From the book: A Documentary History of Indian South Africans edited by Surendra Bhana and Bridglal Pachai
The first set of documents in Part II relates to the legacy bequeathed by the Smuts-Gandhi Agreement and the Indian Relief Act (both of 1914), with which the first part of this book closed. There was nothing final about this closure except that the contending parties, wearied by the long drawn-out struggle, agreed to a compromise which suggested no overt dishonour to either side. Gandhi conceded before his departure that the quest for future improvements rested squarely with South Africa's Indians. Smuts his compatriots recognised that white interests were sufficiently safeguarded by existing legislation; and that if ever the need arose to protect these interests further against Indian inroads, they had the power to do so.
The documents in this section deal with these developments. The South African Indian Congress was founded in 1923 to oppose these growing segregationist tendencies in local and national legislation. The approach of theS.A.I.C. was conciliatory, in line with the Smuts-Gandhi Settlement. It expressed a 'sincere belief in the good results that a round-table conference would bring about' consistent with honour. The S.A.I.C. sought to secure greater freedom regarding trade and residence, accelerated educational opportunities, and an end to discrimination in employment practices.
The Congress was rather happy when the South African Government agreed to a round-table conference between itself and the Government of India. Out of the conference came the 1927 Cape Town Agreement The S.A.I.C. supported it even though it was not happy about 'vague and misty sentences', among other things. In so doing, it linked itself with the Agreement's success or failure.
By its actions Congressional leadership, which was drawn mainly from the trader and professional classes, laid itself open to attack by the less-privileged sons of ex-indentured parents. These colonial born Indians preferred to look within for their future salvation. P. S. Aiyar and others argued that the settlement did not touch the 'root cause of the virus of anti-Indianism' and the 'burdensome and oppressive legislation'.
In similar mood, Moonsamy Naidoo was unhappy that Congress should have 'bartered' away his rights. The disenchantment grew as the S.A.I.C. unwisely participated in the Colonisation Scheme Enquiry. Those who felt like Moonsamy Naidoo ('The bones of my forefathers rest in this country, and it is a sacrilege for me to leave it') formed an alternative body, the Colonial-born Settler and Indian Association.
Committed as it was to negotiation and compromise, Congressional leadership could not bring itself to support closer co-operation and collaboration with other black groups. Its strategy failed, however, as discriminatory legislation could not be prevented; the Pegging Act and the Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act The compromise of 1914 had run its course. M.D. Barmania said as much when, in a historic address to Parliament 1946, he declared on behalf of the S.A.I.C.: ‘ . . . from first to last [the history of the Indians in South Africa is the] story of a deteriorating situation; of promises made and promises broken of pledges given and pledges violated; and the withering away of rights and the erosion of principles. It is a case of tragic decline.'