Africans and Indians worked in the
agricultural sector, moved to the urban centers for employment, and
competed for land in colonial Natal. They were bound to come into
contact with one another as employers and workers, landlords and
tenants, and buyers and sellers. Language was surely a barrier, but
some probably relied on the emerging new patois known as fanagalo
to communicate. There was some casual sex, and a few instances
of marriage. But there was little by way assimilation of Indians
into African social structures and vice versa.1
Relations between Africans and Indians mainly centered around their
interactions in employment, land ownership, petty trade, and
service.
As White rule was coming into place,
racial tensions emerged, and officials and employers alike often
exploited them for their own ends. Take for example the occasion in
1877 when eighty-six of the “Delta coolies all armed with large
sticks and bludgeons” marched towards the Albion Estate in Isipingo,
“shrieking vengeance against four kaffirs” who had been hired to
prevent the Indians from passing through the estate’s mill.2
Or in another instance in 1896, when White shopkeepers
organized knobkerrie-carrying Zulus
to march up and down the Durban harbor
to frighten the Indians on board the Courtland and Naderi.3
Racialized perceptions affected social relations as well. F.E.T. Krause’s African servants protested at having to serve an
Indian who was his guest. The servants relented only after they had
been assured that his guest, Gandhi, was an important person like “a
native chief.”4
All of this suggests that in examining
the emergence of White supremacy in South Africa, it is simply
not
enough to focus only on Blacks in their relationships with Whites,
but to see how the two Black communities related to each other. In
the very nature of the process of colonial consolidation over Zulus
after they were subjugated, the presence of Indians would inevitably
create dynamics in which the two subordinate groups would find
themselves in conflict and competition. It is with this in mind
that this chapter examines the role of the political economy in
shaping African and Indian attitudes toward each other and the
circumstances around which Gandhi conceptualized Indiannness and
rejected the idea of seeking out allies from among the Africans.
There were over 42,000 Indians in the colony in the 1890s and about
as many Whites. The Zulu population, 375,000 in 1881,5
increased dramatically to 455,983 by 1891.6
Political Economy
The literature has usually focused on
the rivalry between Indian and White workers in colonial Natal, and
how, when the latter came to have influence over the government
after responsible government was introduced in 1893, laws were
passed to curtail the threat Indians posed in artisan labor
employment. There has been little attention given to relationships
between Zulus and Indians. A recent study examined the issue of
identities in the context of Natal’s political economy, but it paid
little attention to relations between Africans and Indians.7
Most Africans in Natal did not think
of themselves in collective terms until fairly late in the
nineteenth century. The Zulus were referred to as “abenguni” or
“bakoni” by their neighbors. Early British traders in Port Natal and
Cape used the term “Zulos.” In time, however,
the presence of White settlers in Natal created an “alternative
source” of identification.8 White rule saw the
gradual erosion of the power base of the Zulu kingdom. Zulu land and
resources shrank as five-sixths of Natal’s land passed into the
hands of the colonial government or private landowners. Chiefly
authority was undermined as a new class of Africans emerged in the
amakholwa (believers) and as young men who made up the
amabutho (military regiments) became laborers on white farms or
in the mines, or served the towns as togt (casual) workers.
Indian employment, indentured and
non-indentured, extended beyond the coastal region from Verulam in
the north to Umzinto in the south to the interior in the area
between Camperdown and Pietermaritzburg. From the 1880s, workers
were involved in building railroads and mining coal in northern
Natal. They worked on wattle estates, on tea and coffee plantations,
and were used as shepherds and cattlemen in the midlands.9
Indeed, they were so widely employed that
the Protector exaggeratedly ruled out in 1901 African labour in
agriculture: “Native labour for farming purposes, or, in fact, for
any other industry in the Colony, must, I think, be looked upon as a
thing of the past, consequently the employers of coloured labour
generally throughout the Colony have now realised the fact that
without Indians they absolutely do nothing, and it is pleasing to
note that, notwithstanding the hue and cry made against the
introduction of Indians a few years ago by certain sections of the
community, the majority of the people are now actually employing
Indians themselves, either as household servants, general labourers,
hospital attendants, etc.” The growth of mealies, tobacco, beans,
and garden produce was “entirely in their hands.”10
Natal experienced a resurgence of
economic activity after the South African War even if the postwar
prosperity was enjoyed disproportionately as the per capita income
in 1904 shows: £124 for Whites, £20 for Indians, and £4 for
Africans.11 Competition and conflict accompanied
the share of the resources among
Indians and Zulus.
Indians worked alongside Africans, and
it was inevitable they should experience some friction in the work
environment. In agriculture, Africans and Indians are known to have
worked on the same plantations, but we are less certain about the
circumstances under which they labored individually and jointly. In
1875, there were 5292 Indians on the plantations as opposed to 7457
Africans, that is, 58 per cent of the total. The percentage of
African workers employed in the cane fields dropped to 28 per cent
in 1887 and 1888, and 18 per cent in 1907 and 1908. After the end of
indentured importation, the percentage of African workers rose
sharply to 44 per cent in 1914 and 15.12 It is
likely that the increasing use of Africans as casual laborers was
not reflected in these statistics.13
Africans were sometimes hired as
sirdars (overseers) over Indians. In 1862, an African was used
by the employer to lash an Indian tied to a tree, according to a
report in the Natal Mercury.14 This may be
an isolated instance, especially as the sugar industry was worked
predominantly by Indians, but it is quite likely that in
agriculture, industry, and public service there were many instances
of employers and officials using similar strategies to keep Indians
and Africans divided by differential treatment or by placing one
group in a position of authority over the other. For example,
Dorasamy working for the Redcliffe Estate testified to the Protector
in November 1882 that two months earlier, a “Kaffir” took a large
stick of sugar and struck him. He continued, “I fell down and the
Kaffir was on top of me beating me with his fist. I took the first
thing that was near me, a cane knife. The Kaffir told my master who
was in the field. My master told six or seven Kaffirs to take hold of
me, put me in the ground where they held me when the master thrashed
me with a sjambok. When he finished beating me my master told me to
go to work ....” There are other examples. Katharayan complained in
1888 that his employer encouraged “Kaffirs to beat” them to keep
Indians in their place. C. Kannippa complained in 1902 about being
assaulted by his employer D. Douglas, who threatened that in future
he “would tell the Kaffir to beat” him.15 In 1891,
G. Martin who managed the Quarantine Station in Durban wrote to the
Protector to “send him some Kaffir Policemen to prevent the
immigrants from straying beyond their limits…,” who obliged him with
two African constables.16
Somewhat related is the case of F.R. Bloy who informed the Protector in April 1883 that he had employed
“Kaffir Mazwi” to arrest Indian absconders. Mazwi had been active
since December and had already arrested ten absconders, nine men and
one woman. An African named “Coffee” was paid for arresting two
Indian deserters at Lion’s River in April 1885.17
Good land was scarce in the colony,
especially after the growth of commercial agriculture when great
tracts of land passed into White hands. Many Africans, most of whom
were amakholwa, acquired land when Crown lands were thrown
open to the public. But the increasing number of Indians in the
colony seriously affected the extent of land available to Africans.
The Natal Land and Colonisation Company (NLCC), one of the biggest
land speculators, preferred Indians over Africans because they used
a crop rotation method that helped to conserve soil. Indian farmers
who thus acquired land did not evict African labor tenants, but
began replacing the rent tenants with other tenants (their
compatriots presumably) who could pay higher rents.18
Indians acquired small holdings in northern Natal ranging from 3 to
25 acres in the 1880s and 1890s. By the end of the century, NLCC
sold plots varying from 40 to 80 acres. By 1902, 2000 acres had been
sold to the Indians in northern Natal. There were 600 Indian farmers
in the Umhlali district; and in Verulam and Tongaat, Indians owned
about 1400 acres.19 Land purchased by Indians was
intended for White settlers but there were not enough buyers.
African homesteaders could not own land outside of reserve areas
although some chiefs were able to acquire land.
In the early years ex-indentured Indians could seek land in lieu of
return passages, and some of them took advantage of the law. In
Umzinto, only fifty-two persons received land in the 1880s. In 1880,
one A.F. MacKintosh applied for land on behalf of eighty-nine
Indians. All eighty-nine had served under MacKintosh Indian Corps
under his command.20
The presence of Indians as competitors
was resented by Africans. In 1881,
potential Zulu buyers complained that land was too expensive to buy
or lease because the country was “full of coolies.”21
Reference here appears to be to the pressures created by the
presence of the large imperial garrison in the colony in the years
1879 and 1881, when the British went to war against the Zulus and
Boers respectively. It created opportunities for landowners in
Durban, Pietermaritzburg, and the surrounding countryside. Whites
and Indians who grew produce on their land began subdividing their
plots to accommodate new tenants. As rentals increased, many African
families who lived in huts owned by landlords were forced to go
elsewhere. The impact of being displaced from the land was felt
particularly in the drought years from 1888 to 1893. Africans were
forced to buy rice from Indian suppliers in the coastal areas, and
the African homesteaders who supplied vegetables and grains to
buyers in Durban and Pietermaritzburg were displaced by Indian and
White market gardeners.22
The resentment to Indians was deep in
some areas. Heather Hughes argues that the Qadi chiefdom feared
being elbowed out of the country by White and Indian farmers.
Private landownership eroded their chiefly powers. There were an
estimated 14,000 Indians in the Inanda area by the 1880s, and large
portions of the Riet River and Groenberg farms close to the Qadi
heartland were leased by Indians. White landowners preferred Indian
tenants to Africans because they had the cash to pay the rent per
acre leased. Indian tenants had easier access to credit and were
entirely engaged in agriculture since they did not have herds of
cattle. Africans “perceived Indians to be the cause of the land
distress” since they pushed up the price of land. Indians who sold
treacle used for brewing isitshimiyana (beer) and ran eating
houses were also blamed for drunkenness and crime among Africans.
Dube was aware of the feelings of Africans when he said in 1912 that
“people like coolies have come to our land and lord it over us, as
though we, who belong
to the country, were mere nonentities.”23
By the 1890s,
Indians were being prohibited from owning colonial land in areas
that the Whites considered exclusively theirs. Open competition was
feared. Numerous letters appeared in the press by people who
believed that the Indians were likely to swamp Natal. Indians
succeeded, said one White colonist in 1894, because they worked hard
on small lots sold to them by White farmers with borrowed money.
They lived frugally, took their wealth back to India, and encouraged
their compatriots to come to Natal. He concluded, “What does this
mean? Simply that the coolies are coming here and enriching
themselves at the expense of the Colony, and spending their money in
India. The evil is growing daily….” He blamed the landowners for
this development.24
There are many
instances when sale of land was prohibited to Indians, although some
were able to get around the hurdles. When Messrs R. Acutt and Sons
organized the auction of land in Musgrave Road in Durban, the
condition of the sale was that the lots could not be sold or resold
to Indians. Yet one unseen bid did go to an Indian.25
In Pietermaritzburg, five lots of land in the Lower Illovo were
keenly contested by Indians. But they all went to W. Pearce.26
In another instance, two lots were sold in Umgeni Road at Trimble’s
land sale to Whites. When it was learned that the principals were
Indians, Andrew Trimble cancelled the sale. Part of the condition
of sale was that vendors should not accept Indian purchasers.27
Indians also
acquired land in parts of Zululand in the early years. The
agitation to prevent them from acquiring more land became strong
after 1895. J.A.F. Ortlepp had sold land to Indians in 1876 in the
Melmoth township. When he ran for public office in Melmoth in 1898,
the opposing candidate used this against him, although Ortlepp had
changed his stance and himself had become anti-Indian.28
It became difficult for Indians to acquire land in Zululand in such
climate of anti-Indian feelings.
A report was filed
by the sub-inspector of Verulam regarding the displacement of
Africans by Indians from private lands. “The free Indian,” it
stated, “is now gradually ousting the native from private lands, and
forcing him into the locations, already crowded, except for those
large sacrificed areas known as ‘Mission Reserves’.” Free Indians
were also employing Africans. The result of this situation was that
the African acquired the habits of the “Coolies.” “Experience shows
that the native learns nothing but evil from his association with
the coolies” who are thieves and “superlative liars,” said the
writer.29
In another
instance, the respondent to an interview in the Natal Witness
said that if Zululand was opened to Indians, it would suffer the
same fate as Natal, that is, it will be swamped. “We in Natal,”
said the unnamed person, “know that but a few years ago, European
storekeepers were to be found dotted throughout the colony. Today
they are supplanted by the trading Hindoo.”30 Yet
another instance was that of an individual complaining about
“coolies” getting a foothold in Mapumulo where they were operating
on agents’ licences because the Colonisation Company had refused to
allow land to be sold to Indians for farming and maintaining stores.31
When the Natal
Government officially barred Indians from owning land in Nondweni
township in Zululand, Indians drafted a memorial protesting their
exclusion because the action drew “invidious distinctions” between
“European and Indian British subjects.” The memorial was signed by
Abdul Karim H. Adam and others in Durban on February 25, 1896.32
In Umvoti there were twenty families cultivating 125 acres of land.
A Mr. Essery did not think that the “coolies” would do harm. Still,
he wanted to prevent the African reserve from turning into an Indian
location, and a resolution to that effect was passed by Essery and
seconded by W.F. Clayton.33
The presence of
Indians in or near Zululand was a matter of concern in official
circles from the 1880s. There was a directive from the Secretary of
Native Affairs (SNA) in 1883 to establish the number of Indians in
locations and/or kraals. In an area in which Dinnabezwa was chief,
there was one Indian who was given permission by the chief to be
there. In Alexandra County, an Indian had married an albino “Kaffir”
and lived outside the Mabia location. There were also two Indians in
G. Fynn’s location who had built their own homes. One “coolie” was
said to be “loafing around.” In the Canada Mission Station, an
Indian lived in the house of Daniel Zoba and had two wives. Five
other Indians were trading with Africans for hides and fowls but
were not living among the “Kaffirs.” In Umsinga, there were ten
Indian traders who exchanged goods for goats and money. At Umzimkulu,
an Indian lived in the kraal for many years. There was at least one
instance of an African employer hiring Indian labourers. Umlauw in
Stanger hired fourteen free Indians in his business venture by
October 1884. Others were reported practicing as “doctors” among the
Africans in locations in Insuza.34
The SNA files refer to several cases
of Indian traders who were given permission to trade in stores and
hides in or near mission reserves, but who were under threat to move
through the offices of the SNA or the Colony’s Licensing Officer. In
one case, the complaint was that the Indians buying the hides used
their own false scales to cheat the sellers.35
Often pressure was put on the chief who leased the land.36
Sidumuka of the Nyavini clan wanted to give one V. Supramuna Pothee
the right to use Lot 5 of Block A of the Ifumi Mission Reserve.
Harry Escombe advised not to allow the establishment of Indian
stores on mission land. He suggested an amendment of Act 25 of 1895,
specifically subsection (d) of Section 2 to prevent this from
happening.37 In another case, the lease of an
Indian trader was renewed for five years in January 1903 on the
American Mission Reserve. The occupant at the time was Konjibari.
However, the lease was given to A. G. Kadwa. The Umzinto Magistrate
ruled to eject Konjibari in October 1904. The SNA directed, “It is
desired by the Trust that Indians shall not obtain a foothold in the
Locations, and it is intended to get rid of all Indian tenants as
opportunity arises.” However, the original lessee challenged the
decision, and the Supreme Court set aside the decision in favor of
Kadwa in February 1906. Under the circumstances, the Board decided
it would not renew the lease after it expired on December 31,
1907.38
At Ifumi Mission Reserve, an African
trader by the name of Charlie Mali was accused in 1908 of being a
front for a store run by Ismail Amod for Ismail Dadabhoy. The charge
was brought by Louis Mgadi who said in his letter of complaint to
the SNA, “If Government objects to Indians having stores on Mission
Reserve, they should go further and forbid the employment of Indians
by natives who own stores on Mission Reserve.” Mali denied the
charge. He maintained, “I got this Indian as a man who understands
this line of business, to show me how to run my own business….” The
licensing officer knew how to get Mali’s cooperation. “I should
require him,” he said, “to give me a written undertaking not to
draft an Asiatic into his business before considering a renewal of
his license, and any attempt to do so would mean cancellation of his
license.”39
In 1913, the residents of Umvoti
Mission Station at Groutville petitioned to remove Essop Hoosen
Patel who was running a store on the premises rented to him by Chief
Martin Lutuli. The stores should be run by Africans, and Patel in
their opinion was not a “fit and proper” person. The petitioners
were backed by Walter Foss, a member of the American Zulu Mission
who, in forwarding the petition, was told by the Commissioner of
Native Chiefs that he should communicate his objection directly to
the licensing officer. In any event, Chief Lutuli was pressed into
giving Patel notice to quit, and not allowing any other Indian-run
stores in the future.40 The American Mission Board
in Inanda strongly resented the presence of Indians.41
White traders, like
their counterparts in the urban areas often felt threatened by the
presence of Indian traders. They were not slow to use colonial
officials to eliminate the competition. H.E. Swales of Ndedwe
complained that he suspected Indians of selling treacle to the
African without proper trade licenses. According to Swales, they
stood 800 yards from his store to sell the treacle. Although Indians
could not go into the locations, they could not be prevented from
selling on the public road. One of the officials commented that the
African would buy where it was cheaper and more convenient. In any
event, the SNA was not happy about the sale of treacle because it
was being used to make isitshimiyana.42
Storekeeper J.W. Whittaker was similarly interested in
shutting out Kajee from the Mapumulo Mission Reserve. The
authorities replied that “the simplest way of disposing of him [Kajee]
will be for the N.N. Trust who now are their landlords, to refuse
to renew his lease when it expires.”43
Increasingly the colonial authorities
wished to keep out Indians from mission lands. A request by the
Tugela Irrigation Works to hire an Indian servant was rejected by
SNA on the grounds that the “presence of Indians on Trust land is
undesirable ….”44 The Durban General Agency acted
in 1911 on behalf of an Indian or Indians who wanted to buy 300
acres of reserve land. The Department of Native Affairs replied that
“no portion of the Umlazi Mission Reserve was available for Indian
tenants.”45 At the same time, replacing Indians
with Africans in public institutions was frowned upon. The colonial
engineer wanted to replace in 1908 indentured Indians with Africans
at a Lunatic Asylum, brickyard, and so on. “The obligatory labour
obtained from the Native population is limited on the public road,”
he said, and he did not want “to deviate from [that] principle.”46
In industrial labor, there was
competition for similar jobs. For example, Indians who terminated
their contracts in search of better employment in the Natal
Government Railways (NGR), ended up as competitors with African
workers who also sought out NGR jobs. By 1890, 3137 Africans and
2606 Indians were employed by the NGR.47 A few of
the reported incidents suggest that relations were not good between
them. A skirmish broke out in 1890 between Indians and Zulus in the
railway barracks outside of Pietermaritzburg.48
Some tension was caused by employers who seemed to use
ethnically/racially separated accommodation and tasks on
plantations. Employers were motivated as much by the need to keep
the labor force divided as by a desire to prevent racial tensions.
In any event, the efforts to keep Indians and Africans separated
created sufficient room for prejudices to fester and stereotypes to
develop. In coal mining the law allowed Indians but not Africans to
refuse underground work. The law protected Indian indentured miners
in other ways, and when they were unhappy about conditions, as was
the case with the Ramsey Colliery, they struck in 1906.49
Even this form of modest protection was not available to African
workers.
If there was a perception that Indians
seemed to be favored by White employers, nowhere was this more
obvious than in the case of “special servants,” a select group of
hand-picked migrants who came on contracts for particular employers.
They worked in residential clubs and hotels as waiters, cooks,
dhobis (washermen), or coachmen; in hospitals as orderlies and
compounders; as interpreters and clerks in law courts; or in
municipal services as policemen and postmen.50
Special servants were part of a work environment that included
Africans as policemen, government messengers, post carriers, and
domestic servants. Togt (casual) labor was popular with
Africans. In 1889, the estimated number of such laborers was 7000.
Peripheral Durban and Durban itself saw Africans and Indians
entering the labor market at roughly the same time. The amakholwa
were becoming carpenters, bricklayers, shoemakers, and so on.51
Africans in Durban were heavily male before World War II, and were
limited to some sectors like domestic service, rickshaw pulling, and
dockside work.52
Dhobis competed with and
eventually displaced Africans doing similar work in the laundry
business. Specifically with reference to the “old fashioned wash
Kaffirs,” the introduction of improved water supply in two of the
leading townships in 1887 had far reaching consequences. Zulu
amawasha (washermen) did their washing on the river
front, which meant that the washing had to be taken several miles
away from the householder. Piped water made it possible for washing
in white colonial homes to be done on the premises. With time, this
displaced the town-based Zulu washermen. Within a decade, the Zulu
washerman’s “challenger and effective rival,” according to Atkins,
was the dhobi “whose hand laundries in the towns operated at
cheap and therefore highly competitive rates.” Many of them were
forced to migrate to the gold-mining towns of the Rand where they
once again engaged in the laundry business. In
time, dhobis
were themselves forced out of business by White-controlled
commercial laundries.53
There was also resentment, as we saw
earlier, in having Africans in position of authority over Indians.
Doorasamy Pillay’s petition to the Viceroy on July 14, 1884 on
behalf of “traders and storekeepers from Mauritius and other
colonies” objected to Indians being arrested by “Kaffir constables,
who treat them with great cruelty, using unnecessary and undue
violence.” The petitioners requested that if warranted, the Indians
should be apprehended by “European or Indian constables, who do not
use harsh measures, but treat all alike ….”54 Such
racial stereotyping was common.
In terms of commercial services,
Indian traders formed an important link in providing stores to the
Africans as they were being drawn into a cash economy. There were
forty traders in Umgeni and forty-six in the Lower Tugela in 1879,
many of whom were Indians.55 In the beginning
traders were White, but the appearance of Indians in the 1870s and
1880s gave White wholesalers an opportunity to use them as
distributors in remote corners of Natal. This trade was
significant. The annual combined turnover in 1904 of Indian traders
and hawkers all over South Africa has been estimated at £25 million,
and the Natal share of this total must have been substantial as the
majority were based here.56 Small White traders in
Natal complained that their Indian counterparts had cornered the
“kaffir” trade.57 In rural Natal, one assumes
that Indian traders did not face any competition from potential
Zulus traders—there were amakholwa general storekeepers,
however—and it would be useful to know about the interpersonal
relations between Indian traders and Zulus, the extension of credit
facilities to them, and generally the way the services were rated by
Africans. Answers to these questions will also yield some idea of
the nature of the relationship.58
By 1900, racial antipathy was evident
in the attitudes between Africans and Indians particularly in the
way the in which words like “kaffir” and “coolies” were used. Just
as “kaffir” became a term of contempt for Africans, “coolies” or “amakulas”
was used to refer to Indians. In sounding off on what Africans
would think of the proposed formation of an arms-bearing Indian
Volunteer Corp, John Bazley said in 1877, “The Kaffirs are down on
the Coolies, and would ask, are these spider-legged bags to have
guns, and Kaffir men not to have them?” Stereotyping suggests a
growing awareness of the “other” in relation to oneself. Take the
case of Rev. H. Mtimkulu who complained quite legitimately about the
appalling conditions that Africans had to endure in trains. They
were overcrowded, and the ticket office that catered for them opened
only at the last minute as the train pulled in. Rev Mtimkulu was
badly treated at Alcock’s Spruit. The language he used in his
November 11, 1909, letter reflects racial stereotyping, “May the
authorities ask what wrong I had done. I am not the only one. All
the ‘kolwas’ here, he [the station master] irritates with offensive
language, yet coolies sit on that very seat for which I was beaten.”59
Indians used
similar stereotypes. An Indian named Subroti was killed in a freak
accident when he and a “Kaffir” were greasing the axle-boxes of an
empty wagon. The nameless “Kaffir” removed the stones; the wagon
began rolling, and as Subroti tried to put on the breaks, he slipped
and fell. The wagon wheel went over his neck, killing him almost
instantly.60 In 1895, Ramasami working for E.
Essery in the Riet Valley complained about being assaulted by an
Indian sirdar aided by a “Kaffir sirdar named Damma” who held him by
the legs.61 Ponnammal laid charges of complaint
against her husband in January 1910 for having three other wives,
one Indian and “two kaffir.”62
There are many
other references to “kaffirs” by Indians. While the term was widely
used to refer to Africans, it does suggest an attitude, a frame of
reference that betrays an undercurrent of racial tension between
Africans and Indians. A crime committed by an African against an
Indian would certainly have enhanced racial prejudices. Panic
followed in 1889 when a rumour circulated that “Natives” were going
to attack Indians in Durban and were going to gather at the race
course. Africans certainly came in large numbers, as many as 500 by
one account, on May 15 or 16, 1889, but it turned out that the
target of their wrath was not the Indians but the borough police.
The “Native” police force was said to be overbearing and high-handed
in its operations when arresting other Africans and charging them.
Among those who gathered were 300 to 400 togt labourers. The
Natal Mounted Police together with the Borough Police were able to
scatter the group of angry protesters. That the Indians should have
believed that they were the target suggests that feelings against
them were less than friendly.63 In 1895 an Indian
was murdered in the Springfield Flats in a particularly brutal
fashion. It was the work of “kaffirs,’’ said the police report.
Another was said to have been beaten in the vicinity by “Kaffirs.”64
L. Marria Pillay
wrote a five-page letter in his own hand on September 22, 1905. He
had been hired as a cook, but his employer, E.M. Green, forced him
“to do those works which a Kaffir and two shillings Cooly” did.65
Where Africans exercised authority over Indians, there were
complaints of one kind or another. On the issue of ill-treatment of
Indians by Africans, Indian Opinion weighed in with the
assessment that Africans were responsible for the use of excessive
force. The April 15, 1905, issue said, “It is common knowledge that
a native, an excellent servant, once promoted to some authority
becomes a tyrant over those under him.”66 In a
competitive situation, there was mutual distrust and animosity
between the two subordinate groups.
It would be a
mistake to think that normal and harmonious relations did not
develop between Indians and Africans, though they were rare. When an
ailing Moti came to the Mantyonga chief Swamana in the Inanda Native
Location, the chief helped him with medication. When Moti died, the
chief buried him after getting permission from the
authorities.67 In another instance, Tika, who had
deserted his employer in 1882, spent four months going from “kraal
to kraal” working for Africans named Stoffel and Vagana. Tika earned
a cow, two goats, and a pig from Stoffel, and only a cow from Vagana
who considered the Indian a “malkop”
(mad).68
Competition and conflict were at their
most intense in the 1890s and 1900s as these two decades generated
problems and issues around which identities became more sharply
defined. Responsible government in 1893 gave greater say to White
settlers in Natal’s affairs. Agitation against the Indians increased
and gave rise to the NIC. The rinderpest epidemic devastated the
Zulu cattle stock, and this natural disaster dramatically altered
the social and economic systems that were central to Zulu society.
Africans lost a total of 379,576 cattle (76 per cent) in 1897, and
never quite recovered from it. The war between the Boers and Britons
(1899-1902) did not leave Africans in the colony unaffected.69
After the war, Natal’s White authorities were determined to work for
settler interests, abandoning, as Lambert says, the earlier “spirit
of trusteeship” and “any sense of obligation for African welfare,”
and “actively intervened to consolidate settler domination in Natal
to prevent African competition.”70
Africans became indebted and
impoverished, and their proletarianization hastened. They
increasingly sought jobs in the urban environment. The economic
depression between 1904 and 1909 caused a massive influx of African
migrants into Durban where their number stood at 20,000 around
1910. No urban location for African settlement was laid out until
1910. The per capita income of Whites in Natal was twenty-four times
that of Africans and Indians.71 Crime and
resistance to the settler presence increased. There were 2416
instances of stock thefts and the like over two years from 1888 to
1889, and 6495 over a thirty-month period from January 1890 to June
1892.72 At least one other consequence of the
migration to Durban was the formation of gangs among African youth,
as Paul la Hausse points out, although he does not say whether their
behavior was racially motivated.73 This form of
socially deviant behavior had a bearing on the way identities came
to be shaped.
Gandhi’s Indianness
and Africans
Indianness began to develop almost
from the time that the migrants began arriving from the
subcontinent. But it was from the 1890s that it became more clearly
defined as part of the political vocabulary of colonial Natal’s
political economy. Indians and Africans used otherness to define
themselves. Gandhi’s endeavors to create Indianness happened within
this context. He gave it form and direction by placing it within an
imperial context but its source was larger. For Gandhi, diaspora
Indians were an extension of the diverse strands of those in India,
and in Natal he and other Indians saw as advantage in considering
themselves as the sum of the whole rather than isolated groups
broken up into castes, classes, religions, and languages. Yet, even
as Gandhi promoted unity, he did not seek to diminish the diversity
that prevailed among Indians. He respected the rootedness of Indians
in their ancient cultures even as he advised reforming outmoded
practices. So, when he encountered the scores of community
organizations among them, he worked with them and encouraged them to
think of the larger issues as a basis of common interests.
Gandhi’s notion of Indianness in South
Africa was intrinsically connected to the ancestral land of the
immigrants. What did Gandhi mean by “Indianness”? It implied a
geographic unity when he first used it around 1894. In his
elaboration of the term thirteen years later he stressed the
cultural and religious diversity of India. In Hind Swaraj
(1909), he advanced the argument that the people of the subcontinent
had always constituted a “praja,” that is a nation. India’s
capacity to assimilate meant that it was a unified whole in spite of
its many different parts. “India cannot cease to be a nation,” he
said “because people belonging to different religions live in it.”74
He seemed to define India civilizationally and territorially. If
British imperial rulers invoked unity to make possible the
appropriation of “Indians” to refer to Queen Victoria’s subjects on
the subcontinent, this could apply equally to parts like Natal, a
British colony, to which people from India had migrated. If people
in the subcontinent could be called “Indians,” so too could
those
who had migrated.
When Gandhi helped to establish the
NIC in 1894, he did not intend to displace the hundreds of
religious, cultural, and caste organizations that fundamentally
served as identity markers for the transplanted communities. The NIC
was simply one additional body with whose secular objective the
migrants could readily identify. Joining it, or in some other way
identifying with it, did not require them to give up affiliations
with organizations for which they had primary loyalty. It acted like
a coalition of these various other groups. Those leaders who were
co-opted to serve on the executive committee came from many organizations.
In South Africa, the use of “Indians”
had clear ideological implication different from the one intended by
Gandhi. Natal’s White population felt threatened by the immigrants
from India and proceeded to deal with them legislatively as a
collective whole. Gandhi’s Indianness straddled both Natal and the
Raj because it was part of his strategy to use the imperial
framework to defend the rights of Indians as British subjects.
However, in the unique circumstances in which the notion of
Indianness became crystallized in South Africa, it came to be
racialized. The system of White domination required that “Indians”
be treated as a separate entity so as to discourage the idea of
their uniting with other Blacks politically.
In the context in which Gandhi used
the term, it served him well. His intention was to unite the Indians
in South Africa. In the very first speech that Gandhi made in South
Africa to a small group of Indians in Pretoria at the house of Haji
Muhammad Haji in 1893, he stressed “the necessity of forgetting all
distinctions such as Hindus, Musalmans, Parsis, Christians,
Gujaratis, Madrasis, Punjabis, Sindhis, Kachchhis, Surtis and so
on.”75 Indeed, he suggested the formation of an
association to make representations of the “Indian settlers,” and
offered his services. Some months later when he returned to Durban,
he took up the issue of resisting the Natal legislature’s attempt to
deprive Indians of their right to vote in the colony. He got the
support of the important merchants to take the lead in fighting for
the Indians under circumstances that are well known. As in Pretoria,
he stressed the need to unite all Indians. “In face of the
calamity that had overtaken the community,” he said, “all
distinctions such as high and low, small and great, master and
servant, Musalman, Parsis, Christians, Gujaratis, Madrasis, Sindhis,
etc., were forgotten.”76 And a year later, by
which time the NIC was established, he thought it was important that
the body reflect a connection to India. “The name ‘Congress,’ I
knew, was in bad odour with the Conservatives in England,” he said,
“and yet Congress was the very life of India. I wanted to popularize
it in Natal. It savoured of cowardice to hesitate to adopt the name.
Therefore … I recommended that the organization should be called the
Natal Indian Congress ….”77
Right from the beginning, there never
was any doubt in his mind about seeking alliance with the Africans.
Gandhi was asked about this later in his life, and, while the point
of reference was different on each occasion, there is consistency in
his responses. He did not deny that Africans had legitimate
aspirations that could best be achieved through passive resistance.
He doubted, however, whether they were ready for the kind of
satyagraha campaign that the Indians were running. In this he
was saying, if not directly then by implication, that the Indians
had become acquainted with the use of peaceful methods, and Africans
had not. Gandhi made a further distinction relating to the
respective statuses of Africans and Indians: they differed both in
their circumstances and in the goals they sought to achieve. The
Africans were children of the soil with legitimate aspirations; the
Indians were a minority building a case on the basis of the imperial
doctrine of equality. Indians were not interested in seeking
political power in South Africa for themselves. From Gandhi’s
perspective there were no common goals that justified a united
front.
He clarified his position on two
separate occasions in 1936 and 1939. In 1936 when Gandhi was asked
by Howard Thurman, Dean of Rankin Chapel at Howard University, “Did
the South African Negroes take part in your movement,” he responded,
“No, I purposely did not invite them. It would have endangered their
cause. They did not understand the technique of our struggle nor
could they have seen the purpose or utility of nonviolence.”78
He replied three years later to a similar question raised by Rev
S.S. Thema of the D.R. Mission in Johannesburg. Gandhi said that it
would have been a mistake for Indians to join the Africans
politically because they would be “pooling together not strength but
weakness.” Indians were not considered a “menace” by Whites. The
Africans were bound to resist because they had been robbed of their
inheritance. He continued, “Yours is a bigger issue. It ought not to
be mixed up with that of the Indians.”79 There is
no ambiguity or insincerity in his position. What is, however, more
pertinent is that in the context in which he operated between 1893
and 1914, his actions were always open to ambiguous interpretation
given his expressed beliefs in the cultural inferiority of Africans.
He told Doke, his earliest biographer,
that he foresaw a collision between the White man’s desire to
maintain ascendancy and African aspirations. “When the moment of
collision comes, if, instead of the old ways of massacre, assegai,
and fire, the natives adopt a policy of passive resistance, it will
be a great change for the colony.” The solution was to give
Africans a voice directly or indirectly in their affairs. The right
to vote would be a “great solution” provided that it was linked to
passive resistance. He qualified this further by saying that it
should be done only when they are “fit to exercise the vote,” that
is, “when the native people have risen sufficiently high in the
scale of civilization to give up savage warfare and use the
Christian method of settling a dispute ….” If the Africans adopted
passive resistance, there need be no
fear of the “horror of a racial
uprising.”80
Gandhi feared that if Indians united
with the Zulus they would probably be subjected to the same kind of
brutal treatment that Africans had experienced during the 1906
Bambatha Rebellion. Besides, he was not sure whether as allies
Africans would adopt nonviolence. The Indians stood to lose rather
than gain by such an alliance. The only ethnic group he sought out
as allies were the Chinese because they, like the Indians, were a
minority not interested in challenging the White power structure but
rather in protecting rights.81
Gandhi was actively loyal to the
British Empire early in his life. “Hardly ever have I known anybody
to cherish such loyalty as I did to the British constitution,” he
said in his autobiography. He was aware of the defects in British
rule, “but I thought that it was on the whole acceptable.” So, in
Natal he joined the singing of the British national anthem, and in
1896 when he returned to India briefly, he served on Rajkot’s
committee that had been appointed to celebrate Queen’s Victoria’s
Diamond Jubilee.82 His actions were open to
ambiguous interpretation, however. He admired the Boers, and yet
when they fought the British in the South African War (1899-1902),
Gandhi felt he had to show his loyalty to the British by creating
the Indian Ambulance Corps. When General Butler relieved Ladysmith
which had been under siege by the Boers, Gandhi congratulated the
general on behalf of the Indian Ambulance Corps.83
His behavior was consistent with his moral and political position,
but it appeared partisan to others.
He made no attempt to cultivate the
friendship of African leaders. In Satyagraha in South Africa,
written in the 1920s, he remembered many people, and yet he
did not mention by name a single African contemporary leader
although periodically the Indian Opinion wrote on
African leaders. He knew of Reverend John Langalibalele Dube who was
to become the first President-General of the South African Native
National Congress (later the African National Congress). Dube, born
in 1871, studied in the United States from 1887 to 1891, and upon
his return to Natal in 1892, modeled an industrial school, the
Ohlange Institute, upon the Tuskegee Institute of Booker T.
Washington. Dube’s Ilanga lase Natal, an African weekly in
English, used the same press as the Indian Opinion until the
institute came up with its own.
The two met at least once. They were
both present in August 1905 at the residence of Marshall Campbell
who was hosting a reception for the British Association for the
Advancement of Science. Dube made a speech at the reception in which
he criticized the colonial authority for depriving the Africans of
their land and for imposing unfair taxes on them. The British
delegation was sufficiently impressed with Dube’s work and donated
£60 to the Ohlange Institute. Gandhi referred to the meeting in the
Indian Opinion on September 2, 1905, and spoke highly of Dube
as a man “one should know.”84 Dube knew Gandhi,
and is reported as having said to Rev W.W. Pearson, an English
clergyman, that he had “studied in depth the struggle fought by the
Indians” under his leadership, and had nothing but respect for “all
the Indians.” Could the Africans emulate the Indians? No, he did
not think they could. For one thing, the Africans did not possess
the “divine power” the Indians had. For another, the Africans would
retaliate for “their safety” to provocation because “nobody [could]
control their violent nature.”85 Prabhudas
recalls that Gandhi had talks with Africans, and he implies in a
1992 interview that Dube may have been among them, although this is
not clear. No African family lived at the Phoenix Settlement as part
of the experiment in communal living, but there was one at Tolstoy
Farm.86
There were Zulus all around Gandhi.
They were included in the prayer sessions at the Phoenix Settlement
and worked as laborers at the ashram. There is no evidence to
suggest that Gandhi visited the Ohlange Institute as close as it was
to the Phoenix Settlement.87 Gopal K. Gokhale
visited it on November 11, 1912, and spent some time with Dube
talking about the “Native question.” The students sang a couple of
Zulu songs in his honor, and the band played music. Ilanga Lase
Natal refers to the visit, but there is no reference to Gandhi
having accompanied him.88 Others at the Phoenix
Settlement developed some form of regular contact and communication
with African schools in the area.89 An African
worked in the press.90 On April 23, 1909, the
Phoenix Settlement school visited the Inanda Seminary for African
girls run by White ladies, and Dube’s industrial school. Gandhi was
in jail at the time, but Indian Opinion (May 1, 1907)
noted that the “carpenter shops, smithy, and turning benches were
much admired.” At Tolstoy Farm in the Transvaal, which was used in
the satyagraha struggle between 1910 and 1914, there is
reference in the Kallenbach diaries to Africans who worked for
payment and who associated with the residents in some fashion.91
The Collected Works refers to an agreement between Gandhi and
Kallenbach in June 1910, “It is understood,” said Gandhi to
Kallenbach, “that the ideal is not to employ native labour ….”
Gandhi allowed an African named John, described as “a splendid boy,”
food beyond thirty shillings a month. He was allowed to peg
out a small area of about thirty acres beyond the fruit trees for
one year. “I feel that it is much better to let the natives feel
that here they may depend upon the fairest treatment. And I have no
doubt that if it proceeds from the heart and is uniform, continuous
and not from affectation, it will bless both the
parties,” said
Gandhi in a letter on November 6, 1911.92
All of this suggests that there was
some contact between Gandhi and the Africans through the ashrams,
but they are incidental and are not part of a deliberate strategy to
involve Africans in the political movement. It is clear that he did
not systematically seek out African leadership to canvass their
opinion on issues of the day.
So the message he was giving to
Africans was mixed. He led a small stretcher-bearer corps during the
Bambatha Rebellion in 1906. In his Autobiography he believed
that “the British Empire existed for the welfare of the world,” and
even if the Zulu uprising was not a “rebellion” he was obliged as a
resident of Natal, to do his “bit” in the war.93
Gandhi was certainly sympathetic to the Zulus. As he said in 1928,
“I doubted then and doubt even now if the outbreak could be
described as a rebellion…;”94 and again, “… my
heart was with the Zulus.”95 So they nursed the
wounded Zulus who would otherwise have gone unattended because
Whites refused to do the work. The corp’s work lasted for a month,
and Gandhi was certain that its work was appreciated by the Zulu
warriors even if there was a language barrier. As he said, “… from
their gestures and the expression of their eyes they seemed to feel
as if God had sent us to their succor.”96 While
the Zulu warriors may have appreciated the help rendered by Gandhi’s
band, the politics surrounding the conflict made it open to
different interpretation.
The Zulu press was critical of
Gandhi’s action, and the ambivalence shows. There are more than a
handful references to Indians in the Izwi Labantu between
1906 and 1909. There was no sympathy for the Indian cause. “The
countrymen of Gandhi,” said the newspaper, “are like the Mohammedans
and Malays, extremely self-centered, selfish and alien in feeling and
outlook.” Specifically with reference to Gandhi’s action during the
Bambatha Rebellion, Izwi, according to Odendaal, reproduced
without comment an extract from an American newspaper which stated
“that the Africans in South Africa had not forgotten that Indians
had volunteered to serve with the ‘English savages of Natal’ who
massacred thousands of Zulus in order to steal their land.”97
There was some understanding for their
common disabilities around the time the Union of South Africa was
formed. Naledi ea Lesotho expressed admiration for the
passive resistance campaign, and Indian Opinion expressed
sympathies for Africans who were “our oppressed fellow subjects who
are made to suffer for the same cause that we suffer, viz., our
slight pigment of skin.” At another time, Indian Opinion
stated that by discriminating against the various Black groups, the
Whites were “trying almost to compel them” into creating a united
front. Izwi Labantu and Ilanga lase Natal welcomed the
editorial. African Chronicle and Indian Opinion stated
that the proposed Act of Union amounted to a declaration of war
against all Blacks. But the expression of such sentiments was rare
and incidental, and did not translate into any collectively
meaningful political action by the Black groups. Gandhi and Haji
Habib set sail on the Kenilworth Castle on June 23, 1909, in
the company of John X. Merriman, a liberal who was opposed to
exclusive White rule, and Abdurrahman, leader of the Cape-based APO.
They may well have discussed the situation, but no action resulted
from it.98
The young Gandhi was influenced by
segregationist notions prevalent in the 1890s. In a memorial he
drafted in 1896, he said that denying Indians the franchise amounted
to treating them “lower than the lowest native.” In another petition
that he addressed to the British colonial secretary, he complained
about the Indians having to be “huddled together in the same
compartment with Natives.” Like other Indian leaders, Gandhi also
endorsed a pass system for Africans. Public buildings should have
three entrances so that Indians would not have to use one used by
Africans.99 In an address in Mumbai, Gandhi said
that the Whites sought to degrade Indians to the level of the “raw
Kaffir whose occupation is hunting, and whose sole ambition is to
collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and, then,
pass his life in indolence and nakedness.”100 Even
as late as 1909, he wrote, “We may entertain no aversion to Kaffirs,
but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between
them and us in the daily affairs of life.”101
Indians loathed to be treated like “Kaffirs” in an environment in
which they wished to point out to the colonial authorities that they
were civilized by the standards imposed by Whites. Many Indians
complained about being treated like “kaffirs” having to carry
passes, sharing public transport, or, as during the satyagraha
campaign, having to share jail facilities with them.
Yet while Gandhi was aware of the
differences, his experiences in jail seemed to make him more
sensitive to their plight. He said, “It was, however, as well that
we were classed with the Natives. It was a welcome opportunity to
see the treatment meted out to Natives, their conditions [of life in
jail], and their habits.”102 The later Gandhi
mellowed; he seemed much less categorical in his expression of
prejudice against Africans, and much more open to seeing points of
common cause. His negative views in the Johannesburg jail were
reserved for hardened African prisoners rather than Africans
generally.
Given the circumstances around which Indiannness came into being, and the ambiguities inherent in its
creation, the possibility of Gandhi’s molding a united front with
other Black groups was never a realistic one. That this did not
happen is partly to be attributed to the racial prejudices prevalent
at the time. But Gandhi’s action was driven mainly by political
considerations. Scholars like Maureen Swan who have been critical of
Gandhi’s failure to unite with others, are inspired by the
perspectives of a later era in South
African history, and fail to
fully appreciate the cultural and religious dimension around
Indianness.103
The next two chapters show how strong
that dimension was. Gandhi’s approach was based on Indianness, and
he was able create a semblance of unity among Indians by cultivating
the leadership of the various organizations across language,
religion, and caste divisions. Interlocking membership of the
various organizations helped. He was particularly good at creating
alliances at key moments, moving from one to the other to keep up
the momentum in the campaign he launched in 1907. Knowing and
understanding the Indianness he created, he managed to overcome the
ebb and flow of the campaign for the next seven years. When a group
opposed him, he always succeeded in finding new allies. Under those
circumstances, it is unlikely that he could have been able to do the
same if Africans, about whom he knew little, had been part of his
political campaign.104
Indians organized themselves around
culture and religion significantly as a way to identify themselves,
and, notwithstanding the fact Indianness saw them as one single
group, they saw themselves as many groups, separate and distinct.
Gandhi’s role was important, but it should always be measured in
relation to the diverse cultural and/or religious bodies among the
Indians. Worship in the mosques and temples, and participation in
Mohurram and Kavady festivals created images of
differentness. The cultural and religious activities of Indians,
necessary though they were for the survival of the communities, set
them apart from Africans and Whites alike.
Africans responded to the colonial
structures by developing identities in relation to Whiteness and
Indianness. There was competition and conflict in the political,
economic, and social spheres as the three groups came into contact
with each other. The White power structure was in a position to
manipulate the subordination of Indians and Africans. As a
subordinate group, Indians embraced many of the racist notions of
the “kaffir” either as a way of identifying themselves more sharply,
at least to stress the difference between them and Africans. There
were many places of contact—in agriculture, in industries, on farms,
in commerce, in service in the towns as co-workers, as landlords and
tenants, buyers and sellers, employers and workers. They related
with each other not as equals but as two despised groups (“kaffirs”
and “coolies”) in a situation of competition and conflict. Where
there was no mutual respect, stereotypes were bound to emerge.
Indianness and Africanness, then, became sharper as both groups
dealt with Whiteness.
References
-
Rajend Mesthrie, “The Origins of
Fanagalo,” Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages
4:2(1989): 211-40; Bill Freund, Insiders and Outsiders: The
Indian Working Class of Durban, 1910- 1990, Heinemann, 1995,
p.38.
-
I 1/2, 209/1877, Overseer J. L.
Peddle to Protector McLeod, May 19, 1877, Natal Archives
Repository, Pietermaritzburg.
-
Fatima Meer, Apprenticeship of
a Mahatma: A Biography of M.K. Gandhi, 1869-1914, First
Indian edition, New Delhi: Gandhi Hindustani Sahitya Sabha,
1997, p. 42.
-
In Shukla, Chandrashanker, ed.,
Reminiscences of Gandhiji by Forty-Eight Contributors,
Mumbai: Vora & Company Publishers Ltd., 1951, p.160.
-
John Lambert, "From Independence
to Rebellion: African Society in Crisis, c. 1880-1910," p. 374,
in Natal and Zululand: From Earliest Times to 1910: A New
History, edited by Andrew Duminy and Bill Guest,
Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 1989.
-
John Lambert, Betrayed Trust:
Africans and the State in Colonial Natal, Pietrmaritzburg,
University of Natal Press, 1995, p. 108.
-
Political Economy and
Identities in KwaZulu-Natal: Historical and Social Perspectives,
edited by Robert Morrell, Durban: Indicator Press, 1996.
-
Ibid., pp. 30, 37.
-
Joy Brain, "Natal's Indians,
1860-1910: From Co-operation, through Competition, to Conflict,"
pp. 249-74, in New History, 1989.
-
Protector's
Report, 1901
-
Andrew Duminy and Bill Guest, "The
Anglo-Boer War and its Economic Consequences, 1899-1910," pp.
345-72, in New History, 1989.
-
Brain, "Indentured and Free
Indians in the Economy of Colonial Natal," p. 210 in
Enterprise and Exploitation, edited by Andrew Duminy and
Bill Guest, Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal, 1985.
-
Daniel North-Coombes, "Indentured
Labour in the Sugar Industries of Natal and Mauritius,"
pp.12-87, in Essays on Indentured Indians in Natal,
edited by Surendra Bhana, Leeds: Peepal Tree Press, 1991.
-
Rachel M. Perri, "Competition and
Control: The Shaping of Race Relations in Colonial Natal,
1823-1902," Honors Thesis, Dartmouth College, 1994, p. 68.
-
II 1048/82, November 10, 1882, and
II 1/26, 1475/85; I/78/1888, January 16, 1888; I/114, 744/1902,
November 28, 1902, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
II 1/64 1374/90, October 20, 1891.
See also II /163 1878/91 July 21, 1891.
-
II 1/12, 296/83, April 22, 1883,
NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
Lambert, Betrayed Trust,
pp. 72, 73-74, 75, 77, 81, 89.
-
Bhana and Brain, Setting Down
Roots, pp.47-48.
-
I 2567/1880,
290/1880, July 5, 1880, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
Frene N. Ginwala, "Class,
Consciousness and Control: Indian South Africans, 1860-1946,"
Doctoral dis., Oxford University, 1974, p. 73, cited in Perri,
p.8.
-
Lambert, Betrayed Trust,
pp. 71, 113-14.
-
Heather Hughes, “The Undermining
Effects of Private Land,” in “Politics in Inanda, Natal: Qadi
under Chief Mqhawe, c. 1840-1906,” Doctoral Thesis, University of
London, 1995.
-
Serial Number (SN)
206, Newspaper Cutting, December 28, 1894, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.
-
SN 2177,
Newspaper Cutting, March 29, 1897, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.
-
SN 2525,
Newspaper Cutting, September 10, 1897, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.
-
SN 2300,
Newspaper Cutting, April 26, 1897, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad
-
SN 2855, 2856,
Newspaper Cutting, November 14, 1898, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad .
-
SN 2115,
Newspaper Cutting, March 17, 1897, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.
-
SN 2883,
Newspaper Cutting, December 15, 1898, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.
-
SN 3208,
Newspaper Cutting, June 23, 1899, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.
-
SN 761,
Newspaper Cutting, March 2, 1896, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad .
-
SN 976,
Newspaper Cutting, May 2, 1896, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.
-
SNA I/1/69
13/1883, II 1/22, 1467/1884, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
AGO I/8/33:
121A/1886, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
SNA I/1/426:
877/1909, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
SNA I/1/221:
783/1896, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
SNA I/1/311:
1094/1904, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
SNA I/1/414:
3199/1908, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
CNC 107:
147/1913, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
Heather Hughes, “The Undermining
Effects of Private Land,” chapter in her thesis.
-
SNA I/1/316:
363/1905, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
SNA I/1/44:
3199/1908, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
SNA I/1/448:
3590/1909, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
CNC 6:
231/1911, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
SNA I/1/38:
207/08, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
Bill Guest, "The New Economy," pp.
302-23, in New History, 1989.
-
Brain, "Indentured and Free
Indians", p. 227.
-
Ibid., p. 225.
-
Ibid., p. 226.
-
Lambert, Betrayed Trust,
pp. 18, 93, 117.
-
Freund, Insiders and Outsiders,
p. 38.
-
Keletso Atkins, The Moon is
Dead! Give Us Our Money!: The Cultural Origins of an African
Work Ethic, Natal, South Africa, 1843-1900, Portsmouth:
Heinemann, 1993, pp. 137-38.
-
A Documentary History of Indian
South Africans, 1860-1984, edited by Surendra Bhana and
Bridglal Pachai, Cape Town: David Philip, 1984, pp. 10-12.
-
Lambert, Betrayed Trust,
p.45.
-
A.J. Arkin, The Contribution
of Indians to the South African Economy, 1860-1970, Durban,
1981, p. 114.
-
Bhana, "Indian Trade and Trader in
Colonial Natal," 1985, pp. 234-63, Enterprise and Exploration.
-
Lambert, Betrayed Trust,
pp.115-16.
-
John Bazley of
Nil Esperandum wrote on February 26, 1877, I/2, 73/1877; SNA
I/1/451: 3983/1909. See also, SNA I/1/450: 3758/1909, NAR,
Pietermaritzburg.
-
I 143/85,
February 13, 1885, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
I 1585/95, NAR,
Pietermaritzburg.
-
I 82/10, NAR,
Pietermaritzburg.
-
CSO C25/1889,
NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
I 45/95, NAR,
Pietermaritzburg; see also the Natal Mercury, January 8,
1895.
-
I 2457/05, NAR,
Pietermaritzburg.
-
I 798/0, NAR,
Pietermaritzburg.
-
I 132/1895, NAR,
Pietermaritzburg.
-
II 1/18
1243/1884, February 29, 1884, NAR, Pietermaritzburg.
-
Ibid., pp. 153, 161.
-
Ibid., p. 166.
-
Ibid., p.169.
-
Ibid., p. 13.
-
Paul la Hausse, "The Cows of
Nongoloza: Youth, Crime, and Amalaita Gangs in Durban,
1900-1936," Journal of Southern African Studies 16:1 (Mar
1990):79-111.
-
Collected Works of Mahatma
Gandhi (CWMG), Vol. 10, p.29. See also Gandhi, Hind
Swaraj and Other Writings, edited by Anthony J. Parel,
Cambridge University Press, 1997.
-
Gandhi, An Autobiography: The
Story of My Experiments with Truth, Boston: Beacon Press,
1993 (original in 1957), p.158.
-
Ibid., p.176.
-
Ibid., p.185.
-
Rajmohan Gandhi, The Good
Boatman: A Portrait of Gandhi, New Delhi: Viking, 1995, p.
207.
-
Surendra Bhana, Gandhi's
Legacy: The Natal Indian Congress, 1894-1994,
Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 1997, p. 44;
Indian Opinion, March 3, 1939.
-
Joseph J. Doke, Gandhi: An
Indian Patriot in South Africa, (originally published in
1909), reprinted in New Delhi, 1994, pp. 103-04.
-
S.G. Ranaday
disagreed with Gandhi for not seeking alliance with other Black
allies. He wrote to Gandhi in January 1900, "In one breath you
find fault with the white people for treating you differently.
At the same time you would not work with the other coloured
people." We do not know the circumstances under which he made
the remark but it looks like a comment in passing. SN 3362,
January 2, 1900, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.
-
Gandhi, An Autobiography,
pp. 212, 212-13.
-
Gandhi to Colonial Secretary,
March 1, 1900, SN 3400, LN 40, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.
-
E.S. Reddy, Gandhiji: Vision
of Free South Africa, New Delhi: Sanchar , 1995, p.19.
-
Raochandbhai M. Patel,
Gandhijini Sadhana, 1939 in Gujarati, quoted in E.S.
Reddy's Gandhiji, pp. 23-25.
-
Peter Ruhe's interview with
Prabhudas Gandhi, January 29, 1992, Rajkot, notes provided by
Jim Hunt.
-
Reddy, Gandhiji, p. 20.
-
Indian Opinion (IO),
11/23/1912.
-
Prabhudas Gandhi, The Dawn of
Life, Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1948, pp.190-91. In Gujarati the
title is: Jivan Nu Paroth: Gandhijini Satyagraha Jivan
No Udyakal.
-
Peter Ruhe's interview with
Prabhudas Gandhi, January 29, 1992, Rajkot: Notes provided by
Jim Hunt.
-
CWMG, Vol. 96,
Supplementary Vol. 6, pp. 63-64, 72-73, 74, 76.
-
CWMG, Vol. 96,
Supplementary Vol. 6, pp.43-44, 63-65,
76.
-
Gandhi, An Autobiography,
p. 383, Satyagraha in South Africa, p. 90.
-
Gandhi in Satyagraha in South
Africa, p. 90
-
Gandhi, An Autobiography,
p. 384.
-
Satyagraha in South Africa,
pp. 90-91. See also Doke, pp. 85-86, and Pyeralal’s description
in, Mahatma Gandhi, Birth of Satyagraha: From Petitioning to
Passive Resistance, III, Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing
House, 1986, chapter 20, "The Zulu Rebellion", pp. 465-83,
especially pp. 474-80.
-
Quoted in Andre Odendaal, Black
Protest in South Africa to 1912, Totowa, NJ: Barnes & Noble,
1984, p. 213; Reddy, Gandhiji, p. 20.
-
Odendaal, Black Protest,
pp. 213-16.
-
Odendaal, Black Protest,
pp. 212-13; P.F. Power, "Gandhi in South Africa," Journal of
Modern African Studies 7:3 (1969): 441-55; Les Switzer,
"Gandhi in South Africa: The Ambiguities of Satyagraha,"
Journal of Ethnic Studies 14:1(Spring 1986): 122-28; Brian
M. Du Toit, "The Mahatma Gandhi and South Africa," Journal of
Modern African Studies 34:4 (1996): 643-60.
-
CWMG, Vol. 2, p. 74.
-
Ibid., Vol. 9, p. 149.
-
The South African Gandhi: An
Abstract of the Speeches and Writings of M.K. Gandhi, 1893-1914,
edited by Fatima Meer, part 8, pp. 563-619.
-
Swan, Gandhi: The South African
Experience, Johannesburg: Ravan, 1984.
-
Bhana, Gandhi's Legacy, pp.
26-27.
|