Gandhi in South Africa: A Racist?

Siby Kollappallil Joseph

Part -I

There is a general dissatisfaction with the existing social order in which live. The search for an alternative way of organizing society with a new life style has become a major concern and engagement of the scholars and thinkers all over the world. Gandhi’s life and his ideas are being widely discussed to provide an alternative socio-economic, politico model of development. However, because of Gandhi’s centrality to present intellectual discourse, his life and ideas are being dissected to their barest minimum. Only in this context some scholars are engaged in pointing out the so-called seamy side of his life and ideas at times even taking some of his actions and writings out of context. Gandhi hardly needs any defence in the face of such unreasonable attacks. But his words and actions of South African days would have to be contextualized to then prevailing social situations for a correct and proper reappraisal. With such a mindset one could really make a proper assessment of Gandhi’s contributions relating to his South African days. However, here our attempt would be primarily confined to reviewing and reassessing whether there was any racist element in his words and actions during those days. In the process of this analysis, one could really reach to a conclusion whether the accusation of Gandhi being a racist is a myth or reality.

Of late, Gandhi’s approach to race and the problem of racial discrimination especially in the South African phase have been subjected to severe criticism by a section of scholars, intellectuals and activists. This view gathered momentum during the centenary celebrations of Gandhi’s return to India from South Africa in 2015. It provided an opportunity to revisit Gandhi’s eventful life in South Africa including his approach to matters relating to race and racial discrimination. It was none other than Arundhati Roy, in her introduction titled ‘The Doctor and The Saint’[i]to the annotated edition of Annihilation of Caste originally written by B. R. Ambedkar, raised the issues related to Gandhi’s approach to caste and race. It is interesting to note that she again raised some of these issues while delivering a lecture at the University of Kerala in the memory of Mahatma Ayyankali, a renowned dalit leader of the State. In the course of her speech, she castigated Gandhi for his racist and casteist approach. She even demanded that it was high time that all institutions named after Gandhi be rechristened.[ii]

On similar lines, a book viz. The South African Gandhi: Stretcher Bearer of Empire was published simultaneously both in India and United States. This book was written by Ashwin Desai and Goolam Vahed, scholars of Indian origin associated with South African universities. They argue that Gandhi during his two decade long stay in South Africa “remained true to Empire while expressing disdain for Africans. For Gandhi, whites and Indians were bound by an Aryan bloodline that had no place for the African. His racism was matched by his class (and caste) prejudice towards the Indian indentured.” [iii] It was further fuelled with the installation of Gandhi statue in Ghana and the attempt to install Gandhi bust in Malawi by the Indian government. As a result of these developments, this issue was widely discussed in print and electronic media and created a feeling in a section of people that Gandhi was an ardent racist. It is true that his views on race and racial discrimination are to some extent likely to produce confusions and controversies, if it is analysed out of spatio- temporal context. Therefore, it is necessary to analyse Gandhi’s thinking and actions in regard to race and racial discriminations especially in South Africa and their evolutions, if any, in the course of his life.

Those scholars, who accuse Gandhi of being a racist, are of two categories. One, Gandhi was a racist at the initial stage of his life in South Africa and he underwent drastic changes at a later stage. The second one is that he remained as a racist throughout his stay in South Africa. Let us look at both the cases. For example, noted historian Ramachandra Guha wrote an essay in the Wire viz. “Setting the Record Straight on Gandhi and Race” on December 23, 2018. His main argument is that “In his 20s, Gandhi was unquestionably a racist. He believed in a hierarchy of civilisations, with Europeans at the top, Indians just below them and Africans absolutely at the bottom. He spoke of the native inhabitants of Africa in patronising and even pejorative language. However, by the time he was in his mid 30s, Gandhi no longer spoke of Africans as inferior to Indians.”[iv]

Contesting Ramachandra Guha’s argument Ashwin Desai wrote a piece in the Wire on January 5, 2019 viz. “Guha’s Story of Gandhi in South Africa Does Not Square with the Record”.[v] He argues that “Ramachandra Guha’s Gandhi Before India published in 2013 was received with much consternation in South Africa. This was because in Guha’s quest to portray the South African Gandhi as a cosmopolitan anti-colonial fighter and apostle of non-racialism, he wrote out of history the brutal subjugation of Africans and the myriad resistances against the Imperial army. He turned a blind eye to Gandhi’s ‘anti-African’ racism and support for the right of the white minority to hold political power.”According to Desai much after 1906 Gandhi continued to castigate and belittle Africans. Similarly, Obadele Kambon, associated with University of Ghana wrote an article in The Print on January 27, 2019 viz. “Ram Guha is wrong. Gandhi went from a racist young man to a racist middle-aged man”[vi]

As the controversies and misconceptions were mainly centred on his life and work in South Africa, the scope of analysis will be limited to that phase only. It was in 1893 Gandhi had gone to South Africa in search of a better prospect as a lawyer. There he came face to face with racial discrimination even during the initial stages of his stay. For instance, when he visited the Durban Court, the magistrate ordered him to take off his turban (headgear) which Gandhi refused and walked out of the Court. It was while travelling from Durban to Pretoria with a first class train ticket; he was literally thrown out of the compartment at the Pietermaritzburg railway station. He faced further insults in the subsequent coach journey. He was even refused accommodation in Grand National Hotel in Johannesburg. It is to be noted that Gandhi was a representative of British Indians and according to Queens Victoria’s proclamation of 1858; all imperial subjects were entitled for equality. However, Gandhi had to face severe racial discrimination during his stay in South Africa. But it is surprising that critics like Arundhati Roy argue that “Gandhi was not offended by racial discrimination.”[vii]

After the successful completion of his work as a lawyer Gandhi was supposed to come back to India in 1894. To honour him, a farewell party was arranged on the eve of his return journey to India in April 1894. It was in the farewell party; Gandhi came across a news item in Natal Mercury about the proposed Bill by the Natal Government to disenfranchise Indians. It was on the request of the people of Indian origin gathered in the farewell party that Gandhi decided to stay back and take up the case of blatant racial discrimination. Within couple of months, he took the initiative to form the Natal Indian Congress in South Africa in August 1894. The NIC was committed to welfare of all sections of Indians living in South Africa including indentured labourers too. Roy’s reference to Natal Indian Congress (NIC) being an elitist organization[viii] is presented in such a way as if it is a new discovery by her. The fact is that Gandhi himself had admitted in his Autobiography that “Although the members of the Natal Indian Congress included the colonial-born Indians and the clerical class, the unskilled wage-earners, the indentured labourers were still outside its pale. The Congress was not yet theirs. They could not afford to belong to it by paying the subscription and becoming its members.” [ix] Roy even forgets that even Indian National Congress which was constituted as early as 1885 had remained an elitist club as late as 1920. What is more, Roy again indulges in pick and choose even in respect of the membership fee of Natal Indian Congress. To make it appear more elitist, she underlines the fact that its membership was three pounds without mentioning whether it was monthly or yearly membership. She also fails to mention the fact that it had a monthly membership of 5 shillings. The fact underlined by Roy that NIC was an elitist club can be easily controverted by perusal of the report of NIC prepared and presented by Gandhi as its General Secretary in August 1894.[x]That report gives a brief summary of things NIC has done for the indentured labourers. Ignoring all these documentary evidences, Roy sticks to her unsubstantiated position that Gandhi and NIC always distanced themselves from indentured labourers.

It is an undeniable fact that Gandhi was basically taking up issues of people of Indian origin. But at the same time he has no disdain for Africans and he was very much concerned about the question of colour discrimination inflicted upon people whether it was on Indians or natives of Africa from the very beginning of his public life in South Africa. He raised voice against the British policy of denying rights on the basis of the colour of the skin whether it is Indian or Black population. While fighting for the rights of franchise of Indians, Gandhi wrote in a letter to the Editor, The Times of Natal, dated October 25, 1894 “The Indians do not regret that capable Natives can exercise the franchise. They would regret if it were otherwise. They, however, assert that they too, if capable, should have the right. You, in your wisdom, would not allow the Indian or the Native the precious privilege under any circumstances, because they have a dark skin. You would look to the exterior only. So long as the skin is white, it would not matter to you whether it conceals beneath it poison or nectar. To you the lip-prayer of the Pharisee, because he is one, is more acceptable than the sincere repentance of the publican, and this, I presume, you would call Christianity. You may; it is not Christ's.”

Further he asserts that racial or colour discrimination is against the principles of Jesus Christ or Christianity. “Suffer little children to come unto me,” said the Master. His disciples (?) in the Colony would improve upon the saying by inserting “white” after “little”. During the children's fete, organized by the Mayor of Durban, I am told there was not a single coloured child to be seen in the procession. Was this a punishment for the sin of being born of coloured parents? Is this an incident of the qualified citizenship you would accord to the hated “Rammysammy.’’ If He came among us, will he not say to many of us, “I know you not”? Sir, may I venture to offer a suggestion? Will you reread your New Testament? Will you ponder over your attitude towards the coloured population of the Colony? Will you then say you can reconcile it with the Bible teaching or the best British traditions? If you have washed your hands clean of both Christ and British traditions, I can have nothing to say; I gladly withdraw what I have written. Only it will then be a sad day for Britain and for India if you have many followers.”[xi]

Again in his “Open Letter” which Gandhi wrote around December 19, 1894 to the Hon. Members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly he drew their attention on the question of racial discrimination “I suppose there can be no doubt that the Indian is a despised being in the Colony, and that every opposition to him proceeds directly from that hatred. If that hatred is simply based upon his colour, then, of course, he has no hope. The sooner he leaves the Colony the better. No matter what he does, he will never have the white skin.”[xii]

Therefore, the argument that Gandhi was an ardent racist in the initial stage of his life in South Africa and he was not offended by racial discrimination is not supported by his actions or his utterances during that period. From a cursory look at Gandhi’s life in South Africa, one can find that it was a period of intense transformation in terms of his evolution of personality and the world of ideas. Here we are seeing an inexperienced person who was not capable of arguing a case in the Indian court becoming the sole voice of the people of Indian origin. It is true that to some extent major developments in the world affected his thought process and his approach to issues. What is pertinent to note is that in certain cases he went far ahead of times and no Indian could think or even imagine about such ideas which have revolutionary implications. It was also a period of intense personal transformation. It was in the South African soil he took vow of Bramacharya and undertook experiments in community living through Phoenix Settlement and Tolstoy Farm. At the societal level, he evolved a strategy expressed in the form of satyagraha which turned out to be quite effective in meeting the challenge of racial discrimination.

In the world of his ideas also one can see the influence of prominent thinkers of those days. That is also true in the case of evolving his approach to race and racial discrimination. In some cases, he found enforcement his of ideas in some others writings of eminent personalities of that time. John Finot’s classic work Race Prejudice helped Gandhi to understand the intricacies of race and broadening his vision on the issue of racism. Anil Nauriya emphasized this point in one of his articles. He wrote, “An important French influence dating from his South Africa years, which on matters of race was perhaps more pointed and therefore efficacious than that of any of the other writers he had read till then, is, oddly enough, less widely known. This is that of Jean Finot (1858-1922) whose work “Race Prejudice” had been commended in Gandhi’s journal Indian Opinion on September 7, 1907. Earlier, on March 9, 1907, The New York Times had described Finot as a “French iconoclast on race prejudice”. Finot’s work against racial prejudice had a significant impact on Gandhi; it accelerated his transformation in South Africa from one who was seeking equality (of Indians) with Europeans to one who spoke in terms of equality for all. This is an element in the sources of his intellectual make-up that has not received adequate attention, even if Gandhi’s mind was already working in this direction.”[xiii] Gandhi wanted to popularise the ideas of Finot even among people who came in contact with him[xiv] and reference to Finot can be seen in his Indian days too.[xv]

Gandhi’s changing vision was very much revealed in one of his speeches in the Y.M.C.A., Johannesburg, on the question, “Are Asiatics and the Coloured races a menace to the Empire?” He said “We hear nowadays a great deal of the segregation policy, as if it were possible to put people in water-tight compartments….I have said that the African races have undoubtedly served the Empire, and I believe so have the Asiatic races or, rather, British Indians. Have not the British Indians fought on many a battle-field? A people, moreover, who have religion as the basis of life, cannot be a menace. And how can the African races be a menace? They are still in the history of the world’s learners. Able-bodied and intelligent men as they are, they cannot but be an asset to the Empire. I believe with Mr. Creswell that they ought not to be protected. We do not want protection for them in any shape or form, but I do believe this—that they are entitled to justice, a fair field and no favour. Immediately you give that to them, you will find no difficulty. Whilst, therefore, Asiatics and other Coloured people cannot be a menace, Asiatics at least have been made a menace in some Colonies.” In the concluding part of his speech he said “If we look into the future, is it not a heritage we have to leave to posterity, that all the different races commingle and produce a civilization that perhaps the world has not yet seen? There are difficulties and misunderstandings, but I do believe, in the words of the sacred hymn, “We shall know each other better when the mists have rolled away.”[xvi] These types of progressive ideas never came from the mouth any Indian in the year 1908.

Though Gandhi could not participate in the Universal Races Congress of 1911, his close associate, H.S.L. Polak spoke at the same Congress in London. The Universal Races Congress, which Indian Opinion described as a “Parliament of Man”, discussed the racial question in its various aspects. [xvii] Gandhi, Olive Schreiner, the Coloured Peoples’ leader Dr A Abdurahman and the African lawyer Alfred Mangena (who would be one of the founders of the future African National Congress), among others, were among those from South Africa who were on the Honorary General Committee of the Universal Races Congress. If Gandhi was an ardent racist in South Africa, how his name was included in the Honorary General Committee of the Universal Races Congress? On the contrary, it gives an impression that he was very progressive in his approach to matters relating to race.

Part II

Let us examine some of the important issues raised by the critics one by one. As stated in the beginning, one of the main arguments of Desai and Vahed was that “For Gandhi, whites and Indians were bonded by an Aryan bloodline that had no place for the African.” They titled the second Chapter of the book viz. “Brown over the Black” mainly to substantiate this argument. The Chapter starts with a quote from Gandhi. “History says that the Aryans’ home was not India but they came from Central Asia, and one family migrated to India and colonized it, the others to Europe. The government of that day was, so history says, a civilized government in the truest sense of the term. The whole Aryan literature grew up then….. When other nations were hardly formed, India was at its zenith, and the Indians of this age are descendants of that race.” This quote is culled out from “An Appeal to Every Briton in South Africa on the question of the Indian Franchise” dated December 16, 1895. This appeal was an attempt on the part of Gandhi to place before every Briton in South Africa, an Indian view of the Indian Franchise. The preceding sentences give an idea about the context. “Mr. Maydon made a speech at Bellair and a curious resolution was passed at the meeting. With the greatest deference to the honourable gentleman, I venture to take exception to his statement that the Indians have ever remained in a state of servitude and are, therefore, unfit for self-government. Although he invoked the aid of history in support of his statement, I venture to say that history fails to bear out the statement. In the first place Indian history does not date from the invasion of Alexander the Great. But I take the liberty to say that India of that date will compare very favourably with Europe of today. In support of that statement I beg to refer him to the Greek description of India at pp. 169-70 of Hunter’s Indian Empire, partly quoted in my “Open Letter”. What, however, of India of a period previous to that date?” History says that the Aryans’ home was not India but they came from Central Asia, and one family migrated to India and colonized it, the others to Europe. The government of that day was, so history says, a civilized government in the truest sense of the term. The whole Aryan literature grew up then. The India of Alexander’s time was India on the decline. When other nations were hardly formed, India was at its zenith, and the Indians of this age are descendants of that race. To say, therefore, that the Indians have been ever under servitude is hardly correct.”² From a cursory look at the quote it is clear that he brought in reference to the Aryan bloodline in the course of his argument to refute the contention that Indians have ever remained in a state of servitude. In no way the Aryan bloodline is glorified. On the contrary they are described as colonizers.

The authors also quote from the “Open Letter” which Gandhi wrote in December, 1894 to the Hon. Members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly. The quote starts with an incomplete sentence of Gandhi, that is, “I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan.” The year is mentioned as 1893 by the authors which is incorrect. Here also the full sentence of the quote is given which makes the context very clear. “In spite of the Premier's opinion to the contrary, as expressed in his speech at the second reading of the Franchise Bill, with the utmost deference to His Honour, I venture to point out that both the English and the Indians spring from a common stock, called the Indo-Aryan.” Gandhi’s reference to Aryan connection was in the context of defending his argument that Britishers cannot claim any superiority as a colonizer. Therefore, his attempt was to put the Indians on the same footing and not out of any disdain for the African blacks. He wanted to remind them that Indians were in no way inferior to Anglo Saxon brethren.

Further, he wrote in the Indian Opinion, on April 22, 1905 about certain restrictions on Indians in East London with regard to walking on foot-paths and residing in the town. The Town Council took legal proceedings against those Indians who disobeyed the racial law. Reflecting on it, Gandhi wrote “The Indians preferred an appeal against the decision on the plea that they were not ‘Asiatics’ but Aryans who had subsequently settled in India. We are constrained to say that our brethren have wasted their money on the litigation, and brought ridicule on themselves to boot.” From this reply it is clear that Gandhi was not in favour of claiming any sort of benefit on racial grounds or Aryan lineage. He advised them to submit quietly to the law and take out the passes. Further, they should continue the struggle in the parliament because they have the power and the right to vote. He was quite sure that it would yield good results if they exercised them judiciously. Thus it is clear that Gandhi neither used the Aryan theory to get undue benefits from Britishers nor was it used as superiority of Brown over the Black.

It is true that in today’s world particularly in Africa the word ‘kaffir’ is taken to be extremely derogatory and highly offensive. But one has to go into the actual context of the then South African situation to fully understand and asses it. It was a term generally used by one and all during those days without any feeling of racial prejudice or with derogatory implications. It can be substantiated by its widespread use in different kinds of literature from literary to sociological writings. The classic work Kaffir folk-lore: A selection from the traditional tales, which is a collection of stories prevalent among the people living on the Eastern border of the cape colony with copious explanatory notes by Geo. Mc Call Theal published way back in 1886 by S. Sonnenschein, Le Bas and Lowrey, London has an introductory chapter regarding the ‘kaffirs’. It gives explanation about the term ‘kaffir’. It is worth quoting to understand the very meaning of the term those days. “In South Africa the word Kaffir is often used in a general way to signify any black native who is not the descendant of an imported slave, but on the eastern frontier of the Cape Colony the term is usually restricted to a member of the Amaxosa tribe.” [xviii] It was used officially without any sort of derogatory connotations during the colonial period until the early twentieth century. Encyclopedia Britannica made frequent use of the term and eleventh edition of it published in 1911 had an article on the title. It describes Kaffirs as follows: “Today it is used to describe that large family of Bantu Negroes inhabiting the greater part of the Cape, the whole of Natal and Zululand, and the Portuguese dominions on the east coast south of the Zambezi. The name is also loosely applied to any negro inhabitant of South Africa.”[xix] Thus it is evident that when Gandhi was using this term he did not mean any ill will to them.

It is an undeniable fact that the Indians had not only suffered at the hands of the Whites of South Africa but also in their dealings with the Blacks purely in physical terms. Even Gandhi had greatly suffered at the hands of some of the African Blacks particularly during his prison days. Here one is reminded of the incident in which Gandhi was thrown out of the lavatory and narrowly escaped with his life and limb. Critics have rightly pointed out that Gandhi had demanded separate lavatories, food and even separate entrance for Indians at Durban Post and Telegraph Office. Natal Indian Congress was also in the forefront of making such demands. What the critics actually forget is the immediate context and real intentions behind these demands. If one takes into account the fact that Indians were being continuously harassed and insulted at the hands of clerks and other authorities in the Post Office, then their demand for separate entrance could be really appreciated. But the critics totally ignore the context of the demands. Similarly the demand for separate lavatory should be viewed in the context of Gandhi’s own experiences in the prison. So far as the demand for separate food in jail is concerned, one could hardly have any objection to such a reasonable demand. Food habits are always governed by physical, regional, cultural and even personal considerations. That is the reason why even inside the country and community different kinds of foods are sought and consumed by different people.

A number of explanations could be offered as to why Gandhi failed to take up cudgels on behalf of African blacks despite his high idealism and concern for the downtrodden and the deprived. The critics missed the vital point that it was quite expedient for Gandhi’s struggle in South Africa to make a clear distinction between the African Blacks and the Indians in South Africa. Indians as the subjects of British Empire had certain inherent rights and underlining them Gandhi was trying to put the Whites of South Africa as well as the British establishment at London on the defensive. That puts his struggle for Indians on a high moral pedestal. It could not have been the case with African Blacks. One can get the clue why Gandhi has not started a joint campaign with Blacks in South Africa from a reply to the question raised by Rev. Tema, a black African freedom fighter from Johannesburg associated with the African National Congress who came to India in 1939 and sought Gandhi’s guidance on the formation of an Indo-African united Non-white Front in South Africa. Gandhi in his reply said: “It will be a mistake….. You will be pooling together not strength but weakness. You will best help one another by each standing on his own legs. The two cases are different. The Indians are a microscopic minority. They can never be a ‘menace’ to the white population. You, on the other hand, are the sons of the soil who are being robbed of your inheritance. You are bound to resist that. Yours is a far bigger issue. It ought not to be mixed up with that of the Indians. This does not preclude the establishment of the friendliest relations between the two races. The Indians can co-operate with you in a number of ways. They can help you by always acting on the square towards you. They may not put themselves in opposition to your legitimate aspirations, or run you down as ‘savages’ while exalting themselves as ‘cultured’ people, in order to secure concessions for themselves at your expense.” It is also worth quoting the answer given by Gandhi on the question “What sort of relations would you favour between these two races? ” In his reply Gandhi said: “The closest possible. But while I have abolished all distinction between an African and an Indian that does not mean that I do not recognize the difference between them. The different races of mankind are like different branches of a tree — once we recognize the common parent stock from which we are sprung, we realize the basic unity of the human family, and there is no room left for enmities and unhealthy competition.”[xx]

According to Nishikant Kolge Gandhi’s concern for the British Indian being classed with South African blacks was not because he considers them as an inferior race. He does so to record his opposition to the classification of British Indians as natives of South Africa in order to impose civil disabilities on them. However, Kolge admits that one cannot ignore the fact that there are a few occasions when Gandhi categorically stated that British Indians are undoubtedly infinitely superior to the Blacks. He analyses the reasons for such statements of Gandhi from a historical perspective. “In the 1890s, South Africa comprised four areas. The two British ones were the Cape Colony, which was self-governing under the crown; and Natal which was a crown colony. The two Boer republics were the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. There was severe racial discrimination in all these places. The whites considered themselves superior. However, it is to be noted that the white government was willing to grant civil rights and exempt the “educated” and “civilised” Asians and blacks of South Africa from racial discrimination. It was in this context that Gandhi tried to project the British Indians as being superior to the South African blacks. Thus Gandhi was not claiming that the British Indians are superior to African blacks, the educated and civilised ones. All that he was claiming was that unlike the African “savages” and “raw kaffirs” British Indians are eligible for certain kind of civil rights which were given to the “educated and civilised” African blacks.”[xxi]

Besides, one has to bear in mind the limitations of Gandhi and his struggles. He was living in an alien country with a limited support base, was a young man, quite a novice and inexperienced in the ways of politics. Another point which critics have hardly taken into consideration is that all his demands arose more from his deep commitment to find solutions for the problems faced by Indians in South Africa and not so much from disdain and contempt for the African Blacks. This also illustrated by the fact that he differentiated between Africans and Indians only when he was putting forward the demands on the behalf of the Indian communities. But in all other occasions he was quite cordial and respectful to African Blacks. The scholars who analysed the general writings of Gandhi from as early as 1894 on native Africans of South Africa came to the conclusion that he was very ‘cordial, respectful and supportive.’[xxii]

After his return from South Africa, even while fighting for the freedom of India, Gandhi was concerned about the problems of Blacks in Africa and America. It is evident from Gandhi’s letter addressed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on July 1, 1942. He wrote: “I venture to think that the Allied declaration that the Allies are fighting to make the world safe for freedom of the individual and for democracy sounds hollow so long as India and, for that matter, Africa are exploited by Great Britain and America has the Negro problem in her own home. But in order to avoid all complications, in my proposal I have confined myself only to India. If India becomes free, the rest must follow, if it does not happen simultaneously.” [xxiii]Thus his fight in the ultimate analysis was not merely for the freedom of India but also of Africa, and America. At this point one is tempted to quote Gandhi’s own words “I have not conceived my mission to be that of a knight-errant wandering everywhere to deliver people from difficult situations. My humble occupation has been to show people how they can solve their own difficulties.”[xxiv] The subsequent historical developments in general and struggle against racial discrimination both in South Africa and United States of America led by Nelson Mandela and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., go a long way to prove how prophetic were the words of Gandhi. All these people successfully fought their own battles for human dignity taking Gandhi and his idea of Satyagraha as the main source of inspiration for their struggles. This was what Gandhi had meant when he said that if his life and work could inspire people to struggle for solutions to their problems his mission would have been achieved.

Nelson Mandela despite he being a leader of the Blacks greatly appreciated the wider significance and limitations of Gandhi’s stay and struggle in South Africa while comparing his prison experiences with those of Gandhi in South African prison. He said “Gandhi had been initially shocked that Indians were classified with Natives in prison; his prejudices were quite obvious, but he was reacting not to "Natives", but criminalised Natives. He believed that Indians should have been kept separately. However, there was an ambivalence in his attitude for he stated, ‘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 gaol), and their habits.’ All in all, Gandhi must be forgiven those prejudices and judged in the context of the time and the circumstances. We are looking here at the young Gandhi, still to become Mahatma, when he was without any human prejudice, save that in favour of truth and justice. " [xxv]

In the light of the above discussion, one could fairly conclude that accusing Gandhi being a racist and his use of Aryan bloodline theory to seek a favour from the British holds no ground. The arguments provided by his critics are equally biased and devoid of any irrefutable evidence. Whatever actions and the words these critics have picked up from Gandhi’s life and writings, as it has been asserted in our discussion, have been taken out of context and that too in distorted forms .These arguments are also marred by a reductionist approach to superimpose some of the ideas which are presently popular on the life and work of Gandhi living in South Africa during the period 1893-1914. In reality such a reductionist approach can spoil the reputation of even the greatest of the man. The fact remains that the life and work of Gandhi in South Africa turned out to be a beacon light under which a number of eminent persons took them up for emulation in their life.

Notes and References

[i]. See Arundhati Roy’s Introduction, “The Doctor and The Saint” in B. R Ambedkar, Annihilation of the Caste: The Annotated Critical Edition (New Delhi: Navayana, 2014).

[ii]. For details see http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Mahatma-Gandhi-was-a-casteist-Arundhati-Roy-says/articleshow/38580172.cms

See also http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/Gandhi-Looked-Down-upon-Dalits-Says-Arundhati-Roy/2014/07/18/article2335605.ece

[iii]. Ashwin Desai, Goolam Vahed , The South African Gandhi :Stretcher Bearer of Empire, (New Delhi : Navayana, 2015).

[iv] . https://thewire.in/history/setting-the-record-straight-on-gandhi-and-race A shorter version of this article has appeared in The Telegraph

[v] . https://thewire.in/history/ramachandra-guha-gandhi-south-africa

[vi]. .https://theprint.in/opinion/ramachandra-guha-is-wrong-a-middle-aged-gandhi-was-racist-and-no-mahatma/168222/

[vii]. See Arundhati Roy’s Introduction, “The Doctor and The Saint”op.cit.p.65.

[viii]. Ibid.

[ix]. M. K. Gandhi An Autobiography or the Story of My experiments with Truth (Ahmedabad : Navajivan, 2010), p.141.

[x]. M. K. Gandhi, Report of The Natal Indian Congress, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandh , (Herein after referred as CWMG)Publications Division Government of India, New Delhi,Vol .1 pp.245-251 (August,1895).

https://www.gandhiheritageportal.org/cwmg_volume_thumbview/MQ==#page/292/mode/2up

[xi]. The Times of Natal, dated October 25, 1894.

[xii]. Refer Gandhi’s Open letter wrote around December 19, 1894 to the Hon. Members of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, CWMG, Vol .1, pp.183-84.

[xiii]. https://www.academia.edu/1830861/Freedom_Race_and_Francophonie_Gandhi_and_the_Construction_of_Peoplehood

[xiv]. Gandhi in one of his letters addressed to L. W. Ritch dated April 12, 1911 made a reference to Finot’s book. Gandhi asked him to get the same from Henry Polak’s collection to present it to Canon Almett, who was supposed to leave for England shortly.

[xv]. He wrote in Young India in 1924 that “Finot has shown by his scientific researches that there is in them no inherent inferiority as is commonly supposed to be the case. All they need is opportunity. I know that if they have caught the spirit of the Indian movement, their progress must be rapid." Young India, 21-8- 1924.