2.1 Introduction

The Anglo-Indians (AIs) are a tiny ethnic grouping in the highly diverse, poly-ethnic society that characterises modern-day Australia. The AIs have a history going back over 500 years in India, a history which is about two and a half times as long as that of European colonisation in Australia. The AIs are a group with both European and Indian ancestors, with the British having the predominant socio-cultural and historical influence. At different times in the community's history, the Portuguese, Dutch, French and Germans have all influenced its destiny (Gist, 1967a; Gist & Wright, 1973).

The AIs possess features of both their European and Indian progenitors. The AIs came to be separated from the main-stream of Indian culture by their European lifestyle and values and at the same time were distinguished from the Europeans by their accent and in many cases colour (Anthony, 1969: 374; Dover, 1937: 201, 210; Varma, 1979: 53). Over a period of many decades the dual destructive processes of discrimination and prejudice moulded a community with its own distinct ethnic identity.

The AIs are predominantly Western in their outlook on life and in their lifestyle with both the men and women having jobs, wearing Western dress, and choosing their own marriage partners rather than having arranged marriages. They are almost exclusively Christian, with English as their mother tongue. The men and women have relatively equal status which is unusual in predominantly male-dominated patriarchal Indian society (Bhattacharya, 1978; Gaikwad, 1967).

As a result of being highly Westernised, AIs integrate well into western societies such as Australia (Younger, 1987). In contrast many less Westernised Indians, such as the Punjabis, who migrate to a Western country are deeply concerned about the process of integration and the conformist pressures exerted by the host society. In the USA one group of Punjabis has rejected the goal of assimilation and is attempting to stop any socialising between their children and American children. The Punjabis face criticism:

...for their hairstyle, their diet, and their dress. They are faulted because they place family ahead of individual interests, defer to the authority of elders, accept arranged marriages, and believe in group decision making. They are condemned most especially for not joining in majority-dominated school activities and for resisting as best they can the face of cultural assimilation (Gibson, 1987: 268).

This position contrasts markedly with the case of AIs in Western countries who "find it easy to integrate and assimilate" (Moore, 1986a: 138; Younger, 1987).

Eurasian populations originated in early periods of European trading contacts with Asia, when European women did not travel due to its uncertainty. The Eurasian population grew over the years through natural increase and occasional mixed contacts. Their original size relative to the indigenous populations and policies of both governing European and native populations have determined their future. Some have been submerged in the numerically dominant local population as with the White Russians in China; some have attempted to return to the European countries of their male progenitors as with the Indos of Indonesia; while others have been forced to attempt the maintenance of social and cultural solidarity as permanent minorities as with the Sri Lankan "burghers" and the AIs (Grimshaw, 1959: 227). In the period since Indian independence in 1947, AIs have immigrated overseas, in search of an environment more conducive to their culture and lifestyle.

2.2 Research on the AIs

There is little in the way of empirical and quantitative research dealing with the AIs and their socio-economic attainment in Australia or elsewhere. Further, the integration of an Eurasian group into Australian society has been neglected by researchers in this country. Studies of Indians in Australia tend to focus on non-AIs, supposedly because "a study of less-Westernised people in a Western country may be more imperative (Waddell, 1978: 69)."

There are a small number of studies dealing with the AIs. Some of them are journalistic accounts (Maher, 1962; Younger, 1987); others are anthropological (Bhattacharya, 1978; Cressey, 1935; Gaikwad, 1967) or sociological (Bose, 1979; Gist, 1967a; 1967b; 1972; 1975; Gist and Wright, 1973; Grimshaw, 1959; Hedin, 1934; Lobo, 1988; Lobo, 1994) while others are historical treatments (Goodrich, 1952; Moore, 1986a; 1986b; Snell, 1944; Varma, 1979).

Most studies have been completed in India (Bose, 1979; Bhattacharya, 1978; Cressey, 1935; Gaikwad, 1967; Gist, 1967a; 1967b; Gist, 1972; Gist and Wright, 1973; Goodrich, 1952; Grimshaw, 1959; Hedin, 1934; Lobo, 1994; Maher, 1962; Moore, 1986b; Snell, 1944; Varma, 1979); a few in England (Gist, 1975; Lobo, 1988); and some deal with the AIs in a number of countries (Moore, 1986a). The studies that deal with AIs in Australia are ethnographic accounts of the AIs with little emphasis on psychological or sociological theory, and none of these studies focused on AI socio-economic attainment in Australia.

Previous research in India has repeatedly described AIs as being a group distinct from both the British and the Indians. As a consequence, they developed their own group solidarity and ethnic identity. Further, it has been suggested that AIs lack achievement motivation. While this is certainly a simplistic and pejorative stereotype, there is little doubt that the AIs in India have not made the same academic progress as their Indian peers (Gaikwad, 1967; Gist, 1967a; Gist and Wright, 1973; Lobo; 1994).

The AIs in India have often been described as having low academic and job aspiration levels and also as performing poorly at school. This has been partly blamed on British Colonial practices, where the AIs were guaranteed certain middle level positions and the colonial hierarchy did not permit them to rise beyond that level, no matter what their qualifications or ability (Anthony, 1969; Moore, 1986a; 1986b; Lobo, 1994). The result was a plateauing of their "motivation-aspiration gradient", a term employed by Bullivant (1986b: 21) in his study of academic attainment in Melbourne schools.

2.3 Historical background to the AIs

The term AI, in general, refers to a hybrid population that came into existence as a result of intermarriage between European men and Indian women. The beginning of the AI community can be traced back first to the Portuguese who established a colony on the Malabar Coast in 1498 (Smith, 1923) or Kerala in 1499 (Hiro, 1977b: 84). The Portuguese were followed by the Dutch in 1595 (Yeats-Brown, 1942), then in 1639 by the British East India Company who founded a settlement at Madras (Hiro, 1977a: 10) and lastly the French during the 1660's (Moreland and Chatterjee, 1945: 269-272).

2.4 Community title

The AIs have, for much of their existence, been identified as a distinct ethno-linguistic grouping. But there has been continual discussion about the appropriate label for the community and even whether they should identify as British. According to Dr. Wallace, a leader of the AI Community late in the 19th century,

Britishers we are and Britishers we ever must and shall be. Once we relinquish this name 'Anglo-Indian' and permit ourselves to be styled 'Eurasians' or 'Statutory Natives of India' we become estranged from our proud heritage as Britishers (Wallace, 1930: 130).

Soon the community title was to change from "Britisher (Wallace, 1930: 130)" to "Eurasian (Dover, 1929: 42)", these being just two of the many community designations at the time. Dover (1930: 128-129) reports that as early as 1825 Eurasians were meeting to consider a "less opprobrious name" for the community. It was the "English soldier-historian, Major-General Sir John Malcolm (Gaikwad, 1967: 43)" who used the term "AI" to describe both Eurasians and domiciled Britishers as early as 1826 (Malcolm, 1826: 260).

According to Gist and Wright (1973: 7) the term "Indo-European" was the first generally accepted description of the community, although it appears more likely the term "country born" was the first community descriptor (Bose, 1979: 9; Das, 1963: 347-348; Moore 1986a: 9). This was followed by terms such as "East Indian" and "Eurasian" and eventually in 1911 by the term "AI" which was officially recognised by the British Government in India. While the term AI is now almost universally accepted there was some discussion about whether "fair" AIs should use the title exclusively while "dark" AIs use the term "Eurasian" (Gaikwad, 1967: 42-43; 173-174).

2.5 AI Beginnings

During the early years of the East India company there was a small pecuniary encouragement for those Britishers who married Indian women, as the Company wished to hasten the development of an AI community (Hedin, 1934: 167). There were two main reasons for this policy. Firstly, the company needed manpower, since the Indian climate played havoc with the unprepared European constitution in the form of disease and heat exhaustion (Moore, 1986a: 3). Secondly, the AIs were useful in communicating with the Indians since they were well versed in the "languages, the people, the customs, seasons and harvests" of India (Moore, 1986a: 8). These were the major reasons for intermarriage and was common practice among most colonisers (Schermerhorn, 1970: 114-115).

The enormous cost to the British army in death and illness can be seen from the following article that appeared in an AI journal in the late 19th century.

In 1880, ... there were 50,136 British soldiers in India and there were 8,616 cases of hospitalisation, which included most of them, going to hospital at least once and half of them going twice. 1,236 died and 1,073 returned [to Britain] in-valid. 3,474 were constantly sick. (The Eurasian and Anglo-Indian Recorder, Nov, 25, 1891).

These problems of overcoming the diseases of Asia not only tempered the process of colonisation but also often drastically curtailed it (Carlson, 1977). But European physicians slowly developed ways of overcoming "the febrile and diarrhoeal diseases" that decimated European populations (Bulhan, 1985: 89).

Interestingly, in the early years of British colonisation the AIs were viewed in a highly favourable light, because they had been "reared in an atmosphere of trade". Their local knowledge of India and its people, "rendered them an invaluable asset to those whose chief concern was with the wealth to be derived from a lucrative trade (Stark, 1936: 27-28)."

At the start of AI history it was the AI who generated wealth for the East India Company but by the end of the Raj the AIs were begging for crumbs dropped from the Imperial British table, in the form of special job allocations (Bandyopadhyay, 1990). Even near the height of the Raj it was being argued that in India, "[a]n infusion of native blood is essential to the continuance of the race". This was because "for the white man or his offspring, there is no such thing as acclimatisation in India (Trevelyan, 1866: 187)."

In the early years the AIs identified with, and were accepted by, the British and enjoyed much of their status and privileges. Even then there was some indication that the most senior positions were to be reserved only for the British. In 1687 when the East India company was searching for a new member for the Council of Madras, it was insisted that he needed to be

... a man of learning and, competently well read in ancient histories of the Greeks and Latin's, which with a good stock of natural parts only can render a man fit for government and political science, martial prudence and other requisites to rule over a great city... For it is not being bred a boy in India, or staying long there and speaking the language or understanding critically the trade of the place, that is sufficient to fit a man for such a command as the Second of Fort St. George is, or may be, in time, though all these qualifications are very good in their kind (Judd, 1972: 24).

It is obvious that an AI, a boy "bred" in India, could not get the job. Still the AIs were to be found at most levels of the Company and they were a century away from being forced out of its ranks.

As British imperialism started to take on a more complex form the British began to get more concerned with the issue of maintaining "purity of race." For the British in the late 1700s onward, just being of British stock was not enough. The only people who were regarded as being "real English [were] those who are so twice over, by blood and by surroundings." While this was never an officially sanctioned law it was real all the same. Both "half-bred Eurasians, and even Englishmen of pure blood who had been born and brought up in India" were outside the pale. These people would "not be able to rise ... to those lofty summits from which an empire is surveyed and directed (Chailley, 1910: 534-535)."

2.6 The prelude to AI exclusion

The relative acceptance of AIs by the British was to change in the latter part of the 18th century for a number of reasons. First, there was the successful revolution in 1791 in Haiti that ousted the French (Moore, 1986a: 22). The Africans in Haiti were led by mixed-bloods and in the words of Viscount Valentia, an East India Company observer, wherever "this intermediate caste has been permitted to rise, it has ultimately tended to its own ruin" (Bose, 1979: 9; Varma, 1979: 144). An article in a Calcutta newspaper of the time prevaricated:

... if forthwith drastic measures are not put into operation to keep down the East Indian races, they will do to the British in India what Mulattoes have done to the Spaniards (Varma, 1979: 143).

While Stark (1936: 71), an AI author, considers Valentia's advice "panic stricken", it seemed to be fairly indicative of the general "nervousness" about the AIs at the time. According to an English Clergyman travelling in India during this period "everyone whom he met talked of danger from [the AIs] (Varma, 1979: 144)." Lord Wellesley was another Englishman who cautioned that while:

... every attempt has been made to crush and keep them [AIs] down, but they are rapidly increasing in numbers and, though slowly, are making advances in education, in wealth and consequently, in power and the means to acquire it (Varma, 1979: 144).

In 1795, the British, fearing a similar episode to Haiti in India, decided to "discharge" (Bose, 1979: 9) persons of Indian extraction. Or, as it was described in the exclusion acts, "European sons of native women", from positions of authority in the civil, military, and marine services of the Company (Goodrich, 1952: 2; Stark, 1926: 60).

A second reason for excluding the AIs was an increasing awareness that great wealth was to be gained by Europeans serving in India. If this meant that the "country born" lost their positions with the East India Company and were replaced with the European sons of the Companies directors and shareholders, then so be it (Goodrich, 1952; Stark, 1926). The directors of the East India Company took their positions seriously, so seriously in fact that decisions were often made after "violent contests" between them (Das, 1963: 339).

A third possible reason for the exclusion of the AIs was due to "sectarianism" (Anthony, 1969: 12; Bose, 1979: 9; Moore, 1986a: 21). Many women married by the British were Luso-Indian, of mixed Portuguese and Indian descent. These women were Catholic and their English husbands had to convert from Protestantism to Catholicism for the marriage to be performed. According to Bose (1979: 9) the awarding of Pagodas to those British men who married "native" Indian women was partly to stop the men from marrying Luso-Indian women and converting to Catholicism. It was during this period that Catholics in England were "debarred" from attending universities, they could not "hold office in the military or civil services, nor were they eligible for seats in the House of Commons (Stark, 1936: 743)."

During the late 18th century 8,000 Catholic AIs (Moore, 1986a: 21) were working for the East India Company in Bengal. Given the conflict with the Catholic French, both in India and in Europe, it is not surprising that pressure was put on the AIs, who were predominantly Catholic, to leave the Company. By about 1750, AIs exceeded Britons in India (Bose, 1979: 9), a situation that was likely to make the British nervous. When an identifiable group reaches a "critical mass", it begins to be viewed as a threat to the status quo and the dominant group begins to stigmatise it so as to control it (Perlman, 1976:96). As a result the AIs were rapidly marginalised during the late 18th centaury.

2.7 Exclusion and rejection

The British responded to the imagined threat from the AIs by progressively excluding them from British society and industry in India. Snell (1944: 11) describes the "three repressive orders which were passed at the instigation of the Court of Directors" which resulted in the AI community being forced into destitution economically and marginality socially. The three orders were:

[firstly] in 1786, the wards of the Upper Orphanage school at Calcutta were in future to be prohibited from proceeding to England to complete their education and thus qualifying for the covenanted services. By the second order of 1791 the Indian born sons off Britishers were prohibited from being employed in the Civil, Military and marine Services of the Company, and the third order of 1795 prevented the employment of all persons not descended from European parents on both sides in the army except as fifers, bandsmen, drummers and farriers (Snell, 1944: 11-12).

This process of purging anyone but the British from the ranks of the company was continued by Lord Cornwallis, during his first Governor-Generalship (1786-93). Interestingly a French historian (Chailley, 1910: 530) views this purge as being an attempt to "purify a corrupt administration". The "native functionaries" were considered to be "past masters in the art of corruption, and of intercepting the Government revenues to their own profit." However Chailley (1910: 531) does go on to suggest that Cornwallis "might no doubt have attained this result without depriving himself of able assistance from the Indians." It is highly unlikely that it was only the natives, including the AIs, who were corrupt. They were simply more vulnerable to being purged from the Company ranks.

While the AIs may have been officially forced out of the East India Company and the army, there continued to be some lingering sympathy for them. This may be seen by the following Company order dated the 26th June, 1821:

The Hon'ble the Governor-in-Council having been pleased to resolve that a corps of Artificers shall be raised for the service of this Presidency (Madras) consisting for the present of one Sergeant Major, 10 Sergeant Instructors and 100 Artificers, directs that it shall be composed of sons of Europeans born in India, and that it be denominated the Corps of 'The Carnatic Ordnance Artificers' ... They will be enlisted as European soldiers, will be paid, mustered and returned accordingly ... The Artificers will be clothed in the usual Ordnance uniform agreeable to the mode that obtains with respect to European troops (Stark, 1936: 49).

The process of excluding those that were considered dangerous to British and Company interests was repeated with many other groups. After the mutiny of 1857, Brahmans were excluded from the Bengal army because of the leading role they had played in the rebellion. Within 20 years of their exclusion it was common belief that "Brahmans lacked fighting qualities" (Rudolph and Rudolph, 1967: 167).

While the AIs had supported the British they were also given short shrift on the grounds that they were unlikely to have the "moral courage [and] physical bravery" of the British (Varma, 1979: 110). It was felt by the British that, like the Indians, the AIs "aptitude and habits fitted them more to civil than military jobs (Varma, 1979: 113)". As Varma (1979: 115) quite rightly points out, "the British Government knew only one logic" and that was the maintenance of its own interests at the expense of all others. Dickie-Clark (1966: 37) in his study of Coloured's in South Africa observes that while:

the dominant group may encourage subordinates to adopt some of their attitudes (punctuality, thrift, etc.) but, if they want to stay dominant, they can't permit the subordinate strata to share in their powers or opportunities.

The powerful dominant group repeatedly blames the subordinate group members for their position "because of their deviant attitudes" such as laziness or a lack of courage, thus masking the dominant group's attempts to maintain power (Perlman, 1976: 102).

2.8 A partial recovery

After coming to terms with the shock of prejudice and intense racial discrimination, the AIs gradually found lower level positions in the Imperial Government bureaucracy. Their position improved further when English replaced Persian as the official language in the Anglicised Indian courts and Government during the 1830s (Grimshaw, 1959: 230). The AI position was further strengthened by the continuing wars between Britain and France, which reduced the number of British males who could be spared for a far away colony.

In 1857 Indian soldiers rebelled and the AIs stood with the British, putting the British in their "debt" (Grimshaw, 1959: 230), even if it was a debt recognised only by the AIs. Much later the British reserved certain low to middle level Government positions for them. But the AIs were never able to hold "the more desirable" positions of power. They had to defer to the British and were only allowed to hold subordinate positions (Hedin, 1934: 168). After the mutiny the AIs began to work on the railways, the postal and the telegraph departments in ever increasing numbers. This emphasis on Government employment continued well into the 20th century (Varma, 1979: 131), at which time the process of Indianisation resulted in the AIs being increasingly displaced by the Indians.

Snell (1944: 14) suggests that by accepting these government positions the AIs made a "fatal mistake" in their history, because they "ignored ... the more lucrative ... vocations to be found in trade and industry". Grimshaw (1959: 230) also supports this view that the AIs had only themselves to blame for their low economic status, "[n]ever having developed enterprises of their own and having no foothold in the commercial life of India." One possible reason why the AIs may have avoided positions in trade and industry could have lain with the "backwardness" of Indian industry and the resulting poor pay (Charlesworth, 1982: 71). In the opinion of one AI researcher the British reduced Indian industry "to penury to support the Lancashire cotton mills (Lobo, 1986: 5)." As a result it is unlikely that the Indian factories would have been able to provide AIs with the incomes they needed to maintain their European lifestyles.

2.9 AI poverty in the 20th century

By the 1930's about 20,000 AIs, about one third of male wage earners, were unemployed, homeless and begging for food (Gidney, 1934: 36-37). Given the general poverty, by European standards, that most Indians lived in, "one fall [job loss] and [the AIs] were paupers (Varma, 1979: 124)." The poverty was seen as being due to the process of "Indianization" resulting from the growing nationalist movement' (Gidney, 1934: 27-42; cited in Grimshaw, 1959: 230). The British could no longer consider just their own interests they now had to cope with the increasing demands of the Indians. As a result the AIs were once again out in the cold. They had their job "quota's" cut and "pay differentials favourable" to the AIs were reduced (Grimshaw, 1959: 230).

The railways, Post and Telegraph and the Customs Department were the three areas that continued to employ AIs in substantial numbers. Further, the Government of India Act, 1935(Sec. 242 2 & 3) made provision for their continuing employment for a period after independence (Varma, 1979: 134). The AIs working for the railways complained that they were being paid a third of the salary that Europeans received. They were still doing much better than the Indians and received "some preferential treatment in salary, lodgings, clubs and educational facilities for their children" (Varma, 1979: 134). This three tier system of the European at the top, the AI in the middle and the Indian at the bottom had come to typify some areas of the British Raj during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The AIs replaced the British on the newly created railways during the 1880's because the jobs were "arduous" and paid "unattractive salaries" (Varma, 1979: 131). At the same time, AIs were increasingly "alarmed at their growing displacement" from a wide range of jobs. The AIs were getting fewer opportunities as clerks. Moreover, they were being excluded from studying at certain academic institutions, in particular a school for forestry and a school for engineering, both of which were being encouraged to take only Indian applicants. The eventual result of this process of exclusion was to drastically reduce their job opportunities in the professional sphere (Varma, 1979: 130-131). The only positions that continued to be available to the AIs were those considered to be of paramount importance to the running of the country transport, communications and the police force. The British army remained just that right up to independence.

2.10 To Assimilate, Integrate or Emigrate

Since 1947, the community of 300,000 AIs in India (Anthony, 1969: viii) has dropped to 120,000 through emigration, with about a third of those remaining living below the poverty line. According to a leader of the community in Calcutta, at the lower end of the socio-economic scale "there has been a lot of assimilation", with the poorer AIs marrying Muslims and Hindus and adopting their lifestyles. Those AIs who belong to the middle classes have already left for Great Britain, Canada and Australia or "are desperately keen to go". Emigration became possible after the second World War, when overseas labour was needed. The 1948 British Nationality Act gave immigrants from the Commonwealth the right of free entry to Britain, so that their cheap labour could be used to rebuild the British economy (Tomlinson, 1989: 16).

At the upper end of the socio-economic ladder, not only are the AIs remaining but some are marrying wealthy Hindus, since the AI lifestyle is now the "desired aim of the Hindu upper class" (Bose, 1979: 7; Younger, 1983: 41). According to one upper class AI respondent: "it's not a question of [AIs] being absorbed by the majority [Indian] community. We are absorbing them. They are adopting our lifestyle (Bose, 1979: 7)."

According to Bose (1979), for the poor AIs living in the bustees, or ghettos, of the large Indian cities social and cultural marginality is being replaced by assimilation. The AIs coexist with the Muslims with whom they have "much in common (Bose, 1979: 9)." Among the characteristics held in common are a belief in one God and a predilection for meat, which is anathema to conservative Hindus. In the "bustees" the Muslims are better off than the AIs and in many cases are the landlords of the hovels in which the AIs have to live. For an AI woman given the choice between a poor AI male and a relatively wealthy Muslim, the decision to live with or marry the Muslim is virtually self-evident. The children resulting from this relationship are in most cases brought up as Muslims, just as Indian women who married British men had their children brought up in the ways of their fathers (Bhattacharya, 1978: 168).

The other groups the AIs are associated with are the Indian Christians and the Goans, who are descendants of the Portuguese in India. During the late seventies and early eighties there were apparently attempts by some Indian Christians and Goans to "pass" as AIs so that they could get the support of organisations that assisted AIs financially and educationally (Gist, 1972: 51; Maher, 1962: 73). Frank Anthony was scathing in his criticism of members of these two groups who were trying to "pass" themselves off as AIs. He labelled them "firingis" or foreigners (Moore, 1986a: 4), a pejorative term often used by Indians to describe AIs (Bose, 1979: 9).

2.11 The Anglo-Indians in Australia

The AIs have been emigrating to Australia in relatively large numbers since the early 1960's. In fact, the AIs were among the first Asians to emigrate to Australia during the late 1960's and 1970's with the relaxation of the White Australia policy (Brawley, 1995). The earliest recorded suggestion that AIs emigrate to Australia was made by the editor of an AI newspaper, The Eastern Guardian, on August 23, 1851 (Varma, 1979: 134). At the time Australia was encouraging immigration and the AIs were looking for greener pastures.

During the 1870s the agitation for an emigration scheme among the AIs to the Australian mainland or Tasmania "was quite strong" (Varma, 1979: 135). Apparently some AIs had already migrated in 1852 and 1854, and T.G. Clarky, a Magistrate, confidently predicted "that some day demand for [Anglo-Indians in Australia] would be unlimited (Varma, 1979: 135)." An organisation calling itself the South Australian Board of Advice and Correspondence for AI Colonisation was formed "to advise and assist Anglo-Indians desirous of settling in South Australia (Varma, 1979: 135)."

This plan to emigrate to South Australia never eventuated for two main reasons. Firstly, there was a hardening of attitudes against Asian immigration in Australia and, secondly, there was a growing awareness by the AIs that they were not the "skilled labour" required by the new colony (Varma, 1979: 135). The AIs were not "cultivators" who could farm the vast Australian outback (Varma, 1979: 141). Neither were they the cheap labour that Australian farmers needed and found with the ethnic Indians (de Lepervanche, 1984).

While few AIs had farming skills and even fewer had an inclination to work as labourers, many AIs did have technical skills. They had acquired these skills from working on the railways and the postal and telegraph services in India. Undoubtedly these skills were needed in the young, expanding Australia. The main reason why the plans for emigrating fell through was most likely due to the increasing unwillingness shown by Australia for non-European immigrants. It was only in 1964 "when the rules governing entry of persons of mixed racial descent were eased [that AIs became] admissible to Australia" (Richmond and Rao, 1976: 189).

From the late 19th century until quite recently, Australia has followed a policy of not permitting non-Europeans "permanent residence" (Richmond and Rao, 1976: 189), primarily to "maintain the racial and ethnic homogeneity of the population (Richmond and Rao, 1976: 184)". The exclusion of non-Europeans came to be known as the infamous "White Australia" Policy (Price, 1974; Rao, 1973).

There were strictures on AIs emigrating to England, Canada and Australia during the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries (Gidney, 1934). But many AIs did emigrate during the 17th and 18th centuries, particularly to England. Varma (1979: 149) mentions that, when Rickets arrived in England in March 1830 carrying his petition for the AIs, Indians living in London organised a dinner for him. Later that century, in 1879, a committee was formed in London to publicise the cause of the AI. This was followed a few years later by an East Indian association (Varma, 1979: 164).

Since partition in 1947 the AIs have been emigrating in large numbers from India. First they emigrated to Britain, until this destination was closed to them by a number of restrictive acts of parliament. Many AIs had British passports, due to their British heritage and entered England as British expatriates. Others gave up their British passports after Indian independence and took out Indian citizenship, because they were accused of being disloyal. Once they gave up their British citizenship it became difficult to emigrate to England and they then started emigrating to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.

2.12 The number of AIs in Australia

According to the 1981 census, Australia has 41,657 Indian born people living here. What proportion of these people are Anglo and what proportion are other types of Indians is difficult to judge (Macris 1980; Waddell, 1978) but it would be reasonable to suggest that at least 33,000 Anglo-Indians live in Australia, since of these Indian-born people 33,600 speak only English at home. In addition, about the same number (31,600) are Christian.

The 1991 One Percent ABS Sample, indicated that there were 280 respondents who were born in India, had both parents born in Southern Asia, spoke only English at home and were Christian. This figure translates to about 30,000 AIs in the total Australian population. This compares to about 62,500 respondents born in India, based on the One Percent Sample.

The above figures suggest that studies of "Indians" in Australia (Bilimoria and Ganguly-Scrase, 1988; de Lepervanche, 1984; Macris, 1980; Waddell, 1978) present the Indian population, as differing a great deal more from the majority Anglo-Celtic grouping on issues such as language and customs than is actually the case.

For example, de Lepervanche (1984) concerned herself with a small group descended from Indian cane cutters brought to Queensland late last century. While a legitimate study, it continues to present the people from India as being quite different from the Anglo-Celtic Australian. The lack of attention paid to AIs in Australia is, to say the least, intriguing given that they represent about half of the India born residents in Australia.

2.13 AI attainment in Australia

How "well" are the AIs doing in Australia? Younger (1987: 27) writing in the "Indian Express" suggests that they have "integrated well". According to Younger, AIs have:

entered the professions as doctors, engineers and journalists, gone into business, government, academic and computer technology. Beginning with limited resources, most now possess the trappings of material success - home, cars, television, video and surplus funds for entertainment and overseas holidays.

The reason for this apparent success in integrating into Australian society, according to Younger, lies with their Western lifestyle.

2.14 Prejudice and Discrimination

While many AIs are physically indistinguishable from Anglo-Celtic Australians, many others are not and as a consequence become victims of discrimination and prejudice. Wayne Gibbons, who worked for the department of immigration in Canberra in 1970, had the following to say about his fellow workers:

There were officers committed to the maintenance of the policy of discrimination. Others who were more enlightened were prepared to concede that the adjustments made to policies in 1966, which provided for a third category between Europeans and non-Europeans, known as the mixed race policy, was as far as we should go (quoted in Martin, 1989: 95).

The White Australia policy led to many occurrences that made the policy and the Australian Government appear highly inconsistent, especially in regard to mixed racial groups such as the AIs. While the White Australia policy was starting to change during the 1960s there were still occasions when different coloured members of the same family could not enter Australia. According to a migration officer in England:

In 1964 there was a case where we had twin brothers. One brother was in Australia and he wanted his twin brother to join him. He was called up for processing in London and it was found that he was very swarthy and dark. In other words he was a "non-European." He was disqualified from entering into Australia despite the fact that he was claimed by his twin brother.

On investigation, we found that the brothers were the sons of an India-born mother and a British Army father. One son was completely European in appearance. The other son followed the characteristics of the mother and was non-European (Martin, 1989: 93).

A major factor in research dealing with an ethnic group is the possible existence of discrimination and prejudice on the part of a significant number of employers and teachers (Verma, 1983). Researchers are beginning to investigate the highly sensitive issue of the effect of skin colour on life experience and self-concept (Hughes and Herten, 1983; Njeri, 1988).

The issue of skin colour is of particular relevance to the AIs, who range in colour from white to black. In colonial society it was the white skinned AIs who would have been capable of passing themselves off as British and would perhaps have been better able to avail themselves of job opportunities and the resulting privileges of class. The possibility of skin colour effecting an AIs attainment in Australia is investigated, using a proxy variable, in Chapter seven.

Researchers who have investigated immigrants in Australia have found some evidence for prejudice and discrimination against immigrants (Chan, 1987: 153). But most research indicates that what discrimination there is does not pose an insurmountable barrier to occupational progress in Australia. However, the apparent motivation and relative success of a few immigrant students can produce an "apartheid of sentiment" in schools (Kalantzis and Cope, 1987; Bullivant, 1986b).

Anglo-Celtic students may become resentful toward the immigrant student for working hard and achieving. This resentment can then take the form of racist taunts which are more than "a gratuitous slandering of cultural phenomena." In reality racial taunts are "a bitter misapprehension of deeper lines of social division (Kalantzis and Cope, 1987: 16)."

In a society that has a huge ethnic and immigrant population the short and long term effects of racism can not be overstated. Perceived discrimination on the basis of ethnic background can quite obviously negatively affect an immigrant's ability to attain both academically (Chan, 1987) and socio-economically.

Other researchers have found little evidence for prejudice in Australia (Rivett, 1975: 207; citing the comments of AIs and other Eurasians in Australian Newspapers). However, the issue of "Eurasian problems" was raised in the Perth Newspapers (Thornton, 1972; cited in Rivett, 1975: 204) and also in the Melbourne Newspaper "The Review" (cited in Rivett, 1975: 204).

While some journalists and social commentators have raised questions about the adjustment of Eurasians to Australian society others were quick to support them (Tidey, Age 3 May 1972; Sorrell, Herald 3 May 1972; Crouch, Bulletin, 26 Aug 1972; all cited in Rivett, 1975: 206). The effects of skin colour, prejudice and discrimination are difficult to assess, but an attempt will be made to do so in the Chapter 7. Further, in Chapter 7 the educational and socio-economic attainment of the AIs will be compared to the ADs and UKDs.

2.15 Chapter Summary

The AIs developed their own distinct identity as a result of being discriminated against by both the Indians and the British in India. They occupied middle level positions in the government, communications and defence and were in general not allowed to progress further. As a result of this policy their academic attainment tended to be of an average character since higher qualifications did not lead to better jobs. Further, AIs felt they had to maintain their ethnic identity by living at a European standard. They often did this on very low incomes which severely strained their economic resources and their ability to attend university. While the possibility of Eurasians immigrating to Australia had been raised during the latter half of the 19th century, anti-Asian attitudes put an end to this possibility. With the departure of the British from India, and a new found willingness to accept Eurasians, the AIs began to immigrate to the UK, Australia and Canada. In general, the AIs in Australia appear to have settled into Australian life, even though some questions have been raised regarding their ability to assimilate into Australian society.