I have just received the following cablegram from Mr. Ebrahim Ismail Asvat, Chairman of the British Indian Association, Johannesburg:
"BILL ASSENTED 23RD JUNE, PROMULGATED 3RD INSTANT. RESTRICTS COMPANIES ACQUIRING FURTHER FIXED PROPERTIES AND HOLDING BONDS AS PRIOR TO COMPANY LAW. REAFFIRMS GOLD AND TOWNSHIP ACTS OPERATING ON NEW LICENCES AFTER 1ST MAY AND RESTRICTING PRESENT TRADERS AND SUCCESSORS TO PARTICULAR TOWNSHIPS. DEPUTATION WAITING HIS EXCELLENCY URGING WITHHOLD ASSENT ON GROUND CLASS LEGISLATION. GOVERNMENT PROMISED ANOTHER COMMISSION DURING RECESS INVESTIGATE INDIAN QUESTION THROUGHOUT UNION AS CONCESSION (TO) THE DETRACTORS IN PARLIAMENT. FEAR FURTHER RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION. COMMUNITY REQUEST YOU APPEAL VICEROY PROPOSE ROYAL COMMISSION INDIA REPRESENTING UNION (LOCAL) INDIAN (INTERESTS). CONVENED UNION INDIAN CONFERENCE 4TH AUGUST GREAT SUCCESS. DECIDED UNITED ACTION. MANY OF (THE) ASSOCIATIONS PLEDGE RESIST ANY COST - ASVAT."(2)
The words in parenthesis have been added by me to make the meaning clear. The cablegram bears out what I have said in my letter to Sir George Barnes and what I said at the recent meeting at Poona. The restrictions are clear: (1) no further holding of landed property in the Transvaal; (2) no new trade licences within the area affected by the Gold Law and the Townships Act; (3) the present holders and their successors in title to be restricted as to trade to the townships in which they are now trading.
As I have already remarked, this means virtual ruin of the Indian settlers in the Transvaal. The only means of livelihood to the largest number is trade, and the largest number of Indians is to be found probably within the Gold Area. If the Act stands, they must die out in the natural course.
In the cablegram, the word "assent" occurs twice. It says the Bill has been assented to and it refers to a deputation that is to wait on H.E. the Governor-General of South Africa requesting him to withhold assent. The second use of the word "assent" refers probably to a clause in the Letters Patent providing for the vetoing of class legislation. The clause is undoubtedly to be used under exceptional circumstances. No one can deny that the Asiatics Act(3) constitutes a very exceptional circumstance warranting the exercise of the Royal veto.
The most important part of the cablegram, however, is the fact the the commission promised by the Union Government is to be appointed as a "concession" to "the detractors" of Indians in the Union Parliament. Unless, therefore, the Government of India take care, there is every likelihood of the commission, like the committee of the South African Assembly, proving to the British Indians a curse instead of a blessing. It is, therefore, not unnatural that the British Indian Association urges that H.E. the Viceroy should propose a Royal Commission upon which both the Union and Indian interests are represented. Nothing can be fairer than the proposal made by Mr. Asvat. I say so because, as a matter of right, no commission is really needed to decide that Indian settlers are entitled to trade in South Africa where they like and hold landed property on the same terms as the European settlers. This is the minimum they can claim. But under the complex constitution of this great Empire justice is and has often to be done in a round-about manner. A wise captain instead of sailing against a headwind, tacks and yet reaches his destination sooner than he otherwise would have. Even so, Mr. Asvat wisely accepts the principle of a commission on a matter that is self-evident, but equally wisely wants a commission that would not prove abortive and that will dare to tell the ruling race in South Africa that, as members in an Empire which has more Coloured people than white, they may not treat their Indian fellow-subjects as helots. Whether the above proposal is accepted or some other is accepted by the Imperial Government, it must be made clear to them that public opinion in India will not tolerate confiscation of the primary rights of the British Indian settlers in South Africa.
M. K. Gandhi
Young India, August 16, 1919; Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 25-27
Sir,
No possible exception can be taken to the impartial manner in which your South African correspondent has given a summary of the Indian position in the Transvaal in your issue of the 18th instant. He has put as fairly as it was possible for him to do both sides of the question.
It is not the additional "brown burden on the top of the black one" which agitates the European colonists in South Africa, but the crux of the whole question is, as your correspondent puts it, "that South Africa cannot be run economically with the Indian in it, and the white people who have made the country cannot be expected to commit race suicide." This is not the problem that presents itself to the Boer living on the veldt to whom the Indian trader is a blessing, nor to the European housewife in the big towns of the Transvaal who depends solely upon the Indian vegetable-vendor for the vegetables brought to her door. But the problem presents itself in the manner put by your correspondent to the petty European trader who finds in the thrifty and resourceful Indian a formidable rival, and with his vote, which counts a great deal, and with his influence as a member of the ruling race, he has succeeded in making his own economic problem a race problem for South Africa. In reality, the problem is whether the petty trader for his selfish end is to be allowed to override every consideration of justice, fair play, Imperial policy and all that goes to make a nation good and great.
In support of the gradual but certain squeezing-out process, what has been called the Smuts-Gandhi agreement has been pressed into service. Now that agreement is embodied in two letters and two only of the 30th June, 1914, the first one addressed to me on behalf of General Smuts by Mr. Gorges, Secretary of the Interior, and the second my acknowledgment of it bearing the same date. The agreement, as the letters conclusively show, is an agreement on questions which were the subject of civil - in the correspondence described as passive - resistance. The settlement stipulates only for an extension - never a restriction - of existing rights, and, as it was intended only to cover questions arising out of civil resistance, it left open all the other questions. Hence the reservation in my letter of the 30th June, viz:
"As the Minister is aware, some of my countrymen wished me to go further. They are dissatisfied that trade licences, laws of the different Provinces, the Transvaal Gold Law, the Transvaal Law 3 of 1885, have not been altered so as to give them full rights of residence, trade and ownership of land. Some of them are dissatisfied that full interprovincial migration is not permitted, and some are dissatisfied that on the marriage question the Relief Bill goes no further than it does."
In this correspondence, there is not a word about the Indian settlers not getting trade licences or (not) holding fixed property in the mining or any other area. And the Indians had a perfect right to apply for and get as many trade licences as they could secure and as much fixed property as they could hold, whether through forming registered companies or through mortgages. After a strenuous fight of eight years it was not likely that I would give away any legal rights, and if I did, the community I had the honour to represent would naturally and quite properly have dismissed me as an unworthy, if not a traitorous, representative.
But there is a third letter, totally irrelevant considered as part of the agreement, which has been used for the curtailment of trade rights. It is my letter of the 7th July addressed to Mr. Gorges. The whole tone of it shows that it is purely a personal letter, setting forth only my individual views about "vested rights in connection with the Gold Law and Township Amendment Act". I have therein stated definitely that I do not wish to restrict the future action of my countrymen and I have simply recorded the definition of "vested rights". I discussed with Sir Benjamin Robertson on the 4th March, 1914, saying that by "vested rights I understand the right of an Indian and his successors to live and trade in the township in which he was living and trading no matter how often he shifts his residence or business from place to place in the same township". This is the definition on which the whole of the theory of evasion of law and breach of faith has been based. Apart from the question of irrelevance of the letter, I claim that it could not be used, even if it could be admitted as part of the agreement, in the manner it has been. As I have already stated on previous occasions, there was a prospect of an adverse interpretation of the Gold Law as to trade licences, and there was the tangible difficulty in getting land or leases of buildings and it was by the most strenuous efforts that Indians were able within Gold Areas to retain their foothold. I was anxious to protect the existing traders and their successors even though the legal interpretation of the law might be adverse to the Indian claim. The vested right, therefore, referred to in my letter of the 7th July was a right created in spite of the law. And it was this right that had to be protected in the administration of the then existing laws. Even if, therefore, my said letter can be incorporated in the agreement, by no canon of interpretation that I know can it be said to prevent the Indian morally (for that is the meaning of the charge of breach of faith) from getting new trade licences in virtue of the law of the land. Indians openly and in a fair fight gained in their favour a legal decision to the effect that they could obtain trade licences against tender of the licence fee even within the Gold Area. To this they were perfectly morally entitled. There cannot be any question of a legal breach. Their trade rivals would long ago have made short work of any legal breach. Lastly, supposing that the law was adverse to the Indian claim, my definition could not be pleaded to bar any agitation for amendment of the law, for the whole of the settlement, in the nature of it, was of a temporary character; and the Indians, as definitely stated in my letter of the 30th June, "could not be expected to rest content until full civil rights had been conceded". The whole of the plea, therefore, of breach of faith is, I venture to submit, an utterly dishonest and shameless piece of tactics, which ought not to be allowed to interfere with a proper adjustment of the question.
M. K. Gandhi
Times of India, August 19, 1919; Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 41-43
Sir,
I know that it can only be by patient efforts that one can hope to remove the ignorance that must necessarily attach to all questions arising a few thousand miles from us. "Eureka" in letter published in your issue of the 28th instant is a case in point.(5) He has raised many issues. I propose to confine myself only to the South African. The question before the public today is not one of emigration but that of the livelihood and status of those who have legally settled in South Africa, and neither Lord Sinha nor H.H. the Maharaja of Bikaner(6) could give away inherent rights of citizens of the Empire, nor did they do any such thing. Indians have settled in South Africa for over 50 years; they are not known to have lowered the standard of living. Will "Eureka" please remember that the first Indian settlers were imported by the Europeans of South Africa? I refer to the introduction of indentured Indians. I said in 1894, as I repeat now, that it was a criminal blunder on the part of the greedy Europeans of Natal to have imported indentured labour from India at miserably low wages when they had 400,000 stalwart Zulus in their midst who would gladly have worked if the employers had not wanted to make enormous profits. Can South Africa, with any right on its side, starve the descendants of the original settlers and the brethren out of existence?
It is purposeless for me to go into the question how and by whom South Africa was won; but let me correct "Eureka" by informing him that it was aid sent from India under the late Sir George White which saved Ladysmith and which probably turned the fortunes of war.(7)
Let me further inform "Eureka" that the 10,000 troops that Sir George White(8) took with him included many Indian followers who were just as indispensable for the military operations as any soldier. Nor is this all. When the fate of Ladysmith trembled in the balance, when the late Lieut. Roberts, fighting against heavy odds, lost his guns at the battle of Colenso, I had the honour to be in charge of the ambulance corps of nearly 1,200 Indians, free and indentured, literate and illiterate, drawn from all classes. Some of the men who are now in peril of losing the means of their livelihood had the privilege of bearing the stretcher that carried the dying lieutenant. The corps served too at the reverse of Spion Kop. We were engaged to work without the range of fire, not because we had objected but because the authorities would not risk our lives, as we were not trained for military operations. But Col. Gallway sent the message that, whilst we were not obliged to work under fire, General Buller(9) would be glad if we could remove the wounded that were lying at the Field Hospital at the base of the hill. There was danger of the Boers descending from the hill. Without the slightest hesitation and indeed with gladness for the opportunity, every one of the men with me responded to the call and removed the wounded to the base hospital at Frere Camp, a distance of 24 miles. The wounded included the late General Woodgate and the brave soldiers under him. The English newspapers and the politicians were so enthusiastic about this purely voluntary work of the Indians that even laudatory verses were composed, whose refrain was "We are sons of the Empire after all". Are these Indians of whom these verses were written now to sing "We are helots of the Empire after all", for that is what Indian settlers in South Africa would be totally reduced to if the English and the Indian public of India do not make a great effort to ward off the impending calamity. In my opinion, the case for the European traders of South Africa is so hopelessly bad that it has only to be persistently, truthfully and calmly exposed to the whole of the Empire and it must fall to pieces.
I am, etc.,
M. K. Gandhi
Young India, September 3, 1919; Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 73-74
It has been my misfortune from time to time to report to the public deaths of Indians who have worked for and served India in far-off South Africa. One of the ablest of them, a cable from Mr. Rustomjee tells, just departed this life. His name was Dawood Mohamed.
Mr. Dawood Mohamed rose from the ranks. He never received any English education. I am not sure that he passed through more than two standards in a vernacular school in India. But his versatile ability and perseverence gave him such a wonderful grasp over languages without any book-learning whatsoever that I have known him hold discourses with people in Tamil, Hindi, Creole French, Dutch and English besides his mother-tongue, Gujarati. His native wit made him a popular speaker.
He was as keen a politician as he was a merchant. And when the critical moment for decision came he threw in his lot with the South African civil resisters, crossed the border and together with other merchants of note presented himself for arrest for crossing the sacred border of the Transvaal. Having carried on extensive business with European business houses, he was well known to many Europeans and owing to his great ability commanded their respect. And I am happy to be able to testify that for him who was used to a luxurious life and who was at the time 50 years old, to have risked imprisonment for the sake of conscience was an act which raised him still further in the estimation of his many European friends rather than otherwise.
It was a privilege for me to find men in South Africa drawn from the commercial class giving freely of their time, their money and even voluntarily risking loss of personal freedom by undergoing imprisonment and property. Mr. Dawood Mohamed was one of the best among these. He was President of the Natal Indian Congress for a number of years and known to Indians all over South Africa. In my humble opinion, though India knew him not, she has every reason to be proud of having produced Dawood Mohamed. Indians in South Africa badly needed his services at the present moment. They are the poorer for Mr. Dawood Mohamed`s death and, may I add, poorer also for the death of that brave statesman, General Botha.(11)
The duty of India is therefore all the greater to see that the interests of her sons struggling for freedom are fully protected.
I am, etc.,
(sd.) M.K. Gandhi
Bombay
30th August, 1919
Young India, September 3, 1919
Mr. Montagu`s reply to the deputation that waited on him on the South African question is reassuring so far as it goes.(12)
It is a matter for great satisfaction that he will secure Indian representation upon the Commission, provided of course, that that representation is equal to that of the anti-Asiatic party and provided further that the Commission has no power to diminish the existing rights of British Indians, and provided further that the Asiatic Bill just passed remains in abeyance and that the Commission is given the power to recommend its withdrawal. The resolution of the managing committee of the Imperial Indian Citizenship Association published in another column runs along the lines suggested by us.
Past promises, considerations of equity and justice, the exemplary conduct of the Indian settlers of South Africa, their contribution to the late South Africa war, at the time of the Zulu rebellion and the European war, make an overwhelming case against any diminution of existing rights. The Commission, in order to be just and effective, can only contemplate the relaxation, if not total removal, of the present restrictions for which justification is only the strong prejudice against Indians on the part of the European traders. But such unreasoning prejudice may be pleaded as a cause in a system of government that is inefficient and corrupt. The Imperial Government to be truly Imperial must have, under certain circumstances, be they ever so rare, powers of effective intervention for the protection of weaker interests. It is therefore not possible for Indian public opinion to accept Mr. Montagu`s dictum that an exercise of the veto is politically unfeasible. The veto is not merely a moral check but, in exceptional cases, it must prove a very material and tangible check upon excesses and upon injustice. The Empire to hold together must have some basic principles from which no member dare depart. If Mr. Montagu is convinced, as he apparently is, of the injustice of the Asiatic Act and of its controverting principles of the British Constitution where is the difficulty about vetoing the Act? The utmost that can happen is that South Africa may secede from the Imperial partnership. Surely it were a thousand times better that South Africa should cease to be a member of the Empire than that it should corrupt and undermine the whole of the Imperial fabric. It is infinitely better that the Empire has fewer partners than there are, but all working together in the same upward direction than that it should, by coquetting with legalised confiscation and such other immoralities, sow the seeds of its own disruption. And, after all, selfishness, greed and injustice are handmaidens of cowardice. There is no reason to fear that a wholesome and timely exercise of the Royal veto will create any great stir in South Africa...
But I am free to confess that so long as milder measures are available, the extreme remedy of vetoing ought not to be applied. It is undoubtedly like a strong blister causing great though momentary pain, and, therefore, to be sparingly used. The proposed Commission, if there is a strong Indian representation upon it, should prove effective enough for the purpose to be attained. The thing, therefore, for the time being is to concentrate public opinion upon a strong Commission and a proper safeguarding reference under which it should act.
It was great relief to find Mr. Montagu not falling into the "reciprocity" trap prepared by Sir William Meyer, let me hope in a hasty moment. I am sorry Mr. Banerjee so easily fell into it. It is murdering the language to use so good a word as reciprocity for so bad a cause as the one under notice. If we must go in for a bad thing, we must at least recognise it by its correct name - which is retaliation. Personally, I do not believe in retaliation at all. It always in the end returns with redoubled force on the retaliator. The Times of India which is rendering signal service to the cause of our countrymen in South Africa, very rightly points out retaliation miscalled reciprocity can serve no earthly purpose in the present case. "Its main objection is its utter futility," and if we ever embark upon this very unpractical method, it will be hailed with satisfaction by the anti-Asiatic party in South Africa, and we shall be cursed by the hundred and fifty thousand Indians whose very existence is at stake. One may retaliate when the stake is good. It is terrible to think of it when it is men and women who constitute the stake. What comfort can it be to our countrymen in South Africa for India to be able to send back a steamer-load of cargo from South Africa, to refuse to send to South Africa a few tons of coal and to shut the gates of India in the face of a stray South African tourist as against the banishment - for that is virtually the goal of the anti-Asiatic party - of a hundred and fifty thousand Indian settlers, or at least their reduction to helotry. The issue was stated by the late Sir William Wilson Hunter in clear and unmistakable language in 1896 or `95. Writing on this very question of British Indians in South Africa, he said, are they or not to enjoy the full status of British citizens in His Majesty`s Dominions? It cannot be solved by the make-shift of retaliation or reciprocity by whatever term it is recognised. It can only be solved by correct statesmanship and correct conduct on our part.
Young India, September 6, 1919; Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 87-89
The outcome of the deputation which the Honourable Surendranath Banerjee led to the Secretary of State for India on the South African (question) may be regarded on the whole as successful and we can now hope that our fellow-countrymen in that far away land will get justice without having to resort to satyagraha by way of civil disobedience. Mr. Montagu has admitted that our case is perfectly just and assured us that the Commission to be appointed in South Africa will have Indian representatives. If the representatives appointed are in truth representatives and if the four conditions laid down by the Imperial Citizenship Association are fulfilled, we shall have no need to worry over the outcome of the Commission. The conditions are: (1) that there should be an equal number of Indian and white representatives; (2) that the Commission should have no power to reduce the existing rights; (3) that the Commission should have the power to recommend the withdrawal of the law just passed for depriving (Indians) of land and trade rights; and (4) that this law should remain in abeyance pending the recommendations of the Commission. The conditions are as necessary as they are reasonable. Our countrymen fear that the Commission has not been appointed to ensure them justice by granting them further rights but to eliminate them from the whole of South Africa, or permit them to stay on only as helots, as has happened in the Transvaal. The best form which popular agitation on this issue can take at present is to secure Indian representation (on the Commission) on these conditions.
We are sorry that Mr. Surendranath Banerjee walked into the trap laid by Sir William Meyer. It was good that Mr. Montagu did not do so too. We trust that Sir William Meyer laid the trap of "reciprocity" in a hasty moment and unintentionally. What it amounts to is that, if in the end our countrymen in South Africa fail to secure justice, we should punish the whites of South Africa. That is, if ever a white tourist happens to come this way, he should be refused entry into India and should be debarred from acquiring land here and the export of a ton or two of coal, if even that much, from India to South Africa should be stopped. Even from a practical point of view, this suggestion serves no purpose. If there is no discourtesy in saying so, acting on it would be like the barking of dogs at an elephant from behind. The whites of South Africa will welcome it, of course. South Africa`s trade with India is so insignificant and South African whites settled in India are so few that this kind of retaliation by us will be pointless.
We shall not only make ourselves ridiculous by advancing such a suggestion but also invite upon ourselves the curses of our countrymen. A hundred and fifty thousand children of India settled there will have to come away, leaving their property behind, or live on merely as helots. What comfort can it be to them that the export of a few tons of coal to South Africa will have been stopped or that a stray white from there will be denied entry into India? The Times of India, which has been ably advocating this cause, has also ridiculed Sir William Meyer`s suggestion.
If we go deeper, we shall see that any act of retaliation, even if severe enough in comparison with the original wrong, only recoils upon the person who resorts to it. What the hand does but hurts one`s own heart.(13)
An injustice can never be cured by another in return. Injustice cannot remove injustice. Even if a hundred and fifty thousand whites were settled in India and we could pass against them, and did in fact pass, the same kind of laws as obtain in South Africa, how would that prevent the ruin of the hundred and fifty thousand Indians? The principle of tit for tat is based on the assumption that the other party is deterred from doing injustice when we have the ability and the will to pay him back in his own coin. This does indeed happen sometimes. It is well known, however, that the total result does not advance the cause of justice; for, countless men have acted on the age-old principle of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye, but injustice has not disappeared. Besides, far-sighted writers in the West, too, have been saying that, despite the great advance of science in Europe and the opportunities for education which exist there, hatred and injustice have not diminished. We have direct evidence of this before our very eyes. But we have strayed from the subject. That we can see no meaning in Sir William Meyer`s suggestion even from a practical point of view - as a means of retaliation - is sufficient to show that it deserves to be rejected.
Mr. Montagu has stated that an exercise of the veto is politically unfeasible. "Veto" signifies the power retained by the King to disallow a law passed in any Dominion of the British Empire. Mr. Montagu`s statement amounts in effect to saying that the Dominion of South Africa is so strong and enjoys such freedom that, if the King`s Ministers advised him to disallow the law passed by it and if the King accepted such advice, there would perhaps be a commotion in the Dominion. This means merely that a partner in the British Empire would secede from the partnership. In this Empire even the weakest person should be protected from injustice and if, in the process, any of the partners secede, the result should be wholly welcome. The British Empire cannot - no Empire can - endure if it holds even its weakest subjects as slaves for ever, as mere hewers of wood and drawers of water. An Empire that would last has therefore no choice but to abandon those parts of it that always act in opposition to its aims.
As a matter of fact, there is no strong reason to believe that the whites of South Africa will raise an outcry if the veto is used. Injustice, immorality and the like are always cowardly and timid. To start with, such fanatics make a great show of strength and finally yield before the force of justice. The anti-Indian movement in South Africa is based on such rank injustice that, if the Imperial Government were to display even a little strength, it cannot survive. To ensure that the Imperial Government displays such strength, only one thing needs to be done. If we raise a dignified but powerful protest and act likewise with strength on behalf of our countrymen overseas living their lives in difficult conditions, we shall strengthen the hands of the Imperial Government and enable it to secure justice for them.
Though we have shown that the Royal veto can be used effectively, we must confess that it is a weapon which must be used sparingly. We believe, as Mr. Montagu does, that a Royal Commission will secure justice. At the present time, therefore, we must concentrate on efforts to see that everything goes well with the Commission.
(From Gujarati)
Navajivan, September 7, 1919; Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 106-09
Ahmedabad,
September 14, 1919
SIR GEORGE BARNES
SIMLA
MANY FRIENDS QUESTION MY INTERPRETATION VICEREGAL PROGRAMME(14) MERIT REGARDING SIR BENJAMIN ROBERTSON PROCEEDING SOUTH AFRICA. DOES SIR BENJAMIN`S APPOINTMENT REPLACE MR. MONTAGU`S STATEMENT ABOUT TWO REPRESENTATIVES ON FORTHCOMING SOUTH AFRICAN COMMISSION OR ARE THEY STILL TO BE APPOINTED? IF SO CAN YOU GIVE INDICATION THEIR NAMES. PRAY REPLY.
GANDHI
Collected Works, Volume 16, page 135
...His Excellency`s pronouncement on this question (South Africa) will not be considered unsatisfactory. The decision to send Sir Benjamin Robertson to present our case is a welcome one. His presence there cannot but have a powerful effect on the whites of South Africa. The cables we have received from that country suggest that the white traders there are still bent on mischief and complain that the new law is not being properly administered. In these circumstances, the presence of a representative of the Indian Government will prove useful on issues of this kind. According to my understanding of His Excellency the Viceroy`s pronouncement, the representatives referred to in Mr. Montagu`s pronouncement will also be appointed. If these representatives are strong and independent men, I have no doubt that they can be very effective and the injustices from which our countrymen suffer will be very much mitigated.
(From Gujarati)
Navajivan, September 14, 1919; Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 141-42
The news received last week from the Transvaal adds fat to the fire. At a Congress of representatives of municipalities in the Transvaal, merchants associations, trade unions and other institutions, a resolution was passed to the effect that the administration of the anti-Asiatic laws was slack and needed tightening up. The Congress has protested against giving citizenship rights to Asiatics. It has, moreover, decided to establish a South Africans` League, in other words, an association of the whites of South Africa. The object of this association will be to acquire the immovable property at present owned by Asiatics after paying them reasonable compensation and to take all possible measures to eliminate skilfully the Asiatics living and doing business in the Transvaal.(15)
Another telegram received from Pretoria is also suggestive of the feelings of the whites. Representatives of municipalities, merchants` associations and other institutions gathered at a mammoth meeting, where the question of the Transvaal Asiatics was discussed.(16)
The chairman painted a dark future for South Africa if the problem remained unsolved. The meeting passed a resolution moved by Mr. Munnik(17) to the effect that the ever increasing influence of Asiatics held a serious threat to the economic and social life of the Transvaal whites. Hence immediate legislation to solve the problem was advocated.
The Cape Times, severely criticising Mr. Montagu`s reply to the deputation which waited on him under the leadership of Mr. Surendranath Banerjee, says that the Secretary of State for India was not well-informed about the difficult and delicate problem in the Transvaal. The paper reminds him that the Government had cast all its weight against the amendment moved by Mr. Collins to the law recently passed in the Transvaal in which he sought to prevent Indians from carrying on trade in any part of the Transvaal. Mr. Montagu should have made it clearer to the deputation that the Union Parliament had very much appreciated India`s help to the Empire and should have detailed with greater understanding the difficulties experienced by the Government of South Africa in solving the Indian problem.
(From Gujarati)
Navajivan, September 14, 1919; Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 144-45
(After October18,1919)
Dear Sir,
I have your letter.(19)
I suggest the enclosed cable(20) to Johannesburg. I suggest further that you should address the Commerce and Industry Department drawing attention to the fact that the whole question of disabilities regarding ownership of land and right to trade shall be sifted. The matter is rather delicate. It would be useless to press for opening the whole question, political and commercial, throughout South Africa. As Mr. Shastriar(21) is almost certain to be appointed there is no anxiety regarding the Commission.
Yours faithfully,
Collected Works, Volume 16, page 242
1. This was published also in the Bombay Chronicle, August 14, 1919, and Indian Review, Madras, August 1919.
2. In July 1919, a number of Indian leaders in the Transvaal signed a covenant pledging civil resistance. The signatories included the officers of the Transvaal British Indian Association: E. I. Asvat, Chairman; N. A. Cama, Vice-Chairman; P.K. Naidu and B. K. Patel, Joint Secretaries.
A Union-wide Conference of Indians resolved on August 4, 1919, to ask for full civil rights and to resort to civil resistance until those rights were granted.
3. Asiatic (Land and Trading) Amendment Act, No. 37 of 1919
4. This was reproduced also in Young India, August 20, 1919; and The Hindu and New India, August 22, 1919.
5. "Eureka" had written advising Gandhiji not to agitate about British Indian rights in South Africa and argued that Indians had practically nothing to complain of as only Europeans had fought for and retained South Africa.
6. Indian delegates to the Imperial Conference of July 1918
7. The reference is to the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902.
8. Sir George White was Commander-in-Chief of the British forces in Natal.
9. General Sir Redvers Henry Buller (1839-1908), Commander-in -Chief od the British forces in South Africa
10. Letter to the press, August 30, 1919
11. General Louis Botha, first Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa (1910-1919), died in 1919.
12. A deputation of Indians and British friends, led by Sir Surendranath Banerjee, called on E.S. Montagu, Secretary of State for India, in London on August 28, 1919, to make representations about the position of Indians in South Africa. Mr. Montagu assured them of his concern and informed them that he had asked that the Indian Government be represented on the Commission by one official and one non-official.
15. A conference was held in Pretoria, under the auspices of the Anti-Asiatic League, in September 1919, soon after the promulgation of the anti-Asiatic Act, to form an organisation to combat "the Asiatic menace". Participants included representatives of 26 municipalities, 30 Chambers of Commerce, 12 Churches, 9 agricultural societies, 40 unions and other bodies in the Transvaal.
This conference set up a "South Africans` League" - under the chairmanship of L. J. Phillips, attorney in Krugersdorp - and soon branches were formed all over the Transvaal.
The objectives of the Association were reproduced in Young India, October 15, 1919.
16. The reference is probably to the same meeting as in the previous paragraph - the first Congress of the South Africans` League, held in Pretoria.
18. Uttamlal K. Trivedi, Assistant Secretary, Imperial Citizenship Association
19. The letter was dated October 18. Enclosed with it was a cable from E. I. Asvat in South Africa seeking Gandhiji`s advice.
21 V. S. Srinivasa Sastri (1869-1946), President of the Servants of India Society, 1915-27 and member of Viceroy's Legislative Council, 1916-20.