It is a matter of very great regret that Mr. Montagu`s message to His Excellency the Viceroy so materially alters the position. I do, however, feel that any agitation insisting upon the appointment on the Commission of Indian representatives may damage our case which is so overwhelmingly strong.(1)
If a representative, like Mr. Sastri, is appointed along with Sir Benjamin Robertson to put before the South African Government and the forthcoming Commission the Indian case, it would be the next best thing. In my opinion, our effort should be concentrated upon securing a proper reference to the Commission in the place of the very narrow one, which we are led to believe, is likely to be suggested by the Union Government. The Times of India is really rendering a great service in moulding and consolidating public opinion on this question, irrespective of class or race. It is not enough that merely the trade question is referred to the Commission. The whole of the Law 3 of 1885 must come under review, leaving aside, for the time being, the question of the political status. Our goal must be the restoration of full trading and property rights of Indians lawfully settled in South Africa. This is what even Australia has allowed, although it was Australia which led the anti-Asiatic cry. We must also guard against the Commission whittling down any of the rights already being enjoyed by the settlers. By no canon of justice or propriety can the existing rights be taken away from the Indian settlers, but if we do not take care and provide beforehand, there is every danger of such a catastrophe happening. It actually happened with the Select Committee of the Union Parliament whose findings produced the new legislation we so much deplore...
New India, November 2, 1919; Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 270-71
November 3, 1919
He (Gandhiji) said that he was very sorry that the Union Government were unwilling to allow representatives from India to sit upon the Commission. He said that he was going to do what I had asked him to do in my letter, namely, not to raise an agitation himself on the subject, and to do all he could to repress any agitation raised by others. He told me that he had been interviewed during the last day or two, and he had said that he regarded the arrangement made as second best.
I asked him whether he had any strong views on the point, whether the terms of reference to the Commission ought to be enlarged beyond trading rights, and pointed out to him that the recent effort of the Indians to get an enquiry had resulted in what might be regarded as a restriction of the existing rights. He said that he felt strongly that the enquiry ought to extend to the Law of 1885, and considered that an extension in this direction could not possibly result in a restriction of the existing rights.
I asked him his views on the subject of inter- provincial emigration. He said:
"I would not ask for this, for I know that we shall not get it. Freedom of emigration between the provinces would mean freedom to migrate from the Transvaal into the Orange Free State. The Orange Free State has always prohibited the entry of Indians, and there is hardly any Indian in the whole State."
I further asked him what he felt about movement from one province to another with the intention of returning. A man might, for instance, want to attend the funeral of a relative living over the border. He said:
"I know the South African people, and I fully realise the difficulties which exist. I do not want to fall into the error of asking for what is unwise and what we know we shall not get."
He asked me who was to be the Indian representative before the Commission. I told him that the Union Government had not yet consented to any Indian, but that both the Viceroy and the Secretary of State were entirely at one in wishing for an Indian representative and had urged that one should be received. He asked me whether it was true that Mr. Shastri`s name had been suggested by the Viceroy and the Secretary of State. I told him that this was true. He said:
"I do not think a better selection could possibly have been made."
Mr. Gandhi said that he hoped that I would send for him at any time I thought he would be useful and said that he was quite willing to leave Amritsar or Lahore, wherever he was, to give help over the South African question.
Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 280-81
With reference to our conversation, I enclose herewith my note as to the minimum to be included in the reference to the forthcoming South African Commission.
It is assumed for the purpose of this note that General Smuts contemplates referring to the Commission the question of trading rights of Indians in the Transvaal only.
If so, it will not in any way settle the most urgent question.
The new Act deals with and adversely affects the rights of owning land and trading. It is therefore suggested that the question of trading and owning land, i.e. the laws of 1885 and the Townships Act and the Gold Law in so far as the latter two affect the rights of Indians to own land and to trade within the townships or the Gold Areas be referred to the Commission.
It should be clearly understood as between the Union Government and the Government of India that the new Act in so far as it diminishes existing rights should be revised and that the findings of the Commission should not in any way restrict existing rights. The Commission is likely to prove injurious to the existing rights, small as they are, if the above two conditions are not fulfilled.
My proposal should be taken and treated as a whole or rejected altogether.
In making the proposal, I am going against the most moderate public opinion here and against the demands made by the South African Indians` Conference recently held at Johannesburg.(3) Public opinion here as expressed in the Times of India requires the restoration of trading rights and ownership of land throughout the Union and the inter- provincial migration. This means entry into the Orange Free State and the rights to trade and own land there. In the present state of public feeling this may be difficult for General Smuts to achieve even if he himself is willing.
The demand of the Conference is wider still and includes the restoration of the political status and the abolition of all legal disabilities. Though this and this alone must be the goal to be aimed at, I recognise that it is not practical politics to strive for it as an immediate aim.
But, if neither the Indian demand nor the lesser one expressed by the Times of India is to be urged, it must be clearly understood that there should be no diminution of the existing status.
The Union Government having already opened the question of trade and ownership of property in the Transvaal, through the Select Committee and then the recent legislation, the Commission can well be asked to entertain both these questions without ruffling the prejudices of the white population. It should be remembered that, at the time of the passage of the recent Act, Indians in the Transvaal had the right to receive licences to trade practically on the same footing as the Europeans and could under the existing law become virtual owners of land by taking mortgages or forming limited liability companies. I contemplate statutory recognition of the right to trade under general sanitary control and the direct ownership of land in the Transvaal. This is not claiming much or more than they have virtually enjoyed.
So far regarding the reference.
There is the unsatisfactory administration of the Immigrants` Restriction Act which can be improved by diplomatic action without troubling the Commission. The points requiring attention are:
These matters, if they cannot be dealt with diplomatically, should be included in the reference to the forthcoming Commission.
M. K. Gandhi
Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 288-90
The news about South Africa appearing in the papers is both startling and distressing. We were led by Mr. Montagu`s words to believe that the Commission on the rights of Indians, which is to be appointed in South Africa, would have some members to represent us. Mr. Montagu now informs us that his words were misunderstood and that no one will be appointed on the Commission to represent India. However, Sir Benjamin Robertson will be accompanied by a non-official and the two will present our case. This is disappointing news for us. We think General Smuts did not have his way and it did not become possible to include anyone from India. So we have had to telegraph Mr. Montagu to set the matter right. But we shall not succeed, through agitation, in getting our men appointed on the Commission. Mr. Montagu can insist on justice being done to us, but it is the South African Government alone which can decide the manner of doing it. Hence, we cannot compel it to appoint anybody from here on its Commission. Even then, if an able man like Mr. Shastriar(4) is appointed by the Government, he and Sir Benjamin Robertson together will be able to secure justice.
The more startling news which we have received is that the Commission will investigate only the issue of trading licences. Such a limited inquiry will not serve the purpose. We shall have to carry on a strong agitation about this. The Commission should be given more powers. The Indians in South Africa have demanded that the inquiry should cover all their rights. We think it will be difficult to bring this about. But we can certainly demand that the inquiry should cover rights of trading and ownership of land; these are our minimum rights. What we have to be more vigilant about is lest the Commission should be empowered to recommend deprivation of the existing rights. It should have no power to recommend abrogation of any of the rights which existed at the time of the passing of the new law. Indians have now almost stopped emigrating to South Africa. The system of indentured labour having been discontinued, the resulting increase in the Indian population there has also stopped. Hence the only question that remains is that of the rights of Indians settled there. They must be allowed to trade honestly and to acquire and dispose of land. There is no room for differences of opinion on this point. The whites of South Africa cannot keep the Indians there merely as slaves or coolies.
Fortunately, the good Mr. Andrews(5) has come forward to help our brethren and is proceeding there. The service he has rendered it is impossible to estimate. Wherever he hears the cry of Indians in distress, he runs to their help. Fiji, Ceylon and the Punjab bear witness to this. In South Africa, he is well known both to the whites and the Indians. And so his going there will inspire courage in our brethren and give us hope that justice will be done.
(From Gujarati)
Navajivan, November 9, 1919; Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 290-91
South Africa, East Africa and Fiji present today problems for solution and test our capacity for nationalism. Not until we feel for the meanest of our countrymen as each one of us feels for himself, can we be said to have a consciousness of our nationality. Those of our countrymen who have settled in the different parts of the world look to us for guidance, help and protection.
And just as the spirit of nationality is being tested, so is that of imperialism. If imperialism means anything, it must mean and include the capacity for protecting all interests that belong to it. According to that test, Indians who have settled abroad claim double protection, viz., from us and from the Imperial Government. And yet, both seem so far to have mainly failed in the discharge of their trust...
South Africa is really the most difficult of all. We reproduce in this issue the text of General Smuts` not unsympathetic reply to the Indian deputation that waited on him.(6)
Never has a community been engaged in an unequal fight such as our countrymen are in South Africa. Compared to their rivals they are poor. They have no political power and they have been engaged ever since 1880 in protecting the right to exist with self-respect - a right which any civilised Government would not deny even to utter strangers. It speaks volumes for their courage and resourcefulness that they have been able to hold their own in the manner they have.
Young India, December 17, 1919; Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 350-52
Gandhiji, in proposing the second resolution said the resolution entrusted to him was a very important one. All the Indians were agreed that India was entitled to responsible government. If that was so, they must render help to their brothers and sisters who were at that time suffering in South Africa.
Gandhiji traced the introduction of the indenture system to the request of the whites of Natal in South Africa to the Indian Government for Indian labour. That system, he was bound to say, was enormously worse than life in the Indian jails. Sir William Hunter had called it a system of slavery. Under this system their brethren had gone to South Africa. The success of Indians in trade had given rise to those tyrannies under which they were now suffering. Their trade was crushed. It was ruled that indentured labourers could not enter into trade but must live under indenture. It was said that Indians were of dirty habits, and being of a different civilisation from the whitemen's, the latter could not live with them. False charges were laid against them and it was tried to send them back to India.
South Africa was the place where the Indians had fought in order to keep up the honour of their country and twenty thousand men had to go to jail for it. The result was that they were allowed to remain there.
In 1914 several privileges were granted to the Indians. Similar was the case of the Transvaal. The Indians there wanted proprietary rights and rights of trade, but these were denied to them. They wanted the Indian Government to secure those rights for them and to use means to maintain the honour of India... Gandhiji then read the resolution which was as follows:
"(a) This Congress protests against the attempt being made in South Africa and particularly to deprive the Indian settlers of the right of property and trade hitherto enjoyed by them and trusts that the Government of India will secure the repeal of the recently enacted legislation and otherwise ensure the protection of the status of the Indian settlers in South Africa..."
Report of the Thirty-fourth Session of the Indian National Congress, Amritsar, 1919; Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 356-357
Dear Sir George Barnes,
I enclose herewith a cablegram I have received from South Africa.(7) You will perhaps easily understand reference to the Krugersdorp case.(8)
It means that the partial protection that was attempted to be secured by the new Act has been undone by the latest judgment. The judgment is under appeal, and assuming that the appeal also is decided against us - the verdict cannot be accepted. Courts of law provide no remedy where the law itself is defective. This was forcibly illustrated when a High Court judgment upset the South African practice which recognised Indians` marriages as lawful(9) and you know that the legislation of 1914(10) remedied the mischief created by the judgment in question and I trust that you will see to it and instruct Sir Benjamin Robertson that the right of Indians to hold landed property by forming corporations otherwise is not in any way interfered with.
The second point raised in the cablegram is in connection with the Commission that is now sitting to consider the proposed extension of the power of the municipalities. It does seem strange that one should ever have to dread extension of popular power, but here where the power is sought in order to crush the very life of the unrepresented people, any further extension of such power is really a crime. I hope therefore that Sir Benjamin Robertson will see that any law that may be passed to extend the existing powers of the municipalities of South Africa will duly safeguard the rights of Indians who are totally unrepresented in the municipalities of the Transvaal and the (Orange) Free State and only partially in the Cape and Natal...
Yours sincerely
Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 478-79
The following is the extension of a cable received by me from Mr. Asvat, Chairman of the British Indian Association, Transvaal, regarding the Krugersdorp Municipality v. Dadoo Ltd., referred to in the memorandum presented to the Union Premier:
"THE COURT HAS SET ASIDE THE TRANSFERS. IT HELD THAT THE FORMATION OF INDIAN COMPANIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING FIXED PROPERTY IS ILLEGAL. IT DECLARED TRANSFERS SO OBTAINED WERE FRAUDEM LEGIS, SAYING THAT LEGISLATION CANNOT BE LAUGHED AT (SECTION 130). THE GOLD LAW WAS INTENDED TO PREVENT INDISCRIMINATE MINGLING OF COLOURED (PERSONS AND) EUROPEANS. FURTHER IN THE JUDGMENT IN POTCHEFSTROOM, UNDER THE LOCAL ORDINANCE 9, 1912, THE MAGISTRATE UPHOLDS THE COUNCIL`S CONTENTION THAT THE ASIATIC`S PRESENCE CAUSES ANNOYANCE AND DETRIMENT TO EUROPEAN COMMERCE AND ON THAT GROUND HOLDS INDIANS AS UNDESIRABLE. BOTH JUDGMENTS MEAN THE RUINATION OF THE COMMUNITY. APPEALS NOTED. EUROPEANS TENDERING EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION ARE SPECIALISING ON THE INDIAN QUESTION, URGING COMPLETE AUTONOMY FOR MUNICIPALITIES. MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE PROPER QUARTERS IMMEDIATELY. THE ASSOCIATION PRAYS TO HOLD MEETINGS THROUGHOUT INDIA. NEW ACT 37(12) GIVES NO PROTECTION EVEN TO OLD COMPANIES AND TRADERS. THE POSITION IS MOST PRECARIOUS. STRENUOUS ACTION IS IMPERATIVE FOR THE SAKE OF SAVING THE COMMUNITY."
This cablegram cannot fail to disconcert those who have at all studied the South African question, for, as Mr. Asvat says, it is calculated to undo even the little that the new Act was claimed to accomplish. Dadoo, Ltd., is an old-established Indian company in Krugersdorp. It holds extensive landed property in that township, and the meaning of the cablegram is that the transfers registered in the name of the company of landed properties are illegal, because, as the Court seems to have contended, the transaction was in fraud of the law and that legislation could not be laughed at. I wish to say nothing regarding the propriety of the judgment or the reasoning on which it seems to be based.
Thousands of pounds worth of landed property is registered in the names of companies in which Indians enjoy a dominating position. If the judgment stands, everyone of these companies will become dispossessed of the land they have occupied for years, lands which they have acquired openly and under legal advice and which has been registered in the Land Registry Office with the full knowledge of all the circumstances by the registrars, and only last year, when the new disabling Act was passed by the South African Legislature, we were told that the holding of land in this manner, prior to July 31 last, would not be affected by the legislation, and in justification of the measure, we were told by all the speakers in the Union Assembly that the legislation would protect existing companies and mortgages. The judgment in question comes, therefore, as an eye- opener. I venture to submit that, even if the judgment is sound, it evidently frustrates the intention of the Legislature and deprives Indians of rights they have enjoyed without question for years past. I hold that the impending sin must be averted, even if it is to be done by special legislation, as was done in 1914 in connection with the legal recognition of Indian marriages.
The second point raised in the cablegram refers to a magisterial judgment, and it means that Indians as Indians may be declared as undesirable, not on ground of insanitation or immorality, but because they compete with the European traders to their detriment. If this doctrine were to hold good, not a single Indian can engage in any trade whatever in South Africa.(13)
Sir Benjamin Robertson will presently sail for South Africa. His diplomatic talent and his trusteeship will be taxed to the utmost before he secures, not a full status for the Indians in South Africa, but even tolerably respectable footing for them to secure, i.e., the right to trade and own landed property without restriction, save such as are common to all as well in theory as in practice. One can only hope that the Government of India will speak to the Union Government in no uncertain terms on this question, and that the public and the press will strengthen their hands.
India, February 27, 1920; Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 501-03
I do not think that the Commission is a strong Commission. Certainly it is not an impartial Commission.(15) So far as the terms of reference are concerned, I am not disposed to quarrel with them. Indeed I would have, if it was at all possible, avoided a Commission altogether and obtained relief regarding land and trading by other means. But I am inclined to think that it is possible for Sir Benjamin Robertson to secure the rights of ownership of land and trading which are in imminent danger. The whole situation hinges round the strength that the Government of India through Sir Benjamin Robertson puts forth. It is difficult for me to go further in the absence of any cablegram from South Africa which I expect hourly from our people. It is a matter of great consolation that Mr. Andrews is on the spot.(16)
He knows the people and he knows the members of the present South African Ministry and other public men of South Africa.
The Tribune, February 10, 1920; Collected Works, Volume 17, pages 21-22
With reference to the approval that seems to have been accorded to the scheme of repatriation, said to have been recommended by the South African Commission and accepted by the Union Government, I would respectfully caution the public against accepting the proposed scheme.
The public have not the interim report of the Commission. We do not know the conditions of repatriation. It seems to me therefore that it is most hazardous to venture any opinion at all on a scheme of which we have a most imperfect knowledge. Generally it must be stated that any scheme of State repatriation must be looked upon with the gravest suspicion, especially when the scheme is fathered by those who are uncompromisingly hostile to Indian aspirations. The Indians of South Africa are able to remain in that country because of their domicile. I very much fear that the proposed scheme will be found to involve forfeiture of domicile against acceptance of repatriation money, that is, passage back to India and possibly a trifling sum as pocket-money. I am inclined to think that apart from everything else such considerations will be wholly insufficient for giving away a valuable right. I would hardly call any such repatriation as purely voluntary.
This, however, is one of the many objections that may be advanced against the proposed repatriation. I have no doubt that the best thing is to suspend judgment till we have the full scheme before us for examination. It is to be hoped that the Government of India will take the public fully into its confidence before pronouncing upon the scheme.
The Hindu, June 14, 1920; Collected Works, Volume 17, page 486
I have just read the interim report of the South African Commission published in Indian Opinion recently received. As it reads the report seems to be harmless. Even the word "repatriation" does not occur in it. It is a cautiously-worded document. And as there seems to be no opposition to the recommendation from the resident Indian population, I am not inclined to oppose the proposal of the Commission. At the same time there is no mistaking its intention. Indeed they have not even attempted to conceal it, for they ask His Excellency the Governor of South Africa "to appoint an official well acquainted with the Indian mind and their methods to act in a sympathetic manner and lay before the Indians the advantages of immediately returning to India". The case for the scheme is that the Indians are anxious to return and that the scheme satisfies that anxiety whereas the anxiety seems to be all on the part of the Commission and their return is to be stimulated by placing its advantages before our sorely tried countrymen. The working of the scheme will, however, require ceaseless watching. There should be no compulsion of any kind whatsoever and no forfeiture of rights of domicile. I was pleased to notice absence of any reference to such forfeiture in the interim report. One however never knows what undertaking may not be taken from the poor returning Indians against the grant of free passage. If the scheme is benevolently intended to relieve the present distress the Union Government will simply facilitate the return of those who are unable to support themselves in South Africa, without bargaining for the forfeiture of domicile. To insist upon the loss of that valuable right would be to take a mean advantage of the distressful condition of some of our countrymen in South Africa.
Young India, July 7, 1920; Collected Works, Volume 18, pages 2-3
I have received the following cablegram from Johannesburg:
"IN DADOO VERSUS KRUGERSDORP MUNICIPALITY THE LEGALITY OF ASIATIC COMPANIES OWNING FIXED PROPERTY APPELLATE COURT UPHELD APPEAL. JUSTICES ROSE-INNES, SOLOMON, MAARSDORP, JUTA AND DE VILLIERS COMPOSED THE BENCH. JUSTICE DE VILLIERS ONLY DISSENTED."
This cablegram means relief for our harassed countrymen in South Africa. It would be remembered that the High Court of the Transvaal had decided against Indian companies holding fixed properties as being fraudulent of law.(19) The appellate court has evidently taken a different view and sustained the Indian contention that the transactions of the Asiatic companies were perfectly legal.
Bombay Chronicle, July 12, 1920; Collected Works, Volume 18, page 37
There is something uncanny about the repatriation scheme of South Africa. I had never dreamt that the interim report had the slightest connection with the Indians Relief Act of 1914. I have now read the full text of that Act and had a discussion with Mr. Andrews also. Till the latter drew my attention to the fact, I had even forgotten that there was a section in the Act itself regarding the granting of free passages against forfeiture of domicile.(20)
The Government communique(21) confirms Mr. Andrews`s information. What puzzles me is the fact that it has been found at all necessary to have an interim report in order to enforce the free passage section of the Relief Act. That section takes the place of the several sections of different Acts of the Natal legislation repealed by the Act. These sections provided for the grant of free passage to those who were under liability to pay the £3 tax, if the latter wanted to escape the payment of the tax or re-indenture. The section in question though designed to affect these people was made generally applicable. But the debate in the Assembly made perfectly clear the scope of the section. The contention at the time was that those who paid the £3 tax really did not become domiciled, and if after they ceased to pay the tax, they wanted to take advantage of the free passage section, they should forfeit the right of domicile which was at that time considered to be an equitable settlement of the very hotly debated question of the removal of a tax which had been in vogue for nearly twenty years. The interim report somewhat alters the scope of the section, but I am personally not afraid because the section requires a written application for a free passage which is a difficult thing to obtain from any Indian in Natal, and it can only happen in the case of those indentured Indians who having become free are at the present moment unable to support themselves. Not many Indians are likely to take advantage of the section and forfeit their domicile; at the same time I cannot help feeling that an illegitimate use is being attempted to be made of the section that was designed not to meet cases of poverty but to meet cases of doubtful domicile, i.e., cases in which it was open to the anti-Asiatic party to argue that domicile had not been acquired. Today six years after the repeal of the tax every Indian under liability to pay that tax has acquired statutory domicile. It is against my idea of right that a Government should take advantage of distress of men and seek to deprive them of a precious right. It would be better not to issue the scheme under unequal conditions. However I derive satisfaction from the fact that in spite of the machinery that is being set up not many Indians would take the doubtful advantage of the scheme.
Young India, July 14, 1920; Collected Works, Volume 18, pages 46-47
Despite the mission of Sir Benjamin Robertson, the South African Commission has delivered an adverse finding.(22)
Commissions, Lord Morley(23) has often said, serve no useful purpose. They raise false hopes, and, for the time being, divert public attention from matters they are appointed to deal with. They give time for passions to cool down. But they rarely do justice. Indeed, it is notorious that Commissions avoid abstract justice. They offer, or effect, compromises. But the South African Commission has offered, or effected, no compromise. It has delivered the Indian in the hands of his white rival in trade. It has reaffirmed the principle of white supremacy, as Mr. Andrews often puts it. The principle has almost become a passion and a religion. In 1901, the late Sir Pherozeshah(24) rated me for "wasting my time", as he put it, on South Africa. During the satyagraha campaign, he was the last, as he said himself, to be enthused. And when he was enthused, it was not the justice of the cause (which he never doubted) but it was the incarceration of Mrs. Gandhi(25) which roused his chivalrous spirit, and threw him into the struggle. He used to say that I should return to India and work for the freedom of the whole of India, rather than for a handful of Indians in South Africa.
I thought then, as I think even now, that whilst the uncrowned king of the Presidency of Bombay was right about concentrating on India`s freedom, he was wrong in thinking that I should have withdrawn from South Africa. We dare not neglect our countrymen abroad. The battle of India`s freedom involves the protection of the rights of the least of our countrymen, no matter where they might be situated. But at the present moment, I must invite our countrymen in South Africa to carry on their battle bravely and single-handed, and help us here in the best way they can. India`s fate must be decided one way or the other (and so far as I know only one way) during this year. We shall be better able to protect them then than now.
The South African problem bears the same character as the problem at home. We too are fighting the religion of white supremacy... Either that supremacy must go in its entirety, or those of us who recognise the tubercular nature of the disease must perish in the attempt to combat it. The Government of India can, if they wish, put up an energetic and open fight against the proposed breach of faith which the Commission implies. The spirit of the settlement of 1914 was that the position of the Indian all over South Africa must be levelled up, not a single right then existing should be in any way endangered. The Commission has not only put its imprimatur on the encroachments already made on existing rights, but it has itself suggested further and egregious curtailment thereof. Between free nations such an authoritative pronouncement would lead to an open rupture. The Report of the Commission can only spur my non-co-operation spirit to further effort.
Young India, April 6, 1921; Collected Works, Volume 19, pages 528-29
1. The reference is to the Asiatic Inquiry Commission appointed by the Union Government in February 1920 to inquire into laws concerning the right of Asiatics to trade and acquire land in the Union. Mr. Montagu indicated that the Commission would not include a member to represent India as had been expected in India.
Sir Benjamin Robertson attended the sittings of the Commission as an observer representing the Government of India.
2. This is apparently Sir George Barnes` report of the interview he had had with Gandhiji concerning the South African Commission. See below, "Letter to Sir George Barnes, November 7, 1919".
3. The first national conference of Indians in South Africa was held in August 1919 to protest against Act No. 37 of 1919. Please see footnote to item 27.
6.General Smuts told the deputation that he was out for fair play and justice for all in the Union. The Indian community ought also to realise that there was a very strong and a powerfully backed up movement afoot to curtail the progress of the Indian community. It would be inadvisable in the interest of the community to rake up all the past matters and have them included in terms of reference of the proposed Commission. It would be better if the trading matter alone is once for all gone into thoroughly. As the Indians are not anxious to acquire any fixed property, that matter should be left out.
He also pointed out that Sir Benjamin Robertson is coming out to watch the interest and assist the Indian community and it would, therefore, be to the interest of the Indians themselves to render all the assistance they can both to Sir Benjamin and the Commission.
He concluded by saying that he was very anxious to be on the best of terms with the Indian Government and those settled in the Union. He would endeavour under his Government to give fair play to all. Being in a great hurry to meet another deputation, he regretted that he could not give the time he desired to the deputation, but the facts will not slip his memory. The Commission may give us a couple of years` rest until another agitation breaks out and we shall see then what could be done. Young India, December 24, 1919; Collected Works, Volume 16, pages 551-52
7. This telegram is not available.
8. Krugersdorp Municipality v. Dadoo Ltd. See below, "Letter to the press" (before January 25, 1920)
9. The reference is to a judgment by Mr. Justice Searle of the Cape Supreme Court on March 14, 1913, which held that marriages which were not celebrated according to Christian rites and registered by the Registrar of Marriages were invalid.
11. This letter was sent before January 25, 1920.
12. Asiatic (Land and Trading) Act, No. 37 of 1919
13. A Gujarati version of the letter in Navajivan, January 25, 1920, has the following additional paragraph:
"The third point raised in the cable is about the proposed increase in the powers of municipalities. Ordinarily, everyone would welcome such an increase but, looking to what has happened in the present case, in South Africa and the other Colonies, this increase will mean investing the municipalities with powers to prosecute the dependent and disenfranchised classes. In the event, the latter will find the increased powers of the municipalities not to their benefit but to their detriment. In the Transvaal and the Free State, Indians have no political or municipal franchise. They have a measure of franchise in Natal and the Cape, but not sufficient to enable them to influence the working of municipalities or to have their wishes respected."
14. Made to a representative of The Tribune
15. The Asiatics Inquiry Commission, appointed by the South African Government to enquire into the question of Asiatics trading and holding land in South Africa, was composed of four South African whites and was chaired by Sir Johannes Lange.
The Commission sat from March to July 1920 and was "assisted" by Sir Benjamin Robertson who attended as an observer on behalf of the Government of India. It submitted an interim report on May 12, 1920, and a final report on March 3, 1921.
16. The Reverend C.F. Andrews was in Africa from December 1919 to March 1920.
17. This statement was released from Bombay in regard to press reports concerning the recommendation by the Asiatics Inquiry Commission, in its interim report, that immediate steps be taken to initiate a scheme to encourage and assist Indians who were prepared to return to India.
18. Released through the Associated Press of India
20. Section 6 of the Indians Relief Act authorised the Minister, in his discretion, to pay passage to India for any Indian not entitled to it under Natal Law of 1891 if the latter gave a written undertaking - on behalf of himself, his wife and minor children - abandoning rights of domicile or residence in the Union.
21. Reproduced in Young India, July 14, 1920
22. The Asiatic Inquiry Commission, in its report of March 3, 1921, rejected allegations of "Asiatic menace", but made a series of recommendations which were detrimental to the Indians in South Africa. Union of South Africa. Report of the Asiatic Inquiry Commission (G.G. 4-`21), 1921.
23. John Morley, Viscount Morley of Blackburn (1838- 1923); Secretary of State for India, 1905-10
24. Sir Pherozeshah Mehta (1848-1915), prominent public leader in Bombay
25. Mrs. Kasturba Gandhi (1869-1944) was arrested during the last phase of the satyagraha in 1913 and sentenced to three months` imprisonment.