CO885-11 — Page 544

533

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

wwmil

PELLIC.O.882/11

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

| PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON]

138

did not deprive the holder of rights previously held by him under a Ceylon Ordinance, but only deprived him of any right to appeal to the Government of India for its protection.

We recognize from your recent telegram that it is desirable to get the franchise provisions of the new Order in Council settled as soon as possible, and I hope that the draft of the Order in Council will go to you by next week's mail. You will, no doubt, let us know as soon as possible whether, in your opinion, it is necessary to delay the matter further in order to attempt to meet the objections of the Government of India.

Yours, &c.,

C. 73230/30 [No. 3].

No. 83.

H. R. COWELL.

THE VICEROY to THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA.

(Dated 20th January, 1930.)

TELEGRAM.

(Copy received in Colonial Office, 31st January, 1930.)

(Confidential.)

41-C.

PRIVATE and Personal.

My Private and Personal telegram of the 13th instant. Ceylon franchise. Matter has been complicated by the reasons assigned by the Governor of Ceylon for his proposals. These are (1) desire of Ceylonese leaders to restrict the size of the Indian electorate so as to avoid potential menace to local predominance of Ceylonese votes (Drummond Shiels also lays stress on this); (2) emergence of Indian questions like those that have arisen in certain parts of Africa.

Public opinion in India is disposed to resent the Governor's proposals as coloured by his African experience and aimed directly against Indians. They were strongly criticised by the President of the National Liberal Federation in Madras, and will probably come in for similar comment in the Assembly if the Resolution of which one Member has given notice finds place in the ballot. We have, therefore, in examining the proposals, felt the necessity of having due regard to the impression which they have already created in India. In the observations that follow, I have dealt with the relevant arguments in the Governor's despatch of 2nd June, 1929, as well as Drummond Shiels' comments communicated in your telegrain 2867 [? 3867] of 11th December.*

2. To Indian attitude as regards (1) there is, I am afraid, little by way of con- vincing argument that we can at present oppose. Governor's allusion to Africa has not made the task easier. Obvious objection to play of menace of Indian domination is that no facts have been adduced to prove that the menace exists. Commission estimated total number of the electors on basis of their recommendations at 1,850,000 and total number of Indian immigrant labourers at 700,000; 40 to 50 per cent. of latter they regard as permanent residents. These would get vote even on Governor's proposals. Even if all the rest got votes by adoption of the Commission's proposals, Indian voters would be in a clear minority. But it is hardly likely that all of them would be able to prove five years' continuous residence. Indian opinion can there- fore reasonably ask for demonstration by enquiry of the assumptions (a) that on the basis of the present Indian population, legitimate Ceylonese interests would suffer by the adoption of the Commission's proposals; (b) that the tendency of the Indian immigrant population was to increase at rate to make the danger referred to in (a) possibility of future that needs now be taken into account.

3. Governor's proposals are also supported by arguments:-

(a) that Indian vote would upset inter-communal balance of Ceylonese voting strength presumably between Ceylon Tamils and Sinhalese, and

(b) that a large number of such votes may be at the disposal of high caste personages from India (see paragraphs 31 and 32 of despatch). We do not think there is anything fundamentally objectionable in (a). Indian labourers will doubtless support candidate who sympathises with them most. If Sinhalese fulfils this condition, he will have their vote: if he does not, he cannot blame them for supporting someone who does. (b), to which Shiels also refers, appears to us to be an exaggeration. India seems to offer sufficient scope for the political ambition of Indians at present. Future

* No. 78.

139

constitutional developments are more likely to enlarge than to reduce it. Our former Agent in Ceylon estimated that, even on basis of the Commission's proposals, Indian voters would not be able to return more than 5 or 6 members of their own race to Council with unofficial membership of 65. The prospect is hardly calculated to promote an invasion of Ceylon by political adventurers from India.

4. Shiels' arguments not already dealt with are, first, that net result of Governor's proposals will be to enfranchise a very large number of labourers; second, that declaration of domicile is merely declaration of intentions and could be signed quite honestly by many who make periodical trips to India, and, third, that declaration of relinquishment of the Government of India's protection and special privileges is of academic importance only.

Public in India would regard the first as a mere argument of expediency. Their view would be that if Ceylon Indians can legitimately expect more, there is no reason why they should be content with less than their due. We cannot regard this as un- reasonable. For reasons stated in our official telegram 29th November, 1920, we cannot agree with his second argument. As regards the third we are informed that in the course of recent reforms debate in Ceylon Council, Colonial Secretary stated that it was the Governor's intention, when he wrote his despatch, that right to minimum wage, free medical aid, &c., were amongst the privileges which would have to be renounced. Renunciation of special privileges may therefore be reverse of academic. Renunciation of our protection, if it were general, would not distress us if we were sure that new arrangement would provide effective substitute for our solicitude. Of this there does not seem to be much prospect at present. Until the Indian labourer in Ceylon can use his vote effectively to influence policy, continuance of our protective rôle will be necessary and will be insisted upon by non-official opinion in India. If real aim of the Ceylon Government is to make Indians in Ceylon look solely to them as protectors, enlargement of Indian electorate is more likely to achieve this end than restriction of it. For we shall voluntarily cease to play part of protector the moment we are convinced that its necessity has disappeared.

5. These are our provisional views. Official communication of the final views will follow as soon as we have consulted the Standing Emigration Committee which we hope to convene early next month. Meanwhile I hope you may be able to advise the Colonial Office to reconsider the question of adopting the residential qualification suggested by the Donoughmore Commission as one of the bases of franchise, and to set up Committee for eliciting recommendations as to how the five years' continuous residence should be proved, and documentary evidence of such residence be made available to those who prove it. Unless new and convincing arguments can be adduced in support of the Governor's proposals, this is the course which the Standing Emigration Committee is likely to advise. As the Committee know that the Legislature can in the last resort move for discontinuance of further emigration to Ceylon in order to press home its demand, its probable attitude can be confidently foretold.

C. 73230/30 [No. 5].

No. 84.

THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Received 5.20 p.m., 31st January, 1930.)

TELEGRAM.

[Answered by No. 85.]

CONFIDENTIAL. 31st January. Your telegram 28th January.*

Franchise.

I

If

regret that the precise meaning of your second alternative is not clear to me. intention is that no persons other than those possessing Ceylon domicile of origin will be considered as domiciled for purpose of franchise, I would point out that this will be far less favourable than my proposal and can hardly fail to arouse storm of protest in India. The objection to your first alternative is also avoided by my proposal. I fear that my proposal may not have been clearly understood and therefore restate it. I suggest that the following persons should be entitled to vote (a) Those possessing all qualifications laid down in the present Order in Council; (b) those persons who are domiciled in Ceylon and possess other qualifications enumerated in the second sentence of paragraph 35 of my despatch, subject to the proviso, except in the cases

* No. 81.