# The Times/1896/News/British-Indian Subjects in South Africa

* related portals: South Africa
* related authors: Mohandas K. Gandhi
Source: The Times, Monday, Jan 27, 1896, pg. 4, Issue 34797, col C.
INDIAN AFFAIRS.
British-Indian Subjects in South Africa.
Some time ago we published a powerful protest against continuing the grant of the franchise to British-Indian subjects in Natal. Our correspondent took up strong ground. The European colonists were determined that their vote should not be swamped by an ever-increasing number of immigrants from British India. The plea seems difficult to resist, if based upon the facts, and we refrained from dealing with it until the facts were completely before us. Mr. M. K. Gandhi, whose efforts on behalf of his Indian fellow-subjects in South Africa entitle him to respect, now forwards a return of the voters in the colony "from the latest lists published in the Gazette." We are unable to verify his figures, but, assuming their accuracy, they are of a reassuring character to the great body of Englishmen who desire to see justice done to their Indian fellow-subjects, and at the same time sympathize with the resolve of their own British countrymen in Natal that the European vote shall not be swamped.
According to this return, there are in the colony 9,309 European registered voters against 251 registered voters of British-Indian origin. The proportion of Indian voters to European voters is 1 to 37—that is to say, the European vote is at present 37 times stronger than the Indian vote. Nor, if Mr. Gandhi's statements are correct, does it seem possible that the Indian vote can swamp the European at any period within the range of practical politics. He points out that the existing franchise law, with which the British-Indian subjects are content, but which many of the European colonists desire to repeal, provides a property qualification that will at all times exclude the great mass of Indian immigrants from the vote. According to that law every voter must either possess immovable property of the value of £50 or rent such property to the yearly value of £10 within the electoral district. The result is that not only are all Indian immigrants under labour contracts excluded, but also all British-Indians whatsoever, except an extremely small class who by intelligence and industry have raised themselves to the position of well-to-do citizens. Of the European population, returned at 46,778 in 1891 (now say 50,000), no fewer than 9,309, or about half the adult resident males, are registered voters. Of the British-Indian population in the colony, now returned at 51,000, some 30,000 are Indians working not "under contract," about 16,000 are working "under contract," and about 5,000 are said to be traders with more or less capital. Mr. Gandhi maintains that it is only reasonable that this large population should have some voice at the polls, and that 251 voters, or 1 to 203 of the British-Indian inhabitants, form a by no means excessive number.
The returns show that even under the existing law it takes a long time for a British-Indian to attain the franchise in Natal. With the exception of 63 British-Indians, many of whom started with capital and whose residence in the colony is under ten years, the rest of the 251 voters seem to have resided during more than ten years, and the majority over 14. An analysis of the British-Indian voters' list according to occupation yields equally encouraging results to those who wish to see this question settled. No fewer than 151 are returned as traders on their own account. Of the remaining 100 we find that 34 are clerks, bookkeepers, interpreters, schoolmasters, or photographers; 16 are trade employés, such as salesmen and storemen, including managers; and 48 belong to the class of skilled workers, chiefly gardeners. Only two of the 251 voters appear as "labourers." May we take this to mean that only two voters in a population of 51,000 British-Indians belong to the unskilled labouring class? More than a half of the 251 British-Indian voters are returned as merchants, storekeepers, goldsmiths, and jewellers.
It is precisely this class of men who form the most valued element in the municipal and other electorates in India. The argument that the Indian in Natal cannot claim higher privileges than he enjoys in India, and that he has no franchise whatever in India, is inconsistent with the facts. The Indian has precisely the same franchise in India which the Englishman enjoys. Throughout the 750 municipalities of India the British and the native voters have equal rights, and 6,700 municipal commissioners in 1801 were natives as against 830 Europeans. The European vote on the Indian municipal boards was, therefore, only one to eight Indian votes, while in the Natal electorate there are 37 European votes to one British-Indian. This is not unreasonable, but what the British Indians in South Africa demand is that they shall not by a change in the law be excluded from the vote altogether. It must be remembered that the Indian municipalities administer a population of 15 millions and an expenditure of 50 million rupees. The total population of Natal was estimated in 1891 at half a million, of whom only 88,000 were Europeans or British Indians (say now 100,000). Its public expenditure in 1803–94 was one million sterling.
A similar principle applies, with the modifications incident to our system of government in India, to what may be called the higher electorate. The elected members of the Supreme and the Legislative Councils, which deal with 221 millions of British subjects, are mainly elected by native bodies Apart from the official representatives of Government in the Supreme and Provincial Legislatures about one half the members are natives. It would be wrong to push this analogy too far. But it answers the argument against allowing British-Indian subjects a vote in British colonies on the ground that they have no vote in India. So far as government by voting exists in India, Englishmen and Indians stand on the same footing; and alike in the municipal, the Provincial, and the Supreme Councils the native interests are powerfully represented. Nor does the plea that the British Indian is unacquainted with the nature and responsibilities of representative government bear inspection. There is probably no other country in the world in which representative institutions have penetrated so deeply into the life of the people. Every caste, every trade, every village in India had for ages its Council of Five, which practically legislated for and conducted the administration of the little community which it represented. Until the introduction of the Parish Councils Act last year there was no such rural system of self-administration even in England.
The question now before Mr. Chamberlain is not an academic one. It is not a question of argument but of race-feeling. The Queen's Proclamation of 1858 gave the full rights of British subjects to the Indians, and they vote in England and sit in the British Parliament on the same terms as Englishmen. But these questions are inevitable in a vast Empire made up of many peoples, and as the steamship brings the component populations of Greater Britain into closer contact they will present themselves in more acute forms. Two things are clear. Such questions will not settle themselves by being ignored, and a strong Government at home affords the best Court of Appeal to adjudicate upon them. We cannot afford a war of races among our own subjects. It would be as wrong for the Government of India to suddenly arrest the development of Natal by shutting off the supply of immigrants as it would be for Natal to deny the rights of citizenship to British-Indian subjects who, by years of thrift and good work in the colony, have raised themselves to the actual status of citizens. The Indian Government have on occasion found extreme measures the only way of dealing with certain foreign colonies. It is the duty of the Home Government to take care that that necessity shall not arise in regard to any colony of British men. We recently saw the intolerable situation which the neglect of this question has brought about in the Transvaal. If any complication were now to arise between Great Britain and the South African Republic, President Kruger could legally raise a levy of British-Indian subjects within his dominions and compel them to act against British troops.