DECEMBER 6, 1958(1) (Summary)
Mr. Krishna MENON (India) said that he wished to place on record the steps taken by the Government of India to enter into negotiations with the Government of the Union of South Africa, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1179 (XII). He read to the Committee the letter addressed by the permanent representative of India to the acting permanent representative of the Union of South Africa to the United Nations. The letter had received no acknowledgement or reply, nor had the similar communication addressed by the Government of Pakistan.
The item had been pending before the General Assembly for thirteen years, and it was noteworthy that in the case not only of resolution 44(I), adopted at the first session,(2) but of the other resolutions on the matter adopted subsequently, the initiative had been taken by delegations other than those of India and Pakistan. The matter had thus been accepted as a question of general interest and significance. Resolution 44(I) had remained a dead letter, save that it had left the way open for the rediscussion of the item year after year.
OF THE 400,000 PERSONS OR SO of Indian and Pakistan origin in the Union of South Africa, more than 90 per cent were South African born, and many were second or third generation South Africans. Their only link with India and Pakistan was the sympathy and support of the Governments of those countries, and previously of the British Government when it was in power in India. The question was thus not a colonial issue but one of human rights and obligations under the Charter, and the undue sufferings of a large body of South African nationals. The Government of India was not seeking special treatment for people of Indian origin, but merely the enjoyment of those rights and privileges which ought to apply, but unfortunately did not, to all the people of South Africa, regardless of their national or racial origin.
Besides relating to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to the Charter of the United Nations, the matter was also one of treaty obligations. The Union of South Africa was open to the charge of violating agreements between sovereign Governments. The earlier agreements on the status of the Indian immigrants in Natal had been concluded between the Government of the Union of South Africa - which had become autonomous - and the British Government which had sovereign authority over India. However, from 1919 onwards, India had had the status of an international entity for all purposes of treaties and constitutional obligations. The most important of the later agreements was the Cape Town agreement of 1927, by which the South African Government had agreed with the Government of India that the people concerned were to remain in South Africa unless they wished to be repatriated. Only a small number had been repatriated; the majority had preferred to remain in the land of their birth.
Until the question of apartheid became a crucial issue, the Government of South Africa had been perfectly willing to see the matter settled. Unfortunately, it now repudiated its solemn agreement which had been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Government of General Smuts. The Foreign Minister of the Union of South Africa, speaking recently in the General Assembly on a similar item, had actually referred to the Cape Town Agreement as a "fairy tale", although all treaties and obligations signed before the establishment of the United Nations and not repudiated had to be recognised by the United Nations. The failure of the Union Government to revise its views was most regrettable, as was also the absence of the representative of the Union of South Africa from the Committee.(3)
IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD that the Indian and Pakistan populations in South Africa had not gone there for purposes of colonisation or for any purpose contrary to the principles of the Charter. They had gone under contract at the express invitation of the administration in South Africa, which had needed labour to develop the colony. Furthermore, the British Government of that period had given its solemn undertaking that their treatment would in no way differ from that granted to any other class of Her Majesty's subjects. The advent of self-government to South Africa, which should have been a step in the direction of freedom, had resulted in the oppression of 8 million people whereas previously the British Government had always upheld the policy of non-discrimination.
At all times, the policy of the Indian Government had been one of moderation with regard to questions of racial discrimination. It only wished to see reasonably fair treatment accorded to all citizens of the Commonwealth states and respect shown for the dignity of the human person. As far as the Committee was concerned, there had been no suggestion of intervening in the affairs of another state by imposing sanctions. The Committee was entitled to express its views, to make appeals and to use every effort to bring the policy of a given state into conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter.
The question of the status of Indians in South Africa had arisen long before it had been brought to the United Nations. It had first been discussed with the South African authorities by Mr. Gandhi when he was living in South Africa. The Government of India had later entered into the picture and the question had eventually been debated at the Imperial Conference of 1921. On that occasion a resolution had been passed recommending that in the interest of the solidarity of the British Commonwealth, the rights of South African Indians to citizenship should be recognised; but the representative of South Africa had dissented from the resolution. The representative of India had expressed his concern over the situation and the hope that a solution could be found by means of negotiation.
It should be emphasised that since the first settlers had gone to South Africa there had always been an identity of interests between the people and the administration of India on the question, irrespective of India`s political status.
Concerning the moral and economic aspects of the question, the Indian labourers had made a decisive contribution to the prosperity of the Union; it was therefore inadmissible that that country should be considered the exclusive property of the white population alone - although it was only fair to state that a number of persons of European origin in the Union had courageously upheld the principles of human liberty.
EVER SINCE THE ADOPTION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 44(I) in 1946, the Union Government had pursued a policy completely at variance with the terms of the resolution and calculated to force into exile on racial grounds nearly half a million South African nationals of Indian origin. That policy was currently pursued through the application of the Group Areas Act, Act No. 41 of 1950, the declared purpose of which was to make it impossible for people of Indian origin to live in South Africa. For instance, they would not be allowed to reside in Durban, where 40 per cent of the people of Indian origin lived, but would be compelled to move into an area which, although only twenty miles from the city, was a veritable jungle. In accordance with that Act and other political measures such as the Suppression of Communism Act, Act No. 44 of 1950, inhibitions were imposed mainly on the African people but also on persons of Indian origin, which prevented them from acquiring or transferring land, engaging in certain occupations, living in certain places and so forth.
The policy of harassment had manifested itself more recently in the so-called "treason trial" in which the accused, including a number of people of Indian origin, had been charged with treason in respect, inter alia, of a document known as the Freedom Charter. The defence had contended that the charges were based on the political activities of the accused, the views they held and the ideas they openly expressed, that the whole case was in fact political in nature and reminiscent of the Inquisition and the Reichstag fire trial. Moreover, the provisions of the Freedom Charter, on which the charges of treason had been partly based, were not very different from those of the American Declaration of Independence. The trial had been conducted in a manner hardly in keeping with a democratic or civilised country. The accused had been brought into the court in cages, refused permission to subpoena witnesses and barred from the normal processes of law.
The idea that half a million people could be expelled from South Africa was surely unrealistic. South Africa was their home and they did not wish to go elsewhere. That attitude was clearly reflected in the statement issued by the South African Indian Congress calling upon the Union Government to reverse its racial policies, particularly as manifested in the Group Areas Act and the Group Areas Development Act, Act No. 69 of 1955. The terms in which the statement had been couched were certainly not indicative of a desire to overthrow the Union Government by force. The authors were decent citizens and patriotic South Africans to whom their country was as dear as to any white South African.
In view of such developments he was compelled to inform the General Assembly that the situation in South Africa had further deteriorated and that the action taken against the people of Indian and Pakistani origin was more severe than ever before. The Indian Government had patiently sought to enter into negotiations with the Union Government, as requested by the General Assembly. It had refrained from raising the question at meetings of the Commonwealth nations in order not to embarrass the other members of the Commonwealth. As a result, it felt entitled to look forward, at the present session of the General Assembly, to a return by the United Kingdom delegation to the policies followed by men such as Lord Hardinge, a former Viceroy of India,(4) and his successors, and to full support for human rights.
India asked for no sanctions, nor did it wish to divide the members of the Commonwealth. It merely sought the moral support of all concerned, particularly those who maintained close relations with South Africa, in pointing out to the Union Government that it was acting in a manner which could not be tolerated in a civilised world. India did not intend to introduce a draft resolution on the question, for its function was merely to report the situation to the General Assembly. The Assembly would appreciate the implications of the problem.
The Indian Government would continue to seek a solution by negotiation. It hoped, however, that the General Assembly would adopt a unanimous decision, and India would comply with any decision reached.
He wished again to express regret at the absence of the South African delegation. India harboured no animosity towards the people of South Africa, although it was firmly opposed to the Union Government`s racial policies.
(1) Statement on "Treatment of People of Origin in the Union of South Africa".
Source: Official Records of the General Assembly, Thirteenth Session, Special Political Committee, pages 169-170
(2) In resolution 44(I) of December 8, 1946, the General Assembly expressed the opinion that the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa should be in conformity with the international obligations under the agreements concluded between the two Governments and the relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter. It requested the Union of South Africa and India to report to its next session on measures adopted to that effect.
(3) South Africa returned to full participation in the United Nations in 1958 but declared that it would not participate in the discussion of the two items on the racial situation in South Africa and would ignore any resolutions on those items.
(4) Viceroy of India, 1910-16. In 1913, he made a public statement expressing sympathy with the struggle of Indians in South Africa led by Mahatma Gandhi.