“On the Komagata Maru Incident 1914” in “Class Warrior”
On the Komagata Maru Incident 1914
Reports of speech by Kingsley on the “Battle of Coal Harbour” and the treatment of Sikh passengers and the local Sikh community during the Komagata Maru incident of 1914, delivered at the Empress Theatre in Vancouver on 26 July 1914
Hindu Invasion from Socialist Viewpoint: Mr. E. T. Kingsley Compares Participants in Midnight Attack to Porch Climbers
Speaking from a Socialist viewpoint Sunday night in Empress theatre on the “Battle of Coal Harbor,” Mr. E. T. Kingsley took the occasion to ridicule the manner in which the “battle was won” and declared that a deliberate effort was made to incite the populace to violence against the Hindus on the Komagata Maru and also against the shore Hindus.1 In this effort he declared the newspapers did their share. That the attempt failed was due to the fact, in Mr. Kingsley’s opinion, that the workingman was no longer disposed to excitement, and incitement to commit acts of violence.
Referring to the midnight attack on the steamer when the invaders aboard the Sea Lion were repulsed, Mr. Kingsley in describing the incident said that the police force, fire chief, militia and immigration officials, and others, together with a member of parliament, put out after midnight to attack the defenseless boat. “I have no use for those who work after midnight,” he declared. “They remind me,” he continued, “of burglars, porch climbers, chicken thieves, etc.”
Combined Force
The Hindus aboard the Komagata Maru, driven to desperation by the treatment they had received, resented this midnight attack and the naval forces were defeated. Then the land forces and the Canadian navy joined forces and the Hindus threw up their hands. It thus took the combined land and sea forces to overcome 350 unarmed and harmless men. Such action on the part of the officials made a joke of the government. The latter could not repel the few Hindus without worldwide excitement. The Hindus were men of spirit but they made one mistake, he declared. They should have come to this country as the forefathers of the people here now did—with guns.
The scenes enacted in Burrard inlet and the methods taken has not enhanced the dignity of British law, declared Mr. Kingsley. He expressed the hope that as a result of the affair British rule in India would be swept away and India held for the Indians.
Government’s Fault
The speaker launched into criticism of the recent affair by reviewing the events leading up to the “battle.” He claimed that the Hindus had been misled before leaving for British Columbia, that they were delayed in Hong Kong long enough to give the Dominion government time to extend the embargo on April 1 against laborers entering the country. He claimed that the treatment meted out to the Hindus was anything but just. They had been held by the officials and not allowed to go before the courts and although they had brought a cargo of coal with them which they desired to dispose of to help to recoup themselves for the outlay they had been put to, over $50,000, they had been prevented from doing so and from taking back with them a cargo.
The government, he asserted, should have sent word to the Hindus at Hong Kong that they would not be allowed to land, and when they did come every effort should have been made to expedite the hearing of their case before the courts.
—“Hindu Invasion from Socialist Viewpoint,” Vancouver Daily Sun, 28 July 1914, 2. See also “On the ‘Battle of Coal Harbor,’” British Columbia Federationist, 31 July 1914, 3.
1 Hindu (or “Hindoo”) was the prevailing description in the North American press in the early 1900s for Sikhs and other people from the Indian subcontinent. Kingsley’s writing reflected this convention. Most of the passengers aboard the Komagata Maru in 1914 were Sikhs, rather than people of the Hindu faith.
We use cookies to analyze our traffic. Please decide if you are willing to accept cookies from our website. You can change this setting anytime in Privacy Settings.