04-10-2004, 03:16 PM
Are not these provisions sufficient to overcome the difficulties regarding transfer of population ?
There are of course other difficulties. But even those are not insuperable. They involve questions of
policy. The first question is : is the transfer of population to be compulsory or is it to be voluntary ?
The second is : is this right to State-aided transfer to be open to all or is it to be restricted to any
particular class of persons ? The third is : how long is Government going to remain liable to be
bound by these provisions, particularly the provision for making good the loss on the sale of
immovable property ? Should the provisions be made subject to a time limit or should the liability
be continued indefinitely ?
With regard to the first point, both are possible and there are instances of both having been put into
effect. The transfer of population between Greece and Bulgaria was on a voluntary basis while that
between Greece and Turkey was on a compulsory basis. Compulsory transfer strikes one as being
prima facie wrong. It would not be fair to compel a man to change his ancestral habitat if he does
not wish to, unless the peace and tranquility of the State is likely to be put in jeopardy by his
continuing to live where he is or such transfer becomes necessary in his own interest. What is
required is that those who want to transfer should be able to do so without impediment and without
loss. I am therefore of opinion that transfer should not be forced but should be left open for those
who declare their intention to transfer.
As to the second point, it is obvious that only members of a minority can be allowed to take
advantage of the scheme of State-aided transfer. But even this restriction may not be sufficient to
exclude all those who ought not to get the benefit of this scheme. It must be confined to certain well
defined minorities who on account of ethnic or religious differences are sure to be subjected to
discrimination or victimization.
The third point is important and is likely to give rise to serious difference of opinion. On a fair view
of the matter it can be said that it is quite unreasonable to compel a Government to keep open for an
indefinite period the option to migrate at Government cost .There is nothing unfair in telling a
person that if he wants to take advantage of the provisions of the scheme of State-aided migration
contained in the forgoing articles, he must exercise his option to migrate within a stated period and
that if he decides to migrate after the period has elapsed he will be free to migrate but it will have to
be at his own cost and without the aid of the State There is no inequity in thus limiting the right to
State aid. State-aid becomes a necessary part of the scheme because the migration is a resultant
consequence of political changes over which individual citizens have no control. But migration
may not be the result of political change. lt may be for other causes, and when it is for other causes,
aid to the emigrant cannot bean obligation on the State. The only way to determine whether
migration is for political reasons or for private reasons is to relate it to a definite point of time.
When it takes place with in a defined period from the happening of a political change it may be
presumed open for an indefinite period the option to migrate at Government cost. There is nothing
unfair in telling a person that if he wants to take advantage of the provisions of the scheme of
State-aided migration contained in the foregoing articles, he must exercise his option to migrate
within a stated period and that if he decides to migrate after the period has elapsed he will be free to
migrate but it will have to be at his own cost and without the aid of the State. There is no inequity
in thus limiting the right to State-aid. State-aid becomes a necessary part of the scheme because the
migration is a resultant consequence of political changes over which individual citizens have no
control. But migration may not be the result of political change. It may be for other causes, and
when it is for other causes, aid to the emigrant cannot be an obligation on the State. The only way
to determine whether migration is for political reasons or for private reasons is to relate it to a
definite point of time. When it takes place within a defined period from the happening of a political
change it may be presumed to be political. When it occurs after the period it may be presumed to be
for private reasons. There is nothing unjust in this. The same rule of presumption governs the cases
of civil servants who, when a political change takes place, are allowed to retire on proportionate
pensions if they retire within a given period but not if they retire after it has lapsed.
If the policy in these matters is as I suggest it should be, it may be given effect to by the inclusion
of the following articles in the treaty:
" The right to voluntary emigration may be exercised under this treaty by any person belonging to
an ethnic minority who is over 18 years of age.
" A declaration made before the Commission shall be sufficient evidence of intention to exercise
the right.
" The choice of the husband shall carry with it that of the wife, the option of parents or guardians
that of their children or wards aged less than 18 years.
" The right to the benefit provided by this treaty shall lapse if the option to migrate is not exercised
within a period of 5 years from the date of signing the treaty.
" The duties of the Commission shall be terminated within six months after the expiration of the
period of five years from the date when the Commission starts to function."
What about the cost ? The question of cost will be important only if the transfer is to be
compulsory. A scheme of voluntary transfer cannot place a very heavy financial burden on the
State. Men love property more than liberty. Many will prefer to endure tyranny at the hands of their
political masters than change the habitat in which they are rooted. As Adam Smith said, of all the
things man is the most difficult cargo to transport. Cost therefore need not frighten anybody.
What about its workability ? The scheme is not new. It has been tried and found workable. It was
put into effect after the last European War, to bring about a transfer 15 [f.15] of population between
Greece and Bulgaria and Turkey and Greece. Nobody can deny that it has worked, has been tried
and found workable. The scheme I have outlined is a copy of the same scheme. It had the effect of
bringing about a transfer* of population between Greece and Bulgaria and Turkey and Greece.
Nobody can deny that it was worked with signal success. What succeeded elsewhere may well be
expected to succeed in India.
The issue of Pakistan is far from simple. But it is not so difficult as it is made out to be provided the
principle and the ethics of it are agreed upon. If it is difficult it is only because it is heart-rending
and nobody wishes to think of its problems and their solutions as the very idea of it is so painful.
But once sentiment is banished and it is decided that there shall be Pakistan, the problems arising
out of it are neither staggering nor baffling
There are of course other difficulties. But even those are not insuperable. They involve questions of
policy. The first question is : is the transfer of population to be compulsory or is it to be voluntary ?
The second is : is this right to State-aided transfer to be open to all or is it to be restricted to any
particular class of persons ? The third is : how long is Government going to remain liable to be
bound by these provisions, particularly the provision for making good the loss on the sale of
immovable property ? Should the provisions be made subject to a time limit or should the liability
be continued indefinitely ?
With regard to the first point, both are possible and there are instances of both having been put into
effect. The transfer of population between Greece and Bulgaria was on a voluntary basis while that
between Greece and Turkey was on a compulsory basis. Compulsory transfer strikes one as being
prima facie wrong. It would not be fair to compel a man to change his ancestral habitat if he does
not wish to, unless the peace and tranquility of the State is likely to be put in jeopardy by his
continuing to live where he is or such transfer becomes necessary in his own interest. What is
required is that those who want to transfer should be able to do so without impediment and without
loss. I am therefore of opinion that transfer should not be forced but should be left open for those
who declare their intention to transfer.
As to the second point, it is obvious that only members of a minority can be allowed to take
advantage of the scheme of State-aided transfer. But even this restriction may not be sufficient to
exclude all those who ought not to get the benefit of this scheme. It must be confined to certain well
defined minorities who on account of ethnic or religious differences are sure to be subjected to
discrimination or victimization.
The third point is important and is likely to give rise to serious difference of opinion. On a fair view
of the matter it can be said that it is quite unreasonable to compel a Government to keep open for an
indefinite period the option to migrate at Government cost .There is nothing unfair in telling a
person that if he wants to take advantage of the provisions of the scheme of State-aided migration
contained in the forgoing articles, he must exercise his option to migrate within a stated period and
that if he decides to migrate after the period has elapsed he will be free to migrate but it will have to
be at his own cost and without the aid of the State There is no inequity in thus limiting the right to
State aid. State-aid becomes a necessary part of the scheme because the migration is a resultant
consequence of political changes over which individual citizens have no control. But migration
may not be the result of political change. lt may be for other causes, and when it is for other causes,
aid to the emigrant cannot bean obligation on the State. The only way to determine whether
migration is for political reasons or for private reasons is to relate it to a definite point of time.
When it takes place with in a defined period from the happening of a political change it may be
presumed open for an indefinite period the option to migrate at Government cost. There is nothing
unfair in telling a person that if he wants to take advantage of the provisions of the scheme of
State-aided migration contained in the foregoing articles, he must exercise his option to migrate
within a stated period and that if he decides to migrate after the period has elapsed he will be free to
migrate but it will have to be at his own cost and without the aid of the State. There is no inequity
in thus limiting the right to State-aid. State-aid becomes a necessary part of the scheme because the
migration is a resultant consequence of political changes over which individual citizens have no
control. But migration may not be the result of political change. It may be for other causes, and
when it is for other causes, aid to the emigrant cannot be an obligation on the State. The only way
to determine whether migration is for political reasons or for private reasons is to relate it to a
definite point of time. When it takes place within a defined period from the happening of a political
change it may be presumed to be political. When it occurs after the period it may be presumed to be
for private reasons. There is nothing unjust in this. The same rule of presumption governs the cases
of civil servants who, when a political change takes place, are allowed to retire on proportionate
pensions if they retire within a given period but not if they retire after it has lapsed.
If the policy in these matters is as I suggest it should be, it may be given effect to by the inclusion
of the following articles in the treaty:
" The right to voluntary emigration may be exercised under this treaty by any person belonging to
an ethnic minority who is over 18 years of age.
" A declaration made before the Commission shall be sufficient evidence of intention to exercise
the right.
" The choice of the husband shall carry with it that of the wife, the option of parents or guardians
that of their children or wards aged less than 18 years.
" The right to the benefit provided by this treaty shall lapse if the option to migrate is not exercised
within a period of 5 years from the date of signing the treaty.
" The duties of the Commission shall be terminated within six months after the expiration of the
period of five years from the date when the Commission starts to function."
What about the cost ? The question of cost will be important only if the transfer is to be
compulsory. A scheme of voluntary transfer cannot place a very heavy financial burden on the
State. Men love property more than liberty. Many will prefer to endure tyranny at the hands of their
political masters than change the habitat in which they are rooted. As Adam Smith said, of all the
things man is the most difficult cargo to transport. Cost therefore need not frighten anybody.
What about its workability ? The scheme is not new. It has been tried and found workable. It was
put into effect after the last European War, to bring about a transfer 15 [f.15] of population between
Greece and Bulgaria and Turkey and Greece. Nobody can deny that it has worked, has been tried
and found workable. The scheme I have outlined is a copy of the same scheme. It had the effect of
bringing about a transfer* of population between Greece and Bulgaria and Turkey and Greece.
Nobody can deny that it was worked with signal success. What succeeded elsewhere may well be
expected to succeed in India.
The issue of Pakistan is far from simple. But it is not so difficult as it is made out to be provided the
principle and the ethics of it are agreed upon. If it is difficult it is only because it is heart-rending
and nobody wishes to think of its problems and their solutions as the very idea of it is so painful.
But once sentiment is banished and it is decided that there shall be Pakistan, the problems arising
out of it are neither staggering nor baffling