By Atamjit Singh
It was a memorable visit to Winnipeg last month. I was amazed to see the magnificent building and the information provided inside the Canadian Human Rights Museum that was created a few years back. It’s first museum of its type in world that speaks volumes of the courage of a country that recognises the violations of human rights committed by her in the past and yet creates such an institution which houses the history of Human Rights protagonists from all over the globe. It is a huge house of information on the heroes spread over the Millenniums in time and whole of the globe in space. You can even see an impressive entry of the recent hero Malala from Pakistan. There also is a statue of Mahatma Gandhi outside the main entrance and his relevant mention inside the Museum. The designer of the imposing building from US had some other ideas in his mind but,to me,it appeared as showing the cuddle of so many people that culminates into a torch-like structure which signifies the awakening of human values. The building is at once impressive and meaningful; and like any great creative work this design also has multiple meanings. I am thankful to my friend Comrade Gurdeep who spared a full day for this visit.
The special attraction for the Indians in general and Punjabis in particular is the episode of KomagataMaru. One can see this entry alongwith a wonderful video created onepic dimensions. But its description dubs this voyage as illegal quite obviously. It reads:
“The travellers knew that Canadian law at that time excluded Asian immigration, but they were determined to challenge this legislation. Their challenge, however, was unsuccessful.”
There are few related areas that need exploration. Is this description commensurate with the apology, otherwise a great ethical act, tendered by Justin Trudeau on the floor of Canadian parliament ? He had said:“Canada cannot solely be blamed for every tragic mistake that occurred with the KomagataMaru and its passengers. But Canada’s government was, without question, responsible for the laws that prevented these passengers from immigrating peacefully and securely. For that, and for every regrettable consequence that followed, we are sorry.”And Trudeau got a standing ovation in the chamber. Even before this declaration on the floor he had declared elsewhere, “We failed them utterly, as a nation, we should never forget the prejudice suffered by the Sikh community at the hands of the Canadian government of the day.”
Moreover a detailed study of the case of KomagataMaruvoices that it isnot easy to term this voyage as illegal. Here are a few arguments that are based on books by Malwinder Singh Waraich, Gurdev Singh Sidhu and the documents of criminal proceedings of year 1922 against Baba Gurdit Singh:
1) If the British Govt. had some clear cut law to term such a voyage as illegal, the ship should not have been allowed to leave the shores from Hong Kong.
2) 39 travellers of the Panama Maruwere legally admitted to Canada at the same port a few months before the arrival of KomagataMaru. It was achieved through an order of court of law with the help of lawyer J E Bird. This landing also added to the confusion of the situation regarding the racial laws. The architect of the legal admission of these 39 passengers BhaiBhagwan Singh, who was forcibly thrown out of Canada,is reported to have spoken to the travellers of KomagataMaru. It is said that the story of Chief Justice Hunter’s judgment in Victoria, B.C., about the release of 39 Asian Indians was on everybody’s lips.
3) The owners of the rented ship were fully aware that the vessel is meant to go to Vancouver and the purpose of the journey is business.
4) The Governor of Hong Kong F H May wrote to the colonial office on April 4, 1914:
“…that on 31st Ultimo I telegraphed to the G. G. of Dominion of Canada enquiring whether these Indian immigrants who were not travelling on through tickets from India would be allowed to land in Canada. On 2nd instant I telegraphed again asking for an immediate reply and on 6th instant I telegraphed that I had been unable to detain the vessel any longer and that she had sailed for Vancouver on the 4th instant…..The vessel was to have sailed on 28th ultimo and she was purposely delayed by my directions by delaying her survey for passenger certificate and subsequently by my refusing to sign the passenger certificate. I was advised, however, that I had no legal authority to refuse a passenger certificate under ordinance 1.1889 or a clearance under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. I was also advised that the emigration ordinance as it stands does not apply on Indians.”
5) The testimony of Baba Gurdit Singh reveals that this passenger certificate was signed by one Mr.Severn, who was the Chief Secretary for the Governor of Hong Kong and was known to BabaGurdit Singh while he was in Malaya. Severn told Singh that he had been waiting instructions from England and Canada, which never arrived.
6) There were certain categories of people who couldn’t have been included even in the saiddraconian law of direct journey. For example this was not applicable on the preachers, merchants, students, tourists and Government employees. As per the statements of the Baba, the chief organiser of the voyage, there were at least 50 such passengers who were qualified to be admitted even according to the latest laws which were amended to keep KomagataMaru away from the shore.
7) There is nothing to explain that why Raghunath Singh, his wife and child were allowed even when they were not covered in any of the permissible categories. The only reasonwas that, per Gurdit Singh, he was an informer of Hopkinson and was spying against the passengers.
8) Gurdit Singh himself was a merchant, hence a qualified passenger,and he was not allowed to enter Canada. It was against the law.
9) If Gurdit Singh was a culprit why he was not arrested and put on a trial?
10) M C Cresson and Harper of Vancouver refused Baba to take up this case as it was no more a legal battle, “ It seems to us that this is a question of diplomacy rather than law and we don’t feel that we could conscientiously enter upon a legal fight under these circumstances notwithstanding the fact that you have offered a very generous retainer.”But on the other hand when Gurdit Singh had sought the opinion of three foremost Counsels of Hong Kong ( C D Williamson, E J Grit and C E H Davis) they clearly wrote, “Referring to your interview with us this afternoon when you enquired whether there were any restriction upon Indians who wish to travel to Vancouver, so far as this colony is concerned, we have to advise you that in our opinion there are no restrictions upon the immigration by Indians from the Colony unless they are under contract of service ( and the intending passengers were under no contract of service).”
It is enough to prove that on the issues of legal position the Govt. machinery was more unlawful than the passengers. Keeping in view all these details and the great heroic act of Justin Trudeau of tendering his apology in no uncertain terms, the description of Komagata Maru incident deserves a decent modification.