OCTOBER 28, 1954(1) (Summary)
India was always prepared to cooperate in negotiations for the peaceful settlement of a dispute, whatever it might be. That principle had guided all its policies and it would observe it in the case before the Committee. The Indian Government would apply in good faith any resolution that the Assembly might adopt.
Nevertheless, the Committee should bear in mind that it was not now dealing with the issue of a handful of people of Indian origin, but with the fundamental principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and their application in that particular case, as well as with the role of the General Assembly in the matter. In order to fulfil his duty to the Committee and to the people of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa, he felt obliged to discuss certain aspects of the question in detail.
It was not the first time the General Assembly had asked the parties to negotiate. For their part, India and Pakistan had spared no efforts to that end. The last of those efforts had been at the conference at Cape Town in 1950. The representatives of India and Pakistan had attended, although they had been personally subjected to the application of the apartheid law. They had been prepared to make any concessions that would lead to a solution of the problem. An initial agreement had been reached on the purpose of the negotiations and on headings for the discussion. The Chairman of the South African delegation had suggested that the agenda should be drafted so that it would in no way prejudice the success of the conference. The Indian delegation had made no conditions. Nevertheless, that had not prevented the South African Government from promulgating, on April 27, 1950, the Group Areas Act which provided for the segregation of the population according to race and thus affected persons of Indian origin. By the enforcement of that measure, the South African Government had ignored the decision of the General Assembly, which had expressly called upon the parties to refrain from any measures which might compromise the success of their negotiations and had asked that the provisions of the Act should not be enforced while the negotiations were in progress. The beginning of a process of rapproachment had been reversed and the conference had come to nothing.
The question had therefore been referred back to the General Assembly, which had reiterated its original position on all aspects of the matter in resolutions 511(VI), 615(VII) and 719(VIII).(2)
From the outset, it had rejected the view that it was not competent. Although it was true that promulgation of laws was a matter of domestic competence, the international community was bound to deal with it when the effect of such laws was contrary to the rules of international behaviour or to obligations under the Charter. In that connexion, India deeply regretted that none of the members of the Commonwealth, a union of many races, nationalities and civilisations bound by equality and mutual respect, had given it the support it was entitled to expect.
The South African Government's attitude violated moral concepts and the principles of the Charter, which all the Members of the United Nations should be anxious to observe in matters relating to human beings. That was what disturbed the Indian Government. It did not want, as the South African Prime Minister had alleged in April 1954, to offload an excess population by means of emigration to Africa. As early as 1917, the then Government of India, and the Government of the Union of South Africa had agreed not to promote such emigration. What was more, the restrictions imposed by South African laws in certain cases, even in the case of the entry of relatives of its nationals, were well known. The treatment of persons of Indian origin in South Africa was merely an example of an over-all policy.
What was worse was the fact that, far from modifying the measures against which the General Assembly had protested, or even simply suspending the application of subsequent measures, the South African Government was going further along the path of discrimination day by day. There was now an act prohibiting inter-racial trade unions and segregation had been introduced into the universities. The sponsors of the draft resolution should take that factor into account.
In a telegram to the South African Government on July 21, 1949, the Indian Government had stressed that it could no more interfere in the domestic affairs of South Africa than the South African Government could in the affairs of India. It had, however, pointed out that the question had an international significance, because of its racial implications. The South African Government, for its part in a telegram to the Indian Government had again affirmed on July 13, 1949, that the question was a domestic matter and that any discussion offering no prospect of a solution satisfactory to the South African Government would constitute interference in its domestic affairs. It had added that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could in no way be accepted as a determining factor in any treatment of the problem, that an exaggerated emphasis on the Declaration could only prejudice a solution and that, in order to find an enduring solution, it would be better to approach the question in a realistic spirit rather than to emphasise abstract and often impracticable principles. That was a challenge to the whole position that the General Assembly had taken up year after year and that aspect of the problem should also not be ignored.
IN A STATEMENT WHICH HE HAD RECENTLY MADE, in reply to an invitation from the Dutch Reformed Church, Dr. Malan had stated that the colour consciousness of the white population of the Union of South Africa arose from the fundamental differences between white and black, of which the difference in colour was merely the physical manifestation. Those fundamental differences consisted, in particular, in the contrast between two irreconcilable ways of life, between barbarism and civilisation, between heathenism and Christianity and between a vast population and a small number of settlers. If the original settlers had succumbed to the temptations of assimilation, they would have been submerged in the black heathendom of Africa. (Incidentally the alleged desire of the settlers to conserve their racial identity and avoid miscegenation was disproved by the existence in the Union of South Africa of more than a million inhabitants of mixed race).
Because they had been profoundly religious, Dr. Malan said, they had sought to bring the gospel to the heathen nations of Africa, while retaining their racial identity in an atmosphere of mutual respect. The Church, according to Dr. Malan, had been very active in setting up missions throughout the country; it had even opened separate churches for persons not belonging to the white race.
Dr. Malan had continued that the object of the apartheid policy might be achieved by dividing the Union of South Africa into two states, with all the whites in one and all the blacks in the other. He had explained that that purpose was not realisable in the near future, that the implementation of the policy of racial separation was an experiment and that if, in the course of that experiment, the South African Government erred, its efforts must not be judged by the failures it might suffer and it must not be reproached with what, from a great distance, might seem to be a lack of the spirit of Christ. The South African Government`s attitude was obviously dictated not only by political considerations but by an evangelical view on questions of race, colour and mixture of races...
The Indian Government, however, was above all anxious to obtain the consent of the Government of the Union of South Africa, and it hoped that in the end it would succeed in doing so by persuasion and the pressure of evidence. There was no challenge to the Government of the Union of South Africa. It was a question of respect for human rights, and that was a test which the United Nations must pass.
Dr. Malan had referred to an experiment which his country was trying out on the basis of racial discrimination. But that experiment had been tried elsewhere and had failed. The various races which had settled in India, for example, had tried to preserve their purity by a policy of segregation in one form or another. They had all failed, and the result had been a multi-national and multi-racial society containing several different civilisations. India had benefited from that lesson of the past and was in the process of attempting a quite different experiment. True, social evils still existed in India, but the whole trend of the legislation was to abolish them. Such traces of apartheid as might exist were contrary to the laws and ideals of the country, South Africa was actually giving those evils legislative sanction. The whole American continent had already undergone the experiment which India was in the process of making. The first settlers in America had tried to impose a policy of segregation, but the people of America had quickly given it up and established a multi-racial society.
The handful of Indians settled in the Union of South Africa had begun to struggle for racial equality long before the establishment of the United Nations. They had overcome their own racial prejudices in order to help the African continent to develop towards a multi-racial conception. He therefore deplored the attitude the United Kingdom had taken towards racial problems, for, though there were differences between races, their coexistence must nevertheless be ensured. That was the problem which the United Nations had to solve, and that was why he would vote for the draft resolution.(3)
(1) Source: Ibid., pages 51-54
(2) General Assembly resolutions 511(VI) of January 12, 1952, 615(VII) of December 5, 1952, and 719(VIII) of November 11, 1953.
(3) In this draft resolution, seven Latin American countries suggested that South Africa, India and Pakistan seek a solution by direct negotiations and that they designate a government, agency or person to facilitate contacts and assist in settling the dispute. Under its terms, the General Assembly would decide that if the parties did not reach agreement on the suggestions within six months, the Secretary-General should designate a person for the purposes indicated.
The draft resolution was adopted on November 4, 1954, by 45 votes to 1, with 11 abstentions, as resolution 816(IX).