Name
Course
Instructor
Date
Assimilation of Indian Immigrants
Assimilation as a concept is blurred by confusion as Immigrant leaders observe with regret that American society is characterized by racism that does not allow non-whites to naturalize and become members of mainstream American life. On the other side, the same leaders who valued American citizenship are hesitant to advocate for assimilation with the claim that it is insidious to the people because it robs them of their heritage and history and their esteem. On the contrary, the restrictionists and nativists argue that newcomers of color cannot assimilate, yet the contentions can easily be verified but had a political debate to date again. There are renowned immigrant leaders like Thind and Macaulay who fought tirelessly to gain citizenship in the United States through Naturalization. Assimilation is defined differently by the two proponents, with Macaulay supporting the assimilation of Indians into the British system of education. At the same time, Thind is keen to fight for foreign citizenship in vain with the restricting provisions in the law.
The British Parliament Act of 1813 provides that India, as colonial territory, should introduce and promote literature and science in Arabic and Sanscrit languages within the public interests. However, Macaulay argues that it was demeaning to allow such a law to reign since no Indian, he insists, has ever promoted and advance Arabic and Sanscrit literature as the European writers. English is an international language that is recognized globally as a language of commerce as well as used by the government of successful countries like South Africa and Australia (Macaulay, 279). Arabic and Sanscrit literature was restrictive and could not make the youth competitive and employable in the future. According to him, it is better to remain in the liberality as a person than to suffer in the sea of public faith.
It is hard to assimilate into the European language, English, because of both the existing legislation and the intrinsic cultural superiority of the Indian people. The level of ignorance does not only abridge development but also makes the government invest in the state funds and grants on pure spoliation in education. The provisions and interpretations lack the decisive words that can authorize assimilation to the essential system of education. As such, Indian education and culture needed a reconsideration if the international outlook was to be created, and people of Indian descent be considered in other countries. Macaulay advocated for the change of the legislation to allow a change in instruction language in the education system to allow the people to translate important and valuable work of art and scientific knowledge and gain global appeal (Macaulay, 281). It will rarely be disputed, I believe, that such assertion is grounded on the fact that Indians such as Thind were denied an opportunity to be citizens because of the perceived ignorance and language challenge.
Thind contested citizenship in the United States by disowning Indian origin and associating with white people as white based on their language as Caucasians. Despite identifying himself as Aryan, he did not qualify for assimilation based on the Naturalization Act of 1906 in America that allowed white persons and foreign of African descent to be citizens through Naturalization. His citizenship was short-lived since it was canceled after four days (the United States v. Thind, 261, 4). The claim was that Thind was an Indian activist who belongs to the Indian independence movement called the Ghadar party based in San Francisco. He tried to be termed as a “free white person” because the government lawyers argued that despite the white people sharing the same ancestry with the Indians, they could meet the requirement to be called whites according to the naturalization Act.
Therefore, language is the main reservation for the denial of citizenship, as argued by Justice Sutherland. Based on the argument, people are said to belong to the same linguistic group if they share common speech meant for common understanding and written by scientists. Furthermore, the racial difference formed the basis of the Indians’ exclusion rather than the idea of superiority. Their distinction was so huge that the “bodies” could not allow the assimilation of the Indians. Therefore, based on Macaulay and Thind’s two Arguments, it was hard for an Indian to gain citizenship in Britain and the United States through Naturalization because of the subjective perceptions of the Indians. The undermining factor is the education system in India that cannot create global citizenship than by incorporating English as an instructional subject based on Macaulay claim.
Works Cited
Macaulay, Thomas Babington. “Minute on Indian education.” Archives of Empire 1 (2003): 227-38.
The United States v. Thind, 261 U.S. 204, 43 S. Ct. 338, 67 L. Ed. 616, (1923).