INDIANS SPEAK OUT

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 09, Issue 07, 18 September 1945, Page 5

INDIANS SPEAK OUT

LIQUOR ALLEGATIONS JREFUTED N.Z. ASSOCIATION EVIDENCE FEW MAORI ASSOCIATIONS In the course of his evidence .before the Commission of Investigation into the Liquor Trade, an interesting sidelight ■was afforded- by the evidence of Mr Unkabhai K. Dhanjee of president of the New Zealand Indian Association who f spoke for the seven branches of his*, organisation comprising 622 members or approximately 88 per cent of the entire Indian population of the Dominion. The. Association said, Mr Dhanjee Was gravely concerned at the suggestion that Indians should not be allowed to purchase liquor for consumption oil' licensed premises and following investigations voluntarily instituted the basis of the present report* was formerly composed. The Association regretted that evidence had shown that a number of Indians had supplied liquor to and that their operations had been detrimental to the Native race. The guilty persons however constituted only a very small minority of the Indians resident in New Zealand. Most Indians were domiciled in the cities and had little chance of contacting Maoris. In the 1936 census there were 292 Indians of mixed blood in New Zealand. Of these only 70 were born in India as against 786 of the 865 Indians of full blood. The difference was also shown in their respective religion, 050 of those of full blood •being Hindus, Sikhs, or Mohammeand 01U3' 16 being Church of •England, Presbyterian or Roman Catholic. Of Lhuse of mixed blood only 6 belonged to native religion While 218* had embraced Christian! ity. '

The. Indians of full blood were on' the ma in fruiterers storekeepers bottle dealers, bottle hawkers, farmers and farm labourers market gardeners and labourers. Their work and services were in spheres useful to the community, and as; a community they were industrious and law-abiding". All were JJritisli subjects by birth and came mainly from the Punjab Gujrat Bengal and -Madhas. '

The majority were total abstainers on religious grounds. Their objection to the proposed restrictions Went deeper than the narrow question as to whether they were entitled to purchase liquor or not it was a question of principal of 'the rights of the minority and the undeserved humiliation of the .Indians in New Zealand.

In the. evidence before the Comniisrion it had been .sought to draw an analog}- between the present restrictions on tile Maoris and the proposed restrictions on. the Indians. 1 here Avas no possible comparison lor the Maori restrictions were imposed at the request of the Maori leaders themselves, in their own protec whereas the suggested restrictions on the Indians, were of a Penal nature and strongly opposed by the Indians themselves. It would lie alien to British justice and contrary to the trend of New Zealand legislation.

Apart Irom the question of principle the Association contended that the restrictions if imposed would not be ellective in dealing with, the as those concerned in breaking the law would merely purchase the liquor wholesale through a while the honest Indian .alone Avould be penalised by becoming a law breaker.

Though the. Association was concerned with the behaviour of certain members of tlieir race who were doing ■ active harm to the Maori enquiries had shown that Europeans were responsible for far more than Indians in this respect.

The Association put forward the following suggestions for the Commission's consideration: (a) That no non-Maori should be permitted to reside in a Maori Pa without the permission of the Maori Council. (There are not more than ten Indians resident in Maori Pas). (b) That a Magistrate convicting any person for illegally supplying liquor to Maoris, should if he thinks fit ? have additional power to direct that such person shall not reside within 25 miles of the P;i_ and shall only be permitted to enter such Pa by police permit; (c) The Magistrate should further be given power to