CONCERN OUTSIDE THE BARRACKS
In early July, William Paton, General Secretary of the International Missionary Council (IMC) at Edinburgh House, London, had taken the initial steps in assisting German Missions and its missionaries throughout the world, as there seemed a likely „possibility of war.“117 Paton first „had talks with Sir Findlater Stewart, the Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the India Office,“118 at Whitehall. Some days following the meeting, Paton wrote to Stewart:
Those who were in India during the last war remember that in the stress of affairs, and with almost no precedents to guide anybody, unfortunate events took place which probably could have been avoided. …119
With the majority of the German Missionary Societies labouring within the British Empire,120 Paton regarded the looming possibility of war as a matter of grave concern;
There are bound to be difficult problems connected with the handling of the missions of enemy countries, and I think it is worth while to make the point that the way in which these matters are handled by the British Government has a good deal of influence upon neutral, and especially American opinion.121
The concerns of the I.M.C. and the India Office were transmitted to the Indian scene to the National Christian Council in Nagpur and to the Indian Government’s Home Department, respectively. As noted above, in August, 1939, Conran-Smith, at the Government summer residence in Simla, turned to Hodge for advice on the question of carrying on the work of missionaries of enemy nationality.122 The Home Department’s tabulation on ‚German Christian Missions‘ had focused on the problems of propaganda, the removal of the missionaries and a suggested course of action after their removal.123 Hodge had responded immediately, indicating the N.C.C.’s desire to cooperate in every way.124 In the minds of the church leaders, an impending war was unavoidable, and the matter had even been discussed at Tambaram in December, 1938. Unquestionable now was the necessity of coordinating the secular powers and the ecclesiastical leadership in British India. On the home front Whitehall and the I.M.C. were the instrumental agencies in the general policy-making guidelines for understanding the German Missions and its missionaries throughout the British colonies.
On September 14th, 1939, at the Senate House, London, Paton attended a meeting of the representatives of the Mis- sionary Societies and the Ministry of Information.125 He asserted again his concern in „the question of the treatment of German missions in British Colonial territories.“126 The minutes of the Proceedings, recorded by the Ministry of Information, conveyed Paton’s major points:
In the first place he would like to repeat what Dr. Cash had said, that many of them have had in past years, either in India or Africa, or Germany, fellowship with the German missionaries. They did not forget that, and though they must in a political sense regard them as enemies, they wanted to do all they could to preserve Christian links with them.
Secondly, it was not for them of course to discuss the question whether it may be necessary to intern, at least at the start, all German missionaries in a given territory, but it did seem to them that, with their knowledge of the Germans, and knowing how greatly they differ among themselves, the kind of discrimination which the Minister of Home Defence, Sir John Anderson, in his speech in the House of Commons, suggested should be brought to bear upon the refugees in this country, might very well be applied in India and Africa. It would seem to him that if cases were gone into carefully by competent persons, it might be possible after an initial round-up, to discriminate between them, as it is suggested be done with the refugees here.127
The very same day, not letting up in his fervour over the intricate question of German Missions, Paton wrote to the Rt. Hon. Malcolm MacDonald, Secretary of State for the Colonies, stressing that this branch of Christian World Missions be considered in more than mere political perspectives and that it should not be treated solely on humanitarian grounds. He was quick to point out again that the I.M.C. did not „question the right and duty of Government to intern German missionaries whose political views may be such as to render them unsuitable persons to exercise the influence which a missionary necessarily possesses among the common people.“128 Paton admitted, „that it may he administratively necessary in certain territories, at least in the first instance, to have a general internment.“129 He qualified his own expression of „necessary in certain territories,“ hy having discussed „the question whether it may be necessary to intern“130 altogether. There were situations which were far too vital to be regarded under one general policy. Stephan Neill, Bishop of Tinnevelli, supported Paton, emphasizing how harmful the results of internment could be.131 Thus Paton appealed to the Colonial Office that it might take stock of the real needs and the hazards facing German missionaries in the British Empire. His guidelines were:
What we urge is that there should be discrimination exercised. It is well known to British missionaries and to all who are in touch at all closely with the facts of the German missions, that the German missionaries are of different types, and that some at least of them, through their connection with the Confessional Church in Germany or for other reasons, are not in sympathy with the present German regime, and are not to be regarded as in any sense as emissaries of the Nazi view of life. We believe that it would be quite possible to make the necessary enquiries, and we hope that in dealing with these men and women discrimination will be shown.132
Paton raised two further points in his letter to MacDonald. „During the last war, after some earlier confusion, it was agreed that the personal and private property of German missionaries was respected. .. This principle was registered in Article 438 of the Versailles Treaty.“133 Also Paton urged that „in cases where it is necessary to intern or remove the German missionaries the question of the maintenance and oversight of their work will . …“134 be solved.
September was a crucial policy-making month of the British Government towards the handling of German nationals in their colonies. Whitehall made its position clear;
The Ministry of Information does not consider it possible to utilise the Missionary Societies as agencies for propaganda, and it is obvious that the Societies themselves would be unwilling to accept such a position.135
On September 20th a gathering of British officials assembled at the India Office, due in part to the concerns and labours of the I.M.C. and the Missionary Societies. The purpose of this conference was the need to make necessary Liaison Arrangements in coping with the German Missions, and among other items to discuss the issue of the German Societies, the matter of German missionary property and the problem of discrimination.136 It was a distinguished group:
From the Foreign Office – Mr. D.V. Kelly, C.M.G.
From the India Office – Mr. Walton & Mr. A. Dibdin
From the Colonial Office – Mr. A.H. Poynton, Mr. Robinson & Mr. Hans Vischer
From the Ministry of Information – Lord Hailey, Mr. MacLennan & Mr. Hope.137
These Liaison Arrangements were to be formulated and utilized as the official propaganda from the Ministry of Information, and they reflected an increased awareness of the I.M.C. concerns. Their minutes record the following:
Lord Hailey said it was desirable, in handling any necessary internment of German missionaries, that we should not antagonize neutral opinion, and he suggested that the Departments represented might agree to act on the same general principles.138
These general principles or „several questions on which general agreement might be possible“139 were:
(a) Discrimination. The discrimination which the Minister for Home Defence proposed in regard to refugees in this country, might be applied to German missionaries in British territory. It had been urged by the Missionary Societies that if each case could be gone into by competent persons it might be possible, after an initial round up, to discriminate between those whom it was necessary to remove and those who might be left to carry on their work under supervision. . . .
Mr. Poynton said that the Colonial Secretary (MacDonald) had already expressed his general wish that the work of the Missions should be maintained and encouraged in every way possible. Mr. Robinson informed the meeting that all Governors had been instructed to submit a list of enemy nationals in their districts, analysed under three headings:
(a) Those who could be left in the colony. (b) Those who should be repatriated. (c) Those who could neither be safely left nor repatriated; this would refer to Germans of military age and German technicians.
It was explained that Memorandum No. 255 on German Missions prepared by Mr. MacLennan, had been circulated by the India and Colonial Offices, with general instructions, leaving to the local Governments the precise method of treatment and the adaptation of the general line of policy adopted in this country to local circumstances as might be thought right.140
Concerning (b) Consultation with German Societies, Lord Hailey valued „an opportunity of informal consultation with German-Swiss or German missionary leaders with regard to the arrangements to provide for carrying on German Missions during the war.“ 141 In „the complex nature of Roman Catholic missionary work, . …142 Mr. Kelly spoke of the unsatisfactory results of removing established Roman missionaries of one nationality and replacing them by others. ...“142 Once again,
Importance was laid on the effect on neutral opinion if temporary transfer of German missionary work to British and American or Scandinavian Societies was made a matter of informal consultation with the German Societies concerned.143
Pertaining to
(c) German Missionary Property; it was agreed that the German Missionary Societies‘ property and the personal properties of their missionaries should be dealt with along the lines of the provisions of Article 438 of the Peace Treaty of 1919. After the last war the personal properties of German missionaries were dealt with under the economic clauses of the Treaty. It was agreed that such action should be avoided on this occasion.144
These Liaison Arrangements were encouraging guidelines, when considering the devastating picture of German Missions during World War I in British India. Then hundreds of men, women and children were removed from the colony. It is, therefore, easily understood why the I.M.C., under the unrelenting diligence of Paton, sought to avoid the same confusion and tragedy associated with World War I.
Then a new ‚Approved Draft‘ was formulated by the I.M.C. to assist the Ministry of Information in this delicate matter of the Church. The ‚Draft‘ stated:
The Council has met with a considerate readiness on the part of Government to act sympathetically so as to ensure that the work shall be carried on, and that, where this is compatible with the requirements of security, such Germans as can after examination of their cases be allowed to return to their work should be permitted to do so.145
Though the I.M.C. cautiously admitted the necessity to intern enemy aliens in war time,146 it also stated:
We are given to understand that the Government is anxious to secure that such persons should not be put to the inconvenience of a longer period of detention than is strictly necessary. Full consideration is given to the cases of missionaries on whose behalf applications for release have been or may be made.147
Such clauses as the selection of „competent persons … to discriminate between those … „or leaving to the local Governments the precise method of treatment and the adaptation of the general line of policy, …“148 were a reminder that the actual handling of German missionaries rested with the authorities in the British territories. The Government in London had established certain guidelines and the Home Department in New Delhi was to transact these policies. For that reason Paton turned his attention to the church and missions leaders on the Indian scene, where the action of the round-up, the removal, the internment and the interrogations were being staged. 