Africans, Indians need to unite
The summit on social cohesion suggested by MEC Sihle Zikakala would allow both communities to recommit to the ideals of the Three Doctors’ Pact, writes
IN HER perceptive piece “Indian South Africans – The Struggle to be South African”, Fatima Meer posits that whatever Africans’ perception of the Indian in 1860, included in it must have been the sense that he had been brought by the white colonists to replace him and to be used against him in ways he did not immediately understand.
Consequently, Indians and Africans were separated from each other, and in separation, projected as dangerous to each other. They were at the same time within distance of each other, so they could be constantly reminded of the strange and different ways of the other.
Such perceptions prompted Dr AB Xuma, president of the ANC; Dr G “Monty” Naicker, president of the Natal Indian Congress (NIC); and Dr YM Dadoo, president of the Transvaal Indian Congress, to begin talks of unity which culminated in the signing of the Three Doctors’ Pact in 1947, of which the overarching objective was co-operation and mutual understanding between the two communities.
Not only is the proposed summit on social cohesion, as suggested by MEC Sihle Zikakala, welcome, it will also afford the African and Indian communities in the province the opportunity to resuscitate and recommit themselves to the noble ideals of the Three Doctors’ Pact.
If there is one programme better placed to rekindle the spirit of the Three Doctors’ Pact and promote togetherness between the two communities, that programme is the rich heritage of this province.
The unique selling point about the tripartite heritage of KwaZuluNatal is that all three components are inherited from solid, age-old civilisations. The Zulu from the Nguni-Sotho-Venda, the British from the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic and the Indian from the Hindu-Muslim. KwaZulu-Natal has seen its heritage going through the evolution of questions of power and authority, from colonial to apartheid to the new democracy ushered in in 1994.
Change has come from the perceptions, attitudes and behaviours of citizens from alienation, superiority and inferiority complexes, from misinformation about each other’s inheritances, even religious beliefs, to outright discrimination, separation, divide-and-rule and discrimination.
At one time the Zulu might was awesome, only to be humiliatingly reduced to rubble by the British Empire. A similar experience occurred to the Indian mogul kingdoms and Hindu kingships. The colonial dispensation introducing indentured and slave labour from Asia and India meant this cloud was to hang over the Zulu-Indian relationship from the outset.
Post 1948, the Nationalist Party was determined to deepen this wedge in creating new categories for South African Indians and coloureds meant to keep the African at the bottom of the ladder. The Tricameral apartheid constitution of 1983 aimed at fast-tracking a dispensation of three-tiered power relations that excluded the African. Alas, the heritage, the inheritances of culture and legacies of the African and the Indian reared their stubborn head of resistance. Among the indentured labourers, the disenfranchised Africans, were people with memories of freedom, of own rule, of civilisations, of independent religious traditions.
Those not paralysed by fear of the colonial and the Union of South Africa power, immediately took action towards the union of the disenfranchised. The ANC, the NIC. Mohandas Mahatma Gandhi and Dr John Langalibalele Dube.
Who today remembers the ground-breaking meeting of former ANC president John Tshangana Gumede and the first prime minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, at the 1927 League Against Imperialism meeting in Brussels, Belgium? The role of VS Srivanasa Sastri in the 1927 Round Table Conference in Cape Town? Today keepers of these memories are old, like Pravin Gordhan, Mac Maharaj, or dead, like Dr Kader Asmal and Fatima Meer.
Perhaps, for reasons of education and memorialisation, we need to attach information to the new street names in KZN towns.
Who was Monty Naicker, Dr Yusuf Dadoo, ML Sultan? Each decade from the turbulent 1960s to the 1990s gave us waves of political, social, economic, cultural and religious leaders from the Indian community. Photos from Drum magazine of the 1955 Kliptown Freedom Charter gathering show hundreds of Indian volunteers.
Upsurge
With the new trade union upsurge early in the 1970s, the Federation of SA Trade Unions had many young Indian leaders. It was no accident that the first Cosatu secretary general was Jay Naidoo.
Steve Biko’s Black Consciousness Movement had solid footprints in the Indian community, giving us leaders like Strini Moodley, Saths Cooper, Dr Asvat and Abubaker from the Zanzibari community of Chatsworth.
Many noted Indian writers, photographers, musicians, culture impresarios and founders of football leagues come from this generation. The same applies to the United Democratic Front and the Mass Democratic Movement moment in the 1980s. We all know and can visibly see the participation of South African Indians in Parliament, the cabinet, armed forces, police and judiciary. In fact, Justice Mahomed was the first black jurist to ratify the adoption of our current constitution in 1996.
In business, this is one community which challenges established communities like the Jewish, the Afrikaner and the Portuguese communities in today’s South Africa.
But why then this shift in mindset, this move away from growing the legacy of participation and leadership today? In the last Olympic and Paralympic Games, South African teams had Indian athletes.
Yet one remembers champion golfer Papwa Sewgolum and footballer Dharam. Cultural activism by the Theatre Council of Natal, the Dhlomo Theatre of Benjy Francis, the karate dojos of Grey and Alice Streets, with Indian senseis.
What happened to the Indian community today? What about swimming, when world champions are being forged in Durban? This is no time for potential talent to retreat. Where has the spirit of Drs Naicker and Dadoo gone? Why do Indian businesses no longer espouse the views shared by the Three Doctors’ Pact, of pulling together to help develop our country?
Why has the Indian community retreated into its cocoon? What happened to the forward-looking inclusive approach of the Naickers and Dadoos and Xumas, men who fought for quality of life for others as opposed to the excessive individualism which seems the norm today?
The conspicuous absence of young, energetic leaders from the Indian community is of grave concern, especially when one considers the fragile relations between the Indian and African communities.
Government can do only so much in terms of planning, resourcing and maintaining our heritage entities, museums, sites, and events. The model of the cultural, religious and arts projects we see at the temples and mosques, and the calendar events, are largely driven by the Indian community, funded by local businesses and maintained by social groupings. We are looking for a way to apply this model, to match projects in the African areas with well-established ones like the Hare Krishna Centre in Chatsworth.
Indian and African businesses have to join hands for their social responsibility quotas and fund these developments.This is the way to go for economic development, tourism and job creation.
Whereas the now famous Diwali Festival of Light in Durban was founded by an African general manager with Tourism Durban, Vusi Mchunu, that spirit of making it grow, as a blend of Hindu and Zulu calendar celebration has been lost.
The tendency in 1994 to create events, sites and memories that bring us together as initiators, investors and participants has to be revived. Let us not go back to the apartheid ghetto. To sustain the social cohesion, the government and society at large need to initiate projects to further promote a spirit of inclusivity and sense of belonging.
Shongwe works for the office of the Premier in KZN. The article is written in his personal capacity.
What went wrong in the governance of the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa?
This is just another example of the shareholder undermining the board, something that’s becoming an all too common dynamic within South Africa’s state owned enterprises. The trend can be seen in the frequent chopping and changing of state-owned enterprise boards over the past few years. Names that come to mind are South African Airways, Airports Company of South Africa and the arms manufacturer Denel.
At best this leads to toothless boards, which may be trying to do their best but are undermined at every turn. At worst, it creates “zombie boards” which are simply there to rubber stamp the wishes of the shareholder and the powerful executives who don’t feel they are accountable to anybody. When that happens things can go horribly wrong.
What are the key tenets of healthy relations between the executives and the board?
The starting point is to understand what the respective roles and responsibilities of board members are. As Mervyn King, chairperson of the King Committee (which drafted a set of codes on good corporate governance for the country) often points out, there is no single leader of an organisation. Rather, there’s a chairperson who leads the board, (or governing body as it’s referred to in King IV, and a CEO who leads the executive team.
Not accountable
What many people fail to grasp is that the board is not accountable to the shareholder. It is accountable to the organisation and is duty bound to act in its best interest.
The board safeguards the interests of the enterprise, thereby ensuring sustainable value is created for all stakeholders, including the shareholder.
The board determines the policies and strategy of the organisation (based on input from the executives) and then delegates the authority to implement the strategy to the CEO and the executive team.
The board then has a monitoring and oversight role and will meet at regular occasions to engage with the executives. The board is also expected to establish committees to monitor key areas like remuneration, audit, risk, social and ethics issues.
It’s vitally important the board doesn’t interfere with or undermine the executive team. Trust is essential to allow the respective roles of the board and the executives to be carried out. At the same time, however, the necessary checks and balances must be put in place to ensure the executives don’t go beyond the parameters and authority set by the board. The CEO is, of course, the visible face of the organisation and hence often enjoys the highest profile. But it doesn’t change the fact that the CEO reports to the board.
Who should set a CEO/executive director’s remuneration and why?
South Africa’s code on corporate governance recommends the board establishes a remuneration committee. Its members should be non-executive and the majority must be independent non-executive directors. This is to avoid conflicts of interest.
Skae is associate professor and director of Rhodes Business School, Rhodes University.