South Africa
has a population of 15 million, of which 12 million are non-whites
and 3 million are whites. The white people of South Africa are a settled
community unlike those in the rest of Africa, with the exception of Algeria
and to some extent Congo. While at the present moment many territories in
Africa are becoming free, 9 million Algerian people are shedding their blood
in the struggle for freedom against 15 million settled French population,
and we in South Africa have to battle against three million white people.
There is no reason why it should be so. Insofar as white people are concerned
our policy is quite clear. We do not say that we want to push the white man
into the sea or throw him out of the country. Our demand is that democratic
rights should be enjoyed by all people. There should be equality between
man and man. There should be no discrimination on grounds of race or colour.
White and non-white can live peacefully and build a bright future for all
the people of South Africa. Its natural resources are developing and we can
all live together in prosperity. But the three million whites who have amassed
all the power and wealth in their hands do not want to give them up. They
do not want to give up their privileges. They want to maintain white supremacy
in South Africa. That kind of policy cannot continue. There is bitter opposition
to it and in the end a bitter struggle might ensue. They cannot for ever
maintain their supremacy with the force of arms; their police and their military
cannot subdue 12 million people.

Apartheid received its greatest condemnation on 21 March last
year. That is the date of the Sharpeville massacre in which African
men, women and children protesting against what is known as the
pass law system were killed. They were demonstrating in a peaceful
way. The police opened fire on them, 67 is the official number
of persons killed in one place and there were killings in other
places as well. This massacre shook the conscience of the world.
The matter was raised in the Security Council. The apartheid
policy and the massacre were condemned and the Secretary-General
was instructed by the Security Council to communicate with the
South African Government in order to see if changes could not
be brought about in this whole system of apartheid and racial
discrimination in the Union of South Africa. A year has passed
but there has been so far no change on the part of the South
African Government.

The question arises why do they persist in this policy, knowing fully well
that they will have to abandon it sooner or later. They say that they want
to make South Africa safe for the white people for a thousand years. The present
rulers of South Africa have been very closely following Nazi Germany's policy.
They were great supporters of Hitler during the war and they opposed the war
effort of the South African Government. They are fascist-minded and want to
hold on to their privileges, depending upon the power of the State, its police,
military and Air Force to keep that power as long as it is possible for them
to do so.

Apartheid Tyranny

The word apartheid, when literally translated into English,
means separateness. Different racial groups are to live separately,
so that there should be no question of their coming together.
That is the simple meaning of the word apartheid. But in the
context of South African politics, it is something more than
that. The system of apartheid was introduced in the year 1948
by the National Party, which is still the ruling party in South
Africa. At that time Dr. Malan was the leader of the Party. Today
Dr. Verwoerd is its leader. It is mainly a party of Afrikaans-speaking
people, that is, people of Dutch origin. Out of three million
whites, 60 per cent are people of Dutch origin. The remaining
40 per cent are English-speaking people. These are mainly of
British origin but there are also amongst them people from other
parts of the continent of Europe.

In the 1948 election, the first one after the war, the Nationalists
came out with the policy of apartheid against the traditional
policy of segregation which successive white Governments had
followed. Under the policy of segregation, political rights were
denied to the non-white people. There was segregation in every
sphere, so that whites and non-whites could not come together.
That policy has been followed since the time the white people
came to South Africa in 1652. They had landed at the Cape of
Good Hope, which is now Cape Town. They were looking for the
spices of the East but by accident their ship got wrecked and
they landed at the Cape. Since then Africans have had to face
misery. As the white people moved up, they had to fight bitter
wars against the settled African population. So far as courage
and strategy were concerned, the African people were better than
the white men but the latter possessed superior arms. Therefore,
gradually the whole of the area of the Union of South Africa
was swallowed up by the whites. The Africans were robbed of their
land. There is a saying amongst Africans that when the white
man first came to South Africa he had the Bible and we had the
land; now we have the Bible and the white man has the land.

When at the turn of the century there was a war between the
English people and the Boers, the Boers were defeated but eventually
self-government was given and in 1910 the Union was formed. The
Act of Union prescribed that there should be no rights for the
non-white people. That was a betrayal on the part of the British
Government who in spite of the representations made by the organisations
of the non-white people, sacrificed all their rights and gave
a constitution in which the non-white people did not get any
franchise or any say in the affairs of the State.

Then came the Land Act of 1913, which deprived the African
people of their land. The result today is that 80 percent of
the South African population, consisting of non-white people,
mostly African, have only 13 percent of the land and 20 percent
of the population that is, the whites today own 87 percent of
land. One can imagine the land hunger and poverty of the African
people. Then there were the pass laws which control and regulate
the freedom of movement of the African people. The aim of these
measures was to ensure cheap labour for the gold mines, which
were then thriving, and for the white man's farms. Later, with
industrial development, there was need for providing cheap labour
for industries. Cheap labour being thus ensured, the white people
benefited from it and enjoyed all the prosperity at the expense
of the blood, sweat and lives of the non-whites.

When the Second World War came there were those who opposed
it. But in spite of them there was war effort and industrial
development took place in South Africa. One of the natural consequences
of industrial development is that there is influx of people from
rural areas into industrial areas. Precisely the same thing happened
in South Africa. This influx of non-white people took place in
spite of the restrictive laws and it could not be stopped. With
this contact came the question of apartheid. The Nationalist
Party, in the interest of the white farmers, sponsored the policy
of apartheid. In industry there was a policy of laissez faire
supported by General Smuts who was Prime Minister during the
war. In 1942 when the Japanese submarines were around the African
ports, Smuts said 'segregation` is gone. He said that in order
to mobilise the non-white people in the fight against the fascists,
people were allowed to come into towns and some form of integration
was taking place. With industrial development, black people came
into the towns and naturally mixed with the whites. The Nationalist
Party demanded that there must be a conscious, calculated effort
on the part of Government to bring to a halt this form of insiduous
integration. When after the war we had the elections, the majority
voted the Nationalists into power.

Since then we have had this policy of apartheid. Every movement
of a non-white person is controlled or regulated or governed
by the laws of the country. We thus have in South Africa a system
of racial discrimination sanctioned by law, which is the worst
in the history of mankind. Of course, there has been discrimination
in many parts of the world. People in Asian countries and in
other parts of Africa have suffered from discrimination of one
kind or another. But here is discrimination sanctioned by law
and enforced by the authority of the State against a section
of the population on the ground that it is not white. Merit does
not count. I may be a doctor, but when I walk in the street,
I am a 'coolie`. People of mixed breed or Coloured people are
no better treated. That happens in education and in social welfare.
This kind of system makes life absolutely intolerable.

Is it surprising that people in South Africa should rise against
this tyranny? We have been conducting a struggle for 50 years
or more. Non-white people have had to suffer for it, many have
been killed, sent to prison or sent out of the country and so
on. In this decade, when territory after territory in Africa
is becoming independent, there is a great upsurge on the part
of the African people which no one can prevent. Freedom is coming
to other territories in Africa. That has its impact on the non-white
people of South Africa, who are determined to carry on the struggle
to the bitter end. Until they have won their freedom, basic human
rights and their self-respect, this struggle will go on.

A World-wide Struggle

What about the other countries of the world? Can they do anything
to help? The struggle against racial discrimination has been
a world-wide struggle. A bond of solidarity has existed between
all those who are engaged in this struggle. The struggle against
racial discrimination is a part of that against colonialism.
South Africa constitutes a base against all people striving for
freedom and equal rights. You have seen what has happened in
the Congo. What the colonialists gave with one hand, they tried
to take back with the other. But they will not succeed in their
desire in the Congo. The Portuguese too will have to forego their
African possessions. The struggle in Africa is part of a common
struggle of the African people. The independent African States
recognise that fact, and nobody in Africa is prepared to tolerate
the policy of apartheid followed by Dr. Verwoerd.

At the Commonwealth Prime Minister's conference to be held
in London a week hence, Dr. Nkrumah, President of Ghana and Alhaji
(Tafewa) Balewa of Nigeria are bound to make that clear. At the
time of the last year's Conference, a state of emergency was
declared in South Africa, about 2,000 leaders were arrested and
the two main political organisations of the African people were
declared illegal. These organisations are now functioning underground.
Most of the leaders were arrested but some of us who managed
to escape the net were asked by our organisations to go out of
South Africa to work abroad for the cause. Of course we could
not have got permission and passports to leave South Africa from
the Government.

The South African United Front comprises five organisations
of South Africa and South West Africa. South West Africa is a
mandated territory, which was given as a trust territory to Britain
after the First World War. Britain in turn gave it to South Africa
to manage it as a trust territory. The Government of Dr. Verwoerd
has incorporated South West Africa into the Union of South Africa,
unconstitutionally and illegally. The question is before the
United Nations as to what should be done about it. The matter
has been referred to the International Court at the Hague. The
Government of South Africa is trying to find a loophole for maintaining
that since no provision was made when the United Nations was
formed that this territory would go to the United Nations, it
belongs to South Africa. The United Nations itself has not accepted
the South African position.

Boycott South Africa

It is our duty to thank the Government and people of Pakistan
for their constant support in our struggle daring all these years.
We want to thank also the people of other countries that have
supported us. At the same time we ask them now to do something
positive and resolute to help us. We demand that there should
be a boycott of South Africa and it should be isolated in the
international field in every possible way, diplomatically, culturally,
economically. So far as this is concerned we are very glad that
the independent States of Africa at a conference last June resolved
not to have diplomatic relations with South Africa and that is
now being implemented by them. They are also considering the
question of not allowing South African planes to fly over or
land in their territories. The African States are determined
also not to allow South African ships or South African goods
to come into their territories. The movement is not confined
to Africa. Malaya has just imposed a trade boycott against South
Africa. That has also been done by the Caribbean States like
Trinidad and Jamaica.

Then there are voluntary movements for the boycott of South
African goods. There has been tremendous support for our stand
from people in Britain, where it is now being officially supported
by the Labour Party and the Trade Union Congress and unofficially
by other organisations. A similar movement is afoot in the Scandinavian
countries and it has been just as successful as that in Britain.
To a lesser extent movements of this kind are winning support
in other European countries and in the United States of America.

For our part we shall not be satisfied with the boycott of
South African goods. We want economic sanctions against South
Africa to be imposed by the United Nations. Every year the policy
of apartheid has been condemned by an overwhelming majority in
the United Nations. We appeal to the member States of the United
Nations to wholeheartedly supports the proposal in the General
Assembly for imposing economic sanctions against South Africa.

Membership of Commonwealth

Then there is the question of South Africa's membership of
Commonwealth, a conference of whose Prime Ministers is to begin
on 8 March in London. We appeal to member States to take steps
to exclude South Africa from the Commonwealth. South Africa has
decided to become a republic through a referendum, a referendum
which was confined to the white people. Eighty percent of the
South African population was excluded from it. Perhaps we want
a republic; but we were not consulted about it. When the constitutional
form of a member country is changed, it has to re-apply for the
membership of the Commonwealth. South Africa has now to seek
admission as a republic. We ask the Prime Ministers of all the
Commonwealth countries to refuse it admission.

There are some people who say that if South Africa is thrown
out of the Commonwealth, there will be no restraining influence
on its policies. Dr. Verwoerd will impose further restrictive
and oppressive measures on the people. Would it not be better
to have South Africa in the Commonwealth so that we might exercise
some check on its policies?

South Africa has been a member of the Commonwealth for many
a long year but that has not had any restraining effect on its
Government. On the other hand South Africa has been using its
prestige as a member of the Commonwealth to further oppress non-white
people. The factor of economic relations within the Commonwealth
has been used by the South African Government against the non-white
people. You know what will happen if South Africa is retained
as a member? Dr. Verwoerd will go back from the Conference and
proclaim to the whites that South Africa is still a member of
the Commonwealth and he will be acclaimed as a hero by them.
At the time of the referendum there were some among the whites
who opposed the creation of a republic on the ground that if
they did that they would be thrown out of the Commonwealth and
isolated in the international world. Dr. Verwoerd and his colleagues
went round the country and assured the white people that nothing
of that sort would happen and that South Africa would remain
a member of the Commonwealth. If Dr. Verwoerd goes back successful
then he will have strengthened his position amongst the white
electors, and have a freer hand to carry out his detested policies.
On the contrary if South Africa is excluded from the Commonwealth,
that will disillusion the whites. They will then know that these
policies will not receive even the tacit support of people of
the Commonwealth. That will have a salutary effect on the whites.

I must say one thing clearly, namely, that when I speak of
white people I mean the majority of them. There are brave and
courageous whites who abhor racial discrimination and apartheid.
We respect and love them for the sacrifices they have made in
common with us for our cause. Some of the Church leaders have
also supported us. Men like Bishop Reeves and Alan Paton, a great
writer and author, have had to go out of Africa. They had the
courage of their convictions to condemn and speak against apartheid.
There are others like them. There are also white industrialists
who are perturbed because of the unfavourable reaction of the
world to South Africa's racial policies. Its economic position
is affected and people outside no longer look upon South Africa
as a stable field for investment. By excluding South Africa from
the Commonwealth you will further isolate it and weaken the position
of those among the whites who advocate apartheid.

Tragedy Can be Averted

We do not believe that our battle will be won by outside pressure
alone. We know that the struggle will have to be carried on,
as it is being carried on, by our people, legally or illegally,
openly or underground. As time goes on, that struggle will become
more bitter and hard. There is still time when external pressure
can help to shorten the duration of the struggle, to minimise
bloodshed and violence on the part of the Government and reduce
the suffering of the people. If timely action is not taken, we
may see in South Africa, whether we like it or not, a situation
similar to that in Algeria, perhaps on a bigger scale. That tragedy
can be averted only through the active intervention of all justice-loving
people of the world.

We have seen several
Prime Ministers and we shall be seeing your Foreign Minister.
Then we shall go to London. There Dr.
Verwoerd will face a severe attack from the Prime Minister of
the Malayan Federation and from other Prime Ministers. The Malayan
Prime Minister has made it quite clear that the question of apartheid
will be raised in the Commonwealth Conference in spite of the
fact that Mr. Macmillan, who having spoken of "the wind
of change sweeping the Continent of Africa" has been trying
his best that there should be no controversy about it. Mr. Diefenbaker
too has made his position clear to Mr. Macmillan and so has Dr.
Nkrumah. So far as others are concerned, they have not yet spoken
their minds but we know what they think about it. In any case
Dr. Verwoerd is not going to have an easy time. A policy such
as his cannot be tolerated in the year 1961 and it cannot last.

CLOSE WINDOW

back to top