INDIA-L Archives

Archiver > INDIA > 1999-02 > 0917985993


From: "Alfred Gabb" <>
Subject: Re: Anglo Indian - Definition
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 21:06:33 +0100


Hullo Neroli
This is a very complicated issue and definitions varied over the years of
the British Raj in India to suit the convenience of the British and Indian
governments, and is difficult to explain in a few words. I have tried hard
to explain the matter in my book 'Anglo-Indian Legacy' which in latter years
states that in
'The Government of India Act 1935 ........................The Anglo-Indian
was defined as "A person whose father or any of whose other progenitors in
the male line is or was of European descent but who is a native of India."
In 1949 the Indian Constitution accepted this definition of
Anglo-Indian.'You will need to read the whole chapter on 'Anglo-Indians' to
make your own decision on the matter. A copy of the book is available from
me at Church Farm Bungalow, Overton, York, UK YO30 1YL price £6 plus p&p £1
UK or £1.50 Overseas surface mail or £3 airmail.
Alfred Gabb,York,UK
----------
>From: "Neroli Needham" <>
>To:
>Subject: Anglo Indian - Definition
>Date: Tue, Feb 2, 1999, 8:33 am
>

>:-) Neroli Needham (-:
>POB 395
>Mossman Qld. 4873
>Tel: (07) 4098-1340
>
>Hello all!
>
>I'm not sure whether my question is really appropriate for a genealogical
>mailing list, but hoped that some one of you may have been through this
>issue yourselves and be able to clarify a few points for me. I have always
>wondered whether it is correct for me to refer to myself as an 'Anglo
>Indian' and so sought a definition of the term.
>
>I understand that the definition of the The Constitution of Independent
>India is something along the following lines: "… a person whose father or
>any of whose other male progenitors in the male line is or was of European
>descent but who is domiciled within the territory of India and is or was
>born within such territory of parents habitually resident therein and not
>established there for temporary purposes only …"
>
>On my interpretation of this definition, though my mother and maternal
>grandmother fit the definition, I would not (because I was not born in
>India and my parents were not domiciled there).
>
>However, the definition raised a couple of other questions in my mind:
>
>1. Is it correct that, none of the offspring of a European woman and an
>Indian man would be Anglo Indian, but that the children of any male
>offspring of the original couple would be - assuming the place of birth and
>residency requirements were met.?
>
>2. Though the definition refers to persons domiciled in the territory of
>India, it is sufficient that they met the definition at birth and carry it
>with them despite no longer being resident in India?
>
>Its of no great importance that I obtain the answers to these questions:
>I'm just curious. Still, if anyone can advise ...
>
>Many thanks.
>
>
>
>==== INDIA Mailing List ====
>To unsubscribe from the INDIA List, send a message
>to containing the single
>word 'unsubscribe' (without the quotes).
>
>

This thread: