P. K. Naidoo and Mahatma Gandhi

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

P. K. Naidoo and Mahatma Gandhi

 

 

P.K. Naidoo; born in South Africa, was one of the “valiant fighters” who repeatedly suffered imprisonment throughout the satyagraha campaign in South Africa; rendered particular service during the Great March of 1913; was an office bearers of the Tamil Benefit Society. Gandhiji, in his account of his imprisonment of January, 1908, describes him also as “a master of the tonsorial art. Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Mr. P. K. Naidoo, who was a picket, had a violent altercation with another Madrasi about registration. The Madrasi was beaten up because he had taken out a register. Mr. Naidoo’s case came up for hearing today Tuesday. He was fined £10. The fine was paid by his what follows, however, is a summary. Commenting on this, the magistrate said that since the case related to the question of registration, he should in fact have been sentenced to imprisonment instead of a fine. My own sympathies are not in the least with Mr. Naidoo. Such cases only do harm to us. There is no place in this struggle for the use of force. Besides, paying a fine for getting released was still worse; that the fine was paid by friends involves them also in disgrace. Those who want to prevent people by force from getting themselves registered do not understand the nature of this grand, religious-cum-patriotic struggle.”1

 

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “It is the trial of P. K. Naidoo.

 

GANDHIJI: Are you a British subject?

 

 WITNESS: I am. Were you in the Transvaal before the war? Yes; since 1888. Did you pay the Dutch Government £3? I paid nothing. You have not taken out a registration certificate under the law? No. Not under any law. Why not? I thought it was not fit for me to take out a permit under that law, it would be very degrading.

 

 MR. JORDAN: Why? If I had the Act in front of me, I would point out some of the processes which I think it is not right for a British subject to submit to. The law clearly says that we should give our ten fingers’ impression and then our eight fingers’ impression separately, and besides that our thumb impressions. Then we have to give our father’s and mother’s and children’s names. Cross-examined by Mr. Schuurman: How long have you been here? Since 1888. I left in 1899, in October 18, and came back in 1902. I went to Natal and returned in July of 1907. You have held meetings in reference to this Act? After I came back, there were meetings held. Have you persuaded the Indians not to register? After his own trial, vide the preceding item, Gandhiji defended the other accused, the first to be examined being P.K. Naidoo. I took an oath not to register. Where? It was taken at a meeting at Burghersdorp, in the Independent School, if I am not mistaken. You do not intend to register? I do not.

 

 MR. JORDAN: Had you a permit to enter the country? No, I had an authorization from the Registrar of Asiatics. Mr. Schuurman asked for the same order, which Mr. Jordan granted. The cases of Nawab Khan and Samandar Khan were postponed till January 3, because there was no interpreter present. The case of C.M. Pillay was next taken. He stated that he came to the Transvaal in 1883, and previous to the war he was Inspector of Asiatic passes and licenses. During the war, he was a commissariat officer and messenger of the Court.

 

MR. GANDHI: Why do you not register? I consider that any self-respecting man would not comply with the provisions of the Act, as it simply places our liberty in the hands of the Registrar of Asiatics who, in my humble opinion, is not a fit and proper person to hold this post. . . The Magistrate interrupted, and said he would not listen to nonsense of that kind....He thought it was a piece of gross impertinence for a person to come there and abuse an official of the Government in that way. He was not going to have his time wasted and the dignity of the Court lowered in that way. It was most improper. Mr. Gandhi said that he agreed with the Magistrate as to the impropriety of the accuser’s remarks. And he had no intention of leading evidence as to the Registrar’s fitness for his position.

 TO ACCUSED: Do you object to the officer or to the Act? Mainly to the Act. A similar order was made at the request of the Prosecutor. Thambi Naidoo objected to registration as it placed him lower than a Kaffir, and it was against his religion. He was a married man with five children, the eldest of whom was 13 and the youngest about 18 months. He carried on business as a cartage contractor. Mr. Gandhi asked that 48 hours’ notice only should be given. That was all accused wanted. . . Mr. Jordan said that it was not what the accused wanted but what he (the Magistrate) wanted. The accused was a man of business, and the period would be fixed at 14 days. Karwa stated that he had been in the Transvaal since 1888, and during the war was a military contractor, being with Sir George White at Ladysmith. He had entered the Transvaal with a military column by way of Harrismith. He had just placed a thumb impression on a registration certificate under Law 3 of 1885. He refused to give his finger impressions as it was against his religion.

 

THE MAGISTRATE: But you have put on one?

 ACCUSED (waving his hand deprecatingly): One is all right, but ten is against my religion.

 

THE MAGISTRATE: As a matter of fact, I suppose you don’t care whether you put on ten or five. You only have to be told to do it. Mr. Easton, the first of the Chinese accused, said that he was a British subject from Hong Kong. He had also been here before the war and had paid his £3 to the Dutch Government for his certificate. By occupation he was a store assistant, and objected to registration because it was too degrading and was against his religion. He was not permitted by his religion Taoism to give any impressions. He was ordered to leave within 48 hours. Leung Quinn, Chairman of the Chinese Association, stated that he was not a British subject, but had come to the Transvaal in 1896, and obtained a permit from the Dutch Government. In 1901 he left and returned in 1903, obtaining a permit under the Peace Preservation Ordinance. He was a storekeeper. He did not take out a permit because it was a law that was disgraceful to himself and his nation. He had translated the law to his countrymen and had been expecting some such prosecution all the time. He would be quite contented with 48 hours’ notice; he had made all his preparations. The Magistrate insisted on giving Quinn, as he had given the Indian storekeeper, 14 days’ notice. John Fortoen, the last of the accused to go into the witness box, stated that he had been in the Transvaal for about 13 years before the war, having arrived in the Transvaal with his uncle as a child. He did not know where his uncle was or whether his parents were alive or not. He was a student, and had just come back from the Hankey Institution near Humansdorp in Cape Colony, where he had been since 1904.

 He considered that South Africa was his home, and he knew no one in China. He did not want to take out the registration certificate because it was degrading to his country and his honour. His age was 21. Mr. Gandhi, pointing out that this would be his last opportunity of addressing the Court, said that he would like to make a few general remarks. He had deliberately advised all his clients to plead not guilty, so that the Court could hear from their own lips what they had to say. They had all said something more or less with reference to the finger-print system. He asked the Court to dismiss from its mind the idea that these men did not know what they were doing. He knew that what he was about to say could not affect the decision of the Court, but he thought it his duty to himself and his clients to make this explanation. There were certain things in this world which one could not explain, and there were certain things in this law which men felt but could not express and he left it to the Court to interpret the feelings of the accused with regard to the finger-print system. . . Mr. Jordan, in the course of his reply, pointed out that a deputation of Indians had gone home to the Imperial Government on the very matter before them. That deputation had, however, been in vain. The Act to which such exception was taken had been passed by the present Legislative Assembly of the Transvaal, and the King’s assent had been obtained. And, all sentimentality apart, he had nothing to do but to administer the law, which he had sworn to do to the best of his ability. These people (the accused) had deliberately defied the Government and had taken up a very serious position—one which he was sorry to see any resident in this country adopt. It had been a mistake, he had no doubt, which had been copied from the passive resisters at Home in connection with the Education Bill, and that was an attitude which had never appealed to him in any shape at all. The laws of a country must be complied with by the people resident there, and if they could not do that, there was but one alternative such people must go somewhere else. He could not, however, for the life of him understand, if a man put his thumb print on a registration certificate as had been done in years past where the offence against his religion came in when he had to put the print of the four fingers of each hand on this certificate. Proceeding, he referred to the practice under the Peace Preservation Ordinance, and urged that had they objected then to the thumb print, their position would have been stronger at the present time. The registration certificates which required the thumb print had been the only mode they had for identification.

 That was in the days of the old yellow pass which had been issued by the former Government; but all at once, when it came about that they had to register in the new form; the Asiatics simply defied the law. Mr. Gandhi must be aware that he (Mr. Jordan) had more experience under the Peace Preservation Ordinance in the Transvaal than any other magistrate, and Mr. Gandhi must know also the big traffic that was done by the sale of the yellow certificates which rendered it difficult to trace the owner and caused an enormous amount of trouble and expense. Coming back to the case of the youth then before the Court, he would make an order that he (the accused) must leave the Colony in seven days. In a brief reply, Mr. Gandhi said that a distinction had always been drawn between the thumb print on the old permit and finger-print under the new law. The one was compulsory and the other was a voluntary act. The Court, he said, was well aware that in cases where a clear thumb impression was taken, the man could be spotted and trafficking in permits had been made impossible. He thanked the Court, the public prosecutor and the police for the courtesy which had been shown throughout the trials.”2

 

 

 

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “My fellow prisoner, Mr. P. K. Naidoo, was a master of the tonsorial art. I, too, know something of it. When the others saw me cropping my hair and moustache, they saw the point of it, and followed suit. Some of them had only their hair cropped. Mr. Naidoo and I, between us, spent two hours each day clipping the Indians’ hair. I believe, this made for better health and convenience. The prisoners looked the smarter for it. The use of the razor is strictly forbidden in jail. Only clippers and scissors are allowed.”3

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “ I, P. K. NAIDOO of Johannesburg, do hereby solemnly and sincerely declare as follows: On the day that Mr. Gandhi was assaulted in connection with the compromise, and a few hours after, I went over to the Registrar’s Office, in order to protest against Asiatic Law Amendment Act receipt forms being issued in connection with voluntary registration applications, and told him that Indians would not submit to the Act, and that they were undergoing voluntary registration because they were assured that, on their doing so, the Act itself would be repealed. Mr. Nadir Cama was present at the time, and Mr. Chamney emphatically assured us that, voluntary registration being gone through, the Act would certainly be repealed, and that the Asiatic Law Amendment Act forms had been issued only by mistake. In order further to impress us, the Registrar had other typewritten copies made, in which there was no mention of the Asiatic Law Amendment Act.”4

Mahatma Gandhi wrote, “Now for P. K. Naidoo, I was bound to give him the best advice. And I offered Phoenix. It is today partly a passive resistance farm. Whilst we may not disturb the even tenor of the Phoenix life, force of circumstances must interrupt and then the settlers are involuntarily tested. We may not expose ourselves to temptation. But when it comes, we must face it. Or we have no character. I may not put my hand in a lion’s jaw but may I fly away from it when it is in front of me? The simile must not be carried too far because I see it is not a perfect illustration. If you may not fly away from the lion, you may not from a seductive woman. As a matter of fact you must fly away from both if you cannot face them without fear. You may not kill the lion and you may not succumb to the woman. Reverting to Naidoo, when a man asks me what he should do, must I not propose the best for him? The secret of Phoenix is that it will and can harbour those who will conform to its fundamental rules. And if Naidoo can stand them he will be a help to himself and to Phoenix. Shelat came, was found wanting and went. Even Harilal Thakar went And Anandlal and Virji. There is a natural process of winnowing going on that very wonderful place. I call it wonderful although it is partly my offspring. I have no doubt it was conceived in the purest spirit, it was born amid most strenuous and holy circumstances and it has been nurtured on a spiritual diet which has been and is being continuously purified more and more. It can become a place that would not hold an impure soul. The future depends upon West and Chhaganlal mostly and partly on Sam. Raojibhai and Maganbhai’s may be taken away from Phoenix at an early date though not for a year or so perhaps.”5

Mahatma Gandhi wrote,  “I roused P. K. Naidoo who was sleeping near me. I informed him about my arrest and asked him not to awake the pilgrims before morning. At daybreak they must regularly resume the march. The march would commence before sunrise, and when it was time for them to halt and get their rations, he must break to them the news of my arrest. He might inform anyone who inquired about me in the interval. If the pilgrims were arrested, they must allow themselves to be arrested. Otherwise they must continue the march according to the programme. Naidoo had no fears at all. I also told him what was to be done in case he himself was arrested. Mr. Kallenbach too was in Volksrust at the time.”6

 

References: 

 

1. VOL. 7: 15 JUNE, 1907 - 12 DECEMBER, 1907 373
2. Indian Opinion, 4-1-1908
3. VOL. 8: 14 DECEMBER, 1907 - 22 JULY, 1908 204
4.   VOL. 9: 23 JULY, 1908 - 4 AUGUST, 1909 479
5.   VOL. 14: 26 DECEMBER, 1913 - 20 MAY, 1915 111
6.   VOL. 34: 11 FEBRUARY, 1926 - 1 APRIL, 1926 249