For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Conflicts in South Africa and Mahatma Gandhi

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail-dr.yadav.yogendra@gandhifoundation.net; dr.yogendragandhi@gmail.com

Conflicts in South Africa and Mahatma Gandhi

There were many conflicts in South Africa during 18^th and 19^th century. Indian people were going as a helper in agriculture and for trade. But the English people and ruler did not like them. So there created a lot of conflict both of them. You can see these conflicts in the letters, speeches and articles. Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “My plan of campaign now is, if I am allowed time, to show that there is no conflict of interest between the two countries; that the attitude taken up by the Colony at present is indefensible on every ground; and to justify what I have done in the eyes of the Colonists for the sake of the case in which I am interested. Of course, we should resist the passing of any laws to restrict the freedom of Indians entering the Colony. I would naturally expect to have the full support of the Indian Government on that. There is absolutely no danger of the Colony getting swamped. The Courland, on one of her voyages, took back as many as a hundred new arrivals, and I, therefore, submit that the leaders should make sure of their facts before they put a drastic policy before the Colony. The free Indian population really remains stationary. The law of supply and demand regulates the inflow and outflow of passengers.”1

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “If those who are responsible for the upkeep of the harmony of the British Empire and justice between the various sections of the subjects assist in creating or encouraging division and ill feeling between them, the task of persuading those sessions to keep in harmony, in face of conflict of diverse interests, must be ever so much more difficult. And if Her Majesty’s Government grant the principle that the Indian British subjects are to have freedom of intercourse with all Her Majesty’s Dominions, then, your Memorialists venture to trust that there will be some pronouncement from the Imperial Government that would preclude the possibility of such deplorable partiality on the part of Colonial Governments. Indeed, it has already been defined by His Excellency the Marquis of Ripon, in a dispatch with reference to the Colonies, to the effect that “it is the desire of Her Majesty’s Government that the Queen’s Indian subjects should be treated upon a footing of equality with all Her Majesty’s other subjects”, but so many changes have since taken place that a formal pronouncement has evidently become necessary, especially in view of the fact that laws have since been passed in the Colony which are in conflict with that policy.”2

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “We respectfully submit that the terms of the said Government Notice are in conflict with the provisions of the “London Convention”, which provides that all British subjects, without any distinction, shall have the full right to reside and trade in any part of the South African Republic.”3 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Mr. Jan Mahomed of Port Shepstone, I understand, bought from Mr. H. E. Barnes of that place Erf No. 45 in the May of 14 and declarations were prepared and signed; I am also instructed that, on the declarations being taken to the Surveyor-General’s Office, the Surveyor-General declined to register the session. On enquiring of Mr. Pitcher, who seems to have taken the declaration to the Surveyor-General’s office, I find that the reason that officer gave for his refusal was the session was an Indian. On enquiring further of the same gentleman whether the Surveyor-General gave any legal grounds for his decision, Mr. Pitcher informs me that officer gave him to understand he was acting in accordance with Government orders. The above information seems to be in conflict with that contained in your letter.”4

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “The third, and the most important, as also the most practical, part of the address deals with the suggestion he has made, and therein, in view of the fact that there is conflict of opinion in South Africa, and conflicting opinions are involved, Sir William advocates a full and formal inquiry as to the necessity for any anti-Indian legislation, to be made by an Imperial authority under the direction of the Colonial Office. India, 18-9-1903 as to the third, if the exemption was of the nature contemplated by Lord Milner, namely, “from all special legislation”, it would undoubtedly be of considerable advantage, but the Bazaar Notice is in conflict with any such view. It merely grants exemption as to residence. The humor of the situation lies in the fact that respectable British Indians, if they would live in towns after the end of the year, would have to get special exemption and prove to the authorities that “they are in the habit of using soap”, and that “they do not sleep on the floor”, and so on. But Indians of the servant class are, by law, entitled to reside in towns without any special permission being necessary there-under, for the section of the law reads: “The Government shall have the right to appoint special streets, wards and locations as their residence. This provision shall not apply to servants living with their masters.” Hundreds of Indian servants, therefore, if not thousands, (for they are very much appreciated as domestic servants), may live in towns without having to make any application for exemption, but a handful of well-to-do, respectable British Indians may not reside in towns without having to undergo the indignity of an offensive examination. No such exemption was necessary under the old regime because compulsory segregation was never adopted.”5

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “The same frankness guided the noble man during the critical period of the late Boer War. When disaster followed disaster during the initial stage of the bloody conflict, he, of all the statesmen in Great Britain, was ready and willing to admit that the disasters were undoubtedly due to mistakes, drawing, at the same time, historical parallels and showing that in the initial stages of almost every great war the British had been engaged in, they had committed serious blunders.”6 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “It gives extraordinary powers to men whose interests are in conflict with those of the applicants for licenses who may appear before them, and it enables them to appoint an officer (the Licensing Officer) who holds practically the livelihood of poor men in the palms of his hands, one who cannot give an unbiased, disinterested, and fearless judgment. The British Indians then say: ‘Take away all this from the Licensing Act. Define, as nearly as possible, the powers of the Town Councils and Local Boards. Deal with insanitation ruthlessly, and insist on suitable buildings dwelling rooms separate from stores, proper book-keeping, etc.”7

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Even the Protector of Immigrants in Natal has far wider powers and the title carries weight and influence. He is responsible to the Governor, but evidently in Pretoria things are managed in a different way. A gentleman of position is appointed as Protector and yet has not power to initiate anything. If we are incorrectly informed, then, there is a splendid opportunity for Mr. Chamney, without in any way whatsoever departing from the law laid down for him by the Government, for doing justice as between man and man. A man in the street would at a glance know that it would be a crying scandal to drive away hundreds of British Indians,—at present holding licenses to trade outside Bazaars, to these places at the end of the year. The matter requires patient investigation and we doubt not that, without there being any conflict with the Euro-pean opinion, it can be settled. If Mr. Chamney has the powers, will he rise to the occasion? If he has not the powers, will the Government be pleased to cease to dangle before the Indians a name and title without meaning anything?”8

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “The matter is clearly one of railway management rather than of legislative enactment. With all deference to Mr. Solomon, we consider that he hardly consulted the dignity of the House in bringing forward before it the resolution that he did. It savours more of pandering to the popular prejudice than of an earnest desire to remedy a defect or to bring prominently to the notice of the Government a matter of public importance. If therefore, he found in Dr. Turner an opponent going beyond the scope of the resolution, it was he himself who was to blame. The debate has, however, done indirect good in that it has shown that the Coloured community has in Sir Richard Solomon a friend and sympathiser who is ready to see that justice is done between man and man and who would not allow himself to be carried away by popular sentiment, no matter how strong it may be, when it is in conflict with the elements of justice.”9

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “The British Mission to Tibet has already come into conflict with the Tibetans. The official estimate of the loss suffered by the latter is 300 killed and 200 taken prisoners. Reuter wires a most glowing account of the stolidity and the courage with which the ill matched and the ill-equipped Tibetans fought the disciplined British army possessing the most modern weapons. Even in their retrial, the enemy is said to have been most dignified, so much so that the manner of their retrial seems to have left a lasting impression on the pool that were privileged to witness it. It is impossible not to sympathise with a people so cool and so brave. With [regard to] the political character of the mission or the necessity thereof, we have at present nothing to say. It may or may not be justified. But to think that a plucky nation like this has to brave the battle with the British forces is a matter for very great pity. And we can only hope that the molders of the British policy have satisfied themselves beyond doubt as to the necessity of entering upon the mission, and that, when the whole thing is finished, they will be able to justify their action before the public. Reuter mentions that probably the great courage of the Sikh army saved the missions from disaster. This is welcome news, though not at all astonishing, being quite in keeping with the traditions of the Indian army. The news, however, gives rise to many a thought. The Colonies would be prepared as part of the British Empire to appropriate the results of the Sikh bravery, and if it were found that the great plateaus of Tibet were filled with gold, there would be a mad rush to the land. But it is a sad fact that they are not at all prepared either to welcome the Sikh soldiers themselves or their compatriots as settlers in the Colonies. It is to be wished that such an inconsistent attitude will strike the Colonial leaders as something to be rectified. To take all without giving anything in return may be very satisfying for the recipients but cannot be held to be just or fair.”10

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Lord Milner, it will be remembered, in his memorable Notice No. 356 of 1903, drew special attention to the exception that was to be made in respect of Asiatics whose habits of life and social qualities were not repugnant to European ideas or in conflict with sanitary laws. We venture to suggest that any doctor or hospital nurse will confirm our assertion that, even amongst higher-class Europeans, scientific sanitation is not always favorably regarded. That, however, is by the way. The real point is that it is not always just that the general opinion of Europeans, who are often most ignorant of what they are most assured, and as often prejudiced against conditions and circumstances that are strange to them, should be taken as a reasonable criterion. The opinion of the man in the street is, notoriously, vastly different from, and often opposed to, the opinion of the man in the study, who has greater and more frequent opportunity of collecting, sifting and judging the facts of which he speaks.”11

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “If there is anything in conflict with the sub-leader I am sending you in Gujarati, you should strike out the portion that is to say, there should be nothing falsely praising the Acting High Commissioner. His reply is not as satisfactory as it might have been, as you will see from what I am sending.”12 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “As to the new legislation to replace Law 3 of 1885, the dispatch drawn by Sir Arthur Lawley has caused us a very great deal of pain. It insists on legislation affecting British Indians or Asiatics, as such. It also insists on the principle of compulsory segregation, both of which are in conflict with the repeated assurances given to British Indians.”13 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “In spite of the declarations of Her late Majesty’s ministers, and assurances of relief after the establishment of civil government, this law remains on the Statute-book and is being fully enforced, though many laws, which were considered to be in conflict with the British constitution, were repealed as soon as British authority was proclaimed in the Transvaal. Law 3 of 1885 is insulting to British Indians and was accepted totally under a misapprehension.”14

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “These are the expressions used by Mr. Asquith during the Chinese debate, and they place the position of the Home Government regarding a question analogous to the Indian question in a nutshell. The Chinese Labour Ordinance is in conflict with the Imperial traditions; so is the Indian legislation, only the latter is much more objectionable and easier to do away with, in that it is an inheritance from the Dutch Government, whereas the former is a creation of the now defunct British Government, yet there is no hesitation, on the part of the Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, in saying that it should not be left to the incoming Responsible Government in the Transvaal as a legacy. It then, “the fullest and most complete form of Responsible Government” is to be granted to the Transvaal, it follows that a clean slate should be presented to it, so far as anti-Asiatic legislation is concerned.”15

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Now it would be a serious matter if a conflict arises between the policies of the new government and in his Gujarati dispatches Gandhiji often refers to himself both in the first person and by name the commission’s recommendations. I do not believe that such a commission will solve the question. I have been in Parliament for many years but I do not remember any commission which has solved any question. And the question regarding the Transvaal is not likely to be solved by the appointment of a commission. It will quite probably mean a collision with the newly organized government at the very outset of its career. The plain fact is that we cannot dictate to the self-governing colonies. We can plead, we can argue, we can press for the application of our principles. Whether at the Colonial Conference [next year] or in his dispatches, Lord Elgin will, doubtless, advance strong arguments and make recommendations. Viceroy after Viceroy has written on the matter. Lord Curzon had written very strongly. He had made many recommendations about Natal but Natal paid no heed to his words. It remains to be seen whether the Transvaal will listen to the requests of Lord Elgin.”16

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Many people thus take to it [soldiering] as their profession. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; yet they rush to join it. Are they men, or axes in the hands of butchers? Such men are on a level with wood and earth and stones. How can that kind of men command any respect? How can they be valued better than dogs or cats? Then some others become advocates, ambassadors or lawyers. They imagine that they serve the State with their heads. But I find that, unintentionally and unconsciously, they also serve Satan. Those who obey their sense of justice while holding the reins of government are always found to be in conflict with the State.”17 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Mustafa Kamal Pasha’s efforts were addressed to the task of stemming the tide of blind contempt for Egyptians, which had risen in the wake of British rule. His success in this endeavour was unquestionable. If today the French have a high opinion of the Egyptians in every field and are sympathetically inclined towards them, it is because of Mustafa Kamal Pasha’s great campaign. His speeches, his conversation, his writings, all showed that he spared no effort to ensure the progress of his country. His writings and speeches appear to be inspired by the principles of the great Italian patriot, Mazzini. We often notice in them a conviction, similar to Mazzini’s, that truth and justice will triumph in the end. The evils of apathy, lack of patriotism and cowardice, he considered to be the arch enemies of his country and in his attempt to rid Egypt of them became involved in serious conflict.”18

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “At a time when the community is faced with these problems, we find some persons engaged in a dispute about the rights of the Main Line Indians. We do not see any conflict between the interests of the Main Line Indians and those of the others, so the question as to who the trustee is does not arise. If the affairs of the Congress are conducted honestly, there is nothing more to be said. Many persons from among the Main Line Indians hold the office of Vice-President. If it is possible for them to visit Durban occasionally, they can also get themselves included in the Managing Committee. This is not impossible. But the work of the Committee should not later have to be held up because these persons do not attend meetings. The best course for the Main Line Indians would be to nominate some representatives in Durban, in whom they have confidence, and ask them to attend every meeting.”19

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “These instance shows the world over, the Asiatic and the European are engaged in a conflict. In this struggle, victory will go to the party that has right on its side. At the moment, truth appears to be on the side of the Asiatic.”20 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “General Smuts has offered to repeal the Asiatic Registration Act, but on certain conditions [which are unacceptable]. That a further battle remained to be fought in the Indian war in the Transvaal has now become clear. In every Great War, more than one battle has to be fought. The Russo-Japanese war lasted for over a year. In the course of that war, four or five well-known battles were fought, at Port Arthur, Mukden, etc. The Boer War also lasted for two or three years and came to an end only after several battles had been fought. The war of the Transvaal Indians is not an armed conflict as these were. Save for that, this, too, is a war. For, if we think of the consequences, this war waged through Satyagraha is no whit less of a war than those fought with gun and powder. Victory or defeat in this war will have Far-reaching consequences for Indians in other Colonies. No other consequence can be more important than this. Looking at it thus, we can unhesitatingly compare this fight by a handful of Indians in the Transvaal to the great campaigns mentioned above.”21

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “This struggle is thus not aimed merely at securing the repeal of the Act. It is a conflict between the whites and the Coloured persons. The whites want to ride roughshod over us, to keep us down always as slaves. We want to be their equals. This is the significance of the campaign and Satyagraha will prove equal to its name only when every Indian has it impressed deep in his mind. The sword of Satyagraha is not to be used for cutting dung cakes which is what the domiciliary rights of a handful of Transvaal Indians really are, but to pierce the violent, rock-like hatred in the hearts of the whites. This is a task which cannot be achieved Even if the Transvaal throws up a few brave Indians they will fulfil this task and cover themselves with undying glory.”22

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I know full well that it is open to the Government of the Colony to give a repeal of this legislation today, to throw dust into our eyes and then embark upon other legislation, far harsher, far more humiliating, but the lesson that I wanted to learn myself, the lesson I would have my countrymen to learn from this struggle is this: that unenfranchised though we are, unrepresented though we are in the Transvaal, it is open to us to clothe ourselves with an undying franchise, and this consists in recognizing our humanity, in recognizing that we are part and parcel of the great universal whole, that there is the Maker of us all ruling over the destinies of mankind and that our trust should be in Him rather than in earthly kings, and if my countrymen recognize that position I say that no matter what legislation is passed over our heads, if that legislation is in conflict with our ideas of right and wrong, if it is in conflict with our conscience, if it is in conflict with our religion, then we can say we shall not submit to that legislation. We use no physical force, but we accept the sanction that the legislature provides, we accept the penalties that the legislature provides. I refuse to call this defiance, but I consider that it is a perfectly respectful attitude, for a man, for a human being who calls himself man.”23

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “It is growing clearer every day that this is indeed a mighty struggle that is being carried on in the Transvaal. The Act must, of course, be repealed. Undoubtedly, this is an important demand. But as time passes, we have the advantage of being able to understand the real nature of the conflict. We have stated earlier that the Transvaal Indians are not fighting merely against the Transvaal Government; they are fighting against the Imperial Government as well. We have also stated that it is not as if the Transvaal Indians were fighting for themselves alone; they are fighting on behalf of all Indians in South Africa, on behalf of all Indians abroad; in fact, they are fighting for the whole of India.”24 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “I only claim that the British Indians are in their turn entitled to resist by their sufferings laws which they consider are in conflict with their national honour and conscience. Under these circumstances, so long as the struggle lasts, there is no course left open to me but to hand over what I possess to my creditors, rather than allow those possessions which, after all, I hold in trust for them to be sold. I am aware that I should also consider myself responsible to convert these goods into money, and pay my creditors in cash, but my private interests have to give way to the public interest, and seeing that I cannot sell my possessions by auction, to the advantage of my creditors, I have decided to call them together and place my position before them, and ask them to take over the goods and my other assets.”25

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “The Transvaal struggle can be said to have entered on its third phase. It will be observed from our news-letters that some Indians are now giving in. It also appears that there are rifts among them. This need not depress us. It is so in every conflict. It is very difficult to climb the last steps. There are very few horses in a race; even then, not all of them remain on the course till the end they cannot. Some of them just stall. Some others get exhausted. Some die while running; only a few reach the destination. The same thing happens in the history of every community. There is, therefore, no cause for disappointment in the developments mentioned above. In a campaign which produced thousands of Indians who have held out with determination for two years, there are bound to be some who will reach the goal.”26

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “He must be indifferent to wealth. Wealth and truth have always been in conflict with each other, and will remain so till the end of time. We have found from many examples of Indians in the Transvaal that he who clings to wealth cannot be loyal to truth. This does not mean that a satyagrahi can have no wealth. He can, but he cannot make his wealth his God. Money is welcome if one can have it consistently with one’s pursuit of truth; otherwise one must not hesitate even for a moment to sacrifice it as if it were no more than dirt on one’s hand. No one who has not cultivated such an attitude can practice Satyagraha. Moreover, in a land where one is obliged to offer Satyagraha against the rulers, it is not likely that the satyagrahi will be able to own wealth. The power of a king may be unavailing against an individual. But it can touch his property, or play on his fear of losing it. The king bends the subjects to his will by threatening them with loss of property or physical harm. There-fore, under the rule of a tyrannical king, for the most part, it is only those who make themselves accomplices in his tyranny can retain or amass wealth. Since a satyagrahi cannot allow him to be an accomplice in tyranny, he must, in such circumstances, be content to think himself rich in his poverty. If he owns any wealth, he must hold it in some other country.”27

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “If that is so, why did he give judgment against the boy? This question will occur to everyone. It shows up the degrading position of present-day courts. They may dispense injustice instead of justice. It is considered justice on the part of a court if its judgment follows the letter of the law, when this is in conflict with the spirit of justice. In other words, an action which Justice Wessel, the man, pronounces unjust is upheld by him as just in his capacity as a judge.”28

“When respected Khushalbhai asks you to leave the house or the town for fear of the plague, it is but proper for you to do so. It is our duty to obey our elders so long as their orders do not conflict with our moral life. Therein lays our ultimate good. If you leave the plague-infested house not from fear of death but to please your parents, your behaviour will be quite blameless. However, the conditions are so difficult in some places and for some people that we have to think before obeying the orders of elders. I personally feel that the love of parents is so mysterious that one should not offend them without very strong reason.”29

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Indians living in the Krugersdorp Location should not become complacent. We learn from a Krugersdorp newspaper that the conflict between the Government and the Municipality regarding the Location continues.”30 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “There is no reason whatever to believe that anything is right just because it is an established practice or because it was done by our elders. Such an attitude is in conflict with belief in the freedom of the soul. There is much that is good in the old. However, just as there is smoke wherever there is fire, the good in the old is inevitably mixed with other things not as good. Wisdom consists in distinguishing between the two and drawing out the essential.”31 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “We feel that the Bill has not received that consideration and criticism which it ought to have at the hands of the Indian public, and it is very much to be feared that it is in conflict with Section 147 of the South Africa Act, which provides that “the control and administration of matters specially or differentially affecting Asiatics throughout the Union shall vest in the Governor-General-in-Council”, that is to say, the Union Parliament and not the Provincial Councils. So far as Natal is concerned, it is notorious that widespread hopes of adding a still further burden to those already borne by the Indian population are entertained as a result of the adoption by the Provincial Council of Mr. G. H. Hulett’s resolution, in 1911, as an act of revenge for the stoppage of the importation of indentured labour from India.”32

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Mr. Cachalia has received an apparently soothing reply from the Government on the resolutions of the recently held Johannesburg mass meeting. The Government assure Mr. Cachalia and, through him, the community, that they do not intend to disturb the practice that has hitherto existed, in spite of the Searle judgment. We accept the assurance but it is not worth much. In vital matters, assurances which are in conflict with an actual legal position can afford little relief.”33 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Furthermore, is it not possible that the very existence of creatures like snakes or the cruelty in their nature reflects our own attitudes? Is there not cruelty enough in man? On our tongues there is always poison similar to a snake’s. We tear our brethren to pieces as wolves and tigers do. Religious books tell us that when man becomes pure in heart, the lamb and the tiger will live like friends. So long as in our own selves there is conflict between the tiger and the lamb, is it any wonder that there should be a similar conflict in this world-body? We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him? This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.”34

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “The abortive Bill of 1912 showed that even the letter would be broken. The original draft contained serious flaws and was in conflict with the two principles of the settlement the removal of the racial bar and the maintenance of existing rights throughout the Union. I must admit in fairness that, as soon as the defects were pointed out, there was a willingness on the part of the Minister to remodel his objectionable clauses. But that Bill fell through, and fresh assurances were issued to the community that the settlement would be carried out.”35 Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “You imagine that a more potent reason for delaying the contemplated march is “to be found in the fact that the mass of the local Indian community could not be relied upon to join in the resuscitation of a form of conflict which recoiled most injuriously upon the Indians themselves”. There are other inferences, also, you have drawn from the delay, with which I shall not deal at present. I, however, assure you that you are wrongly informed if you consider that the mass of the local Indian community is not to be relied upon to join the march, if it has ever to be undertaken. On the contrary, the difficulty to-day is even to delay it and my co-workers and I have been obliged to send special messengers and to issue special leaflets in order to advise the people that the march must be postponed for the time being. I admit that speculation as to whether the mass of the local Indian community will or will not join the march is fruitless, because this will be, if it has to be, put to the test at no distant date. I give my own view in order that the public may not be lulled into a sense of false belief.”36 Now we can see it that there were many conflicts in South Africa. But Mahatma Gandhi gave them shape.

References: