NOVEMBER 15, 1956(1)
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO EXPRESS my delegation's happiness, which I am sure is shared by the rest of the Assembly, at seeing the representative of South Africa back in the United Nations...
We have heard the discourse of the Foreign Minister of the Union of South Africa with interest; and I have followed it closely, both his prepared text and his words. I think the burden of the argument is: first, that the inclusion of the items is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 7; secondly, that if we include them in the agenda, the United Nations will come to an end; thirdly, that South Africa will no longer speak from this rostrum; and fourthly, there are some obligations owing to South Africa from the United Nations, the effect of which is to preclude the inclusion of this item.
I would like briefly to go into the history of this question, but only as far back as twelve months ago because it is much the same. This item on the question of the people of Indian origin, as it was then, was introduced for the first time ten years ago. For ten successive years, the Assembly, after consideration, in the face of the arguments against it by the representative of South Africa, has voted for the inclusion of the item. I will not tax the patience of the Assembly by reading out the figures for each year. The figures for last year, which is typical of any year, are sufficient. Only South Africa voted against the inclusion of the first item. I am sure we all would think that it was a very natural response. Forty-seven nations voted for inclusion and ten abstained. I am sorry to say that among those who abstained was the representative of the United Kingdom, whose Government is responsible for the situation that has been created, having taken Indians there in the second half of the last century, and then having given a solemn pledge, by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the Indians would be treated as equals with all others of Her Majesty's subjects.
As for item 61, the Assembly last year voted for its inclusion, again by 45 votes to 5. It has now been brought up for the fourth time.
THE PROBLEM WE ARE DEALING WITH is not one of the Indians bearing a grudge against South Africa. I want to express here the innermost feelings of my Government - that we are two countries which are in the lap of the Indian Ocean. We desire to live in peace and friendship with South Africa. We have no desire to intrude into its internal affairs, and neither the item before you nor any argument we have ever used is a case for intervention.
My delegation has always argued - and the Foreign Minister has given us the credit for consistency and logical approach - that debate in terms of the Charter is not intervention. We are not interventionists. If you want interventionists, look beyond us. We do not ask for intervention.
What has the Assembly done in these various cases? It merely asked, requested in many cases and called upon South Africa in other cases to observe the provisions of the Charter. One of the obligations that rest upon member nations here is to draw attention to infringements of the Charter when they are such grave infringements as to violate human freedom in the way it has been violated. Secondly, the Assembly has called upon the governments concerned - in this case, the Government of the Union of South Africa, the Government of India and during the last nine years the Government of Pakistan - to enter into negotiations. In other words, the Assembly has exercised its function of acting as a centre for harmonising conflicting interests and of using councils of conciliation.
On each occasion, in spite of the rebuffs that it has received, in spite of the fact that a person of Indian or Pakistani origin and on South African soil will not be treated like an ordinary human being, in spite of the fact that he does not have either civic, human or other rights which he can have in any other part of the world irrespective of political differences, my Government, in response to the resolution of the United Nations, has promptly requested South Africa to enter into negotiations. This request has always been turned down. We did not say that they had to come to India because we could not go to South Africa. They cannot say that they have to come to India. We agreed to negotiate in London where both we and they have friends. We asked them to negotiate in New York, which is United States territory and where the Headquarters of the United Nations is located. No such negotiations were forthcoming.
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA has made use of copious extracts. It is not my intention at this late hour - no one is popular who speaks just before the lunch hour - to try to re-Hansardise these. As far as I am concerned, most of these quotations are textually correct, but they have to be placed in the context of the debates that took place.
I should like to refer to two or three of them. One was a reference to the great Field Marshal Smuts whose name is honoured in this Assembly and, strange as it may seem to some of you, honoured in my country. We have the highest respect for this great statesman and philosopher, but I say, again with great respect, that the fact that General Smuts assisted in the formulation and in the wording of the Charter of the United Nations does not entitle South Africa to claim exemption from its provisions. On the contrary, it places a greater obligation on it because, as Field Marshal Smuts was an architect of the Charter, South Africa cannot plead exemption from its provisions. Field Marshal Smuts is not followed very much by those people who are responsible for these things in South Africa today.
Of course, when people are no longer with us they acquire a certain degree of reverence in regard to the memory that attaches to them. If it is argued that Field Marshal Smuts formulated the Charter and if it is meant that the whole essence of the Charter came out of one brain, that would be disregarding the contributions made by fifty other nations in San Francisco. At any rate, we do not think it is a serious argument that because Field Marshal Smuts of honoured memory contributed to the writing of the Charter, it is therefore ungrateful on our part to draw the attention of the Assembly to its infringements in his own country. I think we are paying a tribute to the memory of Field Marshal Smuts by this act that we are undertaking.
Secondly, there was a reference to my statement before this Assembly a few days ago. My Government and I stand by the ideas, by the outlook and by the sentiments of that statement. What I said was this:
"Irrespective of the character of any government that may happen to exist in any country, it would be wrong and against the principles of the Charter to ignore the existence of a sovereign State."
Are we ignoring the existence of a sovereign state? We corresponded with the sovereign state of South Africa; we have called upon the sovereign state of South Africa; we have tried to negotiate with it. Instead of ignoring it we are proceeding on the basis of its existence, and therefore no question of ignoring a sovereign state exists.
I continued:
"I do not care how much ridicule one may invite in making such a statement. At times, it is necessary to stand that ridicule and to say that the basis of this Organisation - namely, the sovereign independence and equality of its members - must be respected."
That is exactly what we are doing. When we have some trouble or differences with another sovereign state, instead of resorting to any other method of dealing with it, we come here straightaway to deal with it as from one independent nation - as from a number of independent nations - to another. Therefore, so far as any of these statements are concerned, there is nothing inconsistent in our present position or in the request for the inclusion of this item. On the contrary, it is the other way around.
I AM OBLIGED, HOWEVER, TO GO INTO CERTAIN MATTERS which are a reflection on my Government, and I say with great respect that, while we have many other points in common with the Union of South Africa and while our personal relations with the Union delegation have always been of the best kind, we cannot ignore from this rostrum and in this gathering statements that have significance.
The representative of the Union of South Africa referred to the conditions prevailing in India in regard to Article 55 of the Charter(2) and suggested that they were worse than those in South Africa, that they were not observed and so on. Now what are the actual facts? South Africa has had a half century of independence from British rule, and during that half century of independence the majority of its population - eight to two - live in conditions that are just beyond slavery, without either civic, political or human rights. A distinguished South African judge said that the Union of South Africa has made so many laws, defined so many statutory crimes, that when an African steps out of his house he commits a crime. Therefore let them not turn round to us - we who have had ten years to raise ourselves from a colonial status to that of a decent people - and say that we do not have the conditions described in Article 55, which are higher standards of living. I challenge anyone to point out that the rate of progress we have made in ten years is not immeasurably higher than the rate of progress South Africa has made in the same period, with the enormous amount of riches which are monopolised by a small section of the people where, like the Greek republics of old, democracy is confined to the possessing classes living on the backs of a large and dispossessed proletariat.
Then we come to the question of Article 55, paragraph b, where "solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems" are mentioned. Our record in regard to cooperation with the specialised agencies and in the process of conciliation, to which we have made contributions, will stand comparison with almost any country of equal size or equal capacity, and will certainly stand comparison with that of the Union of South Africa.
With regard to "universal respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms" mentioned in Article 55, paragraph c, I wish to state that in the ten years since our independence we have by law and by practice abolished the discriminations that existed in our old society. We have cut through the whole weight of tradition of evil practice in society and established in our country equal rights for men and women without distinction as to sex, caste, creed or colour. In this particular problem we are concerned with the franchise. We have nearly twenty million people in our country who are practically living in a tribal state, but they are represented in our Parliament - and not represented by non-tribal people - by themselves, whereas in South Africa the people who ought to have the vote are taken off the voters' register and put on a separate roll; and they must be represented by those who are not of them.
Therefore, to come before this rostrum and to make that challenge is to invite trouble. In our country, if any one were to stand up and say that there are serious infringements and lack of application of the provisions of Article 55, it would be my duty, as a responsible representative of the Government and a member of the Government of India, to stand up and controvert those statements. We will not have these statements flung at us and let them go by default.
WE HAVE ANOTHER MATTER TO CONSIDER, the question of item 24, entitled "Treatment of people of Indian origin in the Union of South Africa". As regards this item, the question of competence and domestic jurisdiction does not even arise because the Assembly at its last session directed the governments concerned to make a report to it [resolution 919 (X)]. So, unless this Assembly by a two-thirds majority were to rescind that resolution, the Assembly has to consider it; and the Assembly can consider an item only if it is on the agenda. Therefore I do not know what all this pother is about so far as this item is concerned. We are not considering this question de novo. Last year, at the conclusion of the debate, the Assembly resolved that the Governments concerned should report to it, at its eleventh session, on the progress they had made. So we are now merely carrying out that mandate...
As for item 61 which is now coming before us for the fourth time, that also the Assembly is obligated to consider, but not quite in the same terms and to the same extent as the previous one. General Assembly resolution 917(X) on apartheid called upon the Government of the Union of South Africa to do certain things. Not only have these things not been done, but in the last twelve months there has been a spate of racial legislation in South Africa, that is to say there has been a consistent challenge to the requests, advice and views of the majority of nations.
We are told that all this is domestic legislation. I could not agree more. Under the Charter of the United Nations, and in view of the composition of the Organisation - we are a concert of sovereign governments - there is no way of implementing any international decision except by domestic legislation. If it were true that Article 2, paragraph 7, went so far as to say that nothing concerning domestic legislation could be discussed or argued here, it would mean that we could not debate any subject, because all the peoples of the world today are under one sovereign state or another. They are all bound by the laws of sovereign states. Therefore, we would not be able to discuss anything. How could we for example, discuss disarmament, a question concerning which we are asking other states to cut down their arms? We are criticising their policies on this question. Such an interpretation would make a mockery of Article 56. That Article would have no meaning if it meant that, as a result of violations of paragraphs a, b and c of Article 55, no action could be taken under Article 56.(3)
The Foreign Minister of the Union of South Africa has asked us: Why this insistence on paragraph c and why is there no insistence on paragraphs a and b of Article 55? My answer is that we should read the reports of the United Nations, look into the work of the Economic and Social Council and the specialised agencies, and examine the contributions that nations are making. What is required in connexion with paragraphs a and b of Article 55 is cooperation, cooperation to bring about "higher standards of living, full employment and conditions of economic and social progress and development"; and "solutions of international economic, social, health and related problems". These tasks are being carried out by the specialised agencies, and governments are cooperating as much as possible. These tasks are being accomplished by international cooperation in the Colombo Plan and in the plan for Africa, in which the Union of South Africa is mainly concerned.
Would the Government of the Union of South Africa invite us to cooperate in the implementation of paragraph c? That is what we are seeking. We have not given any instructions, we have merely said that an attempt should be made to negotiate a settlement. What we are doing in regard to paragraph c is exactly what we are doing in regard to paragraphs a and b. I hope the Assembly will realise that if the purpose of their argument is to show a kind of vendetta on the part of the Government of India, it contains no substance.
My delegation would like representatives to examine the verbatim records, or, if none exist, the summary records and their own memories, to find the statements, and even more, the resolutions which have been placed before the Assembly. No resolution on those items contained any strong formulation or invited any condemnation, although they legitimately could have done so. Both Pakistan and India, who are mainly concerned in the first item, and the large number of Latin American and other countries, who are concerned in these matters, have at all times scrupulously refrained from the use of vindictive, violent or vituperative language. We have always made appeals and requests for cooperation, and suggestions in favour of negotiation.
It has been said this question is an entirely domestic matter. There have been quotations from the United States Secretary of State, Mr. (John Foster) Dulles, which suggest that because a country concludes an international treaty it thereby does not lose its sovereign independence. I think that is just pushing an open door. No one will quarrel with that view. But this is what has to be remembered. For the last half a century this matter has not been one of the exclusive concern of the Union of South Africa. I want to say here and now that the interest of the Government of India now - and indeed to the credit of the former Imperial Government at the time - is not based merely on the fact that these peoples are of Indian national origin but that it results from certain obligations, moral, legal and political, arising from the conditions in which the Indian populations were introduced into the Union of South Africa. It was by the labours of those people that the economic growth of that country came about. Let there be no mistake about it.
Therefore, for the last half century there has been intervention in this sense - and concern of other states in the question. The note which the British Colonial Secretary sent at that time to the Government of South Africa, which was the Government of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, is itself an instrument which relates the position of the Government of India to the question. Afterwards, during the last fifty years, from 1907 onwards, every Government in South Africa, except the present Government - and I should like to repeat this, every Government in South Africa except the present Government - has entered into negotiations with us. Moreover, there have sometimes been results which, while they may not have solved any problems, at least kept down tension and friction. It is therefore rather too late in the day to argue that this matter concerns no one.
FINALLY, I SHOULD LIKE TO MAKE two further observations. The Government of India has no desire, in this question or in any other question, to adopt the attitude of placing one country in the dock and making charges and attempting to establish a case. I have stated that our appeals have always been for cooperation. I have stated from this rostrum last year and two years ago that we pile up votes one after the other, but there is one vote that we want, and that is the vote of the Union of South Africa. That is what we are striving for. My Government and my people are not without hope that that vast population of 10 million people, to all of whom that country belongs - it does not belong merely to those whose complexions are of one kind - will one day, however hard the road, however great the obstacles and however severe the prejudices, break the bonds that now bind them and become citizens of a civilised humanity. We hope that we shall be able to establish with them unbreakable bonds of friendship and fraternity.
We shall pursue this path in spite of failure time after time, not failure in this Assembly but failure in obtaining implementation.
The Foreign Minister of the Union of South Africa referred to India and its friends. We are happy to see that in this matter the circle of our friends extends to practically the whole Assembly. It would therefore be far better to speak of the Assembly rather than of India and its friends. It is not India and its friends - it is the great circle of nations that are devoted, in spite of all our failings, to the implementation of the principles of the Charter. It is contrary to the facts to call those nations partisans of India.
I ASK FOR THE INCLUSION OF THIS ITEM, but not before I observe - without regret or happiness - the statement of the representative of the Union of South Africa that this was the last time that he would object to this item from the rostrum.
If by that he means that this time and from now on his Government will enter into negotiations and settle this matter, or, on the other hand, if he means that he will be able to persuade his colleagues that it is very wrong to plead domestic jurisdiction to bar consideration, I am happy.
But if this statement means a kind of threat to the Assembly, the Assembly must make its own decisions. Those who withdraw because they do not want to conform to the Charter write their own indictment. India, as a humble nation, would like to see South Africa always here; we would like to cooperate with the Union. We are related, with all our reservations, by other forms of fraternity. We are not without hope, considering the transient nature of governments, that one day there will arise in that new and virgin land an administration that will be able to look beyond its borders, that will realise both geography and humanity, that will pay greater attention to the fundamental principles of the Charter. We hope that one day its vast populations of African origin, and its populations of Asian and European origin, remembering in a constructive way their diversities, will reconcile those diversities and unite in the service of mankind, and that a new government will come to a decision which will make further consideration of this matter unnecessary.
We have not asked for anybody's forgiveness for interesting ourselves in this proposition. The Foreign Minister of the Union of South Africa said a while ago that those Indians who are in South Africa - "Indians" meaning people of Indian origin, usually second, third and fourth generations - do not desire to go back to their own country to live. I could not put it any better. Would you not expect a decent human being, in spite of all the privations imposed upon him, to be loyal and patriotic to the country to which he belongs? South Africa does not belong to its governing class; South Africa belongs to every person who is a national of that country, who has contributed to its building, and to all who - I cannot call them "citizens" because they have no civil rights - belong to the territorial group which is called the Union.
Therefore, I invite the Assembly to agree, without much further discussion, to the inclusion of these items, and I hope that when the items go to the Committee and we argue their merits, we will be able - when I say "we" I include the Union of South Africa - to make a contribution towards the settlement of these problems. My Government will leave no stone unturned to assist in this process. Ours is the role of conciliation and cooperation. But we cannot at any time forego the fundamental requirements of human dignity and self-respect.
(1) Statement on the inclusion in the agenda of items on "Treatment of People of Indian Origin in the Union of South Africa" and "Question of Race Conflict resulting from the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Union of South Africa".
Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Eleventh Session, Plenary Meetings, pages 34-38
(2) This Article on "international economic and social cooperation" declares that the United Nations shall promote higher standards of living, universal respect for human rights, etc.
(3) Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations read as follows:
Article 55. With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
Article 56. All Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the Organisation for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55.