labour

British Shipping (Assistance) Act (1935)

Date: 
01 Jan 1935
Precise date unknown: 
Y
About: 

The British Shipping (Assistance) Act of 1935 aimed to subsidize the British shipping industry in the context of the economic depression of the 1930s. While one of its purposes was to safeguard seamen’s jobs, it did so only for white British seamen, thus discriminating on the grounds of race. One of the requirements for payment of the subsidy was that the ship employed only ‘British seamen’. Thus, in the wake of the Act, many ship-owners sacked all but their white employees, and numerous Indian lascars found themselves suddenly without employment.

This discriminatory Act was met with considerable resistance. The Colonial Seamen’s Association, which brought South Asian seamen together with their black, Arab and Chinese counterparts, was formed in reaction to the Act, in order to better mobilize against it. They held numerous meetings in which the Act was denounced. In May 1935, Shapurji Saklatvala gave a speech decrying the Act at the Coloured National Mutual Social Club in South Shields. Opposition to the Act was also voiced in India where there were even threats of retaliation against white workers there. With protest against the Act coming from the India Office and Colonial Office as well as the CSA and other organizations, the discrimination was removed in March 1936.

People involved: 

Surat Alley (secretary of the Colonial Seamen’s Association), Aftab Ali Chris Jones (Braithewaite) (led the Colonial Seamen’s Association), George PadmoreShapurji Saklatvala (spoke out against Act),  Rowland Sawyer.

Secondary works: 

Tabili, Laura, ‘We Ask for British Justice’: Workers and Racial Difference in Late Imperial Britain (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1994)

Visram, Rozina, Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History (London: Pluto Press, 2002)

Archive source: 

MT 9/2737, National Archives, Kew

L/E/9/955, India Office Records, Asian and African Studies Reading Room, British Library, St Pancras

Special Restriction (Coloured Alien Seamen) Order (1925)

Date: 
18 Mar 1925
Event location: 

The Order was originally carried into effect in the port areas of Glamorgan, Cardiff, Newport, Swansea, Carmarthenshire, Liverpool, Salford, Newcastle-on-Tyne, South Shields, Middlesbrough and Hull. In January 1926, it was extended throughout Britain.

About: 

The Special Restriction (Coloured Alien Seamen's) Order is described by Laura Tabili as 'the first instance of state-sanctioned race discrimination inside Britain to come to widespread notice' (p. 56). The work of the Home Office Aliens Department, the Order was issued under Article II of the Aliens Order of 1920 and stated that 'coloured' seamen who did not possess documentary proof of their status as British must register as 'aliens' in Britain 'whether or not they have been in the United Kingdom for more than two months'. Police were to apprehend 'coloured' men disembarking from ships and report them to the police if they failed to show their documentation. In practice, it was not easy for 'coloured' seamen to prove that they were British subjects because sailors were not required to carry passports and, unlike those of their white counterparts, 'coloured' seamen's discharge certificates were not considered proof of their nationality because of allegations of trafficking in these papers.

Reasons for the issue of the Order are various and debated. In a letter dated 14 August 1926, the Under-Secretary of State cites the demands made at the end of the First World War by the National Sailor and Fireman's Union that 'steps should be taken to restrict the admission to this country of coloured seamen who could not establish that they were British subjects, since they competed in the overstocked labour market for seamen and were a source of grave discontent among British sailors', and claims that the accumulation of 'coloured seamen' in certain ports 'was a continual source of irritation and...likely to lead to a breach of the peace' (HO 45/12314). However, by the mid-1920s, employment in the shipping industry was beginning to pick up, which calls these reasons into question. Further, historians have recently questioned the role of the Union in pushing forward this piece of legislation, arguing that it was the state that played a more significant role.

State officials, determined to deport 'coloured' seamen, interpreted and enforced the rules rigidly, depriving these men of their citizenship. The India Office and Colonial Office received numerous protests from seamen who claimed that police were using the order to target men who were obviously British subjects. Further, officials erroneously applied the rules to non-seamen, for example registering 63 Glasgow-based Indians, most of whom worked as peddlers and labourers, as 'aliens'. Indians in Liverpool protested in the form of a public rally and through founding the Indian Seamen's Union, led by N. J. Upadhyaya. The India Office, fearful of the public outcry triggered by the Order in India, reprimanded the Home Office, even suggesting that all Indians should be issued with passports - a suggestion that was not received favourably by the Home Office. Finally, it was agreed that Indian seamen registered as 'aliens' could apply to the Home Office to have their British nationality verified. They would then be issued with a Special Certificate of Identity and Nationality which would enable their registration to be cancelled. The Order was finally revoked in 1942.

People involved: 

P. S. R. Chowdhury (Secretary of the Glasgow Indian Union which contested the registration of the 63 Glasgow-based Indians), Home Secretary Joynson-Hicks (passed the Order), N. J. Upadhyaya (founded the Indian Seamen's Union as a result of the Order).

Secondary works: 

Lane, Tony, 'The Political Imperatives of Bureaucracy and Empire: The Case of the Coloured Alien Seamen Order, 1925', Immigrants and Minorities 13.2-3 (July/November 1994), pp. 104-29

Little, Kenneth, Negroes in Britain: A Study of Racial Relations in English Society (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, [1948] 1972)

Rich, Paul B., Race and Empire in British Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 122–30

Sherwood, Marika, ‘Race, Nationality and Employment among Lascar Seamen, 1660–1945’, New Community 17.2 (January 1991), pp. 234–5

Tabili, Laura, ‘The Construction of Racial Difference in Twentieth-Century Britain: The Special Restriction (Coloured Alien Seamen) Order, 1925’, Journal of British Studies 33 (January 1994), pp. 54–98

Tabili, Laura, ‘We Ask for British Justice’: Workers and Racial Difference in Late Imperial Britain (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1994)

Visram, Rozina, Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History (London: Pluto, 2002)

Example: 

Letter from the Under-Secretary of State to the Chief Constables of scheduled areas, 23 March 1925, HO 45/12314, National Archives, Kew

Content: 

The file contains correspondence and reports by state and police officials relating to the Special Restriction (Coloured Alien Seamen's) Order, 1925.

Extract: 

I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that he has recently had under consideration measures to facilitate the control of coloured alien seamen at present in this country and to prevent more effectively the entry of others into the United Kingdom without proper authority; and he has come to the conclusion that in order to deal with the problem presented by these aliens – particularly those of them who are ‘Arabs’ – it is necessary that they should be required to register in all cases, including those where the alien has hitherto been exempt under Article 6(5) of the Aliens Order, 1920, by reason of the fact that less than two months has elapsed since his last arrival in the United Kingdom or that he is not resident in the United Kingdom.

…The difficulties [of the present situation] arise mainly from the fact that the racial resemblance between many coloured seamen is such that there is no satisfactory means of identifying individuals; and the primary object which the Secretary of State has in view is to remedy this deficiency by requiring every coloured seamen…unless he is able to show that he is a British subject, to provide himself immediately with a document by which he can be readily identified and on which his entry into the United Kingdom (if duly authorised by grant of leave to land) can be recorded.

Relevance: 

The language used in this passage - in particular the words 'control' and 'aliens' - is indicative of the perceived threat posed by 'coloured' seamen to the nation. The vagueness of the words 'problem' and 'difficulties' is suggestive of the concealment of some of the unmentionable reasons for the entrenchment of barriers to these sailors' entry into Britain (i. e., racism) - which are however hinted at with the mention of the 'racial resemblance' of the seamen. In general, the passage is illustrative of the strategies of control used in an attempt to maintain the racial and cultural homogeneity of Britain - and also of the failure of this.

Archive source: 

HO 45/12314, National Archives, Kew

1919 Race Riots

Date: 
01 Jan 1919
Precise date unknown: 
Y
End date: 
01 Aug 1919
Precise end date unknown: 
Y
Event location: 

London, Glasgow, Liverpool, Cardiff, Salford, Hull, South Shields, Newport, Barry.

About: 

In the wake of the First World War and demobilization, the surplus of labour led to dissatisfaction among Britain’s workers, in particular seamen. This was arguably the key factor that led to the outbreak of rioting between white and minority workers in Britain’s major seaports, from January to August 1919. Along with African, Afro-Caribbean, Chinese and Arab sailors, South Asians were targeted because of the highly competitive nature of the job market and the perception that these minorities were ‘stealing’ the jobs that should belong to white indigenous British workers. The housing shortage due to a lack of materials and labour during the war exacerbated the situation. The issue of ‘aliens’ taking jobs and houses from white workers was raised in the House of Commons. Further, as Indian seamen were hired at a considerably lower rate than their white counterparts and had to tolerate much poor working and living conditions, they were blamed by unions for undercutting the wages of white workers. Of course, racism, and specifically the fear of miscegenation, also motivated the hostility towards these settlers.

During the months of racially motivated violence in 1919 there were violent attacks on minority workers, resulting in five fatalities, as well as vandalization of their homes and properties. South Asians suffered somewhat less than black or Chinese workers as they were not regarded as such direct competition for jobs and housing; most remained within the navy and within their subsidized accommodation rather than seeking alternative employment and accommodation. However, a number of incidents involving South Asians have been traced. In May 1919, the Strangers’ Home for Asiatic Seamen in West India Dock Road was surrounded by a hostile crowd and ‘any coloured man who appeared was greeted with abuse and had to be escorted by the police. It was necessary at times to bar the doors of the Home’ (The Times, 30 May 1919). Newspapers of the time also report the devastation of a Malay boarding house and the shop of one Abdul Satar in Cardiff (Visram, p. 199).

Secondary works: 

Evans, Neil, ‘The South Wales Race Riots of 1919’, Llafur 3 (1980), pp. 5-29

Jenkinson, Jacqueline, Black 1919: Riots, Racism and Resistance in Imperial Britain (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009)

May, Roy and Cohen, Robin, ‘The Interaction between Race and Colonialism: A Case Study of the Liverpool Race Riots of 1919’, Race and Class XVI.2 (1974), pp. 111-26

Visram, Rozina, Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History (London: Pluto, 2002)

Example: 

East End News, 22 April 1919, p. 2

Content: 

This is an extract from an East End News report of a racial incident preceding the major outbreak of rioting. The article reports an attack by white men on an Arab restaurant that was frequented by white women.

Extract: 

There has been some friction between the Arabs and some English girls visiting an Arab eating house in Cable Street. On Wednesday a number of ex-soldiers entered the eating-house and soon afterwards revolver shots were fired. A general fight followed in which revolvers, knives and bottles were used. A large and hostile crowd gathered outside the restaurant and were very menacing in their attitude towards the coloured men inside. A large number of policemen arrived, but were unable for some time to gain admission. After the fight had been in progress for some time however, they managed to get the wounded men and their prisoners away.

Relevance: 

This extract illuminates the fear of black male sexuality and particularly miscegenation on the part of normative British culture in this period, and the way in which this fear contributed to the hostility and violence experienced by minority workers. While the focus here is on an attack on an Arab restaurant, similar concerns shaped the public response to Indian as well as African men.

Archive source: 

Local newspapers held at local libraries or at the British Library Newspaper Collection, Colindale, London

Indian Seamen's Welfare League

About: 

The Indian Seamen’s Welfare League offered membership to all Indian seamen resident in Britain on the payment of an annual subscription of one shilling. Its main aim was ‘to look after the economic, social and cultural interests of Indian seamen, to provide them with recreation in Great Britain and to communicate with their relatives in India in the event of any misfortunes befalling them’ (L/PJ/12/630, p. 140). Inaugurated by the former seamen Ayub Ali and Shah Abdul Majid Qureshi, it held its first meeting on Commercial Road in July 1943. This attracted approximately 100 people, including a dozen Europeans among the Bengali seamen who made up the bulk of the audience.

The organization described itself as social rather than political. Indeed it changed its name from the Indian Seamen’s Union precisely because it feared the political connotations of the word ‘union’ would alienate ship owners and attract the attention of the police. However, records of meetings suggest that there were tensions between those who espoused this non-political position and those who considered the concerns of the organization to be inextricable from an anti-colonial politics. Further, surveillance reports warn that the organization attempted to dissuade Indian seamen from risking their lives bringing food to Britain when the Government was responsible for famine in India, and that its ‘extreme elements’ wished thereby to sabotage the war effort.

Example: 

L/PJ/12/630, India Office Records, Asian and African Studies Reading Room, British Library, St Pancras, pp. 141-2

Other names: 

Indian Seamen’s Union

Secondary works: 

Adams, Caroline (ed.) Across Seven Seas and Thirteen Rivers (London: THAP, 1987)

Visram, Rozina, Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History (London: Pluto, 2002)

Content: 

This Indian Political Intelligence file, titled ‘Indian Seamen: Unrest and Welfare’, includes numerous government surveillance and police reports on the activities of lascars in Britain in the 1930s and 1940s, focusing in particular on their strikes and other forms of activism against their pay and conditions.

Date began: 
09 May 1943
Extract: 

These four speakers made it plain that Indians joined the Merchant Navy, not from any desire to assist this country’s war effort, but were driven to it for economic reasons – empty stomachs and hungry relatives made them undertake this dangerous work. According to them, so long as India remained under foreign domination, any organisation set up for the protection of the rights of Indian seamen had to be prepared to fight against the deliberate attempt to exploit them.

N. Datta MAJUMDAR…complained bitterly that there was no complete list of Indian seamen lost at sea and of the utter disregard for their dependents and relatives. The crux of the whole problem was that India was under foreign domination and while this continued, the British Government would treat its subject Indian seamen and their dependents with such callousness. This state of affairs had to be remedied, and it devolved on the Welfare League to probe the Government and demand immediate redress.

Homi BODE complained that the position of the average Indian seamen was disgraceful, and it was hypocracy (stet.) to say that an organisation aiming to remedy their grievances could be non-political.

Key Individuals' Details: 

Ajman Ali (assistant secretary), Ayub Ali (co-founder, secretary and treasurer), Masharaf Ali (vice-president), Rashid Ali (assistant secretary), Surat Alley (on executive committee), Tarapada Basu (on executive committee), Mrs Haidri Bhattacharji (on executive committee), B. B. Ray Chaudhuri (on executive committee), Abdul Hamid (participated in inaugural meeting), N. Datta Majumdar (on executive committee), M. A. Mullick (on executive committee), Shah Abdul Majid Qureshi (co-founder and president), Said Amir Shah (on executive committee) C. B. Vakil (on executive committee).

Relevance: 

This extract is from a report on the inaugural meeting of the Indian Seamen’s Welfare League held on 7 July 1943. The four speakers referred to here are C. B. Vakil and B. B. Ray Chaudhuri in addition to Majumdar and Bose. All served on the executive committee of the organization. The extract underlines the plight of working-class Indians in Britain and the way they were silently sacrificed in the ‘war effort’, as well as the impossibility of extricating concerns with the welfare of Indians in Britain from a wider anti-colonial politics and the links between a local (i.e., East End) and transnational politics. The League is further evidence of the strong sense of community developing among East End Indians in the 1940s, as well as their ability to mobilize for their rights as minority workers in Britain. Further, the presence of the middle-class Chaudhuri and Vakil on the executive committee of a workers’ organization suggest that South Asian activity and activism in Britain did transgress boundaries of class to some extent.

Connections: 

Homi Bode (attended inaugural meeting), Kundan Lal Jalie (claimed he was the originator of the organization), V. K. Krishna Menon (disapproved of the organization because he believed it would clash with the India-based Indian Seamen’s Union), John Kartar Singh (attended inaugural meeting). 

Archive source: 

L/PJ/12/630, India Office Records, Asian and African Studies Reading Room, British Library, St Pancras

L/PJ/12/646, India Office Records, Asian and African Studies Reading Room, British Library, St Pancras

Location

66 Christian Street
London, E1 1RT
United Kingdom
Involved in events details: 

Inaugural meeting, King’s Hall, Commercial Road, E1, 14 July 1943

Subscribe to RSS - labour