Time for an objective assessment
Was Gandhiji as bad as he has been portrayed by some?
Through meticulous sifting of information, academics have tried to prove the preconceived notion that Mahatma Gandhi was a racist, anti-African, anti-indentured workers and supported the caste system.
Perhaps it is time to look at what is meant by an objective approach, which in my opinion the hallmark of a good academic and researcher.
Just a cursory look through the Indian Opinion (which he established), reveals another picture and clearly reveals a biased trend emerging from modern researchers. We as the lay public need to know there are other narratives of importance.
Gandhiji is said to be unconcerned about the African cause. Yet the Indian Opinion published the following articles:
When an African named Magato was ejected from the first-class coach and a case was held, Indian Opinion dated March 23, 1912, devoted one and a half columns to the incident.
The Indian Opinion gave publicity to a landmark judicial decision in the Transvaal recognising the right of Africans to buy land there. A supporting editorial comment on the case was also made.
An article was re-published in the Indian Opinion from Imvo Zabantzundu when white teachers in the Cape tried to exclude African and coloured teachers from their teachers’ association.
Gandhiji was said to be a British stooge, yet a resolution by Dr Abdurahman and the Cape coloured people in February 1910 to observe the day of the visit of the Prince of Wales to South Africa as a day of mourning was supported.
He is said to be racist and anti-African, yet he published the following when Archdeacon Wergrian of Port Elizabeth wrote in the London Guardian that “The Zulus of Natal have a bitter hatred of the Indians and this hatred is shared by the Natives of other provinces in S.A.”
The editor’s notes were: “We question the writer’s knowledge of the ‘bitter hatred of the Zulus for Indians’.”
About the white socialist views of the time, Gandhiji wrote, “To the socialist of South Africa the brotherhood of man means brotherhood of the white man. In Pretoria the Baker’s Union positively demanded that no black labour shall be employed in making bread.”
The article went on to ridicule this whole concept of job reservation and support for it by the socialists.
Gandhiji also commented on the 1913 Land Act, which was described as an “act of confiscation”, and wrote “a systematic allocation of land to European farmers took place”.
He covered the stories of the African families that were evicted from their land, having to demolish their churches and their homes and not knowing where they could move to.
He has been portrayed as a person who was unconcerned about the indentured workers and the so called lower caste.
Yet he wrote a particularly distressing story of the harsh and cruel treatment meted out to an indentured woman by her employer and a call was made to scrap the system.
A story was also written about an indentured worker, Soorzai, who was flogged by his employer, Todd.
The Indian Opinion covered the entire story and court case in its consecutive editions until the case was finalised.
It is said that Gandhiji had no contact with his neighbours, Rev Shembe and Dr Dube, yet he printed an extract from Rev John Dube’s speech at the inaugural conference of the South African Native National Congress, later known as the African National Congress (founded in 1912).
The resistance of the African women in the Orange Free State against the pass laws in 1913 received front-page coverage, with admiration for their bravery. African accomplishments were also commented on in Indian Opinion.
Indian Opinion praised the ideals of Booker T Washington and John Dube, who was described as “our friend and neighbour” and was commended for his work at Ohlange.
Later, in India, Gandhiji started the Rashtriya Shala or national education institutions, where a system of basic education was introduced based on similar lines, called the Nai Talim.
An article from Ilanga Lase Natal that sermonised about the value of manual labour, in particular cultivation of the land, was reprinted.
These and many other articles reveal clearly that the struggle was certainly not just about attaining rights for Indians but a much broader struggle, even if separate.
There was an empathy with the African cause, an empathy with the plight of the indentured workers and the poor, and they learned a lot from the interaction with each other.
It is laughable that Gandhiji should be accused of supporting the caste system when in fact he had a serious conflict with his wife over the cleaning of a chamber pot belonging to a person of a lower caste.
He wrote an article on an ideal Bhangi (‘untouchable’) because of his deep concern about the waste disposal systems.
He certainly was not lecturing to the “Bhangi caste” but shared his experiences in Phoenix and Tolstoy Farm, where there was a bucket system and all were encouraged to clean their toilets themselves.
He wrote: “A square pit one foot and a half deep was sunk near the house to receive the night soil, which was fully covered with the excavated earth and which therefore did not give out any smell… If night soil was properly utilised, we would get manure worth lakhs of rupees and also secure immunity from a number of diseases.
“By our bad habits we spoil our sacred river banks and furnish excellent breeding ground for flies with the result that the very flies which through criminal negligence settle upon uncovered night soil defile our bodies after we have bathed.”
If only we could heed some of these messages from Gandhiji’s life.