The All India Congress Committee has passed a resolution to the effect that meetings should be held at all places on the 11th of October to extend our moral support to the Indians in South Africa in the impending calamity that threatens them. People belonging to all parties should be invited to these meetings. As there is no difference of opinion on this matter, we can hope that persons belonging to all parties will attend. Even an expression of our feelings will strengthen the spirit of the Indians of South Africa. These meetings will help the Indian Government if it wishes to do something, and, in any case, we shall have done our best. I, therefore, hope that meetings will be held at all places and that people will attend in large numbers. No one with any political consciousness can be altogether ignorant of the problem in South Africa.(1) (From Gujarati)
Navajivan, October 4, 1925; Collected Works, Volume 28, page 291
75. INDIANS IN SOUTH AFRICA
The departure of C.F. Andrews for South Africa, the impending departure of the Government of India deputation and impending arrival of a deputation to India headed by Dr. Abdurahman(2) make the South African question the question of the hour. For the Indian settlers it is a question of life and death. The Union Government seem to be determined to put an end to Indian existence in South Africa not by straightforward means of forcible expulsion but by the dishonest process of squeezing. The proposed legislation particularly deprives them of all the honourable avenues of earning and by so doing it seeks to deprive them of every shred of self-respect. The Union Government will cease to be troubled about the Indian question when they have ceased to be troubled by the presence in their midst of self-respecting and independent Indians and have to deal only with labourers, waiters, cooks and the like. They want a few servants, they do not want equals, fellow farmers or fellow traders.
The answer therefore returned by the Union Government to the Indian deputation that waited on them is not surprising.(3) They have avowed their determination to proceed with the proposed legislation. They will only consider "constructive suggestions" in details. They have not made up their minds about a round table conference.
I expect a great deal from Mr. Andrews`s presence in South Africa if the settlers show firmness and cohesion among themselves. The Government of India deputation can do much if they have instructions not to yield on fundamentals.(4) No repatriation and no curtailment, at the very least, of rights existing at the time of the Settlement of 1914. The proposed legislation is a deprivation of these rights.
Anyone who knows anything of the condition of South Africa knows that there is no real active opposition on the part of the mass of the European population to the presence of the Indian settlers. If there was, the overwhelmingly large European population would without legislative aid make it impossible for the Indian settler to remain in South Africa. Nor is the original population of South Africa hostile to the settlers. It is because the general European and Native population is not only not ill-disposed towards the Indian settler but willingly and freely deals with him that he can at all live there. The proposed legislation is an attempt to interfere with the free mercantile intercourse between Europeans and Natives on the one hand and Indians on the other. If therefore the Government of India take up a firm attitude the Union Government`s case must fall to pieces. The legitimate fear of being swamped by India`s millions having been removed in 1914 the Union Government were in honour bound to grant and guarantee to the resident Indian population full rights of inter- migration,(5) trade and ownership of land...
Young India, November 26, 1925; Collected Works, Volume 29, pages 276-278
76. INDIANS IN SOUTH AFRICA
The problem of Indians in South Africa is attracting increasing public attention, for, while Mr. Andrews will be soon leaving for South Africa, the emissaries of the Government would have been able to leave for that country before this appears in print and, from the other side, the representatives of the Indians there will shortly be here. Public attention, therefore, is bound to be drawn to this problem.
A sword is hanging over the heads of the Indian settlers in South Africa. The Government there does not have the courage to forcibly expel the Indians in a direct and straightforward manner, but is planning indirectly to make them leave South Africa by harassing them. If any of the Indians remain behind, there would be a handful employed in various capacities, whose presence the whites desire, such as, for instance, the farm labourers, cooks and bearers. The rest, independent Indians, businessmen and others, who have a sense of self-respect and cherish it, would not continue to live there even for an hour under the conditions which Government wishes to create, for under the new Bill it seeks to deprive these Indians of all their present rights in regard to ownership of land, trade and interprovincial movement. Indians would have nothing to fear if a judicial settlement of the problem were sought. There will be no need, then, for any emissary from here to proceed to South Africa or any representative from there to come here. Any unbiased judge would rule in favour of the Indians, with costs.
However, they wish to follow the law of the sword, of brute force. They do not wish to respect the principle of equal rights for all, their principle is that might is right. The British Government will tolerate even injustice perpetrated by the Government of South Africa; at the most it will plead with the Union Government for a little mitigation of it, and, if the request is not heeded, it will remain quiet. If South Africa is in the British Empire, it is through the grace of the whites. While in the case of India even experienced Englishmen believe that she is held in the Empire by the sword of the latter, and that is on the whole true. If the whites of South Africa chose they could leave the British Empire right now. The slaves in India, however much they might like to, cannot leave the Empire without the consent of the British Government. This being the true position, the Indians, in South Africa, too, can remain there only through the goodwill of the government there. India, who is herself a prisoner, can give only as much help to the Indian prisoners in South Africa as one prisoner can give to another. Under such unhappy conditions, every Indian must depend on his own determined effort to win his own freedom. Only if the Indians in South Africa can put forward such an effort, can they act, though slaves, as if they were free, can they hope to be delivered. How long can one live on the goodwill of others? Goodwill cannot be assured through documents. Once it vanishes, even documents which may have been signed are trampled under foot. Nevertheless, India must do all she can. It is our duty to welcome the representatives from South Africa who are due to arrive and help them to the best of our ability. To discharge this duty is the least we can do.
The guests who will be arriving include Dr. Abdurahman, who is a well-known Malay doctor from Cape Town. He has Indian blood too. The second member is James Godfrey,(6) a barrister and son of an Indian Christian school teacher. The third member is Sorabjee, the brave son of the late Parsee Rustomjee. He is a tried soldier and has been to prison. Those who have read Satyagraha in South Africa will be familiar with his name.(7) I pray that their visit and their efforts may meet with success.
(From Gujarati)
Navajivan, November 29, 1925; Collected Works, Volume 29, pages 288-289
77. DEPUTATION OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN INDIAN CONGRESS
Here is the full list of the deputation that is coming from South Africa and is due to reach here on the 12th instant.
1. Dr. Abdurahman
2. Mr. Sorabjee Rustomjee
3. Sjt. B.S. Pather
4. Seth G. Mirza
5. Seth Amod Bhayat
6. Mr. James Godfrey
7. Seth Haji Esmail
8. Sjt. Bhawani Dayal(8)
This is a representative deputation of persons well known in South Africa. They can speak for the different groups and interests among our countrymen in South Africa. Dr. Abdurahman, the head of the deputation, is South African born, as for that matter are some others. The worthy doctor is popularly known as a Malay doctor. But he has Indian blood in him. The Malays are an integral part of the South African community. They are without exception Mussalmans. Malay women freely marry Indian Mussalmans. The unions are happy and the children born of such mixtures are some of them highly educated. Dr. Abdurahman belongs to that distinguished category. He received his medical training in Scotland and is a successful practitioner in Cape Town. He was a member of the old Cape Legislative Council and also a prominent Corporator. But even he has not been unexposed to the colour prejudice.
The deputation is assured of a warm welcome and a patient hearing. The question of Indians overseas is happily not a party question. It is a question on which Anglo-Indian opinion too has ranged itself on the side of Indians. The cause itself is supremely just. The question is, therefore, merely of India`s ability to vindicate justice. If the Government of India remains firm and is backed by the Imperial Government, the Union Government cannot but yield to the decisive pressure from the Centre. But there is the fear of South Africa "cutting the painter". Imperialists alone know the value of keeping unwilling partners tied up in a knot which may snap under the slightest strain. This excessive anxiety to hold together forces that are mutually disruptive has degraded imperial politics to the formula of exploitation of African and Asiatic races, to the exclusion, if possible, of other European Powers from the spoils of exploitation. Great Britain`s policy in the matter of the treatment of Indian settlers in the Dominions is an acid test of her intentions. Will she dare to do the right in spite of the pressure from the Union Government? The South African deputation is coming for an answer to that question.
Young India, December 10, 1925; Collected Works, Volume 29, pages 304-305
78. THE SOUTH AFRICAN PUZZLE
The more one reads the papers brought with them by the Indian deputation from South Africa, the more insoluble the puzzle appears to be. Dr. Malan thinks that his proposed Bill(9) does not constitute any violation of the Smuts-Gandhi Agreement of 1914. Mr. James Godfrey who led the deputation that waited on him,(10) and who is now in India as one of the members of the deputation successfully combated the view. Now that Agreement finally closed all the questions that were the subject matter of satyagraha or passive resistance as it was known at the time. The struggle was intended to close once for all the door against legislation based upon racial or colour distinctions. That central fact was brought out not once but again and again during the six years that the struggle lasted. A time was reached when both the late General Botha and General Smuts were ready to concede almost every material point, provided what they called the sentimental objection against race distinction was waived by the Indian community. From that time, i.e. from 1908 the struggle chiefly centred round that one "sentimental" objection and General Botha had declared that on that point no South African Government could yield an inch; and he said that in further prosecuting the struggle the Indian community would be "kicking against pricks". Surely then it was the essence of the Agreement that no race-distinction should be made in any legislation affecting the Indian community. Dr. Malan`s Bill on the other hand breathes through every line of it the racial spirit.
In my humble opinion, therefore, the Bill is a clear breach of that Agreement in this respect. Moreover, the struggle was one against the imposition of further disabilities upon Indians. The Settlement was to be an augury of a better future for the Indian community. It is so stated in the correspondence. What could be the meaning of the Settlement? Where was any security for the Indian residents against further encroachments upon their status, if new restrictions could be imposed at the sweet will of the government of the day? Let there be no mistake that the Settlement was wrung from an unwilling government after eight years` hard and prolonged struggle involving sufferings of thousands of Indians and death of a good few. What could be the value of a settlement which closes matters in dispute only to reopen them the very next day? Were the existing laws to be administered with punctilious regard for existing rights, only to attack the latter with new laws? Yet such is the meaning of Dr. Malan`s contention and interpretation of the Agreement. There is, however, some consolation even in the Minister`s tragic contention in that he does not repudiate the Settlement, but says this Bill is not a breach of it. One would therefore suppose that if it could be proved that the Bill was in breach of the Agreement it would have to go.
What then is to be done when parties to an agreement differ as to its interpretation? Everybody knows the usual remedy, but let me quote two South African precedents. There were about the year of 1893 certain matters in dispute between the Government of the South African (Transvaal) Republic and the British Government regarding the status of British Indian settlers in the Transvaal. Among these was the question of the interpretation of Law 3 of 1895. All these matters were referred to arbitration by mutual consent, and Chief Justice Melins de Villiers of the then Orange Free State was appointed sole arbitrator. The second precedent is a question of interpretation of the Treaty of Vereeniging between the Transvaal Government represented by General Botha and the British Government. I think it was the late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman who laid down that the interpretation of the weaker party, i.e., the Transvaal Government, put upon the Treaty should be accepted, and without arbitration and without further ado General Botha`s interpretation was accepted as against Lord Kitchener`s by the British Government. Will Dr. Malan follow either precedent, or will he say after the style of the giant in the story of the giant and the dwarf that his contention must be always right? Anyway the Indian deputation has a strong case for arbitration, seeing that Dr. Malan accepts the Settlement of 1914.
In their able statements for the Viceroy they have made out an overwhelming case. Perhaps naturally they have not discussed the disabilities enumbrated there in terms of the Settlement of 1914, having been summarily told by Dr. Malan that his proposed legislation is not in breach of the Agreement. But it is a case not to be easily abandoned. Theirs is undoubtedly a difficult task. Here is a stubborn Government determined upon going on with its highly racial legislation. All European parties seem to be in agreement on this one question. General Smuts, Mr. Andrews tells us, has thrown his weight on the Government side. It does not surprise me because he has always chosen to sail with the wind. No statesman has perhaps shown so much contempt for past promises and declarations as General Smuts - a trait in him which has earned for him the title of "Slim Janny". But right is clearly on the Indian side and if they have also a fixed determination not to yield an inch of ground on matters of principle, they must win.
Dr. Malan wanted James Godfrey to accept the principle of the measure, and to discuss matters of detail, to make, what he was pleased to call, constructive proposals. I am glad to note that he resolutely declined to fall into the trap. The deputation will have all the aid that India, weak as she is, can give them. They will have the support of all the parties. Let them take heart and fight on.
Young India, December 24, 1925; Collected Works, Volume 29, pages 345-347
79. SPEECH AT THE SUBJECTS COMMITTEE MEETING AT THE FORTIETH SESSION OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS, KANPUR, DECEMBER 25, 1925
Gandhiji moved:
"The Congress extends its cordial welcome to the South African Indian Congress deputation and assures the Indian settlers of South Africa of its full support in their struggle against the consolidated forces which threaten their very existence in that sub-continent.
"This Congress is emphatically of the opinion that the proposed legislation known as the Areas Reservation and Immigration and Registration (Further Provision) Bill is a breach of the Smuts- Gandhi Agreement of 1914 in that it is racial in character and is calculated not only to make the position of settlers much worse than it was in 1914, but is designed to make the residence in that country of any self-respecting Indian impossible. In the opinion of the Congress, if the interpretation of the said Agreement, as put upon it on behalf of the settlers, is not accepted by the Union Government, it should be decided by reference to arbitration as was done in 1893 in connection with matters affecting the Indian settlers of the Transvaal and in matters arising from the administration of Law 3 of 1885.
"The Congress heartily endorses the suggestion that a round table conference containing among others proper Indian representatives should be called to settle the question and trusts that the Dominion Government will accept that reasonable suggestion. In the event of the proposed round table conference and the proposal regarding arbitration failing, the Congress is of the opinion that the Imperial Government should withhold Royal assent to the Bill, should it pass through the Union Parliament."
Gandhiji acknowledged that Pandit Benarsidas was one of the few workers in the cause of Indians overseas, but said he had been led away by overzeal.(11)
The Congress had done all it possibly could in the past. They were not capable of doing much. His resolution had been drafted after a three hour discussion with the South African deputation. It told the world the utmost limit to which the Congress could go. As regards financial help, the Imperial Citizenship Association had ample public funds for the purpose. He himself had supplied funds to Pandit Benarsidas.
As regards the objection of another speaker who had urged the deletion of the sentence asking the British Government to withhold assent, Gandhiji asked, if they deleted it, what consolation would it be to South African Indians?... He wished he could do without it, but they could not. He asked the members of the Committee to believe that he knew every iota of the feeling in South Africa; if he had felt that his visit to South Africa would be of help he would have gone there.
The resolution was passed by acclamation.
The Leader, December 28, 1925; Collected Works, Volume 29, pages 354-355.
80. SPEECH AT THE FORTIETH SESSION OF THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS, KANPUR, DECEMBER 26, 1925
In his Hindi speech on the resolution about the situation in South Africa, Gandhiji said that the Areas Reservation Bill, if passed into law, would compel every Indian with any sense of self-respect to leave South Africa. It was worse than repatriation inasmuch as it was legalised expulsion without any compensation to be given to those expelled. It symbolised the determination of the white race to root out the Asiatics from South Africa. Not even the tallest amongst the Indians - doctors, barristers like Mr. James Godfrey, one of the members of the deputation who was born and bred up there and who is visiting India for the first time - were to be suffered to stay there. The resolution suggested three solutions of the question - arbitration, round table conference and, failing both, the Government of India asking the Imperial Government to exercise the right of veto. It asked Indians to stand by their countrymen in the hour of their trial and to render them full help. If they decided on satyagraha, the Indians should render them all material help in their power. Fain would he start a satyagraha campaign in India on this tremendous issue, but the atmosphere was against him. If the Hindus and Mussalmans could convince him that they were united for a peaceful campaign of satyagraha, if they could convince him that they had forgotten their differences in the dark hour of the Hindus and Mussalmans in South Africa, he would readily gird up his loins and get ready for the fight. Until then, the fight had to be carried on by the Indians over there, and India had to rest content with rendering them all help in her power.
In order that Dr. Abdurahman may understand his feelings in the matter, and in order also that his word of warning may reach the ears of the South African statesmen, Gandhiji expressed himself at length in English thus:
Shrimati Sarojini Devi(12) and friends,
I do not know if you have received copies of the resolution that is in my hand; in that case, I want to spare you the trouble of listening to the resolution and save some portion of the nation`s time. This is how the resolution reads:(13) ...
This is the resolution which I have not only the greatest pleasure in submitting to you for approval but I consider it a rare privilege that I am authorised by Sarojini Devi to place it before you. She has introduced me to you as a South African. She might have added, "by adoption." Though born in India, I was adopted by South Africa, and you will discover that when Dr. Rahman, the leader of the deputation - to which you will extend your cordial welcome - comes on this platform, he will tell you that Indians of South Africa claim that they have given me to you. I accept that claim. It is perfectly true that whatever service I have been able to render - it may be disservice - to India, comes from South Africa. If it is disservice it is not their fault, it is through my limitations.
I propose to place before you facts in support of the statement made here that the Bill, which is hanging like the sword of Damocles over the heads of our countrymen in South Africa, is designed not merely to heap greater wrongs upon their heads, but virtually to expel them from South Africa.
Lord Reading`s reply
Such is admittedly the meaning of the Bill. It is admitted by the Europeans of South Africa and it is not denied by the Union Government itself. If such is the result, you can imagine how keenly the Indians in South Africa must feel. Imagine for one moment that an Expulsion Bill is to be passed in the next session of the Assembly, expelling one hundred thousand Indians from India. What should we do or how should we behave under such a crisis? It is under such circumstances that you have the deputation in your midst. It comes here for support from the people of India, from the Congress, from the Viceroy, the Government of India and through it the Imperial Government itself.
Lord Reading(14) has given them a long reply, and I wish I could have said also a satisfactory reply. The reply His excellency has given is as unsatisfactory as it is long and if that was all the comfort that Lord Reading proposed to give to the members of the deputation, he could have said that in a few words and spared them, and spared this land, the humiliating spectacle of a great Government confessing its inability to render proper redress to those who for no fault of their own and who, as many South African Europeans would admit, for their very virtues, are now in danger of being expelled from South Africa. To some of them South Africa is a land of their birth. It was no comfort to those friends of ours, it is no comfort to us, to be told that the Indian Government has always reserved to itself the right of making representations to the South African Government - the right of petitioning. That is to say, a mighty Government, a Government which is supposed to hold the destiny of 300 million people in the hollow of its hand - that Government confesses its powerlessness! And why? Because South Africa enjoys Dominion Status, because South Africa threatens to "cut the painter" if the Indian and Imperial Governments intervene in any of the steps that the Government of South Africa may take.
"Domestic Policy"
Lord Reading has told the deputation that the Indian Government or Imperial Government may not interfere with the domestic policy of a colony enjoying Dominion Status. What is the meaning of "domestic policy" when that policy is calculated to bring ruin upon the homes of thousands of Indian settlers domiciled there, and whom they deny the common rights of humanity? Well, what would be the case if instead of Indians they happened to be Europeans or Englishmen?
Let me quote a precedent. Do you know why the great Boer War took place? It took place in order to protect the Europeans in South Africa who were domiciled there, "Uitlanders" as they were described by the Transvaal Republican Government. The late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain claimed for the British Government that even though the Transvaal was an independent Government he declined to admit that this was purely a domestic question. He claimed to protect the rights of the "Uitlanders" of the Transvaal, and that was why the great Boer War took place.
Conflict of civilisations
Lord Lansdowne, in justification of the war, said that it made his blood boil when he thought of the disabilities of Indians in the Transvaal.(15)
He held that one of the potent causes of the Boer War was the disabilities of Indians in South Africa, or more accurately Indians of the Transvaal. Where are those declarations today? Why does not the British Government go to war against the Union Government when the life, honour and livelihood of one hundred and fifty thousand Indians are at stake?
Nobody questions the description I have given to you of the effects of this legislation. Nobody questions the ever-growing grievances of the British Indians in South Africa. If you have seen a beautiful little pamphlet published by Bishop Fisher who went only a few months ago to South Africa, you will find that there he gives a summary of the wrongs that are being heaped upon the South African Indians.(16)
The Bishop has come to the impartial conclusion that for these wrongs the Indians are not to blame. It is the jealousy and the insolence of the European trader that is responsible for these wrongs. He gives his testimony that Indians have deserved better at the hands of Europeans of South Africa. If justice counts, if Right rules this world, it would be impossible to bring this Bill and unnecessary for me to waste your precious time and for the deputation to waste their money.
But evidently Right does not count. Might is Right. The Europeans of South Africa have chosen to heap this wrong upon our countrymen, and for what purpose? "Conflict of the two civilisations." It is not my expression. It is that of General Smuts. He cannot put up with it. Europeans of South Africa consider that they will be overwhelmed by the East if they allow hordes to pour down into South Africa from India. But how could we corrupt their civilisation? Is it because we live as thrifty men and women? Because we are not ashamed to hawk vegetables and fruits and bring them to the very doors of the South African farmers? The South African farms are not two or three bighas,(17)
but hundreds of acres belonging to one man who is the sole undisputed owner of them. You understand what great service the Indian hawkers are rendering these South African, European or Boer farmers. That is the conflict.
Peril of Islam
Someone has said (I do not know where, but only recently) that Europeans in South Africa dread the advent of Islam - Islam that civilised Spain, Islam that took the torchlight to Morocco and preached to the world the Gospel of Brotherhood. The Europeans of South Africa dread the advent of Islam, for they are afraid of the fact that if the Native races embrace Islam they may claim equality with the white races. They may well dread it. If brotherhood is a sin, if it is equality of Coloured races that they dread, then that dread is well founded. For I have seen that any Zulu embracing Christianity does not ipso facto come on a level with all Christians, whilst immediately he embraces Islam, he drinks from the same cup and eats from the same dish as a Mussalman. That is what they dread. The thing is they want to become lords of the universe. They want to appropriate the land for themselves. The Kaiser, though downtrodden, fears an Asiatic federation and speaks even from his exile that it is a danger which Europeans should guard themselves against. That is the conflict of civilisations and that is why Lord Reading is powerless to intervene in their domestic policy.
Such are the tremendous consequences of the struggle which this resolution describes as unequal and it is in that unequal struggle that this Congress is called upon to take its due share. I want to make an appeal, if my voice can go as far as South Africa, to the statesmen that are ruling the destiny of South African Indians.
The bright side
I have so far given you only the dark side of South African Europeans. Let me also say that I claim among them some of my most precious friends and I have enjoyed from individual South African Europeans the greatest kindness and the greatest hospitality. I claim the privilege of having been a close friend of that great poetess and philanthropist and that most self-effacing woman - Olive Schreiner. She was a friend of the Indians equally with the Natives of South Africa. She knew no distinctions between white and black races. She loved the Indian, the Zulu and the Bantu as her own children. She would prefer to accept the hospitality of a South African Native in his humble hut. What she gave away with her right hand her left hand never knew. Such precious men and women have also been born and bred in South Africa.
A warning
I can give you many more such names. I claim also to know General Smuts, though I may not claim to be his friend. He was party to the Agreement on behalf of his Government with me on behalf of the Indians. He it was who said that the British Indians in South Africa had deserved that settlement. It was he who said that that was a final settlement and that Indians should not threaten passive resistance and that the European settlers in South Africa should allow rest to the Indian community.
But hardly had I turned my back from South Africa than a series of wrongs began to be heaped upon them. Where is the plighted word of General Smuts? General Smuts will go one of these days the same way that every human being has to go, but his words and deeds shall remain after him. He is not a mere individual. He spoke the right thing in his representative capacity. He claims to be a Christian and every one of the members of the South African Government makes the same claim. Before they open their Parliament they read the common prayer from the Bible and a South African divine opens the proceedings with a prayer that goes up to God, not the God of white men, not the God of the Negro, not of the Mussalman, not of the Hindu, but the God of all, the God of the Universe.
I say this from my place of position, and knowing my responsibility to its fullest extent, that they will deny their Bible, they will deny their God, if they hesitate for one moment, if they fail to render the elementary justice that is due to the Indians of South Africa.(18)
Young India, January 7, 1926, and The Report of the Indian National Congress, Fortieth Session, Cawnpore, 1925; Collected Works, Volume 29, pages 357-362
81. NOTES ON SOUTH AFRICA
Andrews` activities
Mr. C.F. Andrews has been incessantly active ever since his arrival in South Africa. Besides sending cables to the press, he sent regular cablegrams at Kanpur during the Congress Week. In one of them he says:
"GENERAL SMUTS DECLARED AT THE IMPERIAL CABINET IN 1917 FOLLOWING CONCERNING DOMICILED INDIANS: IF ANY QUESTION PROVES DIFFICULT OF TREATMENT, WE CAN DISCUSS IT IN A FRIENDLY WAY, AT THIS COUNCIL CHAMBER OF EMPIRE AND TRY TO FIND IN CONSULTATION A SOLUTION AND I AM SURE WE SHALL EVER FIND IT."
The cable then proceeds,
"SEEING GENERAL SMUTS MADE THIS OFFER, MIGHT IT JUSTIFY DEMANDING SUSPENSION BILL PENDING IMPERIAL CONSULTATION?"
Many other things will justify suspension and many other remedies too would be justified to kill the Bill.(19)
But who will do it? Is the Imperial Government willing and anxious to try all the remedies possible to secure redress of the grave injustice which is impending? Will the Government of India force the hands of the Imperial Government? Can we force the hands of the Government of India?
Of the Congress resolution as cabled by Reuter, Mr. Andrews says:
"EVERYONE DELIGHTED CONGRESS ATTITUDE."
In yet another he says Bishop Palmer let him preach before his congregation on the Indian question and that the impression created was satisfactory.(20)
The same cable also intimates that the Auxiliary European Committee that was formed at the time of the passive resistance movement(21) is being resuscitated. Thus everything that a single human being can do to prevent the perpetration of the wrong is being done by Mr. Andrews in far-off South Africa.
Bishop Fisher`s pamphlet
It will be remembered that Bishop Fisher of the American Mission recently visited South Africa. He contributed his impressions to the National Christian Council Review. The Associated Press, Calcutta, has published it in pamphlet form at two annas. The statement is a marvelous condensation of the history of the Indian question in South Africa. In his preface the Bishop says:
"Its accuracy is vouched for, whilst the unjust humiliations to which Indians are subjected are understated rather than exaggerated."
I commend this pamphlet to everyone interested in this difficult problem.
Young India, January 7, 1926; Collected Works, Volume 29, pages 385-386
82. STATEMENT TO THE PRESS ON SMUTS-GANDHI AGREEMENT, JANUARY 21, 1926(22)
Mr. Andrews sent me a cable inviting me to make a statement on the Smuts-Gandhi Agreement as it has given rise to a controversy in South Africa. I observe too that two South African divines have supported my contention.
Let it be remembered that the Agreement is a matter of record. It closed a struggle that had lasted for close on eight years and covered many intermediate and interlocutory arrangements and agreements. Let it be also noted that the Government of India was not unconcerned with the Agreement. It supplemented the Indian Relief measure(23) that was almost simultaneously passed. As is common in all such arrangements, the correspondence between the parties is previously seen and approved by them. So was this correspondence mutually seen and accepted. My letter to General Smuts refers to disabilities not covered by the Relief Act and expresses the hope that even those disabilities which were not then dealt with would be removed in the course of time. It is not to be supposed that after eight years of solid suffering, the Indian settlers were satisfied with an arrangement that might lead, not to a further amelioration of their status, but to their further degradation, ultimately resulting in extinction.
But I do not wish to labour the point. There is the Indian offer, the Congress offer to go to arbitration on the point. Let the Government of India ascertain for themselves the meaning of the Agreement and invite the Union Government to accept the principle of arbitration.
It is not for the first time that the South African Ministers have repudiated the arrangements and promises made by themselves. They repudiated the promise made to Mr. Gokhale about the £3 tax which, as a point of honour was added to the objects of the passive resistance struggle and which ultimately the Union Government had to repeal. So it is the old trick now repeated. It is a matter of honour for India to insist upon the fulfilment of the Agreement of 1914.
The Hindu, January 22, 1926; Collected Works, Volume 29, pages 424-425
83. THE SOUTH AFRICAN QUESTION
I am sorry to say that Lord Reading`s pronouncement on the acute position that has arisen in South Africa does not inspire me with hope. He may by some diplomatic stroke secure postponement of consideration of the Bill during the present session of the Union Parliament. But the grim fact that stares us in the face is that, as the recent cablegram shows, action is being taken already in South Africa as if the Bill had become the law of the land, and renewals of licences are being refused. The principle of the measure is itself wrong. What appears to me Lord Reading is after is that he will secure some trifling alteration in the details but nothing in the substance of the Bill, the substance being the curtailment of the rights of the resident Indian population as they existed at the Settlement of 1914.
The fulcrum of that Settlement of that long struggle was no more disabilities, but the steady improvement in the position of the resident population, after the fear of unrestricted immigration of Indians had been removed for all time. That fear was removed, not merely in 1914 but when Natal passed its Immigration Law and the Cape followed suit. There never was a large Indian population in the Transvaal. The Indian population in the Orange Free State was never anything to speak of. But under a popular government once you excite feelings you are bound to satisfy them in some shape or other. All the South African statesmen had excited the feelings of the people, which to be accurate they themselves shared without having studied the question. The Government having however allayed the fear by passing a very strict immigration restriction measure, the resident Indian population had every right to hope that their position would steadily improve in process of time. But evidently such was not to be the case and the history since 1914 is a history of a series of attacks upon the Indian position.
If Lord Reading means to do his duty he has not merely to secure a postponement of the consideration of the measure but to insist upon at least a reversion to the position of 1914, bad as even that position would be. Let it not be said when the result of his negotiations is known that Lord Reading had secured nothing which might be considered substantial relief from the point of view of the settlers themselves.
Young India, January 28, 1926; Collected Works, Volume 29, page 431
84. INDEFATIGABLE MR. ANDREWS
Whatever the fate of the anti-Indian measure of the Union Government, there is no doubt that Mr. Andrews`s contribution to the solution of the problem will rank as the highest. His tireless energy, ceaseless watchfulness and gentle persuasive powers have brought us within hope of success. He himself though despondent in the beginning stages now holds out hope that the Bill is likely to be shelved at least for this session. He has been enlisting the sympathy of the clergy and drawing from them emphatic pronouncement against the measure.(24) He has been quietly interviewing editors and public men. Thus he has shaken even South African European opinion that had ranged itself in favour of the measure. His deep study of the question has enabled him to show to the satisfaction of several leaders of public opinion in South Africa that the measure is a manifest breach of the Smuts-Gandhi Agreement. He has also brought together scattered Indian forces to focus themselves upon attacking the Bill. Mr. Andrews has thus made a very substantial addition to his many services to India and humanity. No single living Englishman has done so much as Mr. Andrews to sweeten the relations between Englishmen and Indians. His one hope is to establish an indissoluble bond between the two peoples, a bond based upon mutual respect and absolute equality. May his dream be realised.
Young India, February 4, 1926; Collected Works, Volume 29, pages 439-440.
85. NOTES ON SOUTH AFRICA
Breach of faith
The threatened Asiatic Bill is a breach of the Smuts-Gandhi Agreement regarding the whole of South Africa, and it is a breach of faith also as regards Natal as brought out by Mr. Andrews in one of his letters to the press in South Africa and reproduced in Indian Opinion just to hand. The following is the apposite extract:
"The Natal Government brought out under contract, from the year 1860 onwards, the
vast majority of Indians who landed in South Africa. It was agreed between the two Governments, before they left India, that if they fulfilled their five years` labour contract on the sugar plantations they should be given certain rights in Natal, including those of domicile together with open purchase of land and immovable property. The Natal Government, in its eagerness to get this indentured Indian labour, also agreed that Indian traders should be allowed to accompany the labourers as free Indians.
"These Indian labourers purchased those rights at a great cost. For the five years` indenture was accompanied by such grave moral evils, that it has now been entirely abandoned as a vicious labour system. The Natal Government, up to quite recent times, has endeavoured to observe faithfully its side of the contract. Section 148 of the South Africa Act makes it clear that agreements made by the Natal Colonial Government devolve upon the Union. (Year Book, p.74)"
Economic fallacy
The same letter thus disposes of the economic argument often brought against the Indian settler:
"The Indian question itself is by no means so serious from an economic standpoint as most people in South Africa have been led to think. Indeed, in reality the solution has been already obtained, because the Indian competition is a diminishing and not an increasing factor. Yet even in a city like Durban, where Indians are most numerous of all, the net increase in the value of properties held by Indians between 1921 and 1925 was only in round figures a quarter of a million while that of Europeans was four millions. Yet the Indian and European populations in Durban and suburbs are in the proportions of four to five. I have already stated, and would state again, that the census of 1921 showed a European increase of 39.8 percent, while the Indian increase was only 6.1 percent. Every year Indians in large numbers are leaving the country never to return. No more are allowed to come in. The Indian men in the Union are greater in number than the women. Therefore the birth-rate is not likely to be a high one. The whole number of Indians in the Union was only 161,000 in 1921. If there happen to be cases where Indian shops are increasing in number, I have seen with my own eyes other places where the decrease is equally marked. What cause is there, then, for any economic fear? The problem is easily able to solve itself, if only time is allowed; and in the increasing prosperity (which is certain to come with the improvement of trade) the shortage of labour will everywhere soon be felt and the majority of Indians, who still do useful and steady industrial and agricultural work, will all be needed. It seems indeed almost an absurd thing, at such a time, to be driving such a valuable labour asset out of the country."
Mr. Andrews could have added that in the other parts of South Africa the Indian position is infinitely worse than in Durban. In the major part of the Union he is landless and is dependent purely on the goodwill of his European landlord. His only crime is that besides being a labourer he dares to engage in trade and eke out an honest living. Dispassionately examined, the cry against the Asiatic has no foundation save in an insensate colour prejudice and petty trade jealousy.
Young India, February 11, 1926; Collected Works, Volume 30, pages 1-2
86. ABUSE OF POWER
Protests in India notwithstanding, the Union Parliament has passed the anti-colour legislation.(25) This does not so materially affect Indian settlers as the natives of the soil. They and Asiatics are virtually debarred by this legislation from doing any work on the mines which Europeans can or will do. It is an unnecessary affront put upon Indians. For there are very few working on the mines. So far as the Natives are concerned the legislation not only reduces their legal status but it also affects the material interest of thousands working on the mines. No wonder General Smuts uttered a grave note of warning against the legislation and likened it to a fire-brand thrown in a haystack. The Bill is a challenge to the Natives. Illiterate though they may be, they are as proud and sensitive as any people on earth. In their helplessness they may be unable to answer the challenge but there is no doubt that the Europeans of South Africa if they persist in their arrogant policy will have sown the seeds of their own destruction. It is stated that the Senate will reject the measure when it comes before it. It ought to. But the same cable tells us that the existing Government have a majority in the combined Houses which they propose to use in order to carry out their purpose. If this temper continues, the anti-Asiatic measure which is agitating India at the present moment is not likely to be postponed as Mr. Andrews hopes it will. These measures really hang together and represent the settled policy of the present Union Government on the question of colour. Only the strongest attitude on the part of the Government of India can bring about a reconsideration of that policy.
Young India, February 11, 1926; Collected Works, Volume 30, page 6
1. Prayers, meetings, demonstrations and hartals were held all over India on October 11. 1925, with the participation of various political parties.
The Indian Review (October 1925) has the following message by Gandhiji to the protest meetings:
"Happily the question of British Indians in South Africa is not a party question. India must be able to avert the calamity that threatens to overtake our countrymen in that sub-continent. The proposed legislation is a manifest breach of the settlement of 1914. My experience of the Indian question in South Africa is one of a series of breaches of promises and declarations, which have been proved from official records. The proposed legislation is, in effect, the confiscation of almost every right that British Indians possess. Their sole crime consists in being good traders and not being Europeans. There can be no compromise in this matter - no repatriation, even when euphemistically described, as voluntary. Let me, however, say that retaliation will be no remedy, because there can be no effective retaliation. The only remedy is diplomatic pressure. Lord Hardinge applied it successfully. Will the present Government repeat that performance?"
2.Dr. Abdulla Abdurahman (Abdul Rahman), (1870-1940), a well -known doctor in Cape Town. He was President of the African Political Organisation, a member of the Cape Legislative Council and a member of the Cape Town municipality for many years. He played a prominent role in politics, as a leader of the Coloured people, and advocated the unity of all the oppressed black people.
He was a grandson of a freed slave and was partly of Indian ancestry.
Gandhiji had known him in South Africa.
3.A deputation of the South African Indian Congress, led by Advocate James W. Godfrey, met the Minister of the Interior, Dr. D.F. Malan, on November 16, 1925.
4. A Government of India delegation, led by Sir G. F. Paddison, Labour Commissioner of Madras, visited South Africa in December 1925 to investigate the economic position and general condition of the Indians in South Africa. Syed Raza Ali and Sir Devprasad Sarvadhikari were the other members of the delegation and G.S. Bajpai was Secretary. The delegation appeared before the Select Committee of the South African Parliament considering the Areas Reservation and Immigration and Registration (Further Provision) Bill, and requested deferring action on the measure until it was considered by a conference of the representatives of the Governments of South Africa and India.
5. Free movement between provinces of South Africa. Indians were not allowed to cross provincial boundaries without permit and were not allowed to live in the Orange Free State.
6.Advocate James W. Godfrey, Vice-President of the South African Indian Congress. He had appeared for Gandhiji in the trial in South Africa in November 1913.
7. Sorabjee Rustomjee was a leader of the Natal Indian Congress.
Gandhiji had written in Satyagraha in South Africa, Chapter XLVI, in connection with the strike of Indian workers in 1913:
"One incident deserves to be placed on record. Many labourers came out in Verulam and would not return in spite of all the efforts of the authorities. General Lukin was present on the scene with his soldiers and was about to order his men to open fire. Brave Sorabjee, son of the late Parsee Rustomjee then hardly 18 years of age, had reached here from Durban. He seized the reins of the General`s horse and exclaimed, 'You must not order firing. I undertake to induce my people peacefully to return to work.` General Lukin was charmed with the young man`s courage and gave him time to try his method of love.Sorabjee reasoned with the labourers who came round and returned to their work. Thus a number of murders were prevented by the presence of mind, valour and loving kindness of one young man."
8. The names of third and fourth delegates are not accurate: they should be "V.S.C. Pather" and "A.A. Mirza".
V. S. C. Pather was treasurer of the South African Indian Congress.
A. A. Mirza was secretary of the Transvaal British Indian Association.
Amod Bhayat (or Bayat) (1859-1931), a businessman in Pietermaritzburg, was a founding member of the Natal Indian Congress.
Pandit Bhawani Dayal was Vice-President of the Natal Indian Congress. He had served imprisonment in the Satyagraha of 1913, as did his wife and child. He edited the Hindi section of Indian Opinion for some time in 1914. Writer, editor and public worker, he became a Sannyasi in 1927 and changed his name to Bhawani Dayal Sannyasi. He went to prison in the Civil Disobedience Movement in India in 1931.
9. Areas Reservation and Immigration and Registration (Further Provision) Bill, 1925
10. Advocate James Godfrey led the deputation of the South African Indian Congress to the Minister of the Interior, Dr. D. F. Malan, on November 16, 1925.
11. Pandit Benarsidas Chaturvedi, one of the members, held that the Congress had shown culpable negligence regarding the plight of Indians overseas. He wanted the various leaders to organise a big agitation for support and help; otherwise the promise of "full support" made in the resolution was meaningless. He also deplored the mentality created among the masses that the cause of Indians abroad could not be helped till they got swaraj.
Mr. Chaturvedi, a writer and public worker, espoused the cause of Indians overseas, and received a small grant from the Indian National Congress for his work.
12. Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, President of the Congress
13. For the text of the resolution, please see the previous item.
14. Lord Reading (Rufus Daniel Isaacs) (1860-1935), Viceroy of India, 1921-26. He received the South African deputation on December 19, 1925.
15. Lord Lansdowne, the Secretary of State for War and former Viceroy of India, said in the House of Lords on behalf of the British Government:
"A considerable number of Queen`s Indian subjects are to be found in the Transvaal and among the many misdeeds of the South African Republic I do not know that any fills me with more indignation than its treatment of these Indians."
16. Bishop Fisher of Calcutta visited South Africa and several other African territories, and wrote an article in the National Christian Council Review of January 1926 on the position of Indians in South Africa. He argued against the proposed anti-Asiatic legislation.
The article was reprinted as a pamphlet.
17. A bigha is equivalent to ....
18. The resolution was seconded by Maulana Mohamad Ali and was carried unanimously.
19. Areas Reservation and Immigration and Registration (Further Provision) Bill, then before the South African Parliament
20. The Very Reverend W. A. Palmer, Anglican Dean of Johannesburg, sympathised with the Indian cause.
21. The Committee of European Sympathisers
22. Released by the Associated Press of India from Bombay
24. South African Indians observed February 23, 1926, as a day of humiliation and prayer. At several places, bishops conducted the prayers and expressed sympathy with the cause of the Indians. P.S. Joshi, The Tyranny of Colour, 1942, page 119.