CO885-(20-21) — Page 531

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TLC.O.885

21 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

196

Besides

immigrants, might have their weight included in the personal description. receiving rations for the first year they might advantageously be weighed at least once a fortnight and examined by the Medical Officer at least once a month.

The muster required by Section 232 seems inadequate, and what is needed is not a report as prescribed by that section. Of course, men whose weight was falling off should be seen oftener. The Medical Officer should have authority to order additional diet in the form of cooked or uncooked food to any first-year man, the ration charge remaining as at present. It is undesirable and not economical to wait until a man is totally incapacitated for work before symptoms of weakness are recognised and dealt with effectually. Both in the efficiency and the gratitude of the immigrants the extra outlay will be repaid. It is not easy to see how weakness and malingering can be satisfactorily distinguished if medical supervision is practically limited to short bi-weekly visits which are mainly, and often solely, occupied with the treatment of in-patients. The fact that the immigrants have to be broken in to new food and new work under new conditions seems on most estates to be theoreti- cally, but not practically, recognised. We think that nineteen out of twenty estates managers are willing and even anxious to undertake effective measures to improve the health of immigrants, but the systematic medical supervision of individuals during acclimatisation is apparently wanting. Men doing field work in convict gangs in India are weighed weekly and a very slight reduction in weight results in a special diet. Probably the weekly weighment of first-year immigrants could be carried out on all estates and the weight book shown to the medical officer on his next visit. We think that the regulation of the treatment of new arrivals might be effected by Rules under the Ordinance. We have noticed that the practice varies as regards the medical treatment of free immigrants on estates. On some estates the free immigrant who works on the estate has the same privileges as the indentured immigrant. On others it is not customary to admit free immigrants to the estate hospitals. We think it would be premature to suggest that medical treatment of the free immigrants be enforced under a special provision of law, but we strongly recommend that the Immi- gration Department use all its influence to secure admission of free immigrants in all estate hospitals and that Government instruct Government Medical Officers to treat all free immigrants admitted to estate hospitals. While making suggestions for the amendment of the Ordinance, we shall put forward our views regarding other powers and duties of Medical Officers.

6. The supervision of immigrants by the Immigration Department would, we think, more effectively check discontent if the Inspectors saw the men more often in the field. By listening to complaints, often frivolous, or to requests which are obviously unreasonable, the Inspectors need not, and should not, cause any weakening of the discipline of an estate. If, occasionally, a real grievance is detected much good will be done. Immigrants have frequently referred to their period of indenture as time spent on "Sarkari Kam" or Government work. To their minds it is obvious that the Government that uses its power to exact work from them should actively and directly supervise their work and the treatment to which they are subjected. If a responsible officer of Government listens to them, and goes out of his way to find out what is troubling them, they will learn to rely on him and not on external agencies or on tumultuous violence for the redress of their grievances. Any other system is likely to irritate them and send them elsewhere for support and sympathy.

7. While the records show that many immigrants bring complaints to the Protector or to the Inspectors, it seems desirable to add to the formal facilities for making complaints. An immigrant may reside a long way from an Inspector's Office, and if he trusts to luck to finding the Inspector at his Office on any day he may well find that the Inspector is twenty miles away in another direction. While permitting immigrants to come on any day it would be well to fix one day a week when a petitioner would be certain of finding the Inspector at his Office, and of being given a personal bearing. When complaints are recorded by clerks in the absence of a responsible officer, immigrants will, as in India, remain dissatisfied. For obvious reasons Monday would seem to be a convenient day.

8. We inquired if Inspectors formally tested tasks on immigrant complaints, and we understood that it was not customary to carry out formal tests unless on the very rare occasions when a Magistrate invited the help of the Department in proceedings under Chapter VIII. Both the Officers of the Department and estate managers generally deprecated any change. Their view may be sound, but the procedure is contrary to what would be accepted in India as advisable. It seems to take too much account of managers' susceptibilities and too little account of the

or

197

risk of discrediting the Immigrant Department in the eyes of the immigrants. Managers do not personally fix all tasks. Probably all are not equally ready to inquire into complaints of excessive tasks. We do not think that tasks are, as a rule, unfair, but an occasional wilful or negligent mistake on the part of an overseer "driver" will cause ill-feeling and enduring distrust. We have seen one such case on an estate with a poor record of health, a substantial number of desertions, and an unsatisfactory earnings list. It would stop complaints about tasks, and also stimulate care in fixing tasks if Inspectors subjected them to a time test occasionally. This would knock the bottom out of much groundless, and some real, discontent, and would enhance the immigrants' confidence in the Immigration Department. It may be noted that while we think tasks are usually fixed with care, the task unit is seldom exceeded. More than one manager has admitted to us that the immigrant, owing to his predecessors' experience, is afraid to do more than the task. That is, six able- bodied men do the work which five, or perhaps four, might do. If Inspectors had from time to time during the last ten or twenty years carried out time tests on com- plaint, it is not] improbable that more satisfactory results would have followed. We think also that specific instructions should be issued to Inspectors to test the quantity and quality of rations issued to first-year immigrants, and to time their visits to estates for that purpose. To the Inspector's duties we suggest a very important addition, viz., that of giving previous sanction to all complaints to Magistrates except in cases of desertion. The number of prosecutions has been for many years the subject of criticism. They have decreased slightly in recent years, but are still too numerous. Forty years ago, when the cases represented 8 instead of 25 per cent. of the indentured population, the Government of India regarded the figures as of" sinister significance." The tabulated records do not now show on what estates cases have been specially numerous. We chanced on one with a record of nearly 90 per cent. of cases to indentured population. As there are many estates with admirably low records there must be many others with excessively high records. The managers of these latter estates should no longer be uncontrolled in the matter of criminal cutions, and in this respect the immigrants are, in our opinion, entitled to direct prose- protèction. As matters stand the Immigration Department annually accepts responsibility for acts which it neither controls nor approves. Furthermore, the Government of India has already declared in favour of the proposal to refer in the agreement to the penal provisions for breach of the contract. The fact that the employer may not institute proceedings for breaches (other than desertion) unless he obtains the previous sanction of an officer appointed to protect the immigrants' interests will be reassuring to the timorous. As regards the qualifications of Inspectors, we think that a thorough colloquial knowledge of Hindustani is essential, and that ability to read the language should be required before final confirmation in an Inspector's appointment.

9. As regards desertion, we think that prosecutions should not require previous sanction, although, of course, the causes underlying numerous desertions on an estate should be made the subject of careful inquiry. In our experience desertions usually coincided with a high rate of sickness, but our information was too incomplete to justify a confident generalisation. At the same time we think that the usual explana- tion, ie., the contumacious spirit and indolence of a particular ship-load of immi- grants, can be accepted as entirely satisfactory only if the influence of sickness on wage-earning capacity and on submission to discipline is regarded as unworthy of consideration. While managers might prosecute for desertion without previous sanction, they should not, we think, be compelled to prosecute, as at present. The object in view in rendering prosecution for desertion compulsory can be obtained equally well, possibly better, by requiring the employer to report desertion immedi- ately (not after a fortnight) to the Protector and to the local Inspector, and at the same time to offer a reward of one dollar for information leading to the offender's apprehension. Apparently, deserters are rarely discovered and arrested by the police. Estate bailiffs and persons authorised by the Protector will doubtless be as anxious to earn a reward as to execute a Magisterial warrant. We have been repeatedly assured by managers that in many cases they would have preferred to give an appre- hended deserter another chance before putting him in Court, and some have told us that they took the risk of breaking the existing law compelling them to apply for a warrant. It would be better not to take a man to Court merely to have him repri- manded. This will not in itself strengthen estate disciplinary authority, and it should be remembered that the immigrant's self-respect, if he has any, is lowered by the magisterial reproof.

33391

0 2