The original Indian American lobby

Posted on by

We’ve had a few posts in the past on the growing influence of the Indian American Lobby (see 1,2,3), particularly with regards to the U.S./India nuclear deal. However, a new book set for release stateside next month takes us old school. Long before Indian Americans were lobbying for a nuclear deal with India they were lobbying for the basics, such as civil rights here and freedom for India. Indolink.com has a very informative review:

“Sikhs, Swamis, Students, and Spies: the India lobby in the United States, 1900-1946” is the title of a new book, authored by veteran South Asian scholar Dr Harold Gould, of the University of Virginia, and scheduled for release later this month by Sage Publications.

The subtitle suggests that it deals with the pioneers who confronted racism and opened America to South Asians, reflecting, as Joan Jensen informs us in her earlier classic study ‘Passage from India,’ “The story of how Indian immigrant pioneers settled in a hostile land and struggled to enjoy rights equal to those of Euro-Americans.”

That’s certainly a part of the historical confrontation between desis and non-desis in North America. It should be remembered that this was a time when the process of becoming an American citizen was one from which Indians were excluded through an increasingly complex maze of laws and regulations. Indeed, Indians were the only class of people whose citizenship was revoked because they did not neatly fit into the then commonly accepted racial categories of Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro.

This was also a time when the chief of the bureau of naturalization notified all United States attorneys to oppose actively the granting of naturalization to “Hindoos or East Indians” and to instruct clerks of courts in their districts to refuse to accept declarations of intention or to file petitions for naturalization. Attorneys were also asked to file motions for orders to cancel declarations of intention already filed by Indians.

That’s why, in 1907, when Bengali student Taraknath Das was refused an application for citizenship in San Francisco, he wrote to the attorney general: “May I ask you if the Hindus who belong to the Caucasian stock of the Human race have no legal right to become citizens of the United States, under what special law the Japanese who belong to a different stock are allowed to declare their intention to become citizens of the United States.” [Link]

By that last paragraph I can see that solidarity with other Asian Americans definitely wasn’t in vogue at the time. According to review, the book takes a very close look at the efforts made throughout North America to drum up support against the British occupation in India:

Most of the India associations had high aims and objectives. For instance, the Hindustanee association of United States, founded in Chicago in 1913, stated its aims as follows: “To further the educational interests of the Indian students, to gather or disseminate all kinds of educational information, to seek help and cooperation from people at home and in the country.” As I.M.Muthanna observes in his book ‘People of India in North America,’ “Though outwardly it posed as a cultural organization, the real aim of this association was to preach sedition against the British.”

The ‘Hindu’ Associations organized in the U.S. had the following objectives: ‘Receipt of vernacular papers from India in order to keep Hindus fully informed of the events in their country, importation of youths from India to America for their education and for preparing them for developing their nationalist outlook, and to hold weekly meetings and discus politics.’

Apart from the Ghadar weekly, some of the pamphlets that were widely circulated include New Echo, Gadar di Goonj, Gadar di Karak, Gadhar Sandesh etc. The editor Ram Chandra wrote: “The ghadar conveys the message of rebellion to the nation once a week. It is brave, outspoken, unbridled, soft-footed, and given to the use of strong language. It is a lightning, a storm and a flame of fire ..we are the harbinger of freedom…” [Link]

<

p>The nature of these pamphlets published by the Ghadar Party were most often quite “militant” in tone:

Following the entry of Canada into World War I, the organisation was centred in the USA and received substantial funding from the German government. They had a very militant tone, as illustrated by this quote from Harnam Singh:

No pundits or mullahs do we need
No prayer or litanies recite.
These will only scuttle our boat;
Draw the sword, it’s time to fight!
Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs though we be Sons of Bharat are we still.
Postpone your prayers to another time; The call of the hour is to kill!

Promptly 61 Ghadarites, led by Jwala Singh, set sail from San Francisco, via Korea, Canton and Singapore to start an uprising in India. Joined by over a hundred others (including British spies), they were nearly all arrested upon arrival. [Link]

<

p>Gould’s new book is also compared to one written a century ago by Har Dayal, one of the Ghadar leaders. Today we often note how the Indians that immigrated to America after the 1965 Immigration Act often represented the best minds that India had to offer. A 100 years ago Dayal noted the same except that he also went on to point out the transformational effect that America had on the “dross” that also came over from India.

Interestingly, the title of Gould’s book derives from an article entitled ‘India in America’ written almost 100 years ago by the Indian revolutionary Har Dayal who lived in the Bay Area — while teaching philosophy at Stanford — and was the prime intellectual force behind the Ghadar movement.

Writing in the July 1911 issue of ‘The Modern Review’ of Calcutta, Dayal noted that those Indians who were in the America at the time represented “the best elements of the population of the mother country.” He then went on to classify them into four groups with “accidentally alliterative appellations”: Sikhs, swamis, students and spies.

Today, if the full story of Indian-Americans were to be told, one would have to include – if one were to follow Harold Gould’s alliterative sequence – slaves, soldiers, scientists and software engineers too.

Taking into account the demographics of early immigrants from the subcontinent, Dayal noted that it was the Sikhs who were the dominant group among the Indian immigrants. He did not define them in their religious context but as peasants – “timid, shabby, and ignorant.” It was no wonder, enthused Har Dayal, that in America they were transformed. He asserted that no one could live in the United States “without being lifted to a higher level of thought and action.”

He went on: “The great flag of the greatest democratic state in the world’s history, burns up all cowardice, servility, pessimism and indifference, as fire consumes the dross and leaves pure gold behind.” Moreover he hailed the United States as an “ethical sanitarium, where eternal sunshine prevails, and the wrecks of other climes are wrought into beautiful specimens of restored humanity…” [Link]

<

p>I obviously wasn’t going to end this post without mentioning the “spies” that are referred to in the title of this book. A mole always makes for a good story:

… someone like India-born William C.Hopkinson, the son of a British sergeant and an Indian mother, was hired to conduct surveillance of the Indian immigrant community. Hopkinson, who spoke Hindi and Urdu, led a double life among the Indian immigrants under the alias of Narain Singh, sporting a turban and a fake beard. He attended meetings at the local Sikh gurdwara. He paid other Indians to tell him about the activities of immigrants and students he suspected. For at least six years between 1909 and 1914 Hopkinson acted as an undercover agent, reporting on many Indian activists in North America, the best known being the intellectuals Taraknath Das and Har Dayal. [Link]

If any of you know of a commenter who isn’t who they claim to be, please do let us know.

30 thoughts on “The original Indian American lobby”

  1. Why’s no one commenting here?

    Maybe this can start a debate;

    ‘By that last paragraph I can see that solidarity with other Asian Americans definitely wasnÂ’t in vogue at the time’

  2. Abhi,

    Thanks for that-i guess it’s our own, civilized and litigious, version of how the West was won.

    in 1907, when Bengali student Taraknath Das was refused an application for citizenship in San Francisco, he wrote to the attorney general: “May I ask you if the Hindus who belong to the Caucasian stock of the Human race have no legal right to become citizens of the United States, under what special law the Japanese who belong to a different stock are allowed to declare their intention to become citizens of the United States.”

    I found the earnestness of that a really funny reminder of how the conventions of battle are constantly morphing, but then i’m pretty strange.

    Strange, Student, (wanna-be) Spy.

  3. My uncle and aunt was in States in 1940s (even before India’s independence) and later, and then he went back to India.

    It seems from their conversation, there was lot of fascination here in media and general public, when India got independence – will it even survive as a union or break into pieces further. I think comparison to red China was common too.

    I think minorities as a common bloc only started in 60s. I knew an Indian origin Professor at LSU who did marches, sit in @ lunchins during the Civil Rights movement.

    Swamis in Amreeka, no doubt an old trick.

  4. Dayal noted that it was the Sikhs who were the dominant group among the Indian immigrants. He did not define them in their religious context but as peasants – “timid, shabby, and ignorant.”

    This is just early 20th century prejudice from Har Dayal (urban, Hindu background) towards people from a rural Sikh background. He seems to imply that the Sikhs became bold, confident, etc. becaus of living in America, whereas in India they would have been timid…however I think he is extrapolating from his own prejudices and assumptions relating to peasants from other parts of India…anyone who bothered to find out would have realised that timidity was never a characteristic of Sikh peasants, at any point in their history, regardless of where they were living.

  5. When it comes down to it, people tend to protect their own ethno-genetic interests and see their own struggle as particularly noble or deserving of success. Desis see their struggle to become citizens of a nation founded and created by white men to be a highly noble calling when in reality it was just a desire to partake of the gora’s wealth. Whites of that era probably saw their own crusade to exclude asians as a particularly noble endeavor to save for their descendants what they had worked to conquer and develop. And round and round it goes….

  6. Abhi, First, Many thanks for bringing this fascinating (hopefuly) book to our attention.

    Second, and, not so seriously, “To further the educational interests of the Indian students FOBs and ABCDs, to gather or disseminate all kinds of educational Desi information, to seek help and cooperation from people at home and in the country.” As I.M.Muthanna Mr.Krit Paranoid observes in his book ‘People of India in North America,Â’ people on Sepia Mutiny “Though outwardly it posed as a cultural organization, the real aim of this association was to preach sedition against the British FOBs.”

  7. My understanding was that some of these organizations were effective with respect to Indian Independece. Clare Booth Luce called for independence in Congress and Roosevelt brought it up with Churchill, much to the latter’s chagrin.

  8. Amitabh, One reason for Har Dayal’s harsh remarks could have been the disproportinately large number of Sikhs ( mostly from the rural Punjab) joining the British – Indian Army, and helping them rule over other Indians.

  9. Amitabh, One reason for Har Dayal’s harsh remarks could have been the disproportinately large number of Sikhs ( mostly from the rural Punjab) joining the British – Indian Army, and helping them rule over other Indians.

    I do not know the motivations of Har Dayal’s comment. It seems to have more rural-urban divide or plain bullshit to extoll the effects of America on an individual. He does say that they (rural Sikhs) become more empowered here. Reasoning by Anand seems more plausible. He was just sucking up.

    British Indian Army (BIA) like Indian Civil Service (ICS) was always seen as road to upper middle class rather than seditious. They were Sikhs, Grokhas, Rajputs, Marathas. In 1940s, in BIA there were 40-45 Gurkha battalions, and with grand total of 2 million including everyone .

    Both BIA and ICS became foundations of stablilty in independent India.

    Remember, English never controlled more than 60 % of Indian subcontinent. In English controlled parts, there were controlled elections, and state and national assemblies.

    Brown Sahib was everywhere in some form – army, ICS, and even the clerk at the Jhilla (district)

  11. Karatar Singh Sarabha is credited for popularizing the slogan Inquilab Zindabad, Ghadar always had quite a number of Sikhs, Bhagat Singh was Bhagat Singh, and Udham Singh was Udham Singh. Not to mention countless other heroes. Yes, Sikhs served in the Army, but as Kush mentioned, service in the British Army was not limited to Sikhs. Before 1857 it was common that Army members were not from the Punjab region at all

  12. who would have thought the early indian immigrants to the u.s. found it was just another country ruled by the whites. the oft-mentioned differences between Americans and the English may have been true in some respects but in their disdain for all things non-white, the Americans lived in the same quarters.

  14. Very interesting article Abhi — thanks for this.

    anyone who bothered to find out would have realised that timidity was never a characteristic of Sikh peasants, at any point in their history, regardless of where they were living.

    Damn right, Amitabh. The suggestion itself is an oxymoron.

    I think that Kush and Anand’s explanations are probably right. It’s terrible how people like Har Dayal twist facts to further their own agenda.

    Sahej,

    Bhagat Singh was Bhagat Singh

    Sorry for nit-picking, but Bhagat Singh was not a Sikh in practice or belief during the latter part of his life — wasn’t he a self-proclaimed atheist, even at the time he was executed ?

    However, as we all know he was originally from a Sikh background, so I can see what you mean if that’s what you were referring to.

    Udham Singh obviously was a Sikh although assassinations are in violation of Sikh principles for warfare (whole different off-topic argument).

  15. however I think he is extrapolating from his own prejudices and assumptions relating to peasants from other parts of India…anyone who bothered to find out would have realised that timidity was never a characteristic of Sikh peasants, at any point in their history, regardless of where they were living.

    Oh yeah Amitabh? During the mid 80s in Punjab there was an enormous amount of timidity. Regular folks do exhibit timidity when they are confronted with the prosepct of losing their loved ones, their life or their property.

    Boy I love how you (and your trusted sidekick Anand)try to pass off a purely personal opinion as if its fact-proven beyond doubt.

  16. Desidawg, the timidity that some Sikhs might have shown during the height of militancy in the 80s is probably equal if not less to what I suspect YOU display in your daily life right now…so shut the hell up. Interesting how you decide me and Anand (who never directly addressed each other, and never even broached each other’s comments) are allies…on the basis of a thread which is now shut down (nice of you to try to continue that rancor here). Seems like you have decided I’m your new enemy or something…and passing off opinion as if it were fact is something just about everyone does on a BLOG, you jerk.. you do it too. Lastly, I would be happy to meet you in NYC area face to face and settle this if you have a problem with me… we can have Siddhartha as a witness to blog about it here later, if he agrees, or any other NYC mutineer like JOAT or someone…if you are not up for that, then I will not answer anymore ridiculous and rude comments from you…if you are polite and reasonable, I have no problem discussing things with you or anyone else here…and in the future, if you continue to be this rude, don’t be surprised if you get no response from me; but that will not mean I’m agreeing with what you might have said; just ignoring it.

  17. DesiDawg,

    During the mid 80s in Punjab there was an enormous amount of timidity. Regular folks do exhibit timidity when they are confronted with the prosepct of losing their loved ones, their life or their property.

    I’m not sure what you mean by this — timidity by Sikhs towards the police & army, or timidity towards the terrorists ?

    Boy I love how you (and your trusted sidekick Anand)try to pass off a purely personal opinion as if its fact-proven beyond doubt.

    Come on now — Amitabh and Anand’s ways of discussing matters here on SM are quite different, and as Amitabh himself has said, there’s been no direct dialogue between them or any promotion by them as being “allies”.

    I can understand why you strongly disagreed with some of Amitabh’s posts on the now-shut thread (and I voiced my own objections there too, as you know), but he’s had the decency to apologise, so that should be the end of the matter. I’ve known Amitabh a long time — my association with him extends considerably before either one of us started participating on SM — and he’s genuinely a very decent guy. He does not deserve this kind of treatment.

    I’ve read enough of your posts in the past to know that you’re a good guy too (as I clarified during my own minor misunderstanding with you a couple of weeks ago, which was completely my fault), so I think there’s just been a misunderstanding on your part about Amitabh’s personality. You two shouldn’t be fighting.

  18. Jai: Word. Although in reality if me and Desidawg actually were to meet up we’d probably laugh it off and have a drink.

  19. Amitabh,

    Although in reality if me and Desidawg actually were to meet up we’d probably laugh it off and have a drink.

    I hope so, mate 😉

    Seems like you have decided I’m your new enemy or something

    There seems to a lot of that kind of behaviour currently going around on SM. As you know, it happened to me too on the other thread (and a couple of others recently, involving the same person). But let’s give DesiDawg the benefit of the doubt for the time-being, and assume that it’s just a misunderstanding rather than any deliberate maliciousness on his part.

  20. I’m not sure what you mean by this — timidity…

    Jai, actually in both cases in my opinion. First when the militants were indiscriminately killing Hindus and later when the police atrocities happened.

    But I don’t want to start another bitter exchange on here with A&A.

  21. DesiDawg,

    and later when the police atrocities happened.

    Unless I’m misunderstanding you myself, I have to politely disagree here. Police brutality actually pushed large numbers of Sikhs (especially those who were innocent but were directly/indirectly victims of “encounters”, beatings etc) towards becoming sympathetic towards the terrorists if not actually actively involved. The film Maachis depicts this in a fairly accurate way. Also, there have been ongoing movements by Sikhs worldwide to pursue (compensation, legal prosecutions etc) the police who were responsible for such actions. Such activities to bring the culprits to justice as still underway.

    Also, the terrorists themselves were Sikhs, frequently drawn from rural backgrounds, and I don’t think they could be described as “timid” by any stretch of the imagination 😉

    I do think Sikhs back in India should be a little more assertive in matters such as their depiction in the desi media, as I’ve mentioned on SM a few times previously, but that’s not related to the issues you’ve been discussing anyway, so I don’t want to labor the point here.

    But I don’t want to start another bitter exchange on here with A&A.

    Good idea, man. You know how these things can spiral insanely out of control 😉

  22. I can see that solidarity with other Asian Americans definitely wasnÂ’t in vogue at the time.

    Abhi did you imply by this that solidarity exists in current times? Because I don’t believe it does. I don’t want to start yet another debate (already had here)but Indians from two different regions of India don’t have solidarity despite being American so I don’t see that happening with two different countries because they happen to be from the same continent.

    BTW all this infighting here brings back bad memories of Sulekha.com. Some people really have just bad manners and appear to be taking their personal frustrations out on each other here but you are all smart educated folks for cryin out loud, you can bitchslap each other with civility and intellect.

    Jai, got your note, see my response to you there 🙂

  23. Abhi did you imply by this that solidarity exists in current times? Because I don’t believe it does.

    I know that it does since I have been involved with it in the past.

  24. The book sounds fascinating. I’m very tickled to see that some things about desis in the US seem not to have changed in a century – railing against racism but only asking to be accepted in the ranks of the superior race, not fighting the system; taking advantage of our association with Ancient Spiritual Wisdom (yes, I did read palms in college…); and being good rabble-rousing politicized trouble-makers!

  27. But let’s give DesiDawg the benefit of the doubt for the time-being, and assume that it’s just a misunderstanding rather than any deliberate maliciousness on his part.

    My aim wasn’t to be hurtful. However it did turn out that way so I apologize.

  29. Fascinating !!!! Absolutely !!! Ghadar one of my favorite topics. If I had the money and time I would write a story around Ghadar and make a movie about it. It also has espionage for god sake. Just great !!

  30. Sorry for nit-picking, but Bhagat Singh was not a Sikh in practice or belief during the latter part of his life — wasn’t he a self-proclaimed atheist, even at the time he was executed ?

    He most certainly was an atheist and wrote quite extensively (and eloquently, in my opinion) of his steadfast refusal to embrace the concept of God before his death.

    During the mid 80s in Punjab there was an enormous amount of timidity. Regular folks do exhibit timidity when they are confronted with the prosepct of losing their loved ones, their life or their property.

    That may be, but extraordinary folks exhibit remarkable fearlessness and bravery when confronted with those same prospects.