{
  "bookName": "History of Christianity in India: Source Materials",
  "authorName": "M. K. Kuriakose",
  "publisherName": "Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge",
  "publicationYear": 2011,
  "chapterNumber": 172,
  "chapterName": "1932-1933. S. K. Dutta’s Presidential Address to the All-India Conference of Indian Christians with Special References to Communal Electorates",
  "pageFrom": 351,
  "pageTo": 356,
  "pages": [
    {
      "pageNumber": 351,
      "ocrText": "SOURCE MATERIALS\n351\n7. God wills unity. Jesus Christ prayed for unity. The\nHoly Spirit urges us to unity. The Conference, therefore, con-\ncludes these resolutions by calling once more upon all Churches\nthat constant prayer be made for the consummation of His purpose\nin and through all negotiations for Church Union in India.\n172. S. K. DUTTA'S PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS\nTO THE ALL-INDIA CONFERENCE OF INDIAN\nCHRISTIANS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCES TO\nCOMMUNAL ELECTORATES (1932-33 A.D.)\nS. K. Dutta was a prominent Indian Christian nationalist.\nIn\nhis Presidential Address to the eighteenth session of the A.I.C.I.C.\nat Nagpur, he reviews current constitutional developments in the\ncountry and opposes the Government policy of dividing constituencies\non a communal basis. His arguments had considerable influence upon\nIndian Christian thinking on this subject. Report of the XVIII Annual\nSession of the All-India Conference of Indian Christians, Nagpur, 31st\nDec. 1932 & 1st January, 1933, pp. 7-13.\nA decade has gone by since the last occasion when I had the\nprivilege of addressing you in my capacity as President of the\nAll-India Conference of Indian Christians. At Lucknow, in 1922,\nit was my lot to make a pronouncement on your behalf on matters\nthat affected the interest of our community. Once again you have\nentrusted me with this responsibility, and I would at the very outset\nexpress to my constitutents throughout India my thanks for the\ngreat honour they have done me in inviting me to be their President.\nYour election of me to this office gives me at this time particular\ngratification, for I accept it as an endorsement by the community\nof the representation I exercised on their behalf at the second\nsession of the Round Table Conference.\nTen years is a long span in the history of India. For these\nyears have been filled with our strivings and demands, with objec-\ntives, some of which have been attained, and others have receded.\nThere has been victory and defeat, success and failure. But all\nthrough these years, as we now reflect upon them, there are signs\nthat our people have at last awakened to the importance of the\nissues which to-day are in the progress of settlement.\nIn order to be concrete and definite, I shall attempt to address\nthis gathering on certain aspects of our problems which affect\nus as a community. I shall speak first of our relationship with the\nGovernment; second, our relationship with other communities;\nthird, our relationship with the Catholics; and fourth our relation-\nship with ourselves.",
      "status": "completed"
    },
    {
      "pageNumber": 352,
      "ocrText": "352\nHISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA\n1. Our Relationship with the Government\nThe country for the space of some years has now embarked on\nthe intriguing problem of drafting a political constitution for India.\nIn this effort our community too has taken some little share and the\nGovernment, at any rate, at certain stages, has been willing to\nconsult us either directly or through our organisations, or through\nindividuals. At times it has definitely asked for our representation\non certain important matters. Thus our organisation gave evi-\ndence before the Simon Commission. Subsequently some of\nour leaders definitely presented Memoranda to the Franchise\nCommittee.\nAt the time of the first Round Table Conference, Mr. K. T. Paul,\nwho had held office in our organisation, was nominated to represent\nour community. After his lamented death I was thus nominated\nand represented the Indian Christian Association at the second\nRound Table Conference. Subsequently His Majesty's Govern-\nment, in consultation with the Government of India, after the\nclose of the second Round Table Conference appointed a Contin-\nuation Committee as well as a Franchise Committee. The official\ndesignation of the former was the Consultative Committee. Now\non both these committees our community was left unrepresented,\nthough every other community with the exception of the Anglo-\nIndian (a community of not more than two hundred thousand souls)\nwere actually represented. Whether this omission was inten-\ntional or whether the Government felt that no good purpose would\nbe served by the inclusion of representatives of the Indian Chris-\ntian community, ty, I think that, in view of this omission, we are\njustified in our attitude as regards the conclusions of these Commit-\ntees, that we are not bound to accept their recommendations.\nThe Consultative Committee for example recommended that His\nMajesty's Government should undertake the responsibility for a\ncommunal settlement. We were not a party to that request, and I\nwould like to say immediately that we repudiate the Prime\nMinister's Award as far as it applies to Indian Christians, for com-\nmunally speaking, our interests have been sacrificed to placate other\ncommunities. Take for example the most glaring instance of the\nposition of the Christian community in the Madras Presidency\nunder the terms of the Award. Under the Montague Reforms,\nthe Christians of the Madras Presidency received five seats in the\nMadras Legislature, whereas the Moslems had 13 seats accorded\nto them. This proportion had some relationship to the compara-\ntive population figures of the Muslim and Christian communities,\nbut under the Prime Minister's Award, however, the Madras\nChristians will receive 9 seats, and the Muslims 29 seats. While\nwe have no right whatsoever to disturb the extraordinary weightage",
      "status": "completed"
    },
    {
      "pageNumber": 353,
      "ocrText": "SOURCE MATERIALS\n353\ngiven to the Muslim community, yet we cannot allow to pass with-\nout protest the subordinate position as a minority to which our\ncommunity is now relegated. But But our position is still worse when\nit comes to the claims of the Anglo-Indian Indian and European com-\nmunities. In the Central Provinces, the 4,000 Europeans and the\n6,000 Anglo-Indians receive at least one seat. The claims of\n45,000 Indian Christians are dismissed in a few words, i.e., that the\ncommunity is a scattered one, and it is difficult therefore to form it\ninto a constituency.\nThe Third Session of the Round Table Conference was marked\nby the complete elimination of all Indian Christian representatives\nthough it included the redoubtable representative of so minor a\ncommunity as the Anglo-Indian. Here I tread on ground which\nis naturally very delicate. A certain section of the press is always\nready to attribute base motives to Indians in public life with whom\nthey happen politically to disagree; such organs will readily say\nthat we are soured by our experience just because we were not\nincluded in the final delegation to the Round Table Conference.\nWhatever motives may be attributed, the fact remains that\nthe claims of the Indian Christian community were completely\noverlooked by the Government. Even though as has been alleged\nîn certain quarters that I was personally unrepresentative of the\nIndian Christian community, but what was there against my senior\ncolleague, Rao Bahadur Pannirselvam, who has twice represented\nthe majority section of the Indian Christian community and who\nwas a signatory to the Minorities Pact in such good and unquestion-\nable company as His Highness the Aga Khan, Col. Sir Henry\nGidney, Dr. Ambedkar and Sir Hubert Carr. Why was the Rao\nBahadur's name omitted from such an unimpeachable list? All\nthe others found their way to the third and we hope the last Round\nTable Conference, but his name was omitted.\nThat the Indian Christian community and only that community\nwas singled out for omission from representation at the Round\nTable Conference has proved a disillusioning experience to those\nof our number who have looked to the present Government for\nthe protection of its interests.\nSome members of our community, and they are not unsub-\nstantial in number, have demanded separate electorates as a device\nfor protection. Their deputation have awaited from time to time\non Governors asking for the recognition of their claims. In these\nefforts a certain amount of quite natural self-advertisement is\ndiscernible, but on the other hand we have not shown any capacity\nto demand effectively that our rights are recognized. Jobs and\nseats have been the tunes we have played, but neither the Govern-\nment nor other communities have danced to our tunes. It is\nH.C.IL.-23",
      "status": "completed"
    },
    {
      "pageNumber": 354,
      "ocrText": "354\nHISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA\nhumiliating to realise that our efforts have been more or less in\nvain and will continue to be in vain unless we show our capacity\nto assert ourselves. The device of separate electorates without\nsome force at the command of the community is of no use whatso-\never in obtaining for us either protection or the satisfaction of our\nclaims.\n2. Our Relationship with other Communities\nDuring the year very substantial advances have been made\ntowards an understanding with other communities, but in this.\nconnection it will be necessary to use plain words, to indicate the\nconcrete objectives to which your leaders have applied themselves..\nFirst, so far as the electors from the Hindu community, who now\nwill be veiled under the term of the General Constituency, is con--\ncerned, we have been asked to throw in our lot with them. We\nwould, in other words, become a portion of the Hindu Constituency..\nNaturally a proposal such as this which alienates our community\nfrom the Muslim community in the Punjab and in Bengal must\ngive us a certain amount of trepidation. The General Constituen-\ncies in these Provinces, from which the Muslims and the Sikhs have\nbeen withdrawn, might exhibit the very communal tendency of a\nminority community. We could not expect anything otherwise.\nWhatever protestations to the contrary may be made we can rest\nassured that in such a constituency the Christian candidate and voter\nwill have little chance, for the simple reason that it will be\nimpossible for him to become a Hindu communalist. Our position\nfrom time to time has been made perfectly clear. We do not ask\nfor separation, but we do consider it necessary before we merge\nour identity into a larger group, that that group will be representa-\ntive of all Indian communities.\nWe have in our midst very substantial groups of Indian Christians\nwho have not yet been diverted from the lure of the pursuit of the\nseparate electorates. These groups are vocal, and indeed some--\ntimes, their importance has been exaggerated by the British press\nin this country. But yet most of us will admit that it was quite:\npossible by agitation and suggestion to get large masses of Indian\nChristians to declare their allegiance to the principle of the separate\nelectorate for the argument is based on what seems to be self-\ninterest. But on the other hand an increasing number of Indian\nChristians recognize the impossibility of erecting a National State\non the basis of the separate electorates, which in essence must\nresult in weakening India Indian unity generally.\nReaders of European history will remember the great struggle\nwhich took place between the people on the one hand and the\nCrown on the other with regard to the composition at the time of",
      "status": "completed"
    },
    {
      "pageNumber": 355,
      "ocrText": "SOURCE MATERIALS\n355\nthe French Revolution of the State's General Assembly. The\nCrown insisted that the Nobility, the Clergy, and the Third Estate\nshould be members of separate chambers, which would vote and\ndeliberate separately, thus nullifying the influence of a larger\nnationality. In other words it was open to each of these groups to\nhold up progress or to work for their own selfish ends. The third\nEstates fought the battle for unity for it realised that in this separa-\ntist arrangement, the Crown would play off one class group against\nthe other.\nWhen your Council received an invitation to be represented\nat the Unity Conference the invitation was accepted for it was\nclear to them that the only basis on which the communities could be\nbrought together would be by acceptance of the joint electorate\nwith reserved seats. Thus the two divergent points of view of the\nSeparatist and the Unity Groups could be harmonised. Indeed,\nour presence at the Unity Conference was in direct line with the\nwhole process of our development since 1922, when I had the\nhonour of presiding over your deliberations at Lucknow. These\nsucceeding ten years will have a significant place in the general\nhistory of our community. What then were the definite proposals\nthat we put forward and the demands which we asked the other\ncommunities to recognize? In the first place we desired in some\nway to restore the balance which the Prime Minister's Award had\noverthrown or even overlooked. We asked that within joint\nelectorates reservation should be made in the Madras Presidency\nof at least 12 seats for Indian Christians, as against 9 seats under\nthe Prime Minister's Award. We also asked that a seat should be\nreserved in the Central Provinces for Indian Christians. In the\nPunjab we asked for and ultimately our claim for a third seat was\nrecognized. The second set of objectives was to ensure that our com-\nmunity was safeguarded against the claims of other minorities which,\nif acceded to, would have meant that we would have been disquali-\nfied permanently in certain directions. The Sikhs of the Punjab\nhave insisted that they should be adequately represented in the\nCentral Legislature. The Moslems have already asked for 33% of\nseats, and their claim for 32½ per cent was conceded by the Unity\nConference on condition that they accepted joint electorates with\nreservation of seats. The Sikhs have demanded that in a house\nof 300, 4 per cent of the seats should be reserved for them, but no\nprovision had yet been made for Indian Christians. We have now\nasked for the reservation of 12 seats in the Central Legislature, and\nour claim has been recorded.\nWe have also felt that we must pursue our task still further. At\nthe Unity Conference we stated that as the Sikhs in the Punjab had\nclaimed that their community should be represented in the Cabinet,\nso in Madras a similar claim on behalf of Indian Christians was",
      "status": "completed"
    },
    {
      "pageNumber": 356,
      "ocrText": "356\nHISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY IN INDIA\nrecorded. In the Central Government we shall be compelled to\nfollow the example of the Sikhs and the Moslems to demand repre-\nsentation in the Federal Cabinet. In making these demands, we\nrealise fully that by pursuing these claims Unity will be difficult to\nachieve. Furthermore, the recognition of all these claims is bound\nto change the whole nature of our future Constitution. For\nexample the country may be compelled, if the Minorities insist on\ntheir alleged rights, to change the Cabinet into an extra Parlia-\nmentary body, very generally responsible to the Legislature but not\nin detail. Further it would have to be appointed for a term of\nyears, and could consult the communalised legislature only from\ntime to time which would exercise some further control over\nthe Budget and Legislation. You will then have a Cabinet not\nafter the British System, but rather like the American executive,\nwithout the periodical appeal to the nation at large.\nWe would announce once again to our countrymen that in the\nevent of the abandonment of these devices of protection by the\nmajority community and the largest minority community, we are\nwilling to take our place as citizens of the country. We are willing\nto work for a common Electoral Roll, open to all citizens, we are\nwilling to abandon all these makings of separate communities, for\nplaces of power and prestige. Indeed it is our interest to do so,\nfor our ambitions are greater than the narrow limits of our com-\nmunity. In the services for example, or in the Legislatures, we do\nnot desire our community to be marked with these percentages.\nIn a community such as ours, an open field is the best incentive,\nand in the long run will pay us best.\nIn our enumeration of the communities, we have omitted, so far,\nmention of the Anglo-Indian and the European communities of\nIndia. In one sense we are linked to them through the bonds of a\ncommon religion far more than to the other communities; but\nour vital connections with them are so flimsy that they may be\ndisregarded. The reasons are not far to seek, and they are inherent\nin the character of the British race. In the French and the Dutch.\ncolonies, the attachment of the European foreigners to the indi-\ngenous people who profess the Christian faith is far closer than in\nIndia. All Christians without distinction of race are usually\namalgamated into a general group, and placed under the same civil\nand electoral laws. The Europeans and Anglo-Indians in India in\nmatter of legislature representation have done extraordinarily\nwell for themselves. We are surprised however that the pure\ncommunalists on our side have not made larger demands on behalf\nof the Indian Christian community. Rao Bahadur Pannirselvam\ngave away the Indian Christian case when he became a signatory\nto the Minorities Pact in London. He accepted the permanent\ninferiority of the Indian Christians to the small but claimant groups\nof the Europeans and Anglo-Indians in this country.",
      "status": "completed"
    }
  ]
}