Mr. President and friends,
The resolution that stands in my name reads as follows:
"The Congress regrets that the existing laws affecting Indians in South Africa and Canada have not, in spite of the liberal and imperialistic declarations of Colonial statesmen, been justly and equally administered and this Congress trusts that the self-governing Colonies will extend to the Indian emigrants equal rights with European emigrants and that the Imperial Government will use all possible means to secure the rights which have been hitherto unjustly withheld from them, thus causing widespread dissatisfaction and discontent."
May I please appeal to the press to alter the "equally" to "equitably" because that was the word given last night at the Subjects Committee meeting?
Friends, it is an irony of fate that, whilst this vast assembly will be regretting the attitude, the hostile attitude that has been adopted by the self- governing Colonies, a contingent of your countrymen formed in South Africa will be nearing the theatre of war in order to help the sick and the wounded. I am in possession of facts in connection with the contingent formed in South Africa, which shows that it is composed of the middle classes which, according to the Times of India, are going to form the future self-governing nation. These men are drawn from ex-indentured Indians and their children; they are drawn from the petty hawkers, the toilers and the traders - all these men compose this great contingent. And yet the Colonies do not consider it necessary to alter their attitude, nor do I see the logic in their altering their policy. It is the fashion now-a-days to consider that because we have taken our humble share in the war by not being disloyal to the Government at the present juncture, we are entitled to rights which have been hitherto withheld from us as if those rights were withheld because our loyalty was suspected. No, my friends. If they have been withheld from us, the reasons are different and those reasons will have to be altered. They are due, some of them, to undying prejudices; they are due, some of them, to economic causes and these will have to be examined. The prejudices will have to be borne down.
What are the hardships that our countrymen are labouring under in South Africa, in Canada and in the other self-governing Colonies? In South Africa, the settlement of 1914 secured what the passive resisters were fighting for and nothing more and they were fighting for the restoration of legal equality in connection with emigration from British India and certain other things. That legal equality has been restored, the other things granted, but the domestic troubles still remain, and if it was not the custom unfortunately inherited for the last thirty years that the language, the predominant language in the assembly, should be English, our Madras friends will have taken good care to learn one of the northern vernaculars and then there are men enough from South Africa who would tell you in one of our own tongues the difficulties that we have to go through even now in South Africa. They are in connection with the holding of landed property; they are in connection with men who, having been once domiciled in South Africa, return to South Africa; there are difficulties in connection with the admission of their children and in connection with trade licences. These are, if I may call them so, bread-and-butter difficulties. There are other difficulties which I shall not enumerate just now...
Then how are these difficulties to be met? I do not intend to go into details, but the Congress proposes that this difficulty can be met by an appeal to the sense of justice of Colonial statesmen and by an appeal to the Imperial Government. I fear that the Congress can only do this. Lord Hardinge, only a few months ago, made a fervent appeal to Indian publicists and to Indian statesmen for helping him to come to an honourable solution which will retain the dignity of India and at the same time not cause any trouble to the self-governing Colonies. Lord Hardinge is still waiting for an answer. That answer is not supplied by the Congress nor can it be supplied by the Congress. It has to be supplied by associations such as the Imperial Citizenship Association, the specialists, if I may call them so.(2)
The Congress has given them the lead and it is for these associations to frame the details in which they will have to examine the rival claims and offer to Lord Hardinge a detailed solution, a solution which will satisfy the Colonial Governments as well as the Indian people and will not take away anything whatsoever from the just demands that this resolution makes. With these words, I have much pleasure in proposing this resolution. (Loud applause)
Report of the Thirtieth Indian National Congress (Bombay), pages 62-64; Collected Works, Volume 13, pages 153-155
...He who lives in the manner of a sadhu, whose desires are simple, who is the image of truth, is full of humility, who represents the very essence of truth and has wholly renounced his ego, such a one is a holy soul, whether he knows it or not. Such a one was Mahatma Gokhale, as I could see from my twenty years` acquaintance with him.
In 1896, I discussed (with leaders) in India the question of indentured labour in Natal. At that time, I knew the Indian leaders only by name. This was the first occasion when I had contact with the leaders at Calcutta, Bombay, Poona and Madras. The late Gokhale was then known as a follower of Ranade.(4)
He had already at this time dedicated his life to the Fergusson College. I was a mere youth, with no experience. This bond which developed between us on the occasion of our very first meeting in Poona never came to exist between any other leader and me. Sure enough, all that I had heard about Mahatma Gokhale was confirmed by my own experience; but especially the effect which the soft expression of his lotus-like face had on me has still not vanished from my mind. I instantly recognized him as dharma incarnate...
The satyagraha struggle made so profound an impression on his mind that, though his health absolutely forbade it, he decided to pay a visit to South Africa. He went there in 1912. The Indians in South Africa gave him a right royal welcome. On the very next day after his arrival in Cape Town, there was a meeting in the local Town Hall. The Mayor was in the chair. Gokhale was in no condition to attend meetings and make speeches. But he left intact all the countless and taxing engagements that had been fixed. Following this decision, he attended the meeting in the Town Hall. At that very first appearance, he conquered the hearts of the whites in Cape Town. Everyone felt that a great soul was visiting South Africa. Mr. Merriman,(5) a prominent leader in South Africa and a man of character and liberal views, had this to say when they met: "Sir, a visit by a person like you brings a breath of fresh air into this land of ours."
As the late Mr. Gokhale`s tour progressed, the first impression became stronger. At every place the distinction between whites and Coloureds was forgotten for the moment. There were meetings in all places like the one held at Cape Town. The whites and Indians sat in the same rows at these meetings and, according equal honour to the late Mr. Gokhale, earned similar honour for themselves. There was a dinner in his honour in Johannesburg. It was attended by nearly three hundred prominent whites. The Mayor was in the chair. The whites in Johannesburg are not likely to be awed by anyone. If they have some multi-millionaires among them, they have also men who know people`s worth. These vied with one another in shaking hands with Mr. Gokhale. There was only one reason for this. In his speeches, the audiences saw Gokhale`s overflowing love for his motherland and a sense of fairness at the same time. He wanted his country to be treated with the fullest respect and honour but did not want that any other country should be humiliated. If he was anxious to see all the rights of his countrymen preserved, he was equally anxious to see that the rights of others were not jeopardised in the process. Because of this, everyone felt a genuine sweetness in his utterances.
Mr. Gokhale believed that he delivered in Johannesburg his best speech in South Africa. It lasted more than three-quarters of an hour but I never felt that anyone in the audience was bored. How did he make this speech? He started preparing for it six days in advance. He acquainted himself with the history of the question, as much as was necessary for his purpose, posted himself with the relevant figures and, sitting up late the preceding night, got ready with his language. The result was as I have stated. He satisfied both the whites and his own people.
I shall never forget while I live the pains he took to prepare himself for his meeting with Generals Botha and Smuts in Pretoria, the capital of South Africa. On the day before the interview,(6) he closely examined Mr. Kallenbach and me. He got up at three o`clock and woke us up. He had finished with the literature he had been supplied and now wanted to cross-examine me, in order to make sure whether he was fully prepared. I told him politely that he need not have exerted himself so much. that we would fight it out if we obtained nothing then, but that we did not want him to be sacrificed for our sake. But how would a man, who had made it a rule to throw himself heart and soul into everything that he undertook, listen to my words? How shall I describe his manner of cross-examining (me)? How shall I praise his thoroughness? Such pains could have only one result. The Cabinet promised Mr. Gokhale that a Bill conceding the satyagrahis` demands would be introduced in Parliament in the ensuing session and that the annual tax of £ 3 on the indentured labourers would be repealed.
The promises were not kept at the time mentioned. Did Mr. Gokhale hold his peace thereafter? Not for a moment. I am sure his exertions in 1913 to secure the fulfilment of the promises must have shortened his life by at least ten years. This is what his doctors believe. It is difficult to give an idea of the labour he went through in that year in rousing India and collecting funds. India was in an uproar about the issue of South Africa. The power which brought this about was Mr. Gokhale`s. Lord Hardinge made a speech in Madras which will go down in history.(7)
This too was owing to Gokhale. Those who were the nearest to him bear witness that, worrying himself over the South African issue, he became permanently bed-ridden. Even so, till the very last he refused to rest. He would receive, at midnight, telegrams from South Africa as long as letters. He attended to them immediately and drafted a reply on the instant. A telegram would be sent to Lord Hardinge the same moment and a statement for the press prepared. In attending to the question, he delayed his meal and delayed going to bed, ignored the difference between day and night. Such single-minded and selfless devotion would be possible only to an elevated soul...
(From Gujarati)
Mahatma Gandhini Vicharsrishti; Collected Works, Volume 13, pages 202-08
The question of indentured labour is a seasonable subject for more reasons than one. Messrs. Andrews and Pearson(9) have just returned from Fiji after finishing their self-imposed labours for the sake of India which they have learnt to love as they love their motherland. Their report is about to be issued. Mr. Malaviya(10) has given notice for leave to move a resolution in the Imperial (Legislative) Council which will, if adopted, commit the Government to a repeal of the system of indentured labour. Mr. Malaviya`s resolution will be, it may be recalled, a continuation of the late Mr.Gokhale`s work in 1912, when in a speech full of fervour and weighted with facts and figures, he moved his resolution demanding repeal of this form of labour. The deceased statesman`s resolution was thrown out only by the force of official majority. The moral victory lay with Mr. Gokkale. The death-knell of the system was rung when that resolution was moved. The Government, as it could not then abolish the system, outvoted Mr. Gokhale but did not fail to note that they must hurry forward to do so at an early date. Mr. Malaviya`s proposed resolution and the report of Messrs. Andrews and Pearson, which latter, it is known, is to suggest total abolition of the system, will enable Lord Hardinge fittingly to close his most eventful viceroyalty removing this long-standing and acknowledged grievance.
These lines will be merely an attempt to give personal observations and to indulge in a few reflections upon the question. For facts and figures, the readers and the public workers must look up Mr. Gokhale`s speech referred to above and Messrs. Andrews and Pearson`s forthcoming report.
Indentured labour is admittedly a remnant of slavery. The late Sir William Wilson Hunter, when his attention was drawn to it in 1895, was the first to call it a state "perilously near to slavery". Most legislation only partly reflects the public opinion of its time. Legislation abolishing slavery was really a bit in advance of public opinion, and that was a big bit. And its effect, like that of all such legislation, was largely neutralised by the dissatisfied slave-owner resorting to the dodge of indentured labour. The yoke, if it fell from the Negro`s black neck, was transferred to the brown neck of the Indian. In the process of transfer, it had to be somewhat polished, it had to be lightened in weight and even disguised. Nevertheless, in all its essentials, it retained its original quality. The hideousness of the system was forcefully demonstrated when the curse descended upon South Africa in the shape of indentured labourers from China for working the gold mines. It was no mere election cry that the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman(11) had taken up when he made the British Isles from end to end ring with denunciation of the system. No cost was counted as too great for ridding South Africa of the evil. The great multi-millionaires of Johannesburg spared nothing to be enabled to hold on to the indentured Chinaman. They asked for breathing time. The House of Commons remained unmoved. Mine-owners had to shift for themselves. The interests of humanity overrode all other considerations. The mines were threatened to be closed. The House did not care. The millions promised to Mr. Chamberlain(12) would not be forthcoming. The House laughed. Within six months of the passage of the measure for the abolition of Chinese indentured labour, every Chinese labourer had been repatriated bag and baggage. The mines survived the shock. They discovered other methods of life. And now be it said to the credit of the mine-owners as well as of the Conservatives who opposed the measure, that both these classes recognise that the abolition was a great deliverance.
Indian indentured labour is not less demoralising. It has persisted because its bitterness, like that of a sugared pill, has been cleverly, though unconsciously, concealed. The one great distinction between the two classes was that the Chinese were brought in without a single woman with them, whereas every hundred Indian labourers must include forty women among them. Had the Chinese remained, they would have sapped the very foundations of society. The Indian labourers confine the evil to themselves. This may be unimportant to non- Indians. But for us, the wonder is that we have allowed the sin to continue so long. This business about the women is the weakest and the irremediable part of the evil. It therefore needs a somewhat closer inspection. These women are not necessarily wives. Men and women are huddled together during the voyage. The marriage is a farce. A mere declaration by man and woman made upon landing before the Protector of Immigrants that they are husband and wife constitutes a valid marriage. Naturally enough, divorce is common. The rest must be left to the imagination of the reader. This is certain - that the system does not add to the moral well-being of India. And it is suggested that no amount of figures adduced to show that the labourer is far richer at the end of his contract of labour than when he entered upon it can be allowed to be any set-off against the moral degradation it involves.
There is another most powerful consideration to be urged against the continuance of this system. The relations between Englishmen and Indians in India are not of the happiest. The average Englishman considers himself to be superior to the average Indian and the latter is generally content to be so considered. Such a state of things is demoralising to both and a menace to the stability of the British Empire. There is no reason why every Englishman should not learn to consider every Indian as his brother, and why every Indian should not cease to think that he is born to fear every Englishman. Be that as it may, this unnatural relationship is reflected in an exaggerated form outside India when the artificial state of indentured service under the white employer is set up. Unless, therefore, the relation between the English and ourselves is put on a correct footing in India, any transference of Indian labourers to far-off lands, whether parts of the Empire or otherwise, even under a free contract must harm both employer and employed. I happen to have the privilege of knowing most humane employers of Indian labourers in Natal. They were their men. But they do not, they cannot, give them more than the most favoured treatment that their cattle receive. I use this language in no uncharitable spirit. The humanest of employers cannot escape the limitations of his class. He instinctively feels that the Indian labourer is inferior to him and can never be equal to him. Surely no indentured Indian, no matter how clever and faithful he may be, has ever inherited his master`s state. But I know English servants who have risen to their master`s state even as Indian servants have risen to their Indian master`s state. It is not the Englishman`s fault that the relationship with his Indian employees has not been progressive. It is beyond the scope of these lines to distribute the blame, if there is any, on either side, or to examine the causes for the existence of such a state of things. I have been obliged to advert to it to show that apart from all considerations the system of indentured labour is demonstrably so degrading to us as a nation that it must be stopped at any cost and that now.
The Leader, February 25, 1916; Collected Works, Volume 13, pages 247-250
In brief, the significance of satyagraha consists in the quest for a principle of life. We did not say to anyone in so many words that our fight was in pursuance of this quest. If we had said so, the people there would only have laughed at us. We only made known the secondary aim of our movement, which was that the Government there, thinking us lowly and mean, was making laws to oust us from the country, and that it was right for us to defy these laws and show that we were brave. Suppose the Government passes a law saying that Coloured persons shall wear yellow caps; in fact, a law of this kind was made in Rome for the Jews. If the Government intended to treat us in a similar fashion and made a law that appeared to humiliate us, it was for us to make it clear to the Government that we would not obey such a law. If a child says to his father: "Please put on your turban the wrong side up for me", the father understands that the child wants to have a laugh at his expense and at once obeys the command. But when someone else, with uncharitable motives, says the same thing, he clearly answers, "Look, brother, so long as my head is on my shoulders, you cannot humiliate me in this manner. You conquer my head first and then make me wear my turban in any fashion you please". The Government there in a similar way, thinking the Indians lowly, wanted to treat them as slaves and as far as possible to prevent their coming into the country. And with this end in view, it began inventing ever new laws, such as putting names of Indians in a separate register, making them give finger- prints in the manner of thieves and bandits, forcing them to live in particular areas, forbidding their movement beyond a specified boundary, making rules for them to walk on particular foot-paths and board specified carriages in trains, treating their wives as concubines if they could not produce marriage certificates, levying on them an annual tax of forty- five rupees per capita, etc., etc. Often a disease manifests itself in the body in various forms. The disease in this case, as has been explained, was the evil purpose of the Government of South Africa and all the rules and regulations mentioned above were the various forms that it took. We, therefore, had to prepare ourselves to fight against these.
There are two ways of countering injustice. One way is to smash the head of the man who perpetrates injustice and to get your own head smashed in the process. All strong people in the world adopt this course. Everywhere wars are fought and millions of people are killed. The consequence is not the progress of a nation but its decline. Soldiers returning from the front have become so bereft of reason that they indulge in various anti-social activities. One does not have to go far for examples. In the Boer War, when the British won a victory at Mafeking, the whole of England, and London in particular, went so mad with joy that for days on end everyone did nothing but dance night and day! They freely indulged in wickedness and rowdyism and did not leave a single bar with a drop of liquor in it. The Times, commenting, said that no words could describe the way those few days were spent, that all that could be said was that "the English nation went amafficking (a- Mafeking)". Pride makes a victorious nation bad-tempered. It falls into luxurious ways of living. Then for a time, it may be conceded, peace prevails. But after a short while, it comes more and more to be realised that the seeds of war have not been destroyed but have become a thousand times more nourished and mighty. No country has ever become, or will ever become, happy through victory in war. A nation does not rise that way, it only falls further. In fact, what comes to it is defeat, not victory. And if, perchance, either our act or our purpose was ill-conceived, it brings disaster to both belligerents.
But through the other method of combating injustice, we alone suffer the consequences of our mistakes, and the other side is wholly spared. This other method is satyagraha. One who resorts to it does not have to break another`s head; he may merely have his own head broken. He has to be prepared to die himself suffering all the pain. In opposing the atrocious laws of the Government of South Africa, it was this method that we adopted. We made it clear to the said Government that we would never bow to its outrageous laws. No clapping is possible without two hands to do it, and no quarrel without two persons to make it. Similarly, no State is possible without two entities (the rulers and the ruled). You are our sovereign, our Government, only so long as we consider ourselves your subjects. When we are not subjects, you are not the sovereign either. So long as it is your endeavour to control us with justice and love, we will let you do so. But if you wish to strike at us from behind, we cannot permit it. Whatever you do in other matters, you will have to ask our opinion about the laws that concern us. If you make laws to keep us suppressed in a wrongful manner and without taking us into confidence, these laws will merely adorn the statute-books. We will never obey them. Award us for it what punishment you like, we will put up with it. Send us to prison and we will live there as in a paradise. Ask us to mount the scaffold and we will do so laughing. Shower what sufferings you like upon us, we will calmly endure all and not hurt a hair of your body. We will gladly die and will not so much as touch you. But so long as there is yet life in these our bones, we will never comply with your arbitrary laws.
It all began on a Sunday evening in Johannesburg when I sat on a hillock with another gentleman called Hemchandra. The memory of that day is so vivid that it might have been yesterday. At my side lay a Government Gazette. It contained the several clauses of the law concerning Indians. As I read it, I shook with rage. What did the Government take us for? Then and there I produced a translation of that portion of the Gazette which contained the said laws and wrote under it: "I will never let these laws govern me". This was at once sent for publication to Indian Opinion at Phoenix. I did not dream at the time that even a single Indian would be capable of the unprecedented heroism the Indian revealed or that the satyagraha movement would gain the momentum it did.
Immediately, I made my view known to fellow-Indians and many of them declared their readiness for satyagraha. In the first conflict, people took part under the impression that our aim would be gained after only a few days of suffering. In the second conflict, there were only a very few people to begin with but later many more came along. Afterwards when, on the visit of Mr. Gokhale, the Government of South Africa pledged itself to a settlement, the fight ceased. Later, the Government treacherously refused to honour its pledge, and a third satyagraha battle became necessary. Gokhale at that time asked me how many people I thought would take part in the satyagraha. I wrote saying they would be between 30 and 60. But I could not find even that number. Only 16 of us took up the challenge. We were firmly decided that so long as the Government did not repeal its atrocious laws or make some settlement, we would accept every penalty but would not submit. We had never hoped that we should find many fellow-fighters. But the readiness of one person without self- interest to offer himself for the cause of truth and country always has its effect. Soon there were twenty thousand people in the movement. There was no room for them in the prisons, and the blood of India boiled. Many people say that if Lord Hardinge had not intervened, a compromise would have been impossible. But these people forget to ask themselves why it was that Lord Hardinge intervened. The sufferings of the Canadian Indians were far greater than those of the South African Indians. Why did he not use his good offices there? Where the spiritual might of thousands of men and women has been mustered, where innumerable men and women are eager to lay down their lives, what indeed is impossible? There was no other course open for Lord Hardinge than to offer mediation and he only showed his wisdom in adopting it. What transpired later is well known to you: the Government of South Africa was compelled to come to terms with us. All of which goes to show that we can gain everything without hurting anybody and through soul-force or satyagraha alone. He who fights with arms has to depend on arms and on support from others. He has to turn from the straight path and seek tortuous tracks. The course that a satyagrahi adopts in his fight is straight and he need look to no one for help. He can, if necessary, fight by himself alone. In that case, it is true, the outcome will be somewhat delayed. If I had not found as many comrades in the South African fight as I did, all that would have happened is that you would not have seen me here in your midst today. Perhaps all my life would have had to be spent in the struggle there. But what of it? The gain that has been secured would only have been a little late in coming. For the battle of satyagraha one only needs to prepare oneself. We have to have strict self-control. If it is necessary for this preparation to live in forests and caves, we should do so.
The time that may be taken up in this preparation should not be considered wasted. Christ, before he went out to serve the world, spent forty days in the wilderness, preparing himself for his mission. Buddha too spent many years in such preparation. Had Christ and Buddha not undergone this preparation, they would not have been what they were. Similarly, if we want to put this body in the service of truth and humanity, we must first raise our soul by developing virtues like celibacy, non-violence and truth. Then alone may we say that we are fit to render real service to the country.
In brief, the aim of the satyagraha struggle was to infuse manliness in cowards and to develop the really human virtues, and its field was the passive resistance against the Government of South Africa.
(From Hindi)
Ramachandra Varma, Mahatma Gandhi; Collected Works, Volume 13, pages 287-91
1. Gandhiji moved the resolution regarding India and the Colonies on December 28, 1915.
2. The Imperial Citizenship Association was formed in Bombay in 1915 to use the balance from funds collected for the struggle in South Africa for the benefit of overseas Indians.
3. This article was written before February 4, 1916, and originally published in Bhagini Samaj Patrika.
4. Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade (1842-1901). Judge, social reformer, author and one of the founders of the Indian National Congress.
5. John Xavier Merriman (1841-1926). Prime Minister of the Cape, 1908-10, later member of the Union House of Assembly. Chairman of "Fair Play to Indians".
6. Mr. Gokhale had a meeting with Prime Minister General Louis Botha on November 14, 1912. Two other Ministers of the South African Government - General J. C. Smuts, Minister of Finance, and Abraham Fischer, Minister of the Interior - were also present at the meeting.
7. Replying to addresses of welcome by the Mahajan Sabha and Madras Provincial Conference Committee at Madras on November 24, 1913, Lord Hardinge said:
"Recently your compatriots in South Africa have taken matters into their own hands by organising what is called passive resistance to laws which they consider inviduous and unjust - an opinion which we who watch their struggle from afar cannot but share. They have violated as they intend to violate those laws with full knowledge of the penalties involved and ready with all courage and patience to endure those penalties. In all this they have the sympathy of India deep and burning and not only of India but of all those who, like myself, without being Indians themselves, have feelings of sympathy for the people of this country."
8.Gandhiji - supported by the Reverend C. F. Andrews, Mrs. Sarojini Naidu and H. S. L. Polak, as well as the Imperial Citizenship Association - devoted great effort from 1916 to 1918 to the campaign to secure the total abolition of the indentured labour system. While recruiting of labour for Natal had been stopped in 1911, export of labour to Fiji and the West Indies had continued. Gandhiji spoke at many meetings and wrote several articles on the subject. He was able to arouse public opinion because of his intimate knowledge of the condition of indentured labour in South Africa. (Please see Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 13, pages 306, 338-42, 347-51, 354-55, 512-15; The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Part V, Chapter 11.
The Government suspended recruitment of indentured labour in 1917 and prohibited it in 1918.
9. The Reverend C. F. Andrews and W. W. Pearson. Earlier, in 1914, they had visited South Africa at the request of Mr. Gokhale and helped promote the Smuts- Gandhi settlement.
10. In March 1916, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya moved a resolution in the Imperial Legislative Council for the abolition of the indenture system.
11. Prime Minister of Great Britain, 1905-08
12. Joseph Chamberlain (1836-1914). British statesman; Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1895-1903.
13. Speech in reply to a question during a post-prayer meeting at Satyagraha Ashram near Kochrab, Ahmedabad, on July 27, 1916