Imperial Conference and Mahatma Gandhi

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar, Professor, Editor and Linguist

Gandhi International Study and Research Institute, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- [e-mail];

[e-mail]                                    

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

 

Imperial Conference and Mahatma Gandhi

 

Mr. Gandhi denied the imputation that the Indians had insulted the Government by putting the most offensive construction upon the Government’s Acts. They would warmly welcome a reference of their case to the Imperial Conference; feeling assured that the result would be a humane and satisfactory arrangement which both sides would abide by. Mr. Gandhi complained of the excessive power given to the Government by the Immigration Restriction Act in dealing with passive resisters a power which he considered altogether disproportionate to the offence. He anticipated that Indians who declined to register would have their trading licences refused on January 1, with the result that they would continue to trade without licences. 1 Sorabji has been discussing with me the problem of going to the Imperial Conference. There are some reasons why one may go to advantage. I feel however that if the struggle does not end, I must not go. But the matter cannot be decided through the post. I simply mention it so that you may discuss it with Ritch and Sorabji. 2 

What is a deputation to do in London? The Imperial Conference will be concerned with general principles, not details. If passive resistance be closed, our question will largely consist of details. It is possible to do something with the Colonial Secretary. But has that time yet arrived? May it not be better to await developments here? On the other hand, may not a deputation prevent the threatened Gold Law measures? Thus, there are arguments for and against. It seems to me that if a deputation is to be sent, we should send the following cable: Cable Lord Ampthill’s opinion regarding small deputation proceeding view Imperial Conference although passive resistance may end other local grievances serious specially threatened action Gold Law. 3 The whole question as you know will be discussed before the Imperial Conference. You should therefore wait. Now just think it over and let me know.” He paused and continued: “I do not know how your people spread. They go everywhere. I have now more petitions against dealers. My difficulty of the future will be regarding them. I do not want to disturb them. I want to let things remain as they are. But I do not know what will happen. 4 

Moreover, friends in London and India have not yet been informed of the settlement being actually completed. And, in view of the approaching Imperial Conference, we here are anxious to give definite information to the friends in England. May I, therefore, request an early reply to my letter? Could you please telephone tomorrow some definite information? 5 General Smuts reconsidered his position and eventually accepted the co-operation of the passive resisters. He could not carry his legislation during the last Parliament and yet, owing evidently to the Imperial Conference and the approaching Coronation, desired cessation of passive resistance. The passive resisters then offered to suspend their operations if General Smuts undertook to grant their cardinal demands and to pass them into law next session of Parliament and further promised not to penalize passive resisters for their passive resistance. The correspondence we publish is, as will be seen, largely taken up with what may be termed the non-essential and ephemeral part of the settlement. Whatever intricacy there may be regarding this part of the settlement, there is none as to its main part, viz, the repeal of Law 2 of 1907 and amendment of the present Transvaal immigration law. 6 

The following contribution of Mahatma Gandhi sent to Mr. G. A. Natesan for the current issue of The Indian Review has been sent to us for publication in advance: The Imperial Conference Resolution on the status of our countrymen immigrating to the Colonies reads well on the surface but it is highly deceptive. We need not consider it a great achievement that we can pass the same laws against the colonials that they may pass against us. It is like a giant telling a dwarf that the latter is free to give blow for blow. Who is to refuse permission and passports to the colonials desiring to enter India? But Indians, no matter what their attainments are, are constantly being refused permission to enter the Colonies even for temporary periods. South Africa legislation of emigration was purged of the racial taint by the passive resistance movement. But the administrative principles still continue and will do so, so long as India remains both in name and substance a dependency. The agreement arrived at regarding those who are already domiciled practically restate the terms of the Settlement of 1914. If it extends to Canada and Australia, it is a decided gain, for in Canada till recently there was a big agitation owing to the refusal of its Government to admit the wives and children of its Sikh settlers. I may perhaps add that the South African Settlement provides for the protection of those who had plural wives before the Settlement, especially if the latter had at any time entered South Africa. It may be the proper thing in a predominantly Christian country to confine the legality to only one wife. But it is necessary even for that country, in the interest of humanity and for the sake of friendship for members of the same Imperial Federation to which they belong administratively, to allow the admission of plural wives and their progeny. The above agreement still evades the question of inequality of status in other matters. Thus, the difficulty of obtaining licences throughout South Africa, the prohibition to hold landed property in the Transvaal and the Free State, and virtual prohibition within the Union itself of the entry of Indians into the Free State, the prohibition of Indian children to enter the ordinary Government schools, deprivation of municipal franchise in the Transvaal and the Free State, and practical deprivation of the Union franchise throughout South Africa, barring perhaps the Cape. The resolutions of the Imperial Conference therefore are decidedly eyewash. There is no change of heart in the Colonies and decidedly no recognition of Imperial obligations regarding India. The Fijian atrocities, to which Mr. Andrews has drawn pointed attention, show what is possible even in the Crown Colonies which are under direct Imperial control. 7

The term Dominion Status has no definite connotation. If the terminology applicable to living beings can be applied to it, it may be said that it has not even attained maturity yet, and hence it deserves to be protected and can be made very healthy if fed on a proper diet. If the atmosphere is unfavorable, there is a possibility of its becoming pale since it happens to be delicate. And it may even be suffocated if it does not get oxygen. Hence the health and vitality of that baby depend upon the country where it is nurtured. If it happens to come to India, its development will depend upon how we look after it. Hence, in my opinion, we have little to do with the definitions given in 1919 and 1926. Its definition will be determined by our ability to obtain it. And when its precise connotation has not been defined, every person can interpret it as he chooses. My definition is this: Dominion Status implies the fullest equality and a voluntary relationship with the British Government in India which either party can freely break off with or without giving reasons for doing so. It does not exist where there is any room whatsoever for the distinction of superior and inferior. Dominion Status means independence. 8 I had a long chat with General Smuts last week on his invitation. He told me that as the resolution of the Imperial Conference contemplates. Royal Commission on Immigration into the Dominions, it might be necessary postpone the introduction of the Bill until after the report of the Commission. I told Smuts that even then he should fulfil his promise and do so by amending the Transvaal legislation only. He then suggested that I should send him draft Bill which I shall do. The talk was very cordial. 9

 

References:

 

1. India, 3-1-1908
2. Letter to Hermann Kallenbach, April 5, 1911
3. Letter to L. W. Ritch, April 15, 1911
4. Abstract of Interview with General Smuts, April 19, 1911
5. Letter to Acting Private Secretary, May 18, 1911
6. Indian Opinion, 27-5-1911
7. New India, 15-8-1918
8. Navajivan, 8-12-1929
9. Letter to H.S.L. Polak