"We of Asia have a special responsibility to the people of Africa. We must help them to their rightful place in the human family. The freedom that we envisage is not to be confined to this nation or that or to a particular people, but must spread out over the whole human race."
-From address to the Asian Relations Conference, New Delhi, March 23, 1947
"We have passed resolutions about conditions in this or that country. But I think there is nothing more terrible than the infinite tragedy of Africa in the past few hundred years. Everything else pales into insignificance when I think of the infinite tragedy of Africa ever since the days when millions of Africans were carried away as galley slaves to America and elsewhere, half of them dying in the galleys. We must accept responsibility for it, all of us, even though we ourselves were not directly involved. But unfortunately, in a different sense, even now the tragedy of Africa is greater than that of any other continent, whether it is racial or political. It is up to Asia to help Africa to the best of her ability because we are sister continents."
-From statement at concluding session of the Asian-African Conference, Bandung, April 24, 1955
Growth of the African Personality
(From speech in the Rajya Sabha,1 New Delhi, December 15, 1958)
One of the most striking things today is the gradual development of what has been called the African personality. It is emerging, and I have no doubt that it is going to play a vital role in the future. Whether it can play that role through peaceful development or not, I cannot say. For, down south and in the south-west of the African continent, there are forces which are not only opposed to that African personality but are ranged today in complete opposition to any idea of race equality, political equality or any kind of equality. Of course, the most outstanding exponent of this doctrine of racial inequality is the Union of South Africa. But there are some areas north and north-west of it, where, though the Government has not expressed such opinions, the European people who are dominant often express the very ideas that the South African Government expresses. The question of the people of Indian descent in South Africa has really merged into bigger questions where not only Indians are affected but the whole African population along with the Chinese people, the Japanese people and any other people who happen to go to South Africa and who do not belong to European or American countries.
We have been building up opposition against the policy of apartheid. If this kind of policy continues in the Union of South Africa and, at the same time, what I referred to as the African personality grows, there can be no doubt that there will be a mighty clash between the two. Such a clash be of advantage to neither side, because it is quite inconceivable for these growing nations of Africa - finding their soul in some measure of freedom, you might say - to put up with the kind of treatment that the South African Union has given to coloured people. They will never put up with it, as we can never put up with it. Our only hope lies in the recognition on the part of the South African Union, under pressure of world opinion, of the fact that the whole world is turning against them in so far as apartheid is concerned, so that they will change their policies to avoid a catastrophe.
Danger of Racial Discrimination
(From speech in Lok Sabha,2 April 9, 1958)
One of the questions of most immediate concern to us is the question of racial discrimination in South Africa and the treatment of people of Indian descent there.
The question concerns not Indian nationals, but people of Indian descent who are South African nationals. There is no Indian national there. Our interest in the problem is not only because we are against racial discrimination, but because there is a long history behind this, going back to 50 to 60 years or more. We have been intimately involved in the issue before and after independence.
There are many conflicts which divide the world and this question of racial conflict in South Africa is as grave as any other issue. There are racial conflicts elsewhere in the world. In India we have no racial conflict in that particular sense, but something akin to it when we suppress the people because they are called "untouchables" or "depressed classes." We are fighting it.
Again, for instance, there are racial conflicts in the United States of America. But there is a difference. In the United States of America, efforts have been made with growing success to ease the racial problem. I do not say they have solved it, but the Government has tried to solve it, with the help of public opinion, and there is progress in a certain direction; so also elsewhere.
In South Africa, on the other hand, it is the deliberate, acknowledged and loudly-proclaimed policy of the Government itself to maintain this segregation and racial discrimination. This makes the South African case unique in the world. It is a policy with which obviously no person and no country which believes in the United Nations Charter can ever compromise, because it uproots almost everything the modern world stands for and considers worthwhile, whether it is the United Nations Charter or whether it is our ideas of democracy or of human dignity.
"The racial policy of the South African Union is, I think, more basically wrong and dangerous for the future of the world than anything else. It surprises me that countries, particularly those who stand for the democratic tradition and those who voted for the United Nations Charter and for the Human Rights Declaration - tomorrow happens to be the tenth anniversary of the passing of the Human Rights Declaration - express themselves so moderately or do not express themselves at all about the racial policy of the South African Union.
"It is not a question of policy only. I say it is the greatest international immorality for a nation to carry on in that way. We have no desire to interfere with what a country does. The South African Government can do what it likes in its internal policy. No doubt we have a special concern in this matter because the people of Indian descent in Africa went there under certain guarantees, but even apart from that, we would have held these strong views about the racial policy of the South African Government."
-From speech in Lok Sabha, December 9, 1958
Growing Disapproval
(From speech in Rajya Sabha, December 15, 1958)
A few days ago a resolution came up before the United Nations General Assembly, as it comes up every year, about the racial policy being pursued in South Africa. The resolution, it is interesting to note, was passed with the biggest majority that it has had in the past few years. Gradually, countries that were opposed to this type of resolution are now supporting it or, at any rate, are not opposing it. I am sorry that among the countries that still oppose the resolution are one or two Commonwealth countries of note, but I am glad that some other Commonwealth countries, which did not previously support it, have supported it. In fact, one might almost say that there is worldwide opinion today against apartheid in South Africa. I believe five countries out of eighty or so in the United Nations voted against that resolution. Even these countries do not really support the principle of apartheid, but they do not wish publicly to oppose it for political reasons and for other reasons.
In the United Nations, as elsewhere, we have deliberately approached this question as moderately as possible. Even this time the resolution which was put forward was a moderate one, expressing disapproval of South Africa's policy and of not acting up to the last year's resolution of the United Nations General Assembly and calling upon them again to meet the representatives of India and Pakistan. We are prepared to meet them. We shall invite them to meet us to discuss this matter, because, in the final analysis, there is no way of resolving a problem except by consultation, discussion and settlement.
One thing I may mention in this connection is that a proposal has been put forward by the South African Union for South-West Africa to be divided up, one part to go fully to the South African Union and the other to remain under United Nations Trusteeship. I am glad to say that this has not found support in the United Nations, because it would be most dangerous and harmful for any area of Africa to be handed over to a country which proclaims loudly its policy of apartheid, which is a complete breach of the principles of the United Nations Charter and of the Human Rights Declaration, and acts up to it. I submit that South Africa's racial policy is a violation of everything that the United Nations stands for.
In the last several years much has happened in Africa which has been very painful. What we see in South Africa is a survival in the realm of policy and administration of all kinds of atavistic activities. Such emotions and feelings have no place in the world today. They can only lead to utter disaster in Africa and elsewhere. We are pretty near to that disaster unless the policies of racial suppression and racial discrimination are changed.
The House knows how the matter has come up again and again in the United Nations and how the South African Union has ignored the advice and the resolutions of the United Nations. The only good aspect of it is that, progressively, and in spite of all kinds of pressures, the countries in the United Nations, barring a very few, have come round to dissociating themselves in various ways from South Africa's policy.
Every person who is at all watching the development of the African situation will have seen that the whole continent is in a ferment. I have repeatedly said in this House and elsewhere that unless this matter is handled with some foresight now, we might have to face a most terrible catastrophe not only of a colonial war but racial war and the bitterness and violence that come out of long suppression suddenly finding an outlet. That will be a terrible tragedy for Africa to face just when its people are moving towards the verge of freedom.
-From speech in Lok Sabha, March 17, 1959
Sharpeville Firing Deplored
(Statement in the Lok Sabha, March 28, 1960)
I beg to move the following resolution:
"That this House deplores and records its deep sorrow at the tragic incidents which occurred at Sharpeville and in Langa township near Capetown in South Africa on March 21, 1960, resulting in the death of a large number of Africans from police firing. It sends its deep sympathy to the Africans who have suffered from this firing and from the policy of racial discrimination and the suppression of the African people in their own homeland."
The resolution I am moving is, as the House will see, a moderately-worded resolution. It has been deliberately worded in that way, not because we feel moderately about this matter - strong feelings have been roused by it in this House and in this country and over a great part of the world - but because I thought it would be in keeping with the dignity of this House and of Parliament if we should express ourselves in a restrained manner.
The matter is too serious merely to be disposed of by strong language. It is not the custom of this House normally to consider such matters which are supposed to be in the internal jurisdiction of another country, nor indeed would we like the other countries to consider matters in the internal jurisdiction of this country. That is the normal practice, and it is the right practice.
However, sometimes things happen and occurrences take place which are not normal at all but are exceedingly abnormal, and then it becomes rather difficult if some convention comes in the way of the expression of a feeling which is deep-seated and powerful. After all, this House is and ought to be in some measure a mirror of our people's feelings. Therefore, although this is not a normal procedure, we felt that this House should be given an opportunity to express the strong feelings which it has in regard to this tragic incident.
It is bad enough for a large number of people to be killed; it is worse for the killing to take place in the manner it did in South Africa a week ago. Behind it all lies a certain deliberate policy which the South African Union Government is pursuing. In principle and practice, it is the negation of everything which the United Nations stands for and we stand for; it is the negation of what every cilivized government today stands for or should stand for.
Not too long ago, voices were raised in a great part of the world denouncing the racial policies of the Nazi regime in Germany, and when a great war took place bringing enormous slaughter in its train, it was said that, partly at least -there were many reasons - it was due to the racial policies which the regime pursued on the basis of a master race, with the right not only to suppress but to exterminate people belonging to some other race which, in their view, was a sub-human race.
Now that policy, in principle, is adopted and openly proclaimed in the South African Union. As has often been stated in this House, such a policy can only lead to disaster, because it is impossible to conceive that other countries of Africa or indeed of any other part of the world, would accept that or submit to that policy. So much for the principle of apartheid.
In regard to the actual practice of it, I wonder how far honourable Members are aware of the details of how the Africans have to live, what they have to submit to, and how families are torn asunder, husband from wife, father from son. They cannot move or do anything without special permits and passes. They may have lived in a place for a whole generation, but if they have to do a little work anywhere else, they have to quit the place at once, within a question of hours. I am pointing out that apart from principle or theory, the practice of that policy casts an enormous burden upon the African people. That country, after all, is their homeland. They are not aliens; they do not come from elsewhere.
The people of Indian descent in South Africa, as we all know, have had to put up with a great deal of discrimination and suffering and we have resented that. But we must remember that the African people have to put up with something infinitely more, and that, therefore, our sympathies must go out to them even more than to our kith and kin there.
I am moving this resolution today, a week after these occurrences. It so happened that today has been declared by some African organizations as a day of mourning; it is to some extent appropriate, therefore, that this resolution should be considered by this House today.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom recently visited Africa and, I think, in South Africa itself he referred to what he called a wind of change coming or blowing across the African continent. That was a moderate reference to the ferments and tempests in Africa. It is clear that the policy of the South African Union Government has not taken into consideration these changes, or, realizing them, is not going to be affected by them.
Let the House think of the system they have introduced, of every person having to carry a pass wherever he goes, and being prevented from going to certain areas at all. It is the life of not even a semi-free person but of a prisoner on ticket-leave. That is what the African population of the South African Union has been reduced to, and it is not surprising that they have resented it and protested against it.
I cannot give without much further knowledge the sequence of events which took place there, but, broadly speaking, it was a peaceful protest. There might have been some violence. But the fact remains that these people who are protesting, in the main peacefully, were mowed down by machine-guns while, in order to terrify them, I believe, jet aircraft flew overhead.
Apart from this particular tragedy, something terrible has happened to South Africa. It is not surprising that there has been this great reaction all over the world, and I believe the matter is going to be brought before the United Nations. The United Nations Organization also, normally, does not interfere in the internal affairs of member countries although there have been cases when it has interfered, and rightly so, in giving consideration to those matters.
It may be argued that this is not a matter for the United Nations - not being a matter that is likely to lead to violation of international peace and security. Well, even in a strict sense, it is very much a matter which the United Nations, as representing the international community, should consider, because it involves something of the most intimate concern to humanity itself.
Therefore, this is not a matter affecting merely the South African Union. It affects all of us. It is an odd position that a member of the United Nations is using its State power for the assertion of racial superiority within its territory. This is something which is objected to and denied by the United Nations in its Charter.
South Africa Leaves the Commonwealth
(Statement in the Rajya Sabha, March 27, 1961)
The recent meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers held in London was rather an unusual one ....
. . . throughout this meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, the issue which seemed to overshadow the proceedings was the question of South Africa and the racial policy followed by that country. We have discussed this matter on many earlier occasions and reference has been made to it almost every year in our debates on foreign affairs. The matter has also been raised annually in the United Nations on behalf of India and other countries, and resolutions have been passed there by overwhelming majorities. We have been interested in this for a long time past.
In fact, it is well to remember that it was in South Africa, fifty years ago, that our leader Mahatma Gandhi started his first campaign against racial inequality and racial domination and suppression. Ever since, our interest in the matter has grown, so also that of other countries. Originally, we were interested because of the large number of people of Indian descent there. Apart from that, racial inequality is not a mere internal question of a nation. It raises international issues.
This matter came up in a particular way at the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. The South African Government has recently had a referendum on the issue of a republic and, by a small majority, it has been decided to have a republican form of government there. The Prime Minister of South Africa made a statement before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference informing them of the result of the referendum and requesting that the South African Union might continue in the Commonwealth in spite of becoming a republic.
We could take no exception to any country becoming a republic; we ourselves are a republic and we approve of the republican form of government everywhere, but because this application was made, the allied question of relations in South Africa arose, and it was discussed. Even the Prime Minister of South Africa agreed to its being taken up. So, while we had no objection to a republic being taken into the Commonwealth, many of us laid stress on the incompatibility of any country being in the Commonwealth which followed racial policies like the South African Union Government.
I would add here that the main thing is that in South Africa this is the official policy; it is not the failure of an official policy. The apartheid policy of suppression, separation and segregation is the official, declared policy of the Government there. This matter was discussed and the incompatibility became quite obvious to all. It became a question, practically speaking, of whether the South African Union Government should continue in the Commonwealth.
As a result of this, the South African Prime Minister decided to withdraw his application for continuing membership of the Commonwealth and this was agreed to. South Africa will cease to be a member of the Commonwealth as soon as the South African Union becomes a republic, that is, on May 31.
This was an unusual and far-reaching decision for the Commonwealth organization to take. It is an important one, and I think that it has strengthened the Commonwealth. This very tenuous and vague association has developed certain basic formulae on which it stands and one of them is equal treatment of races, equal opportunities, no racial suppression and certainly no segregation. I might add that Mr. Verwoerd, Prime Minister of the South African Government, in presenting his case stoutly denied that there was any racial suppression, but he based his case on what he called separate development of different races. He stressed that the South African Government's policy was separate development and not suppression, allowing different races to develop equally. Of course, that does not happen there. He might almost have gone a step further, I thought then, and said that this policy was one of peaceful co-existence, but perhaps that did not strike Mr. Verwoerd at that time.
I think this decision of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting will have a far-reaching effect on racial questions all over the world. At the same time, this mere fact shows the South African Government is going to continue this policy as it has been doing in the past. They may not call it apartheid in the future, and they have officially said that it shall not be called apartheid; nevertheless, it is one of segregation and suppression. This policy obviously is going to continue.
In fact, it is because of that that this break or split came in the Commonwealth Conference. If they had said that they would vary this policy even to a small extent, it would have had some effect on members of the Conference, but they were completely rigid. They would not vary it or change it at all and they would hold on to it in its entirety. Therefore, it should be realized that the major problem remains.
The fact that the Commonwealth has given its opinion rather forcibly against it is helpful, but is has not solved that question. It will, no doubt, come up before the United Nations as it has done annually, and the question may well arise as to what the United Nations should do about a country which violates the very constitution and Charter of the United Nations in regard to this vital matter
Footnotes