Title

Author(s)

Citation

Issued Date

URL

Rights

Indians in Malaya, 1900-1945

Khan, Latiffa. Khan, L.. (1963). Indians in Malaya, 1900-1945. (Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b3194605 1963

http://hdl.handle.net/10722/28355

The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent rights) and the right to use in future works.

Ir

TY

:i flflO-l95

A Therir,

Irrrnte

to tII(

uL

of

Uvr-tty rf lTonr Kong for the

Der're of Mtr of Art3

by

Latifa Khan March 1963

rtr

'î:

-trinr po;rt j? my i;n:in: o1 the rmbjcct

oL t'ir resirrh emnat tl'e topic of t

frnni

rrt1ization tl,at

Indiais in te ri]ural society of

X4aJaya ;L:E been little explorPJ, in cont-act to

the wcnith of mtteriaù wliicb apearer in the lt dccad

concerninc the Chi'iOe coriiunty. ThE? object

of this work is an atteript to fJfl the 1aCuni which Prv('1oDe$ the Indian community, co

Rbout

to brinC

beHer iertaning of the racial proUemr

ol' Malaya.

The historical, social, political and cultural aspects of the Indian community in Malaye

are so wide that it has been found convenient to concentrate on the barest essentials4 I have tried

to trace the period when the Indian labourer left his own village in India and found himself in Malaya1 paying attention to the characteristica,

magnitude and pattern of Thdian immigration to a

new lana. The Ji,fe an we1aDe o

the Irxians as

sell as their role in the development of the country

are also dealt with. This study c1e31s min1 bh

iorio

Lth

1900 to :L9+5. Thc bepjnnjni- of the

teïtieth

tury saw a c.hane ii the

oionic

cUmate of Ia1ya when rubber first carne npo

th

scene. Herce increased ipirnipration or Inrtn

1bourer& into the country started. The period

rftor 195 nitrked the rai growth of individualism and tndeponcence aion' the younger

eneration i-n

tue !nan corimunity: the transition front oid ri1itive ways of lii's to nodern times. Ny period of roseareli in Hong Kong,

Sinpapore and Malaya was made posrible mainly by

the ceneous asiotance of the iotary Club of Honir

Above all, I am deeply indebted to my

sipexvisor, Professor B. Harrison, the Head of the Hiritory

epaxtment, University of Hone Kong,

for his valuable suggestions and constructive criticizm. My thauks are also due to Mr. u.N. Jackson, the Teputy Registrar of the University of Hong Kong,

whose help was of immense

a1ue. I acknowledge with

thanks the asi3taace riven t the COmLiisGiOner for labour,, Kl1ri2-L I1thtur; !taji

of Public

ie by Nr. S. 1Çuznrr,

e1eration of 1a1aya,

bdu1 Nubin 3hepar1 Keeprr

ecord, Wuala Innipur

and is Shine

GordC)'n, T)irector of the Malaysian Sociological.

ingaore. I am alzo

2esearch Institute Ltd., 'rnteial to thc

once

of inCormation lirtec

n

thc biblio'rahy1 without which it wouùì have beet tnrnosible to attenrnt thLs

tndy.

C CITTENTS

ao I

LiCIOROU1W C'? ITDIN

IC-ATICF TO i

II

11ISTO!Y O

ITT

flITO±Y CF Ii'DIAN IIICflATID1 .

:iv

INDIfIT flIGiY.TIO!

I1CIO'ATIO«

.

.

.

.

52

.

12?

I'DIàN i-OTULTICll

G:O;Th .............. 215 ¡IT : NV LAND .

V

LI

VI

I:niIAl !WLE IN TItE

AND fliLFAR

O'MALAYA . VII

.

.

.

2?3

VLOflNT .

.

SUMAlY AND CCITCLUSION

..... . ....... .

.

331

379

G LOSSARY ............... .

402

BIi3LIOG1AP}rY.............

40k

APPNDICES..............

ko

CIEAFTE

Z

BAC(GROUND OF INDIAN MIGRATION TO MALAYA1; A SURVEY OF ThE AUSES

anm TRE 1WVENT. "before me lies the ocean Behind me are my hills, I shall cross the ocean And make my Íortune overseas, Arzd I shall return before I die. Bat should misfortune overtake me And I die in foreign lands, Lay ne down to sleep On a gentle eastern slope, That my eyes may fondly gaze Upon the vision of my native hills." What Lim Kean Siew wrot

about the fond

wish of the Chinese migrants is true also of the Indians. It was with fond hope of return and a dream of future wealth that the Chinese in their iillions poured across the China Sea into foreign

lands. Theirs was not to extend a kingdom or to set up an empire, or to subjugate or oppress any people, but merely to build for themselves a fortune and to return to their native hills, and there to establish a clan house rich in eons and

2

grandsons. So in the same way can we trace the

origin of the Irian migration to Malaya during the latter half of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.

Conditions in India: The fulcrum on which Indian emigration to distant colonies rested was the

question of oerp,pIation1 irhich Dr. S. Chandrasekhar has defined as "a matter or too many people in relation to the whole set of facts" ox the sum of resources of all kinaL :'zom time immemorial, there has been in India the problem of ovei-popiilation.

"India had thousands of years ago, the basis for a thickly settled population" tb

Even as early as the fifteen/and sixteenth centuries,

the Europeans had been inressed by the density of settlement, both in the plains and in the Deccan in India.

In fact! the country was considered to be

overpopulated at that time. It is true that during the seventeenth and eighteenth denturies, famines took a

irrible toll of the population, and. inaecurit

3

preai1ed during the wars which were waged betwe eri the Mogul Bercrs arid Iridiari Princes on one side

and the European Powers on the other.

Besides,

bauds of' robbexs made the roads unsafe ai.d harried

the vi11aes at their p1easu2,. But during the latter half cil the nineteenth and the beginning

of the twentieth centuries, the natural growth of population in India was more rapid, because by the 1850's, internaL warfare was a thing of the past, morta1itr from epidemics had declined, due to increasing use of medicine and scientific knowledge, and also faniines had not been so frecjient4 Moreover,

the gradual emergence of a new order, when British

supremacy was established, also helped in lowering mortality, and thus contributed to the unprecedented grortb of population. During the nineteenth century, the effecte of peace and order were felt, and of course, the people multiplied at a quick rate. When the rate

f increase of the population

progressed so quickly, the nitimate consequence was

k extreme poverty1 iaisery arid suffering. As late as

l931-32

the average ludian had an income of'

Rs. 65/.- only, an amount niuch less than the incomes

of peoples in advanced countries1 as

howii by the

table below:

Table i? Per caìita (animal) Income in Certain Countries. U.S.A.

fs. l,Li.o6

France

Rs. 621

Casada

Rs. 1,038

Germany

Rs. 603

Australia

Rs.

Japan

Ps. 281

980

British India

Rs. 65.

Therefoz'e it is hardly an exaggeration to say that the rate of per capita inoner incomes iu the severa].

countries are indicative of the comparative levels cf prosperity enjoyed by their peoples.

Between 1800 and 1900, the population of India increased by about 150,000,000 in spite of the visitation of about thirty famines which icillea

off 32,kOO,000 of the population. In 1901, the population stood at 29k,000,O0O

By 19k]., the Censue

zecorded a population of 389 millions in

iwiL

miring

the space of fifty years which preceded the Census of l9Afl, the population had increased by 110 millions

or 39%. Though the Indian population had expanded .

J_o

at a slower rate than the peoples of other countries1

yet this enormous rate of increase was far too dangerous for India where the economy was mainly agrarian. In other words

this rate of population

growth increased quicker than her wealth and income increase, anc consequently, poverty, misery and sufferin9 ensued.

As a result of the overpopulation of India,

all its concomitant problems plagued Indian society. In the first place, the standard of living1 even today, is admittedly very low, compared to standards in other Asian countries. It has been pointed out that it is difficult to define the term "standard or living" for as Professor Faircbild suggests: "A standard of living is that level of comfort which someone hopes to have or wishes he had or thinks he ought to bave, But no matter what the interpretation is, the per

caxLta TTcon5uptjoflh1 of

foods

clothing, housing,

education, medical help, oultural amenities, etc, i_fl the past years, had been far froi satisfactory

even accoraing to any theoretical Asian (and not Overpopulation

western) optinum standard of 1ivin

has a disastrous influence on the nutrition and the health of people. With additional mouths to feed, this lea4sto a deficiency of calories among

members of the family. It is best to quote Dr. Aykroyd:

"A reasonable estimate cf the number of calories reqixied by a man ezgaged in easy-going agricultural or manual woz'k is 2,OO - 2,600. In 1937 the Nutrition Research laboratories investigated a cross-section of a village in South India when conditions in the District were normal. In 50% of families1 calorie intake per consumption unit Was below 2,300. Very similar observations have been made among othf village groups elsewhere in IndiaT2

According ta Dr. Aykroyd's

estimates

about 30% of

the total population is ìzierfed even in normal times. On the other hand, Sir John Megaw, after an

7

extensive survey of' rural life in India in. 193k,

maintains that 2O

of the population Was badly

nourished, another ko% poorly nourished, while only 39% got sufficient food. Drawing the happy medium between these two estimates, no one can gainsay that a high percentage of the Indian

population during the 19th-Century and the beginning of the 20t]a.Century did not get enough to eat, as

was true of the preceding centuries. There was a dearth oÍ' proteins, especially of the sueriox type supplied by anixnal food, milk, meat and eggs; a

serious defect of fats; and a complete inadequacy o

constituents like fruits, vegetables and milk,

that usually contribute the requisite quotas of various vitamins. This was because the average Indian could not afford a properly balanced diet:

bis poverty determined the content of his

diet

Thus a].1 the attendant evils of overpopulation were evident in Indian society at the begin.ning o tIa

twentieth century: poverty, undernourishnent,

malnutrition and poor 1ie1th. Another evil which followed in train of ovex'populatio!1 in Indian society was fooa shortage,

which usually culminated in devastating famines which swept over the whole country. As has been put forward by another writer: "There i every reason for regarding recurrent famines1ud epidemic e as normai in India."

During the decade 1871-81, the great Indian famine of

876-78 occurred; another famine broke out in

1898, and by 1900 there were acute famines in various parts of India. Again, in 1908, severe famine broce out in the Unîted Provinces. To top it all, there was the great influenza epidemic of 1918. Eefore the latter haLf of the nineteenth century1

there had been famines in 1770, 178k,

i8ok, 1837 and 186i, especially in Bengal and

North India. These fazines, though terrible in their death-roll, were indicatiTe of the permanent poverty of the Indian population in ordinai'y year

It seems that overoFu1ation and poverty were syzonymous in Indian society in those days, and every phase of economic life had been 3rifluenced

by them. Even during the outbreak of a famine,

as in J97 and 19OO

enough food was crown in

Indie to feed. the entire population. But the people

were so resourceless that when crops failed in one

area, they could not afford to buy food from neighbouring provinces rich in harvests. Many writers ori India bave customarily

pointed out that the famines, which occurred, are due to the vagaries of the monsoon. The rainfall of the subcontinent is highly seasonal, and je scanty over large areas. The rainfall is also quite

variable from year to year

sometimes in certain

areas, due to lack of surplus rainfall, severe droughts result; at other times an extra large rainfall brings floods that are as damaging to crope aß a drougJit. It is during the period of the South-

Weat Monsoona from mid-June that very heavy rains

lo

set in, making it the main growing season throughout

most of India? However, from mid-September

when. the

Monsoon retreats, the Coromandel coet receives adequate rainfall. But there is no fixed time for the monsoon to

tburstfl. it bursts at different times

over various parts of India. Therefore, it has been well said:

t'The uncertainty of the seasons bas always been the main cause of' unemloyrnent arid and in no parts of flindustan is the irregularity of the rains more marked than on this coast of Coroinandel." emigration1

The Madras Presidency, on the coast of Coroinandel,

had been the chief starting point for overseas emigration. It is true that other distriote, such as

erigal or the Central Pro'uinces

also sorved as

recruiting centres of labourers for Nalaya and other colonial dependencies, but to a far lesa extent. On the Coromandel coast, the rice harvests depend mainly on the heavy rainfall, starting from mid-september. In this part, where the peaøant lives aolel

on the produce of bis fields, the w*rm dry

'J-

months just before the sowing, front March to June,

invariably bring unem1oymerxt periode that the

It was during such

nigration Officials of Ceylon

or Malaya received the greitest numbers of applicants. Thus it is hira1y an exaggeration to say that the inclement climate and the agrarian economy of Indian society

1ayed their part in the movement

of labourers from India to Malaya. This was because

a large percentage of the population depended on agriculture, but since it was subjected to violent seasonal fluctuations, the Indian peasants were .

19

provided work for only a third cl the year. Fox' the

rest, they had to live on their wits. Duxing serious economic risks in adverse season

the peasants were

all the more anxious to depart. L. Dudley Stamp'e analysis conveys the

right picture when he emphasizes that the uncertainty of the monsoon is characterized as "the biggest single factor influencing life in Thdja"2J-

opinion is

reverberated in Jasper H. Stembridge's boo

II Tt

In no other region oI similar size do so great a number of people depend for their prosperity on climatic

OiiTT

The irregularity o

rainfall has been responsible

for making India one c

the worlds most famine-

ridden areas. It is crystal clear that from a geographical point of view1 the stage has been set for frequent famines resulting from unexpected

droughts and floods. Thus Nature played her part in the exodus of Indian labourers oversea

This

caza best be seen from the actual conditions that

prevailed along the Coromandel coast, particularly the districts of Triclainopoly,

anjore,

hingleput

South Arcot and Negapatam, where the number of emigrants was the largest. The heavy rainfalls of November and tecember1 ou which the harvests of these districts relied, were less regular than the summer rainfalJ.s. In autunni1 the Coromandel peasant

often vainly awaited the dowupours which his crops so direly needed

Then these crops were ruined by

13

excessive drought5, the jeasant

with ìo means of

making provision for his ill-fortune, was forced to leave the country in search of bis daily brea Sonietirnes, the peasant would set out at once; sometimes he would try to borrow in order to tide hirn o'ver until

better harvests in the following year.

That the monsoon climate of India had influenced eniigration from the country cannot be

denied. A "Sood monsoon" had meant, as it still means, at least sufficient food for the people, but a "bad monsoon" had meant famine, in the literal sense, over larger or smaller areas

involving death from

staz'vation, migration and sometimes actual depopu1atio

David M. Figart has summarised it succinctly:

"With a poor monsoon, India experiences

a famine, and 1our must emigrate to earn a living."

All the problems of overpopulation that attended Indian society were reinforced by the disastrous changes brought in by the Industrial Revolution, which bestowed on

rit&in the economic

14

benefits of being the 'Workshop of the especially during the latter half of the nineteenth century. On the other hand, the path of the Industrial Revolution in India was strewn with niseries and

sufferings. It is debatable whether the responsibility for this should be borne by foreign rule in India, as

has been put forward by Indian public opïnion1 which blanies the English for the widespread unemployment

prevalent in the society at that time. The iuglish,

however, perceive that unemployment and miseries arose from the persistence in antiquated methods

in rural districts which they could not reform fast enoug

It is difficult to draw the line between

these two arguments: each side has its own reasons.

But it serîes well to remember that the anguish and wretchedness of the Indian peasant, whose source of livelihood was deprived by the introduction of machinery, thereby forcing him to flee from hi6

rative lnd1 is a 1iing testimony of the bad effects of the Industrial Revolution.

it is true that Indian economy could not escape the fateful effects of the Industrial

Revolution in Jglan? India was transformed from a manufactuiug power to that of a market for the supply of raw materials and the consumption of

British manufactures, in order to meet the industrial and commercial needs of Englan9 Irior to the nineteenth Century, India had supplied the markets of Asia and. Europe with a number of manufactured

goods. There had been small peasant industries, on

which in former days, the 1arer could rely to support himself during the three or four months of yearly unemployment. Indian workmanship and Indian manufactures commanded a wide market: carpentry arid stone cutting,

furniture and boat-building, working in iron and

coppernietals, gold and silver fìliree work, wood-carving arid bronze work, pottery and embroidery. Spinning and

weaving and other domestic crafts heiped the Indian peasants to suppleient the income derived from czops.

at eoon these cottage industries and handicrafts were

16

dislocated, with nothing to take their place. No large-scale industries weze set up to absorb the surplus population that the land could not support?1 In olden days1 the Indians claim, each house hed its spinning wheels,

ut due to the setting

up of factories, and the subordination of Indian interests to the needs of the paramount powe

these hd disappeareL Thus many were deprived in a very few years of the chief source of their livelihood. The suppression oÍ' an additional source

of revenue further diminished the already feeble

resistance of the ai1 family during the critical mouths of the year; and the peasants were even more fully exposed to the trials of the climate and thereby hastened their flight to other lands. Eexe,

it can be argued that expanding large-scale induetries and factories should offer much employment to these

peasants, but the population W&B growing faster than the pace of development. The industrialization that took place in India did not help to ease the

17

population pressure, as it was piecemeal and unplanned. The

rcportion of the population

employed in industries was less than one per cent. Besides, the call of factory industry was not at

first heard in this environment3 Certain Ceatures of Indian society also

must be taken into cognisance when considering the causes for ]ndian emigration to !a1aya. One of these was the progressive subdivision of holdings.

As customs akin to primogeniture had been exceedingly rai'e in India, the death of a peasant would be

followed by the division o± his holding among hiG

heirs according to ordinary law1 whether Hindu or

Mosler In Mogul tintee, there was room for a family to

expande

but when the productive laud was already

fully occupied, expansion wae no larger possible.

The original holding had to feed a gradually increasing number of mouths. The result was necessarily a progzesøive increase in the number of uneconomic

holdings, that is to say, holdings which could not

yield a livelihood to the persons who worked them. In such a case

the peasants would try to borrow

to make ends meet, until credit was exhausted.

At such a stage, the solutiou would either be a descent to the ranks of crtiina1s or emigration abroad.

In certain Indian villages1 the power that the Mirasdars held sway over the peasants and farm labourers, would be responsible for the exodus of emigrants from India. This was common in four districts of the Coromandel Coast: Trichinopoly, Tanjore, South Arcot and Chingleput, where1 it has been pointed out before, the number of emigrants

was the largest. In this part, the Mirasdars claimed to have special pri-ileges over all village lands,

both those that were still unoccupied as well as

those which they cultivated or where they resided5 One would surely notice the morai. influence of the

Mii'asdars in the village. There was no gainaaying the will of the Nirasdars, w]ao would terrify the

peasants by holding over their heads the fear of ejection. They usually combined together and threatened them into accepting such work and pay as suited them. Although actual ejection was

perhaps not very frequent, yet theix threatening attitude made the workers' position very insecure. The labourers were completely dependent upon the

Mirasdars, who could exercise their right of seizure in the whole district. Sire1y whenever the peasants found any loopholes, they would certainly jump into them, so as to flee frani this oppression.

A pernicious form of debt-slavery which existed in the Indian villages should also be

considered when tracing the origin of Indian emigration overseas. Iebt would be all the more formidable, since the creditor would usually be the chief land-owner or leading man in the village. The labourer could hardly be able to repay the ever-increasing debt be owed; and hence, the debt

bound the 1aboirer to his employer

nd the fariner

to his ]ancl].ord for life. Gradually the labourer would become the farm servaiit, whoni his master feci, but rio longer paid a wage. Bound over to his

master1 under this system, the peasant could not leave the field, although the fruit of his labour was food that coula just barely keep him

nd his

family alive. If the farm was sold, the debtor-farmer would be sold along with the 1and

and. his debt

would be transferred to the new owner. These debts would also be valid in the oase of the debtor's sonst and the creditor would exercise arbitrary control over his debtors, so that the peasants would live in a state of slavery. The labourer was practically 36

bound to do whatever his creditor wanted, to grow whatever area was ordered and take whatever price was offered. It is true that these labourers had resort to British Civil Courts, but in practice very :rew suits reached the Civil Courte. The reasons, in

my opiiion

are; the Indian peasant was to ignorant

21 ;c

o to law, and he would be tied down by caste

prejudice, wbich looked uou legal action against the chief marx as almost iniquitous. If he had the

courace to

o to law against the Mirasdar, even if

legally

justi±'ied1

be wrn1d immeaiately be banned

by the whole community, and consequently, would

not be able to find any work in the village. The emphasis is to be found in Professor Srinivas's article tiThe Social System of a Mysore Village", which points out:

"A man who does go to the urban law . courts is thought to be flouting the authority of the elders and therefore acting against the 8olidarity of the village."3?

So the laboumr would be tied down for life to the Nirasdar, and his ttslaveryhl would be equally binding

on all his chi1then

In the wake of slavery, came

poverty, for his creditor would only reward him for Jais labour euch that would enable hirt and his family

to live from hand to mouth.

:TrtabJ.e to find werk in

the neighbourhoød, where evezyone knew of his debt

22

tnd hence, 'bondage', the only remedy lay in his being able to flee beyond the limits of the Mirasdar's

influence. So the labourer went oU to start a new life in a new land, as has been put forward by E. Eennery:

....... rubber plantations overseas, the Taniil peasant finds a refue1 temporarily or permanently1 from hunger and unemp1oymen, far from slavery under

tTQ

the Mirasdar.30 The difference of payzxient in India and

Malaya for labourers should spring to mind when

tracing the origins of Indian emigmtion to Malaya. There is no doubt that the wages received by labourers in Malaya were higher than those in India. It has been pointed out that in India, since employment might not last much more than half the year, the average wage throughout the year might not exceed ¿f to

annas a das. In South India, with half of

the population, the average earnings per family of five amounted to only 2.5 ann.as per dab? In ialaya,

a farm baud's average pay a*ounted to frodi eight to

23

ten tnnas a da9 It cn be arue

that the cost of

living might be higher in Malaya than in India but in the former place, the Indian labourer had the chance to save money and to remit them to his kith and kin in his native place, although at the expense of his daily diet.

Owing to overpopulation in India1 the tnclement climate, the decline of peasant industries,

the land system with its petty subdiisionz, the uncertainty of obtaining work, the exactions of the Mirasdars, and the low daily wages, the Indian labourers were leading a parody of life, and thus

the oconniic pressure to entigate ws sticn. Besides, .

4i2.

as 1r. S. Chandrasekhar points out,

f migratory

movements between diffezent i'egions are to be analysed,

there are always the "pull" of prosperity from leas crowded areas, and the "push' of poverty from over-crowded areas. After all,

Migrations, unlike water, flow from a blighted region of low level o1 living to a prosperous one of high level of living."

2

There must hare been a "push" of poverty in India, for the economic pressure to niigrate was indeed

strong, and similarly in Malaya, there must have been the tpU11li of prosperity, as there was the

growing demand for Indian labour. Indeed it is not the well-off or the economically stable individual that seeks to leave his own country ior another It has been well written:

"iigration implies a desire to better one's economic position or social status or escape from onie undesirable feature of the home country, be it religious intolerance, rac1 ?ersecution or economic disinheritance." Migration is a flflowTl which can also be

compared with that which exists where there are

difrencee in atmospheric pressure, and in such a case the air of the higher-density area tends to flow into the area of lower density. But the flow of people from India to Malaya was never a "free" flow governed only by economic conditions of high and low preasure; it was partii influenced by ethnic,

25

social, and political factor

It is no wonder

that Dr. V. Thompson has written:

"Starvstlou condJtions chronic in India have caused emigration of workers to the underpcpulted richer regions of Southeast Asia." 0 Thus, the stage had been set for the emigration of labourers freni India, by the prevailing economic

conditions. What occurred in Malaya, which remains to be told, can be regarded as the "working out of the draina" after the stage had been set.

Conditions in Malaya: The establishment of British protection in the Malay States, and the new law and order which came with British protection,

paved the way for the further development and capita]ization of the tin industry, and the extension of plintations to cover buge area of land which had previously- been covered with virgin jungle. The

introduction of British protection in the states of Perak, Selangor, and Sungei Ujong in the 1870's and in Pahang in

the 1880t5 started a fresh wave of

26 the influx of innnigrants from India as wel]. as from

China. There had been internecine feues among the

Malay ciiefa, and there had been the growing prob)em of Chinese faction fights betwecn the Ghi Hins and the Hai Sans? The disorder had leen so serious that the tin supplies of the Malacca an.d Singapore merchants

were threatened. With

the richest part of the (Malay

Peninsula) in the hands of the lawless and turbulent" and with Ttrobbery

battle and murder'11 particularly

i_n the state of Selangor, there was definitely no

need for immigrant labour! It bad to wait until the establishment of the

ritisb Residential System,

brought into Perak by the Pangkor Enaement, January 187k, and. aleo in Selangor and Sun.ei U'jong, as well

as in Pahang in 1888. Again in 1895, the nine Minangkabau states agreed to form the Confederation of Negri Seibilan under British protection. Once more, Perak, Selangor,

Pahang and Negri Sembilan were united to form the Federated Malay States in July 1896. The introduction o:t Britisb administration ushered in a period of

27

comparatjve peace. This together with the

amalgamation in 1896, played no little part in the entry of immigrants into the country.

Professor B. Harrison makes the following epha sis:

T1The emergence of the plural society of South-east Asia in its nodern fora has

been clse1y 1inked with the expansion of Western administration, commerce and capital during the last hundred years1 and especially sinCe 1870. Chinese and Indian immigrants were attracted to most South-east Asian countries by the opportunities for material advancement offered by expending money economies combined with stable administrations." Thus, British protection provided the security that

fcrein capital sought. With foreign oapital1 there was a growing demand for labour, entailed in the de'ueloment of the country by means of railways,

roads and buildings, as well as in the expansion of plantations. Cheap labotzr and capitalistic entezprises

usually go togetbà

and luckily with the investment

of capital in Malaya, there was the supply of cheap Indian labour to cope with it, for withoit it, the

vast territories whic' were brought into British

possession would be use1ss. Without cheap Indian labour, the British imperialists would not have achieved what they did in Malaya! Again, it is

hardly an exaggeration to say that without the skilled white managerial group to direct it, immigrant labour would not have achieved what it did in Malaya! The economic set-un oI Malaya was mainly

responsible for the influx of Indians into the countr9 From 187k, the economic policy in each State, under

British Residents, was initiated by them. They believed that prospective capitalist investuents should be encouraged by the development of agricultural activity,

as was also believed in by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, shown in bis desatch to the Governai' of the Straits Settlements in 1895:

The point of greatest inportance appears to me as to my predecessor, to be the encouragement of agriculture, in order that the prosperity of these states1 which has hitherto depended so largely upon the plentiful supplies of tin, may stil]. be aeeured, if and when, their mineral resources in course of years show signs of depletion."51

The colonists were firnily convinced that the future

cil Th1aya lay in the deve1onent of crops, esecia11y rubber

for export. The climate and the soil froni

the beginning, suited the deve1onient of tropical plantations. flence plantations were established with

amazing rapidity: these plantations provided an outlet for the settlers' surp1u

capital. It is true

that the labour demand was partly met by the Indian

convicta who were transported to Singapore, Penang and Malacca when the latter acted as penal stations from

18252 Eut in 1873 the Straits Settlements

penal stations were finally closed, and the convicts were removed to the

ndanian Island

With the removal of convict labour1 the demand for a substituted form of labour became urgent, especially when the

overnment embarked on ambitious

programmes of economic development after about the mid-nineteenth century, in the føtm of road and railway construction. This econoriic development oÍ

the country was made possible by au Imperial loan

30

of £500,000, which had been granted in 1899.

In order to make these ventures more profitable than older established areas, the labour provided must be cheap, and there is no doubt that Indian labour was cheap.55 It is a commonplace about the docility,

and the capacity for labouring in a tropical climate, of the Indian immigrants into Malaya. Perhaps it is

mainly because of this characteristic that Indian labourers were particularly favoured by the Government

and employers. When compared with Chinese or Javanese labourers, the Indian labourers became indispensable. It was felt that the Chinese were inclined to be

disorderly, and cost more in police supervi8ion.6 This the British learnt only too well, through experience in the Malay States, where Chinese faction fights were common. ?urthermore, the Chinese preferred

working in tin mines1 owned and managed by their countrymen, and were not inclined to serve under alien employers. On the other hand, the local Halays

31

could not be recruited as labourers, for they were accustomed to a life of peasaiit farning RU

fishing.

To quote the words of a recent Report:

"For many years there has been a reluctance on the part of the Halays to resort to a wage economys They have preferred to live in their kampons,57and only work to the extent they corisi1ered necessary in oraer to live.U50 They preferred their independent way of life of farming to the dull routine of manual labour on rubber plantations. Therefore, this disinclination on the part of the Malays forced the employers to look elsewhere for their labour force. Javanese labour

was difficult to recruit, due to the restrictions imposed by the Dutch authorities on their emigration. In addition many of them were physically unfit, while it was said that they were hard to manage. In their last resort, the planters and employers tried to turn to the

iropean Continent

for a supply of cheap labour, for by this time the abolition of slavery was a well-established fact. It had been abolished in the British

ire in 1835.

32

But the question of obtaining a supply o! cheap labour was ruled out, beeause it would cost too !nuch money to recruit labour from such a distance;

and, because white labour was not only expensive but definitely inipossible to recruit for plantation

work in the tropics due to the unsuitable climate and the unhealtby conditions. So the only alternative was Indian labou-.

Altogether, the Indian was perhaps the most satisfactory type of labourer,

or he was not

too ambitious and was easily manageable9He had none of the self-reliance of the Chinese,

O

but he was

"the most useful Asiatic to the European.6l Re could be easily imported, since he was a British subject,

for controlled migration could only occur between regions under the sanie government or those held by -

,

governments of the same nationality.

62

But the

aU-important factor was that the Indian labourer was docile, and would bend to the whims and fancies o

the European managers and planters on the rubber

33

p1ntations. This was further euhnced by the fact that most of the Taniil labourers who migrated to

Malaya weie of low caste Paaayachis and

ounans.6

Pariahs, Pallas,

The low caste Indians

usa11y formed the labouring population of the southern districts of Madras, the recruiting centre foz Malaya. These depressed classes were usually relegated to the level of anina1s, and this tended to deprive them of their initiative and self-respect. Therefore this accounted for the docility of the Indian immigi'ants :in Malaya.

It is interesting to account for the presence of Indians in Malaya when it is widely

recognized that the migratory instinct was practically non-existent in the Indian peasants whoa Dr. S. Chandrasek calls the "stay-at-home" people, Besides the features oÍ the Uindu joint family reidered the population immobile.

The circunistances that droTe the Indian

peasant into exile must have indeed been very urgent.

Ze would wait until he was reduced to the very last anna,

3Lf

and then he would depart. It has been pointed out that since the Indian was conservative, he drescied

to leave bis native land, for the peasant regarded emigration with an overpowering sense of degradation.6 In this case, the planters in Malaya weibe he1ed by the persuasions of agents and recruiters, known as

kananies', who were sent across to selected areas in South India. These IÇananies generally did not care for the welfare of the coolies as long as they got a good conunission froni their employers. Henoe1

they would gire a very glowing description of the

new country wherein more wages could be earned by each coolie for less work he might turn out

According

to the accounte given by the kanganies, the employers

would give the coolies food, clothing and houses to live in for nothing; and the labourers would be given wages if they woried, but york would be optional o the part of the cooiies,6

ut the coolies would

find out that they had been cheated only when they went to the estate, which, instead of being a paradise,

was really

a death tiap yawning to engulf the .

.

surplus population of India."

68

Jt is easy to

understand why the kanganies were believed by the Indian peasants, for as the proverb goes, "Distanoe lends enchantment to the view', and besides, the kanganies would dazzle their eyes with gold chains, which they had accumulated out of the comniissions

paid to them by the employers. The kangany would shine "like a tin-god clothed in gorgeous velvet

coat and lace turban, and bedecked with costly jewels in his eaxs and îingers"6 could not help but believe

The poor coolies

in them. Thus emigration

to Malaya from India was not altogether a natural

procese: it was brought about to a considerable extent by the persuasions of kanganies, by the "artificial pressure of recruitment"7° There was also the political reason which acted as an impetus to Indian emigration to Malaya.

Governor Frederick Aloysius Weld, at a

meeting of

the Legi8latjve Council, held on 13th. October 1887,

36

$tatec3 that he had always tried to induce the

Indian Government to set aside unnecessary restrictions, and to leave Indian Immigration as free as possible.

He bad succeeded in this endeavour, for he received a communication informing him that the Governor-General ii Council had agreed to his view. He continued in the following manner:

UI anticipate consequently a considerable increase of Immigrants from India, a political advantage to India, because they relieve poverty-stricken districts; to us, because it is advisable that, in a country like this, the preponderance of any one Lastern natioualit' should not be excessive, and because the Indians are a peaceable and easily governed race.TT?l

Governor Weld, in a desatch to the Secretary of State, was more concise:

"I am also anxious for political reasons that the great preponderance of the Chinese over any other races in these settlements, and to a lees marked degree in some of the Native States under our administi'ation, should be counterbalanced as much as possible by the influx of Indian and other nationalities."72 Therefore, the political advantages to be derived

fDom Indian immigration to Malaya was not completely

37

ignored.

There are two other reasons which influenced

the Indians to iigmte to Malaya. First of all, Malaya was accessible by Eca routes during the tine of the influx of Indians to Malaya. British Malaya, like Burma, Ceylon, Mauritius, Fiji, the Caribbean and st Africa received the most Indians, because they were those accessible by sea routes, however distant.73

Again, India's mountain barrier, plus the in-hospitable nature of the plateaus on the other side, had prevented much emigration acroes the land borders. Approximately 99.6 per cent of Indian enhigration had gone to ports

in the British empire that were accessible by water. That Malaya was accessible by sea, cannot be denied, and hence the presence of Indians in the country.

Notwithstanding the various factors operating in India and Malaya that acted as impetus to nigration, there were some Indians who migrated just because they wanted to follow their kith and kin. The writer has the privilege of being takan to inteririew a certain

Pakkira

ngani, who is about 80 years of age, at

3eaport Estate, and be gave the following comment upon being questioned why he came to Ma1aya: TTI cante to Malaya not because of better conditions, but I followed my parente. We came from a village about 30 miles of Panjore."

And at Sepang Estate1 Palani Kangani also stated UI came to Malaya because my brother was a kanganr, and sin.ce we can stay alive here, we have continued to stay in this

For better or for worse, the Indians made their way to Malaya, creating social and political problems there. These were the problems of the "plural society", a society in which "distinct social orders live side by side, but separately, within the same political unit."'5 The problems of the plural

society actually were not new in South-East Asia, since the region has always formed "a kind of social laboratory where much interaction betweezi diverse

peoples and cultures has taken piacest76 New economic forces introduced in ?4alaya from the West have created

a cJeavage between the indigenous aria the irmiiirant,

letween th

traditional customs of the old way of

life and that of men "uprooted from their homelands but unrooted in their adopted countries, thereby creating the unbalanced plural society with its lack of cohesion or common purpose."77

ko Foo tnotes. I

*

.

Malaya Consists of the Straits Settlements which

includes Singapore, Penang and Malacca, the Federated Malay Stales which incj.ude5

Perak1

Selangor, Negri

Sembilan and Pahang aM the Unfederated Malay States which includes Johore, Kedah, Ie1antan

Trengganu

and Penis. .

.

.

'

Lini ICean S1,ew "The Chinese J-n

Ma1aye-a1

The Seed,

I, 2(Jaii. - Feb. 1961) p.1, Publication of Malaysian

Sociological Research Institute Ltd, Singapore. 3 8. Chanclrasekhar, Population and Planned Parenthood

in India, 1955, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, p.1.

k

Davis, The Population of India and Pakistan, Princeton1

New Jersey', 1951, p.23.

LU. Moreland, India at the Death of kbar, London, acmi11an , 1920 ,

6

p . 9.-22.

Moreland & AC. Chattenjee, A Short Hi5tor

of

India, Lonans, Green and Co., London 196, p.281. 7

D. Ghoh, PZeBsuZ-e of Population &

»oxaomic

ficiency

1+1

nIndia,

Couiicil of 7Jorld Affairs,

lJtiiversity Prese, 191f6, p.29. It ca

cford

1e seen that

dujng 1931-32, the average pezson in the U.S.A. eaDued 22 times a

much as the average Indian; the

average Englishman 15 times and the average Japanese J+,

8

tjes. R. Nukerjee, Racesjands and Food, New York, ].9k6, See S. Chaxidrasekhar's Hungry People arid

Lanes,

Londons

1954, Table 18, and Figure 53 of

Voz'1d Population:Past growth and Present Trends thcford: Clarendon Press1 1936, p.269. 9

lo

D. Ghosh

. cit.

.i.

Eetween 1870 and 1930 the

increased by 31%

opu1ation of India

while that of

zrope minus Russia

was Go%, and of Japan was 113%. The groas increase

was very high for Liroe, so she sent out huge numbers to other parts of the world as emigrants. il

LP. P'airchild, "Optimum Population" in the

Proceediue of the World Populat&on, edited by Margaret Sanger, London, i927, ».?,

k2 12

13 Lf

CMndrasekhar, op. c.t. p.23. Nutrition, Oxford Paniphiet on Indian Afîciirs, p.15., D. Ghosh jn h.s work, Pressure of Popii1atori and s.

Econcrniic Efficiency in India, compares the consumption

o±_ milk per head in India, which is 7 oz. with that

individual in the United Kingdom1 which is 39 cz., and that in Sweden and Finland, which is more than 60 oz. p.59. of the average

15

Davis, op. cit.

p.35.

R. Dutt, The Economic History of India in the Victorian Age, London 17

Murray,

Asia1

1956, p.vi.

No.5, The Study Map Note Books

Series, London, 195k, p.19. i8 Dennery, AS1R1B Te,ng Millions: and its Problenas for the

West1

Jonathan Care, London,

1931, p.202. 19

Kondapi, Thians Overseas,

1838-19k9,

Indian

Council of W'orld Affairs, Oxford University Press, p.k.

20

Sir John Stracbey', India, ItaAdminiatration and

¿f3

Prores, p.k17. 21

L. Du1ey Ztaztp, Asia

Geography, 2nd 22

an Economic and Regional

ed., New York1 1938, p.199. .

Jasper H. Stenbride, The

Worlds

A General Hegona1

Geogra, Oxford University Press, 1953, p.272. 23

Davis, ïn his work, The Popilatiou of India

pd Pakistan, however warns that the tazigi1ity of geographic facts should not mislead ts into exaggeratiig the importance of the irregularity of rainfall in

causin; famines, and thus the outflow of Indian euiigants. He outline5 the reasons which had contributed to frequent famines in India: the agrarian economy of

India wch 1ad made rainfall the main eource of wealth; the poverty of the people which bad deprived them of any surplus to tide them over agricultural disaster; poor transport and local isolation which

means that an afflicted region could not get Buccour from other regions; the feudal type of conimercial

capitalism, which means that famine condition8 were exacerbated rather than helped by the operation of

¿f ¿f

the price system; the scarcity of irrigation projects did not protect India from the irregularities of rainfall; and finally political disorder, caste barriers and cz1tura1 diversity had prevented the large-scale planning necessary for the prevention of fama.ne.

24 25 26

J. Dennery1 op. cit. p.2O3 W.H. Moreland & A.C. Chatterjee, op. cit. p.k. David M. Figert, The Plantation Rubber Industry

in the Middle East, Government Printing Office1 Washington1 19251 p.117. 27

David Thomson, Europe Since Napoleon, Longnans,

Green & Co. Ltd., Thir6 impression, 1960, London. p.157.

28

E. Dennery, op. cit. p.2O5.

29 c. iCondapi, o. cit. P.2. 30

L.C. Knowles,

;Enpire, Vol I

31 32

onomic 3eve1op5ent of the Overseas

p.53-5k.

Chandrasekhar1 op. cit. 195k, p.169.

.s. Sandhu, "Some Pre1iinary Observations of the

Origins and Characteristics of Indian Migration to Malaya, 1786-1957", Papers On Malayan History, Papers submitted to the First International Conference of South-East Asian Historians, Singapore, January 1962e P.k3. 33 w.ii. Moreland & AC. Chatterjee, op. cit. p.387.

ibich p.385 ,5

E Dennery, op. cit. P.208. The author points out

that the claims of those Nirasdars rested on agreements made in the past in Tanjore and South Arcot, owing to the dismembernent of the old kingdón' of Tanjore,

where the dignitaries have retained only their territorial influence at Chingleput and

richinopoly, where they

still possessed certain definite rights on the cultivated

soil, because it was intensie1y colonized by the members of their caste. 36 3?

Moreland & A.C. Cbatterjee, Op. cit. p.386. Sz'inivas, "The Social System of a Mysore

Village", The Economic Weekly of Bombaj, West Bengal

Government Press, l95.

6

38 E

Dennery

cp. cit. p.2fl-212.

39 David M. Fiart, op. cit. p.117. ko k3

L Derniery, op. cit. p.217.

An article in the Malay Mail, Jaivary 30th. 1913

points cut that the average cost of living for an average workman was two and a half tines as much as it was in Irdia, and that if an ordinary coolie was told in India that it cost two and a half dol1ars i.e. (Rs. k-8)

or his rice alone, without nentioning

the high and exorbitant prices for other foodstuffe,

he would not think of emigrating from his native place, p.9. k2

Ohandraseithar, op. cit. 1955, p.30.

¿f3

ibid 1955, p.30. 1ff

k

s. Cbandrasekhar, op. cit. 1954, p.188.

Hertzler, The Crisis in World Population,

University of k6

Nebraska1

Press, 1956, p.].k.

Thompson, Labour Problems in Southeast ABJ.R1

New Haven, 19k7. p.1. k7

E. Hall, I Biztory of Sout]-st &sia,

¿f 7

Nacmillari & Co. Ltd., London, 1958, p.k73-k89. 1f&

Earri8on, South-East Asia, A Short History,

Macmillan & Co. Ltd., London, 1957, p.221 49

N. Gangulee, Indians in the Ekipire Overseas,

New India Publishing House Limited, 1947, j.160.

K Ja3

"Indjai

:Eïiuiiigration into Malaya

1910-1941", Unpublished DA. (Honours) Thesis, History Department, University of Singapore, 1959, p.3.

51

iroceedings of the Legislative Council, Straits

Settlement, 1895, No.36, p.0127. 52

Ronald St. J. Eraddell: "Crime

Its Punishment

and Prevention" in W. Nakepeaoe, et al. (eds.), One Hundred Years of Singapore, Vol. I (London, 1921) p.283.

53 Major J.F.A. McNair, Prisoners Their Own Warders,

Westminster 1899, p.143-6. 5k

Legislative Cotnci1 Proceedings, 1900, p.0117,

Straits Settlements. 55

Iç.A. Neelaiandba, Indian Proble*5 in (a1aya:

A Brief Survey i

Offje 6

Relation to

niratio, The Inc1iai

Kuala Lunipur, 1938, p.20.

epor

of: Commission of Inquiry into the State

o! labour in the Straits Settienients and Protected

Native States, 189Q, Sirgapore, paragraph k51. 57

58

is the Malay word for village. Animal Re:port of the Labour Departnent, 19k?

Nalayan Union. 59

avid M. Pigart

:Ln the

60

The Plantation Rubber Inthst

idd1e Eas:,

1925f

p.17k.

Viieland, "PopuJ.ation of Malaya: A Study in

Human Migration"1 The Geohical Review, 193k, Vol.2k, p.6?. 61

singapore Daily Times, 29.f.l8?k, P3, Col.1. V. Thompson, op.cit. New Haven, 19 7

63

N. Jagatheesan,

.

p.2.

.

Immigrat.on of Indian Labour

into Malaya, 1867l9l0" unpublished B.A.(Honours)

Thej1 History Department, Univereity of Singapore, 193k1

6k

p.12.

Dr. S. Chandrasekhar, Ruugr

People and Bpty

Lands1 London, 193k, p.16-J.79.

The Hindu joint family of old was at once a corpotate religious, economic and social unit. The sons, even when they grew up to manhood and married1 did not leave the parental household. See also C.F. Andrews,

True India (London 1939). He observes that: "at has seemed always strange to me in m,r ignorance of what an upbringing means in such a joint Thntily is

that there bave not been more pioneers in the past who have gone far and wide seeking adventure, while those dependent on them remained behind1 well looked after under the paternal care of the head of the fanily, for anxiety concerning wife and children must inuiensely be lessened when they are left in

such safe keeping. It

ay be the case that the

adventurous side of human character is softened

by the continual give and take which the joint family system requires. The individual initiative becomes weakened at the very time that the gentler side of life is strengthenecV'. p.251

50

E. Deinery, op 66

cit. p.211.

had Coolie, overseer. According to the account given by a corresrondent

or the

zrita Bazar Patrika, a newspaper of Calcutta,

and quoted in the Malay Mail, January 30th. 1913. 68

69 70

The Selangor Records, Misc. 3886/9f, No.389/9k.

The Nalay Mail, January 30th. 1913, p9. Dr. Lanka Sundram, "The Internat,ona1 Aspects of

Indian i»iigration" Asiatic Review, Oct. 1930, p.k. 71

Proceedings of the Legislative Council, Straits

Settlements, 1887, p.C199. 72

Despatch No.397 from Straits Settlements to Secretary

of State, September 24, 1887. 73

7k

c. Davis, op. cit. p.99.

Due to the active help of' Mr. KR. P. Perumal,

Research Officer of the National Union of Plantation Workers, Peta.ling Jaya, Kuala Lumpur, who acted as my interpreter.

75 B.

arriaon, op. cit. :p.xi, quoting G.S. Furnivall,

Netherlatds India, 1939.

51

ibid. p.221.

B. Harrison, op. cit. p.222.

52

CHAPTER II

RISTO1Y OF IÌDIAI flMIGRATIOL Striki.ng Features of Indian Immigration:

One salient featuze that has to be

considered in an analysis or emigration to Malaya from India is that in the present century it was mainly a "coolie exodus'

Labourers forned the

main bu:k of the Indian migrants to Malaya, in order to satisÍy the urgent needs of planters and enLployers intent to expand thdustries and plantations.

In the words of Mahajani: ITThe emigration of Indian labour to Malaya1 therefore explains almost the entire 2 story of the Indian commmunity in Malaya."

Phis was in sharp contrast to the early Indian

migrants who made their way to Malaya. Indian traders Ra wel]. as Brahiiins and ionks and literate adventurers

journeyed to the Malay world, and thus brought the ifindu religion, Sivaite ideas o

with them.3 I

royalty and Buddhism

this way, India influenced the spiritual

and. the material life of the Malais in the earls

53

centuries. But from the nineteenth Century onwa.rds

the Indian labourers began to emigrate on a large scale under the indenture system, to work on the coffee and sugar plantations in the Straits Settlement8. This characteristic £eattzre O

ricoolie exodu&t

3y

adhered to Indian emigratioi from niodern times1

when the Indian emigrant wa afl unlettered labourer setting outk to sweat arid live on an aliente estate".

Another striking feature to be noticed about Indian Immigration to Malaya is that most of the Indian migrants came to the country with a fervent hope of returning to their home1and.

They

had no intention of ivaking Malaya their permanent

home. They usually stayed for three years, and after accumulating a large sum, they would return home. A. saying, which is attributed to a Tamil

authoress of the first century of the Christian era describes that they "Speed on the waves of the ocean in search of wealth".

51f.

It was only after the l93Os that some of them began to regard Malaya as their home. To quote

the words of another writer:

"The average period of an Indian coolie's stay in British Malaya has been estimated at about three years."6

The third outstanding feature of Indian imnhigration to Malaya is that the different Indian ethnic groups had different ways of immigration. The Tanlil usually migrated alone to Malaya, and if conditions in the new land were favourable, then hi wife and family would soon follow. On the other hand, the Telegu migrated straight away with his whole family, including the grand-mother. With Telegu

migration, there was the feature of the established-family

asset straight

away.7

The next main feature of Indian 1mngration

to Malaya is that it was primarily a South Indian phenomenon,8 as the majority of the Indian immigrants

came from the Madras Presidency. They were mainly Tamile,

followed by Malayalees, Telugus and others. This was

due to the fact that the

ecruitin

agents carried

on their work in the South. They did not want to penetrate inland, because the further they went,

the more would be their expenses. As a rest1t, they concentrated on the main districts of Taujore, Thichinopoly, Madura, Salem and Coinibatcre. Again,

that there was the preponderance o

South Indians

among the Indian migrants to Malaya can be attributed. to the policy pursued by the government o±' India.9

When the government of the 1'ederated Malay States

approached the Government of India to regulate the tree flow of labour from North India to Malaya, the reply given by the government o

India was that it had

I',..l* nO reason to believe that the labour opulatiou of South India, which owing to the circuiiistanoes of climate and race, is the natural source of supply for the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States, is not ample to meet all requirements"1°

owever, by the 1930's, some North Indians in faCt went to Malaya: they were mainly Punjabis, and were predominantly engaged in commercial and. financial occupations.

56

Another significant feature of Indian.

immigration to Malaya is that the novement was mainly monosexual

males predominating)2 The

reason was that the majority of Indian nigrants were 'birds of paseage'1 and therefore had no

intention of brìning thefr womenfolk along. Besides, Indian female emigration was hindered by a number of soolo-economic handicaps, due to the inferior JO8itiOfl of wonien in Indian eociety. For exaniple, in

1911, there were only 308 Indian females to every 1,000 males in Malaya, while in 192]. the proportion

was 405:1,000 and in 1931 the proportion was f82:11OOO. The n.ext remarkable factor to be noticed

about Indian migration to Malay-a is that the majority

of the Indian migrants were of low caste

- Pariahs,

Pallas, Padayachis and Gourdans. In India, these

depressed classes were usually relegated to the level of animals, and when they canse to Malaya, they were

looked down upon by the Chinese as well as by the

other communities in Malaya. In the words of LV Sovani,

?TThe greater part of the TaJ2ii]. labour

population is of low caste' consisting as it does of Pariahs, and Pallas, but there are also a large number of Vellalas

and Amak."-3

It should also be noticed that emigration from India to Malaya was predominan.tly a hot weather feature,

1k

because the number of enugrants would be

highest during the months when the weather was hot, especially during the months from April to June, and there would be few emigrants from October to March.

Again, Indian migration to Malaya tooc the form it did only under the aegis of the British.'5 The

circumstances created by the extension of British rule facilitated the free flow of labour from India to Malaya.

Another characteristic of Indian immigration to Malaya that cannot be denied is that it was accompanied by a great deal of legislative interference. In the words of a Straits Settlements Legislatiue Councillor in 1898:

If we make a p±lrimage back through the

desert oi debate and discussion, we find the route mapped out for us by bleaching skeletons of its predecessors: mended Ordinances1 suspended Ordinances, repealed Ordinances Ordinances which strangled themselves by the conipl.exities and incongruities oI

construction ....... Ordinances ...... o! every sort and description, except indeed such Ordinances as would satisfy the requirements of the employer ad the necessities of the Jabourer.hhlO

It was only in l87 that Indian immigration was regulated by any law. flue to overcrowding in the

ships carrying iimnirants across the Bay of Bengal,

the Indian Government in l87 and i89 passed laws regulating this passenger traffic. These two

Eaøtments enjoined that all those ships witboit licence could only cazry passengers from India in a proportion of one passenger to every four tons of burden, while licensed vessels were allowed "to carry provisions according to an approved scale.' This only had the effect o

raising the expense

connected with importing labour, and hence the employers bad. to pay more. Therefore the length of

the Contract to be served by the labouxers was increased from one year to eigbteeu montbs

and

later to two years. Under Indian Act No.XIII of 1859

An Act to prcide for the punishzent

of breaches of contract by Artificers, WorIften

and Labourers in certain Cases'

all labourers

who neglected to perform work could be punisbed by a penalty of three nionths hard labour, on condition

that they either performed the contract or repaid the advance made by the employers to finance their passages.

In 1867, the Stiaïts Settlements ceased to be part of British India and became a Crown Colony. The law therefore, which made it illegal for Indian labourers to emigrate to places outside India, applied naturally to the Straits Settlements. When this was realized, the Act of 1872 was passed to remedy it and emigration to the Straits was resumed. Following this, there were the Straits Settlements Ordiiance No.X of 1876 ani Indian lot

No.V of 1877. These two laws controlled Indian immigration to the Straits until iSSk. As a result,

emigration from India was restricted to certain specified ports. At each of these ports, there would be two Government officials: the

iigration

Agent appointed by the Straits Settlements Government and the Protector of Emigrants appointed by the Government of Madras. Depots were to be set up at each port, and they were under the supervision of the Protector. There was the safeguard made to ensure that each recruit should be taken before a magistrate

who would find out whether the emigrant was going voluntarily or not. The contract was signed in India, which specified minimum wages and. maximum term of wo1k. Safeguards were also niade to ensure proper

treatment on board ship.

18

In 1882, 'The Labonr Contracts Ordinance'

was passed. This Influenced unwritten(verbal) contracts and written contracts. Verbal contracts must not be made for zore than one month: they could be ended

6].

at any time by either party after one month's notice

or without notice if the party ending the

contract gave one nonth's wages in lieu of the notice. Henceforth, written contracts were to be signed in the presence of either a nagistrate or a justice of the peace. They could be terminated by mutual consent1 It was also this Ordinance which put an end to the 'joint and several' system.19

The next imortaut piece of legislation was passed in i8Sk in the Straits Settlerents which was the 'ludian Immigration Ordinance'. This Ordinance was meant to replace the 1876 law. Under this Ordinance, the immigrant labourer signed no contract until he arriTed in the Straits Settlements.

A similar law was introduced in Selangor by a Selanor Order in Council in October 188k. It was this 'Indian Immigration

nactment' of 188k which replaced ttbe

Selangor Indian Immigration Enactment 1882. 120 Perhaps the best comment on these numerous

legislative interference is contained in the following

62

words ot Mr. J.M.B. Vermont when be wrote to the Acting Resident Councillor of Penang from Province Wellesley:

tiThese frequent changes in the laws between employer and laboi.zrer do away with the confidence that should exist in an agricultural country. The first Labour Ordinance was the Indian Act 13 of 1859, then carne Ordinance IX of 1875, which was repealed by that of I of 1876 which was superseded by Ordinance V of 1876, finally coming into force as Ordinance XII of 1876; then came dinance I of 1882, then Ordinance V of i884, repealing all others so far as it affected statute

immigrants, so that from 189 to i88k we have had five Ordinances to reu1ate labour: all dealing with hours of labour, absence from work, value of unexpired terms and rates of wages in a variety of ways.1121 At the beginning of the present Century there was passed tThe Indian Immigration Enactment, 190k'. This substituted a definite term of 600 dayB labour for the previous two-year coutract, and fixed wages for unindentured labourers on a rupee basis. It forbade the employment of iìadentu'ed labourers

Qn estates where conditions were unsuitable. It was

from this time onwards that it was compulsory for estates to have hospitals. Next caine the !Taniil

Immigration Fund Eziactment, 1907' which was

instrumental for setting up the Indian Imigration Committee arid the Iri.dian Izn2fligration Fund. This

Ordinance was re-exacted by Ordinance No.XV of 1908, auci in 1909, and again in 1911 and 1912 it

was amended. Part VI of the Labour Code of 1912 dealt with the Indian Inmiigration Committee and the

und22 In 1922, the Indian Government passed

the Indian Imigration Act in order to regulate the emigration of Indians to Malaya. In response to this

a new Labour Code was introduced in both

the 'ederated Malay States and the Straits Settlements in 1923. This code provided free repatriation of labourers under certain conditions and estate nurseries. It prohibited Indian child labour and set up estate schools.23 It abolished all penalties

for labour offences, and provided payment of maternity

6k

benefits to fernab

labourers and a 8tandard wage

for all labourers. The Indian Enigration Act of

1922 ws on attempt to consolidate and renovate previous regulations and marked a partial transition froni laissez-faire to a much stricter form of legal

control on the part of the Indian Government. In 1887, the Indian Government had removed all restrictions on the emigration of non-indentured labourers to Malaya.2k But once again it tried to regulate emigration in order to protect its own nationals. Under the Act1

there was to be an agent of the Government of India in Malaya to look after the welfare of the Indian immigrants there. Accordingly the first Agent wa

appointed in 1925

This Jct remained in operation

until 1938, when assisted unskilled labour emigration was banned. In the words of lingeley Davis: "The Act of 1922 ..., had the effect of taking care of the question of fnrther emigration of Indian labour abroad, so far as the wishes of India were concerned; but it left óen the broader questione of 2 the treatment of Indian descendente abroad."

From 1.922 to 1938, the Governineit of India would

try to regulate emigration to Malaya off and on.

Bt in 1938, the Indian Governzaeut passed a bill. which was the last of a series of legislative enactments with the design to protect its nationals.

A ban was imposed on assisted unskilled labour emigration from

India, and no unskilled labourer

could leave for Malaya even at hic own expense. Thus

the above main ordinances and

enactments would be noticed if we take a birdts eye view o:r all the legislative interference either

passed by the Government of India or the Malayan Government. Prom the abundance of legislation, j_t seers that there was no fixed definite policy on the part of the Malayan governntent concerning Indian inmiigration. This was in sharp contrast to

the concern of the Indian Government to obtain the best treatment for its emigrants. Th borrow the words of Dr. Lankasundaram:

"The (Indian) government, however stood

towards the emigrants in the position of the protector of the weak and ignorant, bound to supply their deficiencies with its own fuller knowledge, so that as far as possible, they might be placed upon on equality with the more robust races with whom they have to deal, and that in the contract which they made with those who made a bid for their labour they might not be worsted or imposed upon." It had been recognized by the Government of the Federated Malay States that the Government of India had every right to look after its nationals abroad, and that it was the duty of a paternal GoTernment.7 The culmination of this policy was the Enigration Act of 1922. Neverthele8s, it must not be understood that the Indian Go7ernment actively encouraged emigration of it5 nationals: it only permitted C olonial emigration.

Magiitude of Indian Immigration: an Analysis of the

Factors Affectin Migraticn Rates. In considering the magnitude of Indian

immigration to Malaya1 what first springs to mind would be specific historical events and not abstract

67

TtcausesTl which determine specific trends and the

relative magnitud.e of Indian migration.28 it wi,ii

be attentpted here to account for the changes in

the rate of Indian migration to Malaya from 1900. The migration rate

as very responsive to specific

changes in the prosperity of the areas in Malaya. In fact,

II..... The movement of immigrant labourers from South India and their arrival in and departure froni Malaya in any year form a good indu to the economic prosperity of Malaya. "

In particular, the fluctuations in the prices of

rubber also determined the magnitude of Indian immigration. The growth of the rubber industry Tirtually controlled Indian immigration.30 In addition, if the economic conditions in South India happened to be faTourable, that is, if famines were absent due to the coming of the monsoon rains, then fewer

Indians would migrate to Malaya. T.. Hill, Protector of Labour, wrote in 1903:

"The imense1y improved conditions of the

A14''EiWVT a /ND/NS áE7WEN JAé/A e 41144AYA

#01I

lid

- - ---- -

- ._--- - -

---- -_-

-14ølAj'S IN NAJA

4Rtt"AI$

ekW4Es ôF/?1ANS OM )4A4.AyA --- ---- - - -- ------

,o

----____ -

j---- _____'Ì i I j--tt MIIi.._i -

-

=-- --.

--

ii

11

_.

II

-.

-

r

__

vii-I D j.J Ì Ì IfkI I

I

I

I J i

I

I

I

L Li LIJ.....1

_ I

I

i

:rigure X.

Source: S. Nanjuudan, Indians iii Ì1a1ayan Ecøno1,

New Delhi, Government of India Press, 1951.

labouring ]asEe8 in their coun-try, owinc to the succession cf good seasons and. the fruit of the untiring o1icy of the Madras Government of bettering the

conditions of all classes; the facts that in the districts where our labourers cuue from, there has been abundance of cbea food and well-reniurierated work, always within walking distance

being the chief factors adverse to This illustrates that the magnitude of Indian

us.1T

immigration to Malaya depended on whether conditions

of life in South India were favourable'or not. In reviewing the magnitude of Indian immigration to Malaya, reference should always be made to Table

II. on pag69, 70 and 71. In the year 1903, due to the prosperous economic conditions in South India, the supply of indentured labour was not equal to the demand. This

was due to the rising growth of ground-nuts trade and the industrial development that was taking place in South India. The number of indentured labourers amounted to k82, compared to 2,3O in 1902.32 The immigrants that arrived at Penang,

Table II South Thdian Deck Passengezs' Arrivals at Penan. 1901 -

19ko.

Year Total Arrivals IndentureclAssisted Non-Agisted 190].

l2227

2,78

n.a.

n%a.

1902

]LI,86o

2,1+30

n.a.

n.a.

1903

18,L447

k82

n.a.

n.a.

190k

25,682

2,670

n.a.

n.a.

:19o5

39,539

k,823

n.a.

n.a,

1906

52,0k].

3,67k

n.a.

n.a,

1907

60,5k2

5k99

n.a.

na.

1908

54I22

,k5G

na.

n.a.

1909

k9,817

k11].9

21,963

23,735

1910

83,723

2,523

60,3k7

20,853

1911

1o8,+7l

--'--

8k,389

2k,082

1912

106,928

79,838

27,090

1913

118,583

91,236

27,3k7

1914

51,217

36,905

lk,312

1915

73,323

k,88i

20,kk2

1916

95,566

72,091

23,k75

1

'

-'---

70

Year

Total A'rivals f Indentured ; Assisted ' Non-Assisted

1917

90,077

78,k07

11,670

1918

65,291

55,533

9,708

1919

l0].,k33

88,021

13,l2

1920

9,220

78,85

16,365

1921

k5,673

15,k13

30,260

1922

S8,6?L4.

38,336

20,338

1923

9,502

30,23k

19,268

192k

62,052

k3,1f7

18,905

1925

90,708

70,198

20,510

1926

1$,795

1k9,klk

25381

1927

156,132

123,826

32,306

1928

63,072

27,240

35,832

1929

llk,252

82,183

32,069

1930

69,11k

k2,771

26,3k3

1931

19,692

111

19,581

1932

17,73k

17 t

17,717

:1.933

20,2k2

20

20,222

193k

89,828

45,k69

1935

65,191

20,771 j

I

:

kk,359 i4,k20

71 Year'

Total Arrivals Ineriturea Assisted Non-Assisted

1936

k3,191

J.937

122,566

1938

4k,207

1939

23,961

19kO

15,320

3,75k 39,37 5k,8k9

67,717 39,627

287 n.a.

23,67k n.a.

Source: Compiled from Annual Reports of the Labour Department, 1901-19ko; iinua1 Reports of the Agents of the Government oÍ India, 1925-19kO; Report on Indian Labour nigration to Ceylon and Na1aya by N.E. Marjoribanks & A.I. Marakkayar; International Labour Reviews; and Colonial Labour Policy and Administration, by J. Norman l'armer.

The figures in this table do not always agree with statistics of other Malayan authorities, but the writer has depended mainly on the annual Reporte cf the Labour Department in compiling these statistics. n.a. not available.

72

the port of disembarkation for the Straits Settlements

and the Federated Malay States during the year 1906 numbered 52,Okl.33 This figure might have been higher if not for the cholera epidemic which broke out in

the Indian Immigration Depot at Penang. This necessitated stoppage of immigration from India for some time. As a result, nc statute immigrants and no free coolies arrived at Penang during the short period from September to the beginning of October. The loss incuzred by this stoppage of immigration was considerable, for the year 1906 witnessed a boom in the rubber prices,

and the

resultant estate expansion called for a sudden increase in the demand for labour. Even after the epidemic was over, it took some time for the immigration operations to be resu.med,

cm the beginning of the year up to

September, the supply was quite equal to the demand, bnt starting from September to the end of the year, due to quarantine restrictions, the numbers sell off, so that towards the end o

the year, the supply did

not meet the demand. The Acting Superintendent of

73

Immigrants, L.H. Clayton, expressed the earnest wish that the supply of immigrant labourers would increase1

in view of the 'boom' in the rubber trade.35

owever in 1907, the total number of immigrants rose to 60,1+2,36 but still the supply was far short of the demand.

In the fo1lowin

year, the total number

of Indian immigrants that arrived from South India fell to Sk,522,3'? as against 6O,42 in 1907. The

reason was that the recruiting of statute immigrants was suspended during July, as the supply of statute immigrants in the previous two months exceeded the demand. The recruiting was resumed in August, but the statute labourers were recruited only according to the requirement, so as to guard against excess.

The total number of statute immigrants recruited was 5,k568 but more could be obtained if there had

been the need. In fact, the need for indentured as well as free labour diminished because of the temporary fall in the price of rubber which checked

7k aevelopnient and expansion of rubber estatss. In

1909, the total number of Indian immigrants wa 49,817.

The decrease might 1e explained by the

severe competition offered by Fiji and Natal in recruiting statute immigrants.

uring the first half

of the year, the demand could be met, but towards the latter half of the year, the demand increased considerably, arid fear was expressed that there

would be a lack of labourers by

l9lO0

However,

in that year, the number rose to 83,723, the highest recorded since 1901. The rubber booni started during

the year and continued up to 1912. As prices rose high, planting was stimulated and the demand for labour became urgent. It is important to point out that this rubber boom would not have contributed to the prosperity of Ialaya if the Indian Immigration Committee and its attendant Indian Immigration Fund had not been instituted to meet the expanding need. The lack of immigrant labour would have been disastrous to the development of the rubber plantations. The Indian

75

Irnmiation Fund proved successÍ1, for the figures of immigrants rose to loS,k?lLfJ in 1911 aid 106,92842

in 1912. The indenture system had been abolished by 1910, but there was an iucrease in the number of free immigrants with cheap tickets in the year 1911. In 1912, there was a decrease of 1,543 immigrants,

and could be accounted for by the falling off in the number of free immigrants with cheap tickets. On the other hand, the number of passengers paying their own passage had actually increased

as shown

by the following table: Table

1f3

.

.

.

Indian Immigrants Arriving at Penan

during l9lO11 and 1912. 1919 Statute Immigrants

1911

1912

2,523 56,002

78,356

73,671

Other Immigrants

125,198

30,115

33,257

To tal

j85,723 1o8,k?1 106,928

Free Immigrants with cheap tickets

In 1914, the total number of immigrants

76

who arrived at Penang was 51,217 118,588

as against

in 1913. The decrease of 67,366 could

be attributed to a combination of factors. Irrmiigration

from South India was eiitirely stopped from the

beginning of August to the end of the year. The outbreak of war in Eu'ope in August necessitated drastic cuts in the labour forte on the estates,

due to the various economies introduced because of the continued low price of rubber. On ist. January 191k, there were l8.,773 labourers employed on estates in the Federated Malaya States,6 but by the end of the year the estate labour force was reduced to 161,379 showing a decrease of more than 23,000. The various economies introduced, such as thinning out of trees, reduction of tapping, and the increase in the task work assigned to each individual tapper, could dispense with the reduction of labourers affected. Moreover, due to the war there was the total suspension of the immigration of decir passengers from Madras and Negapatain."

The figures for 191k

77

actually represented the first seven months of the year, and after the last Eteamer carrying immigrants arrived on 6th. August, immigration was temporarily stopped. Rowever 29th

immigration was only resumed on

January 1915, and this &ccounted for the

increase in the number of immigrants that arrived

at Penan, amomtin

to

75,323.8 me weki- service

from India by steamers of the British Steam Navigation Company, which had been stopped during 191sf, was resunied in 1915, and continued up to 21st. November,

k9

when the service was changed to a fortnight].y one.

The total number of immigrants that arrived from South India in 1917 amounted to 9O,O77° as against

9,56651 in 1916, showing a decrease of

1f89. The

decrease was mainly due to the number of ordinary

passengers, which fell from 23,k75 ta 11,670 in 1917 while the number of assisted immigrants increased fi-orn 72,091 to 78,k07 as shown by Table

Table IV. Indian Immigrants during 1916 and 1917. 1916

1917

Assisted Thimigrants

72,091

78,kC)7

Other Immigrants

23,k75

11,670

Total

9,566

90,077

The decrease of the immigrants in 1917 could be explained by the introduction of the Indian passport regulations in April, followed by the restriction placed on eiigration from India ot ail unskilled labour except under licence. The emigration of assisted passengers to Malaya was allowed by a general licence153 u

to the maximum

of 82,000 adults over 18 years of age. Due to the

lack of sbiping aci1ities, the actual nwnber of assisted immigrants who arrived fell short of this figure by 12,539. Again, it is not surprising that the total number of immigrants that arrived in 1917 was less than that of 1916, for during the year, cholera epidemic broke out in the two emigration camps in India, and therefore had to be closed. Thus

79

the number of Indian immjgnts that arrived at enng during the year decreased, as the embarkation of emigrants £roni iad.rae was stopped from 20th. July

to lkth

September, while at Neapatam, shìpping

was suspended from 3rd. November 1916 to lkth. September 1917.

In 1918, the total number of immigrants front South India fell to

65,29j,5k

showing a decrease

of 2k,786 as against that of 1917. At the beginning of the year a general licence allowing the emigration of assiGted passengers up to the maximum of 73,000 adults over 18 years of age, was issued. However,

by the end oI March, the Government of India imposed a further restriction by prohibiting the emigration of male labourers between the ages of 18 and 25.

This was due to the urgent need in India of labour battalions. The eífect was to raise the proportion o;f women to men, as more men above the age o

25

were married and therefore brought their wives along with them, as shown by Table V.

Table V5Proportior. of me

and women ainons

Assisted iants for 1916, 1917 grid 1918.

Year

Males

Females

1916

51,611

13,562

20.80

1917

58,107

13,8k

19.24

1918

ß8,o13

ii,681

23.50

Percentage of fema1e

The number of imnirants during 1918 had dwindled, partly due to the restrictions imposed by the cvernnent and

art1y due to the sbortae of

shipping facilities to cairy the immigrants across the Bay of Bengal. The series of outbreaks of

cholera in the depot at Aadi in June 1918 and again in September and December also prevented and forestalled emigratioi, as the camps bad to be evacuated during the outbreaks.

The year 1919 proved a good time for immigrants, the number of which rose to l0l,k336 showing an increase of 36,1k2 as against that of the previous year. When the war was over, the

Government of India removed the restrictioiis placed

on the emigration of male adults between the ages of i8 and 25, thus regulating the flow of emigrants to Malaya again. Still, the Governnient of India

founa it provident to keep a check on the issue of licences to kangaiies, aJ.though kaiganie

wexe

allowed niore freedom than in 1918. The principle on wbich the allotntent of licences to kanganies

was made reseibled that in the previous year2 old established estates were permitted to retain recruiting connections in India, while new estates were given not more than tour licences each. This precaution was taken until the expansion of shipping facilities enabled the emigration of a

greatez' number of labourers

from India. The total number of immigrants during 1919 would have been greater but for the repeated outbreaks of cholera in the depots in India as well as on board the ships transperting the passengers to Malaya. In the depot at Negapatain when cholera appeared, it was e'racuated arid the district wa

closed to recrtiting

for seven iiionths of the year, thus reducing the

number of emigrants that might have been recruited.

IX) the depot at Aadi in Madras, five outbreaks of cholera appeared, and recruiting was suspended for 86 nays during the year. Pliere was no lack of

labourers desirous of emigrating to Malaya, but the restrictions imposed by the cholera outbreaks curtailed the volwie of enigrants. In the words of tue Acting Controller of Labour, Oliver Marks I,

as recruiting was resumed after suspension, labourers came freely

and at once."? Iii 1920, the total number of immigrants feLL to 95,22O,8 sbowin

a decrease of 6,213 as

against 101,f33 of the previous year. Many factors coalesced together to bring about this decrease.

In India1 the wages were increased; while in Malaya, a shortage of rice was experiencecI

thus raising

the cost of living. During the first half of the year, a limit rvas imposed ou the number of licences

issued to kanganies. A

a result, the number of

83

si$tP in1igrants arriving at Malaya was comparatively low, only 26217. But during the second h1f of the year, the restrictions imposed on employers in the issue of licences were removed, and conseciuently the number of immigrants rose to

k3,187. This figire would probably have been higher but for the fall in the price of rubber, which impelled the employers to reduce their labour forces on the estates. In the year 1921, the number oÍ immigrants continued to drop off

being k5,67359 as

against 95,220 of the previous year. The decrease of

actually exceeded the nwber of immigrants

who arrived

This diminution could be attributed to

the serious depression which descended on the rubber industry1 causing low wages and a great abatement in the existing labour force on the estates. This led to the cessation of recruiting in India, as most rubber companies were in financial straits and could

not affør

to take in more 1abourers. The nuiber of

assisted immigrants fell considerably to l,kl3 from

a height of 78,855 in 1920, vthile the opposite

was true in the number of immigrants who paid their own passages: from 16,365 in 1920 it rose to 30,260 in 1921. The cause was due to the economic depression which assailed the rubber industry. Most employers ceased sending kanganies to the recruiting centres in India. Thus assisted recruited labour ceased to migrate to Malaya, aid persons who desir&1 to leave India for Malaya had to pay their own passages.

However, in 1922, the total number of immigrants picked up a bit: from k5,673 in the previous year it rose to

8,67k,60 showing au

increase of 13,001. This Can be accounted for by the fact that the trade dei-ession was arrested,

and wages of Indian labourers throughout the country remained uniformly higher than the level of 1921,

when an adult male was paid 35 cents a day, although j_n some localities, the wages fell below this level.

In 192e, except in the coastal districts of SeJangor,

where wages ranged

roi 27 to 35 cents for men and

22 cents to 30 cents fox' warnen, and in Negri

Seinbilan where field workers received 35 cents,

the prevailing wages paid to Indian labourers

were kO cents for men and 30 cents forwomen.61 As a result of high wages, many peasants froni South

India were attractea to Malaya. During the year 1923, a decrease of 9,172 could be registered: the total nunber of immigrants being f9,5O2.62 At the beginning of the year kangany licences were not freely issued owing to the uncertainty which prevailed over the new rules which would soon be promulgated.

When the new rules were made known, more licences were issued. Towards the end o

the year, the kanganies

were helped by the failure of the monsoon in certain districts of South India. A large number of recruits crowded at the depot, and they were then shipped to Malaya.

ie Acting Controller or Labour, A.S4 Jeif

has written on the economic conditions in South India: "The outlook in the Madras Presideney for agricultural labour is very unfavourable. 1antiiie conditions were prevailing in

Anantaur and 23eJ.1ary In other parts there was scarcity due to the failure of monsoons. Ii Madras itself rain failed and it is feared that there will be a shortage of water this year.tT63

In l92k

immigrazits wao arrived from South India

amounted to

62,052,6k

the increase being 12,550

when coripared to that of the previous years This

increase was not surprisiig, for during the first quarter of the year, the rain failed to appear in the Madras Presidency, and. as a resnit, numerous

men and women offered to migrate to Malaya as labourers, in jarticular from the districts of Salem and North Lrcot. In fact, the number of recruits was so many that during the second quar ter

of the year, recruiting was suspended because the depot nearby could not take in all the numbers that were coming in. But thiring the latter half

of the year, conditions in the southern portion of the Madras Presidency were not favourable for emigration, as crops were good and rainfall was

regular until the partial fai1tue of the Eorth-st

Monsoon in Gctobex. ioreover, the prevalence of cholera necessitated the c.osing oÍ the depot in June and July, and this kept intending emigrantE

away. The serious flooding Of the Cauvery River j_n July almost entirely isolated Negapatam for a

»eriod of about three weeks, and. this prevented

the emigration of labourer6 and others from the depot there.

The number of innigrants who arrived in 19R6 represented the creendo of Indian inun.igration to Naiaya, for it reached the maximum of 17k,795.6

This constituted the highest number of Indian immigrants ever recorded in a single year, in the period froni 1900 to 19kO. The figure that can be

compared with this maximum belonged to the year

1927, which amounted to 16,132,

to be followed

by the figure for 193? which was 122,566. It is interesting to compare these maxima with the lowest figures reached: 12,227 for l9Ol' 14,860 for 190268 and 17,73k

or 1932.69 It is crystal-clear wiiy tae

1

[II.]

numbers of immigrants for the years 1901 and 1902 were so low: the rubber in.dustry had not yet been entrenched in Malayan eiononiy, and hence the demand

for labour was not so great. The low figLue !or 1932

can be explained by the economic depression which plagued Malaya during the 1930's

During the year

1926, the increase was mainly in the numbers cf assisted immirarzts, who exjanded from 70,198 in the previous year to 1k9,klk. The rate of increase was 80 great that E.W.F. Gi]man, the Controller of Labour wrote in 1926: !'3n the second and third quarters the number of emigrants strained the acoommodation of the Bnjgration epots.Tt

The number of immigrants to Malaya during the year was double that of the previous year owing partly to a bad seaeon in India aild partly to the active

demand for labour in Malaya. In addition it can also be explained by the fact that the nwnber of emigrants to Ceylon in 1926 bad fallen from 76,f1O

in 1925to

6,722.71 Besides Malaya, Ceylon was the

only other country in which emigration for unskilled

work was still lawful by this time. But the faot

that the number of eiraRts fell off proved that Cey1oi too had reached 'saturation point' in absorbing Indian labour. Consequently more Indian laboui-er6 tended to migrate to Malaya. Another factoi- which had an important bearing on the

magnitude of Indian migration to Malaya during 1926 was the exemption for Malaya from rule 23 of the Indian

igration Act 1922 which required

that aiong emigrants the sex ratio should be J3 males for one female.72 The trend remained about the same in 1927, and the immigrants numbered 156,l32,

but in the

following year there was a. sharp fall of 93,060,

plunging to the level of

63,072,7k

The great drop

in the number of immigrants could be attributed to the large influx of Indian labourers in 1926 aiid

1927, which had met all the demands for labour.

The employers also found tt practical to stop ail forms of recruitment, due to the uncertainty which

existed ii the rubber market, created by the decision that all forms of restrictions on the exjDort of rubber from Malaya would be renoved

starting from 1st.Norember 1928. On the other hand, the trend of irnrnie'rants rose again in 1929,

which registered an increase of 5ll8O amounting to a total of llk,252.75 The principal reason was

perhaps due to the increase of wages of South Indians throughout the country1 following the increase of wages of South Indian laboux'ers in the coastal

districts of Selangor. The rates, 50 cents a day forj males,

cents a day for females and 20 cents

a day for minors were carried into effect starting from ist. February 1929. The increase may also be explained by the withdrawal of the restriction on the output of rubber beginning from ist. november 1928, and the opening of about twenty-four ne

estatess6 mis of course created a demand faz' labouz'.

'erhaps the exemption of the Colony frani

the operation of the sex ratio rule till the end

of June 1930 was aleo responsible for the great influx of imrnigrant. As a result, the Colonial emigration authorities relaxed the rules concerning the prescribed ratio. Hence a great number of single

males

&s

admitted .nto the depots and assisted

to emigrate.

The failure of the

uglo-Dutch restriction

talks in the second half of 1929 brought about a

steep fall in wages and the subsequent economic depression which fc1lowed

In 1930, from a height

of llk,252, the number of immigrants plunged to 69,11k177 the decrease being F5,l38. Because of the

world depression, the priöes of rubber and tin depreciated,'8 and this resulted not only in

wide-spread unemployment but also in reduced

iigDation. The number of immigrants deereased due to lowered wages, uncertainty of emp1oyent and cuts in Government assistance to Indian migrants.

At the end of July 1930, assisted im±gration from India was suspended,'9 and in August of the saine

92

year there was also the susensioii of the recruiting of Indian 1a'bour.° When the price cf rubber coxtinued to fall, eni1oyers were forced to retrench the labour

forces on estates by inreasir

the tasks of each

individual labourer. In order to prevent unemployrient

from spreading, restrictions were imposed on the entry of immigrants, 2nd repatriation of those who could not finca work was also effected.

The diminishing export values of rubber

froi 1929 to 1933 can illustrate the magnitude of Indian immigration during these years

as shown by

Table VI.

TableVI.82

cport Values of Rubber from T.MS. 1929-33. (Million Straits dollars)

Year Rubber values

! 1929

1930

202

108

I

1931

1932

1933

5L

37

58

Accompanying this donward trend of rubber export values, was the fall in the annual price of rubber per pound during these years, so shown by Table VII

93

Table VII8

Annua1price of rubber per

from

oun

1929 to 193k.

Year

1929

1930

193k

1933

193]. 1932

Price of Rubber.3k.k8 cts. 19.31 cts, 9.96 7.01 10.23 2O7O per round I

The fall in the price oÍ' rubber per pound was also

accompanied by a decline in the daily wage rates of South Indian labour auring these years. Table V1118k DaiiyWage Rates of South Indian Labour

from 1929 to 19e. (The Denominator represents the wages of female labour.)

Year

1929

Daily Wage Retes

1930

1931

1932

1933

l93k

50/ko kO/32 30/2726/22 32/2635/28

T) straits Cents

Diminishing export values of rubber, annual price of rubber and wages during these depression years were the causes of the downward trend in the migration rates from 1929 to 1933 as shown by the ro1lowin table.

Table

Year

IL8

Indian Imniigrants who arrived from 1929 to 193k. 1929 f 1930

1932

1933

193k

Number of Immigrants 11k ,2569 , 112I19t69217,?3It20 ,24289,828

With the labour znarket saturated,

nd with the

retrenchment policy of the employers1 it is su:t'prisin

that the nuniber of arriving iunigrants

each year was so high. But it serves weil to remenibea-

that alter 1930 most of the immigrants that arrived paid their own passages. In 1931, the rnrnibez' of

assisted immigrants that arrived

ae 111, while

19,581 raid their own passages. In 1932 only 17

were assite

immigrants, while 17717 paid their

ovni passages. Of the 17 assisted immigrants, 12 ari-iveci at Port Swettenha

in 1932, as compared

with 67 in 1931. They consisted of seven ath1ts, three minors and two infants.86 In 1933, twenty

were assisted immigrants while 20,222 paid their own passages. Seventeen assisted immigrants arrived

at Port Swettenham during the year; they were

mot1y women acconipaiied by their children1 coming over to join their huebandB in Ma1aya.8

These low

figures of arriving immigrants were reflected in Indian estate employment during the depression yeare

from 1929 to 1933. In

ct the number of ìiidian

estate labourers was almost halved, as shown by the followñng table. Table

X88

Nunzber of Indian Labourers

flQoyed

on Estates in the Straits Settlements & F.M.S., 1929-33.(Thoueancls)

Year

1929

Indian Estate Ibourers

205

1930 .

i

l5

1931

1932

1933

121

10k

111

In 1933, the re-opening of small holdings and estates formerly closed increased the demand fox labour. By June or Jnly, estates not paying

30 cents bund it hard to recruit workers. In the latter baU of the year, with the prospect of restrictions on the output of rubber, many employers were trying to replenish their greatly reduced labour force. By the end of 1933, there was the gradual return of confidence

and an increase in

the price

rubber causea more employment to become

avai1ab1e.8

In October 1933, the Controller of

Labour and the Chairman of the Planters' Association

of Malaya went to Iu.ia to discuss with the Government the resumption of assisted migration. In early 1934,

the Indian authorities agreed to the resumption of assisted non-recruited emigrante, to the maximum number of 20,000. Thus assisted. emigration of ilon-recruited unskilled labour from South India to

Nelaya was allowed once again, but under certain

cond.tone. 90 The privilege of repatriaton1 which .

.

.

.

.

.

was allowed during the first year of the immigrantt s

arrival, was extended to two years. The emigration commissioner in Madras should supply monthly reports

on emlcyment conditions in Malaya. These conditions were imposed in order to prevent excessive emigration freni India and a possible fall in Malaya's wage rates.9' A tTquotatl system was instituted. !Xanagers of estates

who wanted additional labour were asked to apply to the local Labour Department, stating their existing labour force, rates of wages paid and fez- each estate a "quotat' was fixed which was not to exceed fIfteen

per cent of the strength of the existing labour

force

011

tue estate. It was only in exCeptiona1

cases that this

quota could be

eiïacied.Non-recruited

imm:i3rantE were only assisted to come to M1aya

provided they possessed written evidence of having been enq1oyed before on a T1quot&'

persons those names

appeared

estate1

or were

on the lists submitted

to the Labour Department by the employers, or were

relatives of labourers on the estates. The quota was imposed by the Government cf India without consulting the Government of Malaya: the number

to be admitted was to be left to the decision of Malaya.92 In order to carry into effect the reewuption of assistea eiuigration to the maximum number of 2OOOO

a system of bearer-letters which were to be obtained by the immigrants, was devised. But the system did

not operate satisfactorily, chiefly owing to the great pressure to emigrate from India. Bence

the

number of assisted immigrants that arrived at Nalaya

reached the height of 'f5,k69, in spite of the restrictions imposed to limit them to 20,000. This was due to the

baci econoiiic conditjors which prevailed in the

recruilirig districts of Madras, where the mausoon

had just failed, and tens of thousands emitrants stormed the emigration camps. So easer were they to emigrate that bearer-1ettezs in their hands becanie forged documents. The year 193k therefore

witnessed

great increase in the number of arrivino

imigrnts: 89828 as against 2O,2i-2 in 1933, showing an increase of 69,586. It is remarkable that after the terrille experience o such a great number o

the ìepressiori years

Indian immigrants found

themselves in Malaya! In tact, there was a shortage of labour after the depression years. This was due to the great improvement in the gereral economic

conditions which prevai1e

throughout Na1aya

The

price of rubber rose to 25 cents a pound in September,

but it suffered a relapse, and during the rest of the year, it remained at 21 cents per pound. Thiring the year 1935, there was a big drop in the irniber of immigrants who arrived in Malaya.

99

It amounted to 65,191,

a. dro! al 2k,637 as against

that of 193sf. Tho drop could be attributed to the

reduced level of' production which was introduced

under the Rubber Restrictioi Sc1eme, under which new 1nnting was prohibited. The demand ±'or labour naturally subsided. TIence the Labour Derartment

restricted the number of assisted passa'es, and confined them to former eitate labourers or those who were dependents of labourers in Malaya. The maximum quota allowed by the Government of India in voluntary assisted emigration was 35,000 adults,

and this included the excess arrival of 13,000 adults in round figures during 193k over the quota of 20,000 fixed for that year.9k The number of assisted immigrants decreased from k5,k69 in 193k to 20,771. Corwersely the number of immigrants who came on their own exceeded that of the previous year by 61, that is, kk,k20 as against kk,359 of the previous

ear

This substantial influx of

unassisted passengers only tended to swell the

ui.I

ranks of the unemployed duzin

the year.95

During 1936, the arriving immigrants numbered f3,19l,6 siiowing a decrease of 22,000

when coinpred to that of 1935. The fall was 3ue to the diminishing demand tor labourers on estates.

During the year, production and export of rubber was restricted to 60 per cent of the basic quotas

tu] the end of June, and to 65 per cent thereafter in the following months.97 Hence the demand for additional labour on estates was very limited.

Assisted passages were giTen to those labourers who were returning to Malaya

and to the relatives

or friends of labourers who were already in Malaya, to whom employment was guaranteed by estate managers. There were only 3,7511. assisted immigrants: many

applicants for assisted passages were refused. On the other hand, the number of immigrants who païd their own passages amounted to 39,k37. This was indeed higb

the cause lay in the failure of the

south-west monsoon in several parts of the rainfed

areas of the Naciz'as Presidency. Moreover, the fact

that work was not available throughout the year in the agricultural districts of the Madras Presidency,

and that the wages earned were insufficient helped to spur the Indians overseas. In spite of the diminishing demand for labour on the estates, antple

work was available in Singapore: at the extensive works carried on at the Naval Base, Civil and Military Air Bases, and at the Harbour. Consecuently many unassisted immigrants flocked to

iugapore.8

In the winter of 1936-37 there was sign of high prosperity in the rubber industry. This accounted for the high number of immigrants that arrived in 1937: 122,566. During the year there was greater production in the rubber industry, and. there

was a considerable demand for labour in that country. At the same time low rate of wages prevailed in the agricultural districts of the Madras Presidency. On the other hand, since there was a demand for labour, employers were willing to pay higher wages

102

in Malaya.99 Thiz attracted many iunigrants into

Ma]ay

But by the end of 1937, another slunip had

set in, and the price of rubber fell. Ey 1938, there

were 6±S of deterioration in trade, ptrtly owing to the disturbed international situation and to

the resultant reduction in rubber export.100 In view of these bad economic conditions

the Central

Indian Association of Malaya sent the following cable to the Governnient of India, and this was thought to

influence the Government of India to impose a ban on assisted emigration to Malaya:

"Reduction of wages of Indian labour is imminent. If wages are now reduced this action will finally render infructuous the main labour of the Sastri delegation. The present labour situation is definitely detrimental to the economic interests of Indian labour. It is suggested that assisted emigration be stopped pending settlement of issues between the two countries. We respectfully urge Governnient of India to take up a determined and firm stand and safeguard Indian rights."'01 In a statement issued to the Press by the President of the Central Indian Association of Nalaya, Dr. A.M.

Soosay pointed out that the responsibility for sending

103

the cable was that o1 the Association alone, because the Association was a non-official all-?4alayan OZ'ganizatjon representing Indian public opinion.102

This cable which was sent on 29th. March 1938, aroused a great deal of controversy and unfavourable comment on the C.I.A,M. However

the CSI.A.M. felt that the

existing labour position in the country was detrimental to the economic interests of Indian labour, and with the reduction of wages iimninent

the time had corne

to stop bringing in any more labourers to add to the already surplus labour in Malaya, and thus preventing further destitution among wage-earners. In May 1938 wages for Indian estate workers experienced a cut o:t l0%

so that aale labourers received only ii-5 cents

per day.

The Government o

India then decided to

pxchibit assisted emigration to Malaya, and the ban was made effective from 15th. June 1938. The Prohibitory Order was as following "Whereas it appears that the number of unskilled Indian labourers now in the

1Of

Malay States is in excess of the present requirements of industry, and continuance of eaigration to those States is therefore undesirb1e1 the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-.section ci) of section 13 of the Indian igration Act, 1922CV11 of 1922) is p1e.sed to prohibit with effect from 15th. June 1938, all persons from enigrating from the Provincial Government of Madras to the Straits ett1ements, the Federated Malay States of Perak Selangor, Negri Sembilan and Paban., and to the Unfedera.ted Malay States of Kedah, Perils, Johore, Kelantan1 Trerigganu and Brunei for the purpose of uneki11d øk nlO3 The Order therefore prohibited assistance to unskilled worIers who night migrate to work for hi?e Or to be

engaged in ariculture. However, wives and minor chu13ren were allowed to be assisted to rejoin husbands and fathers provided that they did not work for hire. What was niost severe was that even unskilled workexs

w}o were ready to pay for their passages, could not migrate to Malaya for hire or for work. The Order therefore affected both assisted and unassisted emigrants. The Go'vernnient of India passed this

drastic law without consulting the opinion of the

lo 5

Nalayan Government. But still, action could not be taken against unskilled workers who were migrating to Nlaya at their own expense, and wb.o could prove that they were not going to work on their arrival in Na1cya.

Vhy 3id the Government of India impose

the ban on assisted emigration of unskilled labour to Malaya in June 1938? P'irst of all1 the cable

sent by the C,I..M. riiight have been instrumental

in influencing the Governient of India to take such action. The warning of the C41.A.M. that there would be a reduction of wages proved correct, for the cable had been sent on 29th. March, and in May 1938, there was a cut of 10% in the wages of Indian estate labourers. A second cut was threatened as of August ist., l938.l

the conditions in the employment

market in Malaya must have induced the Government of India to prohibit assisted emigration. Towards the end of the year 1937, when the quota release cf rubber export was 90 per cent, there was enough

labour force in the country to meet the requirements of the rubber industry. In 1938, during the first quarter, the quota iras reduced to 70 per cent1

then to 60 per cent in the second quarter and to ¿f

per cent in the third quarter. Under such

circumstances, the problem of unemployment loomed large, affecting at least 30 per cent of the workers in the rubber industry, besides reduciig of the remaining labourers. In

the wages

articixlar, the

Government of India wanted to ensure that the supply and demand of Indian lalour should be fairly balanced, and that there would be rio floating surplus of labour

to depress wages still further)0

In addition, the

Governnient of India disliked the policy of repatriation b

which shiploads of Indians were taken back like

"sucked-out orangesT' whenever economic conditions

in Malaya were at a low ebb. This was always a source of embarrassment to the 4adras administration. This the Government had experienced during the economic depression of the 1930's. Besides, in. Malaya the

107

Indians were treated only as second-class citizens: they were looked upon önly as manual labourers.

In the woHs oI Dr. Virginia Thompson: The Malayan Labour Department had indeed succeeded in lauding the Indian worker in Malaya a free without debts which bound him either to the kangany or to bis employer, and it bsd prevented the Worst abuses in the employer-employee relationship. But Malayats labour leçis1ation was still too meagre and its enforcenient generally too negative. Not even the niost ardent Indian nationalist could say that his compatriots were brutally treated in Malaya, but they could justly contend that the Indian labourers there were not R self-reliant, coherent and organized mane

bodr.thlO&

As a result of aU these factors, the Government of India felt that it was high time to retaliate by refusing to let any of its nationals go to Malaya. By imposing a ban on assisted emigration, it hoped to bring about an improvement in the status of Indian labourers in Malaya. Consequently, there was a sharp drop in the number of immigrants who arrived during the year 1938:

fk,2O7.107 me decrease

registered was 78,359 as against 122,566 iia 1937.

The assisted imniigrants in 1938 numbered

58O

while 39,627 paid their own passage6. Thi3 was in sharp contrast to the figures of the previous year:

5k,8+9 were assisted immigrants while 67,717 paia their own passages. The ban imposed by the Government of India on assisted emigration of unskilled labour was reflected in the magnitude of Indian itnmigration for the year.

Early in 1939, Malaya sent a delegation in order to negotiate with the Indian authorities at Delhi the conditions of a resumption of assisted emigration.108 But the negotiations did not produce

any tangible result, because many of the difficulties could not be breached. The Malayan delegates maintained an ïntransigent attitude because the prevailing rubber quota was Lf

per cent, and there was ample labour

supply to fill the quota. They thought that even if the Third Restriction Agreement came into being after a number of yearsj there would be abundant labour because by then the children of estate coolies would

have grown up to fill the 1bour demand. In tile

last reaort, thee

oii1d a1vays be the possi'oi1it

of employing Javanese and Chinese labour. Even at the outbreak of the European War, the ban was not

lifted, and the flow of emigrants was restricted to unassisted passengers, among whom there were

very few labourers after 1938. In 1939, only 287 were assisted to immigrate to Malaya, while 23,67k paid their own passages. The total number of immigrants amounted to 23,961, showing a decrease of 2O,2+6 as againet that of the pre'vious year. The total

number of immigrants who arrived in Malaya during 19ko was l5,32Ol09 including l,31i- workers. The ban1

which had been imposed in 1938, continued in

force during the war. Moreover, since 192

the

immigration laws of Malaya were made stricter in order to keep out aliens.0 This was due to tile

fact that after the war !alaya was in a position to meet her labour requirements with a rapidly increasing settled population, and when sore !4alays

I".

wore entering the labour maxket

Yet many were

those who wanted to enter into Halaya, as the standard of living in the country wa

corupartive1y higher

than other Asian countries. The Malayari Government

tberefore found it high time that stringent laws

concerning iunigration should be passed in order to t'

prevent a deterioration in the present standard of living and to safeg-uard, for those who have made their homes in Malaya and are going to the Malayan Nation, the medical, educational, social and other benefits which are at present available for them."

Accordingly the Immigration Ordinance was passod on 2fth. April 1952 by the Governments of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya and it came into force on ist. August 193. As a result, flselectjTet

immigration came into force and right of entry was limited to British subjects born or naturalised in Malaya, Federal Citizens, subjects of the lhiler of

a Malay State, British subjects ordinarily resident in Malaya, aliens who were holders of Resident's

iI aertificates

and the wives and children under 18

years of all these person.112 Thus if we take a bird's eye view of the

magnitude of Indian immigratioa to Malaya, we can discern six prominent phases: a) 183k-1906

113

the period when there

ws no restriction on indentured emigration front India. There was a steady rise in the volume of immigration into Malaya during this phase. b) 1907-1922

this phase saw the ao1ition

of the indenture system, and the formation of the Indian Immigzation Committee, two important milestones that

must beconsidered in an analysis of Indian immigration to Malaya. There was a rise in the kangany method of recruitment.

c) 1923-1929

duz'ing this phase Indian

immigration was influenced by the Indian "Act of 1922". Due to the general economic prosperity in Malaya, the number of imiriigrants that arrived rose hih. Thus thí

period was known as the peak of Thdian imigi'ation.

112

a) 1930-1933

- the Great Depression

was mainly resonsib1e for the downward trend of arriving iimigrants in Malaya, for the employers were trying to cut down their labour fortes due to the declining prices of rubber per pounds e) 193f-1937 -'---- there was the revival

of Indian immigration into M1a'ïa, but the znagnite ws not so high as during the 1920's. f) 1938-l9k

- this phase witnessed

the effects on inmigration into Malaya by the ban imposed by the Government of India on assisted uuskilled emigration ou

June 15th. J.93, and the

disastrous influence of World War II. Therefore it is clear that the magnitude of Indian imiiigration into Malaya was influenced

mainly by the economic atmosphere both in Malaya and in India as well. But the story of Indian immigration would really be an account of the Ixidiaii

Inunigration Committee, for it was the organization

that had as its duty the supervision of the import

113

or immirgnt labour.

esides, Indian innziigrtion

to Malaya was m'in1y a Ioo1iet movement. So we sh3J turn on to the Indian Iniigratiou Committee and its attendant, the Indian Immigration Fund.

11sf

Foo tno ter ir.

atthees,, TL1igration of Indian Labour into

Nalaya 1867-1910", Unub1ished B.A.(Hons.) Thesis, ii3tory Department, Oniversity of Singapore, 195k. p.3. 2

Usia Mabajani, The Role oÍ Indian Minorities in

:urn1a and MaJ.aya, Institute of PacifIc ie1ations,

New York, 1960. p.95. 3 Sir 1ichard

instedt, Malaya and Its History,

Hutchinson's University Library Press, London, 1948. p.2k. ¿f

Kondapi, Indians Overseas, 1838-19k9, Indian Council of World Affairs, London, 3.951, p.].. 5 K. Jegadeva, "Indian Immigration into Malaya

1910-].9k1" Unpublished B.A.(Hons.) Thesis, Histo7 Departflent, University of singapore, 1959, p.7. 6

Narasimhaxi, "The Iiniigraut Communities of

Soutb-Est Asia," India Quarterly, January-March,

7 M.J. KennawR3r, Some Investigations of s.S. & F.LS.

115

Recruiting in the 1adras Presidency, Kuala Lumpur, 1912. s

9

10

Jegadeva, op. cit. p.6. N. Jagatheesan, op. cit. p.22. .

*

.

Leg.s1atve Council Proceed.ng19O, Straits

Settlements/Correspondence reJ-tin

to Indian Intmiration,

Papers laid on the table on 29.5.1900. 11

K. Jeçadeva, op. cit. p.7.

12

Sandhu, Indians in Modern Ma1aya

A manuscript

of a forthcoming publication, to be pub1ised by Donald Moore, in 1963, under Eackground for Malaya Series.

13

w.v. Sovani, Economie

e1ationz of India with

South-east Asia and the Far east, Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi, 19k9.

1k 15

.

.bxd., p.48.

ibid., ».68.

16 Legis1ative Council Proceeding, Strait8 Settlements, 1898, p.B28. 17 RN. Jaccson, Imniigant Labour and the Developiaent

of Malaya, Kuala Lunpur, 1960, p.58.

1i6 iS ibid., :p.6].. ].9

iiider this system a group of labourers would

sieri a 'joint and several' contract which would

render each of this group liable for the default of any of the others. The Straits Settlements Labour Commission Report of 1890 called it a system or "very inhwnan applicationu for it had the effect of ïxiakin

one man pay for the crine of ninety-nine

absconders. 20

A.B.

Voules1

Compiler, The Laws of Selag

l877-l99 p2. 21

slatjve Council Proceedings, Straits Settlements,

1892, p.C2k9. 22

JN Farmer, Colonia]. Labcu

Policy and Administration:

A History of Labour in the Rubber Plantation IndustrZ in Malaya 1310-19k1 New York, 1960, 23

.117.

tate schools were first established in the

nineteenth Century on sugar estates in Province Wellesley for indentured labourers. Rowevei' schools

on rubber estates were established after 1912.

117 2k

25

Jackson, op. cit. p.ES.

Davis, The Pou1ation of India and Pakistan,

Princeton, New Jersey, 1951,

26

Lankasundarai,

.1O6.

Internationa1 Aspects oI Indian

igration", Asiatic Review, January 1931, j.115. 27

Proceeing of the Federal Courci1 for the year

1923e ]'ederated Na1a

2B

States, p. 3100.

G.W. Skinner, Chinese Soc±cty in Thailand: An

AnalyticaJ. Hist, Cornell University Press, New York, 1957, p.62.

29

&nnua1 Report of the Agent of the Government oÍ'

India in MaJ.aya for the Year

New Delhi,

Manager of Publications, 1938e p.2. 30

31

Jegadeva, op. cit. p.UJ.

H. Hill, Repox't on Indian Imniigration and

Eiigratioi for the Year 1903, Oífice of the Protectax'

of Labour, F.M.S., 190k.

32 1.2. Price, Annual Report of the South Indian Labour Fund Board, 199, Governnient Press, Federation

o Malaya, 1960

p.3k.

118

L.H. C1aytoi, Report on Indian Inimigration and

Enigrtion for the year 1906, Penang, 1907, p.1. 3i.

Rjr. Jackson, Immigrant Labour and the Dee1opment

of Malaya 1786-19O, 35

ua1a Lunipur, 1960, pJ,o8.

Report on Indian Imniigration and 3igration for

the year 1906, op. cit. p.3. 36

L.H. Clayton, Report on Indian Immigration and

iigration for the year 19O7 37 L.R. Clayton,

p.1.

eport on Indian Immigration and

Jigration for the year 19O8 38

Penang, 19O8

Penan, 1909, p.1.

ibid. p.1.

39 A.s.

iaynes1

Report on Indian Imniigration and

year 1909, Penang, 1910, p.1. ko k].

ibid. p.2.

L.H. Clayton, Annual Rport on Indian Immigration

for the year 1911, Straits Settlements, 1912, p.1. k2

Aldwortb, Annual Report on the Labour

Department for the year 1912, Government Printing Office, Singapore, 1913, p.].. 3

ibid. p.]..

119 ¿iii.

fose,

port on the !orkingof the Labour

Department for the yenr

91k, Inbour Office, Kuala

Lumpur, 1915, p.1 ¿

E.S. Hose, Rert ori the Vorkinof the Labour Dearthent for the year 1913, Labour Office,

ua1a

Lumur, 191k, p.1. k6 k?

Report for 191k, op. cit.

Annual Departmeutal Reort

of the Stxaits Settlements

for the year 19, Singapore 1915. k8 Aldworth1

2eport Oi the Workin

Labour Department for the 7ear 191

oÍ the

Kuala Lumpur,

1916, p.1. ¿f9

p.1.

50

LLF. Gilman,

ort on the Working of the Labour

Department Thr the year 1917, Kuala Lumpur, 1918, p.1. 51

Aidwortli, 1epprt on the Working of the Labour

Deprtment for the year 191G, Kuala Lumpur, 1917, p.1. 52 ieport mr the year 1917, op. cit. pl.

53 Report for the year 1917, op. cit. p.1.

k JR.O. Aidwortli, Report ozi the Wor)dg of the Labour

Ifr

Department for the year 1918, Kuala Lumpur, 1919,

1.

55 ibid. 56

]arks, Repçrt on the

Torking of the Labour

Department for the year 1919, Kuala Lumpur, 1920 p.1. 57

ibid. p.5.

58

Peel, Report on the Vorking of the Labour

Department for the year 1920, Kuala Lumpur, 1921, p.1. 59 7. Peel, Rport on the Working of the Labour

Kuala Lumpur, 1922, p.1.

Department for the year 192 6o

E.W.F. Gilian, Peport ou

the Working of the Labour

Department for the year 1922, Kuala Lumpur, 1923e p.1. 6i 62

.

p.5.

JeU,

eport on the Working of the Labour

Department Thr the jyear 1923, Kuala Lumpur, 192k, p.1. 63

6k

ibid. p.4. Gilnian, Report ori the Working of the Labour

Departmezt for the year 19?t Kuala Lupur, 1925 6

Gilman, Annual Report on the Labour

Department for the year 1926,

ua1a Lwnpur, 1927, p.1.

66 E.W.F. Gilman, &nnua1 Report of the Labour

121

Dartment, Ma1ya for the year 1927, Kuala Lumpur, 1928, p.1. 67

Hill, Report on Indian Iinn4gration and

Jnigtion for the year 19Of, Office o1 the Protector of Labour, P.M.S. 1905, p.2. 68

69

.

ibid. p.2.

C.D. Ahearne, Annual Report of the

orking of the

Labour Department for the 'ear 1932, Kuala Lumpur, 1933, p.1. 70 Mnual Report for the year 1926, op. cit. pk. 71

S.H. Slater, Annual

Indian

eport on the Working of the

nigration Act 1922 for the year 1926,

Government of Madras. 72

p.10.

73 :E.w.F. Gilman, Annual Report cf the Labour

jartment for the rear 1927, Kuala Lwpur, p.1. 7k

Gilmaii, Annual Report on the labour

Department for the year 1928, Kuala Lumpur, p.1. 75 s.c. Bathurst, Annual Report on the labour

Dçprtnient for the year 199, Kuala Lumpur, 1930, p.1. 76 .

Gray1 Annual Report on the Working of the Indian

322

iigratiorz Act1 192 for the year 1929, Government

Press, Calcutta, 193O 7?

p.3.

?.J.K. Stark, Annual Report of the Labour

Department for the year 1930, Kuala Lumpur3 1931, p.1. 7

Purushottama Padmanabha Pillai, Labour in Southeast

Asia: A Symposium, New De1h.1 Indian Council of Nor1d Affairs, 19k7, p.1k5. '79

P.T. Bauer, The Rubber Industry, A Study in

Competition and Monopoly, Cambridge: Harvard tíniirezsïty

Press, 19k8, p.225. 80

"iabour in British

Labour 83.

a1ay

in 1931", Thternational

eview, V. 27(1933) p.39&.

ibid. p.398.

82

sauer, op. cit. p.15.

83

Neelakandha, Indian Problems in Malaya, A urvar j

Brief

Ie1ation to

nigration, The Indian

Press, Kuala Lumpur, 1938, Appendix D. 8

85

.

.

ibid. Table VI

.

s also copi1ed from Appeudx D. .

Table VII is compiled from the Annual

the Labour Department from 1929 to 193k.

eports on

123 86

Adams, Annual Peppt on the Social and

Econoniic Progess of the People of Se1ngor for

the year 1, F.M.S. Government Prese, 1933, p.2?, para199. 87

.s. Adams, Annua]. Report on the Social and

Fconoiîiic Progress of the Peo1e of Selangor for the

year 1933f p.31, para. 207. 88

89

P.T. Bauer, op. cit. p.22k.

Annual Report of the Agent of the Goernnient of

India in Malaya for the ir 1933, New Delhi1 Manager of Publications1 193k1 p.3. 90

Annual Report of the Agent of the Government of

of India for the year 193k, New Delhi, Manager of Publications, 1935, p.2,. 91

.

Thoipson, Labour Problems in Southeast Asia,

New Haven, 19k7, p.67. 92

93 J.M. Barran,

nnua1 Rert of the Iabou' Department

for the year 19, Kuala Lunpur, 1936, p.1. 9k

&nnua1 Re,ort of the Agent of the Governe.t o

l2Lf

aia for the year 1935, De1hj

Government of

Thda Press, 1936, p3. Bauer, op. cit. 236. 96

VJ1son, Annual Reprt of the labour Deprtmeut

for the year 9?

Kuala Lumur., 1937, p.12.

Report of the Agent of Lhe Government of In3ia

:' theyeaz 1936, Delhi, Government of India Press, 1937g p.4.. See also Ji. Priestly's ¿txinual Report

on the Working of the Indtui Thiigratiox Act, 1922

for the year936, Delhi, 1937e p.2' 98

ibid.1 p.Lf.

99 T.G. Rutherford

Annual Report on the Working

the Indian Bigration At 1922 for the year

1937m

Mnaer of Publications, Demi 1938. 100

.

"Indian Labour

.

International Labour Review 101

.

. *

.

,n Ceylon, Ftp. and British Malaya" 2(l9fO) p.68.

Quoted in United Planting Jssociation of Malaya

Circular No. if, 1938, p.2. 102

103

Malav Mails June 16th. 1938, p.5.

Wilson, Annual Rept of the Iabour Department

L25

for the year 1938e Kuala lumpur, 1939e p.1617. V. Thompson, op. cit. p.69. 105 106 107 10

109

International iabour

eview, 19kO, op. cit. p.69.

V. Thompson, op. cit. p.70.

Anxu1 Iert for the year 1938, op. cit. p.20. .

I

P,T. Bauer, op. cDt. p.2#2,

i.:. Price, Annual Report øf the south majan

Labour Fund Boara 1959, Government PresE, Federation of Malaya, 1960, p.11. 1J.o

1]_1

International Labour .

eview Vol. XLVI, 6(1Dec. 19k2) p.752.

.

The New Immigration Law, Departiitent of InÍ'ormation

foi. the Cont?oller of Immigration, Federation of

Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 1952. 112

.

K.S. Sandillu, "Some Prelimuiary Observations of

the 0rigin

and Characteristics of Indian Migration

to Malaya 17861957" P&

on Mala7an History, Papers

submitted to the First International Conference of South-East Asian Historians, Singapore 1962, p.67k 113 According to K. Davis, there are four periods

in the course of majan immigration. But the writer

126

concurs with the opinion of K.S. Sandhu in discerning six periods in this movei1eut.

127

CHAPTER III HISTORY OF INDIAN IIllIIGRATIQN

The Indian. Imig.ation Committee: An Evaluation o

Its Work, Necessity and Achievements.

The Indian Immigration Committee was formed in ]9O7 and it existed wholly in connection witb Indian estate labour. A number of factors influenced the formation al the Indian Immigration Committee. The rise of the rubber industry in 1906, with its unprecedented demand for labour in the

rubber estates, brought into being the Indian Immigration Committee.1 The urgent need of labour necessitated that some means would bave to be

found ta meet it. The Acting Superintendent of Immigrants ìn the Annual Report for the year 1906 expressed this idea: As the rubber already planted contes into bearing, the labour force required to deal with land now under cultivation and it is to be hoped will that means may be fond fo securing (enough immigrants). increases

128

He thereThze suggested the formation of a Committee to direct the import of immigrant labour.3 At the same time labour was also required by the Government

services. Besides, the expenses incurred in recruiting labour along private lines, either through Agency

Houses in India or by licenced recruiters were too high. Indentured labour was considered expensive

..

.

.

.

and insufficient in quantity.

k

There was also the

attempt to control "crimping" of labour, under which labourers, whether ïndentured or free, were attracted by the higher wages offered and therefore left the service of the employers who paid for them to be

brought over. Indeed the origin of the Indian Iniigration Committee could be traced to the desire of three important p1anters Planters'

Association1

associations, the United

the Johore Planters' Association

and the Malay Peninsula Agricultural Association to have the government set up a

ceutral labour bureau"

iIi. order to do away with crimping.5 In the words o

G.E

Turner:

129

One of the reasons why the Indian :Emrnigrtiou Comniittee caine into being

was to stop all the burden cf iniporting labour being thrown prito a Iew Íor the benefit of the niany.

Penal and civil measures were useless to deal with Crilipingb By 1907 the old nethods of recruitment

supplied inadequate labour, and many employers importing Tamul labour were loud in their protests

against the general labour situation. Some thought it justified that the Government should take action to ameliorate the defect.

The solution of the problem was found in 1907, by the setting up oÍ' the Indian Immigration

Committee and its attendant, the Tamul Immigration Fund. The Indian Immigration Committee was inaugurated

at a meeting held in Penang on 23ra. March 1907 at eleTen o'clock in the morning.

The President laid

emphasis on the increasing demand for labour and called for concerted action to be taken. Re urged the need to stimulate emigration froi India and to attract coolies to Malaya. Another member present,

3.30

the Hou. J. Turner, ezessed his opinion that what was needed was a scheine to introduce labour ozi

1are scale. At this meeting aU the membexs

agTeea to set up a system of taxation to meet the cost o

importation of labour. This was the genesis

of the Indian Immigration Fund, At the next meeting helä on lkth. Apri]. 1907 at 2.30 p.m. at the Court

oue, Ipoh, recommendations were made regarding the zu1es for the operation of the

ind.8 After the

approval of the Governxneut the recoïmendation.s were

embodied in an

aactnient cited as "The Tami]..

Immigration Fund Ozdinance 1907t1 which was brought

into effect at the beginning of 1908. Much to the

annoyance of Indians, the Fund was designated

Uj1TT

which was defined as tlAsjatjc Native from Madras Pr esidexic

of British India" .

The ludian Imiratio

Committee Was constituted under Section 3 of the fTTafld1 Immigration Fund Ordinance".Thie Ordinance

was repealed by Ordiìiance No. XV o

1908, known as

"The Tamil Thaigration Fund Ordinance, 3.908." The

131

Ordinance authorised all employers to keep books

in the English 1anuage, showing the number of Tamil 1abou'ers employed, the days in which they had worked and the wages they were paid. The Ordinance of 1908 was amended in 1909 and again

in 1911, ana by

912 the fuxidanenta1 legislation

for the Indian Immigration nachinery had been enacted.1° The Taiail Imniigration Fund Ordinance

was first enacted in the Straits Settlements, then similar statutes were passed in the Federated Malay States and Johore. tJnder 161 Labour Code of 1912, the name of the Fund was changed to t'The

Indian Imigration Fund'

Eowever in 1923, another

Labour Code superseded the 1912 Enactment, and the provisions regarding the Indian Immigration Fund remained much the sanie.

The Fund was administered by the Controller of Labour under the authority of the Indian Immigration

Committee)1 To start the functioning of the Tamil Immigration Fund, loans of $50,000 from the Federated

132

Malay States and

5,OOO from the Johore Goverrmient

were given to meet the expenses incuzrea at the first quarter of 1908, for it was only at the end 01 the quarter that assessment could be collected. The6e were repaid in full by the end of 1913. 12 .

.

The Indian Immigration Committee consisted of the following members: 6 official meiibers

the Controller of Labour as Chairman, the Deputy

Controller of Labour as Vice-Chairman, the Directors oÍ the Medical Department,

he Public Works Department

and Irrigation Department and the General Mana&er

of the Federated Malay States Railways?3 The unofficial members were the President of the United Planting

Association of

Malaya1

representatives of the planters

in Kedali, Province Wellealey, Perak, Selangor, Negri

Sembilan, Malacca, Johore and Kelantan, a prominent business man usually from Pezrnng, ari Indian representatiTe

from the Straits Settlements and two Indian representatives

from the Federated Malay States.1k The Controller of

L&bour1

J4alaya, spoke o!

133

the Indian Immigration Committee in the fo11owin way during a meeting of the Federal Council in September 1932; s 4 ....... another Malayan ganization, which in the Federated Malay States and in the Colony (S.S.) and under special laws in the Unfederated Malay States, exercises urisdjctiou and draws its revenues whicb it spends in normal times in recruiting labour and in abnormal times, like these, in repatriation.15

In

fact1

the Indian Immigration Committee was set

up to supervise the recruitment of Indian labour for the Colony, the Federated Malay States and Johore. Eut later its work was extended to all parts of Malaya with the exception of Prengganu s

where there were very few estates. In the words of Dr. 11.N. Parmer:

.5.5...... the promotion and regulation of immigration as the committees raison dtetre.]0

With the institution of the Indian Immigration Committee the Indian Immigration Departmenta of the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States

13Li.

were amalgamated. When the Labouz' Code of 1912 was

passes, the Labour Department was Constituted and

took over the thzties of the old Indian Xm.gation Department 17

The formation of the Indian Xmmiration Committee was not all that sniootb. It is tzue that the Conunittee and the Fund were approved br many

planters and employers. But it is also true that there wexe others who raised objections on the ground that eiuployez's, who now had sufficient labour

would have to contribute to a fund, which would

ay

for the importation oí labourers for new estates (their rivals), that the body of planters serving on the Committee was not representative enough, and that Singapore was to be excluded from the influence of the Ordinance. In particular, the newly-fozrned

Rubber Groweres Association, consisting of British companies, agency houses and individuals engaged in rubber pi,oduction, was loud in its protesta against

the scheine. The Rubber Grower& Association vas

135

afraid that some planters were

1anning to open

up new plaritation3 with the help of the labour

imported under the Ordinance, so as to compete

successful1

with estates where there were established

labour fox'ces8 The Rubber Growers' Association was opposed by the Planters' Association of Malaya. The Government tried to give relief to the employers who had imported labour before the formation of the Committee by protecting them within three years

from the operation of the law)9 iowever the Planters' Association of Malaya occasionally criticized the work of the Committee. The bone of contention was that the Planters' Association of Malaya wanted to select the planters who could then sit on the Committee, but the government reserved this right. The PAM argued that the Fund administered by the Committe was derived from the planters, and this should give them the right to select the planters who could ait on the

Committee. But the government was adamant in reserving .

.

this ri.ghta

20

136

The Indian Immigration Committee

introduced a system of assisted immigration which took the following form:

An assessment on the amount of work done by their coolies is levied on all enp1oyers of Tamil labour, and the proceeds are devoted to paying the passages over from India of all Tamil coolies. A kangany recrziting faz' a particular estate can obtain free passages for the coolies he collects if be is provided with a licence issued by the Immigration Committee. The licence is signed by the employer, who guarantees certain wages and undertakes that the deduction that can be made from those wages on account of all expenses incurred on the coolie's bsia1f before his arrival on the estate shall in no case exceed a certain definite maximum. If any employer is found to be making deductions fron the coolies' wages to an amount larger than this maximum, then free passages from India will no longer be granted to coolies for bis estate.21

The employers therefore were required to pay assessment on the number of days worked by all Indian labourers in their employ. These assessments would form the Indian Immigration Ñind which was used to finance the import of labourers from South India.

ie aasessment

on an employer was decided by dividing the total number

137

of days worked by the lnâian labourers cii his estate by the nwnber cl days in a quarter of the year as determined by the Committee. Fron' 1925 on, the total rnnriber of workìn

days in a month for

the labourer was determined by legislation to be

2k, thus a quarter of the year wouldamount to 72, i.e. 3 x 2f. The number obtained by dividing the total number of days worked by the Indian labourers by the number of days in a quarter was then iultiplied by a money rate determined by the Committee. For'

example, if the total number of working days cf Indian labourers on an estate was 18,000 and the quarter was fixei at 72 at a rate of $3, then the

assessnient on the employer would be 7O for the quarter.22 ployers were required to send in to the Labour Office at Penang on printed forms which may be obtained free, certified retiarns of their Indian

labour for every quarter. The following shows a

example of these printed forms:

Qjarterly Return23 Return under Section 153 of Federated Malay States Labour Code, 1912, showing the number of Tamil labourers whose names are entered in the register of Tamil labourers.

Number of names entered J

Total amount of Total number ITotal payments to of day& wor1arnount labourers 4one paid Remarks On daily On On On ifor j_n sages Fcontracdai1ycontractoverregistei(exclud- or piecwagesor piectime Ing -work -work Dvertirne)

Tamil

t

I

labottrers : i

orking n daily-

{

rages I-

Tamil Labourers working n ontract r piece-

!

I

I

i

i

I

rork .1

1umber of rrnmes

entered :egis tez

Total nu.inbei of days' work

credited in register emarks

139

I hereby certify that the above is a correct sumniary of the entries in my register of Tamil

labourers during the quarter ending Date

191

Ezip1oyers.

The returns must be sent within a month of the

expiration of each quarter, i.e. in

Ari11

July,

October and January and should be addressed to the Deputy Controller of Labour, Pexaang. The returns

were assessed according to the rates published for each quarter in the Goverwnent Gazette and each employer

would be informed of the amount he

had to pay. Unless the amount that was assessed was sent to the Deputy Controller of Labour, Penang,

within 2]. days of the posting of the notice, the employer would be charged interest at the rate of 8

per cent per annwn ou the amount assessed.2

Section

156

of the Federated Malay States Labour

Code 1912 imposed the levy o

two rates, one ou

ail Indian labourers ep1oyed and the other, a

1ko

special or extra rate on the Indian labourers employed over and above the rzumber recruited from

India by the employers within the last twenty-four months. The maximum assessment on each labourer per quarter Usually would not exceed three dollars. iployers were aleo warned that if they failed to ti ey

send in the assessments/would be penalized by a :ritie not exceeding five hundred dollars. Every luxe inzposed by virtue of the Tantil Immigration

Ordinance would become part of the Immigration Fund. These eniployers would be further penalized by the withdrawal of kangazzy recruiting licences

from them, so that they would have ditficulty in getting labour for their eetates. The Controller of Labour, Nr. J.R.O. AJ.dworth

wrote of the Indian Immigration Fund in the following way:

The Indian Immigration Fund is not part of the general revenue of the Government. It is administered solely in the interests of the importers of Indian labour1 by the Controller of Labour, under the authority

141 of the Indian Irnnaigratjon Comiittee,

which at present consists of three official and six unofficial members. The Government is the J.srgest contributor to the Fund through the assessment it pays on account of all labourers from the Madras Presiaency employed in the Railway, and Public 1York Department, by the varioue 8anitary Boards and by other departments 25 The purposes paie for by the Indian Immigration \znd were:26

a) for the payment of free passages for the emigrants and their families from

the Madras Presidency to the Federated Malay States, Straits Settlements, Johore, Kedah, Penis and KeJ.antan, b) for the general expenses incn.rred in

connection with recruiting of labour in districts Qf India,

o) quarantine charges on arria1 at Penang, Port Swettenhatn or Singapore from India,

a) transport charges from these ports to

places of em1oyment for those who have been provided with free passages fron

142

the Fund. These transport charges

included (i) the landing of such immigrants, (iI) the sending of telegrams by estate agents to employers stating the nuniber of labourers

recruited for their estates. e) repatriation to India,

f) payment of food and transport expenses to repatriates and their dependants from ports in Malaya to their villages in India,

g) Maintenance of a Home27 for decrepit Indian labourers, h) for the payitent of interest upon the

money borrowed by the Indian Immigration Committee

i) for the payment of the expenses incurred in keeping registers of locally engaged Indian labourers.

i) for the maintenanoe of the recruiting

depots in iuia28 k) occasionally for charitable purposes, such as the donation of Rs. 200 to

a Children's Society in Madras, annual support of the blind children at

Palacottah School for the Blind in South Iudia

and iii August 192k, a

grant of Rs.1O,000 was donated to the

Government in South India for relief work as a consequence of recent floods.

During 19k1, it was acreed to use part of the Indian Immigration Fund to pay for the maintenance and travelling expenses of Indian labourers in search of work. Thus, the Ft2nd could enable the Indian

Immigration Committee to pay all the costs of transporting a labourer from his home in India to

his place of employment in Nalaya. By the end of 1913, the only expenses still paid by the employezs were charges of feeding the labourexs at the immigration depots in }falaa while waiting for the

employers, the charges of financial agents in Indie and. commission to the kanganjes.29 This wa

indeed a great achievement on the part of the :rndian innigration Conuuittee; for at the outset, the Coniniittee could only pay for the cost of the

passage. At this stage, the employers were allowed to recover from the labourers' wages ari anount

equal to their expenses cormected with importing the labourers, including the amount paid to the kanganies ae commission. But most employers persisted in deducting large sums from their labourers' wazes which also included the transportation charges borne 'by the Fund. To fight against this, the

Committee decided that from January 1909 kangany recri.ziting licences would not be iseued unless they

contained the stiu1ation that no dedtction wou1 be made from wages of the labourers on account o importation expenses. In order to compensate the employers, the Committee decided to pay them

recruiting allowances, in respect of each labourer

l'f 5

recruited. After 1913, when nearly the whole cost o1 iinDortíng the labourers was borne by the

nd,

the recruitixig allowance was fixed at the rate

recommended b

the Committee which would cover

the commission paid to the kanganies. At this eai'].y stage, the recruiting allowance paid to the

employer for every labourer recruited by him was 1O for a

Vf, but by 1936, it was increased to

labourer and his wife and $8 for a single man. To quote the words of the Labour Departmeut Aanua1 Report for 1912: recruiting would cost him (the s s em1oyer) very little more than the assessment rate paid to the Immigration Fund, provideä that the comnlissions to kanganies are kejt within reasonable linhits.:50

The Government bore all the expenses

connected with administering the

Funds

paying the

salaries of officials and clerks.31 Two Government officials were in charge of the two emigration depots in India: the Thiigration Agent at Madras

i46 and the Superintendent of

igration at Negapatam.

The8e two officials supervised these cains and genera11

assisted in all matters coztncted with

recruiting. The modern camp at Avadi belonged to the Indian Immig'ation Comnittee, and in 192

the

Committee toolt over from the Straits Settlements

and Federated Malay States the camp at Negapatam The Government also paid a large annual subsidy to the British India Steam Navigation Company which maintained the weekly service from India to the Straits, and turned over a nutber of ticIets to the Committee. Notwithstanding all these expenses, the Government had to pay assessments to the Committee due to the fact that it was a major employer of Indian labour.

With the introduction of assisted immigration as fostered by the Indian Immigration Committee, it appears that by 1910 the problem of ensuring

sufficient Indan1abaur for the rubber estates had been solved. The work carried out by the Committee

1k7

was BO successful that by 1910 employers relt that it was safe enough to dispense with indentured labour. So partly because o

this, and partly on

moral grounds, indentured Indian labour was abolished, and no new contracts were made after June 30th. In the words of L.R. Price:

The new system save such good results that importation to Malaya under the indenture s7stem oeased for Indians from June 1910.32 Thus the living testimony of the success of the Indian Imniigration Committee was the abolitioi of

the recruitment of indentured labour in 1910. With the help cf the Committee, labourer3 were brought into Malaya either by kanganies, or they came in as non-recruited or independent labourers. The latter type of assisted non-recruited immigration was favoured by the Committee, as it cost less since recruiting allowances would not have to be

paid to employers. Eut this form of immigration was contrary to the interests of the kangany and hence very few attempts were made to promote it.

8

The Committee was apprehensive of undexmining the

kangany system of recruitmeit. But from 192, in order to encourage non-recruited immigration, the Committee decreed the payment of i2.00 to each

adult and

1,OO to each minor independent immigrant.

However, when the Government o imposed a ban on assisted emigration o

India

unskilled

labour to )alaya in June 1938, no Iurther assessment

was collected from employers.33 By this time, the original purpose for which the Committee and the

Fundwere created, i.e. to assist immigration of Indian labourers into Malaya, bad ceased to exist.

At the last meeting of the Committee pre-war, held on 23rd. July J.9fl, the controller of Labour as

Chairman o1 the Committee, related that in 1911 a suggestion was made that assistance from the Fund should be used to import Javanese labour. The suggestion was dropped at that time, and at this meeting the sanie suggestion was carried by 1k votes

to 1. Since 1938 there had been no immigration of

fresh Indian unskilled labour into Nalaya.and as a result the estates stood in need. of inimigration

of other types of labour. When war broke out in 1939, an era of prosperity ensued in the rubber and tin

industries1

and the demand for labour

became urgent. The ban inipoaed by the Government

of India accentuated the problem of labour shortage.

At the Indian Immigration sub-Committee meeting held on 28th. Noeniber l9fI, rules and procethzree for recruiting labour froni Netherland Indies were pi.it forward. But unfortunately, the Japanese

Occupation intervened and. the work was dropped.

After the war the Committee met for the first time on 21st. Nay 19kG. In 19k8, the same suggestion pre-war came up for consideration, but it was not

adopted by the Indian Immigration

ommittee.

ç:!4ticizms of the Indiau Immigration Committee: It

can be said that the Indian Immigration Committee provided the opportunity for the kanganies to acquire affluence and power, and therefore helped

150

to perpetuate the shortcomings an.d abuses as practised by the kanganies. The Coinniittee as well

Rs the Labour Departient were aware also of bribery which was more often than not practised. It is true that the Committee freni time to time would take measures to combat theEe niaipractices,

but as Dr. J.N. Farmer puts it:

It was considered difficult to halt practices between 'natives' and briber was probably never effectively halted.-" The weapons which the Committee could use were

mainly two: the Committee could cancel the licences of kanganies found practising abuses, and the payment of low commission to kanganies on the understanding that they would riot have the funds

to deal in malpractices. In 1923, a legal limit

was placed on commissions, and the Indian ImmigratiDn Committee and the Labour Department insisted that the maximum commission would be ten rupees for each labourer being recruited by the kangany. The Committee did very little to ipr'ove

151.

the shipping facilities Lised to carry Indian

labourers to Malaya. Although there was no agreement among medical and health officers of the government of the Federated Malay States ae to how bad the conditions of ships were, yet there was no doubt that the ships were overcrowded and insanitary. According to the Report of the Protector of Indian Iabour of the Federated Malay States for the year 190].:

The transport of the labourer under the Government contract with the British India Company leaves nothing to be desired, as seen on the es. Bulimba (26-9-01), the Company feeding the coolies in a liberal way and paying every attentio! to teir eleanlinese, health and comfort.3°

This was reiterated in the words cl the Principal Medical Officer when he spoke on behalf of the Governnient in 1919:

raking into account the bad health in India, the gxeat number of seasickness on board and the fact that the death rate of the coolies deliez'ed to estates is at least three times as low as the average in India the effect of other

152

conditions ou board the steamers cannot be very bad..37

They may be right, but more generally I

incline to the idea that the ships were

overcrowded

and unsanitary tropical priscn&t38 as has been put forward by the Senior Officer of the F.M.S. An Article in the Malaya Tribune, a Singapore daily, described that the Indian coolies were "snatched like the prey of sea-gulls and packed in steamers of unbearable suffocating nature, like sardines in

tis.tT39 Again, in the words cf A.IJ. Mukarranis: The ships of the T class are admirably suited for immigrants, yet there is much that can be remedied, and much. that can be done to assist a deck passenser's comfort during the voyage. It is not a day's journey that bas to be made1 a ew hours inconvenience and unpleasantness but a seven days voyage, and in many cases this amounts to seven days of concentrated misery. In the first place there is much overcrowding. Occasionally the numbers o deck passengers are so packed together that it would be impossible to swing the proverbial cat among them. There is not the slightetattempt made ta separate families or sex, all are packed together in a heterogeneous iass1f miserable humanity ..............

153

The Indlaii Immigration Coimittee did not

like to incur inczeased expenditure, an

therefore

did not press for immediate reforms of shipping conditions. It was only in 1927, when the Government renewed its mail and immigration contract with the British India Steam Navigation Company that two new Itbetter typetl steamers were introduea. The

latter improvement appears to have been the result of the efforts of the Agent of the Government of India.

on the other band, the Indian Inirnigration

Committee renioved the incentive for crimping, because

it was no longer pofitab1e for an employer to try to attract labourers from other employers instead of importing Jais own. 1ow enough labourers could be

imported at the expense of the Indian Immigration Fund. tu the words of Dr. Lennox A. Nill8: "Whereby the attraction of Nabot3its vineifard was diminished." Iii addition, it was the

Indian Ii*igration Committee and the sund that

15h.

encouraged the growth of a new class of Indian immigrants, le. labourers who Caine to Malaya without being recruited. Their passages were paid by the Fund, and one significant advantage was that they landed in Malaya without any obligation to work foi any particular employer. This gave the Indian immigrants an opportunity to find work on estates that offered higher wages, 2 and to start .

life in Malaya without debt

Moreover, the Committee

was an organization that had the power of controlling the volunie and types o

migrants by influencing the

issue of kangany licences. It was also the Indian Immigration Couunittee

that helped1 to a certain extent, to reduce the major

problem of "desertion" to a minor one, by stabilizing the labour requirements of the country. The desertion

of labourers from estates had constituted a crave problem during the hey-day of indentured labour. But even after indentured labour was abolished, "desertion" continued to plague the employers, as

1

shown by the Labour Department Annual Report f or 1913:

The numbers shown as having deserted during the year are again very large, amounting to k3,728 out of an, average labour population of 155,662.3 Allowances, of course, must be niade for the fact

that ]st employers usually gave a wide interpretation to the term

desertion and were inclined to include

under that heading all labourers who left against their employers' wishes, whether there was any

infrinenient oÍ the law or not. But it still remained true that "desertion" constituted a grave handicap to employers oÍ Indian 1abour

In 1913, about 28.k5

per cent of the average labour population left their employment without notice, in l9l

it was 26.61 per

cent and in 1915 it was 29.05 per cent. But due to the help of the Indian Immigration

\rnd which made

possible an abundant supply of immigrant labourers,

the problem was reduced, as enough labourers could always be recruited if any deserted the estate. By

156

1917, in spite of complaa.uts from some estates of

shortage of labour, there was no real shortage of labour on niany ci the estate.

Apparently the primary purpose for which the Committee was created was attended by- success.

It succeeded in encouraging and increasing a steady flow of South Indian labour into Nalaya. The nunber o

assisted immigrants juuiped from 2,7O9 in 1907

to 91,236 in 1913. Most employers and kanganies were making increasing use of the Fund to recruit labouxers from South India.

To sum up, I cannot

dc better than quote Mr. E.W.F. Gilnian's words:

But for the foresight which introduced this unigue syetem before the great boom of 1910 Nalaya would not have enjoyed the comparative freedom which it since has from labour difficulties and the development of the great rubber plantation industry would prpably have been seriously impeded.

:1.57

The Pattern cf Indian Migration to Ma1aa: a Critical Eeview of theystens of Recruitnient. The pattern of Indian immigration to

Malaya was mainly imfluenced by the ways under which the Indians were recruited to emigrate out of ludia. But of course not all Indians who migrated to Malaya were of the recruited end assisted type: distinction being frequently made between assisted and unassisted immigrants. Assisted immigration co!rlprised the stem by which labourers were financially helped to enter into Malaya. Under unassisted illÌrÌIilation, no help was given to assist

the Indians, who therefore were indejendent immigrants. But the great bulk of Indian iznniirants to Malaya

were of the assisted type. Within the category of assisted inmilgration,

there were three difíerent types Under the first type labourers were assisted on the basis o indenture contracts, while under the second form they pere assisted on the basis of kazagany-cntracts.

The third type consisted of unrecruited assisted inunigration. However by 1910 the indenture system

was abo1ished

and immigi'ation under this fo'm

was replaced by the kangany system of immigration. But by the 1930's this was superseded by unrecruited system oÍ assisted immigration. The movement of Indians to Malaya started

under the indenture system

when the Tamil and

Telugu labourers were first brought to work on sugar and coffee plantations for a period of three years.

Indentured labourers were engaged under

the Indian Immigration Ordinance of 188k. According to this law, the labourers had to be registered an4

bad to execute three-year contracts as soon as they art'jved at the Straits or to repay the advances

recered before they came. This law was re-enacted in Ordinance VII of 1899 and was also retained by the Indian Tmnrtgration Ordinance VI of 1904. The

indenture system was devised to meet the requirements o;

the sugar plantations; later coffee-planters also

19 x'esorted to this system to recruit 1abourezs. But

indentured labourers were also recruited fo

those

rubber estates where the conditions were so unfavourable that free labourers would not go there. After the

erio

o

indenture was over

the labourers

could either settle down on the estates or return to India.

The main features of the indenture system in Ta1aya were three years of regulated labour,

denial o

the right to change the employer or place

of employment, recruitment of labour units instead of by families, excesses of insu to women labourers,

payment by the employers of the charges for recruitment, and the denial of increased wages in spite of increased profits and prices. Against these defects, there were some compensation as free housing,

medical attendance, a fixed standard of wages and other amenities which were provided by the empioyers.' But of course eTen with these coiupensation, it is

apparent that the disadvantages of the indenture

systei far outweiçhecI the advantaes

The system

of indexture in Malaya diUered slightly from that practised in other British colonies. In Malaya

indentured labourers were zecruited for the enipoyers by private agencies whereas in other British colonies the Government there recruited

indentured labourers and made them available for employers.50 Usually the indentured coolies had to be exantined by the Medical Officers at the

depots prior to being dispatched to the Straits. The Medical Officer would turn away any labourer whose hands were not hardened by manual labour, for this would imply that the labourer did not

belong to an agricultural caste. In the words of E.V. Carey:

Each man was made to use the mammotby or changkol in the presence of Dr. Hardakar

until thiiieat an off bis back, in order that his knowledge of the use of this instruient, which is more commonly used than any other for d.gging purposes, might be thoroughly tested.1 The indenture system was defective fron

i6i

many points of view. The defects were so

Iariug

that very often it had been designated as slavery,

as has been put forward by Sir

il1ia

Hunter.

Others like Gokhale, Iahatina Gandhi and C.F. Andrews

regarded it as semi-slavery. Perhaps the comment of K. Davis is tnoze appropriate: "a Ia1f-way s tage

between slavery au1 free labour." In recruiting indentured labourers professional recruiters were employed. These professional recruiters were usually paid according to the number of labourers recruited.

Therefore they were bound to paint unduly optimistic

pictures of

working and living conditions in Malaya

in order to attract as many labourers as possible.

To use the words of Dr. L.A. Nuls: Since their sole interest was to earn as much as possible, their account of conditions in Malaya sometimes displayed the same high standards of unaminelled imagination as Irish folklore.2 These recruiters were inevitably a class of professionals, adept in every art of recruitment, trying to profit

at the expense of the wretchedness and ignorance of

the Indian peasants. They would "cast their nets

and entrapped their vìctim8"53 in districts of Indian villages where crops had failed, and in pilgrim centres where tens o

thousands of illiterate

labourers gathered together. By hook or by crook the recruiters would lead them to the

niration

depots. In return for recruiting inaenturecì labourers

the agents were paid ?s.l6 per head for every coolie

brought to the depots and passed by the Medical Officer. The recruiters might not have to spend any money on the labourers recruited. Thus the

indenture system helped to reinforce the ma1rac tices of the professional recruiters, who are described as men who as long as they secure recruits, care little how they get them; and consequently command neither the respect nor the confidence of the inhabitants. This was reiterated in the words of Captain B. Fischer, the British Consular Agent at Karikal in 1875: ........ recruiters, who owing to their peculiar profession were an eager, callous and too often an utterly unscrupulous race of merz,52

i63

He suggested that the way to counteract the influence of the professional recruiters was to have the working conditions in Malaya advertised in the simplest lauguage. At arie of the Legislative

Council meetings, a

mezither condemned the attitude

of the recruiters who exploited indentured labour for their own benefit and not for the piantere.6

However the only safeguard provided by the Indian Government against the nialpractices 01' the professional

recruiters was to insist that recruiting of indentured

labour should be done by '1en of

espectability

and

that these recruiters should be licenoed. There was objection to the indenture system

on the ground that the indentured labourers left India without adequate knowledge of the nature of their work on the plantations. Against this it can

be argued that there was always the contract to enlighten the labourers and to prevent gross abuses.

Perhaps the words of Dr. N right note:

angu1ee strike the

1-6k

E:ow could a contract be something real when one party was entirely ignorant o:1 the nature of the work and of the environnient in which he would have to live ?57

Often the indenture contract was the result cl igiiorance on the part of the labourers or fraud

on the part of the professional recruiters. The

gist of it is that more often than not the contract was a "fictional" one. The nature and conditions of work to be performed by the indentured labourers were not stipulated in the contracts they had to sign before leaving India. When they found the

conditions appertaining to estates

intolerables

they could not withdraw from the contract. Moreover the indentured labourers were placed under a special

law which would penalize them for any trivial breaches of the contract. The plight of the indentured labourers can very well be imagined. In the words of E. Dennery: Those departing were still so ignorant as to their new masters, their work and the difficulties of their new life as to make the insistence upon their willingness to go entirely valueless.

The impossibility of bzeaking a contract ........ 1owever great his disillusionment on his arriva, freiuently drove the coolie to 5uicide.5° Indeed the fundamental objection to the indenture system was that the labourer was forced to serve the period of his contract. At first the contract

signed by the indentured labourer covered a period of three years, but later it was reduced to six

hundred days.59 Another deThct i

the inìenture srste

was that among the indentured labourers there was a great difference in the proportion of men to women. This, coupled with the structure of the coolie lines which made privacy impossible, was a prolific

source of iorality and vice, and social diseases were common. Violent crimes and suicides became a feature of the Indian indenture system in

Malaya.

Wages to the indentured labourers were on a

very

lowscale. There was a great difference in the wages between free labourers and indentured labourers. On

i66

estates in Selangor the difference was froni 50

per cent to 100 per cent in

avoin' of the free

coolies. Besides, the wages of the indentured labourers would remain the satt'e even though the

costs of living might go up. The wages would be agreed upon at the time when the labourer was

engaged. ¶e indenture system was also objected to on the ground that during the time stipulated on the

contract1

the employers would try to work

the indentured labourers as hard as possible and to maintain them on as little as possible. When

the period of indenture was over, the employers would try their best to renew the contracts if the labourera were still able to work, but would repatriate them if they proved unable.

This

meant that during the period of indenture the energy and life-blood of the labourers would be sapped away, and when they became useless they wo].d be discarded by the employers. The compensation given in the form of free housing, iedical attendance

167

ana other ameuities duxing the period of indenture would only be a sop to the indentured labourers, and could never niake up ior the inju5tice incurred.

The system was unjust in that the balance of

edvantage in the contract of service lay always with the employers.

In addition, the indenture system was unsatisfactory even froi

the employers! view-point.

Indentured labour was expensive and poor in. quality.

To borrow the words of the Controller of Labour:

Coolies collected by professional recruiters are not the agricultural labourers who are required in Malaya; they are more often the sweepings of the towns and black-guards arid loafers. All the defects of the indenture system were summed up by the prominent Indian leader, Gopal Krishna Gokhale during bis address to the Imperial Legislative Council:

Under this system, those who are recruited bind themselves, first to go to a distant and unknown land, the language, usage and customs of which they do not know, and where they have no friends and relatives.

I ..

Secondly, they bind themselves to work there for any employer to whom they ay be whom they do not know and who does not know them, and in whose choice they have no voice. Thirdly they bind themselves to live there on the estate of the employer, miist not go anywhere without a special permit, and must do whatever tasks are assigned to them, no matter however irksome those tasks riay be. Fourthly, the binding is for a certain fixed period, usually five years, during which time they cannot voluntarily withdraw frct the contract, and have no means of escaping from its hardships, however intolerable. ifthly, they bind themselves to work during the period for a fixed wage, which invariably is lower, and in some cases very much lower, than the wage paid to free labour around them. And sixthly, and lastly, and this to my mind is the worst feature of the system, they are placed under a special law, never explained to them before they left the country, which is in a language which they do not understand and which imposes on them a criminal liability for the most trivial breaches of the contracts, in place of the civil liability which usually attaches to such breaches. Thus they are liable under this law to imprisonment with hard labour, which may extend to two and j_n some cases to three months, not only for fraud, not only for deception, but for negligence, for carelessness and will the Council believe it? for even an impertinent word or esture to the manager or his cvez.seere.°2 allotted1

169

There had been no lack of criticism on the indenture system, and in many of the National Congresses and. Indian Legisletive Councils held

in India, violent protests against the System were heard. Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, one of the leaders of the

ndian Nationalist Party spoke against !Tthe

ineffable en1ess disgrace of tho indenture system"63 at a pan-Inda.an meeting held at AllahaI,ad in 1917.

The jucenture systeni was described by Nr. Joseph EeaurxLont, the ex-Chef Justice of British Guiana

from 1563 to i868 as a nlonstDous rotten system, rooted grown in its stale soil, enrnJ.ating its worst abuses and only the more dangerous because it presents itself under false colours, whereas slavery has

upon

slavery1

the brandpf infamy written upon it forehead

Dr. Lanka Sundaram commented on the system this: Under such a law, there is no human touch between master asid servant as is the case in all civil contracts governing the work-a-day forms of service.5 By the beginning of the twentieth Century Indian public opinion clamoured for the abolition

170

0± the indenture system. Due to the rising position

of Inaia as a nation, it wa

felt to be an insult;

and the system was regarded as inconsistent with .

.

the sentiment of natona1 self-respect.

66

The

indenture system was important not only in the economy of Eritish territories: it had its repercussions in the politica]. field. As the

Government of India wrote to the Secretary of State for India: Foi:' Indian politicians1 moderate and

extreme alike, consider that the existence this system, which they do not hesitate o to call by the name of sla-ery brands their whole race in the eyes cf the British6 Ipire with the stigma of he1otTy Colonial

Mahatma Gandhi and other national leaders took up the indenture system as a question o

national

importances The inevitable result was the abolition of the system, which came earlier in Malaya than in other parts of the British Empires It was in 1910 that the system was abolished. 0f course the evil

did not stop by this year, for although fresh

171

recruiting under indenture was prohibited, there

were still labourers whose indentures bd not expired yet. These indentures were a11oved to

run their course and by 1913 the last indenture expired. Hence the evil of the indenture system for Indiau labourers came to an ench

However, against all the critiizms levelled at the indenture system,

. Davis has

the following to say on behalf of it:

It enabled business enterprise to tranefer labour to newly developing areas, and yet restrained that labour from immediately taking holdings of its own where unexploited land was abundant .......... It did imply a social gulf between employer and labourer, but it held the possibilit of eventual freedom for the ].atter.6 The indenture system was a. step ahead of slavery,

for it baa been universally recognized that the

system, however bad, was only a temporary whereas slavery was permanent. The system was a device used to secure labour for the early plantations and it remained useful until it was eventually

)72

replaced by the kangany system cf recruitment. The kangany sy-steni was so called because

of the peculiarly important role of the kangany.

The sate was first used in. Malaya in the 1890t8, but it was not comion1y resorted to until the beginning of the twentieth Century.

Then restrictions on Indian emigration to Malaya

were removed in 1897, it was found more convenient to recruit labour by nieans of kanganies. Although

by 1900 indentured labour continued on the sugar plantations, Government clejartments arid a few

estates, it was kangany-recruited labour which became the mainstay of the rubber estates. In 1902 the proportion of uziindentured labourers in 2

the Straits Settlements was 5, but by 1907 it had risen to b. Under the Indian Thtigration rules of

1923, it was laid down that a kangany should be a South Indian belonging to an agricnitural class.

He should have been employed for not less than

173

three months uxder an employer for whom he would try to recruit labourers from his ow-n village. Oi

the estates the kangany usually acted as ari

intermediary between the planters and the labourers.71 The 1augauy was usually COZLSC±aus of his own social superiority,

or be was generally chosen from a

caste rather higher than that o1 the labourers he was hired to recruit. ¶10 D. J.N. Parnier, the

kangany system was more than a means of recruitment; it was also a method o1 employziieiat on the estates.

In fact,

on the plantations, in a group of emigrants, be attains the position of umpire and judge.7 The karigany systeni of recruitment in

Malaya differed slightly front that which prevailed

in Ceylon. Firstly, the tundu system73 of advances was present in Ceilon while it was absent in Malaya. Secoridly the kangany system in Malaya was based

not so much on the family system as was the case in Ceylon. This was due to the fact that in Malaya

17k the kanCany was not vested with too much responsibility

and authority in financial affairs. The disproportion between the sexes also corroborates the evidence that the family systei did not exist in Malaya. At any rate, with the ui-gent demand for labour on the

newly developed rubber plantations, kanganies broubt in people who were not from their own villages and definitely bad no connection with their faniilies.

In sharp contrRet to the system operating in Malaya, the system in Ceylon was entirely patriarchal in

character. On the plantations there, the labour force was dividea into smaller groups, each under

a sub-kangany or silara-kangany; each silara-kany was responsible to the head kangany. As the patriarch of the whole labour force under his charge, the

kanganr conducted all the financial affaira of the estate with the labourers through silara-kanganies,

except for the payment o

waes.7k That the kangany

system was based on the family unit was due to the proximity of Ceylon to India, which.

aoilitated

175

the migration oÍ women to the island nearly. The sexes in Ceylon were evenly matched for the women

could easily be induced to nirate to Ceylon. Whenever an estate manager required

labour, he would select his own recruiter fron among his labour force and applied to the Indian Immigration Committee at Penang for licences, which

would be issued to kanganies free of charge on the authority of the Chairman of the Committee. The procedure was that blank licence forms75 would

have to be completed, and to be returned to the teputy Controller of Labour at Penang for registration and signature. These licences would be countersigned by the Agent of the Government of India in Malaya after seeing the kanganies personally.6 The number of recruits the kanganies could engage was generally limited to twenty.

ut sometimes they could recruit

labourers up to the number of fifty. Generally the number of licences issued depended considerably on the abnormal rise and fall in the price of rubber.

1'? 6

When. the price of rubber rose, there would be a scramble 1or labour and hence more licences woi.1

be issued. On receipt of his licence, the kangany would proceed to the Office of the Figrant Agent either at Madras or Negapatam to register hi licence. After this, the kangaziy would make hi way to one of the offices of his enip1oyers financi). agents in India. He would either go to Messrs. Binny and. Comany1 Madras or to Nessrs. the Madura

Company1

Negapatafl. These firme were

also the agents of the British Inòia Steam Ha'igatin Company. Besides theee two, there was also the Malay Peninsula Agricultural Association Agency in Madras and Negapatani which he could go

here

was no obligation on the part of the employers to use the above mentioned firms. Sometimes the employers would make other arrangements, but in

practice these firms enjoyed a virtual

nionooly.77

Arrangements were made between the employer and

these firme to finance the kanganyts work and to

177

pay commissjoiis to the kanany for each labourer produced aid shipped to the Straits. These ageiits

would cb1e to their sub-agents in 4alaya concerning the number oÍ labouxers recruited for any estate. These local ageits would then inforii the employers

who would be able to know the number of labourers recruited for them.

After the kangany had receiea an aavance from the financial agents, he wouJ4 go to his own and neighbouring villages to recruit labourers.

There he would spin the glorious tale of Malaya, flowing and shepherd with milk and honey their flock acros0the Bay of Bengal at so much per bead. Many a time the kangany would tell bis recruits that the nature of work on the rubber plantations

was

to drive kaka (crows) away.T?9 Perhaps he

would tell the i)4jterate and poverty-stricken villagers:

Under the pal maram(rubber tree) you can. dig treasure.80

1178

of. course those villagers were ready to believe

the kanCany when the latter dazzled them with gold sovereigns and other kinds of jewels. Little did the villagers know that the wealth of' the kangany

lay not under the p

marant

but in his ability

to paint rosy pictures out of the sordid conditions

of life on the rubber plantations. The kangany wae

he1ed in this by the advertisements which were displayed in some of the railway stations and public offices, showing magnificent plac

where

the India coolies would never have the opportunity of visiting once they arrived to work on the estates.81 When the kaugauy had recruited sufficient

labourers, he would take them to the nearest railway station1 and from there to the Straits Government Depots at Avadi in Madras o

Negapatam. The fares

for taking the labourers to the depots at Avadi or

Neapatam were usually paid by the recruiting Inspectors, iÍ there happened to be one around;

or by the kangany himee]i who would later recover

the advances from the Engration Agent at Madras

or Superintendent of the Eniration Depot at Negapatam1 I

he paid for the fares

kanganr must secux'e

then the

receipt from the Railway

Booking clerk for the amoinit of tickets paid by

him. When the kanganies and their coolies arrived at the Enigration Depot, they were met by a clerk who conducted tbeiai to the depot. Once they entered

the place, the coolies were not allowed to be taken into eating shops where substitution might take place. As soon as the recruits were shipped from the

depots1

the kangany would receive his

commission, in which the advances he had formerly received would be subtracted first. The kangany-recruited labourers were

carried by the steamers of the British India Steam Navigation Company, which were run weekly between Madras and Negapatam and the Straits Settlements.

The rate charged perpassenger was Rs.12 from Madras and

from Negapatam. This rate included

food charges durino the Voyage which took about eight days from Madras, and. six days from Neapatani.

As soon as the immigrant labourers arrived at the Straits at

ett1emeiits, they were quarantined either

enang or Port Swettenham. These quarantine

stations were maintained by the Government, but

the feeding charee were boze by the Inan Imniigration Fund. If the arriving ship had a clean

bill of health the coolies were kept in the quarantine station for seven days. On arrival, their clothes

would be disinfeted and they would be vaccinated, If the vaccination did not take effect, they would be re-vaccinated on the eighth day when they were discbarged.82 After

quarantines

the immigrant

labourers were removed to the depots at Penang and Port $wettenhaiii. There they awaited collection

either by the kangany of an estate for which they had been recruited or by some responsible person sent over by the employer. he kangany-recruited labourers were

first heJed by individual employers who financed their passages from India. They did not enter into

any contract or indenture when they arrived in Malaya. But they were expected to advance they had received,8

ay back the

But when the Indian

Immigration Committee was set up in 1907,

kanpany-recruited labourers were assisted to

immigrate into

a1aya at the expense of the

Committee. Of course the revenue of the Cormnittee

was derived from the assessments levied on employers of all Indian labour. But from that tinie onwards,

the burden of financing the assisted immigration

of Indian labour to Malaya was shared equally by all employers, instead of limiting a few to shoulder the burden. From 1909, no deduction was 'ade from the wages o± the labourers on account of the

importation expenses. In return for this, recruiting allowances were paid by the Committee to the employers. The kangaiiy system of recruitment bad its

evils. It Is true that the system of giving licences to these kanganie

was instituted in

1901, yet the Indian 1abouers were so illiterate and helpless that little could be done to protect them from deception, ma1txeatment and injustice.

Under the indentuTe system the labourer was exploited for the benefit of the employer for a specified period but under the kangany system the labourer was left open to victimization by the kangany. On most estates the managers usually were unable to speak directly with the labourers. This allowed the karigariles or niandors to get too much influence

over the labourers.Bk Very often the labourers became the kangani.es

debtozs and the Icanganies

would be gi'en the opportunity to "squeeze" them. In the words of Professor Lennox Mills The defects were that it was very difficult to pre'v-ent the kangany front

raking misrepresentations of 'squeezing' the coolies who were in his debt when they were employed in Malaya, and that the e'Qil of crimping continued unabated.

183

The theme is also summed ut

tri the following:

The evils of the kangany system such s the undue dependence of the labourers on the kangany, the 'squeezing' of labourers an undesirable ractices .n recruitment far out-weighed its single benefit to the employers of securing 'a su,1X almost exactly equated to demand. o6 One evil that was perpetuated by the

kanany system WRS that the kangany would force the labourers to go to work on the fields even though they might not be fit for the day. This

was due to the fact that besides his fiied monthly pay for supervising the work of the labour force, the kangany was paid

by the estate a commission

of two cents per diem for every labourer who turned out to work. The commission was called 'head money.TT

The method was that if fifty persons turned out to work for thirty days, the turn-out would be 1,500.

So the kangany would receive over and above bis salary the amount of thirty dollars, i.e. 1,500

z U.

It can very well be wagined that the kangany would

use every means to force th

labourers to wc,rk

ori the fields, According to the enactment, each

kaugany-recrujted labourer ha

the ?ight to leave

the estate by giving one month's notice to the employer. But on most estates, the ordinary coolie had no access to the ranage., so that be would have to g-ive notice to the manager through the kangany. 1±' the labourer left the estate, then the kangany

would suffer the loss of two cents per day which foxmed part of his tihead moriey. The natural

outcome WaB that the kangan

would tell the coolie

that the discbaxge was not agreed upon and therefore the labourer had. to stay on the estate. Ori some

estates, some employers would not accept notice to leave from the labourers, unless they could be sent back to India and not work elsewhere on some

estates,8

i

the opinion o± the planters, tithe

kangani. and gang sy5teme do not tend to encourage

settled conditiona, and are moreover Very definitely .

.

.

.

.

in opposition to the efficient working of an estate."

88

185

To safeguard the labourers from th

evils perpetuated by the kanganies precautions were taken. The Straits Governnient officers at

Negapatai and Avadi warned the kananies that any irregular practices on their part would result in cancellation of their licences. If any recruits were found to corne from vi1laes other than their

own, they would be rejected by the Eniration Agents. Boys under sixteen years cl age and muor

girls would be rejected unlethey were accompanied by their parent5. Single women would not be allowed to emigrate unless they were accompanied by male relatives who could look after them. Whenever

recruits were rejected at the at Avadi or

Negapatam1

nigration Depots

their railway fares to their

own villages would be paid for them from the accounts of the financial agents of the estate, Whether these would be deducted from the commissions of the kanganies would be up to the discretion of the agents. Another safeguard provided was that the coiuiis?ions

paid to the lcananies were kept low, about ts.1O,

for if high commiesions were paid, the kanganies

would sim1y buy recruits from professional recruiters. These recruits would be of poor

quality1

and usually when they arrived in Malaya they would fall ill and d±,8

Measures were also taken to

en5ure that the recruits left with the consent of the village headman. Each recruit Was to be interrogated by the village headman, in order to check that no compulsion was used. Once again at the

iiigration Depots, the Protector of Emigrants

would interrograte him to make sure that he was leavïn

of his own accord.

Of course it was very difficult to do away

with maipractices and bribery completely. It

j_s true that much had been done to ensure about

the willingness of the labourer to emigrate, but it serveE well to remember that the Indian Government was up against callous and unscrupulous men who would stop at nothing to line their pockets!

187 3ortetinLes the coolies wou1

emigration depots

be shoved into the

and conditions of labour under

which they were recruited were not properly explained to theni. In soiiie cases the flnigration

Agent did not see the recruits until they were

ready to be shipped away.90 it is true that precaution was taken to prevent kidnapping of recruits by the kanganies:

Twice a day at Avadi and every morning at I1egapatain, all petitioners who have

come in search of lost relatives are allowed into the camp, and i± they find the persons they are seeking they remore them without let or hindrance.91 This can also be testified by Mr. tilnian who wrote:92

At 10 oc1ock every morning all 000lies in the depot are made to sit in rOw5 and a procession of claimants is conducted up and down the lines, so that there is really very little chance of a coolie shipping across if his relatives or his employer are anxious to prevent him doing so. ut very often than not the kanganies would resort to bribery to evade this obstacle:

If labourers were kidnapped the procedure

would be - the person seeking the labourer would o to the village munsif for a certificate. With the certificate in hand, he would show it to the Officer at the emigration depot. Be would be allowed to look at the parade of labourers

inside the deot Bat if the cauay was clever (as nost kanganies Were) the Officer would be bribed, an zneans would be devised to conceal the psrticular labourer from the eyes of the person who wanted to find. hiiti. The usual bribe

consisted cf a payment of fifty rupees far every twenty labourers recruited, while the kangany would get the remaining 150 rupees as commission. It is very 3 difficult for this bribery to be discovered.

This was reiterated by Varathappan Kangany in the following words: ... at depots the kanganies had to bribe the officers at about one rupee per head, even i the labourers were o1untary ones.9

trawing the happy medium between these comments, it is safe to conclude that there is at least some measuZe of validity in them. Eowever kangany recruitment was not without its advantages. One good effect of this

method of recruitment was that it helped to

transplant the Indian commrnty in a new region. The labourers were usually recruited in a group and on the estates in Malaya, the individua]. Indian could feel at home aniong his own community, with its own Hindu teniple.95 Another advantage

wbich cou]

be derived from the kanany system

of recruitment was that the labourers who were assisted to immigrate were not required to enter into contracts which would bind them to the estate for a certain period. Thus one of the abuses o the indenture system was stamped out. In fact the kangany recruits were legally rtfreefl labourei's.

Kangany-recruited labour was cheaper for commissions paid to kanganies were lower than those paid to protessional recruiters.. The cost of recruiting

labour by means of kanganies was only about three-fourths of that for indentured labour. This might haTe been the reason which had influenced

the planters tF adopt this system. Moreover kangany-recruits were physica1l

superior to

indentured

i96 The value of the kaigany system of

recruitment cannot be ignored. 'It had had. the

advantage of regulating the up1y to the demand and of canalizing the recruits to the places where they were most needed."97 Perhaps the best approach to comment on the advaxttages accruing to the

kanany system is contained in the words of the Controller of Labour:

If the main object of ny system of control of recruitment i8 the avoidance of deception and misrepresentation, and the elimination of profits which might produce abuses, particu1ar1,r in the case of uneducated and czedu1ous people, it would be difficuJt indeed to devise a better system to attain these ends than the Malayan Kangany system.9° The kangany system of recruitzent began to decline in the 1930's. In 1920, only 12 per cent of the Indian 3abourers immigrating into

Malaya were non-recruited, while the remaining 88

per cent were recruited by kangades. But by 193? the proportion of non-recruited inin-igrantz had

i 9].

risen to 89 :pex cent of the Indian inunirante

while the proportion of kangany-recruited labour feil to li per cent. En August 1930 assisted

immigration was suspended because of the slump in the tin and rubber industries, and during this period only a few non-Decruited assisted inmiig'ants

were allowed to enter Malaya in order to join their relatives.99 By May l931l, when there was

a recovery in these two ixdustries, the Government of India agreed to perniit a limited amount of

non-recruited workers to be assisted to enter Nalaya, up to the quota of 20,000 athilt males. This

&ieement anticipated the end of the kangany systeni, fox' the services of the kanganies were by-passed. The final end caine in 1938 when a ban was imposed

by the Government of India on assisted em±ratioxz of unskilled labour, although the year before, the licences issued to kanganies had decreased to 97.

Thereafter it was used only for the palm-oii estates and other estates which had no recraiting

192 e'1-ounds in India.'00

The reasons for tho decline of the

kangany system may be attributed to a combination

of sevea1 factors. The Sastri Report of L937 had sounded the death-knell of the systeni when it

called for its abandonment. The Rt. !on. V.S.

Srinivasa Sastri had acicnowIeded the advantages which could be derived from the kangany eystem it was a great help to eni1oyers for it could regulate supply of labour according to the demand; it reduced the amount of work for the Labour Department.'01 But 3t111 he recommended that the system should be completely abandoned. Why it was actually abandoned can be explained by the bad economic conditions which prevailed in southezrn

India. There was no more need for the kanany system when conditions of life in Malaya became quite well known among the villagers in India and when the Indians wexe becoming more sophisticated. The policy of the Indian Immigration Committee vas

193

rt1y- resonib1e, for it encouraged vo1untar assisted irrtmiratio

adult

n:i

ty îaying a $2 bonus to each

1 to a iinor depeident wio

ieented

himself at the emigration depot in India. In tddition the better rorking conlitions in

1a1aya

facilitated the abandonment oÍ the kanaiy syster What actually struck at the root of the system

was the han imposed on aisted enigration of unskilled Labour in 1938. By that tiiie it became an ïnsignificari.t part of the mirationa1 system in Malaya.

102

When the kangany system began. to declinìe

in the 1930t5, it was being replaced by non-recruited assisted immigration. At first this system was used

to supplement the kanany recruits, which were not enough to meet the ever-increasing demand for labour. The form o

unrecruited assisted immigration was

definitely an advantage over the kangany system for it was cbeape

as no commiaioia had to be paid to

, ic.&na32ie8. Second1

With unrecruited asited

i 9k

immigration the abuses, entailed in the relationship between the karigany and the labourers aisappeared. The rattern of non-xecruited assisted imraigration

was that 1bourers who wished to go to Malaya independently of the kangany should present thetnse]es at the Enigration depot at Avadi or Negapatam. when the

nigration Comniissioner or the Assistant

igration Commissioner was satisfied that they were bona fide labourers, they would be given assista2ac

to enter Malaya at the cost o

the Indian Immigration

Fund. When they were discharged from the imunigration

depots in Malaya, they could proceed to any place

of employment.103 This forni of immigration became poptlar after the 1920's, as is borne out by the following table:

195 Table xi:10k

roportiou of Indian Non-recruited Imnigration to Kangany Recruited Immigration.

Percentage o Kangany Recruited Non-recruited Imniirants into Non-recruited. to Immigrants into Kangany Recruited Malaya Malaya Immigrants into

Year

Ma1ya 1926

102,200

25,600

20.0

1927

75,800

28,600

27.3

1928

13,300

9,400

1929

kLI,300

26,000

36.9

1930

21,200

12,900

37.8

193k

1,fOO

31,800

95.7

1935

1,300

13,900

91k

1936

O0

2,kOO

82.7

1937

5,300

42,200

88.8

3,500

97.2

1938

1

100

1

Besides assisted forms of immigration,

unaeeisted immigration was also widely used after

the depreeion of the 1930's.

ormer1y it was only

limited to merchante and traders, the professional

and clerical classes. But iicreasirig labourers paid their passages to niigrate to Malaya because

they were attracted by stories o! better workiu ard living conditiorts there and by the availability of emp].oymeit in the barbouz and public works at

Singapore. No 'igures are available to assess the volume or unassisted labour migratioi, but accordin.g

to the estimate of the Labour Department of Malaya 2

for the year 1936, more thaz

of the unassisted

immigrants into the country were labourer?5 Uaassisted immigration increased from 12 per cent of the total imixiiration in 1920 to 38 per cent in l93k 89 per cent zi.ri 1937.

106

and to

The obv.ous reason Thr

unassisted immigration was the wishes of the labourers and others to avoid a weeI'

detention at the

quarantine camps. The reilations of the quarantine camps were very strict for &ssisted labourers, and there was always the risk ot being rejected after having taken the trouble to come to Malaya. The following table shows the importance of unassisted

197 ilflmirraticn in relation to a.ssirtod ìnmigratiori :iri Mnlaya during the post-rlepressiou years:

Thb]eXII: 107

.

pporton of Unassisted Imirator

toAssiste Imniation in

a1aa,

9Lf_Lfo.

Year

Assisted Immiçrants Uxaasited Imii- Percentage of into MaJ.Rya .rants into unassisted to Malaya assisted immiprants -

1934

45,469

1935

20,771

1936

3,75k

1937

5849

50,128

48

1938

4,580

17,307

79

1939

287

2,166

88

1940

48i

833

63

27,306

38

1

25,625 i

2k,1Oi.

The ban imposed by the Government of India

on assisted exniration oT unskilled labourer8 from

1th. June 1938 also prohibited unassisted emigration of unskIlled labourers. Coneequently the number of unassisted 1aboxrers imuigrating to !aIaya dropped

front 1938 onwards. For example, in 1937 there t'ere 50,128 unassisted immìgzants but in 1940 there were only 833.

Una3sjsted immigration included commercial immigration or 'ti'ader migration" as it

s

eneral1y

called. Money-lenders1 profession]. men arad

merchants followed in the wake of the labourers trying to cater to their wants in order to prosper from the business thus established. These inunigrants

were usually of higher caste and came on their own. They included Chettiars and Sikh financiers from

Madras, Marwaris from northwest and

ajputana, Pathans from the

anyias from the United Proinces.

In general, they played Tthe role of a petite bourgeoisie in the Indian community.I!

Thus by reference to the srstems of

recruitment

the pattern of Indian immigration to

Malaya can be brought home most forcibly. The ireporiderant influence was that of the kangany

6ystem which held the field from the 1890's to

1938e aIthouh by the 1930's it had started to decline. The vazious method6 of recruitment made

osib1e an abundant sup1y of Indian labour for the expanding rubber estates and other industries. 0f øourse credit must be given to the work of the Indian Immigration Committee, which can be regarded .

.

as uthe backbone of the rubber industry in Ma].aya."

108

Footnotes ]_

G».:. Turner, Indian Immigration Fund, Hinitry

of Labour, Federation o 2

195sf.

L4H. C1aytoi, Report on Indian Immigration ana

niration fo 3

Malaya,

the year

Perang 19O7

p.3.

ibid. p.8.

Lf

Mills, British ThiJ.e in Eastern Asi, cford,

19k3, p.219

(Bereafter cited as

Mills1

British Rule)

5 J. Norman Prmer, Colonia3 Labour Policy and

Administration: A History o Plantation Inaust

in Mala?7R, l91O-l9

Incorporated Pujh cited a 6

Labour in theRubber

New

J.J. Augusti

oxk, p.38. Oereatter

Partner, Colonial Lakçur Policy.) .

.

G.E. Turner, 'Thdian Immiratio

Committee,"

Malayan Historical Journal, V. I (195k) p.83. 7 Minutes of ameeting o

the lmmiEration Committee,

23rd. March l97, Government Office, Penaud. B I.R. Price, Anival Repozt of the South Indian

Fund Board 1959, GoTernment Pzess, Federation of Mala7a 1960. p.9. (flereafter cited as Price, ARSILFB

201 ii'dpra

Council Proceedirgs, 1911, Pederated

M1y Lttes, Government rreso, 1912, p.B17-19. lo

.

]Qrnier, COloEial Labour Policy, pfl.

]1

fletto, Indians

ii Ma]aya: hictorica1 tacts

and flgures, Siugpore, G. Netto, 1961. 12 1.3

1

Parmer

Colonial Labour Policy, p.2.

M1118, British

u1e p.220.

According to Dr. Farmer1 the Indian Immigration

Committee wcs comooed of eiGht members, three government officers and fìe European planters, who were all appointed by the çovernor acting as the High Comniiasioner of the Federated Malay Stte6 The three government officers were the Superintendent of Indian Iinigration1 the General Manager of the Government-owued Railway arid the Governient surgeon of Perak. 15

Rport of the Agent of the Government of Malaya for the year 1952, Government

of India Pxea, Delhi, 1933. :16

Farmer, Colonial Labour Po1ic, p.45.

202 17 G:L].rnan, Labour in Br]tiith Malaya, Nalayan

]eris NoXI, 192L ioncon, p.1k. i8 1.9

Parinr1

Laboir Po1icy

proceedings of the Lea1atie Couui1, Straits

Sett1ementB 20 o

p.kO.

1909 arLc

p,B5k-B55.

again in 198 the Planterst Association

Malaya tried to secure the right o

selecting

mrnbei-s to the Committee, and in 1928 the Committee

declared the rates for labourers' wages which most

employers considered too high. In both these attemts1 the P.II.M. was unsuccessful. It di

ziot try to pursue

this po1iy again. 2].

J.H. Clayton,

E21igration fo 22

23

port on Indian Immigration and

the year 1901, Penang 1908, p.

Farmer, Colonial Labour Policy,

.k2.

Marjoribanka & A.KG. Narakkayar, Repprt on

Indian Lab2? Engratiaig to Ceylon and Malaya1 Madras c3overnment PI'e85, 1917, p.80, Appendix X.

2k 25

Ibid. p29. L].dworth, RBPPt0fl the Work of the Labour

203

jprtmr'nt for the year 1912, ?ec1erted Malay Ctn tes, 2 6 e ,

27

A1ßILFB p ,

10.

Novber 1913, this Forne wa

Luripur it CircuJ.Qr 1oad

nn

opened in Kuala

was put undex the

m2Fervision of a Medioal Cuperintendent, and was

vi;itcd perodicall7 by members of the

otrd of

Visitors appointed for the purpose. Refer to forj rules for the maintenance of the

1ome for Decrepit Indians, which was also known aß the Choultxy. 28

.

LS. Sandhu, uSome Prelim.nary Observations of

the Origins and Characteristics of Indian Migration to Malaya, 1786-1957" Papers on Nalayan History,

Papers submitted to the First Tnternational Conference of South-East A8ian Historians, Singapore 1962, p.30. 29

Planters' Association of Ma1aya

Chairman's

ort, 1913-191k, p.7. 30 LN. Jackson, Thimigrant abour and the Development

of Malaya, 178G-1920, Kuala Lumpur, 1960, p.119.

20k 31

L.. Ho;e

The ludian 1m'uiratou ?urtd ind Its

Work:ing 'n ..onnction 'th 1ecruiting Labourers

f Kniicsinthe Madras Preicency;

by Means

a parnpl1et preprired by thc Acting Controller o

I,bour In 1910, arl(9 enclosed 1n Despatch No07 from Federated Mrday

St'ites to

eoretary of State,

Angust i;', 1919. 2

T .k.

Malaya1

fice1

An Outline Litory of Indians in

this is an expancion of brief notes oompiled

Thr a lecture at the Governnent Officers' Training School, Taiping in 1953, p.k. 33 G.E. TuDner, op. cit. See also Annual 2eport of

the South Indian Labour Fund According to this

reporte

oard, 1959e p.11

assessment on Indian

1a1our continued to be collected up to the end of 19k]. and the Fund was used to repatriate Indians

on grounds of retireient or ill-health. 31f

The old Indien Immigration Fund which was

up in accordance with "The Taniil Immigration Ordinance1

1907", wa woundu

et \tnd

on 31st. August, 3.958.

205

The assets of the :'und weDe trgnsferred to the

south Indian Labour Fund board in accordance with "The Indian Thimigration 'unc1sCVindin.-up) Ordinance

No.25 of

19581? Ieated controversy ws generated

u:pon discussion of the disposi1 of the Eund. Some,

like C. Kondapi, argued that the 1nd was a part of the workers' wages, which we collected from the emp1oyer. Therefore, in their opinion, the Fund should be usei to benefit the workers, for

it was due to the assesement collected from

employers that the labourer& wages were kept low. In the words of Kondapi

The family of every

Indian labourer who has worked or is now working in Malaya has a legal claim to this

nd and is

its joint owner." But employers were in strong protest: they felt that the money belonged to them. The amount as of August 31st. i958 was 6

, 159 ,

k97 . la which inc1uded immovable propertç

in India, investments aiLd cash in bank 3

Parnier, Colonial Labour Policy, p.58.

206

36

Ei33,

F.M.S

port Thr the Iesideut-Qenera1,

Ironi the Protector ci Indiax

Labour1

F.N.S.

for the year 12?:i Se1anor Government Press, p.], rara, 5. 3?

Indian Immigration Conimittee, Minutes, Book 3,

November 10, 1919. 3a

Papers on Tamil Thiinigration Presented

t 12th.

nnua1 ieetimg of Planters' Association of Malaya, April 30, 1919, Section 2 p.23. 39 The Malaya fribune, 26th. August 1926. ko

Mukarrams, Repçrt of the Honorary Conunissioiier

for Depressed Classes, S.S. & F.M.8. on the Thaf1ic

between the South Indian Ports and Ma1a, 1926, Karthikeyan k'ress, Chidambarani.

ki

Mills, British Rule p.221.

k2

43

p.221.

E.Z. Hose, Report on the Worldng of the Labour

Department for theyear 191, Kuala Lumpuz 191k. kk

Gi1an, Reppzt on the Working of the

Labour Deprthent for the Year ]917, Kuala Lumpur, 1918.

207 245

R.N. Jackson, op. cit. p.io. kG

I.F. Gilman, Labour in British Malaya, Malayan

Series No.XI, British 1nDire

xhibition, 192km

Ijondon, p.k. Af7

it became necessary to re6ort to the indenture system when slavery was abolished within the British pire in 1833. k8

Nanjundan, Indians in Malayan Eccnomy, New

De1hi £1.9

Government of India Press, 1951, p.21.

c. Kondapi, Indians Overseas, 1838-19k9, Thaian

Council of World Affairs, London, 1951, 50

i.8.

Sandhu, "Sorne Preliminary Observations oÍ

the Origins an

Characteristics of Indian Migration

to Malaya, 1786-1957" Papers on Malayan Histor3r, K.G.

regonning (ed.) Singapore 1962, p..

51 E.V. Carey, 'T1ecruiting Tamil Labour," The Se1angor

Journal Vol. XII, 1895, p.k].3. 52

M1118

British Rule p.219.

53 L Gaiigulee, Indians in tile Epire Overseas,

The New India Publishing House Ltd.1 19k? p.+3.

208 rLf .)

55

:b.v. Carey, op. cit. p.411.

secretary of State's Circu1r to Government of

the Straits Sett1meuts, dated 26.10.1877 Erc1osLzre: letter dated 21,.6.75 from Captain B. Y'ischer,

British Consular Agent, Karikal to Secretary of :Fort st. George.

56

Legisùtive Council Proceedings, Straits Settlements,

1898, neetìn 57

on 23..l898.

N. Gangulee, op. cit. p.kk.

58

Dennery, Asia's Teeming Millions: and Its b1ems for the West, 1931, London, p.187-188.

59

Refer to Appendix B for a siecimen of a 0otract

oÍ' Immigrant for 60

ixed Terni of 600 Days.

Davis, The Population of India and Pakistan,

PrLnceton University Press, New Jersey 1951, p.103. 61

Beport of the first Meeting of the General Labour

Committee, British

Malaya1

held at 12 Market Street,

Lumpur on May 31st. 1, The Malayan Leader Press, E:uala Liampur, p.8.

62

»

DeT, Our Countrymen &broad, A11ahabad

JB. Kripalani, All Indian Congress Committee, l9fO, p.1k.

Dennery, op. cit. pi88. 6k

Beaumont, The New S1avy, London l8?O,

qioted by P. Ruhomon, Centenary History of the __t Indiana in British Guiana 1838-1938, Georgetown 1939, p.k7. 65

Dr. Lanka Sundaram, "Internatioial A5pects ot

Indian Ebiigration,T? Asiatic Review 1931, April,

p.288. 66

Moreland & Atul C. Chatterjee

A Short

History of India1 London 1958, p.4k3. 67

Waiz, Indians Abroad, Sombay 1927, p.56k1

quoting. 68

69

bc. cit. Report of the Committee on Bnigration froi

:xidïa to the Crown Coloniec and Rrotectorates7

Sessional Papers, Cmd. p192, London: Stationery Office 1910, p.22. 70

p.27-.8, p.167 ff.

is Najestyss

210 71

C. Kondapi

72

op. c.t. v.29.

Dennery, Asia's Teemini11ions: and Its

Problems for the TVest, London 1931, p.219. 73

Urtder this system, whenever a Superintendent

of an estate in Ce1on found that rore labourers existed on the estate than was required, he issued a ttrndu, i.e. a written undertaking to discharge

so many labourers on being paid the amount of debt owed by these labourers. The kangany then woiJ.d

try to seek emplopment Lor these labourers with the help o1 the tundu on another estate short of labour. The Superintendent of the new estate would

pay new advances to the kangany who would then pay off the old Superintendent. Then the accounts cf the former estate were closed the kangany and his labourers could move off to the new estates Thus

the tundu system was only a form of transereuce of debt. See C. Kondapi's Indiana 0ve'seas l838_l9Lf9 ».33 for a full account of this system. 7

.

ic:.

.

J

OPi. c:Lt. p.1OM-.

211 ?5

erer to 4pendixC Lor the blank forms for

Kangany' s Licences 76

K.A.

Mukunan1

Annual Report of the Aient of

the Government of Iri3ia in British Ma1

for tho

Year 195, Go,ernmeit of India Prese, New Delhi 1936, :p.3.

77 ESW.F. Gi1mai, iabour in British !a1aya, Malayan.

Series No.XI, Eritieh

npire Ichibition 1924,

London, p»9. 78

N.K. Menon, "Indian Immigration in Ma1ay&,

Interpreters' Annual 1948-1m, ì38' 79 This was 'e1ated to the writer by an eye-witness working on a rubber estate. 8o

The writex' is also inaebted to the saine eye-witnesB

for the interesting injunction given by the kangany to his recruits.

Si 82

The Malay Mail, January 30th., 1913, p.9.

Report of the FirstMeeting of the General Labour Committee1

british Ma1a,lie1d at 12 Market Street,

c:ua1a Lumpur on May 31st. 1920, The Malayan Leader

212

Press, Kualo lumpur, p.8. 83 ,

Marjoribanks and A.I.G Abmad Tambi

Marakkayr,

pprt on Indian Labour Jigratigto

!2On and Malaya, Madras Government Press, 1917, p.?8. (Heretfter cited as Marjoribanks and.

Marak1yar, Vf

port on Indian Labour.)

.

p.33.

85 86

T11, British flule, j.220. Nanjundan, Indians in Ma1ayn Economy, New

Delhi, Oovernnent of india Press, 1951, p.21'. 87 88

89

The Malay Mail, January 30th. 1913. P1anter

Vol.XVI, 7(July 1935) p.312.

Marjoribanks and Marrakkayar,

çpprt on Indian

p.32. 90 91

MalayMail, January 30th. 1913, p.9. .

Majoxibanks and Marrakkayar,

prt on In&ian

p.32. 92

St&tement made by 14z. Gilman of the Malaya

Deputation to the Standing Committee on Eiiiation

213 cf the Governnient of India at SimIa on 31st.

Auust 1922, Annex in Report on the "orking of ;!

9)

_Labour Departnient for the Year 1922, p1S.

Interpreted frani the words of a certain Palani

Kanan

of Cepang istate, Selangor when the writer

went to interview him. 9Lf

nterview at

e1ated to the writer äurD.ng the

Sepang Ftate, SeJ.angor. 95 K. Davis, Thepo1ation of India and Pakistan,

Princeton University ftes, New Jersey 1951, p.1O. 96

.

.

K.S. Sandhu, USOme Pre1imriary Observations of

the Origins and Characteristics o to Malaya, 17861957h1,

Indian Nigration Malayan History,

K. G. Tregonning (ed.) Siiigapore 1962, p.56. 9? y. Thompson, Labour Problems 1x1 Southeast Asia,

Yale University Press, New Haven, 1947 p.63. 98

Annual Report of the Labour Department of Ma]

for the Year1938 p.13, para. 28. 99 y. Thompson, op. cit., ]-9k7, p.67.

100 y. Thompson, Postmortem on la1aya1 New York,

214 J9Lf3, p.l22-23 ÎC)1

v.s. Srinivasa Sastri, Repçt on the Conditions

of Indian Labour in Malaya, 1937, New Delhi, p.20 pEtra. 29.

102

N.S. Ginsburg and F.R. Chester,

Seattle

195e, p.322. 103 o:

nnua1 Report of the Agent of the Government

10f

Nanjundan, Indians in Nalajyau Economy, New Delhi1

105

'-7

India

Government of India Press, l95l

p.23.

nr Parne', Co1ona1 Iabon' Fo1y p.00,

306

.

'

iaskar, tsia on the Move, New York 19k6

p 60.

107

108

, Nanjundan, op. cit. p.25.

JeadeTa

Ttlndian Inunigration into Malaya"

Unpublished B.A,(Hons.) Thesis, Unieri.ty of Singapore, 1959, p.20.

215

CHAPTER IV I!L4MIGRATION and INDIAN PROPUL&TION GRO7TE.

The growth of the Indian poptilation up

to 1930 was mainly if1uenced by the magnitude oÍ Indian immigration into the country.

It was

only after the Seconì World War that the growth

of the Indian

ou1ation in Ta1ay-a was no longer going of labourers

dominated by the cominr

from South India; it became stabilized politically as well as socially. Many Indians then began to

regard Malaya as their home) That immigration was mainly responsible

or the Indian population

growth before the 1930's was determined by a complex set of factors. It took quite a long tinie

for the Indian population to become settled, for like the IThinese, the Indians migrated to Malaya

with the primary idea to "shake the golden pagoda tree, gather up the fruit an

depart to their own

homelands."2 In a word, they came to the Malyan Eldorado only to amass a large fortune and not to

216 .;ett1e down. Thus very few Indiais sett1e1 in

Palaya during the early yers.3 Again the transient character of Indian 1aour, tith the constant TTtug_ofwatT

o1 Indiau

between India

xid Malaya

necessitated that the Indian population in the country could only increase by imniiration. The peculiar cozriposition of the Indian

opi1a tien,

with a huge deficit of women precluded any excess cf births over deaths. But even with the deficit of women, there was little inteziiiarrisge between

the indigenous Malays and the Indians, notwithtandin the Moslem Indians who professed the same religion. As Roland Braddel] has suggested: The different kinds of Malays are Mobammedans, and intermingle to a good extent anzong themselves but not much with Mohamnedan Indians.5

Moreover the

'act that the Indians had no attachment

to the land where they lived did not encourage a

settled Indian population.6 Other factors auch as diseases, malnutrition and unhealthy living conditions on estates weze also important, for they took a heavy

217

loll oZ the Indians. In the early days of the

p1nntaton

industry1

the death..-rate was very high,

as high as 75 per cent o

the arri'u-als. Even in

a93, the death-rate was 17.2 per mille in sanie

parts of Ma1aya. As T.. Silcock and Unku AbduJ.

Aìz have suggestad: . s ill-health rather than ntarvation arid scarcity sets the limits ta population growth (in Malaya)7

That migration was a dominant factor in the growth of the Indian population in Malaya

cannot be contested. The size and compoeltion of the Indian population was determined not by births and deaths but by "the interplay of the geographic,

psychological and economic forces that are the

mainspr±ngs of migration.'8 As a result of the seasonal flow of labourers to and fra across the

Bay of Bengal, "a sediment of population remained after each tide receded,"9 and a domiciled Indian population was thus built up. As the Superintendent of the 1921 Population Census of Malaya has suggested:

2 i8

In British Malaya the main factors which goverrs the increase in the o?u1ation is not, as in European countries the excess of births over deaths but immigration. In the Straits Settlements, the Federated MaJ.y States .. ........ deaths during the last decade bave been largely in SXC6ES of births, and were i.t not for the strean of immigrants from China and India and the islands cf the Ma1ar Archipe1ao, there woi1d have been a decrease in the population instead of an increase of over 25 per cent.1° This aspect is also emphasized by C.A. Vlie].and1 the Superintendent of the 1933. Population

Census of Malaya:

It is a commonplace that the growth of the population of British Malaya is mainly determined, not by births and deaths, but by migration.1But this should not lead us to think that in the country there was a "natural decrease," or that Malaya was a tropical death tz'ap in which only immigration from

outside saved the population front

being decimated. C.A. Viieland enjoins that it must not be supposed that Malaya was a country in which the birth rate was so low and the death-rate so

219

notoriously high thit its

opu1ation would soon

be extinguished were it not for the nrnnerous immigrants who entered Ma1tya durino thi To 3upport this, he gives th

tinie.12

evidence that in

the 1930's the birth rate for all races in the federated Malay states was about 37

er mille,

while the death rate was only 20 per mille. He :points out that the increase due to the excesses

of births over deaths was at the rate of 1.7

er

cent a year.

That the growth of the Indian population

in Malaya was dependent on the frecuent cross-sea movements of Indians between the two countries cati

also be observed by the numerical disparity of Thdian woien when compared with Lidian men. C.A. Viieland gi'es us a hint of this: '......... where there is an appreciable excess of males it may be taken as ceitain that immigration is dominant, and on the other hand, there is an appreciable excess of females, the cause is to be found in

emigration often seasonal of males)3

DISTRIBUTION a:4 I&ih Pout4ioh

z.

-- -St/14,.± 6ou4&Ir.J øMu;c;rt OIdIkt Qtr c:JL.css 1#h Pi.

J2.-Z.

.

3- '3 _,3 %

!LrI1?

4---4.j .) _,s- 's-.

=

'r.

)a:p L

220

Again that migration profoundly influenced the growth of the Indian population can be attested by the fact that in 'New Ma1aya1

the Indian

population fluctuated wildly, rising and falling aocording to the econoniic atmosphere of the country juct like the

opi.lations of the KLondike and

other Eldorados. However the position was different

in Old

Malayas

where there was a large settled

population. In fact, the Indian population wai negligible in the Unfederated MalaI States of Perils, JCelantan and Trengganu fox the conditions

there were not favourable to immigrants. Economically they were backward and there was little political security to attract the Indians.'5 But their proportion

was considerable in Kedab and Johore, where European and foreiSn capital and enterpxi8es had developed .

the rubber industry there.

16

The 1lndians were mainly found alone the

western coastal belt of the Malayan Peninsula, as showxi by Map I.

The distribution of Indians in

221

iaya in fact wa

conditioned by the expansion

nf the plantation industry1 transport 1ins and ti-ade as well as

y thsica1 georathy and historica1

factors. The colonial economic policy concentrated the rubber estates mainly on the western coaetal lelt of the Peninsula.

The densely forested

central belt of mountain ranges bad prevented penetz'ati.on, and thus economic development was

mainly con±'ined to the western coasts where the

marshes, once drained, became suitable areae for plantations. Even today, about 98.8 per cent of the total Indian population is still in Weetern Malaya, stretching from Malacca in the south to Southern Cedab in the north. In 1911, the percentage was as high as 99.9, but in 192]. it Lei]- to 99.6 per cent, i_fl 1931 to 99,14. per cent and in 17 to 98.6 per cexlt.J.9 The Indiane were densest in Perak arid

Selangor, wbere they congregated on the estates.

These two states accounted for more than half of the Indiane found in. the Federated Malay States.

222

Indians were

1so numerous on

inapoze Island,

but of course the Indian element in relation to the total population was more conspicuous in

Penng than Singapore, because when the Indian irnnhigrints arrived in Malaya, most of them were

landed at the port of Penan.2° The concentration of Indians in Singapore was due to the great

number of Indians enaed in commerce and trade, while many were employei3 by the Public Works

Department, the Municipa1it

and other estab1ishnents.

On Zingapore Island, the Iwlians tended to concentrate immediately south of the Central City area. Four

zones where the Indians are nunerous noteth the western fringe o

today can be

the business zone near

Chulla Street; the diztrict just north of the Singapore River, in High Street; the area north of Arab Street,

off Beach Road and lastly the settlement along Serangoon Road.21 The ratio of Indiana in the Nalayan Peninsula to that in Singapore was:

Fox every ten Indians in the territories

223

CCflpriSiflg the Ma]yan Federation tIie WQS one in Singapore Island in 193L

Therefore immiration

nfluencea the

Indian population growth in Malaya. IToreover

immration produced in the country a population of unique characteristics, with different sets o cultures A "racial mosaic" was created and in 1936 an. observer declared that few countries in the world possessed a niore diversified library of hunian nature123 with different sets of creeds and

customs. The population became cosniopolitan, and

on account of immigration, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Siarese, Indonesians, Arabs, Persiana and Europeans

are present even todar in the country.2

nue to

the immigration of mainly South Indians into Ma1aa, the South Indians formed the predominate element

of the total Indian population. In 1921 it amounted to 9k.k per ient of the total Indian population.25 But other factors tended to reduce this proportion.

First1r, there was immigration of more North Indians

22k

after the j93Q. Secondly, the ban

uposed by

thc Indian Governnieit on asicted unsl:illed labour

emigration adversely affected the proportion of South Indians, faz' th

Litter foxmed the majority

o1' labour iPrnie;rauts into Malaya. Many Taniils

perished durin; the Japanese Occupation from early 19k2 to 19k5. Thus in 19k7, the number of South Indians in the tota]. Indian population declined

to 92.1 per cent. This decline of South Indians was reflected in the decline in numbers of the Tamil group. In fact the decline in the South Indian element of the total Indian population was

largely the result of the decrease in the Tamul proportion. .Et was estimated that out of eirery

ten Indians in Malaya, nine were South Indians and .

out of ten South Ind,ans, seven were labourers.

26

It is poseible to form some idea of the effect of immigration and emigration on the growth of the Indian population. The best way to

judge the effect of immigration on the growth of

PERCE1JTAGE

CoMPûITroN

OF POPULATION OF MALAÏt

MALAYAS/ANS

Ifflhiuli INS/ANS

DTHEP3

/0.4

l2I

_191/ . .

/931

I'47

Figure IL.

Source: S. Nazijundan, Indians in Malayan Econor,

New Delhi, Government oî India Press, 1951.

225 the population within a. period is to compare the

'migrational surplu&, i.e. the excess of immigrants into the ecuntry over emigrants from the

countrys

with the 'actual increase' in the population, the balance being accounted for by the "natural iiicrease, i.e. the difference between births and deaths.27 In reviewing the growth of the Indian population in Malaya, reference should always be made to Table xiii2S

page 226 and Figure II for the

percentage composition of the Indian Population or Ma1ara.

In the nineteenth Centiir, Indians could be found in the Straits Settlements. As early as

1812 there were 7,113 Indians out of a total population of 26,107 in Periang. In Malacca

by 1827

there were 2,3.2 Inai.ans cnit ol a total population

of 33l62. In Singapore by 1821 there wexe 132 Indians out of a total population of f,727. By 1871, the date of the first Population Census of the Strait5 Settlements, the Indian population had

226 Table X1.11

Growth of the Indian Population in Malaya 1901-191f0

State or Settlenient

1931

1940

32,x1-56

5lO19

6O2Q7

J6,65

53,339

8,02O

1276

75O0

33

2338

28.Ik]4

57,150

82O55

1O4628 ,132,271

1497Z9

73,539

130,324 .159452

196L9

714,067

l3255

155,92k

526 18248

33.658

5OlOO

59472

66ii

8692

14.820

17321

191]

Singapore

17,825

2?I990

Penang

380.5i

Malacca Straits Settlements

Perak SelangoD

-

.

19Q3

).6ßk7

92l

3211

NegTi Seflibilan

l253 federated

Malay States 58,386 172k65 3O5219 379996 468.pa9 2A1ore

5659

-

2k280 j

51038

5B.6Z2

____f

1!Ì t -

iinei

British Malaya

-

4k

.

267,203

471,666

624,009

748,82

227 increased to 35,389. Ten years later, the Indian popii3ítion increased to 41231.29 In 1901, the

Indians in the F.LS. and the Straits 6ettlernents numbeDed 115,536e

745O in the latter and 58,36

in the former. The growth of Ihe Indian populaticn was as spectacular as the modern development of Malaya. In 1891 the Indian population enumerated

in the F.M.S. had been 2045k1 and thus the increase a decade later amounted to 38,232 or 190.5 per cent.'° This was primarily due to increaeed immigtation as a result of prosperity in the country, where there was rapid development and expansion.

There was also the need of the Government for labour in building railways and in other public works. The Taniils and other Indians could be found mainly in

the districts of Krian, Kinta,

ua1a Lunipur and

Seremban. The Indians had increased especially in Negri Sembilan, showing an increase of k,k09 or 39k.7 per cent. This was followed by Selangor,

with an increase of l3,25 or 369.2 per cent. Then

228

emne Perak, where the Indians showed an increase of 19,898 or 133.9 per cent, as shown in Table XIV: Table XIV'1: Tamils and Other Natives of India in

theFederated Ma1y States in 1891 J9O1.

State

1891

1901

¶Pota3. Increase Increase per cent

lk,862 3k,760

19,898

133.9

Se1nngor

3,592 16,847

13,255

369.2

Negri Sembilan

1,117

5,526

k,fO9

39Lf7

583

1,23

670

115.0

2O15458,386

38,232

190.5

l'erak

Faharig

Total

The Tamils increased tremendously in the Federatea Ma1a

States, from 171k6k izi 1891 to

521f77 in 1901, being a total increase o

35,013,

as shown in Table XV: Table

32

Increase inthe Tamil Population of the Federated Malay States, 1891-1901.

State

1891

1901

1ncease

Perak

13,063

30,976

17,913

3,082

15,476

12139k

Neri Zenbi1an

963

51O7

Pahag

356

918

562

17,k64

52,k77

35O13

Selangoz'

Total

The in3ustria1 'l1amils could be found in large

towns as Taiing, Ipoli, Kual.

Iunipur, Seremban

and ICuala Lipis, while the agricultural Thmils were

nunlerous in centres like Began Serai, Pant Buntar,

Teluk Anson, XJ,anç, Kaan

Port Dickson and

Kuala Pilah.

That immiretion had undoubtedly influenced the growth of the Indian population in Malaya can be seen during the period 1900-J.911. The Indian

population in

alaya in 1911 was enumerated at

267,203. The 'migrational sur1us' from 1900-1910 wa

22,077, with k79,626 ìmigrants entering ana.

26,5f9 leaving the country. In the words of s. Nanjundan:

The growth of the Indian population in Malaya during the decade 1901-1911 aue to WRS RJJflOSt entLrel a s couty.3 immigration into the

The population of the FJ.S. increased from 678,95 in 1901 to 1,036,999 in 1911. ThU$

there was au increa8e of 38,Ok persons. 0f this

230

increase, the ChLnee ind Indians accounted for 2k',8G0 or 68 par Cent,

he Chinese bd increased

by one-half withiii this decade, but the Indian

popu]ition had trebled itself durin per1od

the saine

The Indians totalled 172,k65 in 1911,

reisterin

an increase of 195.k

er cent over

that of 1901. The period from 1901 to 1911 saw

the rand expansion o1 rubber p1antaionß, and therefore the ii,creased labour brought in to inset

the demand of the numerous new estates helped to

swell the Indian population. The rapid exjansion of rubber plantatìons was felt particularly in the three Vestern states: Perak, $e1anoiNegri Seinbilan. But Pahan

nd

was also affected, and

the increase of the Indian popi.1ation was most

niarked in this state, where the Indians in 1901

numbered a little over a thouand4 A decade later, it increased to 6,6ii.' The increase of Indians was also remarkable in Negri Seinbilan and Perak,

where the Indian population was about five times

23].

as numerous as it was in 1891. In Negri 5ebi1an, the rate o

increase was that the Indian population

was seventeen times as great as it was twenty years ago. In Selangor, the Indian populttion multiplied itself by twenty Table XVI35: Indians in the Federated Ma1y States, 1901-1911. State

1901

1911

Increase

Increase per cent

Perak

3k,760

73,539

38,779

111.5

Selangor

16,8k?

7k,067

57,220

339.6

Negri Sembilan

3526 18,2kB

12,722

230.2

Pahang

1,253

6,611

5,358

k27.6

Federated Malay States

.

58,3$6I172,65

1].k,079

195.

That the 'migrational surp1us' was chiefly responsible for the growth of the Indian population is obvious when reTiewing the period from 1911 to 1921. in the latter year, the Indian population in

Malaya totalled k?i666, an increase of 204,k63 over that of 1911. The total number of Indian immigrants

232 ntertri

aIaya was 908,ioo while the number

departing from the country was 561,913. Thus the tmigrational surplus' amounted to 3k6,187 Indiaus. The difference of about ))fl,72k between the

'mijrationa1 surplus' and the actual increase can

be accounted for by the excess cl deathe over births during this period. During the years of the expansion of the rubber industry, many Indians

were decimated by malaria and other fatal diseases

which were rife. Still, the increase of 2Ok63 or 76.5

er cent over that of 191]. exceeded that

of any other communities in ?4elaya. This can be

explained by the demand for Indian labour on the rubber estates, and the Indian estate population amounted to 3k per cent of the total Indian

popu1aton or 2

,3 5.

In the Straits Settlements, the increase from 191]. to 1921 was 27,5 per cent or 22,573 as

compared with an increase of 2,9O5 in the decade between 1901 and 1911. The increase in Singapore

233

was 15.9 per cent or

,k66; in Penang it was lk.5

per cent or 6,77Lf and in Malacca an increase of

151.1 per cent or 1L,333 can be noted. The large increase in Malacca was due to th

substitution

of Tamil labourers for Chinese on zuany of the

estates. Chinese labourers had been prominent on the estates in Malacca, but in the few years preceding 1921, orgaiuzed recruiting in India led to their replacement by Tamils.

In 121 the total Indian population enumerated in the F.M.S. WAS more than five times as numerous twenty years ago. The increase since 1901 was 76.9 per cent. In 1921 the Indian population was 305,219. The Indian population of Peraic in 1911

was almost the same as that of Selangor

73,539:

74,067. The increases recorded in 1921 for the two states were similar

56,785 or 772 per cent

in Ferait and 58,k78 or 78.9 per cent in Selangor.

The increase in Negri Sembilan amounted to Sk.k per cent or 15,410. The increase in Pahang was the

23k lowest of the four states, amounting to 31.k per cent or 2,081. This low rate of increase was due to the decrease o

the Indian population in the

Temerloli Ditr1ct by 35.8 per cent. Out of the 2k districts in the Federated Malay States, it

was in four districts that the increase wa

over

150 per cent, while for seven districts the

increase was 100 per cent over. The chief planting districts o

Krian, Lower Perak, Kuala Lumpur,

Klang, Kuala Selangor and Seremban contained 5k

per cent or l65355 of the total tndian population of the Federated Malay States. In the Unfederated Malay State6, the total Indian population enumerated in 1911 was

]2,683. A decade later, it increased to 61,l9 of whom Kedah and Johore accounted for 57,18k.37 As has been pointed out before, the large proportion of Indians in these two statee was due to the development and expansion of the planting industry, and its consequent demand 2or Indian labour. In

235

Johore, the Indian population increased b

18,521

or 327.2 per cent. Out of 2k,180 Indians in the state, 15,7Lfl ox. 65 peZ' cent were enwneated on

estates, The highest rate of increase was in the Endau district with 2,205.5 per cent. The lowest

rate of increase was in Segamat, with 209.6 per

cent. The hihet net increase was in Johore Bharu district with 7,1k3, followed by the increase of 1f,682 in 1ar. In the three districts of Johore Jharu, Miiar and Segamat the Xndian population

exceeded 5,000. The increase of the Indian population

in Keah was even more striking than in Johore. The increase amounted to 2,93O for the whole state or 443.3 per cent, the total Indian population being 33,004. Of this, 67 per cent or 22,207 were enumerated

on estates. The greatest net increase8 were 1O,UO in Kuala Muda and 7Lf55 in Kulim. These two were the only districts in Kedah where the Indian

population exceeded 5,000. The highest rate of increaSe was in Baling with 1,824.1 per cent, followed

236 by those oI Kuala Muda afld Banax' Bharu where the

increases were over 500 per cent eacii. In Penis, the fn&an populati.on increased from 114 to 8iì, with an increase of 611.f per cent. In Ie1antan, there was an

irrease of 2,Skk or 389.0 per cent.

The Indians in this state were found

ain1y on

estates in tfl.0 Ke1anta. In Trengganu, the Indian

pou1ation was insigniîicant.8 That the growth of the Indian population

in

a1aya was due to the ezcess of immigration over

emignation can also be observed in the decade 19211931. During this decade, the total nwnbei- of Indian

immigrants amounted to 887,751 whereas the Indians leaving Ta1aya numbered 703,809. Thus the 'migrational surplus' was 183,9k2.39 The actual increase in the

Indian population in 1931 over that of 1921 was :L52,3k3, for the total number of Indians in Malaya

wa

62k,009.

of the tota]. number o1 624,009, the tndian

population in the Straits Settlements accounted for

237

132,277, while the Federated Malay States returned 379,996, and the other states 1J..1,736.

ludian

population comprised 1f.2 por cent of' the total

population of k,385,3k6 ju Malaya in 1931. 3n the

Straits Settlements, Indians accounted for 11.9 per cent oÍ the populattou, in the Federated Malay States it amounted to 22.2 per cent and in the Unfederated Malay States, 7.1 per cent.

Indians

came second in the percentage composition of the

opu1ation in Singapom and Se1ancr, where the Indiane constituted 29.2

er cent o

the total

population. In Pahang and Johore they came fourth,

and ii every other settlement or state, they came third. The Indian position in Pahang and Johore

was due to the 1are Tother Malaysian" element in these two states as well as to the small number of estates present. Perak and Selangor returned one half o

the total Indian population o

Malaya.

Singapore, Penang, Negri Sembilan, Johore and Kedah all retu.rned Indian population over fifty

23S

thosand. Io listrict returned an Indian popu1ttion of over

D,OOO. However, the Sizgapore Municia1ity

returned 41,356; Kinta 41,462; Lower Perak 35,9k-;

ICuala Lumpiir k365; Elang

G,217 and Sererthan

36 828. alaya,

Of the total Indian population in

nearly L.9 per cent or 30k,15? were enumerated on

estates. The urban Indian population formed 3O5 er cent of the total Indian population. The Indian

rural population (excludTh

estate population)

formed the reuaining 20 per cent. In a word, the

urban and rural Indian population constituted about .

.

51 per cent ot the total Ind.an popiilat.on

k2

In

the Federated !4ala7 Statee as a whole, 21.5 per cent

of the urban population were Indians1 63 per cent

were Chinese and 12 per cent Nalaysian.k3 It is true that

igrational aurplii&

accounted for rnot of the Indian population growth in Malaya, but in the period

rozn 1931-19k?, the

roth of the Indian population wae detemined by

239 Ft. complex set of 1actor, The IndiaE popu1atiox

was influenced by the Great Depression of the 1930's, for the magnitude of Indian inrniigz'ation

was greatly rethced. To borrow You Poh Seng's words:

The principal cause of popu1tion Increase up to 1930 was immigration froirt India. This tide was halted and to some extent reversed with the econom depression of the early thirties.'

The ban imposed by the Covernnent of India on emigration of unskilled labour in 1938, and the tendency of tb

Indians to sett.e in Malaya since

1930 were also responsible. There was improvement of the sex ratio axnong the Indians and this

accounted for a higher rate of natural increase

Moreover, a

more and more Indians were locally

born, the Indians tended to regard Malaya as their home, and therefore were inclined to settle in the new country. Whereas in 1921, about 12.k per cent of the Indians were locally born, in 1931, the percentage increased to about 23. per cent

2kO Besides, marry Indians in fece of a

danger of a

iinmineit

Japanese invaSion anô of rood shortage

migrated home in the opening of 19k1. But figures are not available as to the number of Indians who nianged to get away before the southward drive of ¿.5

the Japaneee troops.

Many Indians e.ther died

from exposure or were murdered on the way.k6

What influenced the growth of the Indian population in Malaya adversely was the Japanese occupation of the country. P.E. Smith sums it up sucøinctly:

The Japanese Occupation o Malaya had a more disrupting influence on the life of the Indian community than that of any other of the three major commuxities. A1] suffered frani shortage of food in the last two years of the occupation. But, although the Chinese suffered more than the Indians and Malays from deliberate brutality and homicide, they did not experience the enforced family separation or disruption of the normal means of earning a living to qaite the same extent that the Indians did.7

The war brought a series of shocks to the ?tcloisteredlt world of Malala. The Japanese Occupation

241 resulted in inunense hardships for the Indians as well as for the other commtinities. The Indians were ifl13OVeriShed. and. conseuent1

the Indian

popU1tion was markedly reduced.48 Very few Indiane entered Malaya, in fact iniuigratîon stopped föllowing

the Japanese Occupation which disrupted shipping services between India and Malaya. The production of rubber declined and many Inaiane were deprived of the means of livelihood. Food became acarce, and the Japanese encouragement of food-production by felling oonsiderable rubber trees did not help nrncb.

This was because formerly Malaya depended on food imports from Indo-China1 Siam and Australia. But now the war imposed iestrictions on the iLport of food. Corxsecuent1y tone of thousands of Indians

ershed fron ma3utrition. This of course affected the growth of the Indian population in Malaya.

Moreover, some 50,000 Indians were forced to work on the Japanese Siam-Burma Bailway Project. The 'Railroad of Death', as it is often

2 -2

called, was to be built across iart of Siaii and

Burma to link up the two lines already in existence from Rangoon to Ye, in Tenasseini and from Singapore to Bangkok.

The purpose of the railroad was

sti'ateic, so as to shorten the line of

onununication

between the Japanese arniies in India and Burma.

Work on the railway started in November 19k2 arid it was completed on 17th. October 19Lf3. During the

first months of railroad construction, only We6tern prisoners of war were used as labourers, perhaps in accordarie with the Jap9nese propaganda line "Asia for the .f&siatics." But early in 1943 the need

for additional labour became so acute that thousands of Asians were recruited from Malaya, South Siam and Indonesia, and these were sent up for work on the railway lime.50 Thus manr Tamils were recruited

from the estates for they were attracted by wages of three dollars a day, but some Indians were forcibly sent up by the Japanese. Many of these Indians perished while working on the railroad,

2k3

partly because of the lack of meaical care and partly "as a resuJ.t of their ingrained mental

habit of trusting their employers to look after their physical well being for them."51 These Indian coolies, like the other Asians recruited,

lacked the discipline and initiative to cope with the situation. . . . s . . . .their living conditions were

not fit for pigs. They did not attempt to help themselves, and they consequently lived end died like flics in indescribable squalor 52 Their accornmodations

rations of food and conditions

of work were deplorable! They lived in tents where there was nothing else at all but bamboo shelves foi- beds. They received one dollar a day as wages

out of the promised three. With these they could oxily buy limited food supplies from native rendors

or from the expensive Japanese-controlled canteens nearby. When dysentery, avitaminosis, malaria,

cholera and other diseases broke out, many Thtils were carried off. Practically very few medical

2Lfk

supplies were given to these coolies. It has been said that the Japanese fcrbaae European medical officers from treating all those Asian coolies

who were attacked by cholera and other sickness.53 Ciolcra cases were just left in tents and doctors were forbidden to treat them. They were given no food and hence nany perished. In these "horror camps" there were women and children who accompanied sorne of the Tamils. But diseases, malnutrition,

an almost complete lack of sanitation and hygiene, the buffets of the brutality of Japanese soldiers

and the long marches in tropical storms took a heavy toll of these women and children. In addition many of the Tamil coolies o

both sexes and of al).

ases were subjected to obscene brutalities, froi which some died. In the words of Lord

ssell of

Liverpool:

.s........ not all the coolies working on the railwaZ4died of disgase or malnutrition .

Very few of these Indians who were sent

2 5 to wo1ç on the railroad sux'vjved to return to the

estates. Thus the Japanese Occupation had a great influence ori the Indian population growth. To

borrow the word6 of a recent analyst: Furthermore the birth-rate of the Indian opu1ation fell as a result of the long absenoe or husbands, while the mortality rate increased from the absence of the able-bodied bread-winners .

However one Murugese, who sur'vived the ordeal oÍ the "Death...ailway" described it thus:

I was about fifteen years old when the Japanese came an took us away from the estate. We were put in a goods-train, which was full or water. Consequently we could not sit, and had to stand all the way during the journey which took three days and three nights ............ The conditions of the camps near the railway were very poor. sven when it was raining during the night, we bad to continue work. If anyone refusedto work, his head would be cut off.

The result of these calamities was a drastic reduction of the Indian population as enumerated in the 19k7 Ceneus. In 1931, the Indians in Malaya totalled 62k,o09, and it has been estimated that had there been normal circumstances, the Indian

26 oOpU1atjon would increase i.zp to about 800,000 by

19k? even without the aid of the 'iigrationa1

surplust. In 19+O,the Indian pou1atiou had increased to 748,89, showing an increase of 124,82O.

In

that year1 the Indians constituted J6 per cent of the total population of

he Federation of Malaya,

and 7.9 per cent ci the population of Singapore

Colony. In 19kO, there was an increase of 3,91 over the figure for 1939: ?f,9O8, and was due to the excess of birt

over deaths during the years

But in 1947, the Indians in Malaya only n.wnbered

605,000 or io.k per cent of the total popuiation.8 Thue a great number of Indians perished on the SDeath Railway.'59 But after the war, there was a

tremendous improvement of living conditions and the

Gensus of 195? enumerated 88,62o Indians, a rise of k3.9 per cent on the 19k7 figure4

Immigrationand the Indian Sex Ratio: Immigration and emigration were the predominant factors which influenced the disparity of sexes among the indians

2 7

ii Malaya thiring the nineteenth and twentieth cnturies. The Chinese iinmigraiits generally did

not bring their womenfolk along,

rticu1ar1y the

Iiailam Community who prohibited its women to

erigrate.6° Thererore the sex disproportion among the Chinese was rather highs

ut Indians, on the

other hand, were not so markedly disinclined to

migrate to Malaya with their

amiJ.ies

In fact,

the willingness of the Indians to bring thel? womenfolk a1oig varied corsiderab1y group by group. The Telegus who cante originally froiit the high

country of the

astern Ghats, usually were

accompanied by their wonienThlk, and as a result

their sex-ratios were a1was the highest among the Indian population. The males and females among this Indian group were quite evenly balanced, axtd

thus the Telegus led a normal settled life. In Bharp contrast, the Malayalis who came from the western, or Malabar coast1 rarely brouZht their womenfolk along. The sex-ratio among theiR W&8 the

248 ]owest of al]. Indian ethnic 3ivjsjons. Even as

1te as l57 the

x proo'tiort anor

the Malayslis

ws 250 females per thous'ncI males, compared

'ith

that of 900 females pr thousand niales smong the

Te1eus.61 It is oast to

ee that the M1ya1i

TOU was the least settled of the Indian groups in Malaya. Aiorg the Tarnhl group in Perak in 1901 the pz'oportion of females to males was 250:750.

In Selangor it was 198:602 in the same year, while :in Negri Sembilan1 there were 231 Tamil women for &V27 769 Tanil]. men.62

aeoaae later, among the

Tamils on estates, the proportion was 3 males to on

female1 while among the Telegu estate population1

the ratio was one female for less than 2

a1es

But

among the Malayali estate population, very few women were enwierated. This affords a powerful

testinony to the statement that among the Ma1ayai group, the sex disparity was high. By 1931, the

sex ratio of the Tamils improved considerably for tb.e number of females per thousand

a1ee increased

2k9 frcrt sf22.6 íxi 1923. to 51k.. In the ease of the

estate Tamils, the ratio was higher. The sex ratio o:I: the Telegus for the sarde ye.r was 717+ Í'emaleB

per thousand males. But true to form, the sex ratio aznou

the 4a1aya1i Was only 209.1 females

to every thousand ma1es.

The sex disparity among the Indians in Malaya can be attribute a

u1e

to several factors. As

very few of the Indians migrated to Malaya

with the intention of settling down in the country.

It served no purpose in bringing their families along when after about three years, the Indians would return to the family hearth, Besides the cost of living was higher in Malaya than in India,

and it would be cheaper for the Indian immigrant 122 Malaya to remJ.t money ta Xia to s2pport his family. A single man will be able to save more,

thus more often than not we find the Indian labourer alone in Malaya, without lije family to take care

of him. The long sea voyage would impose terrible

hardship on the Indian fenaie, anc some majan labourers were opposed tr the idea of havtng

their wQnenfo1ks work as labourers in the fielch In th a1riya

earlier years of In3in immîration to the Purciali system6

in Indien soci.ety

c1iscouraed the eniigration of women. With the sex disp'rity so high ainonc the Indians as a whole,

it was impossible to expect any great natural

increase 'n the lndin population. To cite the words of C.A. Vlieland:

Up to late in the second decade of the present century the number of women in Malaya was relatively so small that despite their fecundity and a general death rate by no means discreditable to an equatorial country, it was utterly inLossible for the number of births to exceed the number of deaths.6' 1us the sex disparity influenced the growth of

the Indian population in Malaya 6 the years passed, the sex ratio

moved towards normality. The policy of the Malayan Government was to encourage the importation of

Indians by fzni1ie. The General Labour Cornittee SE't U) to enquire into Indian Labour in 1920 recommended that the way to iitpro'e the sex ratio

anon

the Indians on estates wts that the difference

of wages between malee and fentales should be only

lo cents por dient.66 The usex_ratio!T rule in Malaya was se1don applied. Lccordin

to rule 23

niade unier the Indian Thirtion Act of 1922, the Go'ernrnen1 of India cou1c insist upon a proportion

of one female to every five males anong assisted eznigrante to Malaya. Various steps were taken by

the Labour Departnent in Malaya to reduce sex-inequality.

Pecruitin allowances were raid to married couples among the assisted immigrants. A bonus of $1 was paid to each child of a non-recruited immigrant. Schools, creclies and maternity allowances were

pDovided foz labourers on estates in the hope that they would reduce the infantile and maternal

mortality. Planters and employers were encouraged to assign light tasks to women, so that they might

252

have more spare time to perîorm househol3 duties, thus encouraging Indian labourers to bring their

Wive6 along to iiaiaya.6

sven when the ban was

imposed by the GovernTient of India ou assisted

unski11e

1bour emigration, a prograrme was set

up by the Indian Immigration Comrittee to provide assistance for South Indian wonien iinniigrants68

The sex ratio also improved as uiore and more women. joined their husbands in the country, and n'ore children were locally born. These Indians

of the second generation were brought up in Malaya, and therefore tended to regazd Malaya as their honie. The Japanese Occupation

however gruesome

it might be, also served as an impetus in reducing sex disparity, for the majority of Indians who perished during the period were niales. In 19k?,

the ratio of women to men was 69.2 per cent, whereas

it as i6 per cent in i93L6 Li reviewing the sex proportion among the Indians, difference must always be made between

253

the estate Indian population an

the urban Indian

OpU1atjon. The Indians 1cated in towns were pore unequaL :iri sexes than the Indians in rural

areas1

and there was aiway an excess of males in towns. Thia was in sharp contrast to the Chinese, for the proportion o

Chinese women in towns was always

higher than in rural areas, In 19111 the proportion o:f Indian females in 10,000 Indian males in Kuala

Lumpur was 2,k32; in Ipoh 2,188; Taiping 3,526; Kampa

2,72?; Serembazz 2,754

Klang 2,011 and

Teluk Anson 3,024. The number of Chinese females to 10,000 Chinese males i

the sanie towns was:

Kuala Luznpur, k,ii; Ipoh 1+,122; Taiping 3,857;

Kampar 3,780; Seremban 2,3k1; Kiang 2,030 and Teluk Anson 2,9k3. The Indians preferred to take

their womenfolk to the estates instead of the towns chiefly because on the estates, a labourer and his wife could find work for both of them whereas in towns it would not be possible.'0 The sex proportion would vary amone the

ItifldjpflØuII anrI the ttimrriigranttT

roups. An

TtjfldjenousU Inthan would be born in Ma1ya,

whilo an "immigrant

Indian would b

one born

elsewhere and had mrated to the country.7 proporlton of females anon

The

the "indigenou.s1'

Indians would always be higher than amone the "inhinigrant" Indians, a#; shown by Table XVII 72

ori page 255. In Singor, the sexes among the "iziigenau5" Indians were eaual while

ri Pahazi

there was a slight excess of females. But among the Indiana born e1sewbeze

there was usually a

great excess of males. The proportion of Íema1es as highest in Selangor, Peraic1 and Kedab, and

was lowest in Singapore. Prom the Census figures of 1911 in the Federated Malay States, the proportion of females to males bad increased in Perak and Selangor but had decreased in Negri Seibi1an and Pahang. That it was so in Pahang was due to the increase of Northern Indiais, who wez'e unlike the Tamils in

255

Table XVII

Proportion of the sexes of Indians born in the Malay Peninsula arid elsewhere

Tlndians born in British Malaya

-

State oi Set tiernent

Percentage of Males

Indians born elsewhere

Percentage of 'emales

-

-t

1913. l92l91l 1921 Singapore

Percentage ot Males

1911 l93.

Percentage of Females

l9l92l

49

50

89

90

1].

10

k'2

8

75

7k

25

26

5

51

k9

8

77

16

23

5l

Lf49

8i

80

19

20

51

k8

¿f9

78

71

22

29

51

51

+9

49

70

2

30

¿f9

51f

51

1f6

8i

75

19

25

PahanK

5?

¿f9

¿f3

51

89

8k

1].

16

Federated Malay Statea

5J.

51

49

¿f9

78

72

22

28

5k

46

6

1k

19

kG

k

22

29

51

50

'

52

Malacca

Lf9

Straits Settlements

5

Penang

-L

Perak

52

I

Selangor

i

,

Negri Senibilan

-t-

oore Kedah

k6 k

55

78

7].

_{

Kelantan

figurer 55

J

fiRure

k5

figureE 83

figre

7

256 that they did not bz'in

their womenîolk a1on

to

Ma1-a. The decrease in Negx'i Sembilan was due to the increase of Malayali in that state. lxi the

Krian

istHct of Perak, the proportion of fema1e

to males was quite balanced. The disparity of the

sexes aiongst Indians was cost marked in the Temerloh district of Pahang for the railway construction work there did not facilitate the Inlian labourers to brinC their faz2iilies a1on.

Refer to

ab1e XVIII

on page 257.

25?

P&b1e xVIII73: Number of

ema1es to 1,000 Males

Among the Indians.

Settlement or State

1911

1921

Singapore

20½

199

Penang

¿fQ7

1f37

Malacca

2k7

335

316

337

Straits

ett1ements

Pemk

335

Selangor

311

k68

263

361

Pahang

136

225

Federated Malay States

308

k4k

Johore

190

253

Kedah

357

Per1is

uk

245

Kelantazi

128

225

61

61

308

k05

Sembilan

¶ienganu British Nalaya

258 1921,

t:h

proortiou of feria1es per

thousand m1es amonr the Indians rose fron 308 ii 1911 to 405. The tota' enwiieratect was .335,485 males

nd 136,181 females. I Indian fema1e

Contrast rith th

Chinese

by 1921 we'e mort numerous among

the Indian agricultural labourei's, and chiefly in

the Federated Malay States. The proportion of

majan females was higher in the agricultural districts of Perak, Se1anor and iCedah, but in Singapore, where the population was exclusively irban, there was a lower percentage of Indian onien.

In 1931 the proportion o

Indian females

per thousand males increased from FO5 in 192]. to

di2. For the Indian estate population, the sex

ratio was higher: 6kf females for every thousand ialee, eQ that on the estates there wexe over three females for every five males.

Of the

624,009 Indians enumerated in the Census, 202,981 were females while k21,028 were males,75 as shown

259

by the f11owing table. Table

i6:

Indians by Sex in 1931.

State or Settlement

Males

Females

Persons

Singapore

k2,998

8,021

51,019

Penang

39,kll

18,609

58,020

Malacca

15,73k

7,50L4.

23,238

98,13

3]3+

132,277

103,361

55,791

159,152

98163k

57,290

155,92k

Negri Seibi1an

33,538

16,562

50,100

Pahan

iO,k58

4,362

lk,820

Federated Malay States 2k5,991

i3k,0O5

379,996

Straits Settlements

.

Perak Selangor

Johore

36,853

14_,_]8_5_

5i038

Kedah

32,210

18,614

50,82k

281

966

1,592

6,752

70

1,371

k

377

Penis

.

68

Kelantan

5,160

TrenRganu

1,301.

Brunel

British Ma1aa

.

323 :

L'21,028

202,981

.

62'i-,009

260

At th

end of 1936, thc ratio of females

per thousand males was t67.77 In 1939, the proportion

of Indian males per 100 fem1es was 195 while in 19ko it decreased to 191. Iii 19k? the ratio o1

females por thousand males was 692. Thus the sex

ratio moved towards a more even distribution of males and females, 1eadin

to greater stabilitr

of fanii].y life among the Iadiari irunirants.

Therefore the seasonal flow of immigrants

and emigrants between Inaia ad Malaya was instxinaental in building up

iaya8

domiciled Indian pcpulation in

is clear that the growth of the Indian

pojnilation in Malaya was closely linked up with the

modern development of the countrr. Just as the rubber and oil palm plantations, the railway and road construction could not do without the influx of Indian labour, so in the same way, there would be

o growth of the Indian population without the

261

demand for Indian labour created by the economic

development of Malaya. This idea is echoed in a more !orceful way: The story o the growth of the Indian poDulation after 1900 is tied up very cJosely to the expansion of the public works, projects of the Governrieut and the oil palm and rubber estates,

prticu1rIy the latter, which now replaced the sugar and coffee enterpriBes as these dwindled owing to unfa-ourab1e market conditions.79 The £'rowth of the Indian population was also conditioned by the econoniic 'climate'

t.jf

Malaya. In 1920 when there was ari economic setback

due to the inflated demand for rubber and tin as g consequence of the Great TVar, the tide of

immigration slowed down for about two years. The

population figures also registered a cormsponding fail foi the same period. But when rubber restrictions were imposed, and the prices of ribber rose, the

immigrants poured in again. Therefore the Indian population of Malaya rose from less than three and a quarter millions in 1923 to over four and a

262

h1f millions in er1y 1930. But the priniary factor ihich influenced the populetion was the

xowtb of the Indian

niixationa1 surplus' which

held tile field ur to the 1930t6. During this time the Indians1 1i1e the Chinese, formed the TTf1oatin oDu1ation' of the country v'ith thousands entering

end leaving annua11y

But since the Seconc3 7Joi'ld

?Tar1 the Indian community grew to be an integral

part of the Nalayan picture. It i

easy to undemtand

why the High Conmissioner in 1.952 streßsed that

the Indians in Malaya were no longer migrants but were there to stay,

nd that they must be treated

as citizens of' Malayas

263

Footnotes. I

Maurice

in Malnya't,

'reec)iflan

"The Crowth of a Plural Society

cific Affairs Vol. XXXIII, 2(Jtne 1960)

p.165. 2

othuen

Poland Braddell, The 1ights of Singapore,

and Co. Ltd., 193k p.k9. (Hereafter cited as Ro1nd

radde11 , Singre .) :5

Joanna Moore, The Land and Peo1e of Mala7a Etnd

Singajore, London, Adam and Charles Black, 1957, p.65.

k ,

Lasker, Pecles of' Southeast &sia, Viotor

Gollanoz Ltd., London, 194sf p.8Zf....85.

Roland Braddell, Singapore p.f9. 6

KaDunakaran, India in Vor1d Affairs, The

Indian Council of World Affairs, 1952, p.65. 7 T.H. Silcock and U.k. Aziz, tINgtjofla1j$

Asian Nationalism and the WeSt, WL.

in Malaya't,

o1iand (ed.),

The Macmillan Company, New Tok, 193 p.269. 8 C.A. Viieland, "The Population of the Malay

Peninsula: A. Study in Human Migration", The eographical

26k

Review, Vol. XXIV (January 1934) p.78. 9

C.F. Ariarews, ?TIndjaT

iiigratiori Problem",

Foreign Affairs, Vol. VIII, 2(Aprl 1930) p.432. 10

Nathan, The Census of British Malaya 1921,

London 1922, p.1S pzra. 51. (Hereafter cited as Nathan, Census of 1921) 11

O.A. Vlielsnd1 British Malaya: A

eport on the

1931 Census and on certain Problems of Vital Statistics, London: Crown Agents for the Colonies p.105 (Hereafter cited as Viieland, Census of 1931) 12 13

ibid

p.1O.

jbjd

p.50.

1k

Viieland divides the Malayan Peninsula

into three parts: the Colony of Singapore; Old Malay which comprises of the states of Kelantan and frengganu and New Malaya which comprises the remainder of the Peninsula, including the settlements

of Penan

and Ma1acca

See "Tbe 197 Census of

Malaya", Pacific Affairs, Vol. XXII, 1(Marcb 19k9) IP ' 60,

265 :i

K. Jeadea, Ulfldjan Immigration into Malaya,

l910194]." U'ub1ishec B.. (Hots.) Thesis, University of Sinapore 1959 p3O-3l. (Iereafter cited as Jeadeva, Indian Immigration.) 16

Venkatachar, Annual eort of the Agent

of the Governent of India in British Malaya for the year 1937, New Delhi 1939, p.2. 17

.

Map I :is taken frani the book Malaya by NS. Ginsburg

and :?.R. Chester, Seattle, 1958. 18

Bruno Lasker, Asia on the Move, New York 19k6,

p

19 Xernial Singh Sandhu, Thdians in Modern Malaya, a manuscript of a forthcoming publication, by Donald Moore in the Background for Malaya Series,

p.51-55. Qereafter cited as SandhuIndians.) 20 2].

Jegadeva, Indian Imniigration p.30. Rodder, '1Racial Gioupings in Singaporet1,

Malayan .Journal oi Tropieal eogahy, Vol. 1, (October 1953) p.33. 22

Naztjundan, Indians in Malayan Economy, New

266 Delhi1 1951, p.1k. (Eereafter cited as Nanjiindan, Iiic3 jans)

23

H.fl. Cheeseman, "Educatioa in

alaya 1900-19k1"

The Ma1yan HistoricJ. Journal, Vol. 2J. (Juay 1955) p 42.

2k

LA. Mukundan

Annual Report of the Agent of the

Government of India in British Malaya for the year New Delhi, p.1. 25

26

Sandhu,, Indians, p.61.

c.s. Venkatachar, Annual Rep't cf the Agnt of

the Government of India in British Malaya for the Year 1937, p.2.

27 28

.

Nanjundan, I1dans, p.10. This table is compiled from the available Census

Peorts and Reports of the Agent of the Government of India in British Ma1ay. It has been found convenient to include Brunei, although it is no longer considered part of Malaya.

29 30

Indians, p.30-35.

are3 The Census of the Population 19g,

267

federated Nalay

tates1 Selangor 1902, p.23.

(Hereafter cited as Hare, The Census oÍ 1901)

31 32

33

p22. p.22. i'ranjunaan, Indians, p.11.

314.

Powtney, The Census oÍ the Federated Malay States, 1911 London 1911, p.22. (Hereafter cited as Pourtney 35 36

The Census of 1911.)

ibid., p.21.

Nathan, Census of 1921, p.34, para. 128. ibid., p.35.

38

ibid., p.35.

39 Nanjundan, Indians, p.12. ko L.1

Ylieland, The Census of 1931 p.39. Karl J. Pelzer, An Economic Survey of the

_ifiç Area: Population and Land lJtilization, Pax't I, Institute of Pacific Relations, 19k1 p.49.

(Hereafter cited as Peizer, Population and Land Utilization.) k2

M.K. Nair, Annual Report of the Agent of the

268

C-verninent of India in British Malaya for the

ar

1932, Kuala Lurnpur, 1933, p.22. ¿f3

G.A. Vlieland

Population of the Malay

Peninsula: A !tudy in Rrnnan Migration't1 The

Geopraphical Peview, Vol.

CXIV (January 193k) p.76.

¿j4

Poli Seng, ttThe Population Growth of Sinapor&',

Malyan Economic

eview, Vol

k (October 1959) p.58.

(Hereafter cited as You l'oh Seng, tTpopiilation Growth' ,) 1f5

Bruno Lasker, Asia on the Move, New York 19ko,

p.60.

k6

3asker, "Population Shifts in South-East

sia" Far Eastern Survey, Vol. XiIi, 22 (November l 19kLf) p.201.

47

T.E. Smith1 Population Growth in Malaya: an

Analysis of Recent Treids, Royal Institute of International Affairs, New Yoi'Ic, 1952, p.8k. 48

Morrison, "Aspects of the Racial Problem

in 4a1aya", Pacific Affairs, Vol. XXII, lCMarcb 1949) p.239.

269 +9

Lord Russell of Liverpool, The Kzights of

Euhido: A Short History of Japanese iar Criiies, Cassell and Conipany Ltd., London, 1958 p.82. (Eereafter cited as Russell, Japanese 'lar Criies) 50

Skinner, Chinese

oiety in Thailand: ai

Analytical History, Cornell University Presse !W !oxk, 1957, p.273. 5).

C.A. Fisher, !IThe Thailand-Burma Railway"

Economic Geogray, VoL 23(April 19k7) p.9k. 52

liastain, thite Coolie, Hodder and Stoughton

Ltd., London, 19k7, p.16. 3 John Coast, Railroad of' Death, The Commodore

Presse London 19k6, p.l3a. 51f

Japanese War Cries, p.93.

55 Sandhu, Indian8, p.4.1 56

Sepan

to the writez during an interview at Estate. It seems that Murugese succeeded

in escaping from the railway line to the

ung1e,

and there he caught the train to Malaya, where be had to hide until he reached the estate where

270

he worked before the Japanese took hi 57

away.

s. Dutt, Annual ieport oí the Agent of the

Agent oÍ the Government of India in Malaya for the Year

19ko1

Government of India Press, Zintla

19+3. p.2.

58

L.A. Mills, The New 7/orid of South-East Asia,

Minnesota

191f 9.

59 it is difficult to assess the number of Indians who perished while being engaged in the construction of the Burma-Siam Railway. Nanjundan estimates that more than 20,000 Indian labourers perished in this way. Sandhu assesses that it was about 50,000, while Dr. ILK. Menen estimates that more than 1001000 Indians were decimated. See "Indian

immigration in Malaya", Interpreter& Annual l948_Z.9, p.38.

60 61 62

63

Pountney, The Census of 1911, p.28. Sandbu, Indian

p.6?.

Hare, The Census of90i, p.34. Vj.ieland, The Census of 1931, p.S6.

2?1 6L.

This was the system prevalent in tudian society

which necessitated the women to wear veils oa their faces, to screen them fron the sight of

strangers. This system also called for the secLusion of women of rank. 6

C,A, Viieland, 11The Population of the Malay

Peninsula: a Study in liunian Migrationtt, The Geogxaphical

Review, Vol. XXIV (January l93f) p.77.

Report of the &ecutive of the General Labour Committee, British Malaya on Indian Labour and

oirer, Kuala Lumpur, 1920, p.6. 67

LA. Mukundan, Annual Report of the 4gent of the

Government of India in British Malaya for the Year 1936,

Tew Delhi 1937, p.23.

68 69

Pob Seng, ttPopulation Growth", p .jnnua1 Report of the Laboizr Department, Malayan

Union for the Year l947

p.2k.

70 Pountney, The Census of 19l, p.30. 71 N.S.

insbur

l98, p.317.

and F.R. Gliester, Malaya,

eatt1e

272 72

nathan, The Census ot 1921,

73

7k 75 76

.5O.

ibia, 1D.k6

Viieland, The Census o

1931, p.O-k1.

Peizer, Population and Land Utilization, p.50. Viieland, The Census or 1931,

7?

Mukundan

.l2lò

Annual Report of the Agent of

the Government of India iii Brjtish Malaya for the

Year 1_2, New Delhi 1937e p.23. 78

LV. 30va211, :2nomic Relations of India with

South-East p .

sia and the

19

79 znahu, Indians, 80

r East, New ZeThi 19k9

.36 .

.

.

Annual Report of the Uiiited Planting A.ssociaton

of Mala7a for the year l92.

CHAPTER V.

LIFE AND WELFARE IN A

LAJD.

It is difficult to evaluate accurately

the economic and moral well-being of the Indians in Malaya

The popular opinion is that the Indians

in Malaya were "happy children in a happy land."

On this issue opinion is fretfully divided as the quills of a porcupine. What is the truth about them?

Distant observers may well interpret that the Indian labourers were enjoying life in an earthly paradise. This section pictures the Indians as getting high wages and many other amenities of life free on the estates: free passage, good housing1 education and medical

help. They would be paternally looked after by the employers, the Fnigration Department of the Government of India and the Labour I)epartment in

Malaya. In the light of this opinion the Indian labourere are pictured in the brightest colours

274

posib1e.1 On the other hand, there are some critics who maintain that the Indian labourers were underpaid, underfed and exploited by the employers with the connivance of the Government. They renard that Tilndian labour in Malaya was in a demoralized and

degraded condition earning a mere subsistence wage to keep body arid soul together."2 How the happy

medium betweer. these two contrasting opinions can

be drawn depends upon the type of people viewing the labour problem, the period of history during which it is viewed and the perspective from which it is viewed. ]n this I incline more to M.N. Nair's opinion: ........ . the condition of labour in Malaya is not entirely satisfactory and that there is much scope for iriprovement .......... the Indian labourer is better off in Malaya than in India under present conditioris prevailing in India.

Th Malaya today the Indians are usually

tolerant of the other races. They are generally free of their caste prejudices4 which bad been so

275

overwhelming in Indian villages scrosc the Bay of Bengal. This can be attributed to a set of complex factors. The second-generation Indians who were born in the nevi land were generally ignorant of

the notions of caste.5 But even if they were

aware of this system, working and living Conditions tended to reduce the rigid caste distinctions. Besides Hindus of all castes emigrated to Malaya.

The dispsrìty of the sex ratio and intermarriage among Hindus were also responsible. On estates and in towns, the Indians mingled with the other races: the Malays and the Chinese. The absence of the Caste system among them must have influenced

the Indians considerably. In schools the Indian children played arid mingled together. Thus over

the years

weakened

the caste prejudices of these immigrants

nd ultimately disappeared. The coming of

the trade unions necessitated that the Indians should meet together for discussion in a tolerant atmosphere. In towns and on estates, the Indian

276 inrnii'rants were "devoid of religious fanaticism.t'

They learnt from the start to be broadminded and tolerant towards the religions and customs of others.

In short, even today, the Indians in Malaya are cosmopolitan. One particular feature which springs to

mind when reviewing the Indian community in the country is that the Indians lived as foreigners far more rigidly than the Chinese. In fact when they first came they brought along with them nearly all their own customs and ceremonjals.7 The Indian labourers

brought the temple and the pncbyat to the estates in Malaya. The panchayat, a tribunal of elders entrusted with maintaining order and settling disputes on the estates, wielded great influence over the labourers when they were established.8 But today,

the panchyats bave lost almost all their importance due to the change in the outlook of the labourer1

the growing importance of trade unions and the influence of education. With nearly their own customs

277 and institutions, the Indians did not experience what is often called a "culture shockV that is, the breaking away of their long established aprarian cultures, and their beliefs and instithtions.9 They refused to identify themselves with the other races, neither to adopt their cultures, their

dress, their food nor to intermarry with them0 Therefore the Indians built a "little Indiafl

11

in

Malaya, and within its walls, the Indian diet was maintained, the same costume worn and the native language spoken. As Maurice Freedman suggests: . . . . . .... the Indians who arrived in Malaya have remained ................ Indians not only in the eyes of census takers but also in culture, social12 organization and political status.

Thus it is obvious that in former times the Indians lived as foreigners. Of course there were cases of Indians who bad become assimilated

into Malayan society, but they were aU too few. The Chinese community formed a sharp contrast.

They usually mixed with the other local peoples

278

tnd were not rigid in their ways of life, They adopted the dress, food habits and. ways of living

of the local people. In former times, the Indians were regarded

by the Malaya and Chinese with veiled contempt.13 The Indians were despised upon because of their social status. Most of them worked as labourers who were willing to accept wages which the other races considered it beneath their dignity to accept. The feeling towards the Indians was one of inferiority.

Their status were far below that of the other communities in the country.15 But what Neelakandha writes is true only of the period before the Second World War:

The position of Indian labour in Malaya is not definitely one of a self-reliant coherent organized body, ordinarily able to look after itself with a certain amount of protection that every labouriug population stands in need of. Even with the mass of legislative enactments that have been passed to protect the rights many at any rate of Indian labour in recent times at the instance of the thefl has been Governnent of India little advance in its stattzs.°

279 But today there is

tremendous cbnge

in the social status of the Incien labourers ïri Malaya. The cha nre of terms from "labourers' lines"

to "workers' auarters" is evicence that the social

status of the Indians hs been raised. Another evidence is the occasion when the Righ Commisioner Sir Donald MacGillivray presented a Challenge Cup to be competed for between Estate Football teams

in l956?' The rise of trade unions perhaps may also be responsible. In the post-war years there is

the growth of individialism and independence

among the young Indians.

Ties With the Komeland: In assessing the attachment of immigrants to their homeland, it is necessary to evaluate two characteristics fauna among immigrants the number of occasions they have returned

to their homeland since they first arrived and the frequency with which they remit money to relatives or dependanta in the bomeland.18 Besides these, there are many other elements to be taken into

280

consideration: the rigidities of Oustoms, and traditions of tho immigrants, thoir ideological sympathies and their cultural attachments. In view of these, the ties of the Indian immigrant with his homeland pre-war were closer than those of the Chinese immigrant.19 In fact of all the Asian immigrants in the country, the Indian was culturally, politically and economically attached to his motherland. This can be proved by an array of factors. The fact that most of the Indian immigrants had left their families in India strengthened their sentiments towards their own country. The Indians remitted money to their dependents in their homeland to a greater extent than the case with the Chinese. It has been estimated that more than half of the single Indians remitted money home compared to just over a quarter

among the single Chinese.2° Indian husbands in Malaya were less prone than the Chinese to neglect their wires and children financially. Another

281 evidence to show that the Indian imniigrants

maintained close ties with their mother-country is that the proportion in 19k7 of those who had returned home was higher among the Indians than among the Chinese or Malaysian immigrants. Even among the local-born Indians a greater porcentage 12 per cent

had visited India as

against the 5 per cent among local-born Chinese who had visited China. The close ties between the Indians and their homeland can be accounted for by the paternal arrangements made by the Government of India for the welfare of unskilled labour in Malaya, and perhaps their notions of caste and religion bound them to India.21 The ties with the homeland of course varied with the" Indian" Indians arid the TTMalayan!I

Indians. The former group was very intense about their loyalty to India. This was the group of temporary sojourners in a land of opportunity,

with an interest purely in the material competence

282

thoy expected to amass before returning to their homeland. The TlMalayanfl Indians gradually increased

after the l93Ot8. These were the "Malcyaborn Indians" who had forgotten the Tamil language and cared nothing for caste.22 They were permanently settled in the country, and had established themselves in the economy of the society, competing against the indigenous people there. The ties with the

homeland among this group could not be strong. Today the Indians in Malaya are "Malayan" Indians and. they

take an active interest in the well-being of the country.

Re]4g,ons and Festivals: The Indiane brought their religions along to the new country, just as they brought along their customs and other Indian institutions. The religions of the imiiigrants

survive to the present day, as also their religious festivals. The majority of the Indians in the country are Ilindus, but there is a sprinkling of Moslems,

6hristiaus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others. The Hindus

283

are very z.ealous about their religion and. particiate

actively in the various religious festivals. The Hindus in Malaya celebrate Taipusam, the birthday of the god Subrarnanian and is a day of worship ad penances It usually falls in January or February.

During this festïval, the devotees perform acts of self-torture as acts of penance. They usually ta1e the form of lifting the kavadi, walking on fire,

wearing spikes and others.23 They hope to pacify and propitiate their gods by mortifying the flesh. Another festival which is observed even today is

Depavali, the Festival of Lights. The theme of the celebration 'tcentres on the supreme triumph 2Lf

of good over evil, of light over darkness.' During the festival, candles are lit while the houses are decorated with flags and festoons. The festival is also known as I(araka Chathurdasi Day,

which marks the commemoration in Hindu mythology of the liberation from the rule of the demon Narak.sura by Lord Vishnu, who killed the monster.

4ì

The celebration of the festival involves thorough cleaning of the houses in order to prepare for the coming of Lakshmi, the Goddess of Wealth who it is believed visits round the world at midnight. The Goddess visits only the cleanest houses for she prefers cleanliness, On Deepavall Day, the people clean themselves thoroughly and in the evening put on new clothes to go Deepavali shopping for sweetmeats, toys and fireworks for the children. In the house clay figurines cf Lakshmi arid Ganesh25 (the God

with an elephant's head) are placed and offerings are made to them. To a Hindu, Ganesh is the god of prudence and prosperity; he must obtain the blessings from Ganesh before he can worship any deity.

The religion of the Indian Hindus in Ma].aya

as in.

Indias

centres on "absolute freedcni

o seek communion with God ............... there is no regimentation, no dogma which must be believed each person makes his own search to find the great truths of life: the individual is responsible for

285 afl. -his acts, for which he gets bis rewards or

punishments according to divine dispensation.126 The fervent Hindu believes that time does its work and that events disappear with time. One particular point to notice about their religion is that the Indian Hindus can worship many gods. In each estate temple there are various gods. The Indian labourers on the estate do not mind transferring their worship from one god to another

from a beneo1ent

Vishnu to a terrifying Kali.27 Sometimes if the god worshipped proves unpropitious, then the worshippers will transfer their offerings to another god by building a new temple and demolishing the old one.

Even today among the Hindu community on

estates, there are temples or sapy houses. This the Hindus brought to Malaya when they first came,

for "the temple always goes with Tamils wherever they may be settled." These temples are maintained by the contribution of the labourers, and those who presided over them are priests or Brahmins of higher

caste. As Henry A. Haviland, a coffee planter in Perak wrote in 1902: I know of no estate ........ .. upon '.thich Ta'iils in s quantity are collected topethq that has not its own seamy house.

emp1es in towns are usually built by the Chettiars or other Indian money-lenders. The latter in former times, poured out money to build temples, and also for the maintenance of priests. Besides templos the Indiane also place shrines in caves, by a large rock or at the foot of a banyan tree. Besides for religious purposes, the temples also serve as the centre of social life especially on the estates.29 There discussions and meetings are held so that the Indians can put forward matters of common interest.

Indian Education: Pr s-war the Indian children were

educated in various kinds of schools. First and foremost, there were the Ñiglish schools in which the medium of instruction was English. These English schools must not be mistaken with schools for children

287

of English descent.3° These schools drew their enrolment mostly from the Chinese, the Indians and the Eurasians, but there were very few Malays, for the latter preferred to send their children to the villape Malay schools. In big towns, the Indians of the non-labouring class preferred to send their children to English schools, but usually the Indian pupils in English schools were those who had received some educotion in vernacular schools.31 In Singapore, the majority of Indian children went to English schools.32 In the Tamil vernacular schools, the

o1e medium of instruction was Tamil. Naturally

the Tilndjantl Indians would prefer to send their

children to these vernaculax

cbools. Indian vernacular

schools were of five types. The first consisted of estate-schools maintained by estates for the children of the labour forces. Secondly there were those schools maintained by missions or by associations. These two kinds of schools received grants from the Government. Thirdly there were proprietary schools

run by proprie tar-teachers mainly for profit. These

choo1s were few in number. The fourth type

was Government Tamil schools (unrepresented in the C traits Settlements and the Unfederated Malay

States) which in 1938 numbered eight in Perak,

four in Selangor and one in NegDi Cembilan. There was the fifth type of Indian vernacu1zr schools:

those conducted by a sìn1e Department. For example, in Klang there was the Sanitary Board (Municipal)

Tamil School which existed primarily for the children of the Sanitary Board employees.33 Subjects taught at these schools included reading, writing, dictation and arithmetic, and in the higher classes,

composition and geography. Suitable Tamil text-books in local arithmetic and local geography were not aaequate.3L1 The education of Indian girls constituted

a problem, for the majority of the Indians were completely indifferent whether their girls attended schools or not.35 By 19ko, in various Indian schools, 9,803 were girls, representing 36 per cent of the

pupils in these schools. Li Singapore there was only one Indian vernacular school exclusively

for girls

the Saradanian.ì School. There were

two Catholic Mission Taìni]. Schools in Singapore

and one in Penang, Taiping, Ipoh arid Seremban

which were attended by girls, but there were also

boys in the lower stanarcis.6 Estate-schools were conducted on rubber,

oil-palm and other estates, for according to the Labour Code, the Controller of Labour had the power to require anj employer on an estate to provide a school where there were ten or more children between the ages of seven and fourteen,

and to maintain it at his expense.3' Estate schools were mainly ¶amil schools, but there were also Telegu schools, and schools with

alayala1n, Eindi and

Punjabi sections. In Pahang, there was an example

of a school which had three sections: Tamil, Teleu and Malayalam. In spite of the statutory obligation,

estate education was not satisfactory. This was

due to a complex set of factors. The estate-schools were primitive and. were niere "reproductions of the

small indigenous village school of southern India.'8 On many estates the housing of the schools were dark, dirty places, and more important, the teachers employed were of inferior cinality. Kanganies

sometimes would serve as part-time teachers. Due to the indifference on the part of the planters,

estate-schools deteriorated in quality. The estateschools expanded and contracted according to the price of rubber. With high rubber prices improvements in these schools were remarkable. With poor rubber prices there was curtailment in expenses arid

retrenchment of staff. Parents were more anxious that their children should earn money or do household work or run errands, and so kept the children away from schoo]..39 Therefore the pupils were irregular

and unpunc tuai in their attendance at schools. The

course in the estate-schools usually took six years,

but children rarely attended so long. They usually

291

studied for two to three years, and could learn very little within this short time. Besides education on estate schools was not compu].sory

and children rather stayed away to play. Generally the estate labour force was migratory and this had an adverse effect on the development of estate education. The lack of funds hampered the progress of estate education. The management of these schools

was

entirely left to the employers. There might

have been better estate education had the Government assumed the management and financial responsibility of estate schools, instead of in recent times. As

early as 1938, Mr. SB. Palmer President of the United Planting Association of Malaya, in his address to the Association, recognized the need of Government interference in estate schools.

41

Some estate-schools were run ef:ficiently,

like the one in Caledonia Estate in Province Welleeley. But generally most of these existed

choo1s

in order to comply with the injunctions

292 of the Labour Code, and to provide an asylum for the children during the hours when their parents are working in the field.TTk2 The responsibility for this could not be relegated to the planters and managers alone. Most managers realized that a good school was an asset to the estate. But they could not be expected to be good educa.ticnaliste

and perform miracles in estate education. In fact they tried to help by providing a free meal every day in school or by giving a free supply of rice every month. The Government provided grants for these estate schools. In 1933, the grants amounted to $63,fk9 bu

the next year it was $58,15k. This

was due to the introduction of appropriating $6 per pupil instead of resorting to the system of giving grants according to the efficiency of the schoole and the standard of the pupils. The slow progress in Indian education

as a whole was partly due to the policy of the Government regarding education. Up to the First

2 9

,?orld Var the attention of the (3overnnent was

concentrated in the provision of free Malay primary schools, which in theory were open to the children of all races.

But in practice they were attended

only by Malay children, for the Indians and Chinese

preferred to send their children to their own vernacular schools or English schools. The Government had concentrated on Malay education and had neglected other vernacular education. In the Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States, vernacular education was compulsory for the Malays, while for the Indians and Chinese it was only voluntary. Till 1938, there was not a single Government Tamil school in the Straits Settlements, nor in any of the Unfederated Malay States.

According to the figures given by

the Director of Education in his report for 1937,

about 20.0 per cent of the funds set apart for education were spent on Malay education while only -

about 5 per cent were spent on Thmil education.

k6

In fact the Government's policy was expressed by

29k

the British Resident of Selangor at a meeting of the Selangor State 0ouncii:k7

........... could not accett the view that Government must educate in the vernacular, children of immigrant races. Government would provide education for the natives of the country but others must pay for the education in their own 3. anguage ...........

Speaking on Indian education ix general,

the quality was poor. Due to the relative brevity

of their stay in Malaya before the 1930's there was very little development of educational techniques in Indian schools, The teachers were of inferior quality for there were no local training classes.

The salaries of teachers were very low, averaging

under 2O per month. No trained teachers could be obtained from India on this low saiary.k8 The salaries of teachers were higher in aided, private and mission schools, but were lowest in estate-schools, for there most of the teachers were often clerks and

dressers who did the teaching in addition to their other work.1

It was only i

1938 that local training

classes were instituted and in April 1938 an officer of the IIalayau Mucation ')epartment was appointed

Inspector of Indian schools.50 From this time onwards, there wa

rapid improvement. However, the

statement made by Dr. Ho Seng Ong concerning Chinese schools,

51

The and an for

early schools were poorly managed, buildirge tnd equipment were ina.dequate, the teachers bad the least qualifications their responsible cal1in,

can be repeated word for vïord in describing the

early indian schools. In former times the Indian attitude towards

education was that freedom should be given to their children to appreciate their own native heritage and culture, and that development of English education must not be to the extent that it would exclude that of other vernaculars. But today there is a change because it is recognized that the learning of English is the "open sesame" to' econonic prosperity. Therefore

many of the Indian children crowd in the English schools today.

296 Life ori Estates: As early as 188k the eniployors

of statute immigrants were required by law to provide for them proper and sufficient accommodation, a sufficient supnly of wholesome water, uncooked rations at wholesale current market prices, hospital accotuiodatjon and medical attention.52 But

neral1y

speaking, the living and working conditions of indentured labourers were not satisfactory. The death-rates among indentured immigrants were higher than among unindentured labourers. On estates where

the general conditions of water suly, house accommodation and sanitary arrangements were not at fault, still a great number of indentured labourers died. This was perhaps due to the fact that the statute immigrants were generally disgusted with their lot, and were bound down to the estate for 600 days at wages of 25 cents per diem. They witnessed other free coolies earning as much as 50 cents a day

The constant vigilance of watchmen restricted

their freedom

The hours of work for statute immigrants

297

were longer than those of free labourers. These conditions enendereçi in them careless regard for

life, making them easy taret for the attacks of malaria arid other tropical diseases.53

The house accommodation for statute

immiCrants was far from satisfactory. The quarters provided on estates varied from the well-kept buildings on some of the estates in ProvinceWellesley to "squalid hovels.TT5k Generally the quarters were built of atap or bertam or with mud walls. Sometimes there would be partitions but more often they were left as open barracks. Verandahs were provided, frani three to ten feet in width. Cooking was done

either in these verandahs or inside the quarters. The quarters were one-s torey buildings, but sometimes

in order to provide for increased occupants temporary structures would be added inside the rooms or in the verandahe. There would be little ventilation for these labourers objected to having apertures in their quarters. Many of the quarters were often

298

overcrowded:55 rooms of ten feet scuare usually accovjiiodated six persons. In rooms of 20 feet by

l+ feet, eighteen people would often be found,

men and women indiscriminately. To or three married couples would be assigned one room, and the extent of privacy afforded can very well be imagined. It has been pointed out by some that the Indian coolieswere not particular about his

place of accommodation but it can scarcely be doubted that the coolies who lived in tidy and prorer quarters were most contented and in the best health. When indentured labour was abolished in 1910, it was replaced by !Tfreeu or kangany-

recruited labour. What were the living conditions of this type of labourers? On the estates the employers were obliged by law to provide certain amenities for these labourers. There was the system of supplying rice to labourers on estates at less than cost price. This was of some benefit to the

labourers, for the rice sold was cheaper. But certain

conditions necessitated the labourers to buy rice frofl their employers: on some estates there were no shops from which the labourers couic1, buy rice

or other provisions; after paying the employers for the previous month's supply, the coolies would

have very little surplus to purchase rice outside the estates. A creche or nursery was provided when the number of children on the estate necessitated

it. Children were looked after while their mothers were at work. On some estates, milk was provided free of charge to small children upon the advice of the Health Officer or Visiting Medical Practitioner.

Water supplies on estates varied considerably: on some estates even piped water was provided. But the Tamils tended to destroy pumps and taps and

revert to the old method of drawing water from

wells by buckets.6 Thus some of them died from water pollution for the ropes and buckets were not aften very clean. Maternitf benefits were provided

under Section 75 of the Labour Code of 1923. They

300

were paid at the rates of

of six month& earnings

for the first child and

of eleven

onths

earnings for subsequent children.57 The expectant

mother could stoD work a month before birth and also a month after birth.

Usually on large estates, well-equipped

and modern hospitals were 3rovided, and undoubtedly the labourers there received excellent medical

attention. But the flaw was that on many of the small estates there was no hospital and patients

needing hospitalization had to be sent to the nearest Government hospital, sometimes ten miles away. There

was a dispensary in charge of a dresser who could only attend to minor ailments and slight injuries.

More often than not the dresser would also be a conductor and clerk of the estate. This gave rise to confusion and neglect of his medical duties, for as conductor he would have to keep check of the presence or absence of the labourers at work in the fields and as clerk he bad to maintain a register

of attendance. The Sastri Report of 1937 recornmende3

that dressers on small estates should be well cualified, and that the?r should devote their time wholly to the

medical care of the labourers on the estates.5 The hospital buildings were generally of

two types: the first type consisted of wooden floors raised two to four feet above the ground and wellbuilt and ventilated. The second type consisted of a bare earth, generally built on ground level.59 In 1911 when the F.I.S. Health Department was formed,

the officers encouraged the p1nters of small estates to combine and build group 1ospitals, rather than to send patients to distant Government hospitals or to have full-time qualified medical practitioners. The Indian labourers objected to Governzrient hospitals

not on grounds of insufficient food or poor medical treatment, but because in Government hospitals they would be far away from borne. When a man falls ill

be prefers to be among his friends. In estate hospitals, the Indian labourer would be surrounded by frienda

302

and relations. He could still enjoy the luxury of cigarettes, tobacco and betelnut. But once he found himself in a government hospital, ho would be

s'rrounded by strauers and it is no wonder that he would abscond when sent to one. Thus group

hospitals were encouraged to be built on sal1 estates.

According to the Malay Labour Statutes every labourer on an estate should be provided with an allotment of land for his own cultivation. The allotted land was to be in the proportion of of an acre for every labourer and his family. The

provision of allotments aimed at securing the contentment of the labourers as well as to increase the homegrown food supply so as to enable the labourers to supplement their diet and earnings.

6o

This aim was not realized for usually the land provided for the labourer was so far away from the estate that it did not induce him to cultivate it tor his own profit. The transient nature of the

303 Indian immigrants before the 1930's meant that it was no profit to cultivate a piece of land, when after two to three years the Indians would return to India.

Ioreover the Chinese, beine expert

vegetable gardeners, competed successfully in selling their riroduce at cheaper prices.

On estates housing was also provided

by the employers. The old type of lines consisted of wooden barrack-like structures, with atap roofs or of local palnis, or tiles or corrugated iron.

The line was partitioned ana single rooms were provided back to beck, so that each line was in fact double structures facing both ways. These lines were raised on pillars of bricks or wood about six feet troxu the ground. The spaces underneath were

used either as kitchens or for storing purposes! Each single room of 10 ft. x 10 ft. accommodated

one family. Little privacy was provided. This type of quarters was condemned by the Labour Department which took an active interest on this aspect of

30k the labour problem. The seooid type vïas the groinir3-f]oor type with siinil'r interna), construction

but the difference was that they t'ere built on the

ground level. The floor was either of mud or cenent

This second type was suitable for bill

country while the raised type for badly drained lariil. But as the Commission Appointed to Enquire

into Certain Matters Affecting the Health of Estates

in the F..S., there was little difference between the two as regards the effect on the health of the labourers.61 Actually the Indian labourers were

not used to labour lines: back in the villages in lndi

they lived i

separate houses or huts. But

in the labour lines there was no privacy and therefore moral life among the Indians deteriorated.

In the present day, there has been a tremendous change in the housing provided by the employers. The new forms consist of larger units - 15 ft. x 17 ft. They are usually of the cottage type, consisting of four-roomed bouses to accommodate

305

two families, These are also raised on pillars to provide coolness and fresh air. Partitions reaching

up the roof

are :provided, thus ensuring privacy

for each family. Kitchens are separated so as to

prevent the smoke from entering into the rooms inside. Thereas the furniture found on estates in former times were crude and rudimentary, the furniture today is elaborate, consisting of tables and chairs, while in soins cottages curtains

are

hung in the windows.

Health o

Estates: Since 1911 there had been ari

iztimense improvement in the health of the labourers

on estates. But still the death-rate was high compared with that of estates in Sumatra where the death rate was about fifteen per mille in 1924. In Malaya it was 2

per mille.

This was due to

the prevalence of malaria in the country, the insanitary habits of the South Indian labourers,

the indifference and dislike of the Indian labourers concerning interference in their living habits and

the reluctance of the planters in Malaya to look after the health of the labourers. As the Indians were mainly drawn from the poverty-stricken areas cf South India, their staniina were reduced and they becanie easy preys to the scourge of 1nalaria.

The Tamils as a whole were

reluctant to use

latrines, in saite of the managers' persuasions and threats. This led to promiscuous defoecation,

giving full rein to the spread of ankylcstomniasis.6 The disinclination of the Tamila to use latrines in those days can be understood for many were dark dirty places and f ar away from the lines.

But improvements were soon effected.

Excellent work was done to check malaria by many distinguished doctors and by the Government Medical Department which carried out research and investigation in this field. The Health and Labour Departments also pressed employers to look after the health of labourers ou estates. Jungles near the sites of estates were burnt and cleared, and this reduced

307

the prevalence of maljnant diseases. Gradually the planters abandoned what is often called a T!splendid isolation" in health matters and

co-operated with each other and the Health Departments. The improvement of the standard of health on the estates was also reflected in the children. That aggravated the problem of health on estates in Malaya was the food diet of the Indians.

From a nutritive point of view, the normal Tamil diet left much to be desired. Basically it consisted of rice with a little salt fish1 meat or other protein. Dairy produce and eggs were very seldom used, as they were expensive. Thus the Tanil and his family were undernourished. Incidence of xerophthalmia and night blindness were higher among the Indians than the other races.

The Committee

on Nutrition in the Colonial Ñnpire confirmed this account of the dietary standards of the Indians in Malaya:

The basis of the diet of the Southern

308 Indian is arboi1ed rice supplemented with dhall, spices arid coconut oil Coconut and sesame oils are the main sources of fat ......... Analysis of the diets conumed suggests that they are not well balanced. The protein standards are low: protein of good quality, meat, fish, rii].k, eggs are reficient. The fat is almost entirely of vegetable oricin, and fat soluble vitaiins A and D probably below otirnuri renuirements. Supplementary sources of vitanin A, loafy vegetables and carotene-containing tubers are often absent ...... Associated with these deficiencies, possibly correlated with them, are levi physical standards, poor stamina, susceptibility to bacterial disease and the occurrence of clinical evidences of lack of,.vitamin A, xerophthalmia

and niçht blindnes.°5 It has been suggested that an improved

diet scale would certainly add much to the well-being and the happiness of the Indians in tho country.66 But the period after the Zecond Norld War only saw the improvement of the diet of the Indians. In pre-war times the estate-shops would not take the

risk of stocking perishable goods, and thus the Indians could riot buy much fresh food, unless they

went to the local markets.6

But communication was

309

inconvenient and the Idjan were reluctant to travel over long distsnces. Againct this it cen be

argued that the Indian labourers could supplement their diet by ciltivating the allotment of land given ta them by the employers. But very few labourers

would take the trouble, and those who did iould sell their produce in order to obtain more cash. The keeping of cattle could also supplement their diet, but once again the Indians preferred to

regard this as a money-maldng proposition. Besides the keeping of cattle was frowned upon by the managers

who feared the damage of seedlings and other plants by straying beasts. The Indians, it is said, are inclined "to economize at the expense of his stomach,"68 unlike the Chinese who do not grudge spending money on food. Even in former times the Chinese diet was more satisfactory for it included a larger proportion of proteins and fats. Therefore the Chinese labourers were quite healthy and could work for longer hours. Conversely the Indians in Malaya were undernourished

310 ncI. were trone to the attacks of malaria and other

!na1inant diseases.6 Another problem among the Indians on estates in

a1aya, which is still prevalent today,

was that of toddy. In 1912, sDirit-shops were closed to the Tamil.7° Although this curbed his inebriety, it had the effect of turning him to toddy-shops which grew in number to meet the

increased demand. The word 'toddy' is a corruption of the Tamil word tari, and is the juice extracted from various palms.71 In the Malayan Peninsula

only the coconut palm is utilized. Toddy is still the national drink of the Tamil, who believes in

its medicinal power. Opinion is divided concerning the good and bad effects of toddy. In a letter

written in 1916 Ir. Malcolm 7atson pointed out that toddy was certainly "an influence affecting injuriously the public health"72 of the Indian labourers. In contrast, the opinion of the Senior

Health Officer

f the F.M.S. was that Tttoddy is

311

not a poison any more than beer or cider are poisons."73 The objection to toddy which still

remains

todays

is that the toddy-drunk labourer

will usually lie out, perhaps on a wet night and the result will inevitably be malaria and pneumonia.

There is also the danger of toddy poisoning, a1thoub it is difficult to differentiate between it and rice poisoning, fungus

oisoning and ptomaine

poisoning. In former times, adulterated toddy was usually sold, for when the alcohol ferrientation

stopped within forty-eight hours, the process of

acetic fermentation would set in, so that within four days it rose to a maximum content of four per

cent of acetic acid. The drinking of this adulterated toddy rendered the labourer susceptible to indigestion and diarrhoea. Today the Government made it illegal for adulterated toddy to be sold. In fact toddy-

shopkeepers are only allowed a daily ration and any toddy which as been left over the preTious day must be thrown away.

312

enera1ly I incline to the idea that

toddy is not very injurious to the Indian latourers if the sale of it is properly managed. No disturbance will be created if the toddy shops are set away from the roads, with suitable premises where the

labourers can drink their toddy at ease. In former times, the licensed toddy-shops riere very often

ata

buildings frequently 'cramped, dirty and

saualid, with mud floors.T17k Conseouently the custQnler6 would crowd on the road and when they

were drunk, trouble would arise. No great harm will result froni drinking toddy if the utensi1

used for storing and drinking toddy are thoroughly cleaxzed, and if cupa or tumblers are used instead of battles. It is no wonder that in former times it was thought that toddy was very injurious to

health for whenever a labourer turned up at the toddy-shop for toddy, the toddy-seller would dip the bottle into the stock of toddy, submerging the bottle and his hand.

ore often than not the

313 bottle would be very dirty and hence it can be understood why toddy had su.ch a bad effect on the

labourers of old. Besides if toddy were to be

prohibited, the Indian labourers would always turn

to a hib1y deleterious spirit known as smsu which is said to be more injurious than toddy to physical and mental health. Indeed what had deterred

the action on the part of planters and the Governient to prohibit the sale of toddy even in fcr!!ler times

was that it represented a safeguard against samsu.75 Against this it can be argued that it is

much better to prohibit toddy altogether, for as the secretary of the Kapar District Hospital pointed

out in 1916, the coolies seemed to get on very well at Carey Island where toddy-shops were absent.

Besides the excessive drinking of toddy will reduce the India labourer to poverty1 for it has been estimated that the average labourer spends about

30 per cent of his earnings on

tdd.6

But it

must not be forgotten that the prohibition of today

31k

will surely turn the labourers to sa'su, the

supression of which will recuire far more ....... ... strenuous efforts on the part of the a1'yat overnnìent and ......... entail considerable extense.77

On the other hand, the funds accuniulated from the

profits derived from the sale of toddy on estates can be used for the general welfare of the labourers. The funds

re subject to the scrutiny of the Labour

Department, so that employers cannot have resort to it. Row can it be said that by maintaining the estate toddy shops what the employers give by orle hand to the labourers, they take back by the other hand much to the economic ang moral detriment of the labourers?7 That there is a deterioration of morals cannot be doubted. It is useless to inculpate the employers for this, for in this case morality depends to a

certain extent on the self-discipline of the indian labourers rather than on the employers. Again it has been suggested that drink is not essential to the Tamil and that the sale of toddy can be

315

Drohibited.79 But it serves well to remember that after a dreary day's iork in the fieli3s, the Tamil

labourers prefer to drink toddy as a sort of relief. Indeed, ir my opinion, the sale of toddy would not be very injurious if there is constant vigilance

on the part of the Government and self-discipline on the part of the labourers.

Life in Towns: Very little is known concerning the 1ivin

conditions of Indian labourers in towns and

other urban areas. Besides the plantations, numerous Indian labourers were employed by the Government, the Municipalities, the Public 7orks Department, the iailways, the Harbour Boards of Singapore and

Penang and the Naval Base at singapore.BO There is no doubt that their working and living conditions were miserable. On estates the Indian labourers were provided with numerous amenities. accept for the Governmeut which provided quarters for their

etployers, the other Indian labourers in towns had to fend for themselves. In any case, the quarters

316

provided by the Government for bachelors were far from satisfactory:

I was shocked beyond words by the condition of the ouarters provided for the bachelors. They consist of a stone barrack-like building which at the time of my visit was so overcrowded that it is doubtful if even the barest requirements of public health were fulfilled. oth the heat and the smell of the place were over-powering and appeared to find no easy exit. The washing accommodation w8 such that all used water found its way down the main steps which form the genera]. entrance. No privacy of any sort was provided for and no wonder the place is he scene of frequent disputes and quarrels. Many of the Indians in towns were employed

as shop-assistants. They were recruited from India by Indian shop-owners on the basis of an agreement whereby they had to work for two to three years,

and in return their passages, board and lodging were paid for them by the employers. According to an investigation of the working conditions of the Indian and Chinese mercantile communities in 1938 by the a±ts rimes reporters,82 the quarters provided

317

for the Indian shop-assistants were usually located on the floor above the shops and consisted of sri1l,

ill-ventilated rooms situated under the watchful eyes of the eniployers. They htd to work for long

hours with little pay, usually from eight in the morning to nine at night, vith half-ho1icays on 3undays and one full holiday at Deepvali. During this long stretch from early in the morning till

night, only two hours were allotted for lunch and tea, but it was only after the shop had closed that thoy could have dinner. The wages were about

Rs.30 per month1 with annual increments ranging from Rs.5 to I?s.lO. These working conditions were

only for Northern Indians. In contrast, the working conditions were worst for Southern Indian shop-

assistants. They had to work from six in the morning to eleven at night, with three half-hour breaks far seals. Quarters and food provided were generally poor, and the law wages ranging from $7 to $35 were never paid on time. They had no

318

nc 1eipr

privr' of th

tjme

Fowever as

investiatior. carjed out by the

result trait

Times reDorters1 improvements were effected,

despite the oosition of the 1niar mcrcantile communìty. I

short, the vrorkin

and living conditiou

of Indian labourers in towns were worse than those for their counterpart on the estates. Perhaps it was because the interests of urban(Indian) workers did not receive from the Labour Department the same care and attention as those of estate labourers.03

To sum up, the Indians in Nalaya during the first four decades of the twentieth century

did nt find themselves in a land overflowing with milk and honey. As Rupert

nerson suggests:

The vast majority of them have taken no apparent interest in Malayan affairs1 have risen no higher than their miserable starting point, and have lived out their brief Malaya lives within a radiva of a few miles from tbe0çlingy "coolie lines" in which they siept.°'

319

But after the war, there was a tremendous irprouement i' living conditions and general welfare among the Indians in Halaya.

iide range of aenìties are

available to the Indians today. They cari enjoy

better housing, and they come into closer contact

with the other races in the alayan plural society through the help of newspaper, radio, cinema,

modern schools and more convenient means of communication as bicyles and motor-cycles. In short, the Indians are mixing well with the other races so as to form a strong Malayan nation.

320 Tootno tes

M.II. WaKr, Indians in Mala, The ioduvayur Yrintin

orks, 1937, n.k7. (Hereafter cited as

Wair, Indians in 1Ia1aya)

2

ibid. p.k7. ibid. p.Li.9.

k

Victor Purcell, Malaya: Outline of a Colony,

Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 19k8, p.30.

2.B. Krishuan, Indians in Malaya: A Pageant of Greater India, Singapore 1936, p.26. 6

H.I.S. Kanwar, !Tlndians in Malayau, Eastern

World, Vol.V, 1 (Dec. 1952) p.15. V. Thompson, Minority Problems in Southeast Asia, Institute of Pacific Pelations, California1 1955, p.6k. 8

Charles Gamba, "Malayan Labour, Merdeka and After",

India Quartery, Vol.XIV (1958) p.251. J.O. Hertzler, The Crisis in World Population: a Sociological Ecamination with Special

eference

to the Underdeve1ped Areae, University of Nebraska

32].

Press, 193G, p.225. 10

G. Mahan, "Indians in South-East si", Eastern

World, Vol.VI, 7 (July 1952) p.1k.

I. Davis, The Fopi1tion of India an

Pakistan,

New Jersey, 1951, p.10k. 12

Maurice Freedman, "The Growth of a Plural

Society in Ma1aya', Pacific Affairs, Vol.XXXIII, No.2 (June 1960), p.159. 13

Virginia Thompson, Postiorteni on Malaya, New

York, 19k3, p.133.

Usha Mahajani, The Role of Indian Minorities in Burma and Malaya, The Institute of Pacific Relations, New York, p.vi. 15 16

The Straits Times, March 25, 1937, p.10.

A.E. Neelakandha, Indiai Problems in Malaya: a

Brief Survy in nela tian to

nigation, Kuala Lumpu.r

1938, p.k17. (Hereafter Cited as Neelakandha, Indian Problems in Malaya.) 17

ànnual Report of the United Planting Association

of Malaya for the year 1952.

322 J.8

A Social Survey of Sinpore:

Study of Some

sçcts of

*

.

Pre1iminry

ocia1 Coflditions in te

Municipal Area of Singapore, December 19k?, Singapore, G.H. Kiat and Co., Ltd. p.109. (Hereafter citod as A Social Survey of Siriapore.) 19

T.E. Smith, Pou1ation Growth in 4a1aya, Royal

Institute of International Affairs, Neii !ork 1952 p 8k.

20 21

A Social 3urvey of Singapore, p.125. Irene Tinker, "Melayan

ections: Electoral

Pattern for Plural Societies"? The western Political Quarterly, Vol.IX, (195G) p.260. 22

Charles Robequain, Malayajndonesia, Borneo

and the Philippines, New York 195k, p.123.

23 Roland Braddell, The Lights of Singpore, Nethuen and Co. Ltd., 193k, p.73. 2k

25

The Malay Mail, October 23, 1962, p.8.

The story of how the god Ganesh got his elephant

head makes interesting reading. The Hindus say that Ganesh is the son of the great god Zhìva and bis

3a3

wife, the

od-1ess rarvati. Ee was born while

hiva

ws away on a journey. 7hen Shiva caie back, he did ot know that Gariesh was hi

son snd therefore he

cut his head off. After he knew the truth, he

promised Parvati that be would give Ganesh the head of the first oDeat1rce

ho passed by.

e

et out

into the forest and niet Hati, the elephant. Thus

Canesh had an elephant's head. See T. Zinkin and G.A. Gangal, An Indian Village in the Deccau, Oxford University Press 1959, p.25-26. 26 2?

A.T. Edgar, Manual of Rubber P1antirg, 1958. Xatherine Sim, 1'a1a

Landscape, Nichael 3oseph

Ltd., London, 1946, p.110. 28 GE Turner, "A Perak Coffee Planter's Report

on the Tamil Labourer in

a1aya in 1902" The Maly

Historical Journal, Vol.11, 1(July 1955) p.27. O.C. Cox, Caste, Class and Race, New York, 1948. 30 G.P. Dartford, "Problems of Malay Education",

0ersea Education, Vol.XXTX (1957-198) p.33, (Hexearter cited as Dartford, "Prob].em6 of Malal

32k Educ&t1on".) The Rt. Hon. J.G. A. Orîisby-Gore, fleport on a

Visit to Malaya1 Ceylon arn3 Java during the Year 1928, H.N. Stationery Cf.fice 1928, p.k5. (i!ereafter

cite1 as Orznsby-Gore, Report on a Visit to Malaya.) 32

Frederic Mason, The Schools of Malaya, Etern

Universities Press Ltd., Singapore 1959, p.13. V. Linehan, Annual Report on Education in the Straits Settlements and the !?.M.S. for the rear 1938, p.kk. 3k

F.G. Norten, Annual

port on Education in the

Straits Settlements for the year 1935. H.R. Cheeseman, "Education in Malaya 19OO_l91TT, The Malayan Historical Jouxnal, Vol.11, J.(July 1955) p

Precis of 194O

Report on Education in the

raitsett1ement an4 F.M.S.., Singapore. 37

Labour in British Nalaya" International

Labour Review, Vol.XLII (July-December 19kO) p.75. 38

Ormsby-Gore,

port on a Visit to Malaya, p.55.

325

port of the cecutive of the General Labour ConmitteeBritish alaya on Indian Labour an Labourers, Kuala Lunipur, 1920 p.10. K.A. Ì1ukundan,

nnual Peport of the Ajnt of

the Government of India in British Malaya for the Year

l936

New Delhi 1937, p.18.

C.S. Venkatachar, Annual 1eçrt of the Agent of

the Government of India in British Malya for the Year l97, New Delhi k2

1939,

p.11.

ibid., p.10. K.A. Mukundan, Annual Report of the Agent of the

Government of India in British Malaya for the_year 93k,

New Delhi

1935, p.13.

Dartford, "Problem of Malay Education",

p.3k.

K.A. Mukundan, Annual Report of the Agent of

Government of India in British Malaya for the

the

Year

New Delhi

1936, p.16.

C. Kondapi, Indian 0verseas

1838-19k9,

Indian

Council of World Affairs, New De1h, p.1k5. C.S. Tenkatachar, Annual Report of the Agent

326 of the Government of India for the Year 1937, p.9. k8

A. Keir, Annual ieport

o'i

thicatio

in th

Straits Settlerents and F.M.S. for the year 1937, p 35.

F.J. Norten, Annua]. Report on Edncetion in the

Straits Settlements for the year 1935. ICondapi, Indians Oversea

p.150.

to Zeng Ong, Education for Unity in Nalaya: an

Evaluation tf the Educational System of Malaya

with

pecia1 Reference to the Need for Unity in

its Plural Society, Penang 1952. 52

AB. Voules, "Selangor Inc3ian Immigration

iactment 188k", The Laws of Selangor, 1877-1899.

oceedirg

of the Federal Council, Federated

Malay States, 1910, Paper 11, Report of the Commission pppinted to

guire into the Conditions of Indentured

Labour in the Federated Malay

States1

by C.W.C. Parr,

p.kk. (Hereafter cited as Parr, Report into the Conditions of Indentured Labour.)

Report of Commission of InQuiry into the State

327

of Labour in the straits Settlements ac1 the Protected Native State,s -

1890, D»4.7.

bid., p.k8.

prt of the commission

into Certain Matters

pointed to Zncire

ffectjg the Health of Fstates

in the Federated Ma1ayStates, Thgether Jith a Memorandum by the Chief Secretary to the Government, Federated Malay States, Government Printing Office, Singapore,

192k1

p,J&29. (Hereafter cited as Report

On Health of Estates, 192k.) S. Srinivasa Sastri,

port on the Condition of

Indian'Labour in Malaya, Government of India Press, 1937, p.k. (Hereafter cited as Sastri, Report on Indian Labour.) 58

ibid., p.10.

Report on Health of Estates, 1924, p.49. 60

TJbour in British Malaya in 1931" International

Labour Review, Vol.XXVIII (1933) p.kOl. Report on Health of Estates, 192k, p.A27 62

ibid., p.Al3

6:

Parr, Report into the Conditions oI Indentured

Labour, p.f3.

J.V. Yield, "Some Observations on Vitamin A Starvation anong Inmigrant Indians in Malaya", Malyan Medical Journal, Vol.6 (J.931). Report of the Committee on Nutrition in the

Colonial

pire, Cntd. 6051, 1939.

B. Cross, Journal of Malay Branch of the British Medical Association, Septenber, 1940.

Major G. St. J

Orde Browne, Report on Labour

Conditions in Ceylon, Mauritius and Malaya, Eis Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1943, p.102. 68

69

ibid., p.102. N. Garigulee, Indians in the

pire Overseas,

New India Publishing House Limited, 1947, p.176. 70

Proc eedings and Peports of the Commission

Appointed to Inquire into Certain Matters Mfecti the Good Government of the State of Selangr in Relation to the Alleged Misuse and )1.buse cf

toddy in the Coast Districts of Selangor, F.LS.

329

Coernment Presa, 1917, p.xxiii. (Hereafter cited as fleports on Toddy.) 71

The method of collecting toddy from coconut

pins flakes interesting reading. l3efore the flower

opens and is still enclosed in its sbe&tb

the

toddy-drawer bruises it with a small mallet until the juice can be extracted. Then he cuts off the end of the flower and ties it to an earthenware

pot hung to catch it. Every morning and every evening, the toddy drawer climbs the palm and

empties the pot into a

oiird strung at his waist.

f ter leaving a few drops

f the juice in the pot

to sti.inulate fermentation of the new drawing, he

descends the tree and then empties the gourd into

buckets, which are then conveyed to the toddy

shops. See p.xxiii-p.xxvi of Reports on Todd. 72

Reports on Toddy, p.297. ibid.

p.299i

eport of the committee Appointed to

uire

into the General Question of the Sale of ¶Ioddy

330

in the Federated Malay states an

to Draw Up Draft

i2ules for the Control of That Traffic, F.M.. Government Press, Sastri, 76

eprt on Indian Labour, p.J.3.

Repprt of the

cecutive of the General Labour

Committee1 British Malaya on Indian Labour and

Labourers, Kuala Lupur 1920, p.2. astr.t,

pprt on majan labour, p.13.

Nair, Indians in Malaya p.52 Item No. 8 of the Minutes of the Meeting of the

Planters' As600jation of Malaya Held on 26th April 19].I found in Reports ou Toddy, p.385. 8o 8i

Neelakandlia, Indian Problems in Malaya, p.60.

Sastri, Report on Indian Labour, p.19.

82

Thompson, Labour Problems in Southeast Asia1

New Haven, 1947, p.90. ibid., p.85.

Rupert

erson, Malaysia 2 A Study in Direct an

Indirect Rule1 The MacMillan Company1 New York 19377

p.31.

331

CHAPTER VI INDIAN ROLE IN TEE DEVELOPMENT CF Mt4.LAYA.

Indians contributed niuch towards the

development of territories overseas: not only of Malaya but aleo many parts of the British :Dnpire.

In the words of Dr. N. Gangulee: . it is not appreciated that enterprising Indians have made a substantial contribution by their skill and. arduous labour. In the plantations of Mauritius, British Guiana and the West Indies, South Africa and Ceylon, in building railways in East Africa and exploiting the wealth of the mines in Natal and other African territories, in the lumber campa of British Colunthia in all these pioneering and Malaya enterprises they bave provided the diverse economic needs at a time when no other supplies of labour were available.1

In East Africa and Zanzibar, Indian achievement had niade its name, as stated by Gir John Kirk, in 1909:

It was entirely through being in possession of the influence of these Indian merchants that we were enabled to build up the influence that eventually resulted in our position.2

In Kenya and Uganda, the economic contribution of

332

Indian professional and commercial classes was

notable. Winston Churchill summed up the position thu s:

It is the Indian trader, who penetrating and maintaining himself in all sorts of places to which no white man could go, or in which no white man could earn a living, has more than anyone else developed the early beginnings cf trade and opened up the first slender means of communication. In

fact1

it was Indian labour that was mainly

responsible for building the Kenya and Uganda Railway!

Not only East Africa, but also British Guiana, Mauritius and Fiji owed much to Indian labour and enterprise. Trinidad too was indebted to Indian immigration for the growth cl her sugar

industry. Indian labour was also essential to the development of Natal, as declared by the NATAL

NCURY, a journal of the European planters: Had it not been for the coolie labour, we should not hear of the coffee plantations springing up on all i antis ..........

333

Even the ex-Prime Minister of Natal, Sir Leigh

Hulett, acknowledged that Durban was entirely built up by the Indian population.5 Now, what can be said about the contribution of Indian labour and enterprise to the development of Malaya? As early as the first half of the

nineteenth century, Indian labour, in the form of convict labour, played a

part in the development

of Malaya. During the period when Singapore,

Malacca and Penang served as the "Sydneys of India"6, the convicts helped to build roads,

cathedrals and churches. The work done by these convicts to build up the Straits Settlements has

been described in great detail by the soldierauthor, Major J.F.A. McNair in his book.7 A writer in the Singapore Sunday Times has paid tribute to the work accomplished by the Indian convicts in the following manner:

wring souls of a bygone day, men of

33Lf

another clime sojourning here against their will, those Indian convicts hare left au indelible mark on Singapore.° This praise was reiterated by Mr, T. Church, the

Resident Councillor of Singapore, when he wrote to the Governor of the Straits

ettlemeuts in

1850:

will show how much the community are indebted to the con-ict body for the cleanliness of the streets in town, and the extensive and admirable roada in the country, which elicit the praise and even the astonishment of sojourners from the continent of India and the Colonies.9

Many of the architectural works in Singapore would not bave been accomplished without

resort to convict labour1 for labour in those days was expensive and scarce. The Indian convicts were engaged in the opening up of Singapore: filling up swamps, blasting rocks, erection of sea and river walls, bridges, viaduc ta and tunnels, and

roads, and in reclaiming plots of land from the sea. The following were all due to Indian convict labour: North and South Bridge Roads, Serangoon,

335

3edok and Thomson Roads, the road leading to the top of Mount Faber, Bukit Tiriiah Road which enabled

land transport between Johore and Singapore. Indian convict labour was used to widen and improve the

Bukit Timab Canal, and to drain the lowlands nearby in order to render them suitable for the cultivation of vegetables. The convicts also built light houses the first one which was completed by September 1851, was completely built by convict labour. It was big'ly commended by the Singapore Free Press, as an edifice worthy of the citizens' pride,10 Most of the materials used were fashioned by the convicts'

hands. The Stamford Raffles Light House was built by free labour, but many convicts were called in to help as stone cutters, blasters and manual workers.

The Indian convicts sank the deep wells at Fort Canning, and filled up the former mud flat, thus building the present Raffles Place with the soil obtained from the surroundings of Hindu Temple and from Pearls Hìll.

336

The convicts were responsible for building their own prison, then located at Bras Basab Road,'

and also the City Gaol at Pearl's Hill, the court house, General Hospital, public offices, lunatic asylum, pauper hospital and several other public

buildings. Indeed so many architectural structures owed their origin to these convicts that it is no wonder that George Netto writes: the history of Indian convicts was the history of the Public Works Department of Singapore.11 The Mariamman Temple in South Bridge Road was

built by the convicts in 1828. The living testimony of the skill and workmanship of the

onvicts is

undoubtedly St. Andrewts Cathedral. Work on the church was started in March 1856, but it was only until October i86i that the Cathedral was opened.12 The construction plans were drawn by the convicts,

who included three draughtsmen. At first, the estimated cost of the Cathedral vas Rs.120,932,13 but the use of convict labour reduced it to

337

Rs.k7,9].6. The Oonvicts manufactured the bricks,

tiles, and much of the lime and. cement required,

at the Government kiins located at Seragoon Road. Such was the skill of these convicts that the

Cathedral was acclaimed as TT05 of the first specimens of ecclesiastical architecture in the East."

Another remarkable example of the

workmanship and industry of the convicts is the present Government House, the work of which was started in 1868 and was completed in the following year. Most of the work was carried out by convict labour, but at times, free labour was called in to assist in the flooring of the building. The Indian convicts also helped to build

up the economy of Malaya by being employed inside

the prison wa11, in the making of coir, ropes and flags. They contributed to the development of the country by taking up roles as tailors, printers, weavers, spinners and photographers. is a matter of fact, all material and

338

afl. labour for the execution of any public work required by the Government 15 were executed by these convicts .......

These convicts specialized in the manufacture of

walking sticks, known as "Penang lawyers" which were exported to Etirope and America. These sticks

were made from palms known by the Malaya as "Pias tikoos" and by botanists as the "Licuala acuti1ida"6 When the convicts were released, they were absorbed by the local population, arid here again, they helped

to develop Malaya in the various occupations and trades they took up as means of livelihood. In

October 1884, the Sin.apore Free Press paid tribute to these early builders of Malaya thus:

To this day, many of the released convicts are living in Singapore, as cart-owners, milk-sellers, road contractors and so on. Many of them are comfortably off, but are growing fewer year by year, and their places1ill never be filled by that class again.

'

It is interesting to riote that these

convicts worked under the supervision of warders chosen from among themselves. In fact, they were

339 11prisoners their own warders.T1 This system of

convict warders was first attempted in Singapore; and as there were many Convicts, many were selected to be warders in the proportion of one warder to

every 20 convicts. These convicts were given rations, clothing and blankets: each warder received a monthly wage of

3, while every convict was given

a monthly wage of 50 cents. This similar system was introduced into Malacca. It is surprising that so

much could have been accomplished by these Indian convicts. Although they were not the cream of the

society from which they came, yet they were not hardened criminals. Perhaps the law was very severe in the early days, and many would fall afoul of the law by acts which would not be considered as offeiaces

at the present time. The convicts were allowed great freedom in return for their co-operation to work for the development of their country. They were

permitted to go into town, to buy anything they liked. Once during the Chinese riots of 165k,

which lasted for over a week, the convicts were dispatched into the jungle, to follow the rioters and disperse them. After the mission was accomplished, the convicts returned to their prisons with noue missing. Vhile serving their sentence in prison, the convicts usually amassed large sums of money. IThen they became free men, they could afford to

settle down as cattle-keepers, and owners of bullockcarts, carriages and horses for hire. It has always been the boast of the Chinese that with their hard work, thrift and enterprise they have made Malaya.18 'Jhule the role of the Chinese

in the development of Malaya was significant, yet we cannot entirely ignore the role of the Indians in building up a modern Malaya. It is true that the Chinese were the pioneers in the tin-mining industry; that the internal trade, wholesale and retail, wa

in their bands and also the Chinese bad captured an important aliare of the trade between Malaya and nearby countries.19 In fact t)ae.Chinese had assumed

an

strangleholdt on Malaya.20 Yet

Dr. N.K. Menen makes the following statement about the Indian role in the development of Malaya: 7hen we grow enthusiastic about our great U.s. Dollar-producing rubber industry, let us remember with sympathy and gratitude the share of the humble Indiau worker in this aspect of M.laya's prosperity and

iii.

Indeed, the Indian labourers in Malaya have often been described as t'the creators of Malaya's

potential rubber wealth"22, and a member of the Legislative Council, Mr. John Mitchell referred to these sons of' toil as "the life blood of the Colony.t123

What had the Indian labourers done to deserve this praise?

During the end of the nineteenth and the first few decades of the twentieth centuries Malaya

as a whole exhibited the characteristics of a plural economy where different racial groups exercised different economic functions.

t the top

of the economic pyramid were the British ruling class, who exercised a monopoly of political power,

32 and controlled the important levers of its economic machinery.2 Next came the Chinese who constituted

the urban middle-class and workers, sprinkled with powerful capitalists. Then came the Indians who by

and large constituted the bulk of the plantation laboure The Ma].ays had remained small-holders or

fishermen and had been economically isolated from

the above alien roups In this plural economy, the British had given ordered government as well as

capital7

the Chinese had contributed entrepreneurship.

What had the Indians contributed to the development of modern Malaya?

This can best be answered by a

survey at the rubber industry of Malayas Rubber and

tin have been and are the mainstay of Malaya's economy, and her prosperity

has been intimately

linked up with these two comrnodities25 Even today, the economy of the country balances like a pyramid iT

inverted on American and European purchases of tbem.fl26

Rubber seedlings had been sent from Iew to Singapore in 1877,27

but it was until the coming of the motor

343

ae at the beginning of the twentieth century that the rubber industry was entrenched in Nalayan

economy. By 19L5, rubber exports amounted to 193,000,000 while tin exports provided t6i,000,00o out of a total export value of

l62,O0O,0o0,28 prom

this time onwards, rubber export value exceeded t1t

of tin. In 192, the export of rubber for the Federated Malay States was valued at £32,000,000, and for the whole of Malaya, at £87,000,000. In the same year, tin and tin ore exports were valued at £11,800,000 for the Federated Malay States and £20,400,000 for al]. Malaya.

29

Thus, the export of rubber grew from

nothing to become the dominating export of Malaya, three or four times as important as the old tin had been.

The successful introduction of the great rubber-growing industry into Malaya was due to a conibination of several factors, in which Indian

labour played an important role. The initiation and establishment of this industry depended upon

3Lfk

a diverse company of men and institutions: scientists

and the official research sttions where ssteratic scientific inquiry was conducted

civil servants

of an a].ert and patient character, just like "rubber

Ridley,"30 adventurous business men, and tell-established merchant firms possessing connections with highly organized capital market at home. Of course, the

primary factor was the framework of an ordered society within which individuals could go about their business.

All these needs were supplied by the capitalists in due course. But all these assets would be useless if not accompanied by ari ample supply of cheap 1abour

The expanding rubber plantations called for labour,

and the call was answered by the movement of Indian labourers from the densely populated regions of South India. Whether it is true or not that the Indiana came to Nalaya with the intention of seeking the

means of subsistence is not one that enters here. But they found their way to Nalaya, and helped to turn 1alaya into a prosperouc. country dependent on

3+5

rubber by contributing their share in ;ork and

capital.31 However, to say that the rubber industry was a product of Indian labour is a facile but inadequate statement. Yet it is true that one of the reasons why the various attentpts of the early planters to grow siices, gambier, sugar-cane and.

coffee in various parts of the Straits Settlements, met with little success lay in the shortage of labour. From the start, the Nalays refused to work on plantations. Besides, it was an empty land that the British occupied when British control was extended to Malaya.32 Capital, energy and labour had to be

recruited from outside. Indeed, one of the reasons

which made the rubber industry in South America lag behind the Malayan rubber industry was the shortage of labour. In the words of G.C. Allen and Audrey G Donni thorns:

In the development of an estate industry st Asia had every advantage over South South America. Transport was not as formidable a problem as it Was in the

3k6

jungles of Brazil, and the shortage of labour, which impeded the growth of the South American industry, could be overcome by drawing on the densely populated areas of South India, Java and China.33

After 1900, foreign capital began to be poured into Malaya in order to develop the rubber and the tin industries. In the words of Swet teriham:

Up to the year 1900 it may be fairly said that the prosperity of the Malay States was due to the enterprise and labour of the Chinese .. ........ the progress made in development was due to local effort and Asiatic capital; since that dateforeign mainly British capital, energy and skill, have cbnged the face of the country and increased the revenues of the States to astonishing figures.' But foreign capital would not bave changed the face of Malaya without the supply for cheap Indian labour to back it. In short, Indian labour became the complement of foreign capital and enterprise in the development of the country. It is no wonder

that Dr. LA. Mills suggests:

7ithout Indian and above all Chinese labour, the economic develo:pment of Malaya would have been impossible.35

During the early years of the expansion of the rubber industry in Malaya, it was Indian labour that helped to clear jungles and swamps and plant rubber seedlings in their piace.6 In the words of the Agent of the Government of India in Malaya, C.S. Venkatacher:

The situation of Malaya with respect to labour is unique in that the two key industries, tin and rubber which represent a predominant share of the wealth of the country, are almost entirely dependent on irnmigran.t labour. The mining industry is sustained entirely by Chinese labour just as the rubber plantations are organized on the basis of predominantly South Indian labour force .......... The Malay unskilled labour is practically non-existent and it is difficult to imagine how the industry as well as certain essential public services in Malaya could be carried on without the docile and sciplined gangs of Indian labourers. W?!

Thus it was partly (if not mainly) through

cheap Indian labour that the rubber industry became entrenched in the economy of Malaya, so that today,

Malaya is second only to Indonesia in the output of

3L

natural rubber.8 The extent of the value of rubber to Malaya may be indicated by the fact that in 1953 agriculture, forestry and mining co'itributed about k6% of the Malayan national income, and that rubber

alone contributed about 13%, while tin about Moreover rubber accounted for 60% of Malaya's domestic exports in 1953, while tin accounted for about

25.

01 the two, rubber is of much the greater importance to the economy: it occupies about 65 *

cultivated area of Malaya.

ko

of the entire

In the words of Guy

Win t,

.......... rubber meant wealth, and wealth in the hands of e. goverpment means, or

can mean moderniation." It was rubber which acted "like a magician's wand waved over Malaya" and added quickly to the wealth of the country, especially during the first decade of the twentieth century1

o that there was a

surplus in the revenue of the government. These revenue surpluses were usually used to build and maintain roads, railways and water supplies, and

for other forms of develoDment throubtout Malaya. Hospitals and schools were built. T7ith the revenue

derived from rubber, ....... ... a particularly unhealthy part of the tropics had been made one of the healthiest by lavish government expenditure and unremitting effort.42

In the four British protected States of Malaya in 187k, there was not a single post-office1 but by

190k, the postal services set up dealt with ten million covers, and 2,000 miles of telegraph wires were maintained.k3 Over 2,kOO miles of good roads

and 340 miles of railway were built by 190k. 0f course, this spectacular development of the country

cannot be wholly attributed to the revenue brought in by rubber, but at least some credit is due to this industry, and to the humble Indian labourers

who toiled on the rubber plantations. Indeed it is true to say that the rubber industry was responsible for opening up the country and reclaiming vast areas from the jungle for cultivation. It has transformed the States from a little explored region to

3o one of the best supplied with means communication .......... in the East. Rubber has been important because it enabled Singapore to maintain and even increase the value of its entrepot trade. Singapore had become the natural centre for collecting and grading various spices, forest products and other new materials, that is, what were formerly known as the Straits produce. In addition1 tea, silks

and cssia were imported from China, while sugar, rice, ivory and salt were imported from Thailand and Indo-China. These commodities were then

re-exported to the West, from which came manufactured goods and foodstuffs to be re-distributed again to the neighbouring countries. But when Eong Kong was founded in 18k],, it challenged the position of

Singapore in South-East Asia. Besides, it provided a better entrepot for the trade of South China, and a better port-of-call for ehips bringing goods from and to Europe. Moreover, the direct shipment

35-,-

of goods to Europe from ports in Indo-China and the Dutch East Indies had curtailed much of the entrepot trade which was once in Singapore's hands.

However,

the development of the rubber industry as well as tin mining compensated for the contraction of

Singapore's field of entmpot trade, for they added far more to her profits. Partly because there was the abundant supp3.y of immigrant labour, Malaya was

able to specialize in the production of rubber and tin more than any other line of activity. Singapore

and Penang became important centres of rubber milling and tin smelting

serving Malaya and other neighbouring

countries. The specialization in rubber and tin has raised the standard of living in Malaya. To use the words of TJI. Silcock:

Our (Malayan) national income per head of population is, in money terms, higher than those of other Asian countries, with the exception of Israel. Even making allowances for differences in the cost of living, the real income per head in Malaya is substantially higher4 than in most of the other Asian countries.

352

In the process of building Malaya, mamy Indians lost their lives. It is true that they were in Malaya because they were in search of the means of subsistence, yet it is also true that a great number of theni fell victims to the scourge

of malaria, and many succumbed to dysentery through drinking bad water, while many fell prey to the animals that roamed in the jungles in the early days. The Senior Surgeon, Mr. C.J. Smith, had said that even in hospitals in the early days, the Indian labourers T?djed like flies." How many hospitals were

being built in the early days? Indeed it has been well said:

Modern Malaya is built on coolie bones.

It was not only Indian labour that contributed to the growth of Malaya.

ducated Indian

immigrants also assisted in the development of the country. Sir George Maxwell, the former Chief Secretary pithily referred to the services of this class of Indiane thus:

Few people suffiient1y bothered about the subiect to realise what the people of India and Ceylon did in the early days of the country. Then British officers came into the country they numbered four or five in one state, and. perhaps three or four in another, but they had devoted staffs mainly composed of the people of India and Ceylon. At that time the Malays did not know the English language, and were therefore unable to take their share in the administration of the Government. The devoted services of the people from India and Ceylon would never be forgotten. ... They did not know the customs of the people of the country but they were sent to the wilds to do their work and they did it with unswerving loyalty. The Nalays were coming in and taking their places in the Government services, but everyone would always be grateful to the people of India and Ceylon for being the pioneers of the work of those days. Their services would never be forgotten and the Government would always give a helping hand to their Sons and grandsons, and this only as a small measure of the gratitude theQ owed to the people of India and Ceylon.

This tribute to the work of the Indians in the development of Malaya is reiterated by Sir Samuel Wilson, the Under-Secretary of State for the colonies, who was sent by the Colonia.l Office to Malaya during

351f.

November-December 1932 for the purpose of discussing

decentralization of certain public services in the Federated Malay States with the }agh ommissiouer

No one will deny the important

part the non-Malays,who have no.de Malaya

their home, bave played in its development, and the share they are destined to take

in helpin.g its future progress .......

The Nattukottai Chettiars also played a role in the development of Malaya. Their role in the country, as in Burma, was as "purveyors of

rural credit."

The Chettiars usually predominated

as money-lenders, pawn-brokers and money-changers

throughout Malaya. They usually formed the capitalist class among the Indian. community,52 and some of the

mines, plantations and busine6ses set up by Chinese and other Asiatics were financed by them. They would

provide credit facilities to the smalibolder and retail trader under circumstances which banks and

other financiers would hesitate to advance. This was due to their business competence which was well-known. They acquired

A

knowledge, which the

7esterrers could not hope to get

of the credit-worthiness

of the small Chinese and Indian traders.

.s a result

they became the channel by which 7estern bankinp

resources were poured into the current of Asian Small Asian traders, artisans and tin-miners obtained most of the credit they required from the Che ttiars by writing promissory notes or by mortgaging their crops. The Chettiars in. turn either discounted

these notes with the Western banks or by obtaining overdrafts on the security of bills or title-deeds to property. Thus the Chettiars assumed the role of

middle-men between the small traders and the Western banks. In this way, they held a key position in business transactions. R.B.ICrishnan says:

More than one captain of industry in the rich and powerful Chinese community owe their early start in business to the

ready and willg assistance extended by the Chettiars.

it is quite true that many wealthy Chinese magnates owed a great debt to these Ohettiars, for the latter extended initial capital to them, to enable

356

them to start their business in tin and rubber.55 The interests chargea by the Chettiars would amount to 1% to 3% per fllensem.'6 This was in sharp contrast

to that deman.ded by the Sikhs and Patbans who also

took up money-lending as a side-line in addition to their full-time occupation as policemen and.

watchmen. The rates of interests demanded by them were exorbitant, ranging from 10 to 20% per ntensem.

0f course, the unpopularity of the Indian money-lender is proverbial, although more often than not he is a boon to many of the small traders who come to hini

for aid. The activities of the Indian money-lenders

had been curbed to a certain extent by the Money-lending Ordinance of 1951, brought in by the Federal Legislative Council. The Che ttiars came from Devakottai,

Karaikudi, Puduvayal, Itottayoor, Pallatboor and

Kanadukatban in the Ramnad District, and also from the state of Pudukotta. They are usually found flOWaday8 in the large towns in Nalaya, a

Ipob,

2 -J

Singapore, Malacca, Kuala Lumpu.r arid Penang. Whether the Chettiars should use their nioney to beriefit the

Indian labourers instead of the other communities is a matter of opinion.

ut it is interesting to

note that John Thivy, the Representative of the Government of India, addressing the Nattukkottai Chettiars of Malaya at a gathering in Kuala Lumpur in 19k7, remonstrated thus: The Chettiar community while aiding others' enterprises to make a land mark in this country, has not attempted to go outside this particular money-lending and banking activities. This is not progress. You should not have just one way of carrying on your profession in life. You are blessed with money arid wealth. You must use your own ingenuity, your own initiative, your own man-power to produce something good, something useful for a wider circle.57

India role in the development of Malaya may also be measured by the magnitude of Indian investment in Malaya. An official Indian publication estimated in 1950 the investment to be between 170

and 250 million rupees.8 Another estimate gives a lower figure (probably an underestimate) which is

35

US36 million or Mlo8.5 million. This represented about 25 per cent of the total private investment fund in Malaya. S. Nanjundan59 cives the investment as between Rs,17 crores and Rs.25 crores160 while C. Kondapi estimates the Indian investment to be

at Rs.20 crorea.61 The highest estimate is that

made by LB. Kriehnan, which is "four hundred millions of dollars.'1 Most of this fund was invested by the small Che ttiar group, who was influential in

business, trade and banking circles, and who owned most of the rubber estates belonging to Indians. This Chettiar ownership of 175,000 acres of rubber plantations was estimated to be worth

s.l0 crores.62

Besides the Nattukottai Chettiars, there were also merchante, both North Indians and South Indiaus who contributed to the development of Malaya. These merchants included big import and export traders at the top to the petty hawkers and street vendors at the bottom. In short, the Indian trading community consisted of Chettiars, Gujeratie, Siz'idbis, South

359

Indian Mos1em

and a few Sikhs.

Before the First

7orld 7ar, these Indian merchants were engaged iii

the import of cotton yarn, gunny bags and curry spices, and in the export of general agricultura].

produce. In the thirties, the Indian nerchants imported Japanese goods, especially textiles into Malaya. In the fifties, the Indian merchants succeeded to capture a large proportion of the textile import trade of Malaya. By that time Indian activities were not only confined to textiles alone, but also included a variety of goods, such as bicycles and paper, leather goods, electrical goods and building naterials.

The role of Indians in the development of Malaya was closely associated with the economic activities assumed by the Indians in the country:

they involved specialized labour, clerical and

mercantile skills which were usually wage remunerative as opposed to agricultural occupations of the Indians in India.

360

Table C.°

Cccppational distribution of Indians in !alaya, 1931.

Males Agricultural pursuits

Females

Total

153,408

69,k3J.

222,839

Commercia], pursuits

29,596

618

3O,21+

Industry

18,280

1,135

19,Lf15

133,898

11,84.5

)Jf5,7k3

85,811.6

119,952

205,798

4.21,028

202,981

624,009

Miscellaneous, including Administrative, personal or professional service Non-productive occupations Total

In the Federation, about 8

per cent of

the Indians engaged in agricultural occupations worked at rubber, coconut and oil-palm cultivation or stock-rearing. In Singapore as well as in the Federation, public employment of Indians was significant. Eut it was and is, in the cultivation of rubber that the majority of Indians gained their livelihood. In the words of W.J. Kinton:

On the whole, the Indian especially the South Indian (Tamil) played the part of the man with the hoe or at best the

361

man with the tapping knife. On

uropean owned and operated estates1 the Indians

comprised 80% of the labour force.

ven today, the

Indian estate labour force can be divided into three large groups: the field force, the factory force and the clerical force. includes the followiri.

The field force

- managerial class,

tapper arid other field labour. The managerial class includes the labour foremen, kanganies or niandors

who usually act as the liaison between the planter and the labourer, and are in charge of the 1tline&'.

They are expected to uphold peace and order throughout the estate. The tappers are the most skilled of the rubber workers and receive the highest wages. In the Census of 194-7, 39,000 tappers were

men out of a total of 69,000, about 57 per cent.6 In 194-7, rubber factory workers numbered something

aver 7,000. The wages of factory workers were usually

as high as that for tappers. These factory bands were responsible for ooxrerting the tapped latex into

362

sheet rubber either for export or for further processing. .Veecìing is most important in the first

six years of the life of the rubber tree. The weeders were generally ola people1 men and women and children1 and sometimes weeding was carried out by tappers when they were required to work a

ful]. n-hour day, as during the Depression years of the 1930's. The few Indian clerical workers on the estates were generally literate, and were usually indigenous. Their salaries were generally lower than the field and factory workers, although they too received the benefits of free housing and other services. In other agricultura], occupations the

Indians were less numerous. In 19k?, there were 9,500 Indians in coconut cikitivation; in oil-palm

cultivation there were 6,200 Indians, while Indian truck farmers numbered 3,LlO0, livestock raisers

2,600 and forestry workers 133. In the other primary productive occupations such as fishing,

363

mining and forestry, the Indians numbered about 8,OL*Od. Among the Indians engaged in agricultural

pursuits, one point merits attention: the lack of subsistence occupations, in contrast to their importance in the home communities in India.68 Evidence proved that the Indiane would take up subsistence agriculture if permitted to do so.

Eut they were seldom provided with suitable land for subsistence cultivation. Rather they bad been reserved for rubber, or for some other commercial crop or for Malay subsistence farming.

owever,

several small farming settlements were set

up for

Indians: at Bagan-Serai, Peraic and in Chua, Negri.

8emblan.

69

Apart from being engaged in agricultural pursuits, about 5% of the gainfully employed Indians in 19k7 were involved in secondary productive pursuits as semiskilled and unskilled workers. Only a sma].l

proportion of Indians was owners or managers, in sharp contrast to the Chinese in the same fields

36k of employment. The largest group of industrially employed Indians was to be found in the category of occupations associated with metal-working. In 19k7, about one-third of

he employed Indians in

the Federation was engaged in tertiary productive occupations. In general, the service and trade occupations were filled up by North Indians, but also there were Moslems from the Marakkayar community of Madras and Chettiars. The Sikhs and Pathans usually filled the ranks of policemen and watchmen, and performed many of the other public service functions. In the police, the Indians figured next to the Malays in numbers. The statistics according to the 193]. figures were: 1,938 Malaysians,

l,k31 Indians and 299 Chinese in the Straits Settlements; 2,572 Malaysians1 2,011 Indians and 158 Chinese in the Federated Malay States.7° The Indians who were engaged in tertiary occupations were usually found in the towns and cities of Malaya, especially in Singapore. A single South Indian group, the Malayali,

365

was characteristically associated with seniì-silled and unskilled labour in the towns, in the same way as the Tamils were usually found on estates. Yinally, it is interesting to see whether the Indians had harmed the position of the Malays in assuming their economic roles in the country.

If it were true that the economic activities of the Indians were detrimental to the interests of the Malays, then it follows that the Chinese economic roles were even more detrimental to the Malaya. In the words of L.A. Mills:

Politically the Malaya were pushed out of their own house onto the doorstep. Economically they suffered the saine fate at the bands of the Chinese. In their own words they used to be poor men in a poor country, and now they were poor men in a rich country. It is difficult t

see how the Indian economic

activitieE had been detrimental to the Malays, when "a typical stall-shop in every Malay village belonged to a Chinese, not to an Indian",172 when the Chinese established a stranglehold on Malaya economically

36 and when the Malays bad been protected by a so-called pro-Malay policy of the colonial authorities. The British government felt that the Malays should not be pushed into the background in their own country. Since they were the "people of the country", they were granted special privileges. Reserves of suitable land were made to these trae TI505 of the soil";73 rice-growing was mainly confined to them. Special attention was paid to their education. Before World War II, the Malayan Administrative Service

was

specially created for Malays, and non-Malaya were barred from it. Throughout the nineteenth Century,

it was the Chinese who were foremost in seizing the opportunities created by the establishment of British rule, and while the British held the Malayan cow the Chinese milked it.75 As immigrants, the Chinese were exceedingly ¿nere tic and were ready to seize opportunities whenever they were

create.6

There were too many Chinese peasants who landed in singapore with nothing but the ended their clothes on their backs a careers as millionaires.t

367

But vñat had the Indians obtained in return.

for helping to develop Malaya? To quote the words of another writer:

Like Burma Malaya was developed partly with the help of Indian labour and capital, but the common Indian labourer was not the richer for it. The profits were drained away eitheto the United Kingdom, or by the Chinese. The large majority of Indian labourers remained poor and there were very few cases of Indians becoming millionaires in Malaya. Against this it can be argued that the majority of Indian immigrants to Malaya came with the predominant idea of seeking their daily bread. But was this not the case with the Chinese? Yet so many of them had made good in Malaya. While the Indians worked for the benefit of others, the profits earned by the Chinese remained in their own

pockets.79 Then how can it be said that Indian economic activities had harmed the position of the Malays?

368

Footnotes N. Gangu].ee, Indians in the

npire

erseas, The

New India Publishing Eouse, Ltd. 19Lf7, p.22, (flereaf ter cited as Gangulee, Indians.)

ibid., p.28.

7inston Churchill, My African Journey, london, Haddir, 1908, p.Zf9,

k

Gangulee, Indians, p.28. Lankasundarain, 'Internationa1 Aspects of Indian igration'T, Asiatic Review, 1931, April7 p.290.

i.e. convict stations. Sj.nce 1787, Beucoolen in

&imatra served as a penal settlement for convicts from India. But Bencoolen was transferred t

the

E'utch in 1825, and hence from 1825, Singapore,

Malacca and Penang served as convict stations until 1873, when the convicts were transferred to the Andaman Islands.

J.F.A. MeNair, Prisoners Their Own Warders,

Archibald Constable & Co., vestminister, 1899.

(ereafter cited as McNair, Prisoners.)

3E9 8

Krishnan, Indians in Malaia: A Pageant of

Greater India, The Malaan Publishers, Singapore, 1936. p.15. (Hereafter cited as Kriehnan, Indians.)

ii., 10

.

George Netto, Indians in Malaya: Historical

Facts and FiRures, Singapore, 1961, p.17. (Hereafter cited as Netto1 Indians.) ibid. p.16. 12

13

1k

*

ibid. p.18. (rishrian, Indians, p.l7. McNa:i.r, Prisoners, p.1O-11.

ibid., p.91. 16 17 18

Netto, Indians, p.l5. .

-

Krishnan, Indians,

.lOi.

Anry Vandenbosoli, "The Chinese and Hindu ProblemeTi,

Current History, August 1952, p.ßO-84. 19 G.C. Allen & Audrey Donuithorne, Western Enterprise

in Indonesia and Na1a, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1957, p.59. (Hereafter cited as Allen and Donnithcrne, Western Enterprise)

370 20

v Purcell, "The Influence of

acial Minoritie&',

lYationalism and Projress in Free Asia, F.'1. Thayer

(ed.), baltimore 1956, p.2k1. 21

1)r. N.K. Menan, "Indiau Immigration in Malaya",

Interpreters' Annual 19k8.-1949, p.37Lf2. 22

23

Krislinan, Indians, p.20.

ibid.1 p.20.

2k

Raja Ratnam, "Malaya: A Nationalism in the

Making", Asian

orizon, Vol.3, No.1 (Vlinter 1950-51)

p.25.

25

Nanjundan, "ECOnOmiC Development of Malaya",

India

uarter1y, Vol.VIII, No.3, July-September 1952,

p.289.

26

E.H.G. Dobby, TiMalayRn Pcspect", Pacific Affairs,

Vo].XXIII, k(Deceruber 1950) p.397. 27

R.0. Jenkins, "Rubber: Introduction and

cpansion

with Special Reference to Malaya'1, The Planter,

February and March, 1955. 28

Dun.-jen Li, British Malaya, An Economic Analysis,

New York1 1955,

.38.

37J

29 30

Mr. H.N. Ridley, the head of the Botanical

Gardens at Singapore, earnod hi!nself this soubriqiiet

by his tireless efforts to persuade the sceptical planters to take up the new crop. See Song 0n

Siang,

Oe Hundred Years of the Chinese in Singapore1 p.k-f9, and H.N. Ridley, "How Rubber Started in rlalaya", Young Malayens, 6 February 1952, p.lfk. 31

E. Dennery, Asiats Teeming Millions: and Its

Problents for the ?est, 1931, Jonathan Capo, London1 p 200. 32

Guy Wint, The british in Asia, Institute of

Pacific Relations, New York, 195k, p.l07.(ereaf ter cited as Wint, The British in Asia.)

Allen & Donnithorne, Western Enterprise, p.117. Sir Frank Swettenhain, British Malaya, London,

George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1955, p.351. Dr. L.A. Mills, Malaya: A Political & Econoniic

Appraisal, University of Minnesota Press, Ninxieapolis, 1958, p.13.

372

S. Nanjundan, Indians in Malayan Economy, New Delhi, Government of India Press1 1951, p.11. C.S. Venkatachar, Annual Report of the Agent of the Government of India in British Mala7a for the

yar 1937, Delhi, Manager of Publications, 1939, p.3. 38

The Economic Development of Malaya, Report of

a Mission organised by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development at the recuest of the Governments of the Federation of Malaya, the

Crown Colony of Singpore and the United Kingdom, The Johns Hokins Press, Baltimore, 1955, p.1f. 14m Tay Bob, Problems of the Malayan Economy,

Donald Moore Singapore 1956, p.1, Background to Malaya Series, No.10. (Hereafter cited as Beh, Malayan Economy.)

ko

See TIH. Silcock's The Economy of Malaya, Donald

Honre, Background to Malaya Series, No.2, Singapore, 1956, p.12. He warns us not to describe the Halayan econoty as being supported by rubber and tin as if

373 these \7ere more or less eaually important, with

no other products of even similar siCnuficance. Of course rubber is of great importance, whether we count the numbers employed

the contribution

to national income, the contribution to Government revenue, the effect on the balance of payments or the profits earned for investors. But this overwhelming importance of rubber in Malayan economy should riot obscure the importance of other

lines of economic activity which contribute in total far more to the national income than do the rubber and tin industries directly. Refer to Appendix D. (Hereafter cited as Silcocks, The

Economy of Mala.) Wint, The British in Asia, p.112. k2

Dr. L.. 4ilLs, op. cit.p.9. D.G.E. Hall, A History of South-East Asia,

MacMillan & Co. Ltd. London, p.k85. Dr. L.A. Mills, op. cit. p.22. Silcocks, The Economy of Malaya, p.8.

37k Boh, Malayan Bcononiy, p.3.

?!int, The British in Asia, p.11k. k8

IZrishnan, In&xans, p.23.

M.K. Nair, Annual Rept of the Agt of the Governnent of India in British Malaya for the jear 1932, Kuala Lunipur, 1933, p.25.

Quoted in Gangulee's Indians in the Epire Overseas, p.130. 51

Usha Nahajani, The Role of Indian Minorities in

Burma and Malra, Vera & Co. Pablìshers Private Ltd., New York, Institute of Pacific ielatious, 1960, p.100. OEereaf ter cited as Nahajani, Indian

Minorities.)

LL Nafr, Tndiaus in Ìa1ya, Xodnvagur Printing Works, India, 1938, P.

Allen & Donnithorne, Western Bnterprise, p.20k. 54

R.B. Xrishnan, op. cit. p.2k. Usha Mabajani, op. cit. p.100.

However, N.N. Nair says that the Chettiars

charged exi'bitaut interest, at 12 to 18% on

375

secured loans, and on promissory notes, 2f to 36, p.101. The writer agrees with the orinion o± Usha Nahajani, that the interests charged by the Chettiars were not so high as that charged by the sikhs arid Pathaus.

Indian Daiy Nail, 1t October, 19f7. N.S. Ginsburg

v.P. Chester,

Malayas

Seattle,

1958, p.339. S. Nanjuridan,

'Economic Development of Ma1ays-T,

India Quarterly, Vol.VIII, No.3 (July-September, 1952) 289-311. 60

Anglo-Indian word, meaning ten millions or one

hundred lakhs. 61

c. Kondapi, op. cit. p.301. ibid. p.3O1.

G. Netto, Indians in Malaya: historical facts and fiKures, Singapore, G. Netto, 1961, p.53. This table is taken from S. Nanjundan's Indie-ne

in Malayan Economy, New Delhi, Government of India Press, 1951, p.15.

eÍ'er to Appendices E and F

376

for a more detailed classification of occupational distribution of Indians in Malaya. '?.J. Hiriton, Government of the Pacific Dependencies,

British Malaya, Institute of Pacific Relations, Honolulu, 1929, p.30. HJ3. Ginsburg & P.R. Chester, op. cit. p.333.

M.V. Tufo Del, Malaya: A Report on the 19k7 Census of Population, London 19k9, p.477, Table 88. 68

NS. Ginsburg See

P.R. Chester, op. cit. p.330.

ich H. Jacoby, ¡rian Unrest in South-east

Asia, New York, Columbia University Press, 19ft9,

p.129. The settlement at Bagan-Serai, Perak was set up by the Roman Catholic Mission in the 1870's while the settlement at Chua, Negri Seinbilan consisted

of 23 acres of thickly wooded jungle and 500 acres of drr land unsuitable for rubber. 70 71

Nanjundan, op. cit. p.18. L.A. Mills, op. cit. p.5. Mahajani, Indian Minorities, p.117.

Raja di Huir was one of the first Malaya to use

377

this term. Federa]. Council

oceedin&s, 1927, p.B7.

See tTsha Mahajani's The sole of Indian Minorities

in Burma and Malaya, p.117. In the book review by K.S. Sandhu, found in Journal of South-east Asian

Hit, Vo3, No.1, March 1962, he argues that the Malay Civil Service was only manned by the British and that the Malayan Adiiinistrative Service was

created for the Malays, instead of the other way round, as has been suggested by Dr. Mahajani. See

also Shine Gordon's "Malay Reservations: Intention and Reality", Seed, Volume 2,

6, Publication

of the Malaysian Sociological Research Institute Ltd., Singapore. She argues that despite the Malay Land Reservation Laws, the intention of which were to safeguard the Malays against the onslaught of the rubber and tin economy, the landless Malays were still exploited by landlords who were Malaya. L.A. Mills, op. cit. p.6.

Maurice Freedman, "The Growth of a Plural Society in Malaya", Pacific Affairs

Vol.XXXIII, 2(June 1960)

378 p. 162-163.

LA. Mills, op. cit. p.5. Gopa]. Nahan, "Indians in South-East Asia" Eastern

World, July 1952, Vol.VL, Number 7, p.l. Lanka Sundaram, "International Aspects of Indian Eiiigration", Asiatic Review

April 1931, p.295.

crT.;li

379

SWLy ND CO1TCLUSOTS Froi tiiìm immemorial, there ho.d been

loig hiotorica] contacts between Malaya and India. This waí main]y duo to its focal ceocçraphical

ponition,

and th

r1dn

it a highway between the East

7'st. fndian ships made their

straits of Ma1icca to Sinjore Archipelago. Indian tradera an

av down the

thc Malay

settlers concentrated

on the coastal areas and established comnerciJ. and culturt&1 contacts. Hindu social and political

customs were set up, and these fused with the traditional MaIay practices.1 Thus many of the

islands of the Malay Archipelago were Hinduised as early ss the fifth century

.D., and this was

mainly due in the early period to the influence of the Pallava Dynasty which ruled along the eastern seaboard of Southern In.dia

from the third to the

eighth century.2 The works of Georges Coedes shed

a whole flood of light on the Indianized states of Na1.aa. About the seventh century the Sri Vijaya

380

thnire was 3et un; in the eighth century the '3ailendra 1)ynaty concuereci Malaya, and ite

sovercipnty spread over Java

nd Sumatra as well.

Then from lfC0 A.D. there was set up the Majapahit 1pire. But towards the end of the ftfteerith century hindu influence waned axii Islani carne to influence

the Malayan world, with its inip-Lct on Valayan

culture and literature.3

y the seventeenth century

the conversion of the Malays to Is'am was complete.

It is interesting to note that the early Indian

settlers wo introduced Islam into Malaya married native women of the Peninsula and the offepings were known as Jawi Pcranakan,

who knew both Tami].

and Malay, the languages of their parents. Thiring the rule of the Portuguese and

later the T)utch, Thdian influence in the Malayan

world waned. But with the establishment of British

rule, which began in 1786 when Captain Fancis Light took forma]. possession of the island of

Penang, a new phase of Indian influence in the

38]

flalay Archipelaro began. During this Dbase, Indian

CDO75 were brouht over to mintajn Jw and order whi1

Indian ]abourers an

convicts helped to

build rnads, cinrches -nd harbours.

the beCitrnin

of the present centTlry great changes took place

wxch trans formed the Malayan economy from a most primitive one to th

inort prosperous and ar3vanced

in Southeast Asia.5 The introduction of the hevea brasjjjensjs from south Mierica necessitated the import of large supplies of cheap Indian labour, especially from 1ad ras. Once the Indian and Chinese

immigrants entered Malaya, the tropical rain forests retreated farther and farther to make

way for plantations, roads, rails and mines. By the first decade of the present century, rubber drove out the other plantation crops and Indian labour was eagerly recruited from rural areas

of South India. When the planters found that it was cheaper to attract another planter's labour by offering terms of higher wages, they resorted

382 to

crimping", r'thcr thin to recruit labouz from

Inrja. This evi]. practice threatened to unset the

whole basis of

mirant labour. Thur the Indian

Immigration Committee and its attendant the Indian

Imiigrtion Fund were primarily set up to deal with the evi). By

tax levied on

ll employers

of Inian labour, the Committee could finance the passages of Indian labourers from india. 3ome Indian nationalists claimed that it was "merely a

machine for the maximum possible exploitation of labour."

6

Nevertheless, if we make proper allowance

for hysterical exaggerations designed for propaganda purposes, instead of contributing to truth, there still remains a grain of truth that the Committee was a weapon in the planters' bands to facilitate the import and export of labour as a commodity. Notwithstanding this, the Committee was an instrument which preserved the economic structure of Malaya, with its entire dependence on immigrant labour. It curbed the self-reliance of the Indian labourera,

383

m&cin

them look to the Government for protection. The magnitude of Indian irnniigration was

ma:inly conditioned by the economic development of

Malaya. During 1880-1900 the average number of arrivals from India was about 20,000 per year.

But fron 1901-1910 the mauitude of Indian immigration averaged about

8,000 annually. During

the next decade it rose to 90,000 per year; and from 1921-1930 it averaged about 88,000. In the next decade the average numbered 76,000. Indian

migration to Malaya was terminated by the ban imposed on emigration of unskilled labour by the Government of India in 1938. Ft'om that time onwards,

emigration from India was only restricted to wives and children of labourers already in Malaya.

The average India&s stay in Malaya was only for about two to three years. Thus very few women acconipatlied the labourers. Besides giving

rise to decadence and vice among the labourers,

it also affected the growth of the Indian population

38k in the country. Before the Second .7orlr Jar, a

very tiny proportion aonp the Indians in Malys regarded Malaya as their home. In short, the Indians remained a separate community by itself, refusing to identify themselves with the local people or to be assjmjlztod. But after the war the Nalayan Indian population was stabilized and was no longer dominated by the itf lux snd efflux of labourers.7

Still they retain many purely Indian habits, traditions and institutions although many of them have adapted to their new 6urroundings and have

developed a new outlook.8 The status and structure of the Indian community in Malaya differed from the Chinese community. The Indian labourers were protected by legiBlation, and the Goirertunent of India was always

eager to strive for better working and living conditions. They were watched over by the Controller of Labour and his staff as well as by the Agent of the

oyernent of India appoi.nted in 1923. Conversely,

385

early Chinese immirtion was reltecl by the terms of the Eriigration Conventior signen between the Un.ited !cindom

nd China in May 190k. Inwiigration

into Malaya proceeded accordino to a srstem of indenture

termed by the Chinese as the chue tsai system9

meaning the system of sl1ii

piglets. The practice

was that the Chinese labourers were recruited by an aetit w10 woulc finance their passages to Malaya.

Upon arrival, they had to labour until the amount

paid by their employer to the aent had been recovered. This system gave full rein to abuses anr maipractices, and it ended in 191k when it was finally abolished. The Chinese were left very much on their own for the arrangements made by the Government of India for its nationals did not apply to them. The Chinese Protectorate only intervened to prevent gross abuses. Whereas the legislation to regulate Indian labour was superfluous, labour legislation for the Chinese

was looser and far more laxly enforced. The crux of the difference lies in the fact that the Chinese

386

labonrers eemd far bctter alr to stand öt their own feet.

eMdes the Chese Goverru,ent was too

embrcile3 in its own affairs to take care of them. It was ttlso thought that t'e

1rincse labourers

would resent restrictions pìace

on them fro'

above.

It has been pointed out that the Iidian problem in Malaya is further complicated by the

Chinese problem.10

ut there is one compensating

factor: white settlers are very few in the country. The complication is that the Malays have become a

minority group in their own country. At first the Nalays were indifferent when the influx of Indian and Chinese immigrants swaniped the labour market

and monopolized certain professions. As time went on they became increasingly aware that the Indians and Chinese had operated to their disadvantage. Thus there grew up zenophobia among the Malays towards the immigrant races.

Besides its adverse influence on the

387

'rowth of the Iniar popuJation in Malaya, the

Japneze Occupation also stirred up the Indians by the formation nf the Indian National !imy and the Lidian Independence League. In fact they were the croup most affected by the war. The Provisional Covernmen.t of the Azad rund was set up in singapore.

It was inaugurated on 21st. October 193 at the Cathay C1inema,

12

under the guidance of

Chandra Bose, who had

ubhas

become the President of the

IlL in July. The HL was set up to collect funds, to recruit and train troops and to spread propaganda.

Controversy is often generated when considering the extent to which the INA was supported by funds extorted from the wealthy Indian merchants, with the aid of the Japanese police and sometimes of the Rempeitai. There is no doubt that some extortion was exerted on the wealthy Indians in the form of irregular levies on their tunds. Whether Subhas Chaidra Bose and the IlL had absolute rights over the liTes and properties of the Indians in Malaya

388 i

only a matter of opinion)3 The short Indien collaboration with the

Tapanese durinp the war drew forth hostility from the other races iminedittely after the war. The

Chinese were hostile because the Indians had aligned themselves with the Japanese who all the time during the occupation demonstrated in Malaia the savagery of Japanese imperaiism.1k Most of the

people in the country felt that the Japanese Occupation was a nightmare, and hence little love was lost between theni and those who collaborated

with the Japanese.

Opinion is also divided as to the reasons which prompted the Indians to join the INA and the IlL. While many joined in there were also a good number who steered clear of the events. Some joined in order to secure the protection of the IlL from the Japanese Kempeitai, and for personal safety as well as safe,xarding of private properties. There was also the attempt to join the iENA in order

389 to rLvoid beincr conscripted by t'e Ja-nanese into

labour rrtns. There were a c'ood many wo were mere soldiers ot' fortune, who joined in just for gain.

any joined in because they wanted to

et clothing

3nd rice rations for their families, while others were coPipelled to do so. iotithstandin

this,

there was a eood deal o1 genuine enthusiasm stirred up by- Chandra Bose's oratory. Many Thdians

were intoxicated with the toddy of his fiery speeches. They had their own Independence flag, and League badres, and wore Gandhi caps.. But in

spite of this, the INA and the Japanese forces

were defeated at Imphal, the gateway into the plains of Bengal. It has been suggeste1 that the INA and what it stood for will not be easily forgotten by the Indians in Malaya. The Indians

bad learnt the use of firearms and political organization. This had immense importance on the period after the war. It is interesting to examine whether

390

eniration froi India to distant larvis, such as Malaya, durinr' the nineteenth and trîentieth

ceiturics hs succeeded or not to aolv

the

roblem

of oerpopu1ation in Indie. Indeed .......... eijration lias for centuries boen recomnendec and, rthen possible, used as a favourite nostrum for the evils of overpopulatiori)5 It cannot be deniet

that the problerm of overpopulation

loorued larje in Indian hictory. It was mainly due

to population pressure that the Indian conmnity finds itself in Malaya today. But for years past and even tho present day, the congestion in the vil].nges along the alluvial plains of northern and

southern India cannot escape the observer's eye. This can be explained by the fact that .......... every day India adds to her population the equivalent of at least a' town of twenty-four thousand inhabitants. This means that Indja's population increases very year by at least five millions. lo

In order to eradicate the necessity of faitïe or to protide a standard of living comparable to that

391

in the more advanced countries of the vorld, the nimber of people who have to emigrate from India would be fantastic, l3esides the transfer of

appreciable numbers of people is quite impossible. The procedure has often been naively thought of a

simple arithmetic subtraction: the emigration

of a number of people has meant fewer people in that area. It is true that with the emigration of labourers from India to Malaya, there were fewer people in the villages. But soon the gaps were filled again by a. quicker rate of population

increase. Moreover the number of immigrants entering Malaya every year was evenly matched by a number of emigrants leaving Malaya for Indias Thus emigration from India to Malaya during the nineteenth ceitury and the first four decades of the present century did not relieve population pressure in India: it was only a temporary palliative and a ?Tstopgap procedure."

It remains to analyse critically the various

392

means which can be used to solve the Indian problem in Nalaya.

t first plance it seems that

intermarriage will solve the difficulty of assimilting the Indian minority in the country. It is easier to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear than to attempt this, for Is].am bars the Malaya from

intermarrying with the Indien Hindus. This may be feasible in the case of the Indian Muslims1 but the latter forms such a small proportion of the Indian community in the country that the problem will still remain. Ian Morrison suggests the solution of partition

the Mal&ys should retain the

predominantly Malay areas of the north, east and south, while the Chinese and Indians share among themselves the areas along the west coas t where they are concentrateh17 He also poir1ts out that

this is rather a policy of despair, giving rise to more problems that it might solve. Indeed this separatist policy is not feasible in a plural society. India today still has over thirty-five

393

million

uslims wliule Pakistan, which was created

primarily as a Muslim country still is only 85.8 per cent Muslim.

Partition will only aggravate

the problem. Besides the three main races are so inextricably tanGled that it is difficult to sparate the country into three exact zones. knother solution is the establishment of complete Malay sovereignty over the whole peninsula, with the non-Malaya boina subject to the Malay sultans. This the non-Malaya, especia].ly the Indians and the

Chinese would never acquiesce. Perhaps the solution lies in "a satisfactory and enduring adjustment of interests and rights,

in which the different elements while preserving their cultural and racial identities, would coalesce into a solid political and economic unity.'19 The way to coalesce into a solid political and economic unity is to develop, in the words of the Prime Minister of the Malayan 1edera tien, Tunku Abdul Rahnian, Ttj

all the races in Malaya ........ .. as

3914.

soon a

possible an undeniably Mal'yan outlooic

ant' loaity.T

c1ucation can also hein to foster

this Malayan outlook, for a spirit of common

ntionaiity can be instilled into the minds of the youn

generation. But here the question arises:

what shou]d be the main medium of intructjon in the scbool? Under British rule, the attempt was made on the basis of Englith. The present system is based on the Education Ordinance of 1957, in which it was laid down that the standard primary school should use Malay as the main medium and should be oren to children of all races. English would be taught to ai]., vïhile Chinese and Tamil might be

taught to children of the respective races.2°

Besides imposing the children the task of learning three languages at a tender age, it has the effect of emphasizing racial identities. More emphasis should be paid in using Malay as the main medii.uu

of instruction not only in primary but also in secondary schools in order to build up a Malayan outlook. Surely the Indiane and the Chinese would

395 nover acquiesce, but as F!urert

erson says,

The things which must be forgotten on behalf of national unity bulk almoct as ].ire and importent as those which be remembered ................ the national memory embraces as well as those things which must be forgotten as those which must be remembered.21 In short the Indians and chinese should forget their racial identities and remember that they are, first and foremost, Malayans. They should accept

Malay as the main medium of instruction in primary and even, secondary schools. But I do not at all

mean to imply that they should forget their own

respective languages. They should still learn them in school but not to such extent as to exclude the learning of Malay. Similarly, in a spirit of give and take, the Malay should learn Taiii1 and Chin.ese so as to understaxil mare about the non-Malaya,

in order to accept them. Thus in the ef fluxion of

time, all the barriers and barricades separating the different communities in Malaya will disappear,

and "all the

ariou

eleiients will be fused into

396

a true Malyan

flfltÍOrl.U22

As 1.3. Panhu sys,

The nevï Malayan Nation can never be wholly Malay nor can it be Indian or Chinese. Rather it will have to be Malayan in vîhch each contunity would have its rightful place.23 Perh in

the solution to the racial i,robleius

a1aya would be solved by the forima.ion of

Malaysia, which niean advantagec not only on

economic and political grounds, in matters of currency and administration, but also on racial grounds. Besides beinC a means to fight against the spread of Communism from Singapore

2k

territories and to the Federation of

to the Borneo

aaya,2

the

merging of Zarawak, Erunei, North Borneo, Federation of Malaya and SinCapore would increase the proportion of Malays in the new entity of Malaysia. It has

been estimated that out of the total population of ten million in Malaysia, the Malays would be evenly balanced against the Chinese who would form 38 per

cent and the Indians 10 per cent.26 This would perhaps offset the xenophobia of the Malays against

397 tn

no_l4tlrs. But there is always the

ner

thtt unseen robles would arise onoe Malrysia comes into being, for the variety of existin cultures would be further multiplied. Unless the

sirit of TTtatj?T27

j

developed among the

various races wh.ch vould forrn Halaysia, the old

problems of minorities would br repeated aaii. he part the Ma]ayan Indians would play in the new state of Malaysia remains to be seen in future. The minority problems in a plural society should be solved. If not, it would lead to a deterioration in racial relations and to a survival of the fittest from which the stronger and more dynamic element would emerge. Unless there is racial homogeneity, the plural society of Malaya would either stand or fall. The Indians in Malaya, no less the Chinese and the Malaya, should learn "to live together without turning their country

into an ulcer, poisoning

ot merely their own

unhappy livea but those of over a thousand million people."

28

Footnotes.

Halya: The Making of a Tation, Central Office of Inforrnati.on, 1,T.. Sta ti.onertT Office. 2

The Rt. Hon. T.A. Butler, "The Indian Heritage

in Couth-Eastern Asiafl, Eastern

orld, Vol.IV,

5 (May 1950) p.].5.

Dr. S. Van Ronkel, "A Tainil Malay MannscriptTT,

Journal of the Straits Branch, Royal Asiatic

Zociet, 8 k

(March 1922), p.29.

D.D. Chelliah, A History of the Iducational

Policy of the Ctraits Settlements with for a New System Based on Vernacu1ars

ecommendations 1800-1925,

Singapore 1960, p.5.

G.P. Dartford, "Malaya: Problems of a Polyglot Society", Current History, Vol. 3k (June 1958), p.347, (Hereafter cited as Dartford, "Problems of Polyglot Society".) 6

T.H. Silcock and PL.A. Ungku, "Nationalism jfl

Malaya", Asian Nationalism and the West,W.,L. Holland (ed.), New York: The MacMillan Company 1953, p.27k.

399

Maurice Freedrian, "19'e growth of a Plural Society

in Malaya" Pacific Affairs, Vo1.XXCII1, 2(Jwie 196Ö) p. i65-166. 8

(1.5. Hozman

"Some Problems o

*

Indian Thiigration",

Asia1i Horizon, 1948, p.22.

Alex Josey, wade Unionism in Ma1aya, (Background to Malaya Serieo, No.4) Singapore, 1954, p.9. lo

Dey Murarka, "Indian Enigration Overseas",

Eastern World

Vol.C'I, 4(pri1 1961) p.O.

DUG.E. Hall, ÌIThe European Impact on Southeast

Asia", Nationalism and Progress in Free Asia, P.W. Thayer (ed.), Baltimore 1956, p.45. 12 Hugh Toys, The Springing Tiger: A Stu4y of a

eTol1itionary, Cassell and Co. Ltd., London l99,

13 ibid., p.95. 14 Chin Ree Onu, Malaya Uaide Down., Singapore

l94, p.1k?. 1

J.O.

ertzler, The Cri-s in. World Population:

4_..i4McøJ

zai*atioit wik

Special RefereOe

+o the Underdeveloped Areas,Un-Lversity of Nebraska

Prose, 1956, p.227.

Bruno Laoker, Asia on the Move, Instituto of

Pacific Reltios, l9L5, p.195, quoting S. Chanclrasekbar, "Growth and Characteristics of India's Population", Ccientifjc Monthly, July 191f3. 17

Ian Morrison, "Aspects of the Racial Problem in

Malaya", Pacific Affairo, Vol.XXII, 1(March 1949), p.252. (Hereafter cited as Morrîson, "Racial Problem in Malaya".) 18

Irene Tinker, "Malayan Elections: Electoral

Pattern for Plural Societies?", The Western Political arter1y, Vol.IX, (1956) p.259.

19 20

Morrison, "Racial Problem in Malaya", p.252. Dartfgrd, "Problems of a Polyglot Society't,

1.351. 2].

Rpert

erson, "The Progress of Nationalism",

4.onmand Progress in

ee Asia, P,W

Thayer

(ad.), Baltimore 1956, p.77.

22 the Btrit..

Booc: Mgya' Road tLO Nationhood, Press Ltd., Singapore, p.56.

n 23 2

T(.Z. Saruiu, Indians in

odern Iaiaja, pB5.

Toth the Prime Minirter of Singapore, Mr. Lee

Kuan Yew and the rremier of the Malayan Feteration, Tunku Abdul Rahman, feel that the best way of preventrir the tpread of Communism in Singapore is to establish the Federation of Malaysia. 25

.E.H. Rawlings, "Prospects for a Greater Malaysia't,

Asian Reviow, Vol.LVIII, 21(Ju1y 1962) p.205. 26 TThe Economic Basis of Malaysia", Asian Review, Vol..LVII, 21k(April 1962) p.132.

27 C.A. Macartney, National Minorities, New York: Oxford University Press, 19311.. He defines fltatismTT

as the sense of membership in a state, as opposed to "nationalism"1 meaning the sense of membership

in a nation 28

"Racial Problems in

a1aya", quoting

Dr. TE. Silcock, Professor of Economics in Singapore, p.239.

GLCUY atsi, attap

- leaves of palma generally used for thatching.

bertam

- a shrub the leaves of which are used for building walls, like those in alay houses.

changkol, chankul - cultivating tooL like a hoe, with a wooden handle and a metal blade. They are of various sizes, the largest being ll. inches long and weighing 6 lbs. The Chinese work best with this last. The size for the Taniil

and other Indian labourers is about i or pound in weight.

dhoil, dhail

- an. Anglo-Indian Corruption of 'dal', a split-pulse usually used by Tamils.

kampong

- a Malay village.

kangani, kangany

- Indian labour overseer and/or contractor.

lines

- quarters for coolies with the ground surrounding them.

mander

- overseer of coolies at work.

munsif, munsif f

- a village beadan in Jadras.

- Th1s Taml vord neans haically aoci, and can be extended to mean master and lord. it is commonly uBed for the idols in a Hindu temple and even more conrionly for a priest. tiridal

- an overseer of coolies at work.

toddy

- sap of the coconut-palm which is the national drink of the Tamil.

B1L lOGRA PHY

¿f35

OFFICIAL DOODNENTS

A.

Re:ports On Indian Immigration And Labour.

Ahearne, C.D., Annua]. Report of the Working of the Labour Department för the Year 1931, Kuala Lumpur: Federated Malay States Government Press, 1932.

Lumpur: Federated Ma

the Working of the e Year 1932, Kuala States Government Press,

1933.

Annual Report of the Labour Department, Malaya for the Year Kuala Lumpur: Federated Malay States Government Press, 1935.

Aldworth, J.R.O., Annual Report on the Labour Department for the Year Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1913. Annual Report on the Working of the Labour Department for the Year 1915, Kuala Lumpur: Labour Office, l9l6 , Annual Report on the Workin of the r Department for the Year 1916, Kuala Lupur: Labour Office, 1917. Report ori the Workin

of the Labour

Dem!nt for the Year l9, ICiala Lumpur: Iabour Office, 1919. Department, r: Federated

Barren, J.L, Pxee, 1936.

406

Bathurat, H.C., Annual Report on the Labour Department r tho Year 1929, Kuala Lumpur: Federated Malay States Government Press, 1930.

Clayton, U., Report on Indian Immigration and nigration for the Year 190, PerianC 1906. 11,H., Report on Indian Immigration and

Eniation for the Year 1906, Penano 1907.

Report on Indian Lmnigration and Eigraton for the Year 1907, Penan: Indian Immigration Office, 1908. pprt on Indian Immigration and. Eiigra tion for the Year 1908, Penang: Indian Immigration Office, 1909.

Repqt on Indian Imn4gation and Enigra tian for the Year 1910, Penang: Indian Immigration

Office, ]1. Report on Indian Immition and igration for the Year 1911, Penang: Indian Immigration Office, 1912.

Gilman, LLF., Repot on the Working of the Labour Department for the Yea; .911

Kuala Lumpur:

Labour Office, i1 Report on the Working of the Labour lepatment for the Year 1922, Kuala Lumpur: Labour Office, 1923. e Working of the Labour Repot on Deprtment for the rear 192Lf, Kuala Lumpur:

Labour Offic*, 192.

n tokg f. tLeIaxur

Ppartnent for the Year 1925, Kuala Lumpur: Labour Office1 1926.

Annual Peort on the Labour Peartment for the Year Kuala Lumpur: Federated Malay States Government Press, 1927.

Anrna1 Report on the Labour Department for the Year 1922, Kuala Lumpur: Frederated Malay States Government Press, 1928. partment Annual Ieport ou the Labour Kuala Lumpur: Federated for the Year Malay States Government Press, 1929. I

Haynes, LS., Report ou Indian Imn4gration and igration for the Year J99, Penang: Indian Immigration Office, 1910. 1h11, T.1h., Report for the Resident-General, Fedetated Malay States, from the Protector of Indian Labour for the Tear 1901, Selangor Government Press, 1902. ort on Indian Imntigration and igration for the Year 1902, Office of the Protector of labour, 1903.

iation Repert on Indian Immigration and Office of the Protector of !oI tbe Tear Labour, 190k. , pot on Indian Immigratioji aM jgtjon for the !ear l9k, 0f fib. of the

i-otector of Labour, 1905.

HBe, E.S., 2poto* the

orkin

û tbQur

ertm.nt fO tQ tear J,9], Kuala Lumpur: Federated Malay Stites GoTerument Presa, 191k.

1eport on the 7orkin of the Labour Department for the Year 191k1 lZuala Lumpur: Federated Malay Stateo Government Press, 1915, Houghton, R.GI.D., Annual 1e1port of the Labour partment for the Year 19k?, Kuala Lumpur: Government Press, 19kB.

Jelf. A.S., port on the Working of the Labour p.rtment for the Year 1923, Kuala Lunipur: Federated Malay States Government Press, 192k.

Marks, Oliver, Report on the Working of the Labour Department for the Year 1919, Kuala Lumpur: Federated Malay States Government Press, 1920.

Peel, W., R!port en the Workingçf the Labour Department for the Year J920, Kuala Lumpur: Federated Malay States Government Press, 1921. __________, Report on the Working of the Labour Department for the Year J921, Kuala Lumpur: Federated Malay States Government Press, 1922.

Ztark, W.T.K.,.A.nnual Report of the Labour Deiartment for the Year 1930, Kuala Lumpur: Federated Malay States Government Press, 1931. of tb jabour Wi1eo, C., Report on the Worki )artment for the Tear 1933, Kuala Lupu:

l'sderated Malay Stateø Government Presa, 193k.

inuual. Report.,f the Labertent,

Wia for

Kuala Lpur: federated be 1alay states Government Frees, 1937.

Annual Report of the Labour Department, Malaya for the Year 1937, Kuala Lwnpur: Federated Malay States Governmont Press, 193S. Annua]. Report of the Labour Depax'tinent,

Malaya for the Year Kuala Lumpur: Federated t!alay States Government Press, 1939. Annual Report of the Labour Department, Malaya for the Ye'r 1939, Kuala Lumpur: Federated Malay States Government Press, 19ko.

Annual Rept of the Labour Department, Malaya for the Year Kuala Lumpur: Federated Malay States Government Press, 19k1.

B.

Reports of the Agent of the Government of India in Malaya.

Dutt, S., Annual Report of the Agent of the Governmen of India in Ma1a-a for the Year 19k0, Simia: overnment of India Press, 19k]..

Mukunan, K.A., Annual Report of the Agent of the Goverrment of India in ritisb Malaia for the Year 1933, New Delhi: Govermmen of India Press,

193. ___________, Annua]. Report of tb

4gnt o te

of India in itiøh NaIaya ir the Tear l9, New Delhi: Go'c'ernment of India Press, 1935.

Report of the Agent of the

Govininent of India iBrjtjsh Ma1ay the Tear ]» New Delhi: oerwient ot India Press, 1936.

Annual Report of the Agent of the yernment of India in British. Ma1ay for the Year 1936, New Delhi: Government of Indi& Press, 1937.

Nair, M.K., Annual Report of the 4ent of the Government of India in British Ma1y for the Year l93, New Delhi: Government of Indi& Press, 1933. Venkatachar, 0,5., Annual Report of the Agent of the Government of India in British Malaya for the Year 1937, New Delhi: Government of India Press, 1939.

C.

Census Reports.

Hare, G.T., The Census of the Pop4ation 1901, Federated Malay States, Selangor, 1902. Marriott, H.., Report on the Census of the Colony of the Straits Settlements taken on 10th. March 1911, Singapore: Government Pr:inting Office, 1911.

Nathan, JE., The Census of British Ma1ay, 1921, London: Waterlow and Bons, Ltd., 1922. ie Census of the Federated Ma Pountney, A.M., Stptes 191k, London: Darling anca Son, Ltd., 1911,

Tufo J)el, M.V., Malaya: A Report on the 19k7 Census of ppu].atìon, London: Grown Agents for the ÇøLøiiies, 19k9.

Viieland, C A.,

ritisb

3.a7a: .& :eport on the

u93l Censu.3

nd on Certain Problerms of Vital

Statiti.cs, London: Crown Aents for the Colonies, l32.

D.

Miscellaneous. Federated Malay States. L.S., The Indian Immigration Fund arid Its

Workigin Connection ?ith Recruiting Labourers by Means of Kaganies in the Madras Presien, Federated Malay States Government Press, 1910.

Keir, A., Annual Report on Education in the Federated Malay States for the Year 1937, Si ngapore: Government Printing Office, 1938. Linehan, W., Annual Report on Education in the Federated Maly States for the Year 193g,

Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1939.

Paper No.11, Proceedings of the Federal Council lj Peport of the Commission &ppointed to Enire iito the Conditions of Indentured Labour, by Parr,

C.W.CI., Federated

Malay States Government

Pr es s.

Proc eedina of the Federal Council 1911, Federated Malay $tates Government Preis 1912.

Proce4i

of the Federal Council 192,3, Federated

1ay States GoveDnment Press, 1f.

of the YedeZ*l Council l2l, Federated

Malay 8tates GoiernmeM PreSe, 1928.

ana Reports of the Çç*.teion. Appointed

412

to Enquire into Certain Matters Affecting the Good Government of the State of Selangor in }elation to the A1!fed Misuse end Abuse of Toddy in the Coast Districts of Se1sigr, Kuala Lunipur: Federated Malay States Governnint Press, 191?. eport of the Commission Arnointed to Enquire into Certain Matters AffectinK the Health of Estates in the Federated Malay States, Tother with a Meìiorandum by the Chief Secretary to the Government cl the Federated Ma'ay States, Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1924. Report of the Executive of the General Labour Committee, British Malaya on Indian Labour and Labourers, Kuala Lumpur, 1920.

Ret of the FirEt Meeting of the General Labour Committee, British Malaya, Held at 12, Market Street, Kuala Lumpur on May 31st. Lumpur: The MaJ.aya.n Leader Press.

1899: Regulations ana Enacteuts Passedky the State Council Together with Rules nade Thereunder Ea.vi Yçrce of Law, Voules, A.B., (copi1 Selangor Government Printing Office 1901.

Straits Settlements. A Soci*Lt Sixvey of Sin pore: A Preliminary Study of Some Aspects of Social Conditions in the 1unicipa1 Area of 5ingapore, Singapore:

a. Kiat and Co. Ltd., December 1947. Morten, !'.J., Annual Report on Education in the l95, traits Settlements for the Ye k

ßingapore: GovernmentInting &fce, 193e.

+13

Proceedjnps of the Lerjslative Council. Straits Settlements for the Year Th87, Singapore:

Government Printing 0Zfic7T888. Proceedings of the Legislative Council, Straits Settlenents for the Year 1892, Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1893. Proceedings of the Legislative Council Straits Settlements for the Year 1895, Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1896. Proceedings of the Legislative Council, Straits

Settlements for the Year l88Sìngapore: Government Printing Office, 1899.

Proceeding of the Legislative Councilffitraits Settlements for the Year 1900, Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1901. Proceedings of the Legislative Counci]., Straits Settlements for the Year 1908, Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1909.

ort of the Commission of Inquiry into the State of Labour in the Straits Settlements anI Protected Native States, Singapore iBo. General.

of the United Planting Association

for theear 1952. 1(ennaway, Mark John, Some Investigations of the Straite Settlements ad the Federated Mala: z Coaxiercìal Press 1912.

$riba*k4, N. L a

MaTaicksar, A. L G.,

41k on Indian Labou.r Thiigrating to Ceylon and Malaia, Madras: Government Press, 1917.

Minutes of a Meeting of the Dnmigration Committee on 23rd. March 1907, FenDng: Go'ernnient Office. Minutes of a Meeting of the Irnmiration Committee on 10th. November 1919, Pen.ang: Government Office.

Mukarrarns, A.M., Report of the honorary Commissioner for Depresced Cissees, Straits Settlements and the Federated Malay States on the Thaf±'ic Between the South Indian Ports aiad Malaya, Karthikeyan Press, Chidambaram 1928.

Precie of 1940, Reçrt on Education in the Straits Settlements and Federated Malay States, Singapore: Government Printing Office, 1941. Price, I.R., Annual Report of the South Indian Labour Fund Board, 1959, Federation of Malayan: Government Press, 1960.

pp_on the Committee on

igration from India o the Crown Colonies and Protectorates. Sisiona1 Papers: Cmd. 5192, London: His Majestyt s Stationery Office.

Re.port of the Committee on Nutrition in the Colonial ire, CInd. 6051, London: Eis Majesty's ßtationer Office, 1939.

Sastri, S.Sriuivaea, Report on the Condition of

In4iau Labour in May, New DeThi: Government of India frees, 137. The New Immigration Laws Departent cf Information

k15

for the Controller of Immigration, Federation of Ma2aya Kuala Lumpur, 1952. The

elngor Records, Misc. 3886/9k, No.389/9A1..

ki 6

NTSPAPER

Malaya Tribune. (Singapore) The Malay Mail. (IÇuala Luinpur)

The Singapore Daily Times. (Singapore) The Straits Tiizies. (Singapore)

OQKS

Allen, G.C. and Donnithorne, A., Western Enterprise in Indoneeia and Malaya, London: George Allen and tJnwin Ltd., 1957.

Andrews, C.F.,

-ue India, London 1939.

Bauer, P.T., The Rubber Industry: A Stu4y in Çmpetition and Nonoo1y, Canibridge: Harvard tiniversity Press 19k8. Badc1el1, Roland, The Lights of Singapore, London: !4ethuen and Co. Ltd.,

Cr-Sa'anders, A.JL, WorlçLPo ilation: Past C'owth Oxford: Clarendon ees, a4 2reet 1936.

Cbandrasea,, L, UZ7 Peøple and ation

pt Ida:

ois and Inteznationa3.

417

Tensions, London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954. Population and Planned Parenthood in India, London: George Allen and tJnwin Ltd., 1955. Chelliah, D.D., A History of the Educational Policy of the Straits Settlements with Recommendations for a New System Based on Vernaculars, 18O0-1925, Singapore: G.H. Kiat and Co. Ltd., 1960.

Chin, Kee On, Malaya Ude Down, Singapore: Jitts and Co. Ltd., 194 6.

Churchill, Winston, Haddir, 1908.

y African Journey, London:

Coast, John, Railroad of Death, London: The Commodore Press, 1946. Cox, O.C., Caste, Class and Race, New York 1948. Davis, Kingsley, The Population of India and Pakistan, New Jersey: Princeton UniTersity Press, 1951.

Dennery, L, Asia's Teeming Millions: and Its Problems for the West, London: Jonathan Cape, 1931. Dey, Dbaraa Yash, Qr Countrymen Abroad, Allahabad: J.B. Krip1an.i, 1940. Dutt, Romesb, The Economic History of India in the Victorian Age, London, 1956.

Edgar, A.., Ccopi1or) 1(anal of RubbeD Planting,

a1a nmux, 198. erson, Rupert, Malaysia: A Stud

.n Direct and

Indirect Rule, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1937. Figart, David M.., The Plantation Rubber Industry in the Middle East1 '5ashington: Government Printing Office, 1925.

Gangulee, N, Indians in the npire Overseas, The New India Publishing House, Ltd., 19k7. GhOsli, D., Pressure of Pçpulation and Economic Efficiency in India, New Delhi: Indian Council of World Affairs, 19k6.

Gilman, E.W.F., labour in British Malaya, Malayan Series, No.XI, London: British ]ipire :Echibition, 192k.

Ginsburg, NS. and Chester, '.S., Malaya, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1958. Gore, the Rt. Hon. W.G.A. Ormsby, pprt on a Visit Ceylon and Java During the Tear 1928, to Ma1y London: H.M. Stationery Office 1928.

Hall, D.G.E., A History of _South-EasA4 acMi11an anco. Ltd., 1958.

London:

arrieon, B., Southeast Asia, A. Short History, London: MacNillan and Co. Ltd., 1957.

Rastain, R, White Coolie, London: Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 19k7. . Cri.s in World Eopu.lation: A Hertler, J.O., aination with Special Reference $ciologLca. to the Uaderdeye1qpd Areas, Lincoln: University

abzkj ?Pes, 1956.

L.l9

Hinten, s.J., Government of the Pacific Dependencies: British Malaya, Institute of Pacific Relctions: Honolulu, 1929.

Ho, Seng Ong, Education for Unity in

laya: An

rjth Special Referenc'

in Its Plural Society Union1 1952.

Teachers'

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Economic Development of Malaya, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1955.

Jackson, R.N., Imn4grant Labour an the Development of Malaya, 1786-1920, 'ederation of Malaya: The Government Press, 1961. Jacoby, E.H., Agrarian Unrest in South-Bast Asia, New York: Columbia University Press, l91f9 Josey, Alex, Trade Unionism in Malaya CBackground to Malaya Series, No.k) Singapore: Donald Moore, 195k. 1arunakaran, India in World Af1ars New Delhi: Indian Council of World Affairs, 1952. LP.1

Kondapi, C,, Indiane Overseas, l838-199, New Delhi: Indian Council of World Affairs, 1951.

Krisb.an, R.B., Indians in Ma1: A Pageant of Greater In&ja, Singapore: The Malayan Publishers, 1936

Laske,

irno, Pes of South-met Asia, LoDdon:

Victor Gollancz Ltd., l9kk. Asi,a om the hove, New York: , azd Co., 19k6. '

enr

Holt

420

Ii, Dun-jen, British Malaya: An Economic Analysis, New York: The American Press1 1955. -

Lim, Tay Boh, Problems of the MaJ.aan Economy, (Background to Malaya Series1 No.10,) Singapore: Donald ]oore, 1956. Lord Russell of Liverpool, The iCnights of Bushido:

A Short History of Japanese War Cres, London: Cassell and Company Ltd., 1958. Macartney, C.A., National Minorities, New York: Oxford University Press, 1934. Maliajani, Usha, The Role of Indian Minorities in Burma aud Malaya, New York: Institute of Pacific Relations, 1960.

Malaya: The Making of a Nation, London: Central Office of Information, H.M. Stationery Office, 1957.

Mason, Frederic, The Schools of Malaya, (Background to Malaya Series, No.3Y, Singapore: Donald Moore, 195?. McNiir, J.F.A. and Bayliss, W., Prisoners Their Own Warders: A Record of the Coiru-ict Prisoz at Singapore, Westhinster: Constable, 1599. .stern Asia, London: Mills, L.A., British Rule in Oxford University Press, 1942.

of Soutb-ast e __________, OKford University Press, 1949.

Malaya, Â Pota

nd

Sia, London:

conoÍo. &ppr.isal,

aplim: Vniv.reity of 1innesota Preme, 18. 1Core, J.,

e Land a4d 'eop1e of Malaya and Singpre,

k2 1

Lordon: Adari and Charles Black, 1957.

Horeland, !.H., India at the Death of Akbar, London: MacMillan an Co. Ltd., 1920.

Moreland, W.H., and Chatterjee, A.C., A Short Histoy of India, London: Longans, Green and Co., 1956. Mukerjee, R., Races, Lands and Food,New York, 19k6. Murray, A., Asia (The Study Ma:p Note Books Series,

No.3) London, l95. Nair, M.N., Indians in Malaya, India: Kodnvaur Printing Works, 1938. Nanjundan, S., Indians in Malayan onomy, New Delhi: Government of India Press, 1951. Neelakanclha, Aiyer E., ludian Problems in Malaya: A Brief Surve7 in Relation to niation, Kuala Lumpur: The Indian Press, 1938.

Netto, George, Indians in Malaya: Historical and Figures, Singapore: G. Netto, 1961.

cts

Orde-B.rowue, A. St. John, Labour Conditions in Ceylon, Mauritius and MaJ.aya, London: B.M. Stationery

Office, l93. Parmer, Jees Norman, Colonial Labour Policy and Administration: A History of Labour in the

Rbber Plant

un Ha1aa, 1910-19k1, New

York: T.J. Angustin Incoxorated Ptalisber, Locust Valley, 1960.

omic 3urTeof the P3Qifjc J., An irea; Popation a4d.Lancí Utilization, ?art T, New York: Institute of Pacific Relations, 19k1.

?e1.r, Ian

k22

PiJ.]ai, Purushottama Padmanabha, labour in Southeast Asia: A Symposium, New Delhi: Indian of Wor)d AffeirÇ 19k?. Purcell, Malaya: Outline of a Colory, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., l9k. Victor1

2obequain, Charles, Malaya, Indonesia, Borneo and the Fhj pines, London: Longmans Green and Co., 193k. Ruhomon, P., Centenary History of the East Indians in British Guiana, 183Si938 Georgetown 1939.

Siloock, T.H., The Econoy of Ma]y., (Background to Malaya Series, No.2,) Singapore: Donald Moore, 1956.

Sim, Katherine, Ma1an Landscape, London: Michael Joseph Ltd., 19k6.

Skinner, G.W., Chinese Society in Thailand: An Analytical History, New Yok Cornell University Press, 1957. Smith, T.E., Population Growth in Malaya, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1952. Song, Ong Slang, One Hundred Years of the Chinese in SiJi

London: John Murr,

1923.

Savtki, NJ.,

oo.to Relatonaof In

South-

and thó Jr East, New Delhi: Indian Counoil of World Affairs, 199. Stamp, L.»., Asia: A Regional and Bconoic Geography, London: Methuen, 1959.

423 Stembridge, Jasper H., The .'lorld: A General Regional raphy, London: Oxford University Presa, 1953.

Swettenham, P.A., British MaJya, London: George Allen and 1.7nwin LtcL, 1955.

The Nerdeka Book: Malaya's Road to Nationhood, The Straits Times Press Ltd., Singapore. Thompson, V.M., Postmortem on Malaya, New York, 1943. Thompson, V., labour Problems in South-East asia, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947. Thompson, V. and Adlof f, R., Minority Problems in South-East Asia, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1955.

Thomson, David, Europe Since Napoleon, London: Longnians, Green and Co., 1960. Poye, Hugh, The Springing Tiger: A Stud7 of a Revolutionar London: Cassell and Co. Ltd., 1959. Waiz, S.A., Indians Abroad, Bombay, 1927.

Winstedt, Sir R.0., Malya and Its History, London: Hutchinson's University Library Presa, 1948. Wint, Guy, The British in Asia, New York: Institute of Pacific Relations, 195k. Zinkin T. and Gangal G.A., J.nlndian Village in the Ieccali, London: Oxford University Press, 1959.

f2k

ARTICLES MID JOURNALS Andrews, G.F., "India's nigration Problem", i'oreii Affairs, Vol.VIII, 2(ApriJ. 1930) k30-kl.

Bozman, G.E., "Sone Problems of Indian Eairation", Asian Horizon1 (19k8) 22. :Braddell, Ronald St. J., "Crime: It Punishment and Prevention", One Hundred Years of Singapore, Makepeace, 11., et al Cede.), Vol.1 (1921J

Butler, the Pt. Hon. R.à., "The Indian Heritage in South-Eastern Asia", Eastern World, Vol.IV,

5 (May 1950) i4-i6. Carey, E.V., "Recruiting Tami]. Labour", The Selangor Journal, Vol.111, (1895) 409_Lf 12f.

Cheeseman, H.P., "Education in Malaya, l9C0_l91t, The Malayan Historical Journal, Vol.11, l(July 1955) 30-k7. Dartford, G.P., "Malaya: Problems of a Polyglot ScietytT, Current Bisto, Vol.XXXIV (June 1958) 3kG-351. tiProblems of Malayan Education", Oversea ducJiou, Vol.XXIX (1957-1958) 33-37.

Dobby, LH.LI "Malayan Prospect", Pacific Affairs, Vol.U1II, LF(December 1950) 39'Il. P)iierson, R., "The Progress of Nationalism", Nationalism

and Progress in Pree As, Thayer, P.W. (edj, Baltimore 1956, p.77.

Fairchild, H.P., "Optiu Population", Proeed1g of the World P31atn, Sanger, M.(ed.), p.73.

2 5

Field, J.J., "Serie Observations on Vitamin IL Starvation Among 1minìrant Indians in Malaya", Nalayan Medical Journal, Vol.VI (1931).

Fisher, Charles A., The Thai1and-Buriia Railway", Economic Geography, Vol.XXIII (April 1947) 85-97.

Freedman,Maurice, rThe Growth of a Plural Society in Malaya", Pacific Affairs, Vol.XXXIII,

2 (June 196OY i-i68 Gamba, Charles, "Malayari Labour, Merdeka and After", India uarter1y, Vol.(IV (1958) 281

Gordon, Shine, "Malay Reservations: Intention and Reality", The Seed, Vol.11, 5 and 6. Publication of the Malaysian Sociological Research Institute Ltd., Singapore. Hall, DUGIE., "The European Impact on Southeast Asia", Nationalism and Progress in Free Asia, Thayer, P.W. d.) p.45.

Iodder, B.W., "Racial Groupings in Singapore", Ma1ayn Journal of Tropical Geography, Vol.1, (October 1953) 25-36. Íji. and British Malaya", "Indian labour in Ceylon, International Labour Review, Vol.XLII (JulyDecember 1940) 57-76.

IItenz2atibn&1 abour Review, Vol.XLVI, 6(December

paDsi.on Jenkine, LO., "Rubber: Introduction and *Lth Special Reference to Malaya", The Planter,

(ebrtary-14arch 1955).

426

Kaniar, li.I.S., "Indians in Malaya", Eastern World, Vols.I and II (Deceniber 1952 and January 1963) 1k-16; 19.

"Labour in British Malaya in 1931", International Labour ReTiew, Vol.XX\TI1I (1933) 397-402. Lasker, Bruno, "Po:pulation Shifts in South-East Asia" Far Eastern Cur!!, Vol.XIII, 22(NolTember 1, 1944) Lirn, Kean Siew, "The Chinese in Malaysia", The Seed, Vol.11 2(January-February 1961) 1, Publication of the Malaysian Sociological Research Institute Ltd.1 Singapore.

Mahan, Gopal, "Indians in South-East Asia", Eastern World, (July 1952) 1k-15. Menon, Dr. N.IC., "Indian Immigration into Malaya", Iuterpreters' Annua1 (1948-1949), 37-42.

Morrison, Ian, "Apects of the Racial Problem in Malaya", Pacific Affairs, VoJ..XXII, 1 (March 1949) 239-253.

Murarka, Dcv, "Indian Eaigration Overseas", Eastern World, Vol.XV, 3 and f(March and April I61T 14-16; 20. Nanjundan, Z., "Economic Development of Malaya", udia Quarteriy, Vol.VIII, 3(July-Septeinber

l95) 289-311. Na'ae.aian , P.S., "The Immigrant Communities of South-East .Lsi&', India uarter1y, (JanuaryM&rh 3.947)

Purcell, Y., "The Influence of Racial Minorities",

427

Nationalism and Frojress in

'ree Asia, Thayer,

P.V1. (ed.) 23k-245.

atnain, S.Raja, "Malaya: A Nationalism in the Making', Asian Horizon, Vol.111, 1(Winter 1950-1951) 2k-3k.

Rawlings, EH., "Prospects for a Greater Malaysia", Asian Review, Vol.LVIII, 215(J\ily 1962) 204-207, Ridley, R.N., "How Rubber started in 'a1aya", Young Malayans, (6th February 1952). Ronkel, Dr. S. Van, "A Taniil Malay Manuscript", Journal of the Straits Branch of the Ro5al Asiatic Cociety, 85(March 1922) 29-35.

Sandhu, KS, "Some Preliminary Observations of the Origins and Characteristics of the Indian per8 on Migration to Malaya l?86.1957t, Malayan Eisto, Tregonning, K.G. (ed.), Papers submitted to the First International Conference Singapore 1962. of South-East Asian Historians1

Silcock, T.H. and Aziz, 13.A., "Nationalism in Malaya", Asian Nationalism and the West, Holland, (ed.),

New york: The acMi11ao., 1953. Erinivas, M.N. "The Social System of a'sDre Village", The Economic Weekly of Bombay 1955. Sundaram, Lanka, "International Aspects of Indian FlAigration", Asiatic Review, Vol.XXVI (October 1930) 741-48; Vol.flVII TJanuary, April, and July 1931) 113-21; 287-96; 588-98. "The Economic Basis of Malaysia", Asian Review, I]..LVIII, 21k (April 1962) 13-135.

k2 S

iThe Planter, Vol.XVI, 7(Ju].y 1935).

Tinker, irene, "Vialayan Elections: Electoral Pattern for Plural Locieties?", The Western Political arterly, Vol.IX (1956) 258-282.

Turner, G1E., "Indian Immigration", The Malayan Historical Journal, Vol.1, 2(December 195) 8ø8Ik.

"A rerak Coffee fl.anter's Report on the Tamil Labourer in Malaya in 1902", The Malayan IItorical Journal, Vol.11 (July 1955) 20-28.

Vandenbosch, Amry, "Malaya: the Chinese and Hindu Problems", Current History, Vol.XXIII, (August

1952) 8o-8. Viieland, C.A., "The Population of the Malay Peninsula: A Study in Human Migration", The Georaphîcal Review, Vol.XXIV (January 193g) 6i-W

"The 197 Census of Malaya" Pacific Affairs, Vol.XXII, l(Marcki 19k9) 59-63. You, Pob Seng, "The Population Growth of Singapore", Malayan Economie Review, Vol.IV (October 1959) 56-69.

UNPUBLISHED WORKS Jagatheesan, N., tllnmigration of Indian Labour into ercie, Malaya 1867-1910", Unpublished Academic

k2 9

University of Malaya, )ingapore l95+.

Jeaeva

Ç., ??Thdjan Imnjration into Malaya 19].O_l9kltI, Unpublished Academic Exerci5e, University of Malaya, Singapore l959.

Sandhu, K.., "Indians in Modern Malaya"1 A Manuscript of a forthcoming publication by Donald Moore under Background for Malaya Series.

Lf3Q

APPEND ICES

433

perdix A

RULES FOR TE MAINTENANC: CF TH: HOME FOR

DREPIT INDIANS, KCAI

LUNPIJR.

1. The Home is intended to be a free asylum for Indian labourers who by reason of age or other physical disability are unable to earn their own living. 2. The Home is to be managed by a Superintendent, nominated by the Indian Immigration Committee, subject to the approval of the Chief Secretary. 3. A roster of visitors will be nominated annuelly by the Indian Immigration Committee and it will be the duty of two of the visitors on the roster to visit the Home on at least two occasions during each month of the year. All applications for admissiou to the Home must be made in writing to the Superintendent, and must be accompanied by a full report on the case by a registered medical practitioner, certifying that the person for whom admission is requested is decrepit. The full name and address of the person making an application on behalf of a decrepit must also be given. if

5. No decrepit must be sent to the Home until an order for admission has been received from the Superintendent.

6. The cost of sending decrepite to the Home must be borne by the persons by whom they are sent. No charge will be made for maintaining decrepit perçons in the Home, but if it is found that within one month of admission an inmate is fit for discharge

L32

the followinFr procedure will be adonted:-

(i) If in the opinion cf the Superintendent such inmate is fit for such labour as he was formerly employed on, he will he given the option of returning to India or (subject to his former employer's consent) of returning to 8uch former employer. (ii) If in the opinion of the Superintendent such inmate is not fit for labour but is able to return to India and is desirous of doing so, he will be sent back to India. (iii) In the above cases, the cost of repatriation or of sending an inmate back to his former employer.

7. If it is found necessary to detain a decrepit person in the Home for more than a month, and it is subsequently decided to repatriate him, the cost of repatriation will in such cases be borne by the State. 8. The Indian Immigration Committee may make by-laws not inconsistent with these rules or with the provision of the Labour Code for the conduct and duties of officers and servants connected with the Home, for admission and discharge of patients, and as to their food and clothing, and otherwise generally for the management of the Home and control of the inmates of the Rome and its officers. Icziala Lumpur,

22nd October 1913.

ES. Hose for Indian Immigration Committee

Source: N.E. Marjoribanke and A.IC.G. Marakkayar: eport on Indian Labour nigratin to Ceylon and Malaya.

Appendix B FORM G. (Section ko)

CONThACT OF INMIGRANT FOR FIXEI TERM OF 600 DAYS. day of

A Contract made the

19

Ordinanc e

under "The Indian Immigration

Enactments

19

,"between

hereunder described and hereinafter called "the 1abourer' o

the one part1 and hereinafter called t'the employer"

(which term shall include his executors, administre tors

and assigns) of other part:

*(WHEREAS the fo1lowin by the employer on behalf o

sums have been expended

the labourer, that is to

say: -

rupees equivalent to

The sum o

dollars for passage money and cash advances paid to the labourer and the sum of

rupees equivalent to

dollars for the passage money of an adult dependent on the

labourer making acknowledge.)

dollars as the labourer doth hereby

NOW these presents witness as followa:-

1. The labourer will labour for the emloyer in the

Se t tienient

State

t the iFork of

of

from the date hereof until he has done six hundred days' 'ork.

a. The employer will pay to the labourer without any deduction except as hereinafter mentioned wages payable monthly on or before the fifteenth day of the month following the month in which they were earned at the rate of for each day's work (such sum of

annas

annas being payable in

* Omit the words in brackets when there has been no payment of pessage money or advances. "J,'

'J,'

the currency of the

Straits

ett1ernents

according to

the rate of exchange fixed fror time to time by the Governor in GoUflcil) esident-Genera1

and rations nccorr1in

prescribed scale, subject to the fol1owin

to the

conditions:-

(J_) The Superintendent shall have power in his discretion at the reouest of the labourer to grant exemption from the supply of rations according to the prescribed scale and to ori3er in lieu thereof the daily issue of such labourer of a ration ticket exchangeable for food stuffs to the value of two annas or the daily payment to euch labourer of the equivalent of two annas in cash. (2) iio ration ticket or cash in lieu of rations shall be issued to a labourer except in respect of a working day aid the value of all rations issued to the labourer in respect of a day on which be does not perform a day's rork may be deducted from the wages due to him.

(3) Children between 12 and 15 years of are living with and dependent on a ste tute immigrant shall if they labour receive wages at not less than three-quarters of the minimum rate for adult females and full rations according to the prescribed Scale. (4) Children under 12 years of age living with and dependent on a statute immigrant shall Jf they labour receive wages at not less than one-half of the minimum rate for adult females and three-civarter rations according to the prescribed sc]e. (5) Children under 10 years of age living with and dependent on a statute inwiigrant shall receive rations at the rate of one-third of the prescribec3 scale for adults. Provided that the employer shall be entitled to recover from the immigrant by monthly deductions from his wages the cost of rations for any number of children in excess of three. 3. The labourer shall not be bound to labour for more than six days in any week or for more than twenty days in any calendar month or for more than six consecutive hours or except as hereinafter mentioned for

more than nine hours in all in any one day but il the labourer at the request of the eniployer works more than nine hours in any day the employer will pay the labourer Thr such extra work at the rate of two cents

one-eighteenth part of the waos prescribed for a work in the preceding dauBe for each half-hour of overtime work. Provided that the labourer when employec exclusively in factory work shall be bound when reauired by the employer in case of nee8 to work for any time not exceeding three hours in any one day over and above the nine hours abovenentioned and shall receive for such extra-work the extra pay for each half-hour. And provided that the employer may reouire from the Jabourer without pay over and above the work which be is bottn to perform as aforesaid any reasonable and customary labour for the care of animals the cleaning and maintenance of machinery and the observance of usual sanitary regulrtions. The above-mentioned sum of dollars being the anount paid by the employer for the passage money of an adult dependent on the labourer may be recovered by the employer by monthly deãuctions from the wages of the labourer. Provided that no euch deduction shall be made from the wapes earned during the first 150 days of the contract an that at no time shall the Thdi'ction in any one month be so great as to reduce the sum actually received as wages by the labourer to an amount of less than* cents per working day toether with rations in accordance yrith the prescribed scale,

The labourer 'nay at any time redeem hi'tse]f 5 from the contract by paying to the employer the value of the unexpired portion thereof calculated at the rate of two dollars for every thirty days' work which the labourer is at the time bound to do under the contract or the sum of ten dollars whichever sum shall be the greater (+together with the said aunt of dollars due for passare money and advances and so iiuch (if any) o the said sum o dollars due for the passae r'toney of the said adult dependent as shall not have been repaid). In no case shall the value of the unexpired portion of the contract be less then ten dollars and the labourer shall in no case be compelled to remain on the

place

:t:;loyment fo

more than three years.

*TwelVe cents in the case of an adult male or eight cents in the cases of an adult female or boy under 18 years of age. +To be omitted where no advances nor passare money are due.

-p"JI

6. The expression tia day's worktt means either work for a.day of nine hours of (at the option of the ep1oyer) a ta&c which has been as5igne as being equivalent to such work.

In witness whereot the p.rties heve) signed their naines the day and year above ) ) written. DESCRIPTION OF LABOUI2ER.

Naine

Re1igI.on and hace of abodeTGeneral de:Caste(if any)! in India :crition and

Father's 1Naie

distinctive arks

i

I

I

i i

I

I

Endorsement to be made by the superintendent:I hereby certify that ]T bave personally explained this contract to the said and have ascertained that he is fully aware of the terms thereof, I also certify that the parties have signed thi6 contract in my presence. s igned

Superintendent of Irnmirants.

Note:- In the case of a contract for a definite term of less than 60o days the above form must be vtried accordingly. PRESOEEIBED SCALE 0F RATIONS Ri c e

..

..

Pahl

a. ..

...

Fi8h Ghee or Oil Salt Sal t

..

..

..

..

..

2 .. a

e.

.

u.

:L3

.

i

lbs. per day u per month i

T,

Ìt

ti

i

II

.i.

:i_

Tu e e rations shall be issued weekly or otherwise ae approved by the Superinten len t.

Source: CW.O

Parr: Report of the Commission Appointed to Enquire into the Conditions of Indentured Labour in the Federated Malay States 1910.

Aeudix C. KAI1ANY' S LICENCE TC RECPUIT I

CUì FOP

fricyMEHT

IN TilE STRAITS ETTLENTS, F.h.S., Ath) TIU

PROTECTED STATES 0E' JCHOflE, IZZDH AID KLJTTLN. (ola 1orm) No..

ofl9

___________________, described hereiiner, is hereby authorisedto recruit labourers in the Nadra8 Presidency

oÍ India for a period of employment at

to

is hereunder specified.

from

for on such rork as

Labourers co11ecter' uMer the authority of the lIcence are not, except with the consent of the Committee's Agent in India to be transferred to any other kangany or recruiter, nor are coolies collected under the authority of a-iy other licence or by any person not holding a licence to be accepted by the holder of this licence without previous reference to the Committee's 1gent. Any infrinerient of this regulation will i'ender the licence liable to be cancelled. DESCRIPTIVE flOLL C! ITGANY

lcangany' Father' sAge NationaJ.ityo1ourHei_Distin-VillageNumher naine

name

(caste)

Feetlnchesguish- taluk, laboure ing disauthorinrks trict to nesrectrecruit ra liwav

station

-.-.-

DESCRIPTION OF WORK

The Kangany iz to receive a recruiting Commission of p lo ye r

Indian Immigration Office Penang, Dated 19

Chairman, Immigration Coinnittee, superintendent of Immigrants,

Straits settlements ? 1J.S,

TERMS OF !PLOYMENT. The employer will pay to all labourers recruited under this

4;-

authoxity wages at a rate not less tMn cents rer iot' r 'n1t per day, or dollar8 niales, nor less than cents per or per rianth, fir fer1es. io dollars eLy 2ebourer deduc;ion ha12 be made from the "rares on account of any expenses incurreil b hri or en his behalf before bis arrival at the place ø' erp1oyuent oi on account of any assessmeit levied for thc purpose of defraying such expenses. Plac e Da te

inployer.

ßource: N.E. Marjoribanks end A..G. Narkkyar:eort

on Indian Labour DiigratF'ir' to Ceylon and l4alaya.

k39

Ap4ix Kananys Licence to iecruit Labour or p1oyent in tile Straits Settlements, F.i.S., an the Protected States of Johore, ICedah and ¡elarttan. Otew

Form)

'ERMS CF

1PLOYMENT

will L , described herein, is hereby authorized pay to all labourers to recruit labourers in the un5er the authority of recruited under this for a the Ciovts. oZ the Strai teauthority wa:es at a district of Settlements C Federated rate not loss than con tsperiod of to I:alay States. iDer day, or from dollars per for eniplorment at KàNGANY 'S LICENCE month, for adult males on such work as is hereunder specified. nor less than cents To recruit Labour for DESCIPTICN OF WORK per day, or ]miploymnent in the StraitE Idollars per Settlements, Federated m onth, for adult females.LLBO1IR OFFICE, PENNG Malay States, & the deductions shall be 19 Protected State of Johor No Deputy Controller of Labour, ade from the wages at' Kedah, Ferlis Kalantan. ny labourer on account FJLS. Deputy Superintendent No. of any expenses inof Immigrants, S.S., & of 19 Place of employment curred by him or on his Secretary Immigration District or advance made Committee. State Note:- Labourers collected to hirn before bis Issued br the Immigration Committee

The eip1OyeD

I I

behalf1

Ka' s name

Employer's name

rrival at the place of under the authority of this

ÇLicence are not, except with ccount of any assess- the consent of the Corn-.

employment or on

eut levied for the

nittees agent in India, to

be transferred to any other angany or recruiter, nor uch expenses. The cangany is to re labourers collected ecaive a recruiting nder the authority of an omission of ther licence or by any ace erzen not holding a licence ate o be accepted by the holder nployer f. this licence without re'wious reference to the ig3ature of Kangaiy, r right thumb impress- oittee1s Agent4 Any urpose of defraying

ion

DESCRIPTIVE ROLL OF KLTGANY

Licence No. Name

Father1s naine Caste A.ge

Sex igh t

ne

}atks Village

Taluk Di s tric t

post office Railway station Distance from village to station Number of labourers

I hereby certify that the

person here described has been actually employed by me as

for a period of

Place a te

ployer

._ A

ert&Lx

C1 (cnt'd) infringement of this reu1ation will render the licence liable to be canc cl.

Source: NE. Narjoribanks an

A.K.G. Marakkayar: Report on Indian Labour

iting to Ceylon and Tal

Appendix D

GROSS NATIONAL PIODUCT BY ORIGIN IN l99 (MILLION )

Rubber Mining Other Agriculture and forestry All other activities GrOss nation income

+2O

250 8ko J, 825

3,335

Source: The Economic Developnt of Malya, Report of a Mission organized by the tnternational Bank for Reconstruction and Development at the request of the Governments of the Federation of Malaya, the Crown Colony of Singapore and the United Kingdom, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1955, p.1k.

kk2

Appendix E PRINCIPAL OCCUPATIONS OF INDIANS IN ThE STRAITS SETTLEM;NTS II 1933. TOGEThER t'JITh MALAYS A) CHINESE.

Occupation

Indians Malays Chines

Labourers in rubber cl'] tiva tion

18,389 1,353

19,397 541

17,758 1,050

lLf 9

35

4.2

836

88

259

1,606 2,509 1,776

6,855 99 i,68o

5,653 5,358 286

4,257 2,925 k,399

1,732 669 2,170

2l,9f9 20,901 29,059

887 1,431

3 1,938

233 299

7,323

2,781

36,731

294 1,789 318

1,5031 20,621 3,k28 15,961 378 i 670

Labourers in coconut cultivation Railway locomotive drivers, firemen nd cleaners Railway labourers & other railway workers Drivers, conductors & cleaners of motor cars & trams Dock labourers Messengers & peons Proprietors & Managers of Business (Coizmerce, Finance & Insurance) Salesmen, shop assistants, etc, Street Vendors & peddlers Money-lenders, Pawn-brokers & money-changers Police-other ranks

Persons engaged in personal service (including clubs, hotels, etc.) Clerks, offioe assistants1 typists, etc.

Labourers(General & indeterminate) Gate keepers & Watchmen

Lource: S. Nanjundan, Indians in Malayan Economy, New Dehli, Government f India Press, 1951, p.16.

k4

ppendix F PRIrICIPAL OCCUPATIONS OF INDIANS IN ThE

FEflATD NALkY SThTES IN 1931, TOGETHER 7ITh flAIMS lUID CHINES2.

Oc cuìa tjon

Indians I1a1ays

Rice planters 1,892 89,122 Labourers in rubber cultivation 131,099 1i8,LFk3 Labourers in Coconut cultivation 8,010 lO,2kf Rearers of poultry and livestock 1,750 6,386 labourers in tin-mining k,622 1,008 echanics and fitters 556 1,370 Railway locomotive, drivers, firemen nd cleaners 761 128 Railway labourers & other railway workers k09 5,236 Drivers, conductors & cleaners of motor-cars & trams f,628 2,792 Proprietors & Managers of usiness k,k28 1,0k9 (Commerce, Finance & Insurance) 6k6 Salesmen, shop-assistants, etc. 3,790 Street Vendors & peddlers 3,005 91? Money-lenders, pawn-brokers & money 969 changers Police-other ranks 2,011 2,572 Persons engaged in personal service (including clubs, hotels, etc.) 13,719 5,951 Clerks, Office assistants, typists, 3,106 1,610 etc. 170 2,f23 Bullock-Cart owners & drivers Govt., municipal, police & army 758 838 Officers & army other ranks 25,317 k,k77 Labourers(general & indeterminate) Li.57 3,069 Gatekeepers & Watcbnten

Source: S. Nanjundan Indianin Maay.n Eccnom, New

Delhi, Goveriment of Indà reslI, p.1G.

Chinese 1,038 100,789 1,256 2,Zfk9 70,70LF

3,705 111 k50 ,6k6

16,89k l6,k71 16,k71 ikk 158

28,Okk 7,732 1f57

80 16,1Lf6

730