SMUTS-GANDHI AGREEMENT

[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]

 

 

 

SMUTS-GANDHI AGREEMENT

 

 

So long as the Young India syndicate continue to permit me to supervise its contents and policy, so long do I propose to use this journal for placing before the country a programme of work which I hold to be of primary importance and in which I possess a special knowledge, and so long shall I continue to use these columns for a criticism, where such is necessary, of the Government doings a criticism which shall often be helpful, but sometimes temporarily obstructive, when the Government needs obstruction in its progress towards something which is in reality harmful to the country at large. I trust the readers of Young India will not grumble if they for the time being find its pages filled with references to the position of our countrymen in South Africa. It is better that I allow its columns to be occupied with something useful, authentic and requiring immediate attention than that it should contain matters of which neither the contributors nor I may possess any special knowledge, or in which neither they nor I may be specially interested. This does not mean that I claim any superiority for this manner of conducting a journal. I merely state the aim for the time being of this journal. I do hold however that no well-conducted journal should contain irresponsible or ill-informed criticism or deal with matters of which its conductors do not possess an adequate knowledge. This question of the status of our countrymen in South Africa is a matter of no small importance.

The measure of our capacity for self-government is the measure of our ability to feel for the meanest of ourselves. The cause being just, the wrong being clearly demonstrable, we have to be the readier to act when the cause is of the helpless. It is the magnitude of the wrong, not the person that should arrest attention. According to the above test, this question of the status of our countrymen in South Africa is of more immediate importance than even the all-absorbing question of Reforms. This question cannot await solution till after the Reforms are granted. It must be dealt with now or never. It is to be hoped therefore that India will witness a revival of the agitation that was started by the late Mr. Gokhale in 1913 and which culminated in the settlement of 1914. What, then, is the Smuts-Gandhi agreement? It is remarkable but it is true that every amelioration in the status of the Transvaal Indians has been used afterwards often successfully by their opponents to take away further rights from them. The Indian settlers have therefore always been engaged in resisting encroachment on their liberty. Their progress thus has been negative. The agreement is set forth in the two letters dated 30th June 1914; the one addressed to me on General Smuts’ behalf and the other being my reply thereto. There is another letter from me written to Mr. Gorges, the then Secretary for the Interior, setting forth my interpretation of the term “vested rights”. Anyone may see for himself that the reply of the 30th June was written in my representative capacity, the letter of the 7th July in my private capacity showing what I thought of “vested rights” in connection with the Gold Law and Township Amendment Act.

The curious reader will see the correspondence for him reproduced elsewhere and will find no difficulty in interpreting it. I would not press for the insertion of a definition of vested rights in the representative correspondence, because I felt that any definition in the correspondence might result in restricting the future action of my countrymen. Thus my letter could not be used for the curtailment of our rights. But the definition given by me as a matter of fact does not in any way whatsoever curtail existing rights. There was even in 1914 and prior to it an attempt being made to interpret the two laws mentioned in my letter of the 7th July 1914 so as adversely to affect the rights of the Indians residing in the Gold area. I therefore contended that the terms of the settlement required that no rights that were exercised by the Indians at the time of the passing of the two laws could be taken away even though the legal interpretation thereof went against our countrymen. In support of my contention, I used Mr. Jaup de Villars’ own statement prepared for the Imperial Government. If, therefore, my letter be part of the settlement, it could only protect Indians from statutory infringement of their liberty.

That letter could not be used, as it has been used, even by the Committee of the House of Assembly for creating a legal restriction. Mr. Duncan’s independent interpretation of it will bear repetition. He did not regard the Smuts-Gandhi agreement as an agreement or an assertion that no more Indian licenses should be obtained after that date. The agreement was a protective agreement, under which an undertaking was given that the law should be administered with due respect to vested rights and that the Gold Law would not be put into force against the Indian community. Whatever the interpretation of my letter or the whole settlement, the only question before India the Government and the people is: “Are Indians of the Transvaal who have served the Empire as faithfully as any of the other inhabitants of South Africa to be deprived of the right to reside and trade freely and to hold fixed property therein at least as they have done hitherto?” The Government of India and the people can only answer it in one way. And I hope that before the week is out, India will send a message of hope to her children who are battling against heavy odds.