Notes
B
Introduction
1. “Memorandum from Hindu Friend Society of Victoria, British Co-
lumbia, to Colonial Office, April 28, 1911, in Oriental and India Office Col-
lections (henceforth oioc), Imperial Conference, 1911, 281.
2. Petition on behalf of Moolchand Shivcharan Dass, October 30, 1905,
in National Archives of India (henceforth nai), “Alleged Unlawful Depor-
tation from Australia of a Native of India,” 90.
3. Banerjea, Bengalee, January 14, 1893.
4. For a description of the political status of the subject who does not
partake of any sovereign authority but is a “subject of the Prince,” see Bali-
bar, “Citizen Subject,” 47. With respect to Britain, this notion of the subject
had precedence in common law, according to which “subjects are called [the
king’s] liege subjects, because they are bound to obey and serve him, and
he is called their liege lord because he should maintain and defend them”
(Jones, British Nationality Law and Practice, 32–33).
5. This is to say that as subjects of the Crown, Indians were variously
marked by what Partha Chatterjee describes as the “rule of colonial differ-
ence” that suspended the application of universalist principles of represen-
tative self-government (The Nation and Its Fragments, 18).
6. The provisions of the Australian Immigration Restriction Act had
been relaxed to allow Indian “merchants, students, and tourists” to visit
Australia. Cited in a letter from Secretary to the Government of India,
Department of Revenue and Agriculture, to all Local Governments and
Administrations, October 18, 1904, in nai, “Australian Immigration Re-
striction Act (Amendment Act), no. 17 of 1905,”297.
7. Benhabib, The Claims of Culture, 172.
8. Banerjea, A Nation in Making, 116.
9. Ibid., 117.
10. Ibid., 116. Banerjea, like many of the figures of study in this book, of-
ten uses “England” or “English” interchangeably with “Britain” or “British.”
When I use “England” or “English” in this book to maintain consistency
with the quoted material—or for geographical reasons—I do so with an
awareness of the hegemonic relation of Englishness to other constituent
nodes of British identity. For a good discussion of the relation of English-
ness to British identity, see Baucom, Out of Place.
11. See McClintock, ‘No Longer in a Future Heaven,’ 89.
Previous Page Next Page