The strike that united Indian and Pakistani workers in Kuwait

In August 1948, as India approached the first anniversary of its independence, Indian and Pakistani employees of the Kuwait Oil Company made a modest request: a day off to mark the occasion.

For many of them, living and working side by side despite the recent upheaval of the Partition, it was a chance to celebrate together. The company, however, refused.

At the time, more than 3,000 workers from the subcontinent were employed by the firm, which was trying to extract oil from the Burgan oil field, then the largest in the world. Jointly owned by the US-based Gulf Oil Corporation and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company of London, the company had an equal number of Indians and Pakistanis across levels – supervisors, clerks and manual workers.

The refusal by the American and British management to grant even a few hours off proved to be the last straw. Workers across class, religious and national divides united in protest, launching a strike against the harsh living and working conditions in what was then the British protectorate of Kuwait.

The management responded swiftly. Members of the newly formed Indo-Pakistan Association were dismissed and ordered to leave the country.

“Kuwait Oil Company today discharged Secretary, Indo-Pakistan Association and twelve others,” the secretary to the British Political Agent in Kuwait wrote in a telegram to the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations in New Delhi on September 28, 1948. “Forced board SS Bamora today only. Victimized to threat and police escort.” Supervisory and clerical staff were especially targeted for removal.

Facing this crackdown, the workers appealed directly to Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. In a letter signed by 430 Indians and Pakistanis, they described both their expectations and their disillusionment.

“We have crossed the seas in hundreds in search of a comfortable job, which was assured us when we entered into a contract...before the Protector of Emigrants of Bombay, with the full hope of being treated fairly and squarely and not as we are at the moment,” they wrote. “Some of us have encumbrances, some others, grave difficulties at home, and it is only because of the lure of money that we have come to this distant land. It was, however, thought that our Government would help us and not let us down.”

The letter went on to detail harsh living conditions. The clerical staff were housed in cramped “Nissen Huts”, while many others lived in tents in the desert that offered little protection from the oppressive heat or the chilly winter.

“The sanitary condition is filthy,” the employees wrote. “There is no proper sewage system. One bathroom and one lavatory has to be used by 35 men. If this is considered hygienic, we do not know what is not.”

Fresh water, transported from Iraq, was scarce and unevenly distributed. “We would not have complained about this if proper arrangements had been made for an equitable supply of it to us just as they do for the senior staff (who are all English and American personnel),” they wrote. “Time and again, we have gone without even drinking water. We have been several times compelled to drink dirty, brackish water, and even this unfiltered.”

Although their contracts with the Kuwait Oil Company said they could seek help from the British Political Agent in Kuwait, the workers found no support when needed. The office claimed it no longer had jurisdiction on such matters, even though India and Pakistan were still British dominions at the time.

In their letter to Nehru, the employees noted that the working class, referred to as “artisans”, had it much worse. “They are huddled like cattle, treated like early Roman slaves, driven around by insignificant Englishmen who lord and master them, and take them from place to place in articulated trucks which in some parts of India are usually used for loading baskets full of birds.”

Rampant racism

The letter was forwarded to the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations, which decided to look into the complaints. Its first step was to contact British political agents in Kuwait and Bahrain for an explanation.

“Grateful telegraph cause and circumstances leading to precipitous action with your comments and keep us informed of further developments,” the ministry wrote in a telegram on August 26, 1948.

At the same time, officials considered whether India needed a formal diplomatic presence in the region. “I am afraid that there is no prospect in the near future of setting up a consulate in Kuwait,” PA Menon noted in a memo. “As regards diplomatic representation in Iraq, there has been agreement in principle between the two governments, but the Iraqi government have not yet agreed to a public announcement.”

To gather more information, two members of a delegation returning from a United Nations session in Paris were asked to stop in Kuwait and look into the workers’ grievances.

What emerged from the ministry’s investigations confirmed the allegations of rampant racism against Indians and Pakistanis. SK Chowdhry, an under secretary, reported that some company officials had “deliberately insulted” Indian and Pakistani employees and made “uncharitable remarks” about their countries achieving freedom.

“I am not really surprised at this because I know from my own experience of Persian Gulf and Middle East oilmen what to expect from them,” Chowdhry wrote in a memo. “They belong to the lower classes in England and America and are largely ex-Tommies.” He recalled witnessing an incident in Iraq in 1939 when a Syrian Pasha was “grossly insulted” by former British soldiers working in the oil industry.

“They are ‘toughs’ and it is quite obvious that they will under no circumstances respect either our National Flag or our new national status,” wrote Chowdhry, who had met two of the fired Indian employees in New Delhi. “It is the same old story of colour-bar, discrimination between our nationals and the European and Arab employees, bad housing conditions, lack of welfare, and other amenities etc.”

Chowdhry said the British and American management had tried to divide workers, but with little success. “My informants told me that there was unity among the Indian and Pakistani nationals working with the Kuwait Oil Company,” he wrote. “Furthermore cordial relations existed between the Hindu and Indian Muslim employees there. The British, as at Abadan, tried to do their best to create rifts among Hindus and Muslims, but had been unsuccessful here.”

Ministry officials were also sceptical about the role of the Kuwaiti ruler, who had offered limited assurances. “In this work of creating a cleavage, HBM’s political agent in Kuwait has been seconded, though rather perfunctorily, by the Shaikh of Kuwait,” Chowdhry wrote. “This need not be wondered at, since the Shaikh of Kuwait has been virtually a British pensioner since First World War and is considered to be a functionary of the British by Iraq as well as Saudi Arabia.”

Official assurances

When the ministry reviewed the contracts signed by Indian workers through the Protector of Emigrants in Bombay, the terms appeared fair on paper. In practice, however, there was no way for this department to ensure they were enforced.

The focus then shifted to seeking an explanation from the Kuwait Oil Company.

In October 1948, the company’s liaison officer, MH Sinclair, met ministry officials to discuss the complaints. Questioned by JS Mehta, a young diplomat who would later serve as India’s foreign secretary, Sinclair downplayed the unrest. He claimed it had been instigated by a “Moplah fanatic” who had since been fired and was attempting to mobilise support against the company in Delhi and Karachi.

Mehta seemingly rejected this explanation. “I told Mr. Sinclair that the Government of India’s policy was not to prevent volunteers from serving in the oil companies,” he wrote in a memo, “but we were anxious to ensure that adequate facilities and creature comforts are made available, and that nobody is lured away by false hopes or given a rosy picture to be utterly disillusioned on arrival at the place of employment.”

A few months later, Sinclair returned with assurances that he had discussed the grievances with the company’s directors in London. He said the company was considering revising the contract and would try to incorporate the Indian government’s suggestions. “He said that according to the company’s revised draft there would, after its adoption, be no difference between the terms of the contract of the Indian on the one hand and American and English employees of the company on the other,” Mehta wrote.

Yet these assurances did not translate into change. Discrimination against Indian workers in the Gulf persisted for years. It was only with sustained engagement by the Indian government that conditions gradually began to improve in parts of the region.

Ajay Kamalakaran is a writer, primarily based in Mumbai. His latest book, Colombo: Port of Call, has been published by Penguin Random House.