The Year 2010 marked the 150th anniversary of the arrival in South Africa of the first batch of indentured Indian labourers in November 1860 in two old creaky, weather-beaten paddle steamers from the port of Madras in the Bay of Bengal. These steamers, called the SS Truro and the SS Belvedere, were cockroach-ridden and rat-infested and their human cargo was largely conned into this journey by glib-tongued, cheap labour recruiters into accepting work on the sugar cane fields of Natal.  The story of their arrival and events since, chronicle in the words of Kalpana Sharma, the South African Indians’ history of ‘oppression, suppression, self-assertion, struggle and a renewed search for identity.’

This article will provide some perspectives on the Indian contribution to South African history and raise issues with regard to their future in a multiracial and multicultural post-apartheid society. It will outline the following:  1) the circumstances of their arrival and early struggle; 2) the advent of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and his early work in South Africa; 3) the struggle of the Indians in the 30s, 40s, and 50s of the last century, culminating in the Passive Resistance Movement, the UN case against South Africa and the Defiance Campaign of 1952; 4) the ongoing struggle following the banning of the political parties in the 1960s; and 5) their future in the Rainbow Nation.

Arrival of the Indians in Natal

The first indentured workers landed in Natal on 16 November, 1860 and hailed from the poorest classes of India. In accordance with the terms of their contracts, they were tied to a farm for a period of 5 years with free boarding and lodging for themselves and their families, and a stipend of 10 shillings a month. The journey to South Africa was both hazardous and uncomfortable; and was surpassed only by the inhuman treatment that was meted out to them by the planters of the colony in conditions which resembled the worst excesses of slavery which was abolished some six years earlier. It must be remembered that the British captured Natal from the Dutch in 1843 after almost 200 years of Dutch settlement in South Africa. The British found that they could grow sugar cane, tea and coffee in Natal and needed cheap labour for this purpose. The Zulus, content to live on what they grew on their land, were unwilling to work for them. Arrangements were accordingly made by the British Administration in Natal with the British rulers of India for the shipment of Indian labourers to the colony under a contract. After the expiry of the contract, the contractor would pay the labourer’s passage back to India. Alternatively, they could remain in South Africa and renew their contract for a further period of five years, or settle as free working men on land allotted to them by the government – equivalent in value to the cost of their return passage. In numerous cases, the indentured labourers chose to become permanent residents and remain in the country.

Following these workers some decades later were free Indians called ‘passenger Indians’ so called, because they paid their own passage. They came as hawkers, tradesmen, artisans and in some cases, professionals. British and Dutch businessmen alike found them formidable business rivals in both agriculture and trade. The Indian trader became a competitor in selling to the white population and secured a near monopoly in dealing with the Africans. Initially, this fed the whites’ fear that they would be swamped by the Indians if they were allowed to enter the country freely and establish themselves on land or in trade.

Over a period of time, the Indians were subjected to many pieces of discriminatory legislation aimed at restricting their entry in to the country or preventing them from entering freely into trade or other commercial activity. By 1893 there were 13 racist statutes passed by the two Dutch and the two British republics in South Africa, including one regulation which prevented people of colour from walking on the footpaths of public buildings as if they were a source of contamination.

Enter Mohandas Gandhi

Quite fortuitously, and against this background, a young Gujarati lawyer entered the scene in 1893 with, in his own words, ‘no idea of the previous history of the Indian emigrants.’ 1893 was the thirty-third year of the settlement of the Indians in the country and in that year, an Indian Muslim merchant, Dada Abdulla of Durban, found himself in a dispute with his distant cousin, Tyeb Khan Mohamed of Pretoria over a promissory note involving some forty thousand pounds sterling. Dada Abdulla filed a suit in the court at Pretoria. Being from Porbandar in India, he asked his partner there to find someone who would be in a position to offer advice to their European lawyers in South Africa from an Indian standpoint and who would also look after the office correspondence which was mostly in English. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, trained as a barrister at Inner Temple Inn in England who was in his mid-twenties, agreed to take on the assignment for a year at the cost of a first class return fair, a sum of one hundred and five pounds and all found. On 23 May, 1893, Gandhi arrived in Durban.

Gandhi’s earliest encounters in the country gave him a firsthand experience of the injustices meted out to his fellow countrymen through the web of egregious inhuman and discriminatory laws passed by the various South African Republics.  A few days after his arrival in Natal, Dada Abdulla took him to the Durban Court to watch the proceedings. The English magistrate asked Gandhi to remove his turban which Gandhi refused to do on the basis that ‘as it is a mark of respect amongst Europeans to take off their hats, in like manner, it is with Indians to retain one’s head dress.’  The magistrate asked him to leave the court.

Gandhi was then asked by Abdulla to go to Pretoria to discuss the case with his lawyers there. He travelled first class and on reaching Pietermaritzburg, a fellow white passenger seeing this dark skinned man, in the first class compartment, complained to the station authorities with the result that two railway officials peremptorily ordered him to move to the third class compartment. He refused to comply and he was evicted from the train with his bags and left to shiver in the cold dark waiting room without an overcoat. Deeply humiliated, he pondered his future and viewed the event as ‘only a symptom of the deep disease of colour prejudice’ and resolved to ‘root out the disease and suffer any hardships in the process.’ 

Later, he learnt from the Indians of Maritzburg that this was quite normal and was a regular occurrence for those Indians who travelled first or second class. Gandhi then continued his journey to Pretoria but was physically beaten at a place called Pardekop  on a horse-driven coach when he refused to move from a place to which the coach driver had unfairly relegated him  on the basis of the colour if his skin.  When, at last, he arrived bruised, cold and dishevelled in Johannesburg, he was  told that the only way he would be able to travel to Pretoria was in a third class  compartment. He ignored this advice and once again, bought a first class ticket and boarded the train only to be stopped by an official at Germiston station who told him that, as a non-white, he was not able to travel first class. A kindly fellow white passenger assured the official that he had no objection. The official then reluctantly relented and let him travel by first class.  When he finally reached Pretoria he was unable to secure hotel accommodation. Dada Abdulla had given him strict instructions not to stay with any of the Indian families in Pretoria because he wanted him to maintain a strict neutrality in this case.  Given his harrowing experience on the train, it was a matter of weeks before Gandhi made contact with the Indian community in Pretoria, heard their grievances and advised them about their situation. He emphasized their responsibility in business and the necessity of cultivating good habits in order to dissipate any prejudice against themselves. He also emphasized the need for them to be united.

Whilst he was in Pretoria, Gandhi was unwittingly walking on a footpath in the city when he was accosted by a policeman who rudely pushed him onto the road.  This example of a petty and humiliating form of early apartheid made a deep mark on his thinking.  In 1894, after completing the case between Dada Abdulla and Khanmohamed, he decided to leave for India but on realizing that the Natal Legislative Assembly was debating the Franchise Amendment Bill which would disenfranchise all the Indians in the Crown colony, he warned the Indian community of the dire repercussions of this law. He was persuaded to stay behind in order to assist the community in preparing the necessary petitions.  Over ten thousand signatures were secured which was an immense number of people for the time and the overall size of the population, and an appeal was lodged with Lord Ripon, Secretary of State for the Colonies.  This move caused some concern in the Legislative Assembly. The Bill, however, was passed into law.   Gandhi established the Natal Indian Congress, one of the oldest non-white political parties in Africa, as a consequence.  He also alerted Dadabhoy Noaroji, who was then a member of the British Parliament, of the plight of the Indians in South Africa. In 1896, he returned to India where he published a major pamphlet on the grievances of the South African Indians.  Ten thousand copies were distributed.  Gandhi also met a number of Indian nationalist leaders with whom he discussed the plight of the Indians in South Africa.

On his return to South Africa in 1896, he was beaten up by a group of thugs with the tacit encouragement of government leadership on his arrival in Durban for having besmirched the name of the Natal colonialists through his lectures and meetings in India.  It must be mentioned that a few conscionable whites stood steadfastly on his side and Gandhi remained firm and continued with his political work. He also championed the cause of the Indians in the Transvaal by opposing the Asiatic Law Amendment Ordinance of 1906 which required all Indian men, women and children over the age of eight years to submit to being finger printed, and to carry a certificate of registration for production on demand.

The Indians demonstrated by burning these certificates.  Gandhi was  imprisoned with a number of prominent  Indians such as Thambi Naidoo and Mohamed Ahamed Kachalia; and a major battle of wits ensued between him and General Smuts which, after the intervention of G K Gokhale of India who visited the country in 1912, led to the Smuts-Gandhi Agreement.  Gandhi  finally left South Africa in 1914, and though his work did not yield any  practical results with the government of the newly-formed Union of South Africa, it can be argued that he left a legacy that provided the basis and inspiration for Indian political mobilization throughout the 20th century.

Indian Political Activism in the 30s, 40s and 50s

As a follow up of the Smuts-Gandhi agreement, the Government of India agreed to send an Agent General to ease the political relationship between the Indians and the South African government. A number of these Agents General worked closely with the South African Indian Congress and other organizations until 1946 when the South African Government refused to rescind a Bill that was being discussed to strangle the Indian community’s economic activities in the country.  This was the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Bill   which was aimed to restrict the rights of Indians to own or occupy property. As a consequence the Indian government recalled its Agent General in the Union and from 1946 to 1948, the Indians mounted the Passive Resistance Campaign in response to the enacting of this Bill into an Act.

Indians in Natal, joined by their compatriots in the Transvaal as well as some whites, such as the Rev. Michael Scott, pitched tents and occupied municipal land in Durban as a sign of protest. The first resistors who included women, were brutally beaten by a group of white thugs with no protection from the police. The Campaign ended in July 1948 when two thousand men and women were arrested.  This campaign laid the ground work for cooperation between African and Indian organizations, particularly the Natal and the Transvaal Indian Congresses and the African National Congress (ANC) which led to significant Indian support for the African Miners’ Strike in August 1946, and for the Joint Defiance of Unjust Laws Campaign of 1952.

In June of 1946, the Government of India requested that the treatment of Indians in South Africa be placed on the agenda of the second part of the first UN General Assembly. This was the first dispute to be taken to the General Assembly which resulted in the UN’s first criticism of South Africa’s racist policy. From today’s perspective, the striking thing about the 1946 UN resolution was its mild tone.  However, for the time it was remarkable that the UN should even have discussed South Africa’s treatment of its Indian citizens, let alone deciding by a two-thirds majority that the country had failed to treat the Indians in accordance with international obligations and the relevant provisions of the UN Charter. This case was led by Mrs Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, sister of Jawaharlal Nehru, aided by Krishna Menon, Kunwar Maharaj Singh, a former Agent General and M C Chagla, a future judge of the International Court of Justice. The South African Delegation was led by General Smuts.

South Africa’s response then was the same as it remained for years to come which was that the matter was internal to the country and therefore was within the sole jurisdiction of the Union of South Africa which, as a sovereign nation, could not be held accountable to an external organization. The case internationalized the plight of the South African Indians and highlighted South Africa’s intransigent attitude with regard to the race issue. It also heralded the boycotting of the country in the field of sports and other cultural events for many years later.

The Defiance Campaign

The Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws, launched jointly by the ANC and the South African Indian Congress was one of the great non-violent passive resistance campaigns in the tradition of Mahatma Gandhi. Nelson Mandela played a major role in its organization as a member of the Youth League of the ANC. Outstanding Indian Leaders such as Dr Yusuf Dadoo, Maulvi Cachalia, Dr Monty Naicker and Nana Sita played an important role side by side with leading African nationalists of the time. Many whites were involved in this Campaign, such as the Rev. Michael Scott, Joe Slovo, Ruth First and others. Over eight thousand five hundred volunteers risked imprisonment by contravening pass laws and curfew regulations including orders segregating whites and non-whites in railway stations, post offices and other public areas. The Campaign ended in December 1952 with a march to Germiston location by a group of protestors led by Patrick Duncan, the son of the former governor general of South Africa and Manilal Gandhi, one of Mahatma Gandhi’s sons. The Campaign generated massive support for freedom with the membership of the ANC increasing from seven thousand to one hundred thousand. It also led to the formation of the ‘Coloured People’s Congress’ and the ‘Congress of (White) Democrats’ – a ‘Congress Alliance’ which played a crucial role in promoting multi-racial resistance to apartheid in subsequent years.

1960s and beyond

In the 1960s, all non white political parties such as the ANC and the Pan African Congress (PAC) in South Africa were banned and the ANC adopted a new approach in its struggle against apartheid in response to the Government’s intransigence and the enactment of draconian laws to curtail freedom in the country.  A number of Indians and whites continued the struggle side by side with the Africans and some ended up as prisoners in Robben Island. Prominent among these were Ahmed Kathrada, Mac Maharaj, Indres Naidoo, Laloo Chiba and Billy Nair. There were others, such as Barney Desai, Dennis Brutus and Abdul Minty, who played their part either through working underground or   making known the plight of the non-whites in South Africa in England and elsewhere in the world. Many went into exile while others remained and continued the struggle within the country.  They were beaten, tortured or killed under mysterious circumstances – Ahmed Timol and Suliman ‘Babla Saloojee’ were two who were severely tortured and murdered. The struggle continued relentlessly until the 1990s when FW De Klerk unbanned the political parties and released the   political prisoners, foremost among these being Nelson Mandela, as a prelude to negotiations for the advent of multiparty democracy in the country.

In this 150th year of arrival of Indians in the country, various questions arise such as: what is their identity in a post-apartheid society? Are they South African Indians or Indian South Africans? And what does this imply in a globalized world where diversity and pluralism are beginning to be respected and recognized notions in many countries?  How will the Indians be viewed in a country of other ethnic minorities made up of coloureds, whites and other Asian groups?  Can we learn anything from the Ugandan expulsion of Asians in 1972? Does the present socio-economic situation in South Africa require Indians to play a new separate role, or should their role be subsumed in the normal democratic processes of a multi-racial, rainbow society? These are some of the questions to ponder by the Indian community in conjunction with the critical role it has played in the dismantling of the South African apartheid state and the consequent evolution of a non-racial, free, democratic order.   The history of the community in the post-apartheid world is evolving and is worthy of study.

By Mohamed M Keshavjee. He is  South African by birth, a lawyer by profession who practiced law in Kenya in the 70s and now lives in France. He is a student of African affairs and is writing a book on the South African Indians with a focus on his family’s arrival in the 1890s and their struggle with Apartheid. He recently attained his PhD in Law from London University.