INDIA AND SOUTH AFRICA

BY P. KODANDA RAO, M.A.

(Servants of India Society, Bangalore)

The Government of India, it is reported, have decided that, in view of the adherence of the South African Government to the Group Areas Act, no useful purpose would be served by holding the Round Table Conference between India, Pakistan and South Africa, as was agreed to at the Preliminary Conference between these parties which commenced in Cape Town on the 6th February, 1950. Pakistan, it is reported, was however still hoping to persuade India to attend the conference, inasmuch as South Africa had said that there was no prospect of implementing the Group Areas Act till December; 1950, by which time the Conference could be held. How did this situation come to pass, and what are the courses open to India?

It is not necessary to delve deep into the past to understand India’s case against South Africa, which is nearly a century old. South Africa’s policy can be fairly summed up as follows: first, repatriation; second, segregation. The Group Areas Act, recently enacted by the Government of Dr. Malan, is perhaps the most apprehensive measure for racial segregation of the inhabitants of Soth Africa. Segregation has been in operation to some extent or other statutorily or otherwise, though not uniformly over the whole of South Africa. The Act gives power to Government to set apart different areas for ownership and occupation to the Whites, the Bantus and the coloured, the last to include the Asiatics. It enables Government to compel within ten years the members of a particular race to move from areas not meant for them to areas reserved for them. All the Whites would be compelled to migrate to the White area; all the Bantus to the Bantu area, and all the Coloured to the coloured area. An Indian who, under the existing law, owned or occupied land in a particular area, will be compelled to shift from that area if it be declared a White or Bantu area, and to migrate to another area earmarked for Indians! The Natal Indian Organisation, a body of moderates most anxious to co-operate honourably with the South African Government, said that the Act would forcibly segregate the Indian people throughot South Africa, annihilate every Indian business, small or large, that falls outside the Indian group area, stultify the natural development of the Indian people of South Africa and make them helots within the Commonwealth, and take away every vestige of fundamental human rights.

The South African Government denied that the Group Areas Act amounted to racial discrimination, inasmuch as it applied to all races and did not discriminate against any particular race. Nobody is deceived by this plea. The Act is an enabling one and vests considerable discretion in the Government. Dr. Malan himself admitted that hundred per cent segregation of the races was impracticable. The Act will be so worked as to cause no inconvenience or hardship to the Whites but to repress and depress the Non-Whites. Most of the unskilled lnbour is done by the Bantus in farms and factories owned by Whites and in the railways, dockyards, etc., owned by Government, and in domestic service of Whites. A hundred percent White area is almost inconceivable, and would not be permitted by the Whites themselves who cannot do without the Non-Whites for their menial services. The only people who would suffer even more than now are the Non-Whites, and more particularly the Indians.

With regard to Indians, the antipathy is greater and the favoured remedy more drastic than segregation, namely, repatriation. Recently the South African Government published the report of two joint committees, one for Natal and the other for the Transvaal, appointed to make recommendations to amend the Asiatic Land Tenure Acts. The Report said that the best solution of the Asiatic problem was repatriation. “Failing or pending repatriation,” it was necessary continued the Report, to take some incisive action if racial tension and strife were to be avoided. “We can see no way of attaining this except to legislate for total segregation of the different racial groups, so that in course of time homogeneous racial group areas are brought about.” It went on to say: “These recommendations for segregation will, on the one hand, not unduly endanger the possibility of repatriation, and, on the other hand, will not fall far short of what we regard as necessary to deal with the present situation.” It is likely that, far from unduly endangering repatriation , segregation will promote it with a vengeance. Such, apparently, was the anticipation of the Malan Government in not providing in the Act for an area for Indians, as recommended in the Report. There would be no need for an Indian area if all Indians were repatriated!

The antipathy of the South African Whites towards Indians is more intense because Indians have, on the whole, been more advanced educationally, economically and in political consciousness and leadership; they had also an external authority, India, to back them in their claims for equal status as citizens; and through India they had access to the United Nations and the Commonwealth. South Africa could get away with racial discrimination against the Bantus as a domestic question, but could not prevent India or the Commonwealth or the United Nations from asking questions regarding racial discrimination against Indians. Indians, under Mahatma Gandhi and since, offered Satyagraha against the Government of South Africa. India applied trade and other sanctions. The United Nations practically censured South Africa in 1946 for its attitude towards Indians in that country. Further, South African Whites have to put up with the presence of the Bantus, because the latter cannot be repatriated elsewhere and also because they need the services of the Bantus for their own comfort and convenience. The case of Indians, however, is different. The South African Whites could do without Indians, and the latter could be repatriated to India. For all these reasons the tension between the Whites and Indians in South Africa is keener than between any two other races in that country. And the Group Areas Act will hit the Indians more than the Bantus, at any rate immediately.

Indians in South Africa, belonging both to the South African Indian Congress and the South African Indian Organisation, have declared that they would not submit to the Group Areas Act. The Congress organised Satyagraha sometime ago against the Asiatic Land Tenure Act, but gave it up subsequently without achieving the success hopeded for. The Organisation banked on a Round Table Conference between India and South Africa to find an acceptable solution; it also appealed to the United Nations to intervene and, if necessary, apply sanctions against South Africa. The Congress proposed to make common cause with the leading organisations of the other Non-White races in South Africa, in order to resist the Group Areas Act by all means open to them. It may be mentioned that one of the reasons why the South African Whites prefer the repatriation of Indians to their segregation is the fear, not unfounded, that the politically more advanced Indians would offer leadership to the Bantus and thereby make the repression of the Bantus, who form the great majority of the population, more difficult.

A common Non-European Front, as it is sometimes called, has hitherto been somewhat difficult to organise. Indeed, Indians in South Africa have in the past been criticised, even by some friendly critics, for thinking only of themselves and trying to safeguard their own interests, and hesitating, if not declining, to make common cause with other Non-Whites, who suffered from common disabilities. The attitude of Indians was perhaps excusable, if not inevitable, in so far as they looked to India for help. India could claim a voice only with regard to Indians who, in the first instance, migrated to South Africa with the consent and the protection of India, and in whom, therefore, India had a continuing interest. To the extent that Indians in South Africa became nationals of that country and made common cause with other nationals therein, to that extent India would be handicapped in backing them. India could not interfere on behalf of the Bantus in South Africa or the Negroes in the United States of America, even as South Africa could not interfere on behalf of the Untouchables in India or the Negroes in America.

It was also felt at the time that any relief which Indians secured on account of the good offices of India would ultimately accrue to the other Non-Whites also. But the situation has been gradually changing. An increasing number of Indians in South Africa were born in that country and are its nationals; they constitute over ninety per cent of Indians now in South Africa. India’s claim to back them is gradually tapering off, as it were. Indeed, it has been increasingly urged by South African statesmen that the question of Indians in South Africa was entirely a domestic question and India had no right to intervene in the domestic affairs of South Africa, except at the invitation of south Africa and for the purpose approved by South Africa, namely, repatriation of Indians to India, This new development makes it easier for Indians in South Africa to make common cause with other Non-Whites, but more difficult for India to intervene on their behalf.

The question whether the problem of Indians in South Africa was or was not a purely domestic question was tossed about a good deal. The Cape Town Agreement of 1926, which was reviewed and renewed in 1932, admitted in so many words the right of India to intervene on behalf of Indians in South Africa. As recently as the 28th April, 1947, Gen. Smuts, then Prime Minister of South Africa, thanked Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India for the “opportunity given to the Union Government to discuss with the Government of India common difficulties between the two Governments in regard to the treatment of Indians in South Africa,” though in a subsequent letter, dated the 28th July, 1947, he repudiated the right of India to intervene on behalf of Indians in South Africa. Subsequently in 1949, Mr. Eric Louw, on behalf of South Africa, urged at the political Committee of the United Nations that, as the question of Indians in South Africa was a ‘domestic’ issue, the United Nations was not competent to discuss it. On the 10th May, 1949, the Committee, however, rejected the plea by 33 votes to 7, with 10 abstentions. The same plea was urged in the General Assembly of the United Nations and rejected summarily on the 11th May, 1949.

The South African Indians, as has been pointed out already, organised a campaign of Satyagraha against the Asiatic Land Tenure Acts of the South African Government and also appealed to India to raise the question in the Commonwealth and the United Nations. The Satyagraha campaign brought no wished-for relief, and it was abandoned. It had only stiffened the hostility of the Whites towards Indians. There has as yet been no proposal to start a campaign of Satyagraha against the Group Areas Act. It was hoped that the Round Table Conference between South Africa, India and Pakistan would find an acceptable solution. This was before the enactment of the Group Areas Act. But the enactment of the Act has diluted the hope almost to the vanishing point. South African Indians now look to the United Nations to find a solution by agreement or by the application of international sanctions, if necessary.

Yet another proposal has been put forward by some enlightened Whites in South Africa and by some of the Non-European leaders. Mrs. Margaret Ballinger and Dr. E. H. Brookes, both Senators, proposed that Dr. Malan should convene a Round Table Conference of political leaders, including the Africans, to discuss the race problem in South Africa. Dr. Rheinalt Jones, former Senator and now director of the South African Institute of Race Relations, a non-political study group, endorsed the suggestion for a Round Table Conference of all races and political parties. Mr. J. Christie, leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party in South Africa, favoured the proposal. The Hon. Mr. N. C. Havenga, Minister of Finance in Dr. Malan’s Government, also favoured a joint solution to the race problem. If the proposal for an internal Round Table Conference finds favour with Dr. Malan’s Government and the leaders of all the critical groups, including the Indian, it is well worth trying, though the hope of an agreed solution is rather remote.

If only to gain time, Dr. Malan’s Government may yet find it more prudent and profitable to convene such a Conference, in view of the volume and intensity of criticism against its present policy both from within and without South Africa. The Manchester Guardian, in its leading article on the 2nd May, 1950, said that Dr. Malan’s racial policy “tended to embody much of the Nazi philosophy”. The Economist of London accused Dr. Malan’s Government of authoritarian tendencies and suggested that Britain, should expel South Africa from the Commonwealth, and added that Britain would gain rather than lose, by such expulsion. Prof. Lancelot Hogben, writing in the New Statesmen and Nation, said that South Africa should be declared a ‘pariah nation, unworthy to be associated with the British Commonwealth at a time when we are giving a new meaning to the British way of life.” He went on to say: “We can do something to rehabilitate our credentials in Africa itself, if we dissociate ourselves from a nation now irrevocably committed to the practice of a doctrine for preaching which we hanged Alfred Rosenberg. Nothing could do more to reinforce Britain’s moral prestige than the expulsion of the Union of South Africa from the Commonwealth before the Union, as it will certainly do, deprive us of taking the initiative.” Even the New York Times has been very critical of the racial policies of South Africa.

The action of South Africa regarding South West Africa added to the criticism of Dr. Malan’s Government The United Nations is likely to discuss the matter again in September, 1950, along with India’s complaint about the treatment of Indians in South Africa.

India applied direct trade and other sanctions against South Africa in 1946. But they have brought no relief to the India South Africa; on the contrary, their position has become worse. Impotent sanctions are worse than no sanctions at all, however justified the sanctions.

The diplomatic relations between India and South Africa however are somewhat anomalous. India’s High Commissioner in South Africa has returned to India in 1946 and has not gone back yet. India did not withdraw the High Commissioner and break off diplomatic relations with South Africa; she merely recalled her High Commissioner for consultations. Gen. Smuts, in his letter of the 18th June, 1947, to Prime Minister Nehru, said that the departure of the Indian High Commissioner from South Africa “was not a rupture of relations between the Governments but simply a recall of the High Commissioner to report to his Government, while his office and staff remained to function as before…Technically, we are on a footing of friendly Governments, and the Union Government are anxious to treat the Indian Government on that footing.” Though India and Pakistan have serious disputes over Kashmir and other matters and have taken them to the United Nations, and though there was a trade war between the two Governments, neither has withdrawn her diplomatic representative from the other country. On the other hand, the two Prime Ministers met and concluded the Delhi Pact to settle some of the disputes between the two countries. Similarly, it would have been better if the Indian High Commissioner had been sent back to South Africa after consultation. It would have been better still if the Prime Ministers of India and South Africa had discussed the question informally when they met in London in 1949; or if the matter was discussed at the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers’ Conference at Colombo in early 1950. An informal and private discussion has this advantage, that there would be no occasion to highlight a failure to arrive at an agreement. Failure at a formal conference, however preliminary in character, generally leads to misunderstanding and mutual recrimination, and leaves the situation worse than before.

Now that the Government of India has turned down the proposition for a Round Table Conference, the only alternative left is to raise the question again at the United Nations. The policy of the United Nations has hitherto been one of retreat before the intransigence and defiance of South Africa. On the merits of the case, the United Nations found against South Africa in 1946 when it said that the friendly relations between two member States, namely, India and South Africa, had been impaired and were likely to be further impaired unless a satisfactory settlement was reached. It expressed the view that the treatment of Indians in South Africa should be in conformity with the international obligations under agreements between the two countries, and the relevant provisions of the United Nations Charter. It requested the two Governments to report at the next session of the United Nations Assembly the measures taken to that effect. The Resolution was passed by a majority of 32 to 15 votes, which was more than the two-thirds necessary. South Africa, under Gen. Smuts, declined to accept the United Nations Resolution, with its implied censure of South Africa, as the basis of talks between the two countries. India raised the question again in 1947 at the United Nations, but this time the relevant resolution failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority of votes in the General Assembly. India brought up the matter again in 1948. The representatives of Australia, Denmark and Sweden jointly suggested that India and South Africa should seek a settlement of their dispute at a Round Table Conference or by other means, such as mediation and conciliation through a mediator appointed by the United Nations. The resolution was, however, withdrawn. India proposed that the treatment of Indians in South Africa was not in conformity with the United Nations Charter, with the previous resolutions of the United Nations, and with international agreements between India and South Africa, and that a commission should be appointed by the United Nations to study the situation and make recommendations, She subsequently withdrew the resolution. The resolution, proposed by France and Mexico, that India, Pakistan and South Africa should discuss at a Round Table Conference the position of Indians in South Africa ‘taking into consideration the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration of Human Rights,” was finally adopted by 47 votes to 1, with 10 abstentions. The retreat of the United Nations from the position taken up in 1946 was thus complete. In 1949 South Africa agreed to a Round Table Conference, more to stave off a fresh discussion of the subject at the United Nations.

The retreat of the United Nations was very largely, if not solely due to the consistent support that the United States of America and the United Kingdom gave to South Africa. Their support, however, took the form of doubting the competence of the United Nations to deal with a subject which South Africa claimed to be a ‘domestic’ matter outside the jurisdiction of the United Nations. They wished that the question of competence should be referred to the International Court of Justice. They thereby avoided having to pronounce on the merits of the treatment of Indians in South Africa. It is not surprising that in the absence of the support of the United Kingdom and the United States, whose co-operation was essential for effective sanctions if necessary, the United Nations thought it more prudent not to convict South Africa of violating international obligations. For, in South Africa defied its verdict, the United Nations was not in a position to apply effective sanctions which were sure to be demanded by India.

The situation has changed somewhat since the last session of the United Nations in 1949, but not enough to warrant the hope that the United Nations will and can take more effective action against Africa. The position has changed for the worse for South Africa inasmuch as she practically annexed South-West Africa in spite of the mandate of the United Nations, and has, besides, committed herself irrevocably to the policy of apartheid or racial segregation and discrimination in South Africa by enacting the Group Areas Act. But the position has not changed so far as to align the United Kingdom and the United Nations with India and against South Africa. It is true that, on the question of racial discrimination against the Negroes in the United States of America, the Government of the country has taken a more enlightened attitude in conformity with the United Nations Charter. Even the Supreme Court of the United States of America has abandoned the older doctrine that ‘separate but equal’ facilities did not violate the non-discriminatory clause of the Constitution of the United States. It is, therefore, unlikely that the United States will support the apartheid policy of South Africa on merits, but she is likely to continue to evade the issue by continuing to question the competence of the United Nations to discuss it. The United Kingdom is unlikely to desert South Africa and support India. Notwithstanding all explanations to the contrary, the action of the United Kingdom in the case of Seretse Khama is not free from the charge that it was an accommodation to the racial policy of South Africa. It is unlikely, therefore, that the United Kingdom and the United States will veer round now, particularly in view of their pre-occupation with the war in Korea.

Some Indian publicists in India and in South Africa have urged that India should sever her membership of the Commonwealth as a protest against the treatment of Indians in South Africa. But it is unlikely to give any relief to the Indians in South Africa; it will only tend to alienate the other members of the Commonwealth, for it is doubtful if even Pakistan and Ceylon, not to speak of Canada, Auastralia or New Zealand, will line up with India in this matter. Indeed, Pakistan is likely to gain, and India likely to lose, by the latter quitting the Commonwealth. Mere quitting will not help. Some impression may be produced if India threatened to align herself with the Soviet Union, which consistently supported India against South Africa in the United Nations over the issue of Indians in South Africa. But this will be a change from the frying pan to the fire.

The only alternative left is for India to take technical advantage of the case of Indians in South Africa to champion the cause of all Non-White races in the world who, at the moment; are being discriminated against in any part of the world, and strive for the realization of the Charter of the United Nations and the Fundamental Human Rights. It is a long-term programme, but noble, honourable and worthwhile. India will then no longer be accused that she was interested only in the emancipation from racial discrimination of a handful of Indians in South Africa, most of whom are South African nationals, and not equally keen on the abolition of racial discrimination as such from South Africa and the world. India championed against political imperialism. Her action has been widely appreciated. Let India now champion against racial imperialism everywhere it occurs, and use the United Nations as the forum and the Fundamental Human Rights as the Charter.

Back