CO885-11 — Page 552

546

C. 73230/10/80 [No. 16].

154

No. 104.

MR. I. X. PEREIRA (CEYLON INDIAN ASSOCIATION) to LORD PASSFIELD,

MY LORD,

[Answered by No. 110.]

The net

85, Gracechurch Street, E.C.3, 2nd June, 1930. AFTER ny interview with your Lordship on Friday last, I very carefully went over the various points of our conversation, and I understood you to say that it was proposed to avoid the two declarations as well as the certificates, and that it was pro- posed to stand upon a literacy-income qualification and the domicile test. effect of these proposals would be that while every Sinhalese adult could, upon applica- tion to have his name entered upon the voters' roll, secure enfranchisement, only a few indians not born in the island could become voters even though they might have heen resident for decades. Most of the Indian population are illiterate and, therefore, on this ground will not be entitled to be registered as voters, and as domicile is an extremely technical and legal question and the onus would fall upon an applicant to show that he was domiciled in Ceylon, the probability is that very few Indians would be enrolled as voters under the domicile qualification if they were not in fact born in the island.

I may also remind your Lordship that during my interview with Dr. Drummond Shiels on the 21st ultimo, he gave me an assurance that the fee of one rupee for each certificate would not be insisted upon. I certainly think that we ought to urge that the requirement involving a fee should be abolished altogether. These voters are in many cases poor people who cannot afford a tax such as even a small fee would represent. There is another point to which I would ask your Lordship's careful attention. In the matter of the literacy test, the English, Singalese, and Tamil are the only In the opinion of the Indian community the test languages officially recognized. should be applied in the intending voter's mother tongue which, in many cases, is I may point out to your Lordship that the Malayalam, Telugu, Guzarati or Urdu. Donoughmore Commissioners themselves have recognized the desirability of this extension.

In India, the great object of the Government is avowedly to protect and safeguard the just rights of the minority communities. Exactly the opposite principle would ippear to be the purpose of the Government in Ceylon. For this reason only my compatriots look to His Majesty's Government for help and protection. Under the proposals adumbrated in your remarks to me on Friday last, my countrymen would be placed in a position of inferiority relatively to the Sinhalese majority entirely dis- proportionate to their numbers, their economic importance and the services they have rendered to the island. My countrymen have never asked to be placed in any position of advantage over the Sinhalese population in respect to the franchise. Nor ought they to be placed in any position of disadvantage. The adult franchise gives no advantage to any community in a mixed electorate, and that is all my countrymen ask

I have, &c.,

J. X. PEREIRA.

155

As you are aware, the proposals for the franchise contained in your despatch of the 2nd June, 1929,* excited considerable apprehension in India, and representations were received from the Government of India protesting against any modification of the proposals for the franchise which had been submitted by the Special Commission on the Constitution. These protests appear to have been based to some extent on a misapprehension of your proposals and of the feeling in Ceylon from which they originated. His Majesty's Government have, however, thought it right to take the whole question into careful consideration. They would not feel justified in agreeing to any substantial modification of proposals which formed an essential part of the schemes of constitutional reform accepted by the Legislative Council of Ceylon. These proposals do not seem to His Majesty's Government to involve any racial discrimination against Indians, whereas some of the Indian protests amount in effect to a claim to a position of privilege rather than of equality.

With a view, however, to removing any avoidable cause of misunderstanding, His Majesty's Government have thought it desirable to make certain modifications in the form in which the relevant provisions are to be expressed. They have decided accordingly to omit from the Order in Council the requirement of explicit renunciation by an applicant for a certificate of permanent settlement of any claim to special protection by any Government other than that of Ceylon. The inclusion of this require- ment would serve no practical purpose, since in fact no Indian with the necessary five years' residence in Ceylon would be entitled to claim the special protection in question; and as it has given rise to much misunderstanding, the balance of advantage lies in its omission. Further, while it was proposed in your despatch under reference that the applicant for a certificate should renounce also his claim to any statutory. rights, privileges, or exemptions to which residents of all races and communities are not entitled, His Majesty's Government have adopted the alternative method of provid- ing in the Order in Council that the holder of a certificate while registered as a voter shall not be entitled to claim any rights, privileges, or exemptions which, under the law of Ceylon, are not common to all British subjects resident in the Island. This while equivalent in effect will remove the necessity for a formal act of renunciation by cach individual applicant.

His Majesty's Government wish to make it clear that there is no intention of repealing or amending to the detriment of Indians any of the laws of Ceylon affecting their position or privileges; nor of abrogating or lessening the powers and functions of the Agent of the Government of India or of the Controller of Immigrant Labour. It follows from paragraph 14 of my despatch of 10th October* that any Bill diminish- ing or abrogating any of the existing conditions or privileges of Indian immigrants would fall in the category of those to which the Governor could not assent unless he had previously obtained the instructions of the Secretary of State thereon or unless I have been asked to give assurance that holder it contained a suspending clause.

of certificate of permanent settlement who has declared intention of settling in Ceylon shall not be subjected to any penalty other than forfeiture of franchise if he pays a visit to India which he intends in good faith to be of short duration but which extends beyond the prescribed limit. His Majesty's Government agree that this assurance can properly be given, but they are not prepared to extend beyond twelve months the period of absence from the Island permissible without cancellation of the certificate.--Passfield.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

EPERNIC.O.882/11

||--------

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

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

C. 73230/30 [No. 52].

No. 105.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE OFFICER ADMINISTERING THE

GOVERNMENT.

(Sent 2.35 p.m., 10th June, 1930.) TELEGRAM.

Nr. 50. In view of urgent necessity of early preparation of register of voters in anticipation of introduction of constitutional reforms, it has been decided to issue preliminary Order in Council making provision for first delimitation of electoral districts and first registration of voters. It is intended that this Order should be repealed and necessary provisions re-enacted in subsequent Order dealing with structure and opera- tion of new constitution.

C. 73230/30 (No. 53].

No. 106.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE OFFICER ADMINISTERING THE GOVERNMENT.

(Sent 3.30 p.m., 10th June, 1930.)

TELEGRAM.

[Answered by No. 107.]

No. 51. Confidential. Your despatch of 16th April, Confidential (2).† My open telegram of even date on subject of franchise Order in Council is intended for publication unless you see objection. Subject-matter has been fully discussed with Stanley, who thinks that changes made are not such as could reasonably be open to

*Cmd. No. 3419.

+ C. 73230/30 [No. 45A]: not printed.

¡No. 108.