Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:16:56.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘A most auspicious begining’: the 1946 United Nations General Assembly and the question of the treatment of Indians in South Africa*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Lorna Lloyd
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 22 June 1946 the Government of India asked that the treatment of Indians in South Africa be placed on the agenda of the Second Part of the First UN General Assembly. This was the first dispute to be taken to the General Assembly and it resulted in the UN's first attack on South Africa. From the perspective of the 1990s the only striking thing about the 1946 UN resolution is its mild tone and the limitation of its criticism to South Africa's, policies relating to just one group. However, from the perspective of 1946 it is remarkable that the UN should even have discussed South Africa's treatment of her Indian citizens, let alone have decided by a two-thirds majority that she had failed to treat them in conformity with. her international obligations and the relevant provisions of the UN Charter.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , April 1990 , pp. 131 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Draft Memorandum by C. Heathcote-Smith (Second Secretary, Foreign Office), 30 Apr. 1946, London, Public Record Office (PRO), U 3979/36/70 FO 371/57137 and DO 35/1122/G715/30.

2 ‘General Assembly of the United Nations: Indian Complaint Against South Africa’, Memorandum by Bevin, 17 Oct. 1946, PRO, CP(46)373, CAB 129/13.

3 Minute by Heathcote-Smith, 13 Apr. 1946, PRO, U 3979/36/70 FO 371/57137.

4 Foreign Office to UK Delegation to the General Assembly, 5 Nov. 1946, Cypher Telegram 1876, London, India Office Records (IOR), L/E/9/1403 and PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46.

5 Lumby, E. W. R., The Transfer of Power in India 1945–7 (London, 1954), p. 117Google Scholar.

6 Stultz, Newell M., ‘The Apartheid Issue at the General Assembly: Stalemate or Gathering Storm?’, African Affairs 86, no. 342 (01 1987), p. 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 India's deep-seated grievance and the complicated events leading up to the lodging of the complaint are discussed in the author's ‘“A Family Quarrel”. The Development of the Dispute over Indians in South Africa’, The Historical Journal (forthcoming).

8 The ‘more impermanent Indian elements not willing to conform to western standards of life’ were offered voluntary repatriation. Very few took up the offer.

9 The doctrine of inter-se was a constitutional device developed by Britain to take account of the emergence of the Dominions onto the international stage. It was based on the fact that the British sovereign was the head of all Commonwealth countries. By virtue of their shared loyalty to the King, Commonwealth countries were held to enjoy a special kind of relationship which was not international and was not governed by international law.

10 Memorandum by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, 3 Oct. 1946, New Delhi, National Archives of India (NAI), Appendix E, 2(19)-UNO 1/47. See also Jha, C. S., From Bandung to Tashkent: Glimpses of India's Foreign Policy (London, 1983), pp. 23–25Google Scholar.

11 ‘Is the Indian Question in South Africa Essentially a Matter within the Domestic Jurisdiction of the Government of South Africa?’ Brief for the Indian Delegation to the General Assembly prepared in the Commonwealth Relations Department, NAI, SN37 6(22)-CC/46.

12 Commonwealth Relations Department, ‘Presentation of the Case of Indians in South Africa before the United Nations’, c. 15 May 1946, NAI, External Affairs 14(25) PWR/46.

13 India deliberately avoided the reference to human rights in Article 62.2 since it related to the functions and powers of the Economic and Social Council. India most definitely wanted to keep her dispute away from ECOSOC where it ‘would be relegated to the economic and social plane and would not focus the attention of the world as it would if it were kept alive purely as a political issue before the General Assembly’. (Minute by B. K. Kapur [an official in the External Affairs Department], 24 May 1946, NAI, SN7 14(25) PWR/46).

14 Commonwealth Relations Department, ‘Presentation of the Case’, NAI, External Affairs 14(25) PWR/46.

15 Sapru memorandum, NAI, Appendix E to 2(19) UNOI/47.

16 Lord Wavell (Viceroy of India) to Lord Pethick-Lawrence (Secretary of State for India), 3 Sep. 1946, Telegram 1842-S, IOR, L/E/9/1403 and L/PO/471.

17 Memorandum submitted by Pandit to the UN Secretary-General, 2 May 1945, NAI, External Affairs 178–PWR 1945.

18 Pandit, Vijaya Lakshmi, The Scope of Happiness. A Personal Memoir (London, 1979), pp. 205–207Google Scholar.

19 The delegation included India's Agent to South Africa from 1932–5, Sir Maharaj Singh; her High Commissioner from 1945–6, Ramrao Madhavarao Desmukh; Sapru's son, P. N. Sapru; and the Commonwealth Relations Department officials who had had most to do with preparing the delegation's brief, R. N. Banerjee, and C. S. Jha.

20 Pandit, , Scope of Happiness, p. 208Google Scholar. Cf. Chagla, M. C., Roses in December (Bombay, 1974), p. 228Google Scholar; Jfaa, , Bandung to Tashkent, p. 25Google Scholar.

21 Hancock, W. K., Smuts. The Fields of Force, 1919–1950 (Cambridge, 1968), p. 472Google Scholar.

22 Pandit, , Scope of Happiness, pp. 205, 206, 288–9Google Scholar; Sagal, Nabantara, Prison and Chocolate Cake (London, 1954), p. 196Google Scholar, cited in Hancock, , Smuts, p. 472Google Scholar.

23 B. R. Curson (Principal, India Office, attached to UK Delegation) to K. Anderson (Acting Assistant Secretary, Financial Department, India Office), 28 Oct. 1946, IOR L/E/9/1396.

24 Another factor was the influence of Krishna Menon. Although he was not unfriendly on the few social occasions when he mixed with the British, he struck them as bitterly anti-British and he was a prickly, awkward character. Despite misgivings, Mrs Pandit often accepted Menon's advice and his seemingly ‘pathological’ attempts to stir up trouble for Britain drew him into the welcoming Soviet embrace.

25 The Assembly president, Paul-Henri Spaak of Belgium, chaired the Committee. The seven vice-presidents represented China, France, South Africa, Venezuela, the Soviet Union, the United States and Britain. The committee chairmen represented the Ukraine, Poland, New Zealand, Syria, Uruguay and Panama.

26 Note by Ben Cockram (a Dominions Office official who was acting as Counsellor in the British Embassy in Washington and was attached to the UK Delegation) for Arthur Bottomley (Under Secretary, Dominions Office), 19 Dec. 1946, PRO, DO 35/1214/WR208/5/64.

27 Chagla, , Roses in December, p. 236Google Scholar.

28 General Assembly, Official Records of the Second Part of the First Session, Lake Success, New York. General Committee. Summary record of meetings, p. 71Google Scholar.

29 Note by Cockram for Bottomley, PRO, DO 35/1214/WR208/5/64.

30 Ibid.

31 By 4 to 3 with 4 abstentions.

32 Minute by R. N. Gilchrist (Principal, India Office) for J. P. Gibson (Head of Political Department, India Office), 29 June 1946, IOR, L/E/9/1403.

33 Curson to Anderson, 28 Oct. 1946, IOR, L/E/9/1396.

34 Ibid.

35 Note by Cockram for Bottomley, PRO, DO 35/1214/WR208/5/64.

36 Telegram from Pandit to Nehru, 25 Oct. 1946, Personal, NAI, SN31 6(22)-CC/46.

37 Cockram to Sir John Stephenson (Deputy Under Secretary, Dominions Office), 8 Nov. 1946, Secret & Personal, PRO, DO 35/128.

38 Ibid.

39 The Indian resolution stated that South Africa's discriminatory treatment of Asians and Indians constituted ‘a denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms’, was ‘contrary to the Charter’, and had impaired and was further likely to impair Indian-South African relations. Accordingly, the Union Government ‘should revise their general policy and their legislative and administrative measures affecting Asiatics … so as to bring them into conformity with the principles and purposes of the Charter’. (Report of the Indian Delegation, 27 Feb. 1947, NAI, 2(19)-UNOI/47 1947 and IOR, EXT 8593 1947 180/7 L/E/9/1392.)

40 Jha, , Bandung to Tashkent, p. 26Google Scholar.

41 Cockram to Stephenson, 21 Nov. 1946, Confidential, PRO, DO 35/1123/G715/40. The prior circulation of the speech was, he said, ‘but one example of the maladroitness of the South African Delegation, which has handicapped them and us all along’.

42 Smuts argued that the ‘Ghetto’ Act, like the temporary ‘Pegging’ Act of 1943, resulted from the failure to repatriate all but the ‘irreducable minimum’ of Indians capable of being assimilated under the Capetown Agreement; the Act did not discriminate against Indians since it also applied to Europeans; and under the Act Indians were for the first time recognized as members of the South African community by being granted representation in the Natal Provincial Council.

43 UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 21 Nov. 1946, Telegram 1878, Cambridge, Churchill College Archives, Noel-Baker Papers 4/745.

44 ‘Note on the Indian Delegation’ by Curson, 27 Dec. 1946, IOR, L/E/9/1392.

45 See Hancock, , Smuts, p. 143Google Scholar.

46 Cockram to Stephenson, 21 Nov. 1946, PRO, DO 35/1123/G715/40.

47 Jha, , Bandung to Tashkent, p. 27Google Scholar.

48 UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 26 Nov. 1946, Telegram 1985, IOR, L/E/9/1404.

49 Pandit, , Scope of Happiness, p. 210Google Scholar; Curson note on the Indian Delegation, IOR, L/E/9/1392.

50 Pandit, , Scope of Happiness, pp. 209–210Google Scholar.

51 Report of Indian Delegation, NAI, 2(19)-UNOI/47 1947.

52 Chagla, , Roses in December, pp. 237–238Google Scholar.

53 Curson to Anderson, 28 Nov. 1946, Secret, IOR, L/E/9/1396.

54 Government of India Press Information Bureau, ‘Deliberately frivolous and offensive’. Mrs Pandit replies to Mr Heatan Nicholls, 26 Nov. 1946, NAI, SN42 6(22)-CC/46.

55 Cited in UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 26 Nov. 1946, Telegram 2002, PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46.

56 Report of Indian Delegation, NAI, 2(19)-UNOI/47 1947. Those who spoke in support of India were China, Poland, the Philippines, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Colombia, Uruguay, Panama, France, Mexico, Byelorussia, Yugoslavia, the Ukraine, and the USSR.

57 Curson to Anderson, 28 Nov. 1946, IOR, L/E/9/1396.

58 Cooke, Alistair, The Manchester Guardian, 27 11 1946Google Scholar.

59 Cited in UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 29 Nov. 1946, Telegram 2101, PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46.

60 Cabinet Steering Committee on International Organization. Report on the Second Part of the First Session of the General Assembly. Note by the Foreign Office, 21 Jan. 1946, Secret, IOC 47(21), IOR, L/E/9/1392. Those who supported a reference to the ICJ included Belgium, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada, Honduras, Guatemala, Ecuador, Brazil, Costa Rica, Argentina, Peru and Turkey. Australia and Venezuela reserved their position.

61 Curson to Anderson, 28 Nov. 1946, Telegram 2090, Top Secret and Personal, Immediate, IOR, C&O 6226 1946 L/E/9/1396.

62 Report on Second Part of First Session of the General Assembly. Note by the Foreign Office, IOC 47(21), IOR, L/E/9/1392.

63 UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 29 Oct. 1946, Telegram 1332, PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46.

64 Minute by P. Mason (Acting Counsellor, Foreign Office), 19 Nov. 1946, PRO, UN 4150/432/78 FO 371/59797.

65 Curson to the author, 17 Oct. 1988.

66 Curson to Anderson, 28 Nov. 1946, Telegram 2090, IOR, L/E/9/1396.

67 Pandit to Nehru, 29 Nov. 1946, Cypher Telegram GA41, PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46.

68 Curson to Anderson, Telegram 2090, IOR, L/E/9/1396.

69 Curson to Anderson, 28 Nov. 1946, Secret, IOR, L/E/9/1396. See also Cockram to Stephenson, 8 Nov. 1946, PRO, DO 35/1289.

70 Bottomley to Sir E. Machtig (Permanent Under Secretary, Dominions Office), 27 Nov. 1946, Cypher Telegram 2059, PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46.

71 See UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 27 Nov. 1946, Telegram 2058, PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46; Bottomley to Machtig, Telegram 2059, DO 35/1293/G715/46.

72 See UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 27 Nov. 1946, Telegram 2058, PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46; UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 29 Nov. 1946, Telegram 2102, PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46; Yearbook of the United Nations 1946–7, pp. 146–7. On the US position see memorandum by Mr Sandifer, 26 Nov. 1946, Washington D.C., US National Archives, US Mission to the UN, 1945–9, Box 78.

73 Telegram from Banerjee to Nehru, 28 Nov. 1946, NAI, 6(22)-CC/46.

74 Minute by Sir P. J. Patrick (Assistant Under Secretary, India Office), 3 Dec. 1946, IOR, L/E/9/1404.

75 Telegram from Banerjee to Nehru, 28 Nov. 1946, NAI, 6(22)-CC/46.

The resolution was as follows:

The General Assembly, having taken note of the application made by the Government of India regarding the treatment of Indians in South Africa, and having considered the matter:

(1) states that, because of that treatment, friendly relations between two member-States have been impaired, and unless a satisfactory settlement is reached are likely to be further impaired;

(2) is of the opinion that the treatment of Indians in the Union should be in conformity with international obligations under the agreements concluded between the two Governments, and the relevant provisions of the Charter;

(3) and requests the two Governments to report to the next session of the Assembly the measures adopted to this effect.

76 General Assembly, Official Records. General Committee. Summary Record of Meetings, p. 72.

77 United Nations General Assembly Official Records of the Second Part of the First Session, Lake Success, New York, Joint Committee of the First and Sixth Committees, Summary Record of Meetings, p. 43Google Scholar.

78 UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 2 Dec. 1946, Telegram 2200, IOR, L/E/9/1404.

79 Reuters report on Joint Committee meeting on 30 Nov. in IOR, L/E/9/1404; UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 30 Nov. 1946, Telegram 2166, PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46; Minute by J. Simpson (Joint Secretary, Military Department, India Office), IOR, L/E/9/1404.

80 Reuters report on the Joint Committee meeting on 30 Nov. The majority included the East Europeans, Arabs, Africans, Asians and some Latin Americans. The minority included the UK, Canada, Australia, South Africa, the USA, Western Europe other than France, Scandinavia other than Denmark and a majority of Latin Americans. New Zealand, Denmark, Ecuador, Honduras, Panama and Turkey abstained.

81 UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 2 Dec. 1946, Telegram 2200, IOR, L/E/9/1404.

82 Hindustan Times, 5 12 1946Google Scholar.

83 See Minutes by Patrick, 3 Dec. 1946, IOR, L/E/9/1404; Heathcote-Smith, 3 Dec. 1946, PRO, UN 4916/432/78 FO 371/59798; and Sir Charles Dixon (Assistant Under Secretary, Dominions Office) and Machtig, 2 Dec. 1946, PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46.

84 Jha, , Bandung to Tashkent, pp. 28, 88–89Google Scholar.

85 This was because nearly every delegation had made its views clear on this issue but there had been no committee vote on the proposal and there was reason to think that it might have won more than the 19 votes cast against the French–Mexican resolution in the Joint Committee. Tired and overworked delegates would, however, be inclined to abstain on a different resolution on which they had not made up their minds or obtained instructions. Moreover, this amendment would go down best in South Africa and the Assembly president might keep its discussion to a minimum because it had already been discussed in committee. (UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 7 Dec. 1946, Cypher Telegram 2370, PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46.).

86 General Assembly Official Records, Flushing Meadow, New York, 50th Plenary, 7 12 1946, pp. 1,008–9Google Scholar.

87 New York Post, 10 12 1946Google Scholar, cited in Reuters Report in Hindustan Times, 12 12 1946Google Scholar.

88 UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 9 Dec. 1946, Telegram 2447, PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46; General Assembly, Official Records, 50th Plenary, pp. 1,016–9.

89 Addison to Bottomley, 10 Dec. 1946, Cypher Telegram 2479, IOR, L/E/9/1405.

90 UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 9 Dec. 1946, Telegram 2443, PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46; General Assembly Official Records, 51st Plenary, 8 Dec. 1946, pp. 1,035–6.

91 Pandit, , Scope of Happiness, p. 210Google Scholar.

92 General Assembly, Official Records, 52nd Plenary, 8 12 1946, p. 1,044Google Scholar; Curson to Anderson, 10 Dec. 1946, IOR, L/E/9/1396.

93 Cooke, Alistair, The Manchester Guardian, 10 12 1946Google Scholar.

94 This was provoked by ‘a slightly incautious’ reference to ‘Indian politicians, so unhappily divided by communal strife and discrimination in their own country’. See General Assembly, Official Records, 51st Plenary, p. 1,034; UK Delegation to Foreign Office, 9 Dec. 1946, Telegram 2443, PRO, DO 35/1293/G715/46; Curson to Anderson, 10 Dec. 1946, IOR, L/E/9/1396.

95 Pandit, , Scope of Happiness, p. 210Google Scholar.

96 See Bottomley to Addison, 10 Dec. 1946, PRO, DO 35/1892(WR208/5/29.

97 Pandit, , Scope of Happiness, p. 210Google Scholar.

98 General Assembly, Official Records, 52nd Plenary, p. 1,049Google Scholar.

99 Addison to Bottomley, 10 Dec. 1946, Telegram 2479, IOR, L/E/9/1405.

100 Chagla, , Roses in December, p. 240Google Scholar.

101 Pandit, , Scope of Happiness, pp. 210–211Google Scholar.

102 Chagla, , Roses in December, p. 241Google Scholar.

103 Item 20 of the Agenda. Brief for the Indian Delegation, Secret, NAI, 2(19)-UNQI/47.

104 The First (Political) Committee rejected the call for a reference to the ICJ by 24 to 18 with 5 abstentions, but the plenary meeting voted for a reference to the Court by 29 to 24 with 3 abstentions. The amended Indian resolution was approved by the First Committee by 29 to 15 with 5 abstentions; in plenary it obtained a vote of 31 in favour with 19 against and 6 abstentions.

105 Resolution 265(III). It was passed by 39 to 2 with 9 abstentions in the First Committee, and by 47 to 1 (South Africa) with 10 abstentions in plenary. South Africa's resolution was rejected in the First Committee by 5 to 33 with 12 abstentions.

106 Carter, Gwendolen M., The Politics of Inequality. South Africa since 1948 (London, 1958), pp. 84–85Google Scholar.

107 Resolution 395(V).

108 United Nations Review, 11 1955, p. 51Google Scholar, cited in Carter, Politics of Inequality, p. 405Google Scholar.

109 Indian delegate speaking in September 1958 to the Special Political Committee. United Nations Yearbook 1958, p. 86.

110 Stultz, , ‘The Apartheid Issue at the General Assembly’, p. 27Google Scholar.

111 Letter of thanks from Nehru to Indian Delegates to General Assembly, 26 Jan. 1947, C180/7 C&O 1293, IOR, L/E/9/1393.

112 Jha, , Bandung to Tashkent, p. 28Google Scholar.

113 UK High Commissioner in South Africa to Dominions Office, 19 Dec. 1946, Telegram 549, IOR, L/E/9/1405.

114 UK High Commissioner in South Africa to Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, 18 Dec. 1946, Telegram OPDOM 61 (Supplementary), IOR, L/E/9/1405.

115 Carter, , Politics of Inequality, p. 85Google Scholar; Rand Daily Mail, 5 Jun. and 20 10. 1950Google Scholar, cited in Carter, , Politics of Inequality, pp. 89–90Google Scholar.

116 Jha, , Bandung to Tashkent, p. 26Google Scholar.

117 Editorial, Hindustan Times, 5 Dec. 1946.

118 Jha, , Bandung to Tashkent, p. 29Google Scholar.