Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T18:59:58.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘A Family Quarrel’. The Development of the Dispute over Indians in South Africa*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Lorna Lloyd
Lorna Lloyd
Affiliation:
University of Keele
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From the perspective of the 1990s, scarcely an eyebrow would be raised by the news that in 1946 India complained internationally about South Africa's treatment of persons of Indian origin. It would be regarded as fully in keeping with the ethos – both domestic and international – of the age. Moreover, it would be seen as entirely appropriate that the complaint should have been lodged with the United Nations. For that body has not only become South Africa's scourge but has also played the leading role in the now-orthodox campaign against racism. Furthermore, if it were pointed out that this was, in fact, the very first occasion when anti-racist sentiments were given a significant international airing, the response might well be that the UN was set up to deal with just this kind of issue.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , September 1991 , pp. 703 - 725
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jan Christian Smuts was closely involved in the matter as colonial secretary and minister of education (1907–10), minister of defence (1910–19), and prime minister (1919–24, 1939–48). He was appointed field marshal in 1941.

2 In 1946 the others were the Philippines, Byelorussia and Ukraine.

3 On inter-se see Fawcett, J. E. S., The inter-se doctrine of commonwealth relations (London, Athlone press for Institute of Commonwealth Studies, 1958)Google Scholar, and Miller, J. D. B., ‘The decline of inter-se’, International Journal, XXIV, 4 (1969)Google Scholar.

4 Hancock, W. K., Smuts. The fields of force 1919–1950, (Cambridge University Press, 1968), p. 149Google Scholar.

5 Sir Arthur Godley to Lord Curzon, 27 Jul. 1900, cited in Tinker, Hugh, A new system of slavery. The export of Indian labour overseas 1830–1920 (London, Oxford University Press for Institute of Race Relations, 1974), p. 289Google Scholar.

6 Gandhi, M. K., An autobiography or the story of my experiments with truth (tr. Desai, Mahadev) (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1982), p. 263Google Scholar.

7 A fervent Afrikaner nationalist and founder of the National Party, Hertzog was prime minister from 1924 to 1939.

8 Memorandum by R. N. Gilchrist (principal, India office) on Indians in the dominions, 22 Apr. 1944, London, India Office Records (I.O.R.), Gilchrist papers, MSS Eur.D.819. Formally speaking, the title of the bill was the Areas Reservation and Immigration Registration (Further Provision) Bill.

9 Brief for Indian delegation prepared by commonwealth relations department, ‘Indian case in South Africa under Articles 10 and 14 of the United Nations Charter’, 8 12 1946, New DelhiGoogle Scholar, National Archives of India (N.A.I.), SN37 6(22)-CC/46. Also I.O.R., L/E/9/1392.

10 Indian agent-general, South Africa to EH&L department, telegram R611, 17 June 1940, I.O.R., L/P&J/8/293.

11 Broome Report cited in I.O.R., Gilchrist papers, MSS Eur.D.819.

12 The last pre-war census was in 1936 when the respective populations were put at approximately 183,700 Indians and 190,500 Europeans in Natal. During the next few years, the various government commissions regularly updated the figure for the Indian population while that for Europeans remained at the 1936 figure. For the record, there were estimated to be 202,000 Indians in Natal in 1941. In 1945 the total Indian population of South Africa was estimated to be 266,000 of whom 80% (or approximately 212,800) were in Natal, mostly in and around Durban. In the 1946 census there were 2,335,000 whites in the Union (just under 21% of the total population), of whom 233,000 lived in Natal. Indians formed 2.36% of the total population, with Chinese and Malays bringing the percentage of Asians in the population as a whole up to 2.5%. There were 282,000 Asians in the Union in 1946, of whom 228,000 lived in Natal. Most of the remaining Indians lived in the Transvaal. In the Transvaal in 1936 there were 25,500 Indians and 820,756 Europeans. In 1941 there were estimated to be 28,200 Indians in the Transvaal. In 1946 the Transvaal's Asian population stood at 37,500 and its European population was 1,042,000. In 1946 the Cape Asian community was 16,900 and that of the Orange Free State 14.

13 Hancock, , Smuts, p. 457Google Scholar.

14 I.O.R., Gilchrist papers, MSS Eur.D.819.

15 Smuts cited in ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Khare, N. B., My political memoirs or autobiography (B. G. Ogdale, Nakshatra Press, Nagpur, India, c. 1959), p. 155Google Scholar.

18 I.O.R., Gilchrist papers, MSS Eur.D.819.

19 Cited in Lumby, E. W. R., The transfer of power in India 1945–7 (London, Allen & Unwin, 1954). P. 31Google Scholar.

20 Strictly-speaking, the correct name is the Reciprocity Amendment Act – a government-sponsored law which replaced the original, but inoperable, private members bill.

21 , Khare, Political memoirs, p. 157Google Scholar.

22 Ibid. pp. 157–8.

23 Wavell to Amery, private, telegrams 605-S, 22 Mar. 1944, I.O.R., L/PO/467. See also Indians in South Africa, memorandum by Amery, 17 Apr. 1944, P.R.O., W.P.(44)207, CAB 66/49.

24 , Hancock, Smuts, p. 464Google Scholar.

25 , Khare, Political memoirs, pp. 163, 165Google Scholar. Emphasis in original.

26 In March 1944 the department of Indians overseas had been converted into the department of commonwealth relations. Henceforth it was to conduct all correspondence with British dominion governments and colonial administrations. However, it was still the viceroy who conducted relations with the British government, whose servant he remained.

27 Smuts to Wavell, private and personal telegram, 28 Oct. 1944, in Wavell to Amery, private, telegram 2006-S, 30 Oct. 1944, I.O.R., L/PO/467.

28 Wavell to Amery, private, telegram 2029-S, 3 Nov. 1944, I.O.R., L/PO/467.

29 The treaty position between India and South Africa was based on an exchange of Notes in March 1938 which provided for mutual most-favoured-nation treatment in respect of commodities not eligible for preference under the Ottawa agreements. The government of India had the right to terminate the agreement at three months' notice.

30 Journal entry, 29 Oct. 1944, paragraph 3, the Wavell papers.

31 Amery to Wavell, private, telegram 857, 30 Oct. 1944, I.O.R., L/PO/467.

32 Wavell to Amery, private, telegram 2016-S, 31 Oct. 1944, I.O.R., L/PO/467.

33 I.O.R., telegram 2029-S, 3 Nov. 1944, L/PO/467.

34 Amery to Wavell, private, telegram 863, I.O.R., L/PO/467.

35 Amery to Wavell, private, telegram 952, 30 Nov. 1944, I.O.R., L/PO/467 and P.R.O., Appendix A to ‘Indians in South Africa’, joint memorandum by Amery and Cranborne (secretary of state for the dominions), 15 Nov. 1944, P.R.O., W.P.(44)653 CAB 66/58.

36 Ibid. and P.R.O., W.P.(44)632 CAB 66/57. A boycott would cause ‘substantial’ damage in South Africa and to its war effort while causing ‘serious’ injury to India's war effort. It would also be embarrassing to seek alternative sources of goods ‘for the express purpose of facilitating a trade war within the Empire’.

37 Wavell to Amery, private, telegram 2145-S, 22 Nov. 1944, I.O.R., L/PO/467.

38 Draft telegram to Lord Harlech (British high commissioner, South Africa), Appendix B to P.R.O., W.P.(44)653 CAB 66/58.

39 Extract from Harlech to Cranborne, 13 Jan. 1942, I.O.R., L/P&J/8/291.

40 I.O.R., telegram 2029-S, L/PO/467.

41 Telegram from Khan, 10 Nov. 1944, cited in Wavell to Amery, private, telegram 2124-S, 18 Nov. 1944, I.O.R., L/PO/467.

42 ‘Indians in South Africa’, note by Patrick, P. J. (assistant under secretary, India office), 26 09 1945Google Scholar, I.O.R., L/P&J/8/302A.

43 Sir Evelyn Baring (British high commissioner, South Africa) to Sir Eric Machtig (permanent under secretary, dominions office), secret and personal, 24 Apr. 1946, P.R.O., DO 35/1287.

44 Third Broome Report cited in memorandum by Gilchrist, Annex I to cabinet steering committee on international organizations, ‘Draft memorandum on the Indian complaint against South Africa’, n.d. but c. 12/16 Aug. 1946, I.O.R., I.O.C. (S) (46) L/E/9/1403.

45 I.O.R., Note by Patrick, L/P&J/8/302A.

46 Amery to Wavell, 2 Jan. 1945, private, unnumbered telegram, I.O.R., L/PO/467.

47 See Baring to Machtig secret and personal, P/11, 12 Nov. 1945, I.O.R., L/P&J/8/302A.

48 N.A.I., ‘Indian case in South Africa’, SN37 6(22)-CC/46.

49 Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence (secretary of state for India), 29 Jan. 1946, private and secret, 8, I.O.R., L/PO/474.

50 Jha, C. S., From Bandung to Tashkent. Glimpses of India's foreign policy (London, Sangam Books, 1983). PP. 22–3Google Scholar.

51 Pethick-Lawrence to Wavell, 5 Mar. 1946, most immediate, secret, O.T.P., telegram 4606, I.O.R., L/PO/471.

52 Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence, 2 Mar. 1946, immediate, secret, telegram 506-S, I.O.R., L/PO/471.

53 I.O.R., telegram 4606, L/PO/471.

54 I.O.R., telegram 506-S, L/PO/471.

55 See Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence, 6 Aug. 1946, private and secret, 38, I.O.R., L/PO/474.

56 I.O.R., telegram 4606, L/PO/471.

57 Journal entry, 6 Mar. 1946 in Moon, Penderel (ed.), Wavell. The viceroy's journal (London, Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 219Google Scholar.

58 Wavell to Pethick-Lawrence, 7 Mar. 1946, important, secret, telegram 548-S, I.O.R., L/PO/471.

59 , Khare, Political memoirs, p. 171Google Scholar.

60 Ibid. pp. 171–3, 177. Emphasis in original.

61 Minute by Weightman on minute by Captain T. E. Browndson, 25 Mar. 1946, N.A.I., SN1 Receipt 14(25) PWR/46.

62 Summary by Banerjee, , ‘The Indian question in South Africa: appeal to the United Nations organisation’, 2 04 1946Google Scholar, N.A.I., SN2 14(25) PWR/46.

63 Weightman to Banerjee, 3 Apr. 1946, N.A.I., SN2 14(25) PWR/46.

64 Journal entry, 10 Apr. 1946, page 2, the Wavell papers.

65 Minute, 25 May 1946, N.A.I., SN7 14(25) PWR/46.

66 Henderson to Wavell, 9 Apr. 1946, most immediate, telegram 7115, I.O.R., L/E/9/1403 and N.A.I., 14(25) SN4 PWR/46.

67 See commonwealth relations department: ‘Presentation of the case of Indians in South Africa before the United Nations’, c. 15 05 1946Google Scholar, N.A.I., External Affairs 14(25) PWR/46.

68 Minute by B. K. Kapur (external affairs department), 24 May 1946, N.A.I., SN7 14(25) PWR/46.

69 N.A.I., ‘Presentation of the case’, External Affairs 14(25) PWR/46.

70 , Khare, Political memoirs, pp. 182, 183Google Scholar.

71 Pandit, Vijaya Lakshmi, The scope of happiness. A personal memoir (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1979), pp. 208–9Google Scholar. For a full discussion of the UN proceedings see Lloyd, Lorna, ‘”A most auspicious beginning”: the 1946 United Nations General Assembly and the question of the treatment of Indians in South Africa’, Review of International Studies, XVI, 2(1990)Google Scholar.

72 Note by Ben Cockram (assistant secretary, dominions office, acting as counsellor, British embassy, Washington, and attached to British delegation to the General Assembly) for Arthur Bottomley (under secretary, dominions office), 19 Dec. 1946, P.R.O., DO 35/1214/WR208/5/64.

73 British delegation, New York, to Foreign Office, important, giant, central, secret, telegram 2200, 2 Dec. 1946, I.O.R. L/E/9/1404.

74 The resolution was as follows: ‘The General Assembly, having taken note of the application made by the Government of India regarding the treatment of Indians in South Africa, and having considered the matter:

(1) states that, because of that treatment, friendly relations between two member-States have been impaired, and unless a satisfactory settlement is reached are likely to be further impaired;

(2) is of the opinion that the treatment of Indians in the Union should be in conformity with international obligations under the agreements concluded between the two Governments, and the relevant provisions of the Charter;

(3) and requests the two Governments to report to the next session of the Assembly the measures adopted to this effect.’

75 , Pandit, Scope of happiness, pp. 210–11Google Scholar.

76 Ibid. p. 211.

77 , Jha, Bandung to Tashkent, p. 25Google Scholar.

78 Ibid. p. 26.

79 Editorial, Hindustan Times, 5 Dec. 1946.

80 Letter of thanks from Nehru to Indian delegates, 26 Jan. 1947, I.O.R. C180/7, C&O 1293, L/E/9/1393.

81 Stultz, Newell M., ‘The Apartheid issue at the General Assembly: stalemate or gathering storm?’, African Affairs, LXXXVI, 342 (1987), 27Google Scholar.

82 Sedgwick (acting British high commissioner, Pretoria) to Addison (secretary of state, dominions office), confidential, 434, 2 Jan. 1947, P.R.O. W 892/9/68 DO 35/1295/G715/46.