8
as the total were twelve or eleven elected members and four Indians. This alternative (b) would not prejudice the position of the Europeans, and might be more acceptable to the Indians. The Government of Kenya to examine and report upon the possibility of giving effect to alternative (b), but the reply to the telegram not to be delayed for that purpose.
(IV) Municipal Franchise.-Agreed that in municipalities Indians must be given adequate representation on an elective basis where such basis already existed for Europeans, but detailed arrangements could not be decided upon until the receipt of a despatch on the subject expected from the Governor.
(V) Executive Council.-Provision already existed in the Constitution for such persons to serve as unofficial members of the Executive Council as the Governor might appoint from time to time. There was now one unofficial Indian member of the Executive Council under this provision, and it should be understood that this arrangement would continue. No distinction to be made between Europeans and Indians in deciding on the fitness of individuals to be members of the Executive Council.
or
(VI) Segregation. No segregation, either commercial residential, on racial lines, but the Colonial Government or municipal authorities to have power to impose at their discretion sanitary, police and building regulations, subject to these regula- tions containing no racial discrimination as such.
(VII) Immigration. It would be announced that in present circumstances no change was contemplated in the existing regulations.
Note.-The Secretary of State added a note on this subject as follows:-
Throughout discussions with India Office, I have made it plain that my view is unchanged as to immigration control, and that if the danger ever arises of a large influx of Indians I hold myself entirely free to take action which may be necessary. In view of the figures which you have supplied as to the influx and efflux of Indians in 1921-22, I have not felt it necessary to insist on any alteration of the law at present."
(VIII) Highlands.-The following to be the terms of the
announcement:—
'The Colonial Office cannot contemplate any change in the existing law and practice, having regard to past policy and commitments. The India Office take note of this view, but are unable to accept it, and reserve the right to reopen the question, if need be, at some future date.” 15. The Government of India were willing to accept the scheme, although they did not consider that it fully met the claims put forward on behalf of the Indians. The Government of Kenya rejected the
scheme mainly on the ground that it gave no sufficient safeguard to the European community against Indian predominance in the future.
16. No immediate progress was possible for various reasons, but, with the change of Government in October, 1922, discussions were resumed between the Secretary of State for India and the new Secretary of State for the Colonies. The desirability of arriving at an agreed settlement was impressed upon the Governor, but his discussions with the leaders of the European community in Kenya led to nothing, The fears of the Europeans were rendered the more acute by demands put forward by Indian political leaders in Kenya and elsewhere, who were understood to state that they only accepted the Wood- Winterton proposals as a basis for further demands, and that nothing short of the full equality of Indians and Europeans would be satisfactory. The Europeans, seeing themselves outnumbered by Indians already by more than two to one, and fearing a further large influx of Indians, regarded such a claim as establishing Indian domination on the unofficial side of the Council and as depriving the Europeans sooner or later of all representation on the Council.
It became obvious that the policy proposed in the Wood-Winterton report would not satisfy parties in Kenya. It was therefore arranged that a European and an Indian delegation should come to this country from Kenya, together with the Governor, for further discussion. The European delegation was accompanied by the Reverend Dr. J. W. Arthur, selected to represent the views of the Missionaries in Kenya on the native interests involved in the controversy. A delegation, consisting of three Indian political leaders, headed by the Right Honourable Srinivasa Sastri, also came from India to represent the interest felt by Indian public opinion in this question. The delegations arrived in the course of April and May 1923. Every opportunity has been taken of gathering the opinions of the several parties interested, and the question has now been reviewed in all its bearings. As a result of this re-examination of the position, His Majesty's Government have arrived at certain conclusions, which are set forth in the following part of this memorandum.
1. General Statement of Policy.
PART II.
The general policy underlying any decision that may be taken on the questions at issue must first be determined. It is a matter for satisfaction that, however irreconcilable the views of the European and Indian communities in Kenya on many points may be, there is one point on which both are agreed, namely, the importance of safeguarding the interests of the African natives. The African popu- lation of Kenya is estimated at more than 23 millions; and according to the census of 1921, the total numbers of Europeans, Indians and
215