instructions, which together with one or two other clauses
in the Bill, will, it is hoped., effect the desired object."
No restriction upon professional or business 1nen to carry on thez:r
profession or business.
13. Sir Thomas Inskip added: "The general plan is that
there shall be no interference, nothing to prevent the . Burman
Legislature from making suitable laws as to immigration. At the
same time it is proposed, as Honourable lVIembers will have observed
when perusing Clause 332 in the process through which we were
passing a few moments ago, that the Governor has in his discretion
to give or withhold his sanction When any Bill is introduced in
connection with or affecting immigration into Burma. That will be
one way in which unfair discrimination, whatever powers the
Burman Legislature may have to deal with immigration, may be
controlled for the professional or business man who comes from
British India or the Indian State. It is al~o proposed in conformity
with the proposals of the Joint Select Oommittee that, there shall be
inserted In the Instrument of Instructions a direction to reserve any
bills which contained racial discrimination, and to reserve also bills
which contained restrictions upon professional or business men, who,
1, while
India and Burma have been united, have carried on business
in either country."
Assurance given that there would be no undue discrirnination against
immigration of Indians into Burma.
14. When the draft Instrument of Instructions was under
discussion in the House of Commons on the 17th November, 1936,
Mr. Butler, on behalf of the Government, stated:"I understand that the apprehensions of Indians in Burma have
been aroused by the fear that there will be undue discrimination against the immigration of Indians into Burma."

187
l\rIr. Butler further assured the House:
"1'hat there can be no discrimination against Indian immigration into Burma without prior consultation with the
Governor-General of India, who himself will take care of
the interests of Indians who may wish to enter Burma.
Therefore I think the fear that has been felt on this score
by Indians who wish to enter Burma may be quietened in
view of the contents of Paragraph XX ( of the Instrument
of Instructions )."

The House of Cominons d'id not want to stop the further entry of
Indians 'in general.
15.

1Ylr. Butler further added:

"In connection with unskilled Indian labour, the Governor of

Burma is asked to confer with the Governor-General with
a view to, regulating the immigration of unskill(ld labour
into Burma. We do that because it is necessary, fo;r
reasons that we gave during the passage of the Burma
Act, to consider possible restrictions in certain cases of
unskilled Indian labour. The reasons we cannot make a
simple rule is that we have to make this differentiation in
regard to unskilled labour while at the same time we do
not want to stop the free entry of Indians in general.
rfhat is why we include the general reference to. the
Governor-General. "
The words" we do not want to stop the free entry of Indians
in general" deserve to be specially noted.

Bow the object of restricting immigration of unskilled labour only to

be achif3ved.

16.

Sir Thomas Inskip also gave similar assurances in the

same debate and remarked:
" Apart from that, there is the provision 'in Paragraph XX of
the Instrument. that the Governor before exercising his

188
discretionary power of leave to introduce shall consult the
Governor-General of India. rrhat is not inconsiderable
safeguard. Then there is the provision under Section 36
(1) of the Act, which provides that no measure affecting
immigration into Burma shall be introduced without the
previous sanction of the Governor. The Governor is to
act in his discretion, and that means direct responsibility to
t.he Secretary of State and this House. Those safegnards,
taken together, really effect the purpose which Was behind
the Amendment ,moved by the Noble Lord, the :Member
, for Horsham, so as to give protection from undesirable
immigran ts."

How to stop the Butrna Legislature {l'om 'restricting the entry of

Indians into Burma without saying so in actual 'Words.
17. Earl Winterton, who was again approached by the President
of the Indian Chamber of Commerce in Great Britain, forwarded to
that President on the 19th November, 1936, a Note prepared by the
India Office. The position was thus summarised in that Note : "The position achieved by the Act and the Instrument of Instructions is this : "By Section 36 (1) (h) of the Act, no measure which affects
immigration inBurma at all may be introduced unless the
Governor in his discretion gives his previous sanction to
Its il[trodlmtiuIT. -Thisprovisio n--is stJ:ppl-em-en-tedby-.. . -the
instruction in Paragraph XX of the draft Instrument that,
if any immigration measure is proposed to be introduced
which would be likely to restrict Indians' right of entry
into Burma, the Governor shall consult the Governor-General of India before he allows i.t to be introduced. These
provisions seem to us to meet the Indian claim as fully as
is possible without saying, in terms, that the Burma Legislature may not restrict the entry of Indians into Burma-
. a provision which would certainly evoke protests from the

189
Burmans... and with justice, since th,8 power to control entry
into its territory, is one which we cannot well deny them."
It is necessary to mark the words "these provisions seem to us to
meet the Indian clai:u as fully as js possible without saying, in
terms, that the Burma Legislature may not restrict the e'ntry of
Indians into Burma." It is contended that in view of the assurances given and the safeguards provided, it is quite unfair that. the
right of free entry of Indians other than unskilled labour into Burma
should be restricted, and that the Government of India should be a
. party to the same.

How the apprehension aroused by the wide terms of reference of the

Baxter Commission, that they would bring in the question of restricting the immigration of Indians, other than the unskilled labourers, into Burma was allayed by the assurance given by the
Government of India:-

18.

The Government of India in their letter dated the 16th,

September, 1939, addressed to the Federation of Indian Chambers of
Commerce, and Industry stated:-
"As has already been explained to the Indian :Merchants'
Chamber, Bombay, the work of the present Commission
will be to collect the necessary authoritative data without
, which no future policy in reganlto Indian immigration
into Burma can satisfactorily be considered or determined.
~~m~-rrhe Goveriimeiifof Indiiliave alreadymr~eservedtot1J.emm.
selves the right to consider, criticise or resist any proposals that may be formulated on the basis of the Commission's findings. The Committee of your Chamber will,
therefore, realise that any attempt at present to limit the
scope of the inquiry in the manner suggested might be
regarded as an attempt to prejudice the issue."

190
Assurances given during the time of the .lndo-Burma Trade "
Talks that the political and economic status of
Indians in Burma will be lnaintained
in the future as in the past.

Extract from the Report dated 15th ~1arch 1941; Submitted

by the Non-Official Advisers.
" The main consideration, however, that has guided us in the
past and which influence our recommendations even now is our
anxiety to safeguard the interests of Indian nationals in Burma.
The Member for Education, Health and Lands, has expressed the
view that a Trade Agreement with Burma should prove an effective
measure of securing Burmese goodwill and" should thus assist in
maintaining the political andeconomic status of Indians in Butma,
which view has been endor,sed by the Honourable the Oommerce
Member . We have, therefore, thought it desirable to make any
sacrifices, that may be necessary, in arriving at a settlement with
Burma to safeguard the position of Indians there".
" x x x As we have stated in the beginning, the one consideration that has guided us in recommending the acceptance of
terms which are very inadequate, has been our anxiety which is also
shared by the Government of India to safeguard the position of
-Indian nationals in... Hu_rID.a-in.alL .rBSP.B_Q~ and. we trust that _the._
Government of India will be vigilant to see that the economic as
well as the political status of Indians in Burma is maintained and
will not, in case any steps are taken by the Government. of Burma
which are prejudicial to the Indian interests in Burma, hesitate to
give notice for the termination of this Agreement. "

191

OPINION OF SIR ALLADI KRISHNASWAMY IYER

The Legislature,of Burma has plenary powers to make laws for
the territories in: Burma subje,ctonly to the specific restrictions
imposed by the Government of Burma Act (vide Section 33,
Government of Burma Act, 1935). The only question for consideration is what is the effect to be given to the restriction contained
in Section 44 of the Government of Burma Act, in regard to the
subject under consideration. Section 44 (1) provides that a British
.subject, domiciled in the United Kingdom, shall be exempt from
the operation of so much of any Act of the Legislature as imposes
any restriction on the right of entry into Burma, subject to the two
provisos in the sub-section, which it is unnecessary to consider for
the purposes of dealing with the question under consideration.
Sub-section 2 and sub-section 3 confer a right or immunity on a
British subject demiciled in the United Kingdom, and on a British
subject domiciled in India respectively, to be exempt from the
. operation of any Act of the Burma Legislature as imposes by
reference to place of birth, race, descent, language, religion,
domicile, residence, or duration of residence, any disability, liabi~
lity, restriction or condition in regard to travel, residence, the
aquisition, holding or disposition of property, the holding of public
office, or the carrying on of any occnpation, trade, business or
profession, subject to the proviso in the case of British subjects
domiciled in India that the Legislature of Burma may impose a
--r6stri-eti-on-onthe-Tight-ofentry intu-Burma or-any-re-stricti6n as a
condition cif allowing any person to enter Burma.
The only question for consideration therefore is what exactly
is the interpretation to be put upon the two limbs, read together,
of sub-section 3,-the part conferring the. right of immunity and
the part enabling the Burma Legislature to impose a restriction on
the right of entry. While it may be the duty of a Court to give
effect to the proviso to the extent to which it is inconsistent with
the main part of the section, it cannot be denied that the sound
principle of cQ]1structiouis . to read the two clauses together and not

192
to so read the proviso as to render nugatory the mam ' enacting
part. As is stated in Craies' Statute Law, at page 197, "if the
principal object of the Act can be accomplished ' and stand under
the restriction of the saving clause or "proviso, the same is not to be
held void for repugnancy." ,Vhat exactly is the import of the
clause "may impose a restriction on the right of entry or any restriction" in the context is the point to be considered. While, on
the one hand, it cannot be said that the mere fact that an occasional or first trip to Burma confers a right for an time on an Indian
subject to enter Burma a second or third time or on any other
occasion, preventing the Burma Legislature from imposing a restriction on or prohibiting a subsequent entry, the power of .the Burma
Legislature cannot be so read or construed as to destroy or take
away the rights which are guaranteed to Indian nationals under
the main part of the;sub-section. If it is possible to do so, the
proviso must be so construed as not to affect or take away the substratum of the right secured under the main part of the section.
On a careful reading of the sub-'section and the proviso, I have
come to the conclusion that it is possible to give effect both to the
section and to the proviso without doing violence to the language
.employed.
In the case of a British subject of Indian domicile who once
visits Burma, travels in the trains there, or lodges in Burma hotels
.. _dul'inghis tri:R,_ ~I!d the:r:t_!,~~ul~ns to India, the Burma Legislature
would, in my opinion, have the right to prohibit his entry a second
time, as by the exercise of such a right, the Legislature is not in
any way interfering with the substratum of any right conferred
l
under the main part of the section. On the other ,hand, in the case
of a person who is exercising a profession or is in employment or
carrying on a trade, so to construe the proviso as to permit legislation preventing a person who has once left Burma, say, on a holiday
tripor to see his relations in British India, from re-entering Burma
would be in effect to expropriate and denude" him of all the rights secured to him under the main part of the sub-section. The proviso has
~ - - -

.-- - - .- -

. --

-- -- -

- - -

- - .-- ~ -- - . -. -- - -. -- - - - - - - -

-- - _ _

_ - -- - - - - -

--

0___ _ - - -

- -- - - - -

--

/'

193
therefore to be construed in a rational way as not .to give a carte
blanche to the Burma Legislature and to take away as if by a sidewind the rights secured to an Indian-resident of Burma under the
first part of the sub-section. Such a construction of the section
would in effect be to impose a bar on Indians resident in Burma
from leaving Burma OD pain of their being prevented from exercising their profession or their rights over property or practically to
imprison them in Burma for all time. . In other words, the Burma
Legislature, by prohibiting such a person from entering Burma,
though in form exericising legislative power in regard to the right
to enter Burma would in substance be interfering with the right to
carry on a trade 01" profession.
There is no provision similar to the section under consideration
in the Dominion Constitutions. The decisions, however, in Australia on the import of the expre~sion "immigration" in' Section 51,
item 27, may be of some assistance in dealing with the subject
under consideration. (They would' have a direct bearing on the
interpretation of the expression "immigration" in section 138 of the
Government of Burma Act dealt with later). While a very wide
interpretation has been given to the power to deal with immigration
and immigrants, including the power to. deal with them if and
when they are in the country, it has been consistently held that
under this power the Australian Legislature cannot prohibit from
ent81'ing, a person who, prior to his departure from Australia, has
IpaC!e , Aust~l:},H~jlis __ !tome_an~ \\T:!!9_by reasonJh~~o!,~~~_~ecom~_~
member of the Australian community (of. 4 C. L. R. 949 and 7
C. L. R. 277).
The expression "right of entry" in the section will have to be
,constrned according to its normal import with such light as may be'
furnished by the Australian decisions. In so far as any light. is
thrown upon this power by the Report of the Joint Select Com-,
mitttee, it would be apparent that its purpose is not to affect the
"rights of the existing IndianpopulatiQl1 in ,Burma, but merely to
:;restrict the future, right. of entry. The Chief Justice of India, in

194
some of the recent cases before the Federal Court (Vide e. g., 1939
Federal Law Reports, p. 47), has" referred to the Joint Select
Committee Report as a . permissible aid to the interpretation of the
Constitution Act.
Section 36 (1) (h) which enJOInS the necessity of preVIOUS
sanction in regard to any law affecting immigration into Burma
cannot and does not throw any light on the exact scope and interpretation of section 44.
In the res1llt, my answer to the question propounded is as
follows : On .proper construction of Section 44 (2) and (3) of the
Government of Burma Act, 1935, the Burma Legislature cannot
impose any restrictions on the right of a British subject domiciled in
Inr1ia or any subject of any Indian State to return to .Burma where
he has been carrying on any occupation, trade, business or
profession or where he holds public office or where he holds property,
after leaving Burma temporarily for a holiday or for purposes of his
trade or any other purpose.
The position however in case an Order in Council is passed
under section 138 would be somewhat different. That section deals
with an Order in Council in pursuance of an agreement between the
Government of India and of Burma on the subject of immigration
-into-Blll'ill&JrQID Illdi8L approvedby_ the S~Qre~~ry_of_~ta~~. . ,~h~_
scope of an Order ill Council under section 138 is different from that
of section 44, as obviously the latter has no reference to any agreement and merely deals with the power of the Burma Legislature to
deal in invitum without reference to any agreement. The validity
of an Order in Council issued under section 138 would be dependent
upon whether the prohibitions and restrictions imposed thereby could
be said to be ill relation to " immigration. "
The Australian decisions on the scope of the Federal power as
to immigration have a direct bearing on the meaning of the

195
expression'''immigration'' used in section 138. These cases are all
summed up in the leading treatise on the Constitution of the
Australian Commonwealth by Wynes, at page 216. In 32, C.L. R.
the test as to whether a person is or is not coming home was adopted
by Chief Justice Knox in,the Irish Knvoys' Case. In some cases the
test adopted is almost that of a domicile, viz., whether or not a .
person can be said to be a constituent part of the community known
as the Australian people. In the words of Tssac J.in Potter v.
Minahan: "The ultimate fact to be reached as a test' whether a
given person is an immigrant or not is whether he is or is not at that
time a constituent part of the community known as the Australian
people. Nationality and domicile are not the test; they are evidentiary facts of more or less weight in the circumstances but they are
, the ultimate or decisive consideration." On the whole, however, it
may be said that the expression 'immigration" has received more
or less a flexible interpretation at,the hands of the Australian High
Court, to suit, what may not with impropriety be described, as
political exigencies.
As regards the construction of section 138 them is one other
point which requires consideration. The question may arise whether
the Order in Council can at all be made applicable to a person who
entered Burma and resided ther~in when Burma was a part of British
India before the Constitution Act and such a person be treated as an
immigrant within the meaning of the Order in Council. The opinions
-expressed--1)yIssacs ana-cRic1i-JJ~-i:ii--37- .0~L.R. -361en([support- tothe view that the section could have reference only to persons who
immigrate after the Constitution Act comes into force, and not to
persons already in Burma before that date. The two judges held
that immigration power {in Section 51 (27) of the' Constitution}
authorises the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate with respect
only to persons who have immigrated to Australia since the establishment of the Commonwealth. Further Higgins J. was of the view that
it is a fundamental mistake to treat the power to make laws with
"respect to immigration" as if it were a power to make laws with

196
respect to immigrants. A Federal Act may be retrospective,
but an Act under the Constitution -as to immigration cannot deal
with immigration which took place before the Constitution.
It is true that there is only this single authority for such a
restricted interpretation of the l1'ederal Power, but I am of the
opinion that it is both a just and reasonable construction to adopt
and one which would be giving effect to the purpose of the power

as disclosed by the Report of the Joint Select Committee.

A. KRISHNASWA1\IY.
Madrras, 21st A,'ugust, 1941.

Similar opinions vmre given by Sir Chimal1lal H. Setalvad, Sir

J. B. Kanga and 1\1r. Vicajee Taraporewala.

197

HOW .THECHINESE- DELEGATION PROCEEDS JORA

SIMILAR IMMIGRATION AGREEMENT.

In welcoming the Burma-Chinese Immigration' Delegation, The Hon'ble

'. U.'Saw, , .Premierof Burma, observed:
Burma, as you know, is a thinly populated couiltr~'
situated midway between two of the largest and most thickly
populated countries of the world. 'Ve are naturally anxions to
preserve our racial integTity, and the advantage enjoyed by a comparatively small population in a country, where nature is bountiful.
It is in no spirit of hostility that we were recently compelled to seek
'and obtain 'the agreementof';the Government of India to certain
measures Jor the control of Indian Immigration. It is in the same
spirit that we now place before you for YOUr sympathetic consideration
our proposals for imposing reasonable restrictions on Chinese immi
grationinto our country . .....
"

You have already had the opportunity of acquainting

yourselves with the proposals formulated by the Burma Delegation
on behalf of the Government of Burma. You will have seen from
the proposals that, while we desire to impose restrictions on new
immigration, it is not our intention to impose any unfair or
humiliating conditi'Ons on any immigrants. It is also our intenti'On
--to aealgenerously withGlrine-se-rra-tionals;wIro--al'ea-lrewdy-inurma;--particularly th'Ose who have already resided in this country for a
considerable number of years.

lt

Dr. Tu Yuen Tan replying on behalf of the Chinese Delegation

observed : At the request 'Of the Governnlent Burma, the National
G'Overnment of China has sent our delegation to help to solve some
of this country's difficulties. I wish to point out that the National
Government is keenly interested in the welfare of the Ohinese abroad,
00

198

and so while taking into full consideration the views and aims of the
Burmese Government and people, we have to protect the legitimate
rights and interests, as well as maintain the status of the Chinese
residents in Burma, in accordance with treaty obligations between Great
Britain and China. " ........ .
(The Rangoon Gazette, Saturday, September 20, 1941.)

~.'"

;,

':~~

199
APPENDIX

RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935.

Section.36: Previous sanction of the Governor required for

certain legislative proposals.
, 36 (1) Unless the Governor in his discretion thinks fit to give his
previous sanction, there shall not be introduced into, or moved in,
either Chamber of Legislature, any Bill or any amendment which (a) repeals, amends, or is repugnant to any provisions of any
Act of Parliament extending to Burma; or

(b) repeals, amends, or is repugnant to any Governor's Act,

or any ordinance promulgated in his discretion by the
Governor ; or

(c) affects matters as respects which the Governor is by or

under this Act required to. act in his discretion; or
(d) repeals, amends or affects any Act relating to any police
force; or

(e) affects the procedure for criminal proceedings 1n which

;European British subjects are concerned; or
~. . .

fJtsubJeuts persuns--not residentl~in Burma to-greater taxation

than persons resident in Burma, or subjects companies
, not wholly controlled and managed in Burm lto greater
" ,taxation than companies wholly controlled and managed
therein ;. or

(g) affects the grant of relief from any Burma tax on income
in respect of income taxed or taxable in the United Kingdom; or

(h)' affects immigration into Burma.

200
Nothing in this section affects 'the operation of any other
provision in th.is Act which require~ the previous sanction of the
Governor to the introduction of any Bill or the moving of any
amendlnent.
2.

"

Section 44:- British subject domiciled in the United

'Kingdom and British India.
"

(1) Subject to

"

'

theprovisi~ns

of this Part of this Act, a British

subject domiciled in the United Kingdom shall be exempt from the
operation of so much of 'any Act of the Legislature as imposes any
restriction on the right of entry into Burma.
Provided that no person shall by virtue of this sub-section be
entitled to claim exemption from, ar~y such restrictions, if and so
long as British subjects domiciled in Burma are. ,by or under the law
'of the United Kingdom subject in the Unite~ Kingdom to a like
restriction.
For the purposes of this sub-section a provision, whether of the
law of Burma or of the law of the United Kingdom,' empowering any
public authority to impose quarantine regUlations, or to exclu~e or
deport individuals wherever domiciled who appear to that authority
to be undesirable person, shall be deemed not to be a restriction on
the right of entry. '

(2) Subject to' the provisions of this Part" of this Act, a

-nritish subje-ct--"dDIDi-ciiHd -in-Mte--B:aitee.-Ki-BgEl.OOl-shalLbae~empt_
from the operation., of so' much of any Act of-the Legislature as
.imposes by reference to place of birth, race, descent, language,
religion, domicile, residence, or duration of residence any disability,
liability, restricti)n or condition in regard to travel,' residence, the
acquisition, holding, or disposition of property, the holding of public
office, or the carrying, on of anyoccuptation trade, busin~ss or
profession' :
Provided that no such person as aforesaid shall by virtue of
this subsection be entitled .toexemptionfrom any such disapility,

201
liability, restriction, or condition as aforesaid if and so long as
British subjects domiciled in Burma are by or under the law of the
United Kingdom subject in the . United Kingdom toa like disability, liability, restriction or condition imposed in regard to the
same subject matter by reference to the same principle of distinction.
(3) -The provisions of subsection {2} of this section shall apply
in relation to British subjects domiciled in India and subjects of
any Indian State as they apply in relation to. British subjects
domiciled in the United Kingdom, but with the substitution in the
proviso to the said subsection for references to the United Kingdom
of references to British India, or as the case may be, that Indian
State:
Provided :that nothing in this subsection shall affect any
restriction lawfully imposed on the right of entry into Burma of
persons who are British subjects domiciled in India 'or subjects of
any Indian State, or any restriction lawfully imposed as a condition
of allowing any such person to enter Burma.

( 4) Notwithstanding anything in this section, if the Governor by public nosification certifies that for the prevention of any
grave Inenace to the peace or tranquility of any part of Burma,
or for the purposes of combating crimes of violence intended to
overthrow the Government, it is expedient that the operation of the
provisions of this section should be wholly or partially suspended in
relation to any Act, then while the notification is in for,~e the
operation ortnose provisions shall be SUSpend.ed. accordiIlgly,
The functions of the Governor under this subsection shall be
exercised by him in his discretion.

Section 46:- Companies.

. Section 46:-(1) Subject to the following provisions of this
P~rt of this Act, a company incorporated, whether before or after
the passing of this Act, by or under the laws of the United King-

/'

202

dom, and the members of the governing body of any such company
and the holders of its shares, stock, debentures, debenture stock, or'
bonds, and its officers, agents, and servants shall be deemed to comply
with so, much of any Act of the Legislature as imposes in regard to
companies carrying on or proposing to carry on business in Burma
requirements or conditions rela.ting to or connected with(a) the place of incorporation of a company or the situation
of its registered office, or the currency in which its
capital or loan capital is expressed; or

(b) the place of birth, race, descent, language, religion, domicile, residence or duration of residence of members of the
governing body of a company, or of holders of its shares,
stock, debentures, debenture stock, or bonds, or of its
officers, agents or servants.
Provided that no company or person shall by virtue of this
subsection be deemed to comply with any such requirement or
condition a8 aforesaid if and so long as a like requirement or
condition is imposed by under the laws of the United Kingdom in
regard to companies incorporated by or . under the laws of Burma
and carrying on or proposing to carry on business in the United
Kingdom.

(2) If and in so far as any total or partial exemption from,

. or_1ITefe!'@tia1pr_~~t~enti_~ respect of, taxation imposed on companies hy or under any Act 6 th~ -Leg3slature depends -oioompfiance withconditions as to any of the matters mentioned in' the last
preceding subsection, any company incorporated by or under the laws
of the United Kingdom and carrying on business in Burma shall be
deemed to satisfy those conditions and be entitled to the exemption
or preferencial treatment accordingly, so long as the taxation
imposed by or under the laws of the United Kingdom on companies
incorporated by or under the laws of Burma and carrying on business
in the United Kingdom does not depend on compliance with conditionS as to any of the matters so mentioned.

203
(3) The provisions of the two last preceding subsections shall
apply in relation to companies incorporated by or under the laws of
British India as they apply in relation to companies incorporated
by or under the laws of the United Kingdom of references to
British India.

(4)

Sltbject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act,

a British subject domiciled in the United Kingdom shall be deemed
to comply with so much of any Act of, the Legis1ature as imposes
in regard to companies incorporated or proposed to be incorporated,
whether before or after the passing of this Act, by or under the
laws of Burma, any requirements or conditions relating to, or
connected with, the place of birth, race, descent, language, religion,
domicile, residence or duration of residence of members of the
governing body of the company or of holders of its shares, stock,
debentures, debenture stock or bonds, or of its officers, agents
or servants:
Provided that no person shall by virtue of this section be
deemed to comply with any such requirement or condition as
aforesaid if and so long as a like requirement or condition is imposed by or under the law of the United Kingdom in regard to
companies incorporated or proposed to be incorporated by or under
the laws of the United Kingdom on British' subject domiciled
in Burma.
(5) Tf and ihff6 far as, in the case 6f any Slicn companies
as are mentioned in the last preceding subsection, any total or
partial exemption, from preferential treatment in respect . of,
taxation imposed by or under any Act to the Legislature depends
on compliance with conditions as to any of the matters so mentioned,
then, as regards such of the members of its governing body and
such of the holders of its shares, stock, debentures, debenture stock
or bonds, and such orits officers, agents, or-servants as are British
subjects domiciled in the United Kingdom . any such company
shallbeqeemed to satisfy those conditionEf ~Ild . _be entitl~d
to - the
,

204
exemption,or perferential treatment accordingly, so long as the
taxation imposed by or under the laws of the United Kingdom on
companies incorporated by or under those laws does not, as regards
such of the members of a company's governing body, or such of
the holders of its shares, stock, debentures, debenture stock or
bonds, or such of its officers, agents, or servants, as are British
subjects domiciled in Burma, depend on compliance with conditions
as to any of the matters so mentioned.

(6) The provisions of the two last preceding subsections shall

apply in relation to British subjects domiciled in British India and
to subjects of any Indian State as they apply in relation to British
subjects domiciled in the United K!ngdom, with the substitution
for references to th~ United Kingdom ofrefer~nces to British India
or that Indian State, as the case may be.

Sec. 51 :-Professional and technical qualifjcations in general.

51 (1)

No Bill or amendment which prescribes or empowers

any authority to prescribe the professional or technical qualifications
which are to be requisite for any purpose in Burma shall be
introduced or moved in eithel' Ohamber of the Legislature without
the previous sanction of the Governor. in his discretion.

(2) The Governor shall not give his sanction for the purposes
of th~ preceding sub~secti()n-unTess-le is- satisfied liatthe proposed
legislation is so framed as to secure that no person who, immediately
before the coming into operation of any disability, liab Hity, restric. tion or condition to be imposed by or under that legislation, was
lawfully practising any profession, carrying on any occupation, trade
or business, or holding any office in Burma shall, except in so far as
may be necessary in. the interest of the public, be debarred from
continuiug to practise that profession, carrying on that occupation,
trade or business, or hold that office, or from doing anything in the
COlHse of that. profession occupation, trade or business, or in the

205
discharge of the duties of that office, which he could hiwfully have
done if that disability, . liability, restriction or conditioll had
not come into operation.
(3) All regulations Inade under the provisions of any Act of
the Legishture which prescribe the professional or technical
qualifications which are to be requisite for any purpose in Burma, or
impose by reference to any professional or technical qualification,
any disability, liability, restriction or condition in regard to the practising of any profession, the carrying on of any occupation, trade or
business, or the holding of any office in Burma shall, not less than four
months before they are expressed to come into operation, be publjshed in such manner as may be required by general or special directions
of the Governor, and if within two months from the date of the publication complaint is made to him that the regulations or any of them
will operate unfairly ltS against
any class of persons
affected thereby,
,
.
then, if he is of opinion that the complaint is well founded, he
may, at any time before the regulations are expressed to come
into operation, by public notification disallow the regulations
or any of them.
In this subsection the expreSSIon "regulations" includes rules,
bye-laws, ordeI's and ordinances.
In the discharge of his functions under this subsection the
Governor shall excercise his individual judgment.
.. __( 4)c__If_thB_Governoruflx.eerdsing_his_.indi Yidll_al~JldgBment_bJ1"
public notification directs that the provisions of the last preceding
subsection shall apply in relation to any existing Indian or Burman
law, those provisions shall apply in relation to that law accordingly.

Section 138:

Provisions. as to immigration from India.

138. His Majesty may by Order in Oouncildirect that, during

such period as may be specified in the Order, immigration into
Burma from India shall be subject to such restrictions as may have

206
been specified in the Order (being such restrictions as may have been
mutually agreed before the commencement .of this Act between the
Governor of Burma in Council and Governor-General of India in
Council and approved by the Secretary of State, or in default of
agreement as may have been prescribed by the Secretary of State)
and no other restrictions :
Provided that any such Order may be varied by a subsequent
Order in Council in such manner as appears to His Majesty necessary
to give effect to any agreement in that behalf made after the
commencement of this Act by the Governor with the Governor,.
General of India or the Governor-General of India in Council.
\

Section 157: .Orders in Council.

157. (1) Any power conferred by this Act on His ~!Iajesty in
Council shall be exercisable only by Order in Oouncil and subject as
hereinafter provided, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of any Order which it is proposed to recommend His
Majesty to make in Council under any provision of this Act, and no
further proceedings shall be taken in relation thereto except in
pursuance of an address presented to His Majesty by both House of
Parliament praying that the Order may be made either in the form
of draft, or with s11ch amendments as both I-Iouses of Parliament
may have agreed to recommend to His Majesty:
I

......... ~FIovidell.-~nat-;- if-at any time wn-en-fariiament-is-disso-lved--or

prorogued or when both Houses of Parliament are adjourned for
more than fourteen days, the Secretary of State is of opinion that
on account of urgency an Order in Council should be made under
this Act forthwith,
it shall not be necessary for a draft of the Order
,
to be laid before Parliament, but the Order shall cease to have effect
at the expiration of twenty eight days from the date on which the
Commons House first sits after the making of the Order unless
within that period resolutions approving the making of the Order
are passed by both Houses of Parliament.

(2) His :Majesty in Council may by a subsequent Order made

in accordance with the provisions of the preceding sub-section, revoke
or vary any Order previously made by him in Council under this Act
(3) Nothing in this section applies to 'any Order of His
Majesty in Council made in connection with any appeal to His
Majesty in Council, to any Order of His Majesty in Council
sanctioning taking of proceedings against a person who has been, the
Governor or the Secretary of State.

208
RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE INSTRUMENT OF INSTRUCTIONS

ISSUED TO THE GOVERNOR OF BURMA

Olause XIII. In the discharge of his special responsibility for
the prevention of measures which would subject goods of the United
Kingdom or Indian origin imported into Burma to discriminatory
or penal treatement, Our Governor shall avoid action which would
affect the competence of His Government and of the Legislature to
develop their own fiscal and economic policy, or would restrict their
freedom to negotiate trade agreements, whether with the United
Kingdom or India or with other countries for the securing of
mutual tariff concessions; and so far as concerns this special responsibilityhe should intervene ill tariffpolic:y or in the negotiation.
of t~iff agreements only if, in his opinion, the main intention of the ~
policy contemplated is, by trade restrictions, to injure the interests
of the United Kingdom or India rather than to further the economic
interests of Burma. A.nd We require and charge Our Governor
to regard the. discriminatory or penal treatment covered by this
speciil resp6~sibility as including both direct discrimination (whether
by means of differential tariff rates or by means of differential
restrictions on imports) and indirect discrimination by means of
differential treatment of various types of products; and Our Governor's special responsibility extends to preventing the imposition of
prohibitory tariffs or restrictions, if he is satisfied that such
ineasures -a-re--proposeEl-wi-t-li---t-he--af0fes-a-ifi-l-B-te-nti0B.--lt'-ls0-e*-tenQ~--
subject to the aforesaid intention, to measures which, though not
discriminatory or penal in from would be so in fact.
Our Governor shall, further more, bear always in mind the
partnership between Burma, India and the United Kingdom within
OUr Empire which has so long subsisted, and the mutual obligations
which arise therefrom.
Olause XX. Our Governor shall not, before he has consulted
Our Governor-General. of India, give his sanction to the introduction

r
h.

T
!

209

in either Chamber of the Legislature of any measure, which, in his

judgment, is likely to restrict the right of entry into Burma of
subjects of His Majesty domiciled in British India or of the subjects
of any Indian State; and it is Our desire that Our Governor of
Burma shall, as soon as may be found expedient, confer with Our
Governor-General of India with a view to the regulation of the
emigration from India and immigration into Burma of unskilled
Indian labour.

,.

'.

-,"':.

...........

Printed a.t
THE

ZENi'i'R PRINTING WORKS,

80, Medows Street, Fort, Bombay.

and Published by
SRI S. SATYAMURTI, M.L.A.

(Centr.al,.)

.Pl'esiclent, the fiidian Overseas Central Association,

.~

New Delhi.

~. '

..

. 1'!.