India condemns Apartheid

http://www.aluka.org/action/showMetadata?doi=10.5555/AL.SFF.DOCUMENT.esrind00010

Use of the Aluka digital library is subject to Aluka’s Terms and Conditions, available athttp://www.aluka.org/page/about/termsConditions.jsp. By using Aluka, you agree that you have read andwill abide by the Terms and Conditions. Among other things, the Terms and Conditions provide that thecontent in the Aluka digital library is only for personal, non-commercial use by authorized users of Aluka inconnection with research, scholarship, and education.

The content in the Aluka digital library is subject to copyright, with the exception of certain governmentalworks and very old materials that may be in the public domain under applicable law. Permission must besought from Aluka and/or the applicable copyright holder in connection with any duplication or distributionof these materials where required by applicable law.

Aluka is a not-for-profit initiative dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of materials aboutand from the developing world. For more information about Aluka, please see http://www.aluka.org

India condemns Apartheid

Author/Creator Bawa, G.P.S (Editor)

Publisher External Publicity Division of Ministry of External Affairs,Government of India (New Delhi)

Date 1982

Resource type Books

Language English

Subject

Coverage (spatial) India, South Africa, Namibia

Coverage (temporal) 1946-1982

Description Contains speeches by Indian government leaders and otherdocuments on Indian policy on apartheid, over the period1946 to 1982.

Format extent(length/size)

157 pages

http://www.aluka.org/action/showMetadata?doi=10.5555/AL.SFF.DOCUMENT.esrind00010

http://www.aluka.org

HEID

HEID

INDIA CONDEMNSAPARTHEID

My idea of nationalism is that my country may become free, that if need be thewhole of the country may die, so that the human race may live. There is no roomfor race hatred here. Let that be our nationalism.-Mahatma GandhiThere are many conflicts which divide the world and this question of racialconflict in South Africa is as grave as any other issue. There areracial conflictselsewhere in the world but in South Africa it is the deliberate, acknowledged andloudly proclaimed policy of the Government itself to maintain this segregationand racial discrimination. This makes the South African case uniquein the world.It is a policy with which obviously no person and no country which believes inthe United Nations Charter can ever compromise, because it uproots almosteverything the modern world stands for and considers worthwhile, whether it isthe United Nations Charter or whether it is our ideas of democracy or humandignity. It is not a question of policy only. I say it is the greatest internationalimmorality for a nation to carry on in that way.-Jawaharlal Nehru

The (South African) regime is a remnant of the outdated colonial system. Fromthe days of Mahatma Gandhi, who lived and worked in South Africa for someyears, we have firmly opposed racial discrimination .... We sharethe deep agonyof the black and coloured people who suffer in South Africa. We share their faithin their ultimate victory.. . . Zimbabwe is now free. So shall Namibia be. Andindeed in the not too distant future South Africa too will be free of oppression,opening the doors of opportunity to people of all races. I salute the gallantfreedom fighters of South Africa, whose shining advocate Nelson Mandela is.-Extract from Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's speech in Maputo, August 25, 1982

CONTENTSP,,geDevelopment of International Opinion Against Apartheid ... IShri Jawaharlal Nehru's Speech Broadcast from A.I.R.New Delhi, September 7, 1946 ... 7Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's Speech in ConstituentAssembly, New Delhi, March 8, 1949 8

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's Address to CanadianParliament, Ottawa; October 24, 1949 9Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's Speech in Parliament,New Delhi, December 6, 1950 ... 10Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's Speech in Rajya Sabha,December 15, 1958 ... IIStatement in Security Council, March 30, 1960 12Statement in Special Political Committee on ApartheidApril 4, 1961 24Statement on Racial Discrimination in Non-self-governingTerritories, November 17, 1961 51Press Note on India's Action Against South Africa's Policyof Apartheid, July 13, 1963 65Statement on Racial Discrimination in United Nations,Septembcr 30, 1963 ... 69Statement in Special Political Committee on Apartheid,November 8, 1967 ... 74Statement in Security Council on Apartheid and ArmsEmbargo Against South Africa, July 17, 1970 78Statement in the Committee on Apartheid, March 22, 1971 83(i)

Statement in Security Council on South African Apartheidon Zambia's Complaint, October 11, 1971Statement on Elimination of Racial Discrimination,October 29, 1971Statement in U.N. Fourth Committee on Namibia,November 5, 1973Statement on Apartheid in Commission on HumanRights, February 13, 1974Address to Commission on Human Rights on Questionof Apartheid, February 28, 1974External Affairs Minister's Address to Seminar on theU.N. and Third World, April 20, 1976External Affairs Minister's Statement on Apartheid atU.N., October 5, 1976World Conferenee for Action Against Apartheid,August 24, 1977External Affairs Minister's Speech at U.N. GeneralAssembly, October 3, 1979President N. Sanjiva Reddy's Speech at Banquet forPresident of Zambia, April 15, 1980Foreign Secretary Expresses Solidarity with AfricanPeople, May 24, 1980President N. Sanjiva Reddy's Speech at Banquet forPresident of Kenya, February 23, 1981

President N. Sanjiva Reddy's Speech at Banquet forPresident of Guinea, March 17, 1981President N. Sanjiva Reddy's Speech at Banquet forPresident of Tanzania, March 30, 1981External Affairs Minister's Statement at Paris,May 22, 1981(ii)Page87 91 94 95 98 101 102 105 107108 109 113 114 115 116

President N. Sanjiva Reddy's Speech at Lusaka,June 15, 1981Prime Ministcr Indira Gandhi's message on InternationalDay of Solidarity, August 9, 1981External Affairs Minister's Address to U.N. GeneralAssembly, Septeirber 28, 1981President N. Sanjiva Reddy's Speech at Banquet forPresident of Ghana, October 10, 1981Statement by Shri H.S. Hanspal, M.P., in U.N.General Assembly, December 1, 1981Statement of Shri Anand Singh, M.P., in U.N. GeneralAssembly, December 16, 1981Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Address to Africa WeekCultural Festival, January 11, 1982Apartheid Condemned at U. N. Human Rights Session,February 14, 1982External Affairs Minister's Message to U.N. SpecialCommittee Against Apartheid, March 19, 1982Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Message to InternationalConference on Women and Apartheid, May 1982External Affairs Minister's Message for Asian RegionalConference, Manila, May 1982Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Address to Mauritian National Assembly, August24, 1982 Prime Minister Indira Candhi's Speech at Banquet in her Honour inMaputo, August 25, 1982 The Anti-Apartheid (United Nations) Act 1981Annexure IExtract from the Ministry of External Affairs Report1981-82 Annexure II121 122 123 124125129 132 135 139 141 142 1431,14145 148

DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL OPINION AGAINST APARTHEIDApartheid is the system of government in the Republic of South Africa which isbased upon political subjugation and economic exploitation of the majority of thecitizens of South Africa, who are black and coloured, for the benefit of minorityof white people. This system of institutionalised racial segregationand racialdomination comprises a total affront to human values of liberty,equality,fraternity and thedignity of the individual.The practice of Apartheid in South Africa and its wilful extension to Namibia anduntil recently in the erstwhile Rhodesia represent "a crime against humanity"under the U.N. Charter and a major impediment to international peace.The question of race conflict in South Africa has been before the United Nationssince 1946. It was however, in 1960 that the Security Council recognised that thesituation in Union of South Africa was one that had led to international frictionand might endanger international peace and security if it was not rectified.Developments in United NationsIndia brought the issue of racial discrimination in South Africa before the U.N.General Assembly in 1946. The wider question of racial conflict arising fromSouth African Government's policies of apartheid was placed on theagenda of theGeneral Assembly in 1952. The two related questions, however, continued to bediscussed separately in the General Assembly until 1962 when these were mergedinto a single agenda item viz., "The policies of Apartheid of the Government ofthe Republic of South Africa." It was also decided by the General Assembly inthis year to set up a Special Committee against Apartheid.Since 1960 several resolutions were passed both in the Security Council and theGeneral Assembly condemning the South African racist

policies, imposing ban on supply of arms and calling upon member states totermina~c all links with South Africa as follows :(a) In 1963 the Security Council called upon all member states toend the sale and shipment of arms and ammunities of all types and militaryvehicles to South Africa. This ban was reiterated and strengthenedin subsequentresolutions in 1964, 1970 and 1972. A mandatory arms embargo wasimposed bythe Security Council by unanimously adopting resolution 418(1977).It marked the first time in the history of U.N. that action had been taken against amember state under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides forenforcement action with respect to threat of peace. The embargowas reiterated in1978 callingupon all states for its effective implementation;(b) The General Assembly in 1970 resolved to reject the credentialsof the delegation of South Africa and the Assembly finally in 1974 suspended theSouth African delegation and recommended that South Africa be totally excludedfrom participation in all international organisations and conferences held underthe auspices of the United Nations so long as it continued to practiceapartheid;(c) The Security Council resolutions in 1976 and 1977 condemned

the violence against and killings of the African people and called upontheGovernment of South Africa to take urgent steps toend violence and eliminate apartheid;(d) In November 1976, the General Assembly adopted a ComprehensiveProgramme of Action for the total isolation of the racist regime of South Africaand for effective support to the South African liberation movements. Amongothers the Programme called upon all governments to terminate diplomatic,military economic, cultural and sports and other forms of collaborationwith South Africa;(e) At the 32nd and 33rd sessions in 1977 and 1978, the GeneralAssembly adopted 15 resolutions relating to the problems of apartheid andeffective action to counter it on international

level. The Assembly and its 35th Session on December 16, 1980 adopted as manyas 18 draft resolutions which included inter alia, a call for comprehensive andmandatory sanctions against South Africa, an oil embargo and increased aid to theoppressed people of South Africa.OAU Summit ConferencesThe question of racial discrimination and apartheid has been beforetheOrganisation of African Unity (OAU) since its establishment in 1963. TheSummit Conferences of OAU at Monorovia in July 1979 took note of a report ofthe OAU Standing Committee on sanctions against South Africa and condemnedall countries that continued to have political, diplomatic, economic, nuclear andother relations with the South African regime. The Summit at Nairobi in 1981adopted the recommendation of the OAU Standing Committee imposingsanctions against South Africa for supply of oil.Non-Aligned ConferencesThe Movement of Non-aligned countries ever since its inception in1961 hasvehemently opposed the apartheid policies and practices of the South AfricanGovernment. At various conferences and summit meetings (the Extra-ordinarymeeting of the Coordination Bureau of Non-aligned Countries in Maputo inFebruary 1979, the Sixth Summit of the Non-aligned countries in Havana inSeptember 1979 and the Conference of Foreign Ministers of Non-alignedCountries in New Delhi in February 1981), the Movement has reaffirmed thelegitimacy of the struggle against South Africa. The continuing economic,military and nuclear collaboration by some of the major Western countries andIsrael with the Pretorial regime was resolutely condemned. The Foreign Ministersmeeting in New Delhi inFebruary 1981 felt such collaboration was responsible, in large measure, for thepersistence of the Pretorial regime in its intransigent and arrogantdefiance ofworld opinion. They reiterated their conviction that the imposition ofcomprehensive and mandatory sanctions against the apartheid regime, including,in particular, the prohibition of all collaboration in the nuclear field, in accordancewith Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, would be an essential element in thestruggle for the elimination of the apartheid system of South Africa,

Later DevelopmentsOpposition to apartheid has continued to develop within South Africa and at theinternational level but the South African Government has continuedto pursue itspolicy of repression. Certain cosmetic changes in the apartheid laws effected bythe South African Government in 1980 have failed to dampen the struggle of theblack people of South Africa. The regime continued to implement its policy ofcreating bantustans and its armed forces made instrusions in the neighbouringStates of Angola, Zambia and the erstwhile Rhodesia. These instrusionsengagedthe urgent attention of the Security Council which called on South Africa towithdraw its troops.Paris Conference 1981The United Nations in collaboration with the OAU, convened an internationalConference on sanctions against South Africa in Paris from May 20-27, 1981 inpursuance of resolution 35/206 adopted by the General Assembly on December16, 1980. The Conference, adopted by consensus a Declaration including aSpecial Declaration on Namibia. The Declaration inter alia, affirmed thatsanctions provided under Chapter VIi of the UN Charter, universally appliedwould be the most appropriate and effective means to ensure SouthAfrica'scompliance with the decision of the UN,India's Support for Struggle Against ApartheidIndia has a long tradition of rendering assistance to and participation in thestruggle of the African people for their freedom. This has its historical rootsdating back to the days in the later years of the 19th century when Father of theIndian Nation-Mahatma Gandhi-had organised the Satyagraha movement againstracialism and all forms of tyranny and oppression in South Africa. The leaders ofIndia, particularly Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, emphasised time and againtheir belief that Indian freedom would be meaningless so long as othercountriesof Africa, Asia and the rest of the world suffered under foreign domination.The Government and people of India have consistently and firmlyopposed allforms of racism, racial discrimination and apartheid. The issue of racism in SouthAfrica was first inscribed on the agenda of the United Nations General Assemblyin 1946 at the initiative of India.

After attaining independence in 1947, India severed all diplomatic, economic,trade, cultural and sports links with the Pretoria regime. India's boycott of theSouth African regime is complete and total. We imposed economic and othersanctions on South Africa much in advance of the UN Resolution of October 4,1968 submitted by the Special Committee on South Africa's Policiesof Apartheidrequesting all states, organisations and individuals to end cultural, educational,sports and other exchanges with South Africa.In consonance with India's policy of boycotting South Africa and the U.N.Security Council Resolution of November 4, 1977 calling for the imposition ofworld wide mandatory ban on shipment of arms and related material to SouthAfrica, the Government of India has been strongly supporting allmeasures forensuring that all states, including non-member states of the U.N.,act strictly inaccordance with the provisions of the above resolution. At the sametime it has

been stressed upon the Security Council to undertake the process of examination,study and legislation for progressive imposition of economic sanctions in the nearfuture. The Government of India are convinced that peaceful change in SouthAfrica can only come about with the imposition of comprehensivesanctionsagainst the Pretorial regime by the U.N. Security Council.Anti-Apartheid Act Enacted: India acceded to the International Convention on thesuppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid in October 1977. Suitableimplementing legislation was introduced in the Lok Sabha (the Lower House ofthe Indian Parliament) in November 1978. The Bill known as the Anti-Apartheid(United Nations Convention) Bill was submitted for consideration in the LokSabha. The Bill, however, could not be passed during that year owing to thedissolution of Parliament pending general elections. The Bill was reintroduced in1981 and the Anti-Apartheid Act, December 1981, was enacted (Annexure I).Material Assistance : Besides political and moral support, India has continued toextend material assistance to the struggling people in South Africa. We haverendered assistance and help to the African National Congress and offered itfacilities to set up an office in New Delhi in 1967.

India has recognised SWAPO as the sole authentic representative ofthe people ofNamibia and invited it to open its office in New Delhi with Indian Governmentassistance. The Government of India has been providing scholarships andtraining facilities to students from South Africa. It has also been contributing tovarious U.N. and International Trust Funds which had been set upto help thevictims of apartheid.

Shri Jawaharlal Nehru's Speech Broadcast fromAIR New Delhi, September 7, 1946Following are excerpts from the speech of the Prime Minister, Shri JawaharlalNehru, broadcast from AIR, New Delhi on September,1946:. We seek no dominion over others and we claim no privileged position over otherpeoples. But we do claim equal and honourable treatment for our peoplewherever they may go, and we cannot accept any discrimination against them.The world, in spite of its rivalries and hatreds and inner conflicts,movesinevitably towards closer co-operation and the building up of a worldcommonwealth. It is for this One World that free India will work, a world inwhich there is the free co-operation of free peoples, and no class or group exploitsanother.In spite of our past history of conflict, we hope that an independent India willhave friendly and co-operative relations with England and the countries of theBritish Commonwealth. But it is well to remember what is happeningin one partof the Commonwealth today. In South Africa racialism is the State doctrine andour people are putting up a heroic struggle against the tyranny of aracialminority. If this racial doctrine is going to be tolerated it must inevitably lead tovast conflicts and world disaster....

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's Speech inConstituent Assembly, New Delhi, March 8, 1949Following are excerpts from the speech by the Prime Minister, Shri JawaharlalNehru, in the Constituent Assembly in New Delhi onMarch 8, 1949 :And may I in this connection say that it has been a matter of deep griefto us tolearn of the racial riots that took place at Durban in South Africa ? I donot wishto say much in regard to this except that if racialism is encouraged anywhere it isbound to yield such trouble. But it is a matter of deep grief to us that Indians andAfricans should be involved in such rioting. It has been, not todaybut over yearspast, our definite instruction to our envoys in Africa and elsewhere that we do notwant Indians to have any special interest at the cost of the Africans anywhere. Wehave impressed upon them the need for co-operation with the Africans in order togain freedom for these Africans and we have repeated these instructions again. Ihope that after the unfortunate experience of Durban, Indians andAfricans willcome together again. Indeed, there is evidence from East Africa andelsewhere ofa great measure of co-operation between Indians and Africans.I hope that this House and this country will approve of the general lines of policythat I have suggested and indicate that it is India's desire to play this importantpart in favour of world peace and thereby perhaps help in avoiding that supremecatastrophe, that is, a world war.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's Address to Canadian Parliament,Ottawa,October 24, 1949Following is an excerpt from the address by the Prime Minister, ShriJawaharlalNehru, to the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa on October24, 1949 :India's championship for freedom and racial equality in Asia aswell as Africa is anatural urge of the facts of geography and history. India desiresno leadership ordominion or authority over any country. But we are compelled by circumstancesto play our part in Asia and in the world, because we are convinced that unlessthese basic problems of Asia are solved, there can be no world peace. Canada,with her traditions of democracy, her sense of justice and her love for fair play,should be able to understand our purpose and our motives and to use her growingwealth and power to extend the horizons of freedom, to promote order and libertyand to remove want and thus to ensure lasting peace.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's Speech in Parliament,New Delhi, December 6, 1950Following is an excerpt from the speech of the Prime Minister, Shri JawaharlalNehru, while initiating debate on Foreign Affairs inParliament in New Delhi on December 6, 1950:The question of Indians in South Africa was recently before the United Nations. Ithas once again raised issues that are vital not only for us but for the whole world.If I may say so, it is the issue of racialism that is of paramount importance. Weare intimately concerned with the people of Indian origin who settled in South

Africa and who have become South African citizens. We have nothing to do withthem politically but we have cultural links. Since the issue of racialism involvesthe self-respect of India and the Indian people, indeed of all the peoples of Asia, ithas assumed tremendous importance for us. You will observe the patience wehave shown in this matter and keep in mind how we have argued patiently yearafter year, tried to make people understand and taken the question to the UnitedNations. You must also realize that we have tried our best to fulfil the directionsissued by UNO in accordance with the resolutions passed by them. Now,anotherresolution has recently been passed. What this will lead to, I do not know but onething is certain. Regardless of how long it takes us to settle the issue, weshall notsubmit to racialism in any part of the world.

Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru's Speech inRajya Sabha, December 15, 1958Following is an excerpt from the speech of the Prime Minister, Shri JawaharlalNehru, in the Rojya Sabha in New Delhi on December15, 1959 :We have been building up opposition against the policy of apartheid. If this kindof policy continues in the Union of South Africa and, at the same time, what Ireferred to as the African personality grows, there can be no doubt that there willbe a mighty clash between the two. Such a clash can be of advantage to neitherside, because it is quite inconceivable for these growing nations of Africa-findingtheir soul in some measure of freedom, you might say-to put up withthe kind oftreatment that the South African Union has given to coloured people. They willnever put up with it, as we can never put up with it. Our only hope liesin therecognition on the part of the South African Union, under pressure of worldopinion, of the fact that the whole world is turning against them in sofar asapartheid is concerned, so that they will change their policies to avoid acatastrophe.

Statement in Security Council, March 30, 1960Following are excerpts from the statement of Shri S. C. Jha, India'sPermanentRepresentative in the Security Council on March 30,1960, in the debate on the situation in the Union of South Africa :Mr. President, I should like first of all to express the deep appreciation of mydelegation to the Security Council for its courtesy in inviting us to participate inthe discussion on the matter which India and twenty-eight other nations havebrought to the urgent attention of the Security Council.At this stage I would like to confine my statement to what I might call thesubstantive aspects of this question. That is to say, I should like toelaborate onthe approach of my Government to this question, on the raison d'etre ofourcomplaint to the Security Council, and I would seek permission at a laterappropriate state to speak in more detail on the question of competence and anyother question that my arise in the course of the discussion.The substance of the matter is clearly embodied in our letter (S/4279 and Add. 1)to the Security Council. That letter is brief. We believe that the brevity of the

communication was appropriate in view of the fact that all members of theSecurity Council are equally aware of the facts of the grave situation that hasbeen caused by the mass killings of peaceful demonstrators in the Union of SouthAfrica and share the concern of all of us. The issues and dangers posed by theincidents and developments of a few days ago transcend the considerations ofgeographical location or political ideologies and alignments, and threaten toengulf us all in enormous tragedy and impending catastrophe.May I be permitted, Mr. President, to restate the facts of the situationthat myGovernment has thought fit to bring to the notice of this august and importantbody. A week ago, at Sharpeville, near Vereeniging in South Africa, a crowd of20,000 peaceful and unarmed demonstrators were mercilessly fired upon by sub-machine guns and other automatic

weapons. Official South African figures gave at first 72 persons as dead and 184injured, but unofficial sources place the number of dead and injured much higher.I should add that the latest official version of the casualty figures which appear inthis morning's papers places the number of dead at 89 and the injuredat 257. Thesame day- that is, on 21 March-at Langa a crowd of African demonstratorsprotesting against unjust and racially discriminatory pass laws was fired upon, andtwo persons were killed. These events were the tragic culmination of massdemonstrations throughout South Africa on the same day. According toTheTimes of London, of 22 March :"On the 21st March, thousands of Africans in the main townships reported atpolice stations without passes. They queued up to have their names taken and willappear in court under thepass laws later this week."I may add, in parenthesis, that this is a well-known technique of nonviolent non-cooperation and passive resistance perfected by Mahatma Gandhi, thearchitect ofIndian freedom, with which we in India are familiar and which is beingincreasingly adopted by downtrodden people everywhere.According to The Times of London, again of 22 March: "During the day asquardon of Sabre Jets swooped over the heads of the thousands ofdemonstratorsin several townships."....It is clear that the South African Government's allegation that the demonstratorsfired shots at the police, to put it mildly, is only self-exculpatory, inview of therising tide of world opinion. ...It is clear, Mr. President, to my delegation, as it should indeed be to the membersof the Security Council, that for daring to defy the pass laws the South AfricanGovernment, were determined to teach the demonstrators a lesson by the nakeduse of force, of which the flying of Sabre Jets over the demonstrating crowds andthe use of armoured cars and machine guns are conclusive evidence....Passive ResistanceAs a matter of fact, Mr. President, Africans are determined to vindicate theirrights; they are resorting en masse to passive resistance. The

Government of the Union of South Africa shows determination by wordand bydeed to supress all agitation against racially discriminatory and segregationistlaws in a manner tantamount to massacre of innocent persons whoseonly crime isthe colour in which they were made the image of God, and that they dare protestnon-violently and peacefully and even, in many instances, silently againsL lawswhich deny them the fundamental human rights and relegate them to the positionof criminals and prisoners in their own homeland.The menace of the situation has indeed mounted up to the point of wholesale andopen conflict. South Africa has indeed become a cauldron of racialhatred andviolence. News has just been received of crowd of peaceful African demonstrators30,000 strong, before the South African Parliament in Capetown, and a largenumber of armed forces having been called out. All over South Africademonstrations and actions by the police are continuing.When I say all this, Mr. President, I would like to assure you and the members ofthe Council that our hearts really go out in sorrow, and sympathy notonly to theAfricans but to all people in South Africa.According to newspaper reports, many white people of South Africa nodoubtwithout any objection from the Government, are arming themselves to the teeth.They are buying guns and ammunition in hundreds; the acquisition andpossession of same, be it noted, is prohibited to the African people of SouthAfrica.You have thus, Mr. President, a situation replete with all the ingredients of aterrible explosion-the determination of the African people to vindicate theirfundamental rights, and in doing so to sacrifice their lives; the determination ofthe Government to maintain its racial policies, even if that means killing hundredsof Africans; the determination of the white people of South Africa to use arms ifnecessary against the Africans to preserve their privileged position of a masterrace which their leaders in and out of Government have deluded them intobelieving; and last but not least, the anger and humiliation felt by hundreds ofmillions of people on the African continent and by non-white peoples everywhere.Who can then blame us for seeking the intervention of the Security Council toprevent such an explosion ?

Mr. President, the situation would be dangerous enough if the consequences of theracial explosion could be confined to the borders of South Africa. It is ourcontention that even then the United Nations organs, including the SecurityCouncil, would be competent to take cognisance of the situation as a potentialcause of international friction, and recommend remedial action. The gravity of thesituation, however, is greatly multiplied because of its internationalramifications.International ConcernInternational opinion both within and outside the United Nations recognizes thatthe racial problem, particularly in Africa, is now a concern of the entireinternational community. The intensity and the sustained character ofthe concernshown on this question by the United Nations since 1946; when India brought tothe attention of the General Assembly the "Question of Treatment ofIndians inSouth Africa", the fact that racial discrimination anywhere and particularly in

South Affairs stirs to the innermost depths tremendous masses of men, not onlyon the continent of Africa but elsewhere too, the emcrgence of a strong sense ofAfrican nationalism and African personality which is not preparedto tolerate theslightest manifestation of racialism and assumption of superiority by any otherpeople-these are among the most striking events of our time. These are now a partof the ethos of the United Nations and represent currents and forces which theworld can only ignore at its peril.The shooting down of large numbers of unarmed men and women would havebeen regrettable in any case; world opinion was bound to be moved by the killingof peaceful and defenceless demonstrators. But the killings in South Africa do notstand out in isolation. They are intimately concerned with and are indeed aculmination of the cult of racism in South Africa which the United Nations hasdeplored and condemned over the years. The events in South Africacan nolonger be an exercise in academic discussion on human rights. They cut muchdeeper than that; and if international peace has any relation to the state of millionsof people inhabiting vast geographical areas in Africa and Asia-and may I addhere that they constitute well above half the world's population-it is clear that seenagainst the background of the current forces in Africa they constitute a seriousthreat to international peace and have grave potentialities for internationalfriction. Peace does not mean mere avoidance of

war; the threat to international peace does not merely connote a threatening warsituation as between two or more nations. Any issue which threatens todividehumanity as deeply as the present one is a threat to international peace....World Leaders' CondemnationWorld opinion at any time and during any period of history, Mr. President, canonly be gauged by expressions of opinion leaders of governments and leaders ofpublic opinion and newspapers, and at the United Nations. I hope youwill grantme the indulgence to place before the Council samples of such opinionwhich aregermane to the issue before the Council. I can do no better than quotefrom fromthe statement made by the Prime Minister of India in the Indian Parliament a fewdays ago. This, I need hardly say, can be taken, without a shadow of doubt, as anexpression of the feelings and emotions of 400 million people of India, withoutdistinction as to race, religion, creed or colour. Speaking before the IndianParliament on 23 March, Mr. Nehru deplored the large scale killing nearCapetown in South Africa which he said, "had shocked the conscienceof theworld, more particularly, the people of Asia and Africa". The PrimeMinister ofIndia remarked : "Hundreds of millions of people of Asia and Africacould neveraccept the spirit behind the large scale killing-the spirit of racial mastery, the spiritof authoritarianism and segregation, etc." Mr. Nehru continued, and I quote again:"Of course this is, as far as we know a special happening that will almost affectthe course of history. Here is Africa at the present moment in a resurgent, proudand defiant mood after long centuries of suppression. Many countries havebecome independent and many (others) will become independent. On the otherside, there is this picture of people (in South Africa) who are practically-a whole

nation excepting some group who have settled down from Europe-although theyare fully entitled to citizenship." "This kind of culmination of all these events",remarked Mr. Nehru, "leads to certain conclusion in the minds of people that thisis not an end of the episode butthe prelude to the future".If I may say so in humility, Mr. President, the events that have happened in SouthAfrica since that statement was made amply prove what Mr. Nehru said.

The Indian Parliment on 28 March, after a debate which was markedby dignityand moderation, and yet with a deep sense of the seriousness of the situation,adopted the following resolution :"This House deplores and records its deep sorrow at the tragic incidents whichhave occurred at Sharpeville and in Langa township near Capetown in S: uthAfrica on March 21, 1960, resulting in the death of a large number of Africansfrom police firings. It extends its deep sympathy to the Africans the death of alarge number of Africans who have suffered from this firing and from the policyof racial discrimination and suppression of the African people in their ownhomeland."Speaking on the resolution, the Prime Minister of India said that the racial policiesof the Nazi regime under which the Nazis claimed the right not only tosuppressbut to exterminate a race they considered sub-human, were being adopted andopenly proclaimed in South Africa and reminded the parliament thatthat policyeventually led to the World War. Mr. Nehru further said that such a policy wasdividing now and would divide even more humanity into two large differing andconflicting sections. It would be something worse than even the World War.It is well known to members of the Security Council that Governments all overthe world have reacted strongly against the present incidents and have expressedgrave concern. The United States Government, which is usually cautious inmaking such statements has this to say. I apologise to you. Mr. President, becauseyou quoted this statement at our earlier meeting, but I should like toquote it againbecause it is a very important statement."The United States deplores violence in all its forms and hopes that the Africanpeople of South Africa will be able to obtain redress for their legitimategrievances by peaceful means.While the United States, as a matter of practice, does not ordinarily comment onthe internal affairs of governments, with which it enjoys normal relations, itcannot help but regret the tragic loss of life resulting from the measures takenagainstthe demonstrators in South Africa.

Another great Power, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, has, according toToss, its official news agency, authorized the following statement :"The policy of discrimination practised by the South African authorities withregard to the peoples of Africa and Asia cannot but arouse legitimate indignationas it leads to gross violations of the elementary rights of man, to glaring acts ofviolence, to the fanning of racial hatreds and hostility and

jeopardizes peace on the African continent."The people of the United Kingdom, yet another great Power, have been gravelyagitated by the recent deplorable events in South Africa, so much so that theUnited Kingdom felt bound to give expression to such concern in the Parliament,which adopted a resolution expressing sympathy with all the peoples ofSouthAfrica.The Prime Minister of Canada has, in a statement in the Canadian Parliament,deplored the development of a situation which has given rise to such tragicviolence and loss of life in South Africa. He added that he was aware that thereexisted in Canada a profound current of anxiety about methods used by the SouthAfrican Government to quell Afrcani demonstrators. The Government of NewZewland has similarly reacted to the recent incidents in South Africa.According to the official organ of the Vatican, Osservalore-Romano "There areno reasons or extenuating circumstances for the shootings." His Holiness the Popeis reported to have given expression to his regret and has characterized thehappenings in South Africa as un-Christian.The Government of Liberia, which may be taken to know the mind cf the Africanpeople, has issued the following statement :"The Government of Liberia most seriously deprecates and abhors this systematic,cold-blooded and ruthless murder and vile slaughter of helplessAfricans. TheGovernment of Liberia is greatly mortified and most chagrined by thisunconscionable and remorseless action and attitude of the South Africanpeople."I apologize to the representative of Liberia,

Mr. Awolowo, Opposition Leader in the House of Representative in Lagos, urgedthe Federal Government of Nigeria on 24 March to "repatriate all white SouthAfricans living in Nigeria and to sever all trade relations with South Africa. ThePrime Minister of Nigeria has also sent a telegram to the Prime Minister oftheUnited Kingdom expressing great concern at the events in South Africa.The Prime Minister of Malaya has expressed his country's concern andindignation at the inhuman brutality of the South African Government. TheIndonesian Government has termed the shootings "barbarous acts" and has called"on the whole world to put a halt to these mass murders and to abolishracialracial discrimination wherever it occurs"....It is well to remember that these expressions of public opinion are not isolated orsudden reactions to the very tragic losses of life caused a few daysago in SouthAfrica. Throughout the last decade, the nations represented at the United Nationshave realized and given expression to the sense of danger and disquiet and to theirconcern at the relentless policies of apartheid and racial discrimination followedin South Africa.I do not want to burden the Council with a long list of quotations from statementsmade in the General Assembly during the consideration of the items concerningthe racial policies of the Government of the Union of South Africa. It issufficientto say that delegation after delegation from every geographical area of the worldhas given warning of the grave consequences of such policies and their inevitable

culmination in an explosive situation endangering international peace andsecurity. And today all the twenty-nine nations of Asia and Africa represented atthe United Nations have, in their grave concern and with full sense ofresponsibility, approached the Security Council for remedial action.I apologize for having taken the time of the Security Council to put together thislarge cross-section of views and opinion expressing the gravest concern at theevents in the Union of South Africa. When Members of the United Nations,including the big Powers, the world Press, the official organs ofGovernments,and leaders of public opinion all over the world give expression to their graveconcern at the situation in South Africa and deplore the recent killings, I submitthat that fact

by itself, Mr. President, leaving aside the feelings and emotions thatthese eventshave roused in Africa and in Asia shows that the situation in South Africamightlead to international friction and constitutes a danger to international peace andsecurity.What are the laws against which Africans dtmonstrated on 21 March ? Under theso-called pass laws every African, who has attained the age of sixteen years, hasto carry a refcrence bcok. A reference book is no! merely an identity card-thereare many countries in which identity cards are required on a non-discriminatorybasis-it is more ; it is a booklet of about fifty pages which the Africans alone haveto carry. Without such a reference book the African cannot be in or seek work inany urban area or other areas. Any policciman may at any time call upon anAfrican who has attained the age of sixteen years to produce his reference book.Failure to do so is a criminal offence and makes him liable to a fine of £ 10 orimprisonment of a month ..Pass LawsIt is such laws, Mr. President, against which the Africans demonstrated on 21March ;and these are laws and regulations enacted by a Parliament and by aGovernment in which the over all million non-white people including Asians, theColoured and the African people of South Africa, have no right of representation.I submit that these millions of people of South Africa deserve everyencouragement and support of the members of the Security Council in their juststruggle.According to the latest newspaper reports, the South Africa Government hassuspended operation of the pass laws. The suspension has taken the form of anannouncement by the police that Africans w, uld not be arresstedfor failure tocarry the passes. There has been, however, no abrogation of the pass laws. Theseremain on the Statute Book in all their ugliness, epitomizing the extreme racialpolicies of the South African Gcvcrnmcnt, and the suspension itself, the Ministerof Justice, Mr. Erasmus, has emphasized, is only temporary. Ifa temporarysuspension has been brought about, it is bccatse of the inability of theSouthAfrican industries to continue their opcrations without the hundreds of thousandsof cheap African labour who are resorting to passive resistance by staying in theirhomes. As a matter of fact, while on the one hand, there has been a temporarysuspension of the pass regulations, on the

other, the South African Government has put a wholesale ban on publicmeetingspractically throughout the Union. In addition to the twentyfour major cities andtowns in which the ban was imposed on 24 March and while on the one handtheenforcement of the pass laws was being temporarily suspended, onthe othcr,public meetings were banned in forty nine magisterial disiricts and theGovernment is at the same time undertaking emergency legislation in theSouthAfrican Parliament to outlaw the national political organizations of the Africansand of the people of Indian origin. There is thus no change in the policies of theSouth African Government and, as The New York Times correspondent reportsfrom Johannesburg on 26 March, "the situation continues to be potentiallyexplosive". The truth of this statement has been more than proved by thehappenings during the last three days.Mr. President, the pass laws are not the only manifestly oppressive,discriminatory and segregatory laws in the Union of South Africa; they are butpart of a whole complex of the policy of Apartheid, the intent andeffect of whichis to practise the most thorough-going racial oppression and discrimination theworld has ever known. I do not wish to burden the Council with enumeration ofthe various facets of the policy. They are well-known to the Council. Let me cite afew examples which will give an idea of the atmosphere and the conditions inwhich Africans live in the Union of South Africa. These, let me add, are relevantto the issues we have brought before the Security Council as background to thesituation that has arisen in South Africa.No African is entitled as of right to acquire freehold title to and anywhere inSouth Africa, nor is it the intention of the present Government ever togrant suchright to the African, even in his own reservesthe Union Government has said soclearly in the Tomlinson Report, U.G. No. 61 of 1955.Any policeman is entitled, without warrant, to enter and search, "atanyreasonable time of the day or night", premises in a town on which he has reason tosuspect that an African boy eighteen years of age is committing the criminaloffence of residing with his father without having the necessarypermission to doso-Government Notification No. 804 dated 13 June 1958 read withAct No. 25 of1945 as amended, Section 10 (1) (c).

If an Indian-or a Coloured or an African-sits on a bench in a public park, thebench being set apart for the exclusive use of white persons, by way of protestagainst the Apartheid laws, he commits a criminal offence and is liable to a finenot exceeding three hundred pounds, or to imprisonment not exceeding threeyears, or to a whipping not exceeding ten strokes, or to both such fine and suchimprisonment, or to both such fine and such whipping-Criminal Law AmendmentAct No. 8 of 1953, Section 1, read with Act No. 49 of 1953 Section 2(2).In a township established for occupation by Africans in 1957, any policeman may,whenever he wishes, for any reason whatsoever, to inspect the dwelling occupiedby a resident of the township, enter that dwelling at any time of the dayor night-Government Notification 61 of 1958, Section 8, Evaton Native Township.

No African, lawfully residing in a town by virtue of permit issued to him, isentitled as of right, to have his wife and children residing with him-Natives(Urban Areas Consolidation) Act No. 25 of 1945 as amended, Section 10 (1).No school for the education of African children may be conducted bya church,unless the school is registered, and the Minister of Native Affairs has anunfettered discretion to refuse to register it if he believes that the establishment ofsuch a school is not in the interests of the African people- as if the establishmentof a school could ever be against the interest of children belonging to any race.(Bantu Education Act No. 47 of 1953 as amended, Section 9).I could go on endlessly in this fashion, but it is not my intention to do so. I havenarrated these facts only to show that the pass laws themselves are only a facet ofthe whole structure of Apartheid. It is sufficient to say that in South Africa there isdiscrimination against the non-white people "from the cradle to the grave" assomeone has put it. The strucILrc of Apartheid enmeshes the African in everywalk of life and makes South Africa a semi-prison house for the millions of itsAfrican population.I should like, Mr. President, to add that any reference to the white people or theracial policies of South Africa should not be under-

stood to include the entire European population of South Africa. There are manyamong them who deplore Apartheid; and the churches, both Catholic andAnglican, and many other religious organizations, have condemnedin noambiguous terms the policy of Apcitheid and the recent mass killingsin SouthAfrica. They seem, however, to be a very small minority whose voice is drownedby the blatant and noisy racialism of others in South Africa. All honour and creditto them, and I am sure theirs is the voice of hope for South Africa andthe voice ofjustice and peace. In the language of Shakespeare, "Thus shines agood deed in anaughty world".Mr. President, my Government, with a full sense of responsibilityand realizationof the seriousness of the situation in South Africa and its potentialitiesforplunging the world in racial bitterness and conflict, is among the countries whichhave approached the Security Council. We know that the situation arises fromcertain internal policies and actions of the South African Government. We are aszealous of maintaining the internal independence of any other country as we arein maintaining our own. But the events in South Africa, Mr. President, because oftheir nature and their origin, and because of their ramifications and implications,have gone far beyond the point of being purely an internal affair. They are now amatter of grave concern for the whole world and for the United Nations.We stand by Article 2(7) of the Charter, but we do not agree that Article 2(7) canbe a cover for acts which amount to a patent violation of the Charter, whether itbe an Article in Chapter IX or in any other Chapter of the United Nations Charter.Events which cause world-wide concern which have potentialities forinternational friction and disharmony, and which are directly opposed to the spiritand letter of the Charter, cannot be brought within the straitjacket ofArticle 2 (7).I would like to add here, further, that my Government is not motivated by anyfeelings of hostility towards the South Africans. We feel strongly on this whole

situation of racial discrimination. Year after year we have brought this matterbefore the United Nations, and we have brought the present situation in SouthAfrica before the Security Council now, that is only because we aregravelyperturbed about the exclusive possibilities of that situation ....

Statement in Special Political Committee on Apartheid, April 4, 1961Following is text of the statement by Shri V. K. Krishna Menon, Leader of theIndian Delegation to the United Nations, at the Special Political Committee onApril 4, 1961, oni the question of race coiflict in South Africa resulting from thepolicies of Apartheid of the Government of the Union of South Africa :The Assembly is now debating the subject of apartheid in the Union of SouthAfrica for, I believe, the ninth successive year.As early as the seventh session my delegation, with others, broughtthis subject tothe Assembly for consideration, because it felt that the narrower issue of thetreatment of persons of Indian and Pakistani origin in the Union of South Africacovered certain aspects of the policy of apartheid but did not include the wholequestion.Now this afternoon my delegation intends, with your permission, to dealbothwith the general debate and with the draft resolutions on this subject because, sofar as we know, the only draft resolutions that are forthcoming arenow before us.My delegation wishes to address itself especially to the basic issues in this matterbecause, during the many years of debate, we have dealt with specific grievances.We have appointed committee to inquire into grievances; we have made appeals;we have asked people to use persuasion; last year we asked the Secretary Generalto go to South Africa; and each year, on returning to the Assembly, wehavefound the situation worse than when we left it. So the question will soon arise-though perhaps not during this Asscmbly session, in this particularform-withregard to the obligations of membership in the United Nations of Member States.Now there is no Member State-and I do not wish to speak for oders, but each canspeak for his own-which cannot in one way or another be regarded as havingfallen below the ideals of the Charter, or

even, perhaps, of having committed transgressions in regard to it.But all this isincreased or decreased by the character of the action concerned, as regards itsquantum.So the time will come for the Assembly to consider, and for the Union of SouthAfrica to consider-as, indeed, it did at the Conference of Commonwealth PrimeMinisters-whether that State can feel comfortable in the company of those whohave rather different view of life. We are not, at the present moment, dealing withthat; but I should like to look at the Charter itself and study it, even thoughit is,perhaps, well known to everybody. We should look first at the Preamble where itspeaks of "the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small". Itdoes not simply say "the equal rights of nations large and small" ; it speaks of"men and women", of "nations large and small." That is what apartheid dealswith. Then let us turn to Article 1 (3), which speaks of:

"...International co-operation in solving international problems of an economic,social, cultural, of humanitarian character, and in promoting andencouragingrespect for human rights and fundament freedoms for all without distinction as torace,sex, language or religion".Now if this Charter were something which South Africa did not understand, orhad no part in formulating, perhaps the onus upon it would be far less. But inlooking through old records one comes across a name that is very much respectedin the United Nations, in spite of our individual differences on manymatters thatis the name of one of the people who tried to put this Charter into words-though Iam not saying he is the father of the Charter-the name of General Smuts. AndGeneral Smuts in San Francisco said that this Charter should not be a merelegalistic document for the prevention of war. He suggested that theChartershould contain at its very outset, in its Preamble, a declaration of human rightsand of the common faith that had sustained the allied peoples throughout theprolonged struggle for the vindication of those rights. He went onto say, "Let usin this new charter for humanity give expression to this faith of ours; Itusproclaim to the world and to posterity that this was not a mere brute struggle offorces correlating to the last war"

Now if there was one factor that, whether we were indepefndent nations at thattime or not, characterized the last war to which General Smuts refersit is that itwas a fight against Hitler whose position in Germany was based uponthe racialdoctrine, that policies for which he was responsible were also basedupon thatracial doctrine. Here we have an appeal on behalf on the Charter which puts atrest any idea that the issue that we are discussing is not covered by the Charter asa matter of domestic jurisdiction and so on but makes clear that this is basic tothose who accept the Charter.Economic and Social ConsequencesHaving said that, we ought now to look into the position as it stands today. It issometimes forgotten that, out of every seven people in the Union ofSouth Africa,six are people who have no civic or political rights, who have no position ascivilized human beings. It may well be that some of them are well treated; so aresome animals in some places; indeed, some animals are better treated than somehumans. Though there are 12 million people in South Africa the population ofSouth Africa used to be given as 2 or 3 million, which means that the other peoplewere not taken into account; in fact, it even outbids the old city states of Greeceand other places, where liberty was confined to the few and the otherswereslaves. Now it is not sufficient for us to treat this merely as a sentimential issue,or even one which concerns human rights in a narrow sense. We must understand,to a certain extent, how it basically affects the equality of nations in this place andalso to what extent it is related to the late resurgence of Africa and its necessarymarch towards a society where in each of those communities there will be respectfor human life and human dignity and the capacity for them to developindustrially, economically and socially.

Now, if you will take the Union, therefore, and look at the economic and socialconsequences of apartheid; it is not a question merely of the white person notliking the non-white person or vice versa: that is not it. So far as my Governmentis concerned, it stands fully and squarely against all forms of racialdiscrimination, however much it may fall behind in practice from day to day, inmatters which we try to correct. Whether it be the apartheid that discriminatesagainst the non-white races, or the apartheid that sometimes may tendto do thereverse, both are equally bad.

Now, therefore, we look at the incidence of this policy on economic conditions-Ido not have the latest authoritative statistics here; the latest that areavailable aremre in favour of the Union Government's policy, as things have sincedeteriorated-and we find that the average income of the white family inthe Unionis £ 1] 5 per month-that is about $ 400 per month. When it comes to the Africanfamily, the 100 disappears and the 15 remains; that is to say the difference is asbetween £ 15 per month and £ H 5 per month. These are the economicconsequences of a situation which, as I shall point out later on, excludes theAfrican-it is not because he does not want to earn; it is not becausehe does nothave the capacity : that has yet to be proved, but because he is shut out from alloccupations where he can lead a life or follow a profession which would enablehim to have a higher income and better standards of life.So when we turn round and look at the avarage wages paid to these people, wefind that there again not only is there a- distinction between African and non-African, between the white and non-white, but even among the non-whitepopulations there is a graduation of castes, though it may-in this particular list-beto the advantage, shall we say, of the Asiatic populations. Now this is one of theworst features of this kind of racial domination: you always find that where thereis a system of castes, there is an attempt to put what may be called a slightlyhigher caste against a slightly lower caste-that is the way that a hierarchy ismaintained, so that the top person can use the middle person to suppress theperson still lower down. Thus if you take the Bantus, who are the pure Africans,their wages would at the very highest be about 25 per cent of the European wages;yet, apparently, they have the same kind of stomachs, they have to pay the sameamount of money for food, they live under the same economy and, therefore, theirexpenditure must be the same. The only inference one can draw, therefore, is thatthe Bantu has to be satisfied with 25 per cent, of whatever privilieges andenjoyment in life he can have in comparison with the white populations.Thencome the Asians, whose wages are about 42 per cent, and then comes the mixedpopulation, which is slightly better off. I point this out to show that, just becausesome of the non-white populations do better than some others, it doesnot reflect astate of affairs which conduces to prosperity or to social justice in this area.Now again if one took the whole of the Union one could probably find that some87 per cent of the total population-that means pracically

all the non-white populations-are, excluding of course what are called the "poorwhites" have incomes for less than what is required to keep themselves together

according to the various surveys made at that place, that is to say to pay for theirfood and their rent, and so forth. And one would also find that a greatnumber,61.6 of the population, of the working people-I do not have the figures right btforeme-are not able to pay their rent for the place in which they live. I could go onmultiplying such examples to show that the economic and social consequences ofapartheid are of a character that can only produce social conflict, ultimatelyresulting in a threat to international peace and security-if it is not already doingso. For these reasons, we look at this not mcrcly as a sentimental issue, assomething which we have already overruled; this is something concerning theinterests of the African people.Now, when you then come to what is normally regarded as more accessible topopoulations which have been there for the longest timethe tenure of land- youwill find in the Union of the South Africa 92 percent of the land isowned by thewhite populations, and 8 per cent is owned by the Africans. There is noevidence--biological, racial or scientific-of any kind to show that the Africanrequires either less frcsh air or less room to move about or that he can do with lessamenities or anything of that character.Thefore, while there is no colonialism in South Africa in the sense that anotherState controls the affairs of the State of South Africa, there is a State within aState-that is to say, a hierarchy of people who are privileged, who normally arecalled South Africans, and the others are forgotten. In fact, I remember readingthat at the time of the League of Nations the South African representative wasasked: "WVhat is the total population of South Africa?" And he had said: "Oneand a quarter million". And the Indian delegation asked him at the time:Wethought there .Nere 5 or 6 million others". "Oh, yes," said the South African. "youmean the natives": that is to say, they did not take into account eventhe existenceof these people.Discriminatory LegislationNow, then, all these things are sustained not only by social practices-as they are inmany of our countries. There is not, perhaps, one of us here who can say: in ourcountry, there are no discrimnations between

various kinds, whether black, brown, white, or whatever it may be". But thedifference between the \ orst of us and South Africa is this : that we recognize this: that \Ne recognize this evil, and we try to get away with it. In apartheid, SouthAfrica not only does not say that it has to adopt these policies because of historicreasons, or because the flesh is weak, or anything of that kind; it says that this isthe ideal for mankind to follow. The ideal for mankind to follow is to havedifferent kinds of people, in different compartments, preventing people fromprogressing from one to the other or of having equality of opportunity. And whatis more, it is eflected in all their legislation.One will find, if one takes NNhat is called "discriminatory legislation",that itoften has very intcresting titles. The interesting titles, apart from the Pass Laws,are : "Bantu, Slf-Government Act"; now, that is a very good thing,is it not ? Doesi. not confer self-government on peoples ? It really means: discriminating againstthe Bantu having equal rights with the others. Similarly, one \ ill find theBantu

Education Act, or the Bantu Investment Corporation Act: all this means that theyare not allowed to participate, in the general context of legislation, in whatevershould accrue from the normal State organization.Although it has been mentioned so many times in the General Assembly, even wemay not forget the conditions that exist there, conditions that are difficut tobelieve, unless one is already familiar with them. Not only do they notbelong inthe twentieth century, but they do not belong to any kind of civilized order ofsociety. The first of these is the Pass Laws where-even as Hitlerdid with certainsectors of the German population--there is stamped upon a man the mark ofinferiority, and which is spoken of by writers as torture and humiliation.And what is more, it is the insirument of oppression in the hands of the ordinaryenforcement authorities. It is not as though you \\ere told that you had committeda crime, and you go to court and do something about it. A polic.'manstops anAfrican in the stret-he may be an old African or a young one. A youngpolicemanmay stop an elderly African and say: "Kaffir, where is you pass ? The African isstruck in the face if he is slow in producing it--that is to say that, not only underthese laws is the taking of the law into its own hands left to the executive, but theylive in what is much worse than a slave State in that way.

Now, I do not think that we should pass from these occasions withoutpaying atribute first of all to those Africans themselves-that is to say, the non-whiteAfricans themselves in the Union-who in spite of all these discriminatorylaws, inspite of the penalties that threaten them, the danger to their lives, have put up avery bold struggle and continue to do so. And after all, we in the worldwho havethese meetings and these resolutions, we do not suffer from them. They have foryears resisted to submitting-a great many leaders of the African people, theirorganizations and what not. One mentions with a great deal of gratification and asense of gratitude those others who are of white descent or are whites themselveswho have participated in the resistance to these discriminatory laws, sometimes totheir material and other disadvantages, who have come out with proclamations-whether they be outside Africa or inside-they have fought these acts and havebecome the common victims of the various types of legislation that have beenintroduced to stop protests of this character.Tyranny on WomenNow, more recently, I am told that-I believe it was last yearthese pass laws havecome to be operated more rigorously against women largely, I suppose, with theadvance of women in the world and their participation mainly in Africa-particularly countries like Ghana and Nigeria and so on, where women have sucha high position in their society and their economic system, they with that impactmust be thereand therefore, now they have enacted that it will be compulsory forAfrican women to possess reference books with effect from December 1960although under local laws and administrative regulations such as governmentnotification, African women will be already forced to come within the scope ofthis system. The fact that women have now become liable to summary arrest, topossible molestation by any policeman, and detention in gaol while their children

are uncared for at home, has caused much indignation. This is fromthe theAfrican press itself.Again I should like to pay a tribute to sections of the African press which, in spiteof the press legislation, in spite of the social system that obtains, have givenpublicity to these matters. So that here we have a situation where one can imaginethe social consequences of placing so much arbitrary power in the hands ofindividual enforcement authorities,

where physical force, summary arrests, all these kinds of things can be used.The net result of this is what I think I quoted to the Assembly years before: Therewas a South African judge-a white person-who said once that the statutorylegislation in South Africa was of a character that everything had been made intoa crime, that if an African stepped out of his house he started committing crimes. Isuppose that if he breathed he would be committing a crime, because they haveproduced statutory crimes of this character and they have produced such a feelingof insecurity: the undue restriction, the freedom of movement, interference offamily life and considerable friction between the Africans themselves.Now this has been the position for a time, and times without number thevarioustypes of discriminatory legislation applying to everyone have been brought beforethe Assembly. Now, during the last two or three years, particularly since theadvent of the present Government-I am not trying to compare evils, as theprevious one was not basically better, but of course there can be bad and worseand so on and so onthere has been more and more legislation of this character, allsometimes having these rather highflaunting titles such as University Acts,investment Corporation Acts and so on, which if we look at the title, we couldthink they were beneficent legislation. "Now, having dealt with these things in the past I should like to deal withsome ofthe more important ones that have come about in the present time which affectscitizens of other countries, which affects international philanthropy, if you like,which affects internationally things of that character, and since I have not got thetime to take every instance, I shall take one item-.-ducation.Educational InstitutionsLet us look at the University College of Fort Hare Transfer Act. This universitywas founded by American money, by the money of philanthropists inAfricaitself-I believe some non-European people and so on contributedtowards thefounding of the University College of Fort Hare, which was a mixed college inthe sense that there was no discrimination against non-white people going there.Now the objection in apartheid is not merely to non-white people goingto whitecolleges, but the white

people going to non-white colleges. ft works both ways. Any way, there is thisinsiduous legislation which is called the University College of Fort Hare TransferAct. This is the preamble by the present Prime Minister who, as a previousrepresentative I believe said, has a history behind him of being oneof the acesupporters of Hitler in the early days and he said "education must train and teachpeople in accordance with the opportunities in life and according tothe sphere in

which they live"that is to say it is based on apartheid to start with. "Good racialrelations cannot exist where education is given under the control of people whocreate wrong expectations on the part of the natives themselves"that is people likeMr. Ralph Bunche, for example, who have nothing to do with education,he mightcreate wrong expectations. "Native education should be controlled in such a waythat it should be in accord with the policy of the State"-now a more authoritarianthing you cannot think of. "Racial relations cannot improve, even without a nativeeducation, with the creation of frustrated peoale". I agree with this gentleman thatthere should be no frustrated people, but the question is who createsthefrustration.Now we come to the Act under this preamble. Clause 8 of this Act says :"8. Under the terms of the University College of Fort Hare TransferAct (1959),the Minister of Bantu Education took control of Fort Hare as from January 1,1960. This University was established in 1916 as an inter-racial university, thanksto much community effort, and private generosity, especially on the part of churchgroups, of those in the United States andCanada and in the Union itself."Now Fort Hare has been reduced to the status of a tribal college, Admission ofwhite, coloured and Asian students has been prohibited, unlessMinisterialexemption is granted in individual cases beforehand. The Vice-Pricipal, ProfessorMathews, left as he would not resign from the African National Congress. Sevenother staff members were dismissed because of their opposition to apartheid. Thiscaused great concern in South African academic circles. The Council of theUniversity of Cape Town issued a statement pointing out thatthe dismissal ofthese teachers for their political opinions was against academic freedom. And theanswer of the

Government was to create an all-white College Council at Fort Hareto replace theold Council which had both African and white members. The college will befinanced from the Bantu Education Account, which in effect meansthat thepoorest section of the population is to be compelled to pay for its own colleges.That is to say, the Government takes over institutions supported from its ownpopulation and from outside parts of the world-even apart from the moral andother issues involved-takes over the college, takes it away from its originalpurposes and wants it to be financed by the Bantu Education Account,and thatmeans that if the Bantus want education, let them pay for it themselves on thcwages, which as I have said, in regard to 88 per cent of the population, are belowsubsistance level. This came under very serious protest. Even in a country like theUnited Kingdom in 1959 long before there was any idea that South Africa waslikely to leave the Commonwealth, when a former Prime Minister like LordAttlee, a great jurist like Mc Clair, a ft imer Secretary of State, like Lord Halifaxand the leader of the Parliamentary opposition, Mr. Gaitskell, and soon, wrote tothe Prime Minister of South Africa and said that 'this strikes at the very root of theconception of a university because a university must be universalin itsmembership.

Now this question of discrimination in education, preventing any mixing inthisway, and what is more, when education is separated in this way, it meanstheBantu population get a type of education which is far lower in quality, and there isa reason for it.They do not want the African population to be trained in any type of educationthat will fit them for trades or professions so it can be claimed they are qualified--no skilled occupations, nothing of that character. The Minister of Education, aslate as the end of 1959, said that he would not pay a penny to any person knownto be destroying the Government's apartheid policy. This is the kind ofthing thatis being done to the educational systenm What is more, it is a matter whichaffects not only those who are in South Africa but also others who participate inthis. Notice the results of it. It does not affect those people who do not want toattend mixed colleges; they are allowed to stay out and other provision is madefor them. But if there were a white South African who wanted to send hischild-his son or his daughter-to a mixed college, he is prevented

from doing so. It becomes a crime to be decent. That is what it reallymeans. Itbecomes unlawful to behave in a decent fashion.Section 32 of the Act debars a non-white person from registering at or attendingany white university. Upto the present time-although several Cape Colony Indianstudents have been given permission to attend universities-all buttwo of the 153Bantu applicants who wanted to attend universities have been refused. It is ofcourse possible that there may be some individual who for some special reasonbecomes a favourite of the Government, or of some official, and hecan get into auniversity. However, this has been the subject to universal protestnot only inSouth Africa but in various other parts of the world.I have selected the subject of education because its effects are very far-reaching.As I have said, it is not merely an antagonism to complexion, or anything of thatkind. Surely the South African population, cannot, any more thanany otherpeople, have any obiection to complexion, because there are men and womenthere of all shades-black, white, yellow-so it cannot be any opticalobjection to acolour as a nonaesthetic one. It is simply a desire to keep populations ineconomic, social and spiritual slavery in such a way that they function merely asproducers of goods and services for other people,We come now to a whole series of new acts of legislation which are the giftof thepresent Government. Now here, again, the titles are interesting andI hope myAfrican colleagues, if they have not already looked at them, will do so. They areall either innocuous, or they look very pro-African. As I have said, the BantuInvestment Corporation is a good thing. The Factory Act has been amended, butwith one of the worst amendments-and I hope those who have been paying specialattention to the law of the sea will take note of this-because South Africa has nowby law enforced segregation in the sea up to the three-mile limit, Notonly doessegregation prevail on land but now also in the territorial sea which, for SouthAfrica, extends to a three-mile limit which it may later extend further, as othercountries, including my own, would like to do.

And what does this mean ? It means that the law now applies to a very largeproportion-numerically a very large number- of African

labour on the ships that sail the African seas, or cvcn in the African serviceswhich are world wide. Not one of them would be permitted to pursue anoccupation of a skilled type; certainly he would not be paid a skilledman's wage,which means that even on a ship,' they must live as though they were sub-human;they would be permitted to follow any occupation other than, perhaps, stokingcoal or, perhaps, they might be allowed to clean the deck-I am not sure, perhapsthey would be-and do other jobs of that type. The whole idea is to forcethemdown into a kind of "lower level" of working people. Also, in everyfactory, as inevery post office, there are separate amenities, separate entrances, separate placesfor whites and for non-Europeans, as provided in previous lawsthat sort of thinghas only been increassed.Oppressive LawsOn top of this, they have passed what is called the Unlawful Organizations Act.On 8 April of last year, following ihe Sharpeville killings, a ban was placed on theAfrican National Congress and the Pan-African Congress for one year. The Actsupplements the Suppression of Communism Act, amended in 1951, under whichAfrican leaders can be charged with bringing about political, industrial, social oreconomic changes by the promotion of disturbance or disorder. Under this Act,every religious leader in every democratic country would be judged subversive,under that law, because they are all trying to change either the economic or thepolitical order or to make industrial changes. Now these titles do not meananything-for example,-Mr. Patrick Duncan, who is the son of a former Governor-General, was arrested and. I believe, convicted under the suppression ofCommunism Act, and, as far as I know, he was almost a fanatical, pathologicalanti-communist. The only trouble with him was that he stood for racial equalityand I suppose racial equality is interpreted in South Africa as a from ofcommunism.I shall now deal with another piece of new legislation which concernsforcedlabour. It is usually thought that the only part of the world where forced labourobtains is Portuguese Africa. However, the Portuguese are to be congratulated inthe sense that they have some people who agree with them. The Farmers' PrisonCooperatives-nice name, is it not ?-in the different district collects money-£20,000 to £ 75,000-and builds prisons. They build prisons in places that areconvenient to the farmers.

"Farmer" might give you an idea that he is a hard-working person; that is not so inSouth Africa. The bulk of the Afrikaner element comes from these farmers whoput the indigenous pepulation to work. In any case, the farmers collected this £20,000 to £ 75,000 in what are called "Farmers Prison Coops". They do notmean co-operative stores or factories or anything like that-theybuild prisons. ThePrison Department-that is the Government-collects the men. African men onshortterm scntences are packed into these gaols; many of them are arrested ontrivial technicalities such as being found without their pass, an efficient little book

giving all personal details. One thousand African men are arrested every day forthis reason-that is to say, because they live in their own country. That isall thereis to it.In a sense, they are worse than domesticated animals because domesticatedanimals do not have to carry a pass. No African society woman's poodle is everarrested for not having a pass but an African citizen or an African servant wouldbe.Every morning before 7 the farmers come to the gaols to pick up their forcedlabour. They deposit I shilling and 9 pence a day per convict and they supply theirown armed guard. For 2 shillings a day they get a guard from the PrisonDepartment. The convicts normally work until about 5 p.m. Their conspicuous redshirts make it impossible for them to dash to freedom without being seen. Iconfess that when one reads these things, it is almost impossible to believe thatthey exist in the modern world.I have referred to African citizens-white African citizens-who take a differentview of it. It is to the credit of the Union, and it is to the credit of the judicialsystem in that part of the world; of which we are, in a sense, a part-that, in spite ofall this executive action, in spite of all this fanatical, pathological persecution, thejudiciary in South Africa-the higher judiciary-by and large has upheld the rule oflaw. When these reason trials came up, Justice Rumpff said :"It is conceded by the prosecution that if it fails to prove a treasonable conspiracythere is no case against any of theaccused".

In other words, they have not done anything. The objection to them is that therewas a meeting of their minds for the contemplation of something whichis allegedto be wrong. Now the whole system of law in South Africa is partly British,partly Dutch, and neither of them permits in actual practice penalties in regard tomere thoughts. It is the performance-it is either the likelihood of doing somethingthat is wrong, or the doing of something wrong-that is regarded as criminal JudgeRumpff went on to say :"On the evidence presented and on our findings, it is impossible for this court tocome to the conclusion that the African National Congress had acquired oradopted a policy to overthrow the state by violence- that is, in the sense that themasses had to be prepared to be conditioned to commit directacts of violence against the state".In other words, what the Judge is saying is that all these people have done is tojoin a political movement in order to bring about changes.Now this is not as though there has not been this tendency in the past. Field-Marshal Smuts, for whom we cannot say that everything that happened under hisGovernment was sensible-but as I say you compare bad with worse,that sort ofthing-and Smuts, in the preparatory stages of the Act, the Population andRegistration Act of 1950-every country has got a people's registration act but theessence of this thing is exclusion. The registration act providesfor the exclusionof people or for the representation of Africans by non-Africans,as the case maybe. And it so happens that the majority if not all of the non-African persons who

have been nominated by Governments in the past to represent Africans have beentotally opposed to the policy of the Union Government, I speak subjecttocorrection--may be one or two were different, but by and large thathas been thecase.Now Smuts at that time said"I think all this problem, all this probing into private affairs, thislistening toinformers, this effort to classify what is unclassifiable, what is impossible toachieve, will create asituation which will hit this country hard in years to come".

This is before he died, some ten years ago.This Population and Registration Act of 1950, which was passed atthat time,classified populations in South Africa as white, coloured or native-namely,"a 'white person' means a person who in appearance obviously is or who isgenerally accepted as a white person but does not include a person who, althoughin appearance obviously awhite person, is generally accepted as a coloured person."It simply means the executive decides this." 'Native' means a person who is in fact or is generally accepted asa member ofan aborginal race or tribe inAfrica."Now the funniest part of this is that the Bantus are the people who come mostunder this definition. And if you ask Mr. Louw when he is here, he will say "Oh,no, the Bantu came after me. We, the Afrikaners, went there and a fewyears laterthe Bantus traced their way back into the Union."But now he says here "native means a person who is in fact or is generallyaccepted as a member of an aboriginal race or tribe in Africa.""A coloured person' means a person who is not a white or anative..."A person who in appearnnce obviously is a member of an aboriginal race or tribein Africa shall for the purposes of this Act be presumed to be native unless it istrue that he is not infact."That is again a violation of the idea. You have got to prove somethingif you areto escape from the consequences. We could go on in this way looking atthelegislation because so much has appeared in the newspapers recently, that it hasbecome unnecessary for us to recapitulate these instances. I have kept away fromthat type of legislation which has more special application to the Asian populationsuch as the Group Areas

Act, etc., who are people who are simply bodily taken away from the roots oftheir existence, from their economic life and everything else and sent somewhereelse.There are certain very extraordinary consequences that follow from these things. Ibelieve it was the Archbishop of Capetown, who I think is Dutch by origin, theMost Reverened Jooet de Blank, who wanted to dedicate a church to Christ the

Carpenter. Then he found that Africans were not allowed to ibecome carpentersand the poor Archbishop was in a difficult position. How can he dedicate a churchin Africa to Christ the Carpenter, and here it is. The Archbishop in an interviewwith Stephen Barbar of the News Chronicle, London, told him that the UnionGovernment was "pursuing a policy of pinpricking and goading thenon-whites tothe point of explosion." The Archbishop further said with a bitter laugh : "Youknow, we recently thought to dedicate one of our new churches to Christ theCarpenter until we realised that the work of Carpenter is now reserved for whitesonly."At the present moment they are not allowed to go into any kind of occupationexcept of an unskilled character, which means all the men will labour inside themines and so on. Now since we are not debating the conditions of whatisvirtually forced labour, I do not want to go into it. But those conditions are suchas to effect the status of people all over the world. It would be interesting to knowwhat the International Labour Office does about these matters, butthe greatwealth of South Africa, which I believe at the present time amounts to the exportof some where about 4 million metric carats of diamonds or something of thatkind-all that is brought to the surface by the African people and undervery strictconditions and often conditions of cruelty; and so is the coal that South Africasells to the world and so will be the uranium and the gold and everything else.South Africa is one of the wealthy countries of the world and is graduallybecoming more and more industrialized. In that industrialization this apartheidplays a role which is a matter of concern for all of us, certainly for thecountrieswith advanced levels of labour and for countries like ours which want levels oflabour to be advanced. That is to say, unless the standards of lives of peoples whowork in the industrial system, then it means that industry must rest on sweatedlabour. And out of this 12 million population, over 9 million are the non-white

population of Africa and they are the large numbers of people who are thereemployed.It is interesting that in spite of all this apartheid, from beginning of this century,half the population employed in industry has been nonEuropean; thatis to say, itis interesting both ways, because half the European population that isemployedcovers all of the skilled occupations. At the same time is has not been possible toconduct industry without the unskilled labour of the indigenous population. Sowhile it used to be somewhere about 20, 21 to 41, something of that kind, now it itis 234 to 400 more or less the same level is maintained.That is why one sees some sense in what the Australian Prime Ministersaid theother day in London when this question of the continuation of the membership ofSouth Africa in the Commonwealh arose. Well, I am not here to discuss or debatethe merits of this question, but he said that spart from everything else itwasunworkable. You see, because the white population want Africanlabour and thepresence of a mixed population itself is evidence of the fact that some dayhumanity has to mix in this way. So it is unworkable. I am not'subscribing to it. Ithink it should be abolished not because it is unworkable but becauseit is

inhumane, unjust, is inimical to the peace of the world and of internationalconditions of security.For all these reasons we have brought this matter here year after year and tried todraw the attention of the United Nations. We have been one of the countries whohave always argued for a degree of patience, perhaps for a degree of restraint inregard to the attack on South Africa. And I am free to confess I have acertainreluctance to participate in this debate because the Union is not here. Icanunderstand their feelings, I am quite certain they feel out of water among acommunity of people who do not recognise apartheid. For them they must beoutcasts. They must be all people who transgress the law of God and man andtherefore they are not here. But it does not embrave one to pronounce criticismagainst a Member State, against an elected Government, however narrowlyelected, of that State without their being here either to listen or to answer.But the fact that they are not here is not only not our responsibility. I was herewhen this item came before the General Commile and all that

Mr. Louw, the Foreign Minister said, so tar as I recollect, was that hereserved hispositicn as he had already stated on clause 2 (7), but he did not object to this itcmbeing admitted. Now a Member State, having allowed an item to be admitted andthen treating us to the discourtesy of not even participating in this, leaves itselfopen to certain relationships in regard to all of us. Therefore, one tries as far aspossible not to exaggerate these things or even play them down a little. I have, avast quantity of material which if one were to read out or refer to themwouldcreate considerable amount of disgust in the minds of people.When this matter was first brought here, a large number of Member States feltthat, bad as these things may be after all they will right themselves and we mustmake appeals. I believe in the first year also we even found it difficult to make apronouncement, because people said "Let us discuss it and leave it there". Andthen we came to resolutions. My country took its part in them, and we alwayssubscribed to the position that it is better not to overstate our criticism but to makeappeals. Then we tried to assist South Africa by the appointment of aCommission, presided over, not by a European or an African, but bytherepresentative of one of our colleague countries, namely, Chile, of SouthAmerica. And soon we were faced with the fact that this gentleman, whono doubthad an open mind on this matter, would not be allowed to go to South Africa.Although he was not allowed to go there, the United Nations records contain thereports of Mr. Santa Cruz made over the years, and I cannot say that conditionshave not changed-conditions have changed much for the worse. Today SouthAfrica is not only a police State, it is a State which is a menace to the whole of theAfrican continent. It has become a menace to the whole of the Africancontinentfor two or three additional reasons. First, that in this great continent of Africa,with its ancient civilizations which some of us ought to be able to appreciate morethan we have done in the past, we are not dealing with what may be called aprimaeval state of affairs-they are people with civilizations going back longbefore other parts of the world had absorbed them, people who participated in theearly European civilizations, in whose countries are now dug up archaeological

and other remains which prove the antiquity of civilization, people whohadrepresentatives and ambassadors representing their countries,as in the case of theCongo in Portugal, which country enslaved them after the visit of one of theirmissions in 1942.

Not only have we all this in mind, but we have now come to d situation in SouthAfrica where apartheid has come to be a war of examination of one sideor theother.Trust TerritoriesSecondly, there has been in the continent of Africa the emergence oftwenty-fiveor so independent States seated here as Member States. Are we to contentourselves with the position that there are here representatives of many newcountries and the rcpresentative of an older country which assisted informulationof the Charter, whose sentiments I read out to the Committee, and whatis more,one of the founder member of the League of Nations, and who was entrusted, inwisdom or otherwise, with the trusteeship of territories in Africa. Aretherepresentatives of the new countries not to feel that they are equal either way ? Ofcourse, we older ones have probably become accustomed to it, but here in thecontinent of Africa the difference is sharply posed. Many internationalobligations were undertaken, either in the economic, the politicalor thecommunications field, or others, and the United Nations assumes specialresponsibitities'; there is an item on the First Committee's agenda with regard tothe development of Africa. Now, are we to have two Africas, two separate worldsof this type, two different laws in this way. These are the problems that worry usvery much.We have now come also to the position where the whole relationship of theUnionwith regard to what should be the Trust Territory of South West Africa assumes adifferent complexion. Although it is too late to do it this year, my Governmentwill take into consideration this new factor, that is to say, this territory of SouthWest Africa was conquered from the Germans in the First World War and, underthe impact of President Wilson's opinions, there were no annexations ; theseterritories were declared to be A, B and C mandates-South West Africa became aC mandate, and the King of the United Kingdom being at that the "King,Defender of the Faith, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the Dominionsbeyond the Seas", as it was called at that time, conferred the mandate which wasvested in him. In 1914 the authority for exercising the mandate was vested in theCrown of the United Kindom. At that time there were not five Crowns as there aretoday, and the Government of the United Kingdom in its wisdom vestedthemandate, shall we say, in the King of the Union of South Africa. The League of

Nations never gave a mandate to South Africa; they gave it to the Kingof theUnited Kingdom, and he, because it was part of his dominions, conferred it as hedid.Now that South Africa has become a Republic, a new position arises. It can nolonger plead that the League of Nations placed a mandate with it, because it didnot. It was an arrangement and if it is raised in that way we shall take that up.

However, that is not the main point I want to bring up. We are arrivingat asituation when South Africa, apart from the Empire, with its own territory, isbuilding another colonial appendix to it in the Trust Territory wherethere arelarge numbers of peoples and, where a further misfortune, they discovered, in theyear 1890, large pipes of diamonds in that place. With diamonds come trouble toAfrica. It was a large discovery of diamonds which was preceded-or succeeded, Iforget which-by the great massacres of that time.The resistance offered by the African people and all those who agree with them,whether they are of African descent or otherwise, whether they areon a rulingbasis or otherwise, the great resistance offered to the South African Government,we hear very little about. And I think, even apart from passing these resolutions,on behalf of my Government like to express our sense of tribute to these men andwomen of whom we hear so little. We may hear about some of the notorious orfamous trials, and so on, but day after day there are those who martyr themselvesin the cause of freedom. They fight our battles, not theirs. That isto say, they fightthe battle against racial discrimination for the dignity of the human being. Wepass resolutions on the Declaration of Human Rights; they fight for them. This isthe difference. It is up to us-the least we can do is to stand in solidarity with thesepeople who are fighting against these laws. And of some importance--though I didnot want to bring it up here-is the position that transpired in London a few daysago.CommonwealthI think it is common knowledge that it was not the desire of the majority ofCommonwealth countries, black, white or brown, to expel South Africa, becausethey thought it was far better that it should remain there and be taught alesson,but all, including Australia and the United Kingdom-each, for different reasons,has, not a soft view, but a different view, but a different view fromothers, Isuppose-were unanimous that

there should be an expression of opinion, which expressed abhorrence, or, asMacmillan said, that it was inconsistent with the ideals of parliamentarygovernment and so forth, and we decided therefore that there should be someexpression of opinion condemning apartheid. That settled the issue, because thePrime Minister of South Africa, rather than agreeing to this condemnation,decided not to continue. We ourselves in a sense may feel sorry because theimpact of other countries upon it, particularly of the new African States likeNigeria, Ghana, and I supoose soon Tanganyika, East Africa andvarious othercountries-Sierra Leone, and all the ones which will come-would perhaps havecorrected future Governments. But there was no option left. As I said a while ago,the Union obviously looks upon us as indecent people, people who do not respectit. I believe it was once said on behalf of one of their statesmen that God hadcreated people in this way, with different complexions, in order to putthem indifferent places, and so on and so on. So that one great step has taken place inSouth Africa.We are also concerned about the fact that there are other territories on thatcontinent, such as Portuguese Africa, with its 1.3 million square miles and a very

considerable population living in conditions of semislavery or worse, and theUnion itself, where so many things are taking place, where there are strugglegoing on unknown to the rest of the world, in which the African peoplethemselves are resisting all these things. That is why, once again, inspite of thefact that so many resolutions have had no effect, we have broughtthis up hereagain.I said that I would deal with the resolutions at this stage, partly because they arebefore us, and I myself who opened this subject, will not be able to be here whenthis debate is concluded.There are two draft resolutions in documents A/SPC/L.59/Rev. 1and A'SPC L.60. The first resolution (A/SPC/ L. 59/ Rev. 1) stands in the name of threecountries of which mine is one-Ceylon, the Federation of Malaya and India.I do not want anyone to believe that there is any fundamental difference ofopinion between these two groups of countries, if you would like to put it thatway, in regard to the intensity of this matter or the question of dealing , ith itmildly or otherwise. We are all entitled, as sovereign States, to put forward beforethe Assembly such proposals and such solutions as appear to us consistent withprincipal, which are strategically or otherwise

wise, which fit the needs of the case. For example, we have time after timedisagreed even among our own colleagues with regard to the language to be used,one way or another. And so, there are these two draft resolutions.First of all, let me dispose of one preliminary matter. Our friend and colleaguefrom Ghana, Mr. Quaison-Sackey, has asked us this afternoon whether we, as asponsor of one of the draft resolutions, would have any objectionto his resolutionreceiving priority. Now we have consulted our colleagues and conveyed our view.We have no objection to this having priority because, after all, the Assembly mustdecide on the substance of these things and come to its own decision. We shallnaturally vote for our resolution, which I confess is couched instronger languagethan previous years because of the changes in South Africa and because I forecast,although I have not at the present moment the authority of my Government to sayso but I assume it will come in due course, that we shall have to considerseriously what things are consistent with membership of the United Nations. I donot go any further than that at this stage and we shall not only naturallyvote forour own draft resolution but we hope there will be no vote recordedagainst it and,without naming countries, my Government would like to make a particularrequest to those three or four countries which we have in mind which, normally,while they do not vote against such resolutions, for various reasons abstain. Suchabstention in the present context of affairs, especiallly after the result of theCommonwealth conference, is likely to the misunderstood. There is nothing herewhich is of a character inconsistent with the Charter and in fact many of of ourcolleagues and friends feel that perhaps the draft resolution does not go farenough. This item was sponsored by some forty or forty-five countries, I forgethow many, representing all parts of the world, North and South America, Asia,east, west, north and south, all of Africa-anyway, most of the continents of theworld-and so fas as I am aware, and I speak subject to correction, whether this

draft resolution goes too fast or too slow it meets with the approval ofthesponsors of the item; if not, they will say so here.Now we therefore make a very fervent appeal not only that this should be passedwithout opposition but that there will be no absentees on a roll-call because,whatever South Africa may say, whatever bravado it might practise, howevermuch it might walk out of this meeting or of the

Commonwealth, there is one factor which is total in the world and that is the willof human beings. That is what public opinion is. That is all that we aretrying toput into motion the support that has increasingly come to the expression ofopinion by the United Nations year after year; and each time we havetried to findways and means whereby South Africa would not feel humiliated orwould noteven be compelled to discuss in the context of a resolution. Times withoutnumber, year after year, our negotiators have told them that discussions do notmean that you accept the authority of the United Nations in this matter oranything of that kind, as in the earlier days. Now I want to draw attention tocertain general statements here, for example, operative paragraph 3 : "REqeustsall States to consider taking such separate and collective action as are open tothem to bring about the abandonment of these policies.My Government has stated it in this way because we feel that, irrespective of theenormity of any crime or the insistence on any policy, we shall notbe a party todoing anything which appears to be an infringement of the legitimate, sovereignand constitutional rights of countries. We may have the right to request but wehave no right to prescribe what shall be done, what shall dot be done. Therefore,all we have done is to say that States should consider for themselves whatseparate or collective action they can take in the implementation of their wishes. Itmay be writing a letter, it may be an economic boycott, it may be breaking alldiplomatic relations, it may be the organization of a voluntary organization orbody or whatever it is. That is, we feel that in any appeal of that kind,the right,correct thing to do certainly at the present stage in the General Assembly is for usto make individual appeals, is to appeal to individual States to take either theirown action or collective according to their own procedures. We are also mindfulof the fact that each of our countries is tied up in so many internationalagreements and also that any action we may take may affect somethingelse.That brings us to the next resolution (document A/SPC/L. 60) withwhich we arein complete sympathy, because the bulk of it, namely, the operativepart,practically says the same things as the other resolutionI do not know whetherword for word it does or not-because it comes from the same circumstances. Wehave no objection to any of these operative parts, in fact, we have no objection tothe whole of it, but I must say in all frankness that I have no instruction and myGovernment will find it very difficult to vote for operative paragraph 5 as itstands.

I do not say we will vote against it; we cannot vote for paragraph 5 as it stands,because it specifies what each country should do; and, while we mayexpress ageneral wish in this way and request countries to take individual or collective

action, not wanting to interefere in their internal affairs, we feel we should not beright in our relations with other countries to say that they must breakoffdiplomatic relations, that they must close their ports, that they must enactlegislation, that they must boycott South African goods, that they mustrefuselanding facilities and so on. I have no desire to go into the merits of this thing. Itmight even be that the United Nations may decide on action under themilitaryprovisions of the Charter. That is a matter for the United Nations to decide. At thepresent moment we do not feel that we can vote for items(i) to (v) under operative paragraph 5 set out seriatim. That does not mean that weas a country would not practise it and, so far as the Government of India isconcerned, no question of pulling our punches arises in this matter.As early as 1946 we broke off diplomatic relations with the Union Government.We carry on no trade with them. We do not allow their citizens to work in ourcountry, and our citizens do not work in their country. We have condemnedapartheid and dissociated ourselves from it at every turn. Large numbers of ournationals or peoples of Indian origin have, from the time when Gandhiji went toAfrica fifty or sixty years ago, participated in direct action movements and aretoday members of African and other organizations in the country protestingagainst things of this kind. So we have no reservations on this. We havenodiplomatic relations with them, we have no communications relations with themand so on except as may be under world radio agreements or something of thatcharacter. So we have nothing to lose by it.But we are not here merely as one country; we are here as one ninety-ninth of theUnited Nations and when we put forward a resolution, so far as at present advised,we had to put forward something which in our judgment, right or wrong,wouldbe in all conscience acceptable to the majority of the people who agree with us inprinciple. Those who object to it in principle, naturally, will vote against it. Andtherefore it is on that basis that we have put forward this resolution.At the same time, we recognise the strength of feeling in Africa. There was aconference at Accra in 1958 which asked for all this and

more. Then there was a conference at Monrovia which did not ask formore butstill reiterated it. There was a conference at Cairo and there was aconferencesomewhere else afterwards, and then there was a conference at Addis Ababa ninemonths ago which asked for all these things.We should be very glad to see on ship bearing, shall we say, the Liberian flag goto South Africa, then that would cut-away one-third of the shipping of theworld.But I cannot dictate to Liberia that its ships should not go there. It would beinterference in its internal affairs, even by suggestion. But the general principlehas laid down. We are not in any sense opposed to the second resolution but wehave, in all conscience and out of the frankness with which we state ourpositionsin the United Nations, to point out that we could not vote for these sub-paragraphs(i)-(v), not because we have any objection to them singly but because we thinkthat the principle of it has been met by the paragraph, which"Deprecates policicesbased on racial discrimination as reprehensible and repugnant to human dignity;"and

"Requests all States"-not only Member States-"to consider takingsuch separateand collective action as are open to them to bring about the abandonment of thesepolicies".Finally, one of the reasons that actuated us-you may think it is a rathersmall,tactical reason-is that we do not want any resolution in this Assemblythis time toreceive even a single vote less than last year, because in the sensitive state ofSouth Africa everthing is likely to be construed, and any kind of slowingdown onthis matter would be working against the Africans, they mixed population, theAsians and the Europeans who are fighting against the Verwoerd Government,and create a still different situation in the country.What is more, having regard to the implications of apartheid to the rest of Africa,the common approach by a large number of countriesand I hope there will be noone left out-would be something that might assist the progress of Africa forward,as against all the inequities and discrimination of which it has been thevictim forgenerations.If you would like it put another way, our country is quite prepared tohave twoblows delivered at this policy instead of one, so that no one is left out.

We are therefore quite willing that Mr. Quaison-Sackcy and his colleagues shouldhave the benefit of priority if it is the wish of the Committee, because of course itis not in our hands. We shall not object to it, although this resolution of ours wasdrafted and submitted earlier and has been in circulation for a long, long time. Butotit of courtesy to our colleague from Ghana more than anything else, andknowing very well his desire to rally opinion as widely as possible, we shall, if hesees any tactical advantage to be derived, not stand in his way. It is injustice tohim, as well as to overselves, that we should express our reservations in regard tothose five recommendations which we shall not be able to support in their presentform.Finally, we have a feeling that we should not apply remedies which do not lieentirely within the four corners of the Charter. Also, we should notpassresolutions unless we are all prepared to implement them ; and if, inthe trade thatis carried on by African countries with the South African Union were todrop offit would mean £12 million less for them. We have seen no evidence of that so far,because these things take time; and also, boycotts produce counter-boycotts whichmust affect the economy. All these things, however, must be decided by them forthemselves, I am not saying that there are no circumstances in which one must putall these considerations aside and go on.Having said that, I also think that any application of economic sanctions-and hereI state the position of my Government-must emanate from the Security Council,because sanctions, if they are applied, are not child's play. Theymust conform toArticle 41 of the Charter ; and there is no reason why that Article should not beinvoked. My country would not lag behind anyone else if it were the generaldesire of the Security Council of the United Nations to invoke those provisions. Ifthe matter goes to the Security Council, its implications and all the economic andother factors will be taken into consideration.

We are not in any way opposed to this draft resolution ; we merely state ourposition.Finally I would say tat all of us must remember that we have come to a stage inthis world which, on the one hand, has become so shrunken, on the other hand isconscious of such wide implications, that it is a world at once larger and smallerthan we inhabit. And in these

circumstances-in the worlds of Abraham Lincoln-wo cannot have a world that ishalf enslaved and half free. So long as South Africa remains in this condition, wein the rest of the world are exposed to all the dangers that hatred creaftes ; we areexposed to all the dangers that inequality of conditions of labour, andof near-slavery, provide ; we are exposed to all the dangers which arise from the affront tohuman dignity; and, what is more, from the application in its fulness of thedoctrine of universalism to the United Nations.

Statement on Racial Discrimination in Non-self-govering Territories, November17, 1961Following is text of the speeeh by Shri J. N. Khosla, Member of the IndianDelegation to the United Nations. in the Trusteeship Committee on November 17,1961 on racial discrimination in the Non-self.governing Territories:Madam Chairman :The problem of racial discrimination is of major concern to us all, for on itssolution depends the future-political, economic, social and even spiritual-ofmankind. If war is to be banished forever from the hearts of men, racial prejudiceand all that it implies must be eradicated, and liberty, equality and social justiceguaranteed to all, irrespective of caste, colour or creed. In spite of the long drawnout struggle, which has gone on with some success against this monster ofprejudice, it still raises its ugly head in many regions and in many climates. Thisaffront to human dignity and self-respect needs immediate and radical solution.The report under discussion, today, Madam Chairman, covers only non-self-governing territories. While racial discrimination bedevils most ofthe colonialterritories, my remarks will be confined to only some of these territories-mainlythe Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and Kenya-in Africa where racialdiscrimination has not only caused untold misery and unhappiness, but stillremains a vital barrier to human progress and in places causes serious conflict.The situation is aggravated by the facts that racial relations in these territories arenot merely race relations, they are relations between different economic groupswith different levels of education, political power, incomes and sociologicalbackground. Racial prejudice permeates every feature of life. Colour of skin isassociated with political status ; it signifies standards of culture and living, andstages of refinement and etiquette.

Europeans came to Africa as conquerors and have, therefore, enjoyed supremacy.Through racial discrimination, they have preserved their supremacy, and so called"racial prestige". Rigidity of racial barriers is as a rule found tobe more intense in

areas where the number of the Europeans is larger, as in the Federation ofRhodesia and Nyasaland and also in Kenya, than where there numberis smaller,as in Tanganyika and Uganda, where their dependence on the indigenouspopulation, for many services, is necessarily greater.Experience shows the discrimination stems mainly from the desire(1) to establish racial supremacy;(2) to dominate politically;(3) to exploit economically;For proper understanding, Madam Chairman, of the problem of racialdiscrimination, it is essential to examine its political, economic and socialramifications, in some of these territories. I shall deal, in turn, briefly, with eachone of these aspects.Political DominationThe Europeans through constitutional, administrative and other methods haveretained political control in their hands. "Liberty", "equally", and"fraternity" haveno meaning for the Africans.In Northern Rhodesia, the 80,000 whites, are opposed to yielding their presentposition of political domination to 2 million Africans. They have shown no desireeither to understand the signs of the times, or their own long-term interests. Mr.Leonard Ingalls, special correspondent of the New York Times, writing fromLusaka, Northern Rhodesia on the 8th of August 1961, said that John Gaunt, aEuropean leader, summarised the views of his community as follows :"I am not prepared to live in a country under black government, witha blackPrime Minister, black judges and black policemen, because I don't believe thatthey have the same high standards of integrity and behaviour that I amaccustomed

to. They may reach those standards in time but there is nosign of it today, as events in other countries have shown".This kind of day-dreaming hardly needs a comment. It is surprising that even inthe Year of Grace 1961, most of these European settlers are incapable of risingabove their prejudices. They are, instead, making a great effort to increase theirnumbers by encouraging immigration. During the last ten years, they havedoubled their population in Northern Rhodesia. But one can hardly imagine thatimmigration would be a practical proposition to convert themselves into amajority. Leonard Ingalls reports, that the attitude of some whites towardsAfricans in Northern Rhodesia is strongly influenced by the presence of manywhite South African mine workers in the copper belt. They have brought theirharsh racial opinions with them from South Africa and give them fullvoice atevery opportuity.It is gratifying to note, however, that some sections of the European community,in the territory, have shown realism and courage in facing the problem. Sir JohnMoffat, leader in Norther Rhodesia. of the multiracial CentralAfrican party, said :"The Africans here are extraordinarily reasonable people, but they are gettingimpatient. After all this is a protectorate, not a British possession. Itbelongs to theAfricans and if they

want to govern it why shouldn't they ?Basically here, it is a white problem, not an African problem.We have a small white community that won't face to facts of life in Africa and thetime we've got is too short to abolish the differences between the two.At the mostwe have fiveyears to train the Africans for self-government."The position of the African is even worse in the Federation of Rhodesia andNyasaland. The imposition of the Federation was and still is primarilydesigned toentrench settlers into positions of political power ad Infinitum. TheFederalFranchise allowed the politically and economically powerful settlers to maintaintheir domination over Africans. It enabled them to determine, uninhibited, thenumber of Africans they wished to dole-off the Voters' Roll. This franchisedivided citizens into three classes-the Ordinary, the Special and theUngraded.

To qualify as a full voter, you need :Income Property Education£ 720 p.a. £ 1500 Nil£ 480 £ 1000 8 years schooling£ 300 £ 500 Std 10.To be a Special voter, i.e. one whose vote was one third of a full vote,one needs :Income Property Education£ 150 p.a. £ 500 Literacy in English£ 120 p.a. Nil Std. 8When it is realised that the average wage of the African mine worker isthehighest in Central Africa at £ 99 p.a. in the Copper Mines, compared to£ 1932p.a. of his white counterpart, it will be seen that this highly qualitative franchisevirtually renders every European a voter on the basis of "One Man One Vote",while effectively excluding the average African from becoming even a specialvoter.Besides, by making it obligatory for the African candidates to obtain certificate ofcandidature from two third of the chiefs in their constituencies, directly under thecontrol of the District Commissioners, the politically minded amongthe fewqualified Africans that there are, are left out.Rev. Faith Raven, in his 'Central Africa' (1960), quotes an official Federalpublication which boasts :"The Government are firmly opposed to any reduction in (educational andfinancial) standards of qualifications required of voters for the election of themembers of the Assembly, as they believe that only civilized and responsiblepeople are qualified to hold the reins of the Government in the Federation."W'ho is a "civilized and responsible" person ? Rev. Raven answers

"Europeans devise the test of 'civilization.' They aiso decide how man], may passit. For, African education policy in in the hands of European employees who alsofix the wages theAfrican will earn."

In the Federation and its component parts, there have never been any AfricanCabinet Ministers. The number of indigenous people even in senior grade of theservice has been insignificant : 983 Europeans to 50 Africans. (Vide report of theAdvisory Commission on the Review of the Constitution of Rhodesia andNyasland 1960, popularly called the Moncton Report) Despite legal guarantees tothe contrary, Africans are barred from direct entry to Grade I services except asdoctors, of whom, till 1959, only four had been jecruited. It is notsurprisingtherefore, that the Africans do not want the continuance of the Federation.Moncton Report (p. 75) emphasizes :"Racial discrimination though diminishing, remains one of the moreimportantforces working against Federation. The reference to parnershipin the preamble ofthe 1953 Constitution, leads Africans to believe that discrimination would quicklydisappear. The fact that it did not, has resulted ingrowing suspicion and disillusionment."Recently, £ 500,000 was voted by the Federal Government to sell the idea ofFederation to the very African who is opposed to it. The African, of course, wasnot consulted. He is as much a tax-payer as any other inhabitant in the Federationand, therefore, shares this expenditure, and yet he is denied direct representationin either the legislature or the government.ConstitutionThe priviso in the Federal Constitution that the said Constitution would not beamended during the trial period of seven years has been tampered with, resultingin the 'The Enlargement of the Federal Franchise Act' and in many otherdiscriminatory Acts, such as, the Army Service (Conscription) Act. The AfricanAffairs Board, which was described in 1953 as 'an impregnable safeguard for theAfrican', is under a threat of removal by Sir Roy Welensky and his followers, whowant to institute in its place a Senate composed of Chiefs, and others, who wouldbe amenable to his influence.

in Nyasaland there has been some improvement in the situation with theintroduction of the new constitution. Much remains still to be done. Alargermeasure of political power however, having been given to the Africans, the futureprogress should be more rapid than before. Even the Europeans in thisProtectorate have begun to realise that the guarantees of their future lies incooperation with the Africans, rather than in constitutional safeguards. Thus threemonths ago, in the elections held under the new Constitution, three outof eightseats reserved for the Europeans and other non-Africans, for which Africans arenot eligible to vote, were won by Malawai Congress Party (Dr. Hasting Banda'sParty). (See the New York Times, August 17, 1961).Turning to Kenya, until recently another problem territory, we findthat the hopesfor constitutional advance are now brightening. The Africans rightly believe thatwithout political control, their national reconstruction and progress would beseriously retarded, and are insisting upon immediate grant of independence.British AttitudeMadam Chairman, here we must emphasize that British professionsin regard toracial discrimination, laudable though they are, are not fully translated into

practice in their dependencies. Even a superficial observer could see that theUnited Kingdom Government's assertion that those fundamental rights andfreedoms which are part of the British tradition are established and protected bythe laws of the territories, is hardly justifiable. We all admire the great principlesof law and justice and the traditions of freedom of thought and expression, whichthe British enjoy in their country. We also admire men like our British colleagueSir Hugh Foot in this committee, who have promoted the cause of freedom with aspirit of dedication and understanding. But Madam Chairman, we findaconsiderable divergence, in the British dependent territories, between professedpolicy and its application, in regard to human rights.Economic ExploitationEconomically too, these non-self-governing territories are dominated by theEuropeans, who control the entire industrial and commercial activity in theseterritories and drive huge profits.

The African generally ekes out his existence mainly on subsistence economy, orby providing unskilled labour. The results are obvious. In Northern Rhodesia,thus, per capita income of the African rural worker is about £16 to 80. By contrastthe European earns £1,000 to 12,000 plus many other perquisites denied to theAfrican. The minimum wage of the African, in fact, is fixed by the Native LabourBoard, and is intended only to cover a single man's needs.Weakness of African Trade Unionism, and until recently the refusal of Europeansto admit Africans into their Unions, has handicapped the indigenous labour incollective bargaining. Even now, the Africans, admitted to the European Unions,often complain that they are virtually second-class members. Discriminationcontinues. To quote Rev. F. Raven again :"The policy of 'equal pay for equal work' has not meant in practice that an Africanis free to earn the same wages as a European; on the contrary, just because somejobs must be paidat European rates, they are reserved for Europeans".The best agricultural areas even have been reserved for a handful of Europeanswho have only partially developed their extensive domains. The new land policypromises to ameliorate the position. But nothing short of a drastic measure wouldsatisfy the legitimate demands of the Africans.Social SupremacyMadam Chairman, now a word about discrimination in the social field.In someways this type of discrimination raises the worst tensions and engenders deepesthatred and bitterness, for it affects day to day life and hurts most.Urbanisationhas accentuated inter-racial cleavage. Racial segregation in Northern Rhodesiahas condemned many an African worker to live in insanitary slums aroundEuropean habitations enjoying all kinds of modern conveniences atpublicexpenses. Even in these slums the African has no right to stay unlesshe has a job.His family can seldom come with him, and if it does come, he can hardly afford tokeep them above a semi-starvation level.

Until recently, municipal laws required him to carry a night pass toavoid arrest;his entry to restaurants, cinemas, hotels, clubs and even public conveniences wasbarred, and he could be served only at the

back of a shop. This is not all; even today there is hardly any contactbetween theEuropean and African outside of the master servant-relationship. Even those feweducated Africans who have entered the senior or medium grades of civil servic,or have obtained some success in business or in their technical postscan onlyhave formal or impersonal relations with the Europeans. Thus the main racialcategories essentially remain closed to intercourse with each other. "Ourrelationships with the African stop at 4.40 p.m " is often heard from Europeanswho live in their garden cities or hills, as if they were in Kensington Gardens orHampstead.It is gratifying to note however, that a couple of months ago racial discriminationin Northern Rhodesia's tearooms, cafes, restaurants, hotel dining rooms andlounges, cinemas,' has been abolished by law which carries fairly stiff penalties."This law." said Sir Evelyn Home, Governor of Northern Rhodesia, "will haveprofound effect on race relations in this territory". Since then oneof the mainclubs has also been thrown open to Africans. We hope this movementwillcontinue and legislation banning racial discrimination, will be effectivelyenforced.In the federal capital traditions die hard. Europeans continue to regard themselvesas a distinct social and racial category with characteristic appearance, values andmodes of behaviour. Even the educated African cannot live in white areas. Mr.Savanhu a Junior Minister, has not been permitted to transgress this rule. Therecan be no compromise with poor relations, who "may be asked to a meal, butnever to stay". Obviously the African is free to live as he likes and according tohis own tradition, but only behind bars. The Federation claims to having a multi-racial partnership; the existence of an overwhelming majority of under privilegedbelies this claim.In Nyasaland even the small European minority of 8,000 has tried to beexclusiveand to preserve its privileged position. Mr. Cameron, young Scottish lawyer, whocame to Nyasaland four years ago, in an interview, published in New York Timeson the 6th of July, this year, said"I had heard of partnership and we came with an openmind expecting to mix and work with Africans ....

"Some of the books we read about Nyasaland said there was no colourbar here,which was not true. First we found that the Blantyre Club was Europeans only.Thed we discovered that schools were completely segregated. About £30,000 wasspent for a municipal swimming pool just across the road froman African's school but they weren't allowed to use it"."There was virtually no contact between Africans and Europeans outside officehours and that is certainly something I did not expect. But my employertold mesocial integration wasnot part of partnership."

Social discrimination has also given rise to serious strife and conflict in Kenyawhere policy of segregation in many fields still continues. An African, not indomestic service, cannot remain within a town for more than 48 hours withoutemployment. Law controls his movements. He can be arrested by a policemanwithout warrant, on a flimsy excuse.I need hardly multiply examples. While some progress has been achieved, racialdiscrimination still remains one of the most irksome and degeneratingaspect oflife for the non-European in those territories. The heavy price thathumanity haspaid for racialism is incalculable but Madam Chairman, to give some ideaof it, fwould mention briefly the following points :(1) Racial discrimination has prevented full development and use of manpower toachieve optimum productivity. A nation based on racial preferences cannotsuccessfully meet the challenge of the age in creating for itself a justandprosperous society. By denying the African the opportunity to trainhimself as atechnician, or skilled worker or a manager, a vast potential of human and materialresources remains untapped. Restrictive and monopolistic methodsof theprivileged few raise the cost of production. Not only the nation as awhole, theindividual employer, the worker as well as the consumer is put to a loss.(2) Continued existence of a large mass of population at low standardsof livingseriously affects economic growth. Long term interest of the nation and even ofthe Europeans would inter alia postulate the expansion of consumers marketamong Africans, require curbing the migratory nature of Africanlabour, removalof unfair conditions on the use of

land by the African, and giving each individual a sense of unity of national aims.(3) Discrimination creates social problems solution of which is costly. The under-privileged inevitably suffer from malnutrition and are exposed to epidemics, forthe prevention of which the state has to spend a lot on health services. By creatinginternal friction, racial discrimination undermines stability, encourageslawlessness and crime. Maintenance of law and order requires elaborate andcostly security services. Thus in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, thegovernment, according to Philip Mason (see his "Year of Decision",p. 266) spentmore on police than on African education.(4) We have witnessed that racial discrimination has given rise to internationaltensions and conflict. It hinders growth of friendly relations and cooperationamong nations with obvious detriment to the cause of world peace andprosperity.(5) Segregation, and consequent isolation prevents understanding of cultures andall the advantages that come out of it. We have seen in Africa how the Europeanshave completely ignored the past heritage of the indigenous population and havemissed a great opportunity of taking advantage out of it. All pervasive colourprejudice accounts for the isolation of the white. It creates psychological barriers,perverts mentality and makes problems of social adjustment difficult. AsProfessor Arnold Rose, of the University of Minnesota in his excellentmonograph "The Roots of Prejudice" points out :"Recent researches have shown the correlation between prejudice and other kindsof rigidity and narrowness, at least in Western culture. While the cause is not

clear, the connection is so strong that it may fairly be inferred that maintenance ofprejudice will be accompanied by a closed mind towards anything new and aninability to accept and reciprocate fully anyhuman relationship."(6) Racial discrimination causes frustration and unhappiness all round. Politicalconsciousness becomes pronounced and tends to express itself in terms of race,because, this is related to daily experience. This in turn strengthens reaction andcncourages violence and bloodshed, and

even war. Talking of the Federation, Mr. Aiden Crawley, a former UnderSecretary of State in U.K , warned "That type (i.e. white) minorityracial rule isonly going to strengthen fascist movements ...... (Vide African Affairs, July 1961p. 396). Racism is generating hatred and factionalism in Africa. Itis vitiating theatmosphere and retarding national integration and a healthy growthof the peopleconcerned. Sir Huge Foot expressed this magnificiently when he said :"Racialism, I have no doubt, is the greater danger of our age.No country and no people can be complacent in the face of this evil and thisdanger. It debases those who persue andsupport it even more than those who suffer from it."If head on race collisions are to be avoided in these territories, the causes of racialantagonisms, must be eradicated; and every effort should be made toestablishinter-racial relations on the basis of equality, mutual advantage andunderstanding. Experience shows that there are mainly two methods of fightingagainst racial discrimination; by legislation and educating public opinion.Doubts have been expressed as to the desirability and even efficacy of legislativeand administrative action in dealing with problems of racial discrimination. Whilerecognising some of its handicaps, we must emphasise, that very little can beachieved without the help of legislation. At any rate legislative method does notrequire any justification. When racial discrimination threatens the very existenceof the state itself, it cannot be treated as merely a sin, or an immoral practicewhich the State could legitimately leave to the conscience of the individual or tothe ministrations of the preacher. It is a crime against the state and society andmust be made punishable in law, deserving even severer retribution than ordinarycrime The first essential thing is to replace the colonial constitutions bydemocratic constitutions based on universal sufferage and assuring theunprivileged, full rights of citizenship. With the emergence of democraticallyelected assemblies, existing legislation affecting race relations which no longercorresponds to cultural and social realities and which has become afocus of racialantagonism should be annuled. Equality of remuneration for work ofequaleconomic value, equality of opportunity and treatment for all, mustbe guaranteedby the state. Thus racial discrimination, in all forms and manifestations must bemade punishable by law. But that would not be enough unless legislation can

be properly enforced. Vested interests often find methods of circumventing thelaw. As reported in one of the dependencies there are hardly any "European only"notices instead there are small discreet "Right of admission reserved" signs, which

appear above the door of refreshment rooms, places of entertainment andpleasure.Education as a method for the eradication of racial discrimination is no lessimportant. Children of all hues should be brought up together in commonunderstanding and friendship. They must be given a grounding in history-realhistory and not the one often produced by the colonial historians forspecificpurposes-which should inculcate in their minds respect for one another and fortheir common heritage and culture. It is unfortunate, that, in practically all thenon-self-governing countries I have been dealing with today education stillremains segregated. Nor is this all. Per capita expenses for education in theseterritories for the European child is 15 to 20 times higher than that for the non-European. I need not labour this point further.Africa A Cradle of CivilizationThe Administering Governments must launch a campaign of educating the publicagainst racial discrimination which is often rooted in prejudice andignorance. Tothe European settlers the Negro, for instance, still remains Le Sauvage. Evenwhen he is liberal and means well, his attitude towards the Negro is paternal,rather than that of an equal. His approach is anthropological rather thansociological. The administering authorities, must, as an urgent task, publicise thesignificant contributions that the Negro and other African races have madetowards modern art and music. They must also publicise the vital partindependent African Nations are playing in international affairs, today.Except for North Africa's great past as a cradle of civilisation,few of us knowabout the valuable contributions other parts of Africa made in the ages gone by.The common impression seems to be that the history of the Negro started with thecolonial period. That this is not correct is well established by recent researches.Several medieval Arab historians have left us picturesque accounts of the ancientEmpires that flourished in West Africa. These Empires had enjoyed, since thebeginning of their history, cultural and diplomatic relations with North Africa andwith most of the Arab countries. Arab

historians and geographers have furnished us with valuable, detailsbased on theone hand, on eyewitness accounts -as in the case of El Bekri in the eleventhcentury, Idrissi in the twelfth, Yakout in the thirteenth and Ibn Khaldoun and AlOmari in the fourteenth-and on the other on their own observations whiletravelling in these countries, as in the case of Ibn Haoukal in the tenth century,Ibn Batoutah in the fourteenth and Leon the African in the early sixteenth century.Leon, the African, was simply amazed to see the Sudanese town ofGao, aboutwhich he wrote "How wealthy it is ! Trading is intense there, Like Timbuktu, Gaoit is centre of finance and speculation. People deal in drafts drawn on Cairo, Fez,Venice and Genoa".Th Arab historian Ibn Khaldoun wrote in 1393 a remarkable chronicle on Ghana,which flourished remarkably well from the ninth to the eleventh century A.D. AFrenchwoman, Vera Cardot, in her famous Belles pages de L'histoire-Africaine,wrote : "When they read the history of Ghana, many Europeans thought it was alegend and accused the chroniclers of embellishing reality. But in 1914, Bonnel

de Mezieres (a French administrator) discovered the site of Ghana.He saw thetraces of broad avenues, lined with houses whose wall were still standing about ayard above the level of the ground. Some of these walls seemed to have supportedupper storeys. The traces of streets, squares and wells were evident from thestonework, which could still be seen. Bonnel de Mezieres found also the remainsof a metallurgical workshop and, in a courtyard, traces of the useof indigo".Djenne, now a small town in the Mali Republic, was a large universitytownaround the year 800. In the Tarikh es Soudan, written around 1630, the Sudanesewriter Abdherraman Sadi, speaki ng of Djenne, tells us "Any one whois drivenfrom his homeland by poverty and misery and comes to live in this city,will findthere, by the grace of God, such abundance and wealth, that he willforget hisformer fatherland".And how to describe Timbuktu, the city of lights, of Mali whose university drewscholars and students from the entire Arab world ? Alpenfels, a Swedish historianwrites that at Timbuktu "when the great Negro scholar, Ahmed Baba (1556-1627), was arrested by soldiers of the Sultan El Mansour, he was worried lest hemight die without having collected as many books as some of his friends, and hislibrary contained 16C0 volumes". Alpenfels concludes : "While this intellectualactivity

was taking place in Africa, some of our Nordic ancestors were still worshippingbefore stone altars".We must understand and appreciate these somewhat obscure pages of history.In conclusion, Madam Chairman, I would on behalf of my delegation stronglyurge the administering authorities, to remove by all means at their disposal thestigma of racial discrimination which has plagued their dependentpeoples andoutraged human dignity and self-respect since centuries past.My delegationstrongly supports the resolution on racial discrimination before us. I thank you,Madam Chairman and my fellow delegates for patient hearing that has been givento me.

Press Note on India's Action Against South Africa'sPolicy of Apartheid, July 13, 1963The Ministry of External Aftairs, Government of India, issued thefollowing Press Note in New Delhi on July 13, 1963:The struggle of the people of India against the racial policies of South Africacovers a period of over half a century. Well before India became independentMahatma Gandhi reacted strongly against policies of racial discriminationpractised in South Africa and, in the early years of this century, waged one of themost significant struggles in history-the passive resistance movement-forasserting human equality and dignity. Long before the representatives of theUnited Nations framed their Charter, Mahatma Gandhi led the peoples'non-violent movement "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights,in the dignityand worth of the human person (and) in the equal rights of men and women","without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion".

The Government of India raised the question of racial discriminationin SouthAfrica from the very inception of the United Nations and from that time onwards,the Government of South Africa began its history of disregard of theResolutionof the United Nations. Subsequenty at the 7th Session of the General Assemblyin 1952, India, along with 12 other Member-States of the United Nations, raisedthe general question of "race conflict in South Africa resulting from the policiesof apartheid of the Government of the Union of South Africa". Between 1946 and1962, the U.N. General Assembly passed 20 resolutions against the racial policiesof South Africa. The Security Council also passed a resolution on the subject inApril, 1960. There have been a number of other resolutions on the policies ofapartheid in the territory of South-West Africa. The Governmentof South Africanot only refused to comply with the provision of these resolutions but alsopersistently violated the principles and provisions of the Charter of the UnitedNations and the Declaration of Human Rights.

U.N. ResolutionAs the Government af South Africa continued to ignore repeated requests,recommendations, admonitions and condemnations of the world organisation, 34Member States of the United Nations, including India, moved a Resolution in the17th Session of the General Assembly in 1962, deploring the failure of the SouthAfrican Government to comply with its earlier Resolutions and deprecating thatGovernment's racial policies and measures. The Resolution which was adoptedby an overwhelming majority requested Member-States to take certaindiplomaticand economic steps against the Government of South Africa to bringabout theabandonment of the racial policies of that Government [1761 (XVII)]. Operativeparagraph 4 of the Resolution requested Member-States to take the followingmeasures(a) Breaking off diplomatic relations with the Government of theRepublic of South Africa or refraining from establishing suchrelations;(b) Closing their ports to all vessels flying the South African flag;(c) Enacting legislation prohibiting their ships from entering SouthAfrican ports,(d) Boycotting all South African gocds and refraining fromexporting goods, including all arms and ammunition, to SouthAfrica;(e) Refusing landing and passage facilities to all aircraft belongingto the Government and companies registered under the laws ofSouth Africa.India's BoycottIndia was the first country to take diplomatic and economic sanctions against theSouth African Government. Even before its independence, it had withdrawn itsHigh Commissioner from the Union of South Africa and prohibited tradewiththat country. That was in 1946. Since the passing of Resolution 1761 (XVII) bythe General Assembly of the United Nations, the Government of India has

reviewed the position and taken necessary action in full compliancewith theResolution ;(a) Breaking off diplomatic relations with the Government of theRepublic of South Africa or refraining from establishing such.relations.

The High Commissioner for India in the Union of South Africa was recalled in1946. The Mission itself was withdrawn in 1954. Thus, there have been no formaldiplomatic contacts between India and South Africa since 1954. However, somecontact was maintained between the two Governments through their Missions inLondon mainly in order to implement the various resolutions of the U.N. GeneralAssembly urging negotiations between them on the question of treatment ofpersons of Indian origin in South Africa. The Government of South Africa,however, persistently refused to negotiate in terms of these resolutions. Thiscontact has accordingly now been broken off.(b) Closing of ports to all vessels flying the South African flag.In implementation of Resolution 1761 (XVII), the Government of India hasinstructed the authorities concerned not to allow vessels flying the South Africanflag to touch Indian sea ports.(c) Enacting legislation prohibiting their (Indian) ships fromentering South Africa.Indian ships do not call at South African ports. However, instructions have beenissued to the authorities concerned to prohibit Indian ships from going to SouthAfrican ports. The Government of India has adequate powers forthis purposeunder the existing laws and it is not necessary to enact fresh legislation.(d) Boycotting all South African goods and refraining from exporting goods,including all arms and ammunition, to SouthAfrica.There has been a general ban on trade between India and South Africasince 1946.Since 1953, the mandated territory of South-West Africa which is beingadministered by South Africa, has also been covered under ban. The movement ofsome items mainly of cultural and religious interest was, however, being allowedthrough postal and other channels on humanitarian grounds. The Government ofIndia has examined this matter again and issued instructions that, apartfrom bonafide personal effects of travellers, post cards, letters, aerograms and telegrams,only the following items will be allowed for movement between India and SouthAfrica through postal and other chl~Inels

(i) books and periodical publications (magazines) and newspapers;(ii) blind literature;(iii) free unsolicited gifts from relations and friends, including familyand personal photographs if paid for at letter postage rates or printed matter rates,if admissible. These cannot be sent through parcel post. The value of such a giftshould notexceed Rs. 200;(iv) packets containing sweetmeats and blessing for the Muslim

devotees by the Durgah Committee, Ajmer, provided that no packet exceeds 1 lb.in weight and that the packets are accompanied by certificates from the Nazim ofthe Durgah showingthat they are bona fide offerings by devotees; and(v) pictorial representations with religious and social background.(e) Refusing landing and passage facilities to all aircraftbelonging to the Government and companies registeredunder the laws of South Africa.There is no traffic between India and S,)uth Africa by Indian or South AfricanAirlines. However, under the relevant international con.. ventions, aircraftregistered in South Africa can be permitted to overfly India while operatingscheduled international air services, to land at Indian airports for non-tratffcpurposes and to make non-scheduled flights to, through and over India. In viewof the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations specificallyforbidding these facilities, the Government of India has informed the InternationalCivil Aviation Organisation that they will not allow aircraft registered in SouthAfrica to land at Indian airports or to overfly India.The Government of India has fully implemented the terms of the U.N. GeneralAssembly Resolution 1761 (XVII). It hopes that all other Member-States of theUnited Nations and, indeed, all countries of the world will do everything in theirpower to bring about the abandonment of the cruel and inhuman racial policies ofthe Government of South Africa.

Statement on Racial Discrimination in United Nations, September 30,1963Following is text of the statement by Shri M. R. Shervani, Member ofthe IndianDelegation to the United Nations in the General Assembly on September30, 1963on the draft declaration on the eliminationof all forms of racial discrimination.Mr. Chairman :The General Assembly resolution 1780 (XVII), which we adoptedlast year,requested the Human Rights Commission through the Economic and SocialCouncil to prepare a Draft Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination. India, being a member of the Human Rights Commission and theEconomic and Social Council, had actively participated in preparingthe draft,which is before us in document A/5459. Drafting of an important declaration suchas this is no doubt a difficult and formidable task especially when there are boundto be divergent views, coming as we do from different parts of the worldrepresenting a conglomeration of cultures and ideas. I will, therefore, be failing inmy duty, if I do not congratulate the Human Right Commission for theexcellentcontribution it has made in preparing this draft.Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to recall that the 21-memberHuman Rights Commission found themselves at sea when several different textsof the draft declaration were presented by various member States. Naturally, itwas difficult, if not impossible, for a large body, such as HumanRightsCommission, to reach agreement on every word and every article, inthe time attheir disposal. Therefore, at the suggestion of the Indian Delegation, the

Commission decided to create a working group which consisted of Chile, France,Lebanon, Liberia, the USSR and the USA to iron out the differences andformulate an acceptable draft. Our able and distinguished Chairman, Dr.Casanueva, was also the Chairman of Working Group, and it was largely due tohis efforts that we now have a draft for consideration. What I want to emphasizeis that the draft we have before us is a result of considerable deliberations,

expert advice and several compromises reached in the Working Group and theHuman Rights Commission. I do respect the wisdom and the views of thedistinguished delegates on this Committee who have suggested amendments, but Iwish to point out that while approving a document of this nature it is almostimpossible to reach perfection from every point of view. Howeverthe Delegationof India feels that the basic and the most important problem is to formulate asquickly as possible without losing any time, a Draft Declaration on theElimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a draft which would beacceptable to as large a majority of members as possible. I am, therefore, of theopinion that we should not dwell too much on the wordings of the draft, whichhas been prepared by an expert body such as the Human Rights Commission. Iwould say that there is a large area of agreement and it should not bedifficult toreach unanimity.Mr. Chairman and distinguished delegates, the very fact that we have given toppriority to this item in this Committee, reveals the genuine desire of everyone ofus assembled here to see that we adopt a Draft Declaration as expeditiously aspossible. Many Heads of States, including President Kennedy, andother ForeignMinisters, in their opening statement in the Plenary have laid stress to theimportance and urgency of complete elimination of all kinds of racialdiscrimination. Even though the declaration in its present form may beconsidered weak by some countries, if we adopt it, we would have crossedanother important milestone in the history of human rights. Such a declarationpassed without delay will have far reaching political and social consequences. Thedistinguished delegate of Ghana pointed out the other day, that it is very difficultto shut our eyes and ears and draw a sharp line between what is political andsocial, as after all, many political problems arise due to social and economicinequality. Attainment of universal peace and goodwill is impossibleunless wecast away all forms of racial discrimination. It is for ihis reason, Mr. Chairman,that this Declaration will, apart from helping the elimination of racialdiscrimination, promote peace, prosperity and advancement of the human race.India's PolicyMr. Chairman and distinguished delegates, the struggle of the peopleof Indiaagainst the racial policies of some States covers a period of over a half century.Long before India became independent, Mahatma Gandhi

reacted strongly against policies of racial discrimination practised in South Africaand, in the early years of this century, waged one of the most significant strugglesin history in South Africa-the passive resistance or "satyagraha" movement-forasserting human equality and dignity. Long before the United Nations framed its

Charter, Mahatma Gandhi led the peoples' non-violent movement ToReaffirmFaith in Fundamental luman Rights, in the Dignity and Worth of the HumanPerson (and) In the Equal Rights of Men and Women, without Distinction a.%to Race, Sex, Language or Religion. The Government of India raised thequestion of racial discrimination from the very inception of the United Nations.At the 7th Session of the General Assembly in 1952. India, alongwith12 othermember States of the United Nations raised the general question of "race conflictin South Africa resulting from the policies of apartheid of the Government of theUnion of South Africa". in view of the limited time at our disposal and alsobecause apartheid is the subject of another Committee. I would notlike toelaborate on that problem, because here we are concerned with thespecific task ofdrafting a general declaration.India has a population of 450 milion people of all races where one canfinddarkest of the dark people and fairest of the white races. Yet, shedoes not offerunequal treatment to any of her citizens because of race colour orcreed. Theliberality of this policy can only be appreciated if we contrast it with the notoriouspolicy of apartheid in South Africa. The Constitution guarantees freedom ofconscience, worship, speech and expression, and prohibits discrimination ongrounds of religion, race, caste or sex. Our Constitution included adeclaration onhuman rights. It also incorporates certain Directive Principles which seek to directState policy with a view to securing a social order in which social, economic andpolitical justice shall inform the institutions of national life without any form ofdiscrimination.Every day many eminent men and women make references to racialdiscrimination. Mr. Paul Hoffman, Managing Director of the United NationsSpecial Fund addressing the International Management Congress held in NewYork stated on 20th September 1963, and I quote :"May I say, somewhat paranthetically but without reservation, that there is nosubstance whatsoever for, the pernicious myth that lighter skinned people have agreater inherent capacity for absorbing education and training or for leadershipthan people

with darker skins ? Any close look at the peoples of the world will reveal that thehuman race is made up of about the same cross section of types in every country.Intelligence,capacity, ability and even poverty know no color line."President Kennedy in his speech before the General Assembly asserted that theUnited States opposed discrimination anywhere in any form including his owncountry and said that his Government was working"to right the wrongs of ournation". The initiative taken by President Kennedy in abolishing discriminationeven in the immigration laws of the United States is indeed a great and bold stepforward.Sir, it is my suggestion that we should put a deadline for amendmentsbecause weare considering a draft which has been prepared by an expert body such as HumanRights Commission and its working group. As I said a while ago, it is myundertaking that the text before us has been formulated after a greatdeal of

compromises on every side. What is important is that while we are trying to makedetailed surgical operation of the draft, we should not run the risk ofkilling thedraft or finding overselves in a delicate position of not being able to accomplishour objective due to lack of time. It is therefore of utmost importance and urgencythat we try to deliver to the Plenary during this session, a draft declaration onelimination of all forms of racial discrimination in the interest of universal peaceand goodwill. Generally speaking Sir, my Delegation would like the Draft in itspresent form to be approved as a whole, as a measure of compromise of divergentviews: but, if amendments have to be discussed. I would like to make somecomments on behalf of my country.Since you have asked us to comment initially on the first six preambularparagraphs of the draft, I merely want to say that : it is rather difficult for myDelegation to support the U.K. amendment, document A/C.3/L. 1064,because insubstance and terminology it makes the paragraph slightly weaker, whereas theDeclaration, in my humble opinion, should be as strong as possible.I support thethree-power amendment contained in document A/C.3/L.1065, cosponsored byNigeria, Paraguay and Peru, and also the Australian amendment, documentA/C.3/L.1066. I have no objection to accepting the Tunisian amendmentcontained in document A/C.3/L. 1071 or amendments oroposed by theLatinAmerican Countries vide document A/C.3/L. 1073. I reserve my right tointervene

Mr. Chairman, on other amendments regarding the articles of the DraftDeclaration.Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to conclude by quotingRabindranath Tagore, who won a Nobel Prize in 1913 for his works onGitanjali"Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;Where knowledge is free;Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domesticwalls;Where words come out from the depth of truth;Where tireless striving stretches into arms towards perfection;Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the drearydesert sand ofdead habit;Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever widening thought andaction;Into that heaven of Freedom, My Father, let my country awake."

Statement in Special Political Committee on Apartheid, November 8, 1967Following is text of the statement by Shi Baksh Singh, Member of thedelegationto the United Nations in the Special Political Committee on November 8, 1967 onthe policies of apartheid of the Governmentof the Republic of South Africa:A whole generation has passed since our Organisation first took upthe questionof apartheid practised by the Government of South Africa. Year after year theUnited Nations has debated and condemned these oppressive policies whichenable a small minority to prepetuate its domination over a much larger majority

in flagrant disregard of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and inclear contravention of all canons of civilised human behaviour.Never in modern history have so few oppressed so many for so long. Today thereis hardly any aspect of South Africa's political, social and economiclife whichhas not been legislated upon to reinforce the malignant philosophy ofracialsegregation. It is not difficult to imagine the grave dangers to peace of Africa andindeed of the whole world posed by the developments that are now taking place inSouth Africa as well as in the neighbouring Territories of Southern Rhodesia andthe Portuguese colonies. We are deeply concerned at this situation and raise ourvoice of protest and indignation along with the vast majority ofthe membershipof our Organisation as well as the world at large in condemning thesediscriminatory policies.We in India are justly proud of having been the first to oppose the policies ofapartheid. Nearly sixty years ago Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of our Nation andgreat fighter for freedom, justice and equality among nations and peoples, firstraised the banner of struggle in South Africa. Even before India becameindependent, my country took political and economic measures against apartheid.In addition to severing all diplomatic, commercial and economic contacts withSouth Africa, we have persistently opposed the extension of any loans andassistance by the

World tank to the South African Government and South Atricarl companies.Attitude of ContemptThis year again, as in the past nineteen years, our world Organization is facedwith the same problem, albeit in a more acute form. The numerous UnitedNations resolutions calling upon the South African Government to retreat from itsdiscriminatory polics remain unimplemented. United Nations resolutions callingupon States to take measures of a political and economic nature against thePretoria regime have been only partially carried out. No wonder therefore that theSouth African regime not only has persisted in its oppression ofthe majority, buthas become even more defiant and has adopted an attitude of contempt towardsthe United Nations. It is also worth noting that South Africa is extending its racistpolicies towards the neighbouring territory of Southern Rhodesia, whose illegalregime it actively supports, thus making any sanctions against the one ineffectiveunless they are applied to the other also.Representatives will recall the historic resolution 2145 (XXI), adopted by theGeneral Assembly on 27 October 1966, which decided to terminate the Mandateof South West Africa and make that territory a direct responsibility of the UnitedNations. Yet the South African Government not only defied the United nationsbut even threatened violent resistance to the implementation of that decision. InSouth Africa itself measures of racial separation and discrimination are beingapplied with increasing rigour. New legislation has been brought intoforce towiden even further the scope of apartheid. Repressive measures against theopponents of apartheid have been intensified and severe penalties are meted out toanyone who raises his voice in protest. Opponents of apartheid are subjected tovery harsh measures, including arrest, banishment and ill-treatment. Along with

this, a massive build-up of military and police forces in South Africa iscontinuing, virtually turning that country into an armed camp.Economic SanctionsAll these developments point to a danger of violent racial conflict. My delegationbelieves that it is the responsibility of our Organisation

to help the people of South Africa in gaining justice and freedom, and thattheonly peaceful way of doing this is through the application of universal andmandatory economic sanctions against South Africa. We therefore attachparamount importance to the responsibility of South Africa's manytradingpartners, which have not so far seen fit to implement the United Nationsresolutions calling for economic sanctions and an embargo on the sale of militaryequipment and stores to South Africa. We do not conceal our disappointment attheir refusal to join the rest of the membership in implementing variousresolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council.South Africa's trading partners must realize 'that by their refusalto give effect tothese policies they are in effect giving direct encouragement and support to theSouth African Government to persist in its oppressive policies of racialdiscrimination and intolerance. Clearly, these nations are barteringaway thefuture of millions of human beings for their own narrow economic gains andfinancial benefits. My delegation would once again urge them to reconsider theirdecision in the interest of justice and in the interest of our Organization. We agreewith those who maintain that the Security Council should be asked to applymandatory economic sanctions against South Africa, under ChapterVII of theCharter.My delegation commends the Special Committee on Apartheid for its report indocuments A/6864 and S/8196. The Committee has rightly emphasized theextreme gravity of the present situation in South Africa and the imperative needfor action by the international community. We are in general agreement with thereport.Fight against ApartheidWe record our appreciation of the assistance rendered by the UnitedNations TrustFund to the victims of the apartheid and commend the efforts of manygovernmental and private organizations in mobilizing world opinion againstapartheid. My delegation also wishes to pay special tribute to the Government ofZambia, which was host to the International Seminar on Apartheid, RacialDiscrimination and Colonialism, held at Kitwe from 25 July to 4 August of thisyear. The large participation by several States, including India, specializedagencies of the United Nations and private non-governmental organizations isproof of the continuing concern of, the international community for this mostimportant problem.

My delegation shares the concern of African nations at South Africa's efforts toundermine their unity and their resolve to fight against apartheid. Inthisconnection, we note the suggestion made by the representative of Cyprus to

establish national committees on apartheid in Member States. This suggestiondeserves careful and sympathetic consideration.My delegation has noted with particular satisfaction the important decisions takenby the Commission on Human Rights to promote more rigorous efforts topublicize the constant and gross violation of human rights in South Africa and toencourage world public opinion to exert its influence to stop suchviolations.While there is an urgent need for an international campaign against apartheid andfor more energetic efforts in that direction by various United Nations organs, it isalso essential to co-ordinate efforts against apartheid in crder to avoid duplication.Universal AbhorrenceOnce again the debate in the Special Political Comittee has shown universalabhorrence of the discriminatory and segregationist policies of the South AfricanGovernment. We share the concern expressed in the Secretary-General'sintroduction to his annual report at the "increasing loss of faith in the possibilityof peaceful transformation in accordance with the objectives defined clearly bythe General Assembly and the Security Council". (A/6701/Add. 1, para, 104) Mydelegation believes that the time has come for the entire United Nations and theworld at large to act in a determined and concerted manner in order to remove thecanker of apartheid from the soil of Southern Africa in the interest of all peoplesand nations.

Statement in Security Council on Apartheid and ArmsEmbargo against South Africa, July 17, 1970Following are excerpts from the statement by Shri Samar Sen, India's PermanentRepresentative to the United Nations, in the Security Council on July17, 1970 onapartheid and the question of armsembargo against South Africa.. For more than twenty-five years the international community has expressed itsdisapprobation and moral condemnation of apartheid. The presentrequest hasbeen supported by forty Member States, and many more would have joined hadthere been time to consult and contact them. However, the question is important,and the Council will have to decide on practical steps that may have tobe taken inorder to carry out its earlier resolutions.It is quite clear that the numerous resolutions of the United Nationscalling uponthe South African Government to desist from its discriminatory policies have hadlittle or no effect. Resolutions calling upon Member States to take measures of apolitical and economic nature against South African policies havealso notproduced result. Meanwhile, South Africa has not only intensifiedits racistpractices but has also built up a formidable military machine to oppose thefreedom movement and to spread and to support by force of arms its racistdoctrine and practices in the neighbouring Territories of Namibia, Portuguescolonies and Southern Rhodesia. South Africa indeed poses a grave challenge andthreat to the peace of southern Africa. There are few parallels in history where theviews and voices of so many have been ignored by so few and for so long.British Arguments

We have read with great interest the recent debate in the British House of Lordson the intended plan of the Government of the United Kingdom to renew armssupply to South Africa. Lord Caradon, who was with us until the other day,moved an amendment which would inhibit the present British Government frompursuing its objective. It

does not surprise us that in the British Upper House Lord Caradon's motion wasdecisively defeated.The arguments used by the British Government can be summarized as follows : itis bound by the Simonstown Agreement. May I remind the Council that allMembers of the United Nations are also bound by the United Nations Charter.Secondly, it was said that the defence requirements of the British Government,both in their narrower and their wider contexts, call for the resumption of armssupply to South Africa. This argument was adequately met by LordChalfont, whodid so much as a British Minister for disarmament in the last Goverenment inpromoting East-West dialogue in the recent meetings at Rome of theNATOPowers. Lord Chalfont pointed out that the Simonstown Agreement is outdatedand outmoded for any defence preparations or strategy of the present-day world;indeed, they are irrelevant.Of course, the arguments about communism and Soviet influence in the area wereused religiously: but f wonder how much of it is really believed. Wehave heardsimilar arguments about communism in SouthEast Asia and also in the MiddleEast. I do not know who is winning these battles, but I do know thatbecause ofthese pet theories, hundreds of Asians are losing their lives daily, theircountriesare being laid waste, their fields, factories and homes are being destroyed, andtheir human persons and dignity are being maimed and defiled in numerous ways.I assume that it is no one's intention that similar tragedy should belet loose insouthern Africa. I also wonder what a Youth Assembly of any independence andcharacter will have to say about such a development.Supply of ArmsThen the argument was used that the sale and supply of arms to South Africa willbring money to those who provide these weapons. We understand thatargument,but I am sure such cynical cupidity, such dangerous greed, cannot be expected tobe endorsed or approved by this Council. Obviously, many aristocrats andplutocrats are interested only in money, although their polished manners forbidthem to speak about it in public or in private.Then, we are regaled with two other arguments : the arms would be used onlyagainst external dangers and not for suppressing the local population, Ourcolleague from Mauritius has already, explained this

aspect of the problem in great detail, and I shall therefore not dwellon it. We haveheard this type of argument so often that I should merely he wasting the Council'stime in trying to expose its fallacy. We have heard the theory of supplying arms tobe used only for specific purposes and for no other. We do not have to go deepinto history to realize what has happened when particular Governmentshave

decided to use such arms for purposes very different from what the donors had inmind.The United Nations has also adopted resolutions encouraging liberationmovements. Will those arms help or hinder sucih movements, even ifthey areused for external purposes ? It is not the bl..c.L; against whom those arms will beused, even internally ?. ...The only threat to peace and security in and around the southern half of Africacomes from the South African regime's covert aggression and subversionagainst the neighhouring independent coutries and peoples underthecolonial yoke, struggling for their freedom. This is proved by the data on SouthAfrica's defence budget which, over the last decade, has increased from R44million to R272 million a year. Ambassador Farah has already given many otherdetails. Of the nearly $ 1,000 million spent on defence during that period, morethan half was on the acquisition of weapons, aircraft, naval stores,and otherheavy equipment. The South African air force is being geared to thetask ofcombatting "terrorists" which simply means the struggle for freedom of theoppressed people. The contention that South Africa is receiving those weapons forexternal defence and not for the purpose of enforcing apartheid has not beenborne out by the facts, nor has it ever been accepted by the Security Council. Onthe contrary, the Council, during its deliberations in 1963-1964, recognized thatthere was little chance of persuading South Africa to discard its racist policieswithout an effective embargo on the supply of arms to South Africafrom othercountries, This was reflected in resolutions 181 (1963) of August 1963, 182(1963) of December 1963, and 191 (1964) of June 1964. The Security Councilthus became committed to a certain course of action aimed at weakening SouthAfrica's capacity to impose its racist policies in southern Africa. But neither thesenor other measures, such as the cutting-off of econmic and trade relations and theprevention of the flow of investments, have had much result, because of theactions of certain states whose exports to South Africa alone make the crucialdifference between success

and failure of the embargo. Many loopholes have been found to circumvent thepurpose of those resolutions. A favoured technique has been the claim thatweapons are being supplied under old contracts, the terms of which are rarelyspecified. In a country like South Africa, where the indigenous people are kept ina state of virtual serfdom, even the supply of shotguns and hunting equipment bySouth Africa's trading partners adds to the oppressive apparatusof that country.The policy of surreptitious support for South Africa's war machines has donemuch damage by undermining effective United Nations action againstapartheid.In the light of the foregoing, my delegation proposes that the Security Council,keeping in mind the threat to peace which has arisen from South Africa's action inthe whole of southern Africa, take immediate action to implement its relevantresolutions and call upon Member States to do the following :First, to take effective steps to prevent the flow of arms and military hardware toSouth Africa, directly or through third countries. Member States should be asked

to implement fully the various resolutions on the arms embargo, withoutreservations or restrictive interpretations.Second, to withhold the supply of, and spare parts for, all vehiclesand equipmentfor the use of the South African armed forces.Third, to prohibit all kinds of investment and technical assistance, includinglicences for the manufacture of arms and ammunition, naval aircraft, and the like.Fourth, to discontinue military training, and other forms of military co-operation,for the South African armed forces.The Security Council might also consider the possibility of keepingthe specificquestion of an arms embargo under constant review. It might alsoconsider theestablishment of a sub-committee to deal with this question of arms, among otherquestions. An expert committee was established in 1964, but its report was notdiscussed by the Security Council.

As a supplementary measure, the Secretary-General might also be requested tokeep this subject under continuing review, either directly or through a specialrepresentative, and be authorized to intercede if need be, with those Governmentsthat supply arms and equipment to South Africa and persuade themto discontinuesuch supplies....

Statement in the Committee on Apartheid, March 22, 1971Following is text of the statement made by Shri Samar Sen, PermanentRepresentative of India, on March 22, 1971 at the Special Sessionofthe Committee on Apartheid:As President of the United Nations Council for Namibia, I deem it an honour toparticipate in this special session of the Committee on Apartheid, whose mainpurpose, as you stated in your generous letter of invitation, is to exchange viewsamong the participants on steps for further effective action by the United Nationsagainst South Africa.Although I am certain that the members of the special committee havestudied ouractivities with the same interest and concern as we on the council have donetheirs, I believe that the objectives of this special session would be served if Iwere allowed to delve a little into the history relating to the creation of thecounciland its mandate, its past activities, successes and frustrations,as well as its futurehopes.Why did the United Nations create the Council for Namibia (formerly UnitedNations Council for South-West Africa) ? Not primarily because the council wasto help eliminate the policy of apartheid practised by the Governmentof SouthAfrica but to fulfil the obligations which South Africa had undertaken inregard tothe administration of the mandate territory of South-West Africa or Namibia. Oneof the most important obligations was the preparation of the people of the territoryfor self-determination and independence.In the view of the majority of the members of the United Nations, not only hadSouth Africa failed to abide by this obligation but was practising with vigour itspolicies of Apartheid and its minority rule in Namibia.

The principal responsibility entrusted by the General Assembly tothe UnitedNations Council for Namibia was the same as that given to South-Africaby theLeague and by its successor, the United Nations.

S. Africa's Defiance of World OpinionAlthough, since its beginning, the Council has been fr'ustrated inits repeated efforts to discharge its principal responsibility dueto the persistentrefusal by the Government of South Africa to carry any of the numerousresolutions adopted by the various organs of the United Nations it hasnevertheless done everything within its power to assert its legal authority over theterritory.It has attempted to mobilize world public opinion against the policies of apartheidand minority rule in Namibia as well as in Southern Africa, and it hastried toassist the Namibian victims of such policies whose aims have been the denial ofhuman rights, exploitation of the natural resources of the territoryandreprehensible acts of repression.Action By CouncilLet me enumerate scme of the steps which the council has taken in the past andothers which it plans to take soon in carrying out the mandate which the variousUnited Nations organs have entrusted to it.The council has concluded agreements with several Governments on the questionof recognition of travel and identity documents, which it has already begun toissue at its regional office established at Lusaka to Namibians for purposes oftravel. It has also obtained the acceptance of some Governments ontherecognition of these documents-a fact which attests to the recognition of its legalauthority over the territory and the denial of the same prerogative illegallyexercised by South Africa. Such activities will be continued by theActingCommissioner for Namibia, on behalf of the council, with a view to gaining aneven wider acceptance of the travel documents as the symbols of thecouncil'sauthority.The council undertook a mission to Africa in 1968 to make known its own actionsfor serving the cause of Namibians. It is again planning to visit several countriesthis year, particularly in Africa, to consult with the participants in the scheduledsummit conference of the O A U., and of the Namibian people on ways andmeans of removing the illegal presence of South Africa in Namibia and its evilconsequences.In order to counteract a massive propaganda campaign mounted by South Africa,the council is planning to take a number of steps which will include publicationsexposing the extent of South Africa's expjloitation

of the natural resources of Namibia, its repression of the Namibian people, and itspolicy of establishing separate 'Homelands' in order to strengthenand consolidateits illegal presence and minority rule. Further, more, the council plans to requestappropriate authoritie; of the United Nations to issue a series of stamps which areexpected to help U.N. publicity efforts for Namibia.Fund for Namibia

Acting in accordance with the resolutions of the General Assembly,the council isalso working towards the establishment of a United Nations Fund forNamibiaand a separate educational and training programme for Namibians. Such aprogramme will train a corp of Namibians who could assist in the administrationof the territory as soon as South Africa's illegal occupation has been brought to anend, and the council has been einabled to carry out its mandate.These, and other steps still to be taken demonstrate that while the council hasbeen less than successful, it has seized, and will certainly continueto seize, everyopportunity which would bring hope, comfort and whatever benefitstheinternational community can agree upon and afford for the unfortunateNamibians. They have been the victims of the inhuman policies carried out bySouth Africa including the policy of apartheid which has been condemned againand again.The council hopes that its aim of putting an end to the policies of apartheid inSouth Africa, in Namibia, in Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and anywhere elsecan be achieved through cooperative efforts by appropriate organs of the UnitedNations. It, therefore, looks forward to the joint session with special committee onapartheid and the committee of 24 for the purpose of co-ordinating their actions.The combined efforts of these organs cannot help focussing world public opinionon the injustice and inhumanity of South African policy of apartheid.They cannothelp isolating South Africa further from the resi of the comity of nations whichdetest and condemn those policies.Such combined efforts can be far more successful if South Africawere totally, Istress totally, isolated and were denied the assistance, supportand comfort itreceives in the form of armaments, aid and trade. That could be possible only ifall member states respected both in letter

and spirit their Charter obligations, rather than continue to serve what theyconsider to be their political, financial and economic interests. To most of themembers of the United Nations such an approach, of a limited, very limited few,appear to be totally unjustified, whichever way one looks at it.Speaking on behalf of my colleagues on the United Nations Council forNamibia,it is my hope that these handful of member-states would respond to the generaldesire of the people of the world as a whole and would carry out the UnitedNations resolutions which have repeatedly condemned what South Africa hasdone and is doing in Southern Africa, including Namibia, in total defiance of theUnited Nations.Recently, the council heard a statement from the legal council of the UnitedNations Mr. Stavropoulos the Under-Secretary General, about the case onNamibia before the International Court. Mr. Stavropoulos explained thevarioussteps taken by several member-states as also by the U.N. Secretariat, before theCourt. While we wait for the judgment, which cannot, under the procedurefollowed by the court, be expected before the end of May, the council wasencouraged to hear that the several moves by the South African Government todivert the world attention by fictitious and unrealistic offer of holdinga plebiscitein Namibia failed. The second concrete recent development I shouldlike to report

is that the council has now drawn up its programme for the next few months andthe Acting Commissioner, who will shortly be visiting Africa in some otherconnection, will have an opportunity to find out and tell the council in whichdirections we may expect to move forward. However, I must not leave theCommittee with the impression that progress will be speedy or spectacular. Giventhe attitude of South Africa and some of her friends, the struggle is going to be along one and we shall have to be constantly vigilant and inch our way ahead withthe cooperation of likeminded nations. Fortunately, the number ofsuch nations isvery large and we are optimistic of success, however long the journeymay be.

Statement in Security Council on South African Apartheid on Zambia'sComplaint, October 11, 1971Following are excerpts from statement by the Indian Permanent Delegate, Shri S.Sen in the Security Council debate on October II,1971 on South African apartheid on Zambia's complaint :.... However, Zambia comes in for special attention for three good reasons. FirstZambia's opposition to apartheid in all its aspects is total, and, weare glad to sayallows no compromise. Zambia's President Dr. Kaunda, is a staunch supporter ofnon-alignment and a determined opponent of apartheid. He is therefore a specialtarget in the Pretoria racist minority regime. Secondly, Zambia stands in the wayof the South African policy of working out a system of dividing the Africancountries by various inducements. That policy implies that if some of the Africancountries would accept apartheid in South Africa and South-West Africa and thePortuguese colonial Territories they could enter into normal relations with thosecountries with some financial and economic benefit for themselves.Lastly, it is absolutely essential to South Africa that countries like Zambia beeffectively undermined to create the so-called "third Africa". Asthe UnitedNations study on "industrialization, foreign capital and forced labour in SouthAfrica" points out :"It should be clear that what is at stake is the future of a large part of Africa.South Africa's basic purpose in putting forward its new programmeis to protectitself. But in order to do so it must first undermine the independence of the blackAfrican States. So it is not simply a question of keeping the whole question ofapartheid open. The consequences of South African policy within independentAfricancountries will also be very serious."I mention these facts only to show that Zambia has attracted and is likely to attractthe special attention of the South African Government.

Termination of Illegal ControlWhen these complanits come before the Security Council-fromZambia or Senegal or Guinea, or from anywhere else-the defence is either that theincident complained of did no t take place or that they were justified. The SecurityCouncil has recently investigated some of these denials and found them to bewithout substance. However, not enough attention has been paid toexamining thepretexts. For South Africa, for instance, the justification is that this Territory of

South West Africa (Namibia) is under its control. It forgets that whatever controlit has in that area is illegally exercised and that it has no right to be there. Thataspect of the matter is already before the Security Council in a different context,and we shall soon seriously have to discuss how South Africa's illegal control ofthis territory can be quickly and effectively terminated. Meanwhile, that is nojustification for a State to take aggressive actions against a sovereign State fromthe territory of a third country it is illegally occupying.The General Assembly has already indicated that so long as the oppression by aminority Government of the majority of the population continues, or so long asthe colonial and racist form of domination is not brought to an end, itwill beperfectly legitimate for freedom-fighters and liberation forces to continue theirstruggle by all available means. We believe the time has come when the SecurityCouncil can accept those two ideas in a formal decision. The Council can andshould accept the legitimacy of the struggle for liberation from colonialism, whichis right and lawful and can be waged by all means. It can and shouldaccept thatthe struggle of people to put an end to the oppression of the vast majorityofpeople of any country by a racist minority regime-as is taking placein variousparts of southern Africa-is equally legitimate, and that the oppression should bebrought to an end by all possible means. Secondly, it can and should bemadeclear by the Council, in a formal declaration, that South Africa has no justificationwhatever for being in South West Africa.Once we had definitely and clearly stated those legal principles it would besimpler to deal with all the complaints by several independent sovereign States.We are perfectly well aware of the difficulties that will be createdin variousquarters in defining those legal principles. But at the same time we believe thatunless those legal principles are squarelyOn

faced and clearly stated this Council and other United Nations bdies will not makemuch progress.Any action taken to suppress a liberation movement or the movement for equalrights of the people of a country would then be autonatically unjustified, and thosewho perpetrated it could be treated as aggressors. Similarly, the South Africanpresence in South West Africa would be that of an aggressor, and both theinternational community and all States individually or collectively would bewithin their rights to end that aggression.Defiance of U.N.I know that that would not suit South Africa, for it had been established beyonddoubt that South Africa has very little use for the United Nations andcertainly hasno desire to abide by any of its resolutions or decisions. It was as early as January1953 that the then South African Prime Miniter, the late Dr. Malan, said,"Personally I would rather be a member of NATO than a Member of the UnitedNations. It is a better safeguard for world peace". If South Africacontinues todefy the United Nations and to confuse the cause of the freedom-fighters bycalling them communists and trying to punish them both inside and outside itsterritory by all means at its disposal, should we not ease South Africa's task by

expelling it from an organization that is certainly not a safeguardfor the type ofworld peace South Africa wishes ?We should like to make still another suggestion to the Council. Thesefrequentconplaints by African States and the effects of South Africa's policiesand actionsundertaken with the full co-operation of Lisbon and Salisbury persuade us that theSecurity Council would do well to keep these problems under periodic review. Iknow that several organizations of the United Nations system deal with apartheid,decolonization and United Nations administration-such as it is-of Namibia. Whilethose efforts continue, to us it seems necessary that peace and security in thatarea, which is being constantly 1 threatend by South Africa, should be kept undercontinuous review by the Council. Perhaps once in three months,or as frequentlyas the Council may decide, the Council could consider this problem in its variousaspects, decide what action could be taken to restore the rights of the people bothof the colonial areas and also of such areas as South Africa, NamibiaandZimbawe and examine in detail, with as much publicity as possible, theeffectivencess-or lack of it-of the

economic-sanctions and other restrictions the Council may have from time to timedecided on in respect of any territory or any Government.We know only too well the inhibitions of of various Governments about takingthe forthright action permitted by the Charter in such situations. We believe that ifsome of the suggestions we have made are followed we shall progress towards theelimination of colcnialism and neo-colonialism as also of the oppression bymincrity regimes of vast majorities. Simultaneously we would then be prepared toremove all those evils, whatever they might be, in all their forms andmanifestations, whatever the climes and conditions in which colonialism and neo-colonialism may prevail.The Council will no doubt take such specific action on the presentZambiancomplaint as it can, but we do not believe that efforts on specific issues will befully effective unless we relate them to broader perpectives and ultimate goals.The alternative is to deal with those problems from day to day, and tohope for thebest. We cannot build on hope unless it is backed by suitable plans and soliddetermination.

Statement on Elimination of Racial Discrimnination, October 29, 1971Following are axc'erpts from the statement by Shri B. P. Das, Member ofParliament, Repiesentatie oJ India, in the Third Committee, on theel ininotion ofall forms of rat ial discrimination (Agenda item 54), onOctober 29, 1971 :It needs no reiteration that any form of racial discrimination is most loathsomeand reprehensible. The discriminatory treatment meted out to fellowhumanbeings because of the pigment of the skin is nothing but a manifestation of aperverted mind. The repressive measures practised on racial grounds are not onlyinhuman and criminal, but are also against all canons of a civilised society in thetrue sense of the term. Apartheid, the most heinous form of racial discrimination,is a blot on the conscience of mankind and a crime against humanity....

It is gratifying to note that Cameroon, Central African Republic, France, Jamaica,Malta, Nepal and Peru have meanwhile ratified and acceded to the InternationalConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Mydelegation trusts that this example will be followed by not only the four newmembers who have joined this world body this year, but also by other States whohave signed the Convention but not yet ratified or acceded to it. Mydelegation ishappy to note the measures undertaken by the Governments in this InternationalYear for Action as listed in Document A/8367 of 24th September, 1971, andA/8367/Corr. I of 25th October, 1971 as well as by the United Nations, itsSpecialised Agencies, regional Inter-Governmental Organizations and by nationaland international Non-Governmental Organizations. We hope that apart from 41Member-States and one Observer, more MemberStates would still availthemselves of the opportunity to celebrate the Year in a manner befittingtheoccasion and the noble objective and give their reports in the followingyear. Acursory glance of the reports indicate the extent of awareness shown by Member-States in regard to the International Year for Action and we add our voice to thatof all those

who call for a rapid and final end to the intoierable, inhuman and uncivilisedpractice of racism and racial discrimination.India's SupportSo far as India is concerned, our Prime Minister issued a message on 21st March,1971, which has been reproduced on page 25 on Document A/8367, and I do notthink I should take the time of this Committee by quoting the message. With yourpermission, Madam Chairman, I may, however, briefly enumeratethe activitiesundertaken by my country in celebrating the International Year. A verycomprehensive programme for the observance of the Year in India has beendrawn up both by the educational authorities and the mass media. Some of thehighlights are as follows :I. Our Prime Minister issued a message which has been referredto above.2. All-India Radio has also drawn up a national programme ofdiscussion on the subject.3. The Films Division of the All-India Radio would cover majorevents in India relating to celebrations for use in the IndianNews Review.4. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has issued apaper "Background to the News" series documenting the action takenby theUN against apartheid and racial discrimination and evils of apartheid and otherforms of racialdiscrimination.5. The Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity will bringout a small folder/document in English and Hindi wherein specialstress will belaid on India's contribution to the solution of the problem of RacialDiscrimination for distributionthroughout the country.

6. The Indian Federation of UNESCO Clubs organised a jointfunction to mark the inauguration of UNESCO Workshop andthe observance of the Year on 21st March 1971.7. The United Schools Organization, New Delhi, which is aninstitutional member of the India National Commission for

UNESCO organised an All-India Seminar on the theme "International Year forAction to combat Racism etc., in May 1971."8. In addition, the Year will be celebrated in the Universities andother educational institutions all over the country and, last but not the least,Women's Organizations all over the country alsoarranged special meeting for the purpose.As regards the General Assembly Resolution 2446 (XXIII) which appealed to allStates to continue to give political, moral and material assistance to peoplesstruggling against all forms of Racial Discrimination, I may point outthat Indiahas been in the forefront of the struggle against apartheid and other manifestationsof Racial Discrimination ever since the days of Mahatma Gandhi.In fact our entire struggle for independence was not only guided byourdetermination to achieve our inalienable rights for freedom but was also inspiredby the ideals of universal brotherhood, respect for human beingsall over theworld on an equal basis regardless of any distinction cf colour or creed. . ..

Statement in U.N. Fourth Committee on Namibia, November 5, 1973Following ore excerpts from the statement by Shri Buta Singh in the UNFourthCommittee on the question of Namibia on November 5, 1973 :The visit of the Secretary-General and his representatives to Namibia, however,appears to have had the v. elcome effect of giving an impetus to themobilisationof political consciousness among Namibians by this demonstration ofinternational interest in their cause.We are hearted at the successful boycott organised by Swapo against the shamelections to the so-called "legislative assembly" of Ovamboland. We admire thecourage of the youth wing of Swapo in organising mass meetings in defiance ofthe repressive police state measures imposed by the South Africanregime.The increasingly united and vocal criticism of South African regime and itsapartheid and Bantustan policies in Namibia are also part of this process. We areequally happy that Swapo's operations in the Caprivi strip are gatheringmomentum and we wish them every success.The people of Namibia have a long and bitter struggle ahead of them.Their foe isrich and well-entrenched, with a strong and wellequipped military andthe backingof powerful foreign economic interests. The liberation movement in Namibiamust ultimately depend on its own resources and sacrifices to achieve theirfreedom, but the obligations of trust vested in the United Nations, which arenowhere more binding than in Namibia, require us to make a special effort toassist them in whatever way we can.The efforts of the United Nations Council fur Namibia, its High Commissionerand the United Nations Education and Training Programme could effectively

contribute to the achievement of political independence by the Namibian peopleas a wkhole. The Council for Namibia has had a busy year and appears to beentering a phase of vigorous and imaginative expansion in its activities. As amember of the Council, India will make her contribution to the strengthening ofthis process.

Statement on Apartheid in Commission on Human Rights, February 13, 1974Following are excerpts from the statement made on February 13, 1974 in theCommission on Human Rights bv Shrimati Rajan Nehru on the subject of-'Adverse consequences for the enjoyment of human rights of political, military,economic and other forms of assistancegiven to colonial and racist regimes in southern Africa" :I am sure most of the delegations in this body feel as unhappy and as deeplypained as we do concerning this perenial item. Naturally there havebeen aplethora of resolutions and recommendations on this subject by the UnitedNations and its associated bodies, but so far as we can see, it does not seem tohave had any particular effect. In particular, I would like to mentionthefollowing:Resolution 2646 (XXV), in which the General Assembly condemned in particularthe activities of those states which, by political, economic and militarycollaboration with the racist regimes of southern Africa, enable andencourage theregimes prevailing therein and the enforcement and prepetuationof their policy ofapartheid and other forms of racial discrimination.Resolution 2784 (XXVI), in which the General Assembly recognised that theposition of the racist regimes of southern Africa continues to be strengthenedthrough the maintenance by many states of political, commercial, military,economic, social and other relations with the racist governments in southernAfrica and through the increasing contribution from c. rtain states in the form ofpolitical, economic and military assistance.The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection ofMinorities discussed at length at its 26th session ihe above item which was givenpriority on its agenda. It noted the weak impact of the UN resolutions on the racistregimes and sought to find new courses of action which might constitute moreappropriate deterrents to the policy

of apartheid and colonisation It felt that the United Nations systemhad not beenpublicising sufficiently its own actions and consequently publicopinion, althoughaware of the evil represented by apartheid, had not been made conscious of itsabhorent manifestations. It further noted the relation betweenthe policy ofapartheid and colonialism with economicinterests and imperialism based on the exploitation of cheap labour.The Sub-Commission approved in the same session a draft resolution which wascarried by 21 votes in favour of, none against and 2 abstentions. Itrequested theappointment of a special r'apporteur to evaluate urgently the adverseconsequences for the enjoyment of human rights of investments of foreign capitaland military assistance given to the racist regimes in southern Africa.

It also recommended that the Commission on Human Rights include in its agendaof the 30th session, an item entitled "The adverse consequences forthe enjoymentof human rights of political, military, economic and other forms of assistancegiven to colonial and racist regimes in southern Africa, MozambiqueandAngola", and to consider it as a high priority with a view to making appropriaterecommendations to the ECOSOC and the General Assembly.The resolution also requested the Secretary General to update comprehensivelyhis report on assistance and support given to the colonial and racist regimes ofsouthern Africa.The Government of India's stand on the subject has been consistent andprincipled. Indian delegations which have participated in the deliberations in theUnited Nations since its inception have played a significant part in theformulation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the drafting andpassing of the two international conventions on political and civil rights, andeconomic, social and cultural rights, the international convention on theelimination of all forms of racial discrimination and the convention adopted at thelast session of the General Assembly on the suppression and punishment of thecrime of apartheid.Perhaps one of the reasons why all these resolutions and recommendations havenot fructified is because of the adverse consequences in the

enjoyment of human rights of political, military, economic and otherforms ofassistance given to colonial and racist regimes in the southern Africa. We hopethat before our next session, some postive steps would be taken and the adverseconsequences would have decreased appreciably, if not ended altogether.

Address to Commission on Human Rights on Question of Apartheid, February 28,1974 Addressing the Commission on Human Rights on February 28, 1974 on theagenda item -question of the violation of human rights and fundamentalfreedomsincluding policies of racial discrimination and segregation and apartheid in allcountries with particular reference to colonial and other dependentcountries andterritories, Shrimnati Rajan Nehru, leader of the Indian ddegation,mcde ihefollowingspeech :The repeated demands and exhortations of the world community haveso far fallenon deaf ears of the colonial powers, who still cling pathetically to theoutmodedconcept of alien domination and exploitation and refuse to recognisethe winds ofchange sweeping over not only the continent of Africa but indeed the wholeworld. Colonialism is itself the most flagrant violation of human rights but thepicture in southern Africa radically and disturbingly changes when massacres arefrequently reported. Father Hastings of the College of Ascension,England,reported massacres in Wiriyumu, a group of missionaries reported at Chawola andthe Secretary-General of the International Commission of Jurists, Mr. NielMacdormot, personally appeared before the Special Committee onDecolo.nisation to give details of torture of prisoners by the Portuguese army and policein Mozambique.

Southern Africa with Angola on the west, Mozambique in the east and SouthAfrica in the south, together with Namibia under illegal occupation ofSouthAfrica presents to the world conscience a prison-house where more than thirtymillion Africans are in search of freedom and identity. The unholy alliancebetween Portugal, South Africa and the illegal regime of Southern Rhodesia callsfor a more determined struggle on the part of the suffering Africanswith the firmunswerving support of the world community.Violation of Human RightsSad to say in this year 1974 we still have to talk about apartheid. A poignantdefinition of the apartheid policies of the Government of98

South Africa was perhaps inadvertently given by one of its own Ministers inParliament, when he recorded the death of a detainee in the following words: 'Anunknown man died on an unknown date of a cause unknown'.In fact, it is an epitaph to the human rights in South Africa. That a black man'sdeath was of no consequence, that a black man died in detention. Neither hisname nor the time, nor the cause of his death was of any significance. It shows thedisregard of the South African Government not only for the people ofSouthAfrica who are black, but also for the standards of morality, justice and the rule oflaw-as these are understood in the civilised world-is only too blatant.South Africa is perhaps the only country where racial discrimination is applied inthe most brutal and systematic form. In no other country except Nazi Germanyhas the doctrine of racial supremacy fanned the ugly flames of fanaticism as inSouth Africa.The gift of clairvoyance was not required to foresee what would happen, if SouthAfrican whites were given the privilege to break all rules of decent humanconduct. This is perhaps the only country where crimes are defined in termswhich are deliberately vague and all-embracing. Even the ex post facto laws arefrequently used to make legal acts committed in the past retrospectively illegal,and to penalise innocent persons. The report presented by Indiain its capacity asrapporteur of the Special Committee on Apartheid to the General Assembly in1972 still remains an unanswered indictment of the South African Government.Mr. Chairman, apartheid in South Africa is in part a desperate attempt toretainand strengthen the rule of the white minority but we would be committing an errorof judgment if we considered apartheid in South Africa only in political andeconomic terms. Behind the incredibly complicated structure which affects everyaspect of human life of each and every citizen : Apartheid has become a dogma,to which some people are desperately, though unsuccessfully, trying to giverespectability.Effective Action UrgedMr. Chairman, my own country is committed to fight against lhe horror ofapartheid in Soutb Africa. We stprted our struggle against

this modern form of slavery even before we got our own independence. MahatmaGandhi was the first Indian to organise a resistance movement against racial

discrimination and injustice in South Africa. The reluctance of certain powers toindict South Africa-and to take action agreed upon by the United Nations-makesus wonder whether these powers have any commitment to the ethicalconcept ofracial equality and justice ?Unbelievable as it may seem, elections will be held in South Africa in the nearfuture, when a minority of less than four million whites would go to the polls todecide the fate of more than sixteen million Africans to whom that countrylegitimately belongs. Illegal detention, torture of political prisoners and a reign ofterror has been the rule rather than the exception in South Africa.However, we still believe in the basic goodness of human nature. If this counciland the world community at large, take effective measures, we feel sure that theconscience of the white men c-f South Africa can still be awakened.We hope itwill not be too late to devise means by which we could awaken the conscience ofthe whites in South Africa. We hope the dawn of political freedom, the enjoymentof economic and social rights for Africans is not far-and this without violence. Wehope a day will come soon when all the people of South Africa irrespective ofcolour and creed, would be able to take part in a common endeavour,the buildingof their country. That moment would be a significant milestone in the realisationof human values, the dignity of man, the protection and promotion oflegitimateand undeniable human rights and prevention of all forms of their violation.100

External Affairs Minister's Address to Seminaron the U.N. and Third World April, 20, 1976Following in an excerpt from the inaugural address of the Minister ofExternalAftairs before the Seminar on "The U.N. and the ThirdWorld" in New Delhi on April 20, 1976 :A second area in which non-aligned and developing countries have succeeded inpersuading the UN to focus attention has been in relation to racialism andapartheid. The UN has taken a large number of concrete and usefulmeasures,among them the adoption of the universal declaration of human rights, theinternational covenants on economic, social and cultural rights andcivil andpolitical rights and the UN Declaration on the elimination of all forms of racialdiscrimination. All these documents stress the dignity and equalityof humanbeings. The UN has also specifically condemned the policies of apartheid andracial discrimination in Southern Africa and urged member-statesto maintaindiplomatic, economic and social boycott of the racist regimes. It isa matter ofregret, however, that the racist regimes in Southern Africa still persist and refuseto face realities. But time is running out for them. The struggle forliberation isbound to be completed sooner than later. We hope that efforts by the UN in thisdirection will be successful.

External Affairs Minister's Statement on Apartheid at U.N., October 5, 1976Following are excerpts from the Minister of External Affairs' address to the UNSpecial Committee Against Apartheid at its special meeting on October 5, 1976convened to honour India on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of UN

consideration of the question of' racial discrimination and apartheid broughtbefore it by India in 1946:Mr. Chairman, you have said that some pseudo-liberals regard the South Africanproblem as complex in the same way that India's independence appeared to becomplex to them. Actually the problem in South Africa is far from complex. It isartifical and was created by the white man. Apartheid is a word coined by theAfrikaner National Party as a political slogan and refined into theunnaturalideology of separatism on the basis of race. In 1963 the then Prime Minister ofSouth Africa said of apartheld: "It means that we want to keep South Africawhite. Keeping it white means white domination, not leadership. It means whitesupremacy and control, and not guidance".Neither science nor religion recognises any fundamental division inthe humanspecies on racial grounds. Nor do they postulate the superiority of any one raceover others. Mahatma Gandhi defined race in the following words : "All thosewho can have children of one another belong to the same race." Mahatma Gandhiwas the universal man.The evolution of the jurisprudence of the United Nations on the question of racialdiscrimination makes interesing reading and I should like to recall some of theimportant stages. It is not often remembered that at its very first session theGeneral Assembly adopted a resolution declaring that "It is in the higher interestsof humanity to put an immediate end to racial persecution and discrimination".India's InitiativeIndia's initiative in 1946 in the United Nations established three conclusions, firstthat racial policies are not matters within the domestic

jurisdiction of member states, secondly that racial policies impaired friendlyrelations between states, and thirdly that the treatment of all racial groups within astate should be in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights.In 1952 India together with 12 Asian and Arab countries declared inthe UnitedNations that a race conflict in South Africa resulting from the policyof apartheidwould constitute a threat to international peace and security. That view waswidely accepted by the General Assembly nine years later in 1961.Eleven years ago, in 1965, the General Assembly for the first time drew attentionof the Security Council to the fact that action under Chapter VII of the UnitedNations Charter was essential in order to solve the problem of apartheid. In 1967the General Assembly condemned apartheid as a crime against humanity.In 1968 the General Assembly recognised the right of the people of South Africaas a whole to self-determination and to majority rule based on universal suffrage.In 1970 the General Assembly recognised the legitimacy of the struggle of thepeople of South Africa to eliminate apartheid by all means at their disposal. TheGeneral Assembly also declared that the racist regime of South Africa wasillegitimate and had no right to represent the people of South Africa.This committee has thus been given a very clear mandate by the GeneralAssembly to do everything possible in conformity with the United Nations

Charter to eradicate the evil of apartheid. It can look back on the twelve years ofits work with much satisfaction, though not yet with a sense of fulfilment."Solidarity with African PeopleI congratulate this committee and its chairman of their work in publicising thecampaign against apartheid and the situtation regarding political prisoners, inspearheading the move for an arms embargo, and in extending support andsolidarity to the Liberation Movements. This committee is also the drivingforcebehind the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa.

it gives me much pleasure to announce that India will substantiaiy increase itscontribution to t his fund. Furthermore, the Government of India will be glad toassist in the wider dissemination of the publications of the United Nations onapartheid.Struggle in Final PhaseMr. Chairman, the struggle in South Africa against apartheid is enteringits finalphase. There is no doubt that it will succeed. Apartheid is a lost cause, and itstands universally condemned. The struggle for freedom and racial equality beganin the minds of men centuries ago. There is no substitute for freedom, and there isno alternative to equality. Man's unfinished revolution is in South Africa and thiscommittee has a major role to play in bringing it to a successful conclusion. Iwish this committee speedy success in what is perhaps the noblest and oldestcause in the United Nations.

World Conference for Action Against Apartheid, August 24, 1977Following are excerpts from the statement of Shii Asoka Mehta, leaderof theIndian delegation to the world conference for actionagainst apartheid, in Lagos, on August 24, 1977 :We can no longer tolerate claims of conscience being overrun by economicconsiderations and political calculations of some errant nations. The moderncrusade against apartheid must gather new strength and urgency.Thirtyone years have gone by in the United Nations but the issues remain thesame and the stubborn South African regime persists with its policies ofdiscrimination and repression in utter defiance of the world opinion and all canonsof civilised conduct. The so-called policy of Bantustans is merely an extension ofthe policy of apartheid intended to create satellite black areas without any realindependence. Thousands of South African freedon fighters have been killedbrutally; many more languish in South African jails....Recently Indian people have demonstrated their unflinching allegiance to humanrights and democratic liberties. Many have applauded this epic effort.We invite all to join us in our commitment to human rights and democraticfreedom in the darkest part of the World-South Africa.Total BoycottLet partisans of human rights affirm their faith by totally outlawing the SouthAfrican racist regime-no trade, no investment, no military supplies and no socialintercourse with worst violators of human rights. ...The world commumity is on trial. The challenge before us is

whether we should continue to dither and delay while pompously adhering to theprinciples of racial equality and inCulging in double standards or105

whether we should now take necessary steps that we all know must be taken if aracial conflagration is to be avoided.Noble intentions are not enough. The success of this Conference will lie to theextent to which our actions keep pace with our intentions. The greatIndianfreedom fighter Lokmanya Tilak once said "Freedom is my birth right and I shallhave it". Most countries in the world today have attained their freedom Butfreedom cannot remain partial; it has to be indivisible and universal.We shouldall make the struggle for freedom in South Africa our very own. To that endIndia's commitment has been consistent and firm and will remain so.

External Affairs Minister's Speech at U.N. General Assembly, October 3, 1979Following are excerpts from the speech of Minister of External Affairsat the UN General Assembly October 3, 1979:Another problem that threatens civilized existence is the criminal combination ofracist policies and colonial ambition which adds up to apartheid. Aminorityregime continues to violate openly and flagrantly the resolutions, decisions andsanctions of the United Nations and to subject the majority of the South Africanpeople to extreme forms of degradation, repression and torture.This situation is areflection of the barrenness of our ritualistic reiteration of opposition to apartheid,without being able to ensure effective and comprehensive action against it. Wehave to mobilise the entire world community, without exception, if theoppositionto this outrage is to be credible and effective. We would like to reaffirmourcontinued support to the measures to implement mandatory economicsanctionsagainst South Africa, We also reiterate strongly our opposition to the economicand military, including nuclear, collaboration between certain western countriesand other states with South Africa.In Namibia, the action of the UN General Assembly and Security Council overthe last decade and more constitutes a history of lost opportunities. Thiscontinuing inefficacy casts serious doubts on the prospects of success of the UNplan on Namibia. SWAPO on its part, has displayed a consistent willingness toaccept UN supervised elections for the transition to majority rule andindependence in Namibia, As long as South Africa continues her illegalpresenceinside Namibia, a just and peaceful changeover would be well nigh impossible.My delegation fully supports the adoption by the Security Council of concretemeasures to compel South Africa to end its illegal occupation of Namibia.

President N. Sanjiva Reddy's Speech at banquetfor President of Zambia, April 15, 1980Following are excerpts from the speech of President Neelam Sanjiva Reddy at abanquet on April 15, 1980 in honour of H.E. Dr. KennethKaunda, President of Zambia:

We are deeply distressed over the renewed aggression launched bySouth Africanforces against your country. You have our fullest sympathy and support. The greatcause of freedom for which Zambia stands is certain to triumph over the heinousforces of racism.India has always identified itself unreservedly with the aspirationsof Africa. Theliberation of Zimbabwe has opened up a new frontier of freedom in SouthernAfrica. We in India greet the emergence of independent Zimbabwe. We recogniseat the same time that the time has now come to itensify our efforts to seek theliquidation of illegal South African rule in Namibia and the abolition oftheheinous apartheid system in South Africa. We pledge our solidarity tothe valiantfreedom fighters and to the brave people of the front-line States who areparticipants in this struggle for human freedom and dignity.

Foreign Secretary Expresses Solidarity with African People, May 24, 1980Following are exceipts from the speclh delivered by the Foreign Secretary, ShriR. D. Sathe, on the occasion of Africa (OAU) Day organised by the IndianCouncil for Cultural Relations ot New Delhion May 24, 1980:We in India have watched with admiration the successes that the Organization hasachieved in providing a forum to the African countries to harmonisetheir policiesaimed at cooperation in the political, social, economic and other fields. TheOrganization's efforts at developing PanAfrican cooperation in general have alsobeen noteworthy. The OAU can look back with satisfaction at its achievements ingenerating and strengthening support for the liberation struggle in the Africancontinent against colonialism, racial discrimination and economic exploitation,Remarkable Achievement of OAUI had earlier briefly mentioned the principles and objectives ofthe OAUtrancending national and ethnic differences. This is a significant aspect of theOAU that not many people seem to realise. After all, Africa, a vast continent, isnot really a monolithic and insipid entity with very little variations within it. Ithappens to be a fascinating mixture, with a variety and kaleidoscopic charm of itsown. To bring such varied strains together and to coordinate policiesand actionsis an achievement that the OAU can be proud of. The Organization has gonebeyond nations, ethnic, social, religious and other differences to create a sense ofbelonging in the continent as a whole without jettisoning the cardinal principle ofinviolability of national frontiers. In a world where ethnic and religiousdifferences sometimes create unbridgeable chasms, to succeed in moulding thesedifferences into united policy and action is by any standards a remarkableachievement.Most recently, we had the privilege of participating in the independencecelebrations of Zimbabwe. The importance that we attach to this

event, and the emphasis with which we reiterate our commitment to assist in thefulfilment of the aspirations of Africa, were reflected in the presence of our PrimeMinister, Smt. Indira Gandhi, at the Zimbabwe celebrations. We believe inparticular that the independence of Zimbabwe opens out new frontiers in Southern

Africa. The time has come when efforts to help the people of Namibia to liberatethemselves should be intensified. The continued illegal occupation of Namibia bySouth Africa's racist regime, with its odious racial policies, is a direct challenge tothe UN and displays an insolent disregard for both world public opinion andinevitable historical change. For those who have not been subjectedto racialdiscrimination words such as racialism, apartheid etc remain nothingbut words.Sometimes they evoke some imagery. But those who have been at thereceivingend know only too well how inhuman is the policy of apartheid, and degradingthe concept of the racial supremacy of the white minority in South Africa. I had alittle taste of this when I was posted in Kenya in the fifties. There is no greater ormore flagrant violation of human dignity. In collusion with colonialism, apartheidhas become an increasing menace to world peace and security. ThePretoriaregime has blatantly committed aggression against its neighboursand remains ablot on the African scene. On account of clandestine disregard by some countriesof UN sanctions against South Africa, the racist regime in that country hasmanaged to hold out against world-wide opposition. We nevertheless believe thata regime that continues to flout all norms of human dignity cannot last very longby itseif and that sooner rather than later it will either have to mend ius w\ays orsuccumb to international disapproval and opposition.India's SupportThe Government and people (;f India re-affirm their resolve to support the valiantfreedom fighters, the brave people of the Frontline States and the OAU inliberating Southern Africa from the last vestiges of colonialism and racialism, andto secure to the people of Namibia and South Africa basic political andhumanrights, freedom and dignity. India has all along subscribed (o theidea of theindivisibility of the liberty of man. We believe that our own freedom andindependence would not be complete until all countries under colonialdominationachieved freedom.

The OAU, for various reasons, may not have been able to give its undividedattention always to some of the major problems of decolonisation and economicdevelopment in the African continent. For one thing, external involvement incertain regions of Africa has made the task of the OAU more difficult. Theexpeditious settlement of bilateral and regional disputes through peacefulnegotiations, keeping in mind the Charters of the OAU and the UN, will help theorganisation to concentrate attention on the larger issues of the elimination ofpoverty, disease, ignorance, and backwardness. We believe that the memberStates of the Organisation are conscious of the need for a renewed thrust in thepolicies and actions towards promoting unity and solidarity. This would avoid thedanger of outside involvement in Africa and strengthen their efforts at mutualcooperation for the benefit of their peoples.Sohidarity of Non-A|ighknhtAdditionally, the Independence and development of African nations strengthensthe Non-aligned Movement as a whole. In the present difficult internationalsituation, the unity and solidarity of the non-aligned are vital for the sake of worldpeace and progress, India is committed not only to the furtheranceof the Non-

aligned ideas but also to making whatever ccntributicn lies within her capabilitiestowards achieving a world-N\ide climate of peace and goodwill sothat all nationsmay work together to fulfil their aspirations.We have noted with hope and interest the recent efforts of the OAU atevolving aplanned strategy for economic development. The holding of the firstOAUEconomic Summit at Lagos, in April 1980, underlines the resolve ofAfrica toitensify the struggle for economic independence. In this endeavour, the OAUmember-States, we believe, will participate fully in the global economicnegotiations for collective self-reliance and the establishment of a NewInternational Economic Order.Historical RelationshipI need hardly dwell on the historical relationship between India and Africa. Bothare linked by the Indian Ocean and bound by age-old ties of cultureand commonheritage. From the beginning of recorded history, we have had cultural,commercial and other exchanges. India's consistent political, moral and materialsupport for the struggle against colonialism and racialism in Africaneeds noreiteration, We in India have fully

identified ourselves with the aspirations of the African people. We share withAfrica common problems and in many respects common threats as well, such asthe threat to economic independence. India has always stood for political, socialand economic justice in the international sphere. In this light, we haveall alongbeen conscious of not only maintaining but also broadening our cooperation withAfrican countries in the economic, technical, educational and cultural fields. We,therefore, attach great importance to the expansion and itensification of ourrelations with the OAU and its member-States. This, we believe, accords with ourideals and commitments and also provides a significant contribution tointernational efforts at providing a peaceful and improved existence for mankind.Our joint effort reflects the dedication that the OAU and India believe isnecessary for the purpose,On behalf of the Government of India, and my own behalf, I take this opportunityto express our best wishes to the OAU for continued successes in its endeavours. Iwould also like to express the hope that the cooperation between India and Africawill continue to prosper and play an increasingly significant rolein safeguardingpeace and stimulating progress around the world,

President N. Sanjiva Reddy's Speech at Banquetfor President of Tanzania, February 23, 1981Following are excerpts from the speeeh of the President, Shri N.Sanjiva Reddy, at the banquet hosted in honour of the President ofKenya, Mr. Daniel Arap Moi, in New Delhi on February 23, 1981 :Mr. President, the Indian people have been closely associated with various phasesof Africa's liberation. It was on African soil that Mahatma Gandhi, while fightingagainst racial discrimination, evolved his nonviolent principles which were latersuccessfully used to fight colonialism in India. Unfortunately, there are still somevestiges of colonialism and racism which remain on the African Continent. The

apartheid regime of South Africa continues to defy with impunity repeatedappeals by the international community to listen to the call of reason. We areconvinced that the abhorrent system of apartheid which is an insult to humandignity and a danger to world peace, cannot conutinue for long in the face of thevaliant struggle waged by the African people. We will continue to support fullythe people of South Africa in their struggle for attainment of their human andpolitical rights.We also deeply regret the attempts by South Africa to frustrate theimplementation of the U.N. resolutions on Namibia and to give legitimacy topuppet groupings there. Only the people of Namibia have the right to determinetheir own destiny. We shall continue to give our support to SWAPO, the sole andlegitimate representative of the people of Namibia, in their struggle for thefreedom and independence of their country.In the East African region, we are happy to note that a democratically electedGovernment has come to power in Uganda. Viable forms of regional cooperationamongst, developing countries, particularly neighbours, are a worthy objective.The Summit meeting of the Presidents of Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and Zambiain Karpala last month to review matters of common interest is a very welcomedevelopment. It is our hope that this will now pave the way for more harmoniusrelationship and fruitful cooperation between the countries of your region.

President N. Sanjiva Reddy's Speech at Banquetfor President of Guinea, March 17, 1981Following are excerpts from the speech of the President, Shri N. Sanjiva Reddy atthe banquet hosted in honour of the President of' Guinea,Mr. Ahmed Sekou Toure, in New Delhi on Marah 17, 1981:. * *We recall with pride that the father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi, wholed our country to independence, had started his fight against injustice in SouthAfrica. With his guidance, and later under the dynamic leadership of the latePandit Jawaharlal Nehru, a close affinity developed between India and the Africannationalist movements, which had continued till today, India has been extendingfull moral, material and diplomatic support to the African National Congress in itsfight against South Africa's abhorrent policies of racial discrimination which posea threat to international peace. We have similarly endorsed the freedom struggleof the people of Namibia and extended our full support to the South West AfricanPeoples Organisation. We have all along condemned South Africanintransigenceand its disregard of world opinion in implementing the various UnitedNationsresolutions for the independence of Namibia. I would like to reiterate myGovernment's continued support to the valiant sons of Africa who are fighting fortheir independence, human and political rights.114

President N. Sanjiva Reddy's Speech at Banquetfor President of Tanzania, March 30, 1981

Following are excerpts fJom the speech of the President, Shri N. Sanjiva Reddy,at the banquet hosted in honour af Mr. Mwalima Julius Nyerere, President of theUnited Republic of Tanzania in NewDelhi on March 30, 1981:There are still, however, formidable difficulties and frustrations to overcomebefore a satisfactory solution can be found for the achievement of Namibianindependence. It is a matter of the most serious concern that South Africa is beingencouraged by the attitude of some countries to become even more intransigent inits determination to defy the will of the international community. South Africa'sbehaviour, characterised by frequent and blatant acts of aggression against theFront-Line States, deserves the most severe condemnation. ....Inside South Africa itself, the heinous system of apartheid constitutes a seriousthreat to international peace and security. The heroic struggle of the oppressedpeople of South Africa for the eradication of apartheid and for the exercise oftheir inalienable rights deserves the fullest support of the internationalcommunity.

External Affairs Minister's Statement at Paris, May 22, 1981Following is the full text of statement by the Minister of External Aflairs, Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao, at the International Conference onSanctions against South Africa in Paris on May 22, 1981 :We are meeting here against the backdrop of the failure last month, on the part ofthe Security Council to impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against SouthAfrica for her continuing violation of the decisions and resolutions of the UnitedNations on Namibia and for her acts of aggression against the neighbouringcountries. The vetoes of three permanent members of the Security Council servedmerely to put off the imposition of sanctions temporarily, as theycannot shieldthe criminal regime of South Africa forever from international action. Whileheartily congratulating you, Mr. President, for the stewardship you are giving tothis Conference, I wish to point out that the convening of the present Conferenceis testimony to the determination of the entire international community to isolateSouth Africa politically and economically, regardless of her powerful supporters.I would like to take this opportunity to commend the United Nations SpecialCommittee against apartheid and the Organization of African Unity for theirlaudable initiative in organizing this historic Conference to focusthe attention ofthe entire international community, once again, on the increasingly brutalrepression which the oppressed majority of South Africa continues tosuffer at thehands of the racist regime and on the urgent need to remedy the situation. Thesignificance of this, Conference lies in the massive participation in itofgovernments, inter-governmental organizations, anti- apartheid and solidaritymovements, trade unions, churches and other non-governmental organizations.India's SupportIndia's sympathy and support for the people of South Africa in their hour of trialand tribulation flowq from a shared experience of domination

and colonial exploitation.' The 'Father of our Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, firstraised the banner of revolt against injustice and oppression not in India, but inSouth Africa where he tested and sharpened the weapon of mass civildisobedience, which he later wielded effectively against the British rulers in India.Mahatma Gandhi once said and I quote:"What is happening in South Africa involves a loss of dignity of not only thosewho are victims of Apartheid, but also those who are perpetrating itand directlyor indirectly encouragingit."Jawaharlal Nehru who was honoured during the International AntiApartheid Yearin 1978 for his outstanding contribution to the international campaign againstApartheid had this to say about the scourge on humanity and I quote :"There are many conflicts which divide the world and this question of racialconflict in South Africa is as grave as any other issue. There areracial conflictselsewhere in the world ..but in South Africa, it is the deliberate, acknowledged and loudly proclaimedpolicy of the Government itself to maintain this segregation and racialdiscrimination. This makes the South African case unique in the world. It isapolicy with which obviously no person and no country which believesin theUnited Nations Charter can ever compromise, because it uproots almosteverything the modern world stands for and considers worthwhile, whether it isthe United Nations Charter or whether it is our ideas of democracy or of humandignity.It is not a question of policy only. I say it is the greatest international immoralityfor a nation to carry on in that way."The struggle against racism being so intimately linked with the struggle for India'sindependence, it was but natural that India should have sounded thewar cryagainst racism in South Africa. The fact that the United Nations beganconsideration of racism in South Africa for the first time in 1946 at therequest ofthe Government of India clearly indicates that the people of India identifythemselves completely with the

people of South Africa both in their struggle against the white minority regime asalso in their aspirations.At the governmental level,, India tried to persuade the South Africangovernmentto put an end to its racial policy. Failing in this endeavour, the IndianGovernment, in 1946, imposed comprehensive sanctions againstSouth Africa andwithdrew its High Commissioner from that country. This was before any othercountry had even considered racism an issue deserving to be protested against. InOctober 1946, the U.N. General Assembly was convened for the first time. HereIndia introduced the issue of the unjust treatment of Indians in South Africa.During that session the General Assembly at India's insistence, passed aresolution declaring that "it is in the higher interest of humanity to put animmediate end to racial persecution and discrimination." Although India took upthe issue of racial discrimination because people of Indian origin were beingdiscriminated against in South Africa, it soon became India's concernfor all non-

white races, with the South African government adopting racial discrimination asan official policy separating communities on the basis of race and denying themequal rights and privileges.South Africa, however, paid no heed to the U.N. resolution, a practice it was tofollow consistently with regard to the world body. In 1952, India, along with 12other member States of United Nations, raised the general question of"Raceconflict in South Africa resulting from the policies of Apartheid of theGovernment of the Union of South Africa."South Africa's IntransigenceThe numerous requests, recommendations, admonitions and condemnations bythe United Nations, meanwhile, failed to deter the South African Governmentfrom its set course of racism and so in 1962, a resolution was movedby 34member States including India deploring the failure of the South AfricanGovernment to comply with U.N. resolutions. The Assembly passeda resolutionrequesting member States to take certain diplomatic and economic steps againstthe Government of South Africa, to goad it into abandoning its racial policies.The Government of India have not only scrupulously complied withtheprovisions of Security Council resolution 418 (1977) imposing an arms embargoon South Africa but have repeatedly called for the imposition of comprehensive,mandatory and economic sanctions against the South118

African regime. We have repeatedly indentified ourselves with the Antiraciststruggle of the people of South Africa. The most recent gesture in thisconnectionbeing the conferment of India's prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru Award for Peaceand International Understanding on Mr. Nelson Mandela. While heis still in jail,not even his wife was allowed to come to India to receive the award.India acceded to the International Covention on the suppression and punishmentof the crime of Apartheid in October 1977. Suitable implementing legislation hasbeen introduced in the Lower House of the Indian Parliament and isexpected tobe passed during 1981.It is, indeed, an irony of our times that some of the affluent and industrialisednations of the world who proclaim their support to the cause of human rights,equality and justice in other parts of the world continue to collaborate with theracist regime of South Africa in various fields thereby not only giving a lease oflife to that regime but also adding to its might. Such collaboration emboldens theracist rulers of South Africa not only to trample upon the human rights anddignity of the black majority in that country but also to acquire thetemerity toflout the numerous resolutions adopted by the United Nations demanding that theregime cease forthwith its heinous crimes against humanity.Nuclear ThreatThe nuclear capability which the racist regime has acquired in recent months incollaboration with its allies and friends has dangerous consequences not only forthe continent of Africa but to the entire world and causes a threat to internationalpeace and security. The magnitude of this danger is aptly reflected in the

following conclusion of the United Nations Seminar on Nuclear Collaborationwith South Africa which was held in London in February 1979 and I quote :"The threat to international peace, resulting from the policies and actions of theapartheid regime, has assumed new dimensions. There is now the grave dangerthat the apartheid regime, armed with nuclear weapons, may, in its desperation,unleash a major regional war which would precipitate a global confrontation .. Inaddition, when it develops its uranium enrichment plant, the Pretoria regime willgain substantial

international bargaining power. It will use its nuclear weapon capability and itsrole as a major supplier of enriched uraniumto blackmail the international community."Zimbabwe and NamibiaThe heroic people of South Africa have today reached a criticalstage in their struggle against the oppressive regime, especially in the wake of theresounding victory of the people of Zimbabwe, a year ago.Never in the history of the struggle of the people of South Africa hastheapplication of effective sanctions against the racist regime had agreater priorityfor the international community. This Conference which represents the entirehumanity, must call for unilateral measures by individual governments evenbefore the Security Council is finally persuaded to take effective action under thepowers vested in it. In this context, we welcome the important statementmade bythe First Secretary of the Socialist Party of France, which reiterated the support ofthe newly elected Government of France for the U.N. Plan for independence ofNamibia, for economic sanctions against South Africa and for assistance to theAfrican front-line States.As I had stated in my address to the Security Council last month on the situationin Namibia, we are aware that imposition of sanctions against South Africa islikely to create serious difficulties to the geographically disadvantageous nationsin Africa whose economies are inextricably entangled with the South Africaneconomy. But their temporarydifficulties, for the alleviation of which methods have to be found by theinternational community, cannot be used as a pretext to encourage aracist regimeto persist in its defiance of the United Nations. It is a matter of greatsatisfactionthat independent African countries in Southern Africa have expressed theirwillingness to make sacrifices however great.My delegation has, no doubt, whatsoever that the deliberations of this Conferencewill result in the formulation of an effective strategy by the internationalcommunity in this direction. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate onceagain India's total moral and material support to the measures that this Conferencewill adopt. My delegation stands ready to contribute our mite towards thelaudable objective of eliminating apartheid: liberating Namibia and restoringpeace in the African continent.

President N. Sanjiva Reddy's Speech at Lusaka, June 15, 1981Following is an excerpt from the speech of the President, Shri N.

Sanjiva Reddy, at the banquet given in his honour by the President ofZambia at Lusaka on June 15, 1981:We have watched with sincere admiration the courage and sense of sacrifice thatyou and your people have repeatedly demonstrated so that your neighbours mightalso enjoy the fruits of independence. The fact that so many of them stand proudand unshackled today owes a great deal to you. It must be a matter ofthe deepestconcern to the entire international community that even as the lightof freedomburns at last in Zimbabwe, sinister, last-ditch efforts are under wayto extinguishthe hopes of liberation in the remaining bastions of the racist domination inSouthern Africa. I would like to avail of this opportunity to reiterate inthe mostemphatic terms the resolve of the people and the Government of India towork bythe side of Zambia and other Frontline States and the liberation movements sothat freedom and human rights are not denied to the long-oppressedpeoples ofNamibia and South Africa.

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Message on InternationalDay of Solidarity, August 9, 1981Following is the text of Message by the Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi, onthe occasion of the International Day of Solidarity with the Struggle of Women inSouth Africa and Namibia (observed on9 August 1981) :On the International Day of Solidarity with the struggle of women of South Africaand Namibia, I salute those valiant women of all races who gatheredin Pretoria25 years ago on this day to protest against the extension of the inhumanpass lawsfor African women. For us in India, August 9 is significant for another reason : itwas on that day in 1942 that we launched the historic "Quit India Movement"against colonialism.India was the first country to raise its voice in the United Nations GeneralAssembly against the abhorrent policies of racial discriminationand apartheidpractised by the South African regime. Ours was also the first country to boycottSouth Africa diplomatically, politically and economically.NamibiaWe wholeheartedly support the brave people of South Africa and Namibia in theirjust and legitimate struggle to achieve their rights. We reaffirm oursolidarity withthe suffering peoples of South Africa and Namibia, and reiterate our unflinchingsupport to them.

External Affairs Minister's Address to the U.N. General Assembly, September 28,1981Following in an excerpt from the address of the Minister of ExternalAffairs, ShriP. V. Narasimha Rao, at the General Debate of the U. N.General Assembly in New York on September 28, 1981NamibiaMr. President, the recent emergency special session of Namibia has served tofocus the attention of the international community on the grave situation inSouthern Africa. Mr. President, the credibility of the UN will be seriously eroded

if it is unable to secure freedom and justice for the people of Namibia. Onlythrough an early implementation of Security Council Resolution 435 could thepeaceful decolonisation of Namibia be achieved. All attempts to dilute, modify orattenuate the details of the UN Plan for any further purpose are unacceptable tothe overwhelming majority of world opinion. The Government of India reiteratetheir full solidarity with SWAPO as the authentic representative of theNamibianpeople and will continue to extend moral and material support to SWAPOin itsstruggle for national liberation.123

President N. Sanjiva Reddy's Speech at Banquet forPresident of Ghana, October 10, 1981Following are excerpts from the speech of the President, Shri N.Sanjiva Reddy, at the banquet hosted in honour of President HillaLimann of the Republic of Ghana in New Delhi on October 10, 1981 :At the very moment of Ghana's independence Dr. Kwame Nkrumah had declared"Ghana's independence is meaningless unless it is tied up with the totalLiberationof Africa." If he were alive today, he would have exulted in the victories Africahas already won-the 42 countries which have gained Independence since Ghanafirst attained that glory on March 6th, 1957. He would, however, also have beenfull of impatience and justified anger to find that Africa is not yet completely ridof colonialism and racism, in Southern Africa.Excellency, the common abhorrence of India and Ghana for colonialism andracism in all its manifestations, and our common faith in the brotherhood of manirrespective of colour, race and creed, have in the past seen us struggling shoulderto shoulder for the elimination of all forms of exploitation of man by man. Weshall have to continue that struggle until final victory is won.124

Statement by Shri H.S. Hanspal, M.P., in U.N. General Assembly,December 1,1981 Following is text of the statement by Mr. H.S. Hanspal, M.P., IndianDelegate in the U.N. General Assembly. on "Policies of Apartheid oftheGovernment of South Africa" made in New York on December1, 1981:Mr. President, The question of apartheid policies of the white minority regime ofSouth Africa is still the central issue of the United Nations General Assembly,even after decades of discussions at various forums aimed at eliminating thepernicious evil. The crime of apartheid is now not only the concern of theoppressed people of South Africa but of the entire international communitybecause it poses a danger to the international peace and security.Only about a week ago, India once again had occasion to reiterate her fullsupport to the people of South Africa in their heroic struggle against the evilsystem of apartheid. Speaking at a banquet hosted in honour of HisExcellency,Dr. Milton Obote, President of the Republic of Uganda, who was on a State visitto India, the President of India, His Excellency, Dr. Neelam SanjivaReddy, saidand I quote :

"In Southern Africa, the apartheid regime of South Africa continues with it policyof institutionalised discrimination against its citizens on the basis ofcolour andrace. India supports the African National Congress and other liberationmovements in their heroic and valiant fight against this linurari andabhorrentsystem. They have our full sympathy and support in their efforts to dismantleapartheid. The racist South African regime continues to defy worldopinion in itsattempts to destabilise neighbouring frontline States. We condemn these effortson the part of South Africa and commend Governments and peoplesof thefrontline States for theirsteadfastness in resisting aggression".125

Indeed, India's total commitment to the eradication of the barbarous system ofapartheid from our civilized world and her moral and material support for andsolidarity with the black majority of South Africa in their hour of trial andtribulations, has been stated in no uncertain terms by her leaders fromnationaland international fora, on several occasions in the past. What ismore, the IndianParliament, only a few month ago, unanimously adopted a bill which seeks togive effect to the provisions of the International Convention on the Suppressionand Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid which was adopted by the U.N.General Assembly in November 1973. India became a party to the Conventionin October 1977. India is one of the very few countries in the world to havetaken such an action which truly reflects the feelings of the people of India againstthis blot on the conscience of humanity.India's sympathy and support for the valiant people of South Africa flows from ashared experience of domination and colonial exploitation. It is hardly necessaryfor me to restate the historical fact that the Father of our Nation, MahatmaGandhi, under whose dynamic leadership the people of India attainedtheirIndependence, first raised the banner of revolt against injustice and oppression notin India, but in South Africa where he tested and sharpened the weapon of masscivil disobedience which he later effectively wielded against the British rulers inIndia.Mahatma Gandhi's political heir, Jawaharlal Nehru, once described theabhorrent system of apartheid as the "greatest international immorality for anation to carry on". During the period he was free India's first PrimeMinister, theUnited Nations began consideration of racism in South Africa for the first time atthe request of the Government of India. During this time, the Government of Indiaimposed comprehensive sanctions against South Africa. This was before anyother country had even considered racism an issue deserving to be protestedagainst. In October 1946, the United Nations General Assembly was convened forthe first time. Here, India introduced the issue of unjust treatment of Indians inSouth Africa. During that session, the General Assembly, at India's insistence,passed a resolution declaring that "it is in the higher interest of humanity to put animmediate end to racial persecution and discrimination". In 1952, India, alongwith other twelve Member States of UN, raised the general question of "race

conflict in South Africa resulting from the policies of apartheid of theGovernment of the Union126

of South Africa". In 1962, a resolution was moved by 34 Member States,including India, deploring the failure of the South African Governmentto complywith the UN resolutions. It is, therefore, no wonder that Jawaharlal Nehru wasposthumously honoured during the International Anti-apartheid Year in 1978 forhis outstanding contribution to the International Campaign against apartheid.The illustrious daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru, Her ExcellencyMrs. Indira Gandhi, who is leading our nation so ably to-day, recently called uponthose Western Powers which are supporting the Pretoria regime, to give up thissupport and instead uphold the provisions of the U.N. Charter pertaining torespect for human rights and fundamentalfreedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.Indeed, it is an irony of our times that some of these affluentand industrialised nations who proclaim their support to the cause ofhumanrights, equality and justice in other parts of the world continue to collaborate withthe racist regime of South Africa in various fields thereby not only giving a leaseof life to that regime but also adding to its might.Such collaboration emboldens the racist rulers of South Africa not only to trampleupon the human rights and dignity of the black majority in that country but also toacquire the temerity to flout the numerous resolutions adopted by the UnitedNations demanding that the regime cease forthwith its heinous crimes againsthumanity.I must emphasize that it is not the resolutions which are adopted in this augustHouse, year after year, but a sincere change of heart on the part of the countrieswhich collaborate with South Africa in diverse fields, which is needed if we are tosucceed in not only eradicating the scourge of apartheid from the face of our earthbut also to usher in a majority rule in South Africa, before long.A month from now, the African National Congress of South Africa willobservethe 70th anniversary of its establishment. On this historic occasion, onbehalf ofmy delegation, I send our greetings and good wishes to the President of theAfrican National Congress, Mr. Oliver Tambo, and to the large number of hiscomrades in arm, both within South Africa and outside for the successfulculmination of their relentless struggle against the fascist regime of South Africa.On this occasion, we also greet the valiant freedom fighters of South Africa whoare undergoing

long and barbarous prison sentences at the hands of the illegal white minorityregime, at the beck and call of this great organization. Our sympathy goes to thekith and kin of the martyrs who have laid down their precious lives in the cause offreedom and human dignity in that unforturate country.Mr. President it is at the same time, impossible for any country however powerfulby itself or aided and abeted by her affluent friends and allies to stop the tide ofhistory. The brave and courageous people of South Africa are on the march. It is

only a matter of time when they will finally achieve their objective of eliminatingthe evil of apartheid as also achieving their inalienable rights, includingtheestablishment of a majority rule. The people of India will continue toindentifythemselves fully with the people of South Africa in their hopes and aspirationsand in their sacrifice and suffering. We are looking forward to rejoice with themin their hour of glory before long.I would like to conclude by quoting my Prime Minister Her Excellency Mrs.Indira Gandhi :"A struggle for freedom can be suppressed, its soldiers killed, imprisoned,humiliated but the idea of freedom cannot be stamped out, some spark will persistto burst into flames somewhere sometime to light the way and illumine the heartsand ultimately lead to success. Neither colour nor caste nor sex makesone personsuperior or inferior. No matter what laws South Africa devises foritself, historycannot be denied norwill the inexorable march of the future be halted".Thank you, Mr. President.

Statement by Shri Anand Singh, M.P., in U.N. GeneralAssembly. December 16, 1981Following is the text of statement by Shri Anand Singh M.P., while introducingDraft Resolution No. A/36/L.35 entitled: "International Year of Mobilization forSanctions against South Africa" in the U.N.General Assembly on December 1, 1981Mr. President,It is an honour and a privilege for me to introduce, on behalf of my delegation,draft resolution No. A/36/L. 35 entitled 'International Year of Mobilization forsanctions against South Africa" on the agenda item "Policies of Apartheid of theGovernment of South Africa".It is perhaps appropriate that this honour should fall on me, representing as I do, acountry which imposed, over three decades ago, comprehensive sanctions againstSouth Africa before any other country had even considered racism an issuedeserving to be protested against. Since then, India has been constant in itsdevotion to the cause of racial equality, consistent in its unflinchingsupport forthe struggle of the people of South Africa against the pernicious system ofapartheid and scrupulous in its observance of embargoes aimed atisolating SouthAfrica with a view to compelling it to abide by the decisions of the UnitedNations.Mandatory SanctionsIn her message to the International Conference on Sanctions against South Africawhich was held in Paris in May 1981, the Prime Minister of India, Her ExcellencyMrs. Indira Gandhi had said, inter alia, that the only peaceful method ofupholding at the present time the provisions of the United Nations Charter vis-a-vis South Africa was by the application of mandatory sanctions against thatcountry. The alternative is prolonged armed struggle and even greater sufferingfor the people of South Africa.

Speaking at the Paris Conference, the Foreign Minister of India,His ExcellencyMr. P, V, Narasimha Rao, had said and I quote:

"We are aware that imposition of sanctions against South Africa is likely to createserious difficulties to the geographically disadvantageous nations inAfrica whoseeconomies are inextricably entangled with the South African economy. But theirtemporary difficulties, for the alleviation of which methods have to be found bythe international community, cannot be used as a pretext to encourage a racistregime to persist in its defiance of the United Nations. It is a matter of greatsatisfaction-that independent countries in Southern Africa haveexpressed their willingness to make sacrifices however great".Mr. President, the time has, therefore, come for greater concertedefforts on ourpart to mobilize the world community for applying effective and comprehensivesanctions against South Africa. With this end in view, the draft resolution seeks tohave the year 1982 proclaimed and observed as the International Year ofMobilization for Sanctions against South Africa.Draft ResolutionThe text of the draft resolution needs no elucidation. In the preambular part, itrecognizes that the Paris Declaration on Sanctions against South Africa adoptedby International Conference on Sanction against South Africa in May 1981,provides the framework for effective international action for the elimination ofapartheid and for averting the growing threat to international peace and security,and also recognizes the need to promote maximum support for theimplementation of the Paris Declaration.The first operative paragraph endorses the Paris Declaration onSanctions againstSouth Africa and commends it to the attention of all Governments andorganizations. Operative paragraph 2 of the draft proclaims 1982 as theInternational Year of Mobilization for Sactions against South Africa. Paragraph 3endorses the programme for the Year recommended by the SpecialCommitteeagainst Apartheid in its special report. In subsequent paragraphs, the draftresolution, while requesting the Special Committee to take all appropriate actionto promote the widest and most effective observance of the Year, invites allGovernments, inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations andinstitutions to participate effectively in the observance of the Yearin cooperation130

with the United Nations. It also requests the Secretary-General to encourage thewidest possible observance of the Year and to provide all necessary assistance tothe Special Committee in the discharge of its responsibilities.On behalf of the sponsors who include my own delegation, I sincerely hope thatthe draft resolution will receive the unanimous support of the delegations presentin this august House representing countries which cherish freedom,equality andhuman dignity.Thank you, Mr. President.

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Address to Africa

Week Cultural Festival, January 11, 1982Following is the text of address by the Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi, to theAfrica Week Cultural Festival organised by the AfricanStudents' Association in New Delhi on January 11, 1982:It is a privilege to share this evening with you because we share withall our heartsthe agony which you feel for the suffering and hardship that has goneon for solong in the countries which are still not free.My first acquaintance with Africa was with Egypt when I was a very small girl.But after that I have had the opportunity of visiting several countries in differentparts of that huge continent. But there are many parts which I still do not know. Ihave, however, visited South Africa, not by choice, but because the ship on whichwe were coming home in 1930-31 was diverted first to Cape Town and then toDurban. We spent a week in Durban. I had a first-hand opportunityof seeing whathumiliation was. We had seen humiliation in India, but it was already lesseningby the time that I was conscious of these things. But there in Durban weconstantly saw not only how the Africans but the Indians also were treated.General Smuts said that very week that we were in Cape Town : "The colour ofyour skin is your passport." We were in the midst of our freedom struggle at thattime, but even then we believed that freedom was indivisible and that all freedomstruggles were ours.I had the great honour and privilege of representing India at the 'Uhuru' of Kenyaand what was then Zanzibar and more recently in Zimbabwe. There was great joyand rejoicing during these events. At the Zimbabwe celebration, there was theshadow of Namibia and the shadow of what was happening in South Africa.Today you have very vividly portrayed these feelings. As you know, we regardNelson Mandela as one of the foremost proponents of freedom--freedom of man.We regard him also as a friend of India. We admire him. We have honoured himas one of our own heroes and our thoughts are often with

him and his family. He wrote a very beautiful letter, which had to be smuggledout, when we presented him with the Nehru award for InternationalUnderstanding.I welcome this effort which the African students of Delhi have made tobringabout a greater consciousness of their problems among Indians and all others.There is a growing consciousness even in those countries which do notbelieve inthese things. I think it is because of the efforts made not only by great leaders likeNelson Mandela and others who are supporting him, but even by students andothers in different parts of the world who are constantly working towards the end.Shared ExperienceThe Government and people of India have consistently supported the oppressedpeoples of the world in their fight for political and human rights. Wehave sharedthe joy of each country of Africa as it attained independence. We share the shockof every brutal act which is perpetrated by imperialists and racists, as happened inSharpville.We have, of course, had contacts with Africa for many centuriescontacts ofcommerce, of culture-but in today's world these have to be much closer and more

meaningful. Of course our special contact with South Africa is that our own greatleader, Mahatma Gandhi, fashioned what, for us, was the potent instrument of anon-violent crusade. He fashioned this against racial discrimination in SouthAfrica. It was after 20 years that he returned here and convertedour Party, theCongress Party, into a mass movement and took up the leadership ofour struggleand brought us victory.Apartheid Must EndHumankind cannot be totally liberated until the last vestiges of colonialism,racism and apartheid are swept off the scene in Africa. We have consistentlyreiterated our solidarity and unwavering support to the liberationstruggles of thebrave peoples of the Frontline States. They have undergone sacrifices, havesuffered and are suffering great hardships for a just cause.National liberation movements in Africa have readily accepted peaceful transitiontowards independence. But racist minority regimes spurn the hand of peace andthey cling to power by brute force and betrayal. An increasing number ofcountries are publicly disowning them.

Yet they do continue to receive military, technological and economic supportfrom some places. The decade of the eighties may well decide the destiny ofSouthern Africa. The African people must win. And we, in India, reiterate ourtotal support to you.Support to NamibiaAs I said earlier, freedom is indivisible and the denial of freedom inany one placeis bound to create concern everywhere else. We reaffirm our total support for theNamibian. people's right to sovereignty and express our solidarity with thestruggle led by the South West African People's Organisation. We welcome theSWAPO representative's current visit to Delhi to establish SWAPO'soffice sothat their cause is more widely known among our people.We strongly disapprove South Africa's bid to subvert the U.N. plan for peacefulsettlement in Namibia as contained in the Security Council Resolutionanddeplore the actions of certain States which are propping up the apartheidregimeof South Africa in its defiance of world opinion. South Africa's acts ofunprovoked armed aggression against the Frontline States are reprehensible.Forming States like Bantustans is but a ploy cn the part of South Africa's racistGovernment. Creation of such illegal and artificial entities perpetuates theinhuman system of apartheid and is against the basic interests of South Africa'soppressed peoples. It is essential that the African people stand as one against allsuch manoeuvres.May every year, rather every day, bring greater strength to those who are fighting.May it bring courage and understanding amongst those who are stilldoubtful orthose who, for their own narrow purposes, are trying to halt the march of history. Ihave no doubt that no one can stop freedom. There is no act of repression, there isno brutality, which can stop the forward movement of a great idea and there canbe no greater idea than the freedom of the human being. That will win. But it is upto all of us to do whatever we can to help these movements and to create a greaterpublic consciousness.

Apartheid Condemned at U.N. Human Rights Session, February 14,1982Following are excerpts from the statement made by Shri B: R. Bhagat, M.P.. andrepresentative of India, in the Human Rights Session atGeneva on February 14. 1982 :The criminal apartheid policies of the racist white minority regimeof South Africa have been a serious issue before the internationalcommunity eversince the UN came into existence three and a half decades ago. The ad hocworking group of experts of the Commission has been examining the policies andpractices of the racist regime in South Africa as well as its policies and practicesin Namibia where it is still in illegal occupation, since 1967. Every year, membersof the Commission solemnly pronounce themselves on the ad hoc working groupheaded by the sorrow and shame that the situation of human rights in South Africahas not improved in any way. On the contrary, as the ad hoc working groupheaded by the most eminent and respected Mr. Keba M'Baye has noted there isfurther evidence of intensified repression, persistence of systematic forture ofdetainees and brutality towards prisoners, arbitrary detentionsand trials andviolence by the police and millitary against unarmed citizens. The policy ofterritorial apartheid continues. So does the policy of forcible evacuation andsettlement to the point that it is in danger of becoming wholesale genocide.In the face of all this evidence, what have we done, Mr. Chairman, to ridourselves of this cancer of apartheid ? To blot out this challenge toall that standsfor humanity and civilisation. To restore to the black, coloured andIndianmajority of South Africa and the people of Namibia the rights which areinalienbly theirs by the simple fact they are human beings ? The answerregrettable is very little. It is ironic that this should be so because if there is oneissue on which the international community is united, it is in regard to apartheid.Not one single delegation has spoken in support or justification ofthis abhorrentand inhuman system. If we cannot join together in concerted action on an issue onwhich we are united, how shall we act on issues on which we are divided ?

Universal Condemnation to Bring PressuriIt is an irony of our times, Mr. Chairman, that some affluent and industrialisednations who proclaim their support to the cause of human rights, equality andjustice continue to collaborate actively with the racist regime in various fields.The irony is made sharper in that these are democratic societies, committed tomulti-racialism and to promote racial harmony within their respectivecountries.These are societies which cherish human values and jealously safeguard the rightsof their citizens. Commitment to multi-racialism however seems to cease when itcomes to South Africa. The distinguished representatives of UK has counselledpatience. That is not a quality found wanting in us. We have been patient for overthree quarters of a century since Mahatma Gandhi, the Father ofour Nation, firstlaunched his struggle against the apartheid regime in the last century. Is patienceto be demanded till eternity ? Surely we would better bear up to the callforpatience if we had something other than vague assurances of an eventual change.Would it be too much to ask how long we are supposed to be patient ? A

distinguished representative said that efforts are being made to improve the lot ofthe non-white population of South Africa through the EEC codes of conduct. Howdo we reconcile this with the statement of Mr. Keba M'Baye's working group inpara 152 that these various codes of conduct were "having little impact on thewages and conditions of black workers employed by foreign companies..It is distressing that even protest against inhuman treatment of squatters isopposed. For example, in para 83 the working group observes : 'In this connectionthe Western contact group decided to appeal to the South African Government togive humanitarian considerations high priority in the handing of thesituation inthe Nyanga Crossroads Area. However, the protest against the treatment of Capesquatters was opposed by the United States".Occupation of NamibiaQuite apart from the horrors perpetuated on the people of South Africa, the racistregime continues to be in illegal occupation of Namibia, flouting the will of theinternational community. Over a decade and half has passed since the UNterminated the mandate of South Africa over Namibia. Yet we witness a cynicalcharade aimed at placating the forces of illegal occupation. We witness thestrange spectacle in which the136

minority racist regime which denied the most fundamental of humanri gi to theoppressed majority in South Africa itself is seeking guarantees for minorities in aterritory which it is occupying illegally. The international commission of inquiryheaded by Mr. Sean McBride has concluded that "the recognised rights of theNamibian people are being violated in outrageous fashion by South Africanoccupation and as a violation of the fundamental principle of a people's right ofself-determination constitutes a crime of aggression against the Namibian people.The use of armed force against SWAPO and the people of Namibia alsoconstitutes an international armed conflict, while systematic massacres and torturecarried out by South Africa against the population ahd the liberation movementfighters are a violation of humanitarian law".We follow with interest the efforts of the Western Contact Group ofFive. But it is nearly four years since Security Council Resolution435 (1978)endorsing the plan for independence of Namibia was adopted. If the people ofNamibia are enabled to attain their independence and freedom today it would notbe a day too soon. If the recent reports of progress in the efforts of the contactgroup are to be believed, there may be some reason for optimism. But too often inthe past hopes have been raised only to be shattered soon after bytheintransigence of the racist regime. Our sense of optimism has therefore to betempered with abundant caution. We want to see some agreed and positive resultssoon.SanctionsMr. Chairman if we are to succeed in our common determination to root outapartheid in South Africa and wherever it threatens to raise its ugly head, it isessential that the political, economic, commercial and military support SouthAfrica enjoys from some countries should be ended forthwith. Thepast policies

and practices of the racist regime inspires no confidence that it isamenable to oreven deserving of anything so civilised as friendly persuasion. Ifthe racist regimehas the temerity to flout the will of the international community it isbecause ofsuch outrageous suppprt. We have consistently advocated that there can be notruck with this racist minority regime. We ourselves imposed comprehensivesanctions unilaterally, as far ago as in 1946. It is our view that imposition ofcomprehensive and mandatory sanctions against the South Africanregime isessential to root out this evil system of apartheid completely andis long overdue.

Turning now to item 16 Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend the Group ofThree for the work they have done during the year. I am happy to inform theCommission that since we last met, the Indian Parliament has unanimouslyadopted a bill under which the crime of apartheid will be punishable by death orimprisonment and fine. This bill would give effect to the provisions of theinternational convention on suppression and punishment of the crime of apartheidto which we became a party in 1977. I might also mention that we intend to votein favour of draft resolution L-l 3 and hope that, as mentioned in that draft, thosecountries who have not yet done so, will soon become parties to the convention.Before I conclude Mr. Chairman, one brief comment regarding item 18 (B). Thereis a pending matter in terms of Resolution 7(XXXV) in regard to the treatment ofnon-white immigrants. Since then discussions between the Governments of Indiaand the United Kingdom have continued on this question. The Indian Governmenthas emphasised its desire to see that the immigration laws of Britain are applied ina non-discriminatory and humane manner so as to avoid any undue hardship tononwhite immigrants. At present consultations are continuing between the twogovernments to reach a satisfactory arrangement in this regard, and we expect tomake a further statement to the Commission at a latter stage,

External Affairs Minister's Message to U.N. SpecialCommittee Against Apartheid, March 19, 1982Following is the text of the message sent by the Minister of External Affairs to theU.N. Special Committee against Apartheid on the occasion of theobservance ofthe International Day for the Elimina.tion of Racial Discrimination, at the U.N. Headquarters on March19, 1982:The international day for the elimination of racial discrimination is observed eachyear to mark the anniversary of the tragedy of Sharpeville in South Africa. On thisday, while paying homage to the heroic martyrs, I wish to reaffirmIndia's firmsupport to the people of South Africa and their liberation movements intheir juststruggle for the fulfilment of their inalienable right to self-determination, freedomand dignity.India's total opposition and abhorrence of all forms of racism, racialdiscrimination and apartheid is well-known. We believe that the evil system ofapartheid, which constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security, isa blot on the conscience of mankind. India was privileged to be the country toraise the issue of racism in South Africa at the United Nations in 1946. Earlier,

the Father of our Nation, Mahatma Gandhi, had raised his voice against thisaffront to mankind. India was also among the first countries to break off relationsin all fields with South Africa in protest against its pernicious policies.Human dignity and the well-being of the individual can be guaranteed only underconditions of full enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms, irrespective ofcolour, creed, class or birth. These noble principles have been dulyenshrined inthe Constitution of India.Apartheid is an abomination which must be totally erased because it is aninsult tohumanity. India shares the deep agony which the people of South Africa suffer.We have consistently supported and honoured the cause of the SouthAfricanpeople in every international forum. We have felt anguish and shock at everybrutality inflicted by the imperialists and racists on the freedom and dignity-loving people of South Africa.139

India has also strongly disapproved of' South Africa's moves to subvert the U.N.plea for the peaceful settlement of the question of Namibia. Long ago werecognised SWAPO as the sole and authentic representative of the people ofNamibia and have invited SWAPO to open its office in New Delhi.On behalf of the Government and the people of India, I reiterate that India willcontinue to give all out support to the courageous people of South Africa andNamibia in their struggle to secure political freedom and human dignity and Ibelieve that the day is not very far when they will be able to achieve theircherished goal.

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Message to InternationalConference on Women and Apartheid, May 1982Following is text of the message from the Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi, forthe international Con ferenee on Women and Apartheid,held in Brussels in May 1982:Women played a significant part in India's fight for freedom. Beforeindependence the highest position we could offer anybody was the presidentshipof our political party-The Indian National Congress. Three women adorned thishigh position. They also became office-bearers of provincial town and othercommittees of the Party and were active at all levels. They courageously sharedthe hardship and suffering. The world was witness to the strength which women'sparticipation gave to ourfreedom movement.Oppression in NamibiaIndia has consistently supported the just struggle of the South African andNamibian peoples at every international forum. We were the first country to drawthe attention of the United Nations towards the repressive policies offacism andapartheid as practised by South Africa and to sever relations with South Africa inevery field. We believe that such racist polices are an affront to humankind. InSouth Africa they amount to an officially sponsored civil war against the majoritypopulation there. The South African regime harasses its own peopleand, in open

defiance of the world community through its illegal occupation of Namibia, it isalso oppressing the people of Namibia. In such violcnt situations, women areoften the worst sufferers and must be mobilized to fight oppressionI send my good wishes to the International Conference on Women andApartheidwhich is being held in Brussels by the Special Committee against Apartheid incooperation with International Committee of Solidarity with the Struggle ofwomen of South Africa and Namibia.

External Affairs Minister's Message for Asian RegionalConference, Manila, May 1982Following is text of the message from the Minister of External Affairs, Shri P. V.Narasimha Rao, for the Asian Regional Conference againstApartheid held in Manila from May 24-26, 1982:The international community has time and again delared the policy of apartheid acrime against humanity and as endangering international peace and security. It hasrepeatedly called upon the Pretoria regime to revise its racist policies inconformity with the principles of the United Nations Charter and the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights. In spite of this, however, the people ofSouthAfrica continue to be denied their most fundamental rights and liberties.The human issues at stake in the South African situation are indeed very graveand serious and call for concerted action. The policies of repression beingperpetrated by the South African government against its own peopleand thetemerity with which it flouts world opinion cannot be sustained but forsupportSouth Africa has received from certain developed countries. As longas SouthAfrica continues stubbornly to refuse to abide by the United Nations decisionsagainst apartheid and to accept a transition to majority rule, the chances of peaceand security in that part of the world continue to be imperilled.The people of Asia have a long history of struggle against colonialism,exploitation and racial discrimination. They fully share the sorrow and sufferingof the great people of South Africa. India's support and solidarity with the peopleof South Africa in their just struggle is well known and needs no reiteration. Indiahad been the first country to draw the attention of the United Nations towards thisinhuman policy. This commitment will continue.It is appropriate that the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid isorganising the Asian Regional Conference for action against Apartheid at Manila.I send the meeting my greetings and best wishes,

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Address to MauritianNational Assembly, August 24, 1982Following is an excerpt from the Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi'saddress to the Mauritian National Assembly on August 24, 1982 :Close to you is a country whose policies are an affront to all the values we holddear. South Africa refuses to give up the pernicious doctrines of apartheid andracist domination, denying freedom to the majority of its own people as also tothose of Namibia. The Government and the people of India have consistently andfirmly condemned the atrocities on the blacks and coloured people of South

Africa. We have supported the cause of the African National Congress, ofSWAPO and other liberation movements in Southern Africa. This is anothersphere which calls for common efforts, in cooperation with the Front-line States,to end these abhorrent policies of racialism and colonialism.

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Speech at Banquet inher Honour in Maputo, August 25, 1982Following are excerpts from the speech of the Prime Minister of India, Smit.Indira Gandhi. at the banquet hosted in her honour by the President ofMozambique, Mr. Samora Machel, in Maputo on August25, 1982:Next door to your country, Mr. President, you are plagued with the hatefuldoctrine of racism. In South Africa a minority rules over the majority,tramplingtheir dignity and their rights. In its pursuit of apartheid, the South Africanminority government has built a structure of institutionalised terroragainst itsown people merely on the bases of race and skin-colour. But the question is notmerely one of human rights but of colonialism as well.The regime is a remnant of the outdated colonial system. From the days ofMahatma Gandhi, who lived and worked in South Africa for some years, we havefirmly opposed racial discrimination, When our own government came to powerunder Jawaharlal Nehru, we enacted laws for greater equality in our own land andour first major international initiative in the United Nations was a crasade againstracial discrimination and apartheid. We share the deep agony of the black andcoloured people who suffer in South Africa. We share their faith in their ultimatevictory. We are aware of the problems you have faced as their neighbour andwell-wisher. We realize the responsibilities of the Front-Line States. These issueshave been discussed between us again today. Zimbabwe is now free. So shallNamibia be. And indeed in the not two distant future South Africa too will be freeof oppression, opening the doors of opportunity to people of all races. I salute thegallant freedom fighters of South Africa, whose shining advocate Nelson Mandelais. Meanwhile we hope that the attempts to destabilise you and other countriesworking so hard to solve their own problems will cease. India stands solidly withyou. We applaud your courage and determination. We shall continue tosupportthe process of bringing nationhood and freedom to Namibians,

ANNEXURE IThe Anti-Apartheid (United Nations Convention) Act, 1981Following is the text of The Anti-Apartheid (United Nations Convention) Act,1981 which received the assent of the President of India on December 18, 1981and was published in the Gazette of India,Extraordinary, Part II, No 56 on December 19, 1981 :An Act to give effect to the International Convention on theSuppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.Whereas an International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of theCrime of Apartheid was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nationson the Thirtieth day of November, 1973;

And whereas India, having acceded to the said Convention, should makeprovisions for giving effect to it;Be it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty-second Year of the Republic of India asfollowsShort title and extent1. (1) The Act may be called the Anti-Apartheid (United Nations Convention)Act, 1981.(2) It extends to the whole of India.Application of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishmentof the Crime of Apartheid2. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any otherlaw, suchof the provisions of the International Convention on the Suppression andPunishment of the Crime of Apartheid as are set out in the Schedule shall have theforce of law in India.(2) The Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in theOfficial Gazette, amend the Schedule in conformity with any145

amendments, duly made and adopted, of the provisions of the said Convention setout therein.(3) Every notification issued under sub-section (2) shall be laid, as soon as may beafter it is issued, before each House of Parliament.Punishment for international criminal responsibilityEvery person to whom international criminal responsibility applies under articleIll of the said Convention, as set out in the Schedule, shall be punished with death,or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term which may extendto tenyears, and shall also be liable to line.Explanation-For the purposes of this section, the reference in clause(a) of articleIII cf the said Convention to "article II" shall be construed as a reference to theprovisions of article II of that Convention as set out in the Schedule.Offences by companies, organisations or institutions4. Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a companyor anorganisation or an institution, every person who, at the time the offence wascommitted, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company, organisationor institution, as the case may be, for the conduct of its business or affairs, shallbe deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded againstand punished accordingly :Provided that nothing contained in this section shall render any such person liableto any punishment provided in this Act if he proves that the offence wascommitted without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to preventthe commission of such offence.Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "company" means any bodycorporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals.Place of trial5. An) person committing an offence under section 3 may be tried forthe offencein any place in which he may be found or in such other place as the Central

Government may, by general or special order, published in the Official Gazette,direct in this behalf.

Previous sanction of the Central Government for arrest or prosecution6. No person shall be arrested or prosecuted in respect of any offence undersection 3 except with the previous sanction of tile Central Government or suchofficer or authority as may be authorised by that Government by order in writingin this behalf,Provision as to Extradition Act 34 of 19627. For the purposes of the Extradition Act,' 1962, the offence tinder section 3 shallnot be considered to be an offence of a political character.THE SCHEDULE(See sections 2 and 3)Provisions of the International Convention on the suppression and Punishment ofthe Crime of Apartheid which shall have force of Law.Article IIFor the purpose of the present Convention, the term "the crime of apartheid",which shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation anddiscrimination as practised in southern Africa, shall apply to the followinginhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintainingdomination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of personsand systematically oppressing them :(a) Denial to a member or members of a racial group or groupsof the right to life and liberty of person :(i) By murder of members of a racial group or groups;(ii) By the infliction upon the members of a racial group orgroups of serious bodily or mental harm, by the infringement of their freedom ordignity, or by subjecting them to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degradingtreatment orpunishment;(iii) By arbitrary arrest and illegal imprisonment of the membersof a racial group or groups;(b) Deliberate imposition on a racial group or groups of livingconditicns calculated to cause its or their physical destructionin whole or in part;

(e) Exploitation of the labour of the members of a racial group orgroups, in particular by submitting them to forced labour.(f) Persecution of organisations and persons, by depriving themof fundamental rights and freedoms, because they opposeapartheid.Article IIIInternational criminal responsibility shall apply, irrespective of the motiveinvolved, to individuals, members of organizations and institutions andrepresentatives of the State, whether residing in the territory of theState in whichthe acts are perpetrated or in some other State, whenever they :

(a) Commit, participate in, directly incite or conspire in thecommission of the acts mentioned in article 11 of the presentConvention;(b) Directly abet, encovrage or co-operate in the commission ofthe crime of apartheid.

Annexure IIExtract from the Ministry of External Affairs Report 1981-82India continued to give moral and and material support to the Southern Africanliberation movements in their fight against colonialism, racialism and apartheid.Besides India's abhorrence for all forms of discrimination, support to Africanliberation movements and independent countries of that continent lies rooted inthe strong historical and emotional links that bind India to Africa. The number ofvisits by the many heads of state and government of African countries and otherdignitaries to India during the year under review, and the visits paid by thePresident and the Prime Minister of India, as well as other Indian leaders toAfrican countries not to mention the various agreements concluded, clearlyindicated the strong bonds that exist between India and the African states. About50 delegations from various Ministries/Departments/organisationsof theGovernment of India and those of the governments of the various Africancountries exchanged visits for further expansion of bilateral relations in industrialtechnical, and other fields. Approximately 8000 African students continued toreceive education in Indian Universities and institutions. Most of them were onself-financing basis, and some of them were on various scholarshipschemesfunded by the Government of India/International bodies etc. A large number ofIndian doctors, teachers, engineers, technicians and accountantsare working inAfrican countries to assist them in their respective fields.India's boycott of the racist regime of South Africa remained complete. It utilisedthe UN and other international forums to condemn South Africa's policies ofracial discrimination. It may be recalled that the New Delhi Declaration of theForeign Ministers of Non-Aligned countries in February 1981 had reiteratedIndia's condemnation of the apartheid system. The unprovoked aggression by theracist regime of South Africa against Angola and other Frontline States came infor strong condemnation by the Government of India.149

In pursuance of the consistent policy of support to African freedommovements,the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO), the sole and authenticrepresentative of the Namibian people, was granted facilities bythe Governmentof India to set up a Resident Mission in New Delhi. It would be recalled,that asimilar Mission of the African National Congress (S.A.) was established in NewDelhi in 1967 with the Government of India's help.Published by External Publicity Division of Ministry of External Affairs,Government of India, New Delhi and Printed by S.C. Sagar at BengalPrintingPress, Delhi-6. Phone 513464Editor: G.P.S. Bawa MEA/1 08/82

Cover Design and Layout : R, Sarangan

* *r *'n-AV;~' .1:",-. ligag^.