Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T19:43:20.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

India and overseas Indians in Ceylon and Burma, 1946–1965: Experiments in post-imperial sovereignty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2021

Raphaëlle Khan Open the ORCID record for Raphaëlle Khan [Opens in a new window]  and
Taylor C. Sherman
Raphaëlle Khan*
Affiliation:
Asia Center, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America
Taylor C. Sherman
Affiliation:
Department of International History, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the existence of a large Indian diaspora, there has been relatively little scholarly attention paid to India's relations with overseas Indians after its independence in 1947. The common narrative is that India abruptly cut ties with overseas Indians at independence, as it adhered to territorially based understandings of sovereignty and citizenship. Re-examining India's relations with Indian communities in Ceylon and Burma between the 1940s and the 1960s, this article demonstrates that, despite its rhetoric, independent India did not renounce responsibility for its diaspora. Instead, because of pre-existing social connections that spanned the former British empire, the Government of India faced regular demands to assist overseas Indians, and it responded on several fronts. To understand this continued engagement with overseas Indians, this article introduces the idea of ‘post-imperial sovereignty'. This type of sovereignty was layered, as imperial sovereignty had been, but was also concerned with advancing norms designed to protect minority communities across the world. India’s strategy to argue for these norms was simultaneously multilateral, regional, and bilateral. It sought to use the United Nations, the Commonwealth, and the 1947 Asian Relations Conference to secure rights for overseas Indians. As those attempts failed, India negotiated claims for citizenship with governments in Burma and Ceylon, and shaped the institutions and language through which Indians voiced demands for their rights in these countries. Indian expressions of sovereignty beyond the space of the nation-state, therefore, impacted on practices of citizenship, even during the process of de-recognition in Asia.

Keywords

DiasporamigrationminoritiesAsianscitizenshipsovereignty
Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , July 2022 , pp. 1153 - 1182
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Robert Blyth, The Empire of the Raj: India, Eastern Africa and the Middle East, 1858–1947 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); Thomas R. Metcalf, Imperial Connections: India in the Indian Ocean Arena, 1860–1920 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007).

2 See Sugata Bose, A Hundred Horizons: The Indian Ocean in the Age of Global Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006); Sunil Amrith, Crossing the Bay of Bengal: The Furies of Nature and the Fortunes of Migrants (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013); Pamela Gupta, Isabel Hofmeyr and Michael Pearson (eds), Eyes across the Water: Navigating the Indian Ocean (Pretoria: Unisa Press, 2010); Nile Green, Bombay Islam: The Religious Economy of the West Indian Ocean, 1840–1915 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011). On specifically Tamil politics and connected histories across the Bay of Bengal, see Bhavani Raman, ‘The Postwar “Returnee,” Tamil Culture, and the Bay of Bengal’, in The Postcolonial Moment in South and Southeast Asia, (eds) Gian Prakash, Nikhil Menon and Michael Laffan (London: Bloomsbury Press, 2018), pp. 121–140; Ramnath, Kalyani, ‘Intertwined Itineraries: Debt, Decolonization, and International Law in Post-World War II South Asia’, Law and History Review 38, no. 1 (2020), pp. 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alagirisamy, Darinee, ‘The Self-Respect Movement and Tamil Politics of Belonging in Interwar British Malaya, 1929–1939’, Modern Asian Studies 50, no. 5 (2016), pp. 1547–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sunil Amrith, Migration and Diaspora in Modern Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

3 See, for instance, Gaiutra Bahdur, Coolie Woman: The Odyssey of Indenture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014); Marina Carter and Torabully Khal, Coolitude: An Anthology of the Indian Labour Diaspora (London: Anthem Press, 2002).

4 Ned Bertz, Diaspora and Nation in the Indian Ocean: Transnational Histories of Race and Urban Space in Tanzania (Honolulu: University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2015); Sana Aiyar, Indians in Kenya: The Politics of Diaspora (Cambridge, MA: London: Harvard University Press, 2015).

5 Amrith, Migration and Diaspora in Modern Asia, p. 120.

6 Ibid., p. 2.

7 Rajashree Mazumder, ‘Constructing the Indian Immigrant to Colonial Burma, 1885–1948’, PhD thesis, UCLA, 2013, Chapter 5; Hugh Tinker, Separate and Unequal: India and the Indians in the British Commonwealth 1920–1950 (London: Hurst and Company, 1976); H. Tinker, The Banyan Tree: Overseas Emigrants from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1977). On minoritization, see Aamir R. Mufti, Enlightenment in the Colony: The Jewish Question and the Crisis of Postcolonial Culture (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007).

8 Sukanya Banerjee, Becoming Imperial Citizens: Indians in the Late-Victorian Empire (Durham: Duke University Press, 2010); Sturman, Rachel, ‘Indian Indentured Labor and the History of International Rights Regimes’, The American Historical Review 19, no. 5 (2014), pp. 1439–1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Faisal Devji, The Impossible Indian: Gandhi and the Temptation of Violence (London: Hurst and Company, 2012); Ramachandra Guha, Gandhi before India (New York: Knopf, 2014). On anticolonial diasporic networks, see Maia Ramnath, Haj to Utopia: How the Ghadar Movement Chartered Global Radicalism and Attempted to Overthrow the British Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011); Nico Slate, Colored Cosmopolitanism: The Shared Struggle for Freedom in the United States and India (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012).

10 John D. Kelly and Martha Kaplan, ‘Diaspora and Swaraj, Swaraj and Diaspora’, in From the Colonial to the Postcolonial: India and Pakistan in Transition, (eds) Dipesh Chakrabarty and Rochona Majumdar (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 311–331.

11 C. Kondapi, ‘Indians Overseas’, India Quarterly I, no. 1 (January 1945), p. 71.

12 Confidential, ‘Ceylon—Report of the Commission on Constitutional Reform’, proof version, Colonial Office, London, 1945. Enclosed in Secret, George H. Hall, ‘Ceylon Constitution: Memorandum by the Secretary of State for the Colonies’, Cabinet Memorandum, 31 August 1945, CAB 129/1/38, UK National Archives (henceforth: UKNA), p. 39.

13 Itty Abraham, How India became Territorial: Foreign Policy, Diaspora, Geopolitics (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014), pp. 69–70.

14 Ibid., p. 98.

15 Marie-Carine Lall, India's Missed Opportunity: India's Relationship with the Non-Resident Indians (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2001), pp. 1 and 5.

16 Ibid., pp. 76–77; Sunil Amrith, ‘Struggles for Citizenship around the Bay of Bengal’, in The Postcolonial Moment in South and Southeast Asia, (eds) Gyan Prakash, Michael Laffan and Nikhil Menon (London: Bloomsbury Press, 2018), pp. 107–120; Raman, ‘The Postwar “Returnee”’, pp. 121–140; Deborah Sutton, ‘Divided and Uncertain Loyalties: Partition, Indian Sovereignty and Contested Citizenship in East Africa, 1948–1955’, Interventions 9, no. 2 (2007), pp. 76–288.

17 Manu Bhagavan, The Peacemakers: India and the Quest for One World (New Delhi: Harper Collins, 2012).

18 Adler, Emanuel and Pouliot, Vincent, ‘International Practices’, International Theory 3, no. 1 (2011), pp. 1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Osiander, Andreas, ‘Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth’, International Organization 55, no. 2 (2001), pp. 251–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Kanti Bajpai, ‘Indian Conceptions of Order and Justice: Nehruvian, Gandhian, Hindutva and Neo-Liberal’, in Order and Justice in International Relation, (eds) Rosemary Foot, John Lewis Gaddis and Andrew Hurrell (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 236; Srinath Raghavan, ‘The United Nations and the Emergence of Independent India’, in Charter of the United Nations: Together with Scholarly Commentaries and Essential Historical Documents, (eds) Ian Shapiro and Joseph Lampert (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014), p. 152.

21 Bhagavan, Manu, ‘A New Hope: India, the United Nations and the Making of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, Modern Asian Studies 44, no. 2 (2010), pp. 311–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Priya Chacko, ‘The Internationalist Nationalist: Pursuing an Ethical Modernity with Jawaharlal Nehru’, in International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism and Investigations of Global Modernity, (ed.) Robbie Shilliam (Oxford; New York: Routledge, 2012), p. 181.

22 Itty Abraham, ‘Prolegomena to Non-Alignment’, in The Non-Aligned Movement and the Cold War: Delhi—Bandung—Belgrade, (eds) Natasa Miskovic, Harald Fischer-Tiné and Nada Boskovska (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2014), p. 82.

23 See, for example, Niraja Gopal Jayal, Citizenship and its Discontents: An Indian History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), Chapter 3; Vazira Fazila-Yacoobali Zamindar, The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia: Refugees, Boundaries, Histories (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007); Joya Chatterji, Partition's Legacies (Albany: SUNY Press, 2021); Uditi Sen, Citizen Refugee: Forging the Indian Nation after Partition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018); Datta, Anjali Bhardwaj, and, ‘“Useful” “Earning” Citizens: Gender, State and the Market in Post-colonial Delhi’, Modern Asian Studies 53, no. 6 (2019), pp. 1924–1955CrossRefGoogle Scholar; William Gould and Sarah Ansari, Boundaries of Belonging: Localities, Citizenship and Rights in India and Pakistan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020).

24 Gusejnova, Dina, ‘Changes of Status in States of Political Uncertainty: Towards A Theory of Derecognition’, European Journal of Social Theory 22, no. 2 (2018), pp. 1–18Google Scholar.

25 Axel Honneth, The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996).

26 Raman, ‘The “Postwar ‘Returnee”’, pp. 121–140; Alagirisamy, ‘The Self-Respect Movement and Tamil Politics of Belonging’, pp. 1547–1575; Ramnath, ‘Intertwined Itineraries’, pp. 1–24.

27 Rao, P. Kodanda, ‘Indians Overseas’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 233, no. 1 (1944), p. 204CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Mongia, Radhika, ‘Historicizing State Sovereignty: Inequality and the Form of Equivalence’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 49, no. 2 (2007), pp. 384–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 A. V. Pai to D. V. Rege, Department of Commonwealth Relations (CR), New Delhi, 13 October 1945. In ‘Indian Labour working in Ceylon, Malaya etc.—Enquiry by labour investigation committee regarding protective measures taken for the benefit of labourers at the instance of the Govt. of India’, CR Dept., Overseas II, File No. 125(5)-O.S., 1946, the National Archives of India (henceforth: NAI).

30 These efforts led to the 1927 Cape Town Agreement, according to which India agreed to assist in the voluntary emigration of Indians in South Africa, while South Africa promised to take measures to uplift the Indian community remaining in its territory.

31 S. K. Agrawala and M. Koteswara Rao, ‘Nationality and International Law in Indian Perspective’, in Nationality and International Law in Asian Perspective, (ed.) Ko Swam Sik (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1990), p. 108.

32 Shastri, Amita, ‘Estate Tamils, the Ceylon Citizenship Act of 1948 and Sri Lankan Politics’, Contemporary South Asia 8, no. 1 (1999), pp. 69–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rajagopalan, T. S., ‘Indians Overseas: The Position in Ceylon’, India Quarterly 1, no. 2 (1945), pp. 169–171Google Scholar.

33 Times of India, 12 February 1941, p. 7.

34 Girja Shankar Bajpai (1891–1954), a former Indian civil servant during the Raj, was then secretary-general of the Ministry of External Affairs.

35 Times of India, 12 February 1941, p. 7.

36 Ibid.

37 Mazumder, ‘Constructing the Indian Immigrant’.

38 Times of India, 19 June 1941, p. 7.

39 Ibid., 22 July 1941, p. 7.

40 Ibid., 29 July 1941, p. 9; 20 January 1942, p. 5.

41 Ibid., 22 July 1941, p. 7.

42 S. P. Singh and Saroj Kumar, ‘Indian National Movement and Sri Lanka (Ceylon) during 1930–1947’, Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 61, Part One: Millennium (2000– 2001), pp. 714–717.

43 Times of India, 26 July 1939, p. 11.

44 Ibid.

45 Talk to a delegation of overseas Indians at Meerut on 24 November 1946, in Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru (hereafter SWJN), 2nd series, Vol. 1, (ed.) Sarvepalli Gopal (New Delhi: Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, 1984), p. 546.

46 Speech in the Legislative Assembly, 14 March 1947, SWJN, 2nd series, Vol. 2, p. 433.

47 Times of India, 28 December 1947, p. 1.

48 James Baxter, Report on Indian Immigration (Rangoon: Government Printing and Stationary, Burma, 1941).

49 Speech in the Legislative Assembly, 14 March 1947, SWJN, 2nd series, Vol. 2, p. 438.

50 See, for instance, Jayal, Citizenship and its Discontents.

51 Press Information Bureau, Government of India, 15 August 1949, IOR/L/P&J/7/15292, India Office Records, British Library.

52 See, for example, Times of India, 20 April 1954, p. 5.

53 Ibid., 22 June 1959, p. 1.

54 Ibid., 9 September 1953, p. 6.

55 R. N. Banerjee to R. T. Chari, New Delhi, 20 May 1946. In ‘Ceylon-Indians in-Position of –’, MEA, File No. 34-O.S.II, 1946 (Confidential), NAI.

56 See Banerjee, Becoming Imperial Citizens; Daniel Gorman, The Emergence of International Society in the 1920s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

57 Raghavan, ‘The United Nations and the Emergence of Independent India’, pp. 143–156.

58 See Cindy Ewing, ‘Codifying Minority Rights: Postcolonial Constitutionalism in Burma, Ceylon, and India’, in Decolonization, Self-Determination, and the Birth of Global Human Rights Politics, (eds) A. Dirk Moses, Marco Duranti and Roland Burke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 179–206.

59 Bhagavan, Peacemakers; Lorna Lloyd, ‘“A Family Quarrel”. The Development of the Dispute over Indians in South Africa’, The Historical Journal 34, no. 3 (1991), pp. 703–725; L. Lloyd, ‘“A Most Auspicious Beginning”: The 1946 United Nations General Assembly and the Question of the Treatment of Indians in South Africa’, Review of International Studies 16, no. 2 (1990), pp. 131–153; Mark Mazower, No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009); Thakur, Vineet, ‘The “Hardy Annual”: A History of India's First UN Resolution’, India Review 16, no. 4 (2017), pp. 401–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Indian engagement with anti-apartheid politics after the UN debate of 1946, see O'Malley, Alanna, ‘India, Apartheid and the New World Order at the UN, 1946–1962’, Journal of World History 31, no. 1 (2020), pp. 195–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anna Konieczna, ‘We the People of the United Nations: The UN and the Global Campaigns Against Apartheid’, in A Global History of Anti-Apartheid: ‘Forward to Freedom’ in South Africa, (eds) Anna Konieczna and Bob Skinner (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), pp. 67–103.

60 On India's role in building a human rights regime at the UN, see Raphaëlle Khan, ‘Between Ambitions and Caution: India, Human Rights and Self-Determination at the United Nations’, in Decolonization, Self-Determination, and the Birth of Global Human Rights Politics, (eds) A. Dirk Moses, Marco Duranti and Roland Burke (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. 207–235. On the role of decolonized states more generally, see Roland Burke, Decolonization and the Evolution of International Human Rights (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010).

61 Thakur, Vineet, ‘An Asian Drama: The Asian Relations Conference, 1947’, The International History Review 41, no. 3 (2018), p. 2Google Scholar.

62 ‘A United Asia for World Peace’, 23 March 1947, SWJN, 2nd series, Vol. 2, pp. 503–508.

63 Ibid.

64 Frederick James, Asian Relations Conference, March–April 1947: A Note on the Agenda of the Asian Conference (New Delhi: Indian Council of World Affairs, 1947), p. 2.

65 Abraham, How India became Territorial, pp. 69–70. While Abraham also noted that Indian delegates ‘[sought] to establish more general principles for inter-Asian migration and protection for alien minorities’, he did not dwell on that point. See Itty Abraham, ‘Bandung and State Formation in Post-Colonial Asia’, in Bandung Re-visited: The Legacy of the 1955 Asian-African Conference for International Order, (eds) See Seng Tan and Amitav Acharya (Singapore: NUS Press, 2008), pp. 55–56. Thakur challenges Abraham's interpretation in Thakur, ‘An Asian Drama’, pp. 1–23.

66 A. V. Pai, ‘An Observer's report of the discussions of Group “B”: “Racial Problems and Inter-Asian Migration”’, 27 March 1947. In ‘Inter-Asian Relations Conference—Report on discussions on “Racial Problems and Inter Asian Migration”’, EA & CR Department, File No. 11(13)-UNI, 1947, NAI, p. 2.

67 Asian Relations: Being Report of the Proceedings and Documentation of the First Asian Relations Conference, New Delhi, March–April, 1947 (New Delhi: Asian Relations Organization, New Delhi, 1948), p. 90.

68 Pai, ‘An Observer's report of the discussions of Group “B”’, p. 2.

69 Asian Relations, p. 91.

70 Ibid., pp. 90–91.

71 Ibid., p. 94.

72 Ibid., p. 95.

73 Ibid., p. 97.

74 Ibid.

75 ‘1. Complete legal equality of all citizens; 2. Complete religious freedom of all citizens; 3. No public social disqualification of any racial group; 4. Equality before the law of persons of foreign origin who have settled in the country.’ Asian Relations, p. 98.

76 Pai, ‘An Observer's report of the discussions of Group “B”’.

77 Ibid., p. 2. Emphasis added.

78 ‘Indo-Ceylon Relations’, Times, 18 April 1947. In ‘Seventh Annual Session of the Ceylon Indian Congress and the Sixth Annual Session of the Ceylon Indian Congress Labour Union Proceedings of Ceylon’, CR Dept., OSII, File No. 67(1)/47-OSII, 1947, NAI.

79 Pai, ‘An Observer's report of the discussions of Group “B”’, p. 2.

80 Ibid.

81 In Asian Relations, p. 103.

82 Ibid., p. 102.

83 Ibid., p. 104.

84 Ibid.

85 Those delegates were H. N. Kunzru and A. Appadorai, the ICWA secretary. Ibid.

86 Ibid., p. 105. On that UN resolution, see Bhagavan, Peacemakers.

87 Raphaëlle Khan, ‘Sovereignty after the Empire and the Search for a New Order: India's Attempt to Negotiate a Common Citizenship in the Commonwealth (1947–1949)’, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (forthcoming).

88 Campbell-Johnson was Lord Mountbatten's press attaché.

89 On 24 March 1947. In Alan Campbell-Johnson, Mission with Mountbatten (London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd, 1985), p. 45.

90 ‘Cable to Vallabhbhai Patel’, London, 18 October 1948, SWJN, 2nd series, Vol. 8, pp. 245–246.

91 Sarvepalli Gopal, Jawaharlal Nehru: A Biography (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2012 [1979]), Vol. 2, pp. 48–49.

92 Pandit Nehru's ‘Ten Points’, in Clement R. Attlee, Memorandum, ‘Relations with the Commonwealth’, Annex A, 10 November 1948, Top Secret, CAB 129/30/24, UKNA.

93 C[abinet] M[inutes] (48) 67th conclusions, minute 3—Confidential Annex, in ‘Agenda: 3. Commonwealth Relations—Constitutional Developments in India and Eire’, 28 October 1948, Top Secret, CAB 128/14/3, UKNA, p. 9.

94 ‘Note of discussion in Dr. Evatt's room, Palais de Chaillot, Paris, at 6 P.M on Wednesday, 17th November 1948’, in Attlee, Memorandum, ‘India's Relations with the Commonwealth’, Annex B, CAB 129/31/16, UKNA.

95 Gopal, Nehru, Vol. 2, p. 52; Michael Brecher, ‘India's Decision to Remain in the Commonwealth’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 12, no. 1 (1974), p. 77.

96 ‘Note to Foreign Secretary’, 29 May 1951, SWJN, 2nd series, Vol. 16, Part I, p. 522.

97 Zamindar, The Long Partition; Taylor C. Sherman, ‘Migration, Citizenship and Belonging in Hyderabad (Deccan), 1948–1956’, Modern Asian Studies 45, no. 1 (2011), pp. 81–107.

98 Times of India, 25 August 1949, p. 7; 7 July 1950, p. 5.

99 Ibid., 19 June 1947, p. 5.

100 Ibid.

101 Ibid.

102 Ibid., 24 June 1947, p. 7.

103 Ibid., 1 March 1948, p. 6.

104 Ibid., 24 June 1947, p. 7.

105 Ibid., 1 March 1948, p. 6.

106 Ibid., 12 July 1947, p. 10.

107 Ibid., 11 May 1956, p. 11.

108 Ibid., 9 August 1958, p. 6.

109 Ibid., 14 November 1959, p. 10.

110 Ibid., 15 November 1950, p. 7.

111 Ibid., 11 September 1948, p. 8.

112 Ibid., 2 September 1950, p. 10.

113 Ibid., 25 August 1949, p. 7.

114 Ibid., 7 November 1952, p. 1.

115 Note by Subimal Dutt, Commonwealth Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, 23 May 1954, Ministry of External Affairs (henceforth: MEA), C/54/6472/5, NAI.

116 C. C. Desai, High Commissioner for India in Ceylon to Subimal Dutt, Commonwealth Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, 21 September 1954, MEA, C/54/6472/5, NAI.

117 Subimal Dutt to C. C. Desai, 28 September 1954, MEA, C/54/6472/5, NAI.

118 Times of India, 19 April 1953, p. 14.

119 C. C. Desai, to Subimal Dutt, 21 September 1954, MEA, C/54/6472/5, NAI.

120 Times of India, 19 April 1953, p. 14.

121 Times of India, 14 February 1954, pp. 1 and 9.

122 Ibid., 12 March 1955, p. 7.

123 Ibid., 2 August 1967, p. 9.

124 ‘Colonisation of Nicobars—proposal to settle Ceylon repatriates’, Ministry of Home Affairs, 8/9/59-ANL, 1959, NAI.

125 Times of India, 15 May 1948, p. 9.

126 Ibid., 28 December 1947, p. 1.

127 Ibid., 20 April 1954, p. 5.

128 To K. P. Kesava Menon, 6 June 1952, SWJN, 2nd series, Vol. 18, p. 510.

129 Cable to K. P. Kesava Menon, 3 June 1952, SWJN, 2nd series, Vol. 18, p. 507.

130 Times of India, 29 September 1947, p. 10.

131 Ibid., 20 April 1952, p. 10.

132 Ibid., 3 May 1952, p. 1.

133 Ibid., 11 November 1952, p. 1.

134 C. Kondapi, Indians Overseas, 1838–1949 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1951); Editorial, Times of India, 8 April 1952.

135 Times of India, 3 July 1949, p. 1.

136 Ibid., 24 June 1949, p. 7.

137 Ibid.

138 For the full story on the Nakarattar Chettiars, see Mazumder, ‘Constructing the Indian Immigrant’.

139 Times of India, 25 October 1948, p. 4.

140 Ibid., 9 June 1950, p. 1.

141 Ibid., 26 July 1950, p. 7.

142 Ibid., 10 September 1953, p. 3.

143 Lok Sabha Debates (Third Series), Vol. xxx, no. 60, 28 April 1964 (New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat, 1964), pp. 13181–13182.

144 Ibid., pp. 13184–13185.

145 Ibid., p. 13187.

146 Ibid., p. 13188.

147 Times of India, 10 May 1964, p. 7.

148 Ibid., 21 May 1964, p. 7.

149 Ibid., 2 August 1964.

150 Ibid., 15 June 1953, p. 1.

151 Ibid., 8 January 1954, p. 3.

152 For example, Aiyar, Indians in Kenya, Chapter 3.

153 Ian Patel, We're Here Because You Were There: Immigration and the End of Empire (London: Verso, 2021), p. 224. The authors are grateful to Ian for giving us an advance sight of this manuscript.

154 Cosemans, Sara, ‘The Politics of Dispersal: Turning Ugandan Colonial Subjects into Postcolonial Refugees (1967–76)’, Migration Studies 6, no. 1 (2018), pp. 99–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

155 Times of India, 3 August 1949, p. 5.