Papers of the Mesopotamian Administration (later Middle East) Committee [‎7r] (13/80)

2
s
- THD regarded the question of immigration as one
standing rathor "by itself, and thought that it‘should form the
^ subject of a separate tolograrc* For his part, ho did not at
present contemplato admitting oithor settlers or traders.
SIR A.ELRTZEL thought that this, possibly, was tho view of
Sir ?orcy Oox, v/ho had lx. do no comment on this paragraph.
KR.CH/i.MB3HIAIH pointed out that Indian troops had been very
largely used in conquering tho territory under discussion, and this
constituted a strong argument for admitting Indians in a limited
degree to those territories.
THU 0E..I?i,'AIJ thought they should, not be permitted to go
beyond Basrah. The whole matter, in his opinion, wanted clearing
up further.
I!R 0 CILHIB'CRLnliJ agreed that ft rush of Indians to the occupied
territories would bo most undesirable.
TUB CBAIHII/EJ said there wore two periods to consider, the
period of military occupation and tho subsequent period. They
must differentiate between them and must ascertain the views of
tho Government of India in regard‘to those two periods. Again,
in regard to tho question of land, they did not know what was
in the mind of the Indian Government.
d/
Sir TK01.IAS HOLDEHlJnSS thought that the Indian Government'
t n mind restrictions similar to those imposed in Rhodesia,
had
East Africa and elsewhere• India, ho
object strongly if they were told that
from Irak.
was mm*** certain, would
Indians r. r ere to be excluded
HR.CIRJ.tBEHIAIH suggested that India should be told thi
at present all immigration was considered undesirable.
the
TUB CH/xIRH/iH agreed, so long as they were not left with
impression that later there would be unrestricted immigration.
HR.OHAKBERIAIH pointed out that India had no free ingress
the anywhere. German East Africa had, as a matter of fact, welcomed
future Indians, but/that country was mm mk act ^ig-r. India
of/ could not be excluded everywhere. now question.
THE CHAIRMAN said his objection was to the phrase free
immigration, and reminded the Committee that their poliicy had
been to press for Ara.b administration. In his opinion it would
be better to saj 7 that the question did net arise at the moment
and that the case must not be prejudged now. Considerations
arising later must be regarded in the light of the form of the
administration it was decided to adopt.
Sir RONALD GliAHRlvt said that this was precisoly the viewr
taken by the Foreign Office.
MR.CHAMBERIMIN thought that there must be a lend settlement,
and he was opposed to lotting any irresponsible squatters in,
but ho enquired whether an Indian was to be disqualified as a
purchaser of land or as & shopkeeper.
Sir HENRY McIXMIOH cited the case of Baluchistan, where it
was open to anybody to buy land, but nO alien or non-resident
might purchase land without permission, which, in point of fact,
was seldom accorded. The lawvyvos t hat t he Arab had a right
of pre-emption ovor the non-ArabsTq gA^waT )
Sir THOMAS H0LDBRITES3 said that it was tho same_ in the
Punjab, whore there was a discrimination against ^jan«ii&ss?$Qt353ES.
persons who did not belong to one of the recognised agricultural
classes.