I have no idea how I came by this, or who the author is. However, I am grateful to the source and the author.
KENYA COLONY,
or, as it used to be called, British East Africa, is a tropical possession of
the British Empire situated right on the Equator. Topographically it may be
divided into three main sections. The northernmost of these, consisting largely
of desert and unproductive soil, may be ignored for the purposes of this
discussion; the value of the Colony both actual and prospective lies in the
south between the island of Mombassa on the Indian Ocean and the shores of Lake
Victoria Nyanza. The second main section consists of the actual sea coast
(including Mombassa) and its immediate hinterland. As we go westward from the
coast we pass through this low lying belt into the third section, which
gradually rises until it becomes a high tableland at an average elevation of
some 5,000 feet. It falls again to the shores of the great lake, though by no
means to sea level. Nairobi, the capital, is between 5,000 and 6,000 feet above
the sea.
Out of Kenya's total area of some
246,000 square miles this elevated tableland covers roughly about 50,000,
though it has never been accurately surveyed. Its existence is of the highest
importance to the present question, for it is only the "White
Highlands," as it has come to be called, that makes European colonization
at all possible. From this point of view the position is not unlike that in
India where what may be called the agricultural settlers, the tea and coffee
and rubber planters who alone own lands of any extent, are confined to the more
elevated slopes.
In the latter half of the nineteenth
century, chiefly owing to the enterprise of explorers, British trade began to
be attracted to East Africa, but no attempt was made at first either to
administer the country or to establish a colony. But when Germany put in an
appearance in the eighties it became necessary to define the respective spheres
of influence. Kenya Colony was allotted to the British. The island of Mombassa
together with a strip of the coast extending inland for ten miles remained
under the Sultan of Zanzibar, but in 1890 a British Protectorate was declared
there and the administration is now carried on in conformity with British
ideas. As happened in India, a trading company whose original object was only
profits was driven by the force of
circumstances to undertake the
administration of the country. The commercial enterprise however did not
prosper. The company found itself in difficulties and in 1895 reluctantly
surrendered its charter to the British Foreign Office. The colony remained
under Foreign Office control until 1908 when it was handed over to the Colonial
Office as being more naturally within that department's province. By the
Colonial Office it has been administered ever since, and Whitehall retains the
ultimate control. The Governor is the agent of the Colonial Office and in all
major matters must take his orders thence. He is assisted by executive and
legislative councils, but to all intents and purposes they are advisory bodies,
the former being the machinery for carrying out the Colonial Office policy and
the decisions of the latter being subject to the veto of the ultimate
authority.
The coming of Indians and other
Asiatics to Mombassa and the coast dates back several centuries. They came
purely as traders, very rarely penetrated into the interior and made no attempt
either to interfere with the indigenous systems of government or to undertake
the moral or the economic education of the African inhabitants. Indirectly,
however, they served a useful purpose, not only by bringing to the people the
simple commodities of which they stood in need but also by introducing to them
the methods of a higher civilization, though naturally enough they themselves
were not slow to take advantage of their superior intelligence to become rich
at the expense of the natives.
In 1896 the British Government began
to build the Uganda railway with a view to opening up the interior, and for
this purpose they imported large numbers of Indians, at first mainly unskilled
laborers, then, as the railway progressed, clerks, since the enormous cost put
European labor out of court and the African was thought to be too primitive to
undertake the work. The foreigner, both white and brown, began to penetrate
into the remoter parts, the white man to farm on the large scale, the brown to
carry on his traditional employment of money lending and petty trade, or, if he
were an artisan, to supply general needs when the railway was finished. The
lower ranks of the railway itself were, and still are, staffed by Indians. The
result of this expansion is that at the last census the European population
numbered 9,561; the Asiatic about 30,000, of whom 22,822 were Indians; while
the native Africans were estimated at from two and a half to three millions.
The Indians have shown a tendency to
date what they call their troubles from the assumption of responsibility by the
Colonial Office. This, however, was a mere coincidence. It happened to
synchronize with the extraordinary outburst of nationalist activity in India
which took place in 1907. It was also about this time that the Indian question
in South Africa came prominently into notice. A new spirit had arisen in India.
The Indian had begun to question the hitherto unquestioned superiority of the
white man and his claim to domination. The slogan of the extreme party was
self-government and as a corollary the political equality of the races, not
only in India but in overseas dominions where Indians were to be found.
The war gave a great impetus to this
movement and Indians could point with pride to their great contribution to the
Allied armies and to their great sacrifices for the Allied cause. There was,
however, another reason for this intensification of nationalist feeling.
British leaders were never weary of proclaiming the doctrines of
self-determination and the rights of the weaker nations. Indians, always quick
to seize upon western catchwords but slow to appreciate their practical
application, utilized these doctrines to the full. These considerations are
amply sufficient to account for the new-born grievances of the Indians in Kenya
without charging the Colonial Office with sins of partiality.
Thus the essence of the present
question is the Indian demand for political equality. The points in dispute are
in the main four:
1. The reservation of the Highlands
for Europeans.
2. Commercial and residential
segregation in towns.
3. The franchise.
4. The restriction of immigration.
In 1908 Lord Elgin, then Colonial
Secretary, decided that the Highlands must be reserved for European settlement
and entirely closed to Asiatics, who could find an outlet for their activities
in the lower regions which were unsuitable to Europeans. This decision was
affirmed by Lord Milner in a despatch dated May, 1920, and again by Winston
Churchill in a speech at an East African dinner in London in 1922.
Unfortunately the wording of Lord Elgin's despatch left room for argument. In
the course of it he said: "It is not consonant with the views of His
Majesty's Government to impose legal restrictions on any particular section of
the community, but as a matter of administrative convenience, grants should not
be made to Indians in the upland areas." The Indians, backed by the
Government of India, argue that the decision was confined to the original grant
and not to subsequent transfers. The point is perhaps arguable as a question of
verbal interpretation but there is little doubt that the intention was to bar
Asiatics absolutely. Lord Elgin can scarcely have meant to nullify his own
orders by admitting Asiatics to gradual, and perhaps ultimately to
preponderant, possession in the Highlands. At any rate, the European has given
the widest interpretation to the order and on the strength of it he has
established himself in the Highlands in full confidence that his children will
grow up in European traditions, uncontaminated by any Asiatic influence.
The underlying motive in the matter
of commercial and residential segregation was the same as in the reservation of
the Highlands for Europeans. The Indians in East Africa are not drawn from a
very high class. They are largely Mohammedan traders from Bombay, but there are
also a good many who come from lower strata as well as a certain number who
conform to European ideas of comfort and sanitation. It was long ago pointed
out that commercial segregation--the confinement of Indian houses of business
to their own quarter--was both impracticable and illogical, since European
houses also employ Indian clerks and deal with the native races. The stigma of
segregation thus fell only on the Indian heads of firms and in their case it
was uncalled for. Happily these arguments have prevailed and commercial
segregation is no longer pressed. As for residential segregation the Indian
argued that he does not ordinarily want to live cheek by jowl with the European
but that where he has adopted European customs he ought not to be compulsorily
relegated to the Indian quarter. He contended that for all practical purposes
drastic municipal laws and a stringent control of sanitation could achieve all
that was desired. This was of course no answer to the European settlers' fear
of Asiatic influence upon the growing generation, but the fear was after all
based upon a theory which is never likely to have much effect in practice. It
assumed that the Indian of the lower middle class is really anxious to intrude,
whereas it is more than probable that he would be extremely uncomfortable if he
tried to enter the European preserves.
The basic motive for the Indian
agitation on these two points is that they entail a stigma of inferiority. It
is impossible to overrate the extreme sensitiveness of the Indian in all
matters of dignity. He will contest a point of honor to a degree which the more
practical European mind considers irrational. Much of the misunderstanding is
indeed due to the western inability to appreciate this attitude of mind. It is
of no use to tell an Indian that such an ordinance will be a dead letter or
that it has only been enacted to guard against improbable contingencies. He is
conscious that its very existence brands him as an inferior. He may say that
his exclusion from the Highlands is a hindrance to his legitimate prosperity.
He has himself proclaimed that he is not anxious to invade the European
quarter. Actually, in both cases what he really resents is the racial disqualification.
Although Indians profess to regard
the question of the Highlands as crucial, it seemed for some time as though
these two points of dispute might be adjusted by compromise. The Indian, it was
hoped, might be persuaded to accept without loss of dignity the accomplished
fact of reservation. The European might waive the point of residential
segregation, trusting to the safeguards already mentioned. This, it will be
seen, was the solution adopted. But the problem lies much deeper and finds its practical
expression in the remaining two points of dispute.
Before proceeding to the details of
the franchise and immigration questions it will be convenient to set out
clearly the conflict of principle which has governed the whole controversy. In
1921 the Imperial Conference passed a Resolution which is so important that it
must be quoted in full:
The Conference, while reaffirming the
resolution of the Imperial Conference of 1918 that each community of the
British Commonwealth should enjoy complete control of the composition of its
own population by means of restriction of immigration from any of the other
communities, recognizes that there is an incongruity between the position of
India as an equal member of the British Empire and the existence of disabilities
upon Indians lawfully domiciled in some other parts of the Empire. The
Conference accordingly is of the opinion that in the interests of the
solidarity of the British Commonwealth it is desirable that the rights of such
Indians to citizenship should be recognized.[i]
The Indians not unnaturally regarded
this Resolution as a triumph for their fight for equality, for if the
"rights of Indians to citizenship" do not connote equality what is
the meaning of the phrase? That the mother country cannot interfere in the
concerns of the self-governing Dominions they are willing to admit, but they
point out that the question of Kenya is for the mother country herself and that
she is bound to honor her own signature. To the contention of the white
settlers that each community is entitled to "enjoy complete control of
immigration from any of the other communities" they reply that the handful
of white settlers in Kenya is not and cannot claim to be the arbiters of the
destinies of the whole colony. To the Indian therefore the question is of vital
importance. For if the principle of British citizenship, promised by the
Resolution, is not to be conceded to him there, what is to prevent all the
other Crown Colonies from following the example? And if they should do so, of what
practical value are those high sounding phrases such as "an equal member
of the British Empire" and "the rights to citizenship?"
Against this contention of the
Indians has to be set an opposing principle regarding the kind of government
that is best for the natives. It is quite probable that the implications of the
Resolution were not fully realized at the time of its adoption and that the
case of a colony inhabited by three distinct races, where the black population
outnumbered the brown and the white together by about fifteen to two, was not
appreciated. At any rate it became the main plank in the platform of the
Europeans in Kenya that the country must be governed primarily in the interests
of the African native, that it cannot be governed jointly by two differing
civilizations, and that therefore the Europeans to whom the Africans entrusted
their future and who by experience and tradition are obviously better fitted
for the task must continue to act alone. The Indian replies that he is a
necessary factor in the uplift of the Africans. He is brought into closer touch
with them, he has admittedly done useful work in this direction and will
continue to do it, and his simpler habits and the conditions of his own native
climate permit him to go where no European can venture.
The argument regarding the welfare of
the African native has been stressed by both sides, but to tell the truth it
savors of the ad captandum species. It is very doubtful whether either
side is quite sincere in its championship of the African cause, with the
exception of the missionaries who naturally favor their own creed and their own
civilization. It is impossible to resist the impression that the white settler
is using the African largely in order to fortify his claim to racial superiority
or that the Indian is really concerned only with political equality and with
profits. The real question at issue came to be this: Is a British colony to be
governed by white men who represent the mother country or is the responsibility
to be shared with the Indian who is recognized as an equal partner in the
Empire? The difference is sharply accentuated by the fact that India's own
position is anomalous. She is the only large Dominion within the British Empire
which possesses a high civilization and yet is not white. One feels
instinctively that if the Indian community in Kenya were Australian or
Canadian, no such difficulty as the present would ever have arisen.
Bearing these general considerations
in mind, we may now turn to the thorny question of the franchise. The
Legislative Council of Kenya originally consisted of eighteen officials, eleven
elected Europeans and two nominated Indians. The nomination of the last named
was changed to election after Lord Milner's despatch of 1920; but in 1921 there
was a reversion to nomination, the number simultaneously being increased to
four. This proceeding was, however, considered inadequate, and in 1923 the
program called from its authors the Wood-Winterton Scheme was put forward.
Though its text was never published,[ii] it included the following
proposals:
1. A common electoral roll so
arranged as to enfranchise about 10 per cent of the Indian population.
2. An arrangement of constituencies
which would give elected Europeans a majority of 7 to 4.
3. Some kind of municipal franchise
not defined.
4. No embargo on immigration.
5. The Highlands to be left to the
Europeans and the principle of segregation to be abandoned.
The Europeans instantly took fire.
They held indignation meetings and passed a violent resolution which though
couched in carefully chosen language did not conceal their resolve to resort if
need be to armed force to resist the proposals--a move which showed how far
they were actuated by zeal for the African native, since it can hardly be
supposed that altruism would call forth the extreme of armed rebellion in its
support. The impelling motive was fear for the future. A proposal which
maintained the official majority and which guaranteed a further majority of
European representatives might be satisfactory enough, but it was coupled with
unrestricted immigration and with a common electoral register. Rightly or
wrongly the white man foresaw a large influx of Indians, a fair proportion of
whom would come upon the electoral register. Rightly or wrongly they feared
that the Asiatics would through the preponderance of numbers alone tend to
dominate state policy, if not through their representatives at least through
the electorate to whom white candidates as well as brown must appeal. And there
was another fear lurking behind. They had seen concessions made to agitation in
Ireland and in India. What guarantee was there that further concessions would
not be made to Indian demands in East Africa and that some day the white
majority would not be put on terms of equality with the brown or even turned
into a minority?
The Indians were at first inclined to
accept the proposals which, indeed, went a considerable way towards meeting
their demands except in the matter of the Highlands, but the violence of the
settlers stiffened their attitude and induced them to take their stand upon the
original claim of equality in all respects. Feeling ran very high. The white
settlers produced charges of cowardice in the war and worse; the Indians
indulged in wild language of meeting force with force; and the only result of
these irrelevancies was to engender further heat. It was at this crisis that
the Government resolved to invite both parties to a conference in the calmer
atmosphere of Downing Street.
Now although the welfare of the
African may have been put into the discussion by both parties from motives not
entirely altruistic, it evidently must be consideration of paramount importance
to the Colonial Office. To them the interests of brown and white are and have
to be subordinate to the interests of the native inhabitants. The idea was
comparatively new but, new or not, it had been fully recognized that the
primitive peoples were not to be simply regarded either as potential labor or
as potential prey for the foreigner. But behind the details of the dispute,
behind the arguments of the disputants, behind even the welfare of the African,
there loomed up the ever insistent question as to whether the British can
consent to share the control of a Crown Colony with any other race, and
especially with an Asiatic race which, far from governing other peoples, has
not yet given proof of ability to govern itself.
These questions have now been answered
by the Colonial Office in the manner that was to be expected. The Government,
they say, "regard themselves as exercising a trust on behalf of the
African population and they are unable to delegate or share this trust. . . .
It is the mission of Great Britain to work continuously for the training and
education of the Africans towards a higher intellectual, moral and economic
level." It is therefore in their opinion essential that this duty of
trusteeship shall be carried out by the Secretary of State and the agents of
the Imperial Government "and by them alone." These words are very
significant. They establish an important principle in the government of Crown
Colonies, wherever Indians or other non-indigenous peoples are to be found.
They indicate clearly the intention of the British Government to retain control
in all such Colonies. And they go further than this. For they distinctly imply
that now and for a long time to come there shall be no advance towards the
ideal of democratic self-government by a handful of Europeans, which the white
settlers of Kenya had so ardently desired. The government of a Crown Colony
must henceforth be carried on in the paramount interests of the native
inhabitants, and it is assumed that no one is so well fitted to judge of these
interests as the Imperial Government and its local agents.
The decision of the Colonial Office
represents an honest attempt to reconcile the two opposing principles
aforesaid. The details of the settlement may be summarized thus:
1. A communal franchise; five elected
Indians and eleven Europeans. The official majority in the Councils to be
maintained.
2. Immigration to remain under
present regulations but the question to be reëxamined from the standpoint of
the economic interests of the African native.
3. Reservation of the Highlands for
Europeans.
4. Abandonment of segregation of any
kind.
Thus an attempt was made to meet the
claims of Indians by enlarging the number of representatives and by
reintroducing the principle of election, at the same time retaining the
ultimate control of all general questions in the hands of Europeans. Franchise
by community instead of a common register was meant further to safeguard a
European policy in native interests, but the result of the settlement was to
concede to Indians much less than they had demanded.
Looking back, we can now see that two
cardinal mistakes were made in the past. It probably could not have been
foreseen that the importation of Indians to build and eventually to work the
Uganda railway would have the effect of bringing about a crisis. But the grant
of a franchise of any kind to a fraction of the population in a young Colony
argued an unimaginative statesmanship. It indicated an inability to see that
democracy is conditioned by circumstances and that to introduce democratic
institutions into such a Colony as Kenya is to make a mockery of the principle.
It aroused in the minds of the settlers quite exaggerated hopes for the future.
On the other hand it never occurred to any one that the time was coming when
India would insist on taking her stand along side of the other Dominions,
though as the franchise was only introduced in 1920 the repercussions from
India might have been anticipated.
The settlement has had the usual fate
of compromises. It has not satisfied either party. The Europeans have accepted
it as a working hypothesis but with a note of sullen resignation. They are
disappointed because it puts off to an indefinite date, if not altogether,
their cherished ideal of self-government and they regard with some suspicion
the abandonment of segregation. They recognize, however, that the decision of
the Cabinet is final and accept it in the Anglo-Saxon spirit of respect for
authority. The Indians in the Colony have as yet given no sign; much will depend
on the establishment of good relations between the races on the spot.
But in India a storm arose on the
heels of the settlement. Its terms were denounced in unmeasured terms by all
shades of native opinion. The Legislative Assembly talked of retaliation; the
National Congress threatened a boycott of British goods. Protest meetings were
held in Bombay and elsewhere. The decision was considered "utterly
subversive of the principles of equality within the British Commonwealth."
It established "the dangerous and intolerable principle of white
domination." Last, and most important of all, India was called upon to
withdraw from the British Empire Exhibition now being organized and the Indian
delegates to the Imperial Conference were urged to raise the question there and
to withdraw if they should fail to obtain redress. Except on the point of
segregation India thinks herself flouted, for any change in the regulations
which govern immigration must, she considers, react unfavorably upon Indians
alone since it is they and not white men who fill the walks of life to which
the African can aspire, and they contrast any restriction upon their freedom of
action with the unfettered immigration into the neighboring mandated territory
of Tanganyika.[iii] There is no longer any talk of the African.
Indignation is reserved for what is called the betrayal of legitimate Indian
aspirations.
As this article is being finished the
Imperial Conference (South Africa again dissenting) has resolved to accept the
proposal of the Indian delegation to set up commissions in each Dominion to
inquire how far the Resolution of 1921 has been carried out and how its
application can be extended. The question of Kenya is not to be reopened
immediately, but as the Colonial Office is a party to the new decision Kenya
will not be excluded from the scope of the Conference on Crown Colonies. Thus
the immediate danger of any dramatic action by India seems for the moment to
have passed, but the substantive question of Indian status overseas remains
unsolved and the Kenya question may again become acute.
[i]South Africa
refused to accept this.
[ii]Not in
extenso. A summary is given in the British White Paper of July 23, 1923.
[iii]The League's
mandates secure equal rights of immigration to the nationals of all member
states, and India is of course a member.
Comments