By B.R. Nanda
(In this article the author, B. R. Nanda
gives us an insight into why Gandhi fought in South Africa for indentured
Indians only and not for the entire black community. The article
proves that Gandhi was not at all racist as is suggested by some. He
worked for the upliftment of the oppressed classes throughout his life but
when he was in South Africa the time was not right to fight for the rights
of the blacks.)
|
A news item with the headline, Gandhi branded
racist in South Africa appeared in the Hindustan Times (October 18). This is
not the first time that such a charge has been leveled against Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. It betrays ignorance not only of the conditions under
which Gandhi waged his struggle against racism in South Africa a century
ago, but of his contribution to the final dismantling of apartheid in the country. Some critics have asserted that he was not free from racial
prejudice. They cite his initial shock at the Indian satyagraha prisoners
being classed and lodged with the ‘Natives’ — blacks — in jail. Nelson
Mandela’s comment on this point is pertinent. He says Gandhi was reacting
not to African ‘Natives’ in general, but to ‘criminalised Natives’. He
adds that in fairness to Gandhi he should be judged “in the context of the
time and circumstance”, and that here we are looking at the young Gandhi
yet to become the Mahatma, when he would be “without any human prejudice
save in favour of truth and justice”. There is plenty of evidence in the
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi to indicate that if Gandhi had nurtured
any such prejudice, he was fast outgrowing it. In his speech at the YMCA
in June 1908, he stressed the complementary nature of various cultures and
refuted the notion that differing civilizations could not coexist. Through
his journal, Indian Opinion, he kept his readers informed of the problems of
the Africans. He wanted each racial group to fight its own battle, but to
be supportive to one another. He backed the demands of the Africans for
franchise in Transvaal and Orange River Colony, and was deeply concerned
about the insidious move of the whites that threatened Africans’ land
rights. He denounced the jury
system in South Africa.
It was not racial prejudice but political
realism that guided Gandhi in limiting his agenda in South Africa to the
eradication of the disabilities of his countrymen. It is difficult for us
to imagine the odds against which he was fighting. It was the heyday of
European imperialism, when domination over ‘coloured races’ was accepted
almost as a fact of nature. In 1897, when he was 27, he was nearly
lynched by a white mob in Durban. The Indians in Natal and Transvaal were a
socially and economically heterogeneous community. It was not an easy task
for Gandhi to infuse a spirit of solidarity into Muslim merchants and their
Hindu and Parsi clerks from western India and the semi-slave indentured
labourers from Madras and the Indian Christians born in South Africa. Small
in number, scattered in several colonies, the Indians lived in constant
dread of fresh restrictions and humiliations. They did not have the right to
vote and were defence less against a whole arsenal of discriminatory laws enacted by the colonial legislature. Boers and Britons, whatever their
differences, were united in their resolve to preserve the white monopoly of
economic and political power. The Government of India, which had permitted
emigration to the colonies in South Africa, was not conversant with the true
state of affairs, and the Colonial Office in London was reluctant to
interfere in what was described as the ‘internal affair’ of self-governing
colonies. Gandhi evolved a strategy to suit the situation facing him in
South Africa. He organised the Indian immigrants, presented their case on
its merits, opposed the colonial regime, but at the same time sought
support of world opinion. He based his case against racial discrimination on
what he claimed were the inherent rights of British Indian subjects
guaranteed to them in the British Empire by the Proclamation of Queen
Victoria in 1858.
If the black
population did not figure in Gandhi’s campaign, it was partly because
it did not suffer from the disabilities against which the Indians were
protesting, such as the £ 3 tax on indentured labourers that turned them
into semi-slaves, the restrictions on immigration from India, and the
discrimination against Indian traders. Moreover, it is doubtful whether, at
the turn of the century, the black population in South Africa would have
readily accepted a young Indian barrister as its leader. In February 1936,
Gandhi told a visitor that he had deliberately not invited the blacks to
join his movement in South Africa. “They would not have understood,” he
said, “the technique of our struggle nor could they have seen the purpose
and utility of our non violence.”
There is evidence that by 1909 Gandhi had
realised the inherent limitations of the Indian struggle in South Africa.
The satyagraha campaign had its ups and downs, and his trip to England in
1909 had been a failure. He badly needed a successful conclusion of the
struggle in Transvaal not only for its own sake, but also as a prelude to
his return to India, taking satyagraha with him, to challenge British
imperialism. He seems to have sensed that if European colonialism could be
ended, racism would also go.
Gandhi left South Africa in 1914, but he blazed
a trail that coming generations were to follow. The South Africa National
Native Congress (later renamed African National Congress) had come into
existence in 1912. Its constitution endorsed ‘passive action’, i.e. passive
resistance or satyagraha as a means of fighting against injustice and
oppression. For nearly 40 years, the ANC adhered to the principle of
non-violence. It was not until the late Fifties, after the Sharpeville
massacre, that the ANC abandoned non-violence. Even after the adoption of
armed struggle by the ANC, the liberation movement in South Africa received
valuable assistance from students, industrial workers, religious bodies,
and women’s and youth groups which organised peaceful struggles and
culminated in the ‘United Democratic Front’.
All these forms
of resistance may not have been consciously Gandhian. Indeed, many of those
who led the resistance believed in violence, but discovered that ‘active
civil resistance’ was more relevant to the conditions in which they had
found themselves. The South African Gandhi, edited by South African writer
Fatima Mir, provides a fitting answer to those critics of Gandhi who have
sought to belittle his contribution to the struggle of apartheid. The best
minds of South Africa today have no doubt about Gandhi’s immense
contribution. Indeed, they are asking themselves whether Gandhi’s ideas will
continue to inspire them in the coming years in facing the challenges of
political and social integration and economic reconstruction.
Institute for Black Research President Lewis Skweyiya describes Gandhi as “a universal man... as relevant today as he
was yesterday, as he will be tomorrow”. Justice Ismail Mahomed harks back
to Gandhi’s unique ‘pulsating restlessness’ which had the power to release
the spiritual potential of the people. One of the finest tributes to Gandhi
in The South African Gandhi comes from an unexpected quarter. F.W. de Klerk,
the last white president of South Africa, argues that Gandhi highlighted
the truth that governments ultimately cannot govern without the consent of
the governed. He describes satyagraha as Gandhi’s greatest contribution to
global politics for bringing about social change. “We have completed,” de Klerk says, “the task of dismantling the edifice of apartheid. The causes
for which Gandhi fought have been won.”
[The writer
is the former Director of the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library and author
of books including ‘Gandhi and his Critics’]
Source:
Tarring the Mahatma : HindustanTimes.com November 22 |