(I. A. 0jiCHiiljIii.)

Transcription

1 (I. A. 0jiCHiiljIii.) If I believe it is no good thinking there will bo a change of heart, is there any purpose in me joining a non-violent movement? He won't join the movement. He will never join and work in that movement. He would rather start doing something of his own, yousee. 5 He won't come into this movement. BY MR. TRJNGOV- s You see, Mr. Cachalia, I want to put it to you that if you don't icccpt a change of heart, on the part of the oppressor, the only other method that you can 10 get a change in your political situation would be force. You would have to force the oppressor? Somebody may think like that, I don't know, and they wanted to use force, it has been all over the world you see people who thought like that. Jven in India people thought so, they 15 were not party to the Cohgress movement, they had their own independent organisation you see. BY ICR. JUSTICE BJKK^R : I would like to put this to you. Strikes, boycotts, may result in the oppressor's pocket being 20 touched? Yes, My Lord. ^nd by these means you can apply pressure? Yes. To make th:-t man realise that unless he is prepared to negotiate, it may mean ruination to 25 him, that is economic pressure? Yes. ^oes that find room in a non-violent struggle? Yes, My Lord, for instance, and more particul rly when Mahatma Gandhi - I just want to give an example, because non-violence is based n that you see. 30 In India for instance he said that we must boycott British cloth, because they oppress us, we mustn't buy

2 (I.A. Cij.CHii.LIA) British cloth. You see, what used to happen in India, India used to grow cotton, it used to go to Lancashire and Manchester. So we boycott British cloth. He had been working with the spinning wheel all the tine, and yet, ycu set;, when the boycott movement goes on in India, 5 the mills at times used to closed or the workers used to be kicked out in Manchester or Lancashire, so thore was a direct fit, no getting away from that you see. That was approved. BY ZJR. JUSTICE 3^; KJH : 10 Did Gandhi also suggest strikes? - In fact they carried out strikes, in South Africa as well, in sugar plantations. How I want to come back to the question and the answer you gave, that a person who did not believe 15 in change of heart could not find room in a non-violent movement? That is right, yes, My Lord. I am rather puzzled about what you had in mind when you say non-violent, in this sense. I may believe th t it is no good expecting a voluntary change 20 of heart on the part of the oppressor, but I may believe if I apply enough economic pressure I'll change his mind if hot his heart? Yes, h-re you see convincing as well. The economic boycott falls within that, you see. It would also be changing heart, because it applies as well. 25 So when you say a change of heart, you mean...? Change of heart, mind or whatever... Lither out of th^goodness of his heart or because you apply enough economic pressure? Yes, that also comes in, economic boycotts and so on. 30 BY MR. TRjHG-OVh : Is there any limit to the amount of

3 pressure that you will apply on the pressure tc gethim to change his heart or to change his mind? I don't know h w... 'Yel}., assuming you strike for one day and that doesn't make the oppressor change his mind, or you strike for two days and that doesn't make him change his mind or heart, you find that these day to day strike don't take you any where. Is there any limit on the pressure that you are going to exert on the oppressor? My Lord, most strikes can't last more than a couple of days, it is not possible. It is a question, you see, people can talk, "but it is not possible... BY ME. JUS TICjs BJKKZR s Well, the 1922 strike lasted quite a... My Lord, that wa s something more than that. You see I was a very young child at the time, I remember coming from the Mosque on a Fridiy and the bullets were firing. BY MR. JUSTICJ RUM] FP ; That may have been very frightening, but we are net..,.? N)W, I wanted to show that there was violence, there was shooting and all sorts of things and it was chaos like. But the point is that the strike lasted quite some time? Y^s. You say a strike canst lastmore than two or three days? If you carry out - that was something where military action, it was like, that is the point, the whole Johannesburg was in a chaos, people had to leave the town, and get away. We also 3/eft Johannesburg and went to Jackson's Drift in those days. Let us forget that particular strike..? It doesn't last, it lasts a couple of days only. It

4 (I.A. GACHALIA) can't last longer than that. Why not? People will starve verysoon. But starving is alright? They will die. 5 Is it necessary - if it is necessary to achieve liberation? tomes, it can't happen. ith small little children in Universally it can never happen. BY MR. JUSTICE KJ.NNJDY s strikes have lasted for months in other 10 countries? I really don't know. According to what one reads in the papers, some of the strikes in America have lasted from time to time for months? Yes, in a particular industry, for instance you see. And there you see, it depends on the 15 - it is not a political strike. There you see the committee which calls for a strike, they look after them, they look after the welfare of thefamily and so on. This is a political struggle. If I nay follow up what my Brother Bekker 20 said a few minutes ago, if you assume - let us assume for argument's sakc that a strike in South Africa could last for a month, that the non-europeans could last out for a month against thj people, now if the resultant economic pressure was so groat as to bring the country to ruin, 25 what would the attitude of your organisation be? If the strike cruld last long, but if it becomes into chaos and breaks the structure and foundations of the country, we will never call a strike like that. That is not our intention. 30 BY MR, TP^NGOVL : Mr. Cachalia, you see that - what did you

5 think the state would do, what would the state do if you organised a strike on a mass scale throughout the country, say for a week? What would the government do if the mines and commerce and industry come to a standstill, the railways, harbours, ev-rything comes 5 to a standstill? "That would the state do? How would they react? - They will watch the situation. And apart from watching? What does a capitalist state do? "They might shoot too, "but I d don't know where the shooting comes in. Now if the strike 10 has started, they might arrest the leaders of the movement for instance. I don't know - I don't understand the question very wyll. The Congress held the view that the state would br ;ak the strike, they would bring out the army, 15 they would bring out the police, and in a brutal way they will break the strike by violence? The government may do that, yes. That is what Congress expected would happen, do you agree? They may do that, yes. 20 And as a result of that the v/hnle country might be involved in bloodshed? No, we won't fight back. There is no question of we fighting back. You don't fight back, we don't indulge in violence. But the large masses of the people, what 25 would they do? We will ask them not to do, and the more support we get, they won't do it. The masses won't fight back? They won't retaliate? No. If we call say - if the Congresses call, and if they are prepared to strike for a month or 30 fifteen days, then it means that the Congress has a very good support, and w^ can rely more on them, andsay well,

6 don't do this, they will nevjr do it. You See, that is how we expect. But you did expect that the government would smash the strike by violence? Yes. That you expected? Yes. 5 I want to ask you one or two questions about the liberatory struggle. BY MR. JUSTICE B^KKelR s Before you go on, there is smething which puzzles me. I think I heard you say that in a case of a 10 national strike, violence, bloodshed might be expected? Yes, it may occur. If you tell your people not to retaliate under any circumstances, can you by way of illustration - I am asking you to give me an example, could you by way 15 of illustration tell me hdw there could be bloodshed? If the people did not retaliate? It is the shooting of the police. The question was that if the state takes action, and the state takes action, and if there is bloodshed and violence, they must not fight back My difficulty starts earlier. bloodshed - how Is there room for bloodshed? How does There may be some provocation, My Lords, from somewhere you sje. There is always that sort of element. You see, somewhere provocation causes this sort of trouble. 2 5 BY l r K. JUSTICE KJiNNoiDY s assuming everyone of your people was non-violent, there was no violence used at all, can you explain to us under what circumstances thepolice would shoot? My lord, I agree with you, if all the people 30 are non-violent, then theshooting will never occur. You see, but it is not that everybody will support us.

7 (I.A. CACHaLIA) I agree with you there. 1! here nay "be somebody outside your - I am talking about your particular Congress or the Congresses, who starts a violent move? Yes, y^u see, somehow it always happens. 5 BY MR. TRJNGOVI ; Following on that, you have volunteers that you collect for this work? Yes, My Lord. Now that volunteer has to be non-violent? Yes. 10 If he is told by his leader to be nonviolent, must he obey that? Yes. If he is told by his leader to be violent, must he be violent?.no, he must not tell him, he can't. He must be non-violent. 15 Is there any scope for a leader ever to expect people to be violent? No, no violence at all. Then the whclc struggle structure falls down. No violence, My Lord. So you didn't expect from your volunteers 20 obedience to the point of obeying a leader who says they must be violent? No, no violence. The liberatory struggle in South Africa was part of the liberatory struggle throughout the world. That was the Congress view, was it not? In what 25 respect? In various countries, Kenya, Malaya, Korea, Algeria, - in these various countries, during that period 1952 onwards, you had liberatory struggles? We have no affiliation with any of them, no. We have no 30 affiliation whatsoever. I think you don't know who are the leaders in Algeria, for instance, except the main

8 man who is in Cairo at the moment, we don't know who the leaders are, we have no affiliation with one another, no My Lord. They call them liberatory struggles in Algeria, because they wanted to liberate, or somewhere else, you see they are fighting, they call them liberatory struggles 5 but we have no affiliation. Did you call them liberatory struggles? You say that the struggle in Kenya is a liberatory struggle? Where they are trying to achieve their rights, we called them so. 10 The Indian Congress called those liberatory struggles? Yes. Just as the one in South Africa was a liberatory struggle? Yes. The Congress movement had information as 15 to exactly what was happening in the liberatory struggle - the nature of the struggle in Kenya, Algeria, Korea, Malaya? My Lord, I wanted to give an example, you see. as far as Malaya is concerned, I know something about it, I have been therj while I was ^n a travelling tour. 20 Now, what wo knew about Malaya was that there was shooting going on in general and warfare with the authorities. BY I-TR. JUSTICE RUMTFF : They were shooting the imperialists? 25 All sorts of things were going on. When I went to Malaya, Singapore, I got in touch with the alliance which was working for the liberation of Malaya, and that was a Malay, association, an Indian association and a Chinese association, these three in alliance were working together 30 for liberation. It happened to be a month when we were fasting, and the leader of that leader was Tunku Abdurehman.

9 I don't think it is necessary for you to give details about Malaya...? I just wanted to see what we have seen there... It may be interesting, but I think shall keep that off the record..? What Malaya means now, that is what I wanted to put. When? This was during that time, you see. Now there was shooting and all sorts of things, and this association, the alliance which was working for liberation, they had nothing whatsoever to do with thoss sh oting at all. But the leaders there, I went to one of the house that evening, and he was afraid himself that there were terrorists there and they might shoot us any minute, you see. Now in that, tho general view was that in Malaya there was shooting, and these people were fighting imperialism or breaking something this and that, and it was there, but we had nothing to do with that or this. What liberatory movement was that Malaya must be independent, and out of this imperial rule, that is all. That is what I wanted to show. You see, these are liberatory movements, but we have no contact with them you see, no alliances. C^S-Ji R^MANDj-'JI) TO THE 27TH JUND I COURT ADJOURNS.

10 (I.A. CACHALIii) COURT RjSUMjS CN THE 27th JUHj^, I960. ISMAIL AHM-1'I) Ci>CHALIA, under former oath; OROSS-JXiMIN^TION BY MR. TMGOVE CONTINUED s Mr. Cachalia, on Friday I was asking you a few questions about the liberatory movement, you remember? Yes. Now, according to theway the Indian Congress understood the liberatory movement, it was a 5 movement of oppressed people against the colonial or semi-colonial oppressor, in order to get what they used to call a People's Democracy? I don't understand. According to the Indian Congress here, we want a true democracy whert all the people will have equal rights. 10 And the liberatory movement was the movement of the oppressed people to get a true democracy? In this country, yes. And elsewhere in the world too? They strive for their own rights, you see. 15 But the view that the Indian Congress held of the liberatory struggles all over the world, was that it had this common factor, the oppressed people were struggling against the duly constituted authority in order to achieve true democracy? Yes. 20 Now the view of the Indian Congress was that there was a liberatory struggle in Kenya, was there not? Yes. And that the struggle in Kenya was a violent struggle? Yes, maybe. 25 'That do you mean maybe? Maybe, you see it may not be, we don't know. I'll tell you from my experience...

11 I don't want to know your experience,. I am not concerned what you think at the moment, I want to know what the Indian Congress - the view they held. Now the view that the Indian Congress held was that the liberatory struggle in-kenya was a violent struggle? No, 5 not necessarily. You see, there were oth^r organisations also fighting, like the Indian Association there, they w.:ro also fighting for their rights, so it is not necessary that it is the violent struggle only there. BY MR. JUSTICE BAKKER S 10 7ell, to the extent that the Africans were fighting for their rights» the so-called Mau-Mau, what was the view ofi the Indian Congress on that struggle, was it a violent struggle or not? My Lord, the Africans too they were divided. There were seme who werd fighting in 15 alliance with the Indian people there, and then there was Mau-Mau, which was a violent struggle. BY MR. TRJNGOVE s Now Mr. Cachalia, when the Indian Congress referred to the liberatory struggle in Kenya, they referred 20 to the: struggle conducted by the Kenya African Union, also called the Mau-Mau? "here was a Mau-Mau struggle known as Mau-Mau, but it was definitely a violent struggle. Will you just listen to the question, "/hen the Indian Congress movement in South Africa, refer- 2 5 red to the liberatory strug le in Kenya, they referred to the liberatory struggle being conducted by the Mau-Magt? Not only Mau-Mau, I don't agree with that. Who was the leader of the libear&tory struggle in Kenya on behalf of the Indians? Mr. i'atel, 30 Mr. Singh (M). Who was the leader of the liberatory

12 struggle in Kenya on behalf of the Kenya Africa Union, the Mau-Mau? Jomo Kenyatta. Now, Mr, Cachalia, the Indian Congress movement, when they referred to the struggle in Kenya in their speeches and in their documents, they referred to 5 the struggle of the Mau-Mau, a violent struggle? They may have. They only referred to that, not they may have? When they talk about the liberatory struggle generally, it do^s not follow that it means that violent 10 struggle. Are you in a position to refer to a single document fir a single speech in which reference ismade by the Indian Congress to the strug le in Kenya in which they refer to the people carrying on the struggle as you 15 say, in a non-violent way? They will refer to the liberatory struggle perhaps, to all parts, and that includes all the struggles, where they are fighting for the liberatory movement. Do they refer to the Kenya African Union 20 in their documents? I don't remember specifically, but My Lord, they refer to all the struggles whereever it took place. Do they refer to Jomo Kenyatta in their documents? They may have, 25 What do you mean may have? Don't you know or do you know? I don't know, before I was banned, I d ~n't remember that.

13 When did that struggle start? I don't know the dates and the years, My Lord. When did the Indian Congress start talking about the struggle in their documents and speeches? About the liberatory movement? No, in Kenya? Th t I really don't remember. I want to put it to you that you are not in a position to produce a single document or a statement in which the reference to Kenya refers to anything else 1 but the violent struggle that was going on there? I don't know, if I have access to all the documents, I'll gee how that is. The Indian Congress held the view that it was the African people thit were struggling in Kenya, 1 that they were the backbone of the liberatory struggle because they were denied - thjr^ was a land hunger, the people wanted more land, is that right? Yes. They als~> struggled because they wanted franchise? Yes. 2 "nd the Indian Congress used to demonstrate to the people in South Africa by reference to the struggle in Kenya, that the South African oppressed people were struggling for the.same things asthe people in Kn^ya were struggling for, land, franchise. Is that correct? 2 It is quite possible, yes. That were the Indian people in Kenya struggling for? Franchise rights, a lot of rights, immigration, land rights. -Uidn't they enjoy franchise? You see 30 in Kenya the franchise, as it is being a colony, was limited.

14 The people in Kenya, the Indians in Kenya, did they have a franchise? Yes, just as Africans also had the franchise. ^id they struggle formore land? Yes, certainly. 5 The same as here? Yes. Now, where did the Indian Congress in South Africa get its information as to what was happening in Kenya??.e had no direct contact with them, "but the views which I have is from the press, from some 10 publications and so on and so forth. From what press? ny pr^ss, the local press, thj foreign presses which we get here, statements and all sorts of papers. But this is certain, that the South African Indian Congress had no contact or no 15 alliance with any c rganisition outside South Afiica in this liberatory movement. That I am perfectly certain about. - u id you know the Kenya Committee in London? I am not aware of that, I don't recall exactly. The Kenya Committee was established in 20 London. You know anything about it? I don't remember. Th~ S'-uth African leace Council, they had v.ry definite views about the struggle in Kenya, didn't they? The leace Council h d the views abcut the colony, thot the colony No, I am not talking about that? I want to talk about what views they had. The leace Council had only one view, and that view is that there should be no war, and this colony - this colonial power must give up colonies, this is the cause of friction 30 and the cause of war, which must be eliminated. That is the view they held.

15 'Ye could save a lot of tine if you would just confine yourself to the question. I wasn't asking you about the Ieace Council and the liberatory struggle generally. The 1eace Council had certain definite vi-ws about Kenya? They had definite views about the 5 colonies generally. They were not in alliance with any political organisation or anything whatsoever. J -hey didn't hold any views specifically about the struggle in Kenya? All the liberatory struggles, that means that they were in favour of this that the 10 colonial powers must give up colonies, so that the point of friction is eliminated and that there are no wars in future. The South African Peace Council, did th^y not have any views specifically about the struggle in 15 Kenya? The South African Ieace Council was engaged in this one aspect, that there must be peace, there must not be discrimination as far as South Africa is concerned, the discrimination must go. AS far as the world is concerned th-r. must no atom yower, no colonies and so 20 on so that poacj c.ull be established in this world and no noro bloodshed and wars could go on. How long did you bel ng to the leace Council? I think one or two years, I suppose, I suppose two years. 25 You started with the leace Council right from the start, in 1950, when it was formed in South frica? Is th. t right? It is possible, yes. You took part in the establishment of the South African leace Council in 1953? Yes. 30 And in 1954 when you were ordered by th, Minister tr resign from ce tain political organisations

16 was the Peace Council one of them? Possible - yes. And did you then resign from the leace Council? Yes. So you were in it until June 1954? Yes. 5 Now I put it to you that one of the most important concerns of the Peace Council in South Africa was to spread information and giv:; the Congress movements information about the struggle in Kenya? No, no. Not to spread information. I don't know what you mean 10 by spread information. Let me tell you something about your own organisation, the Peace Council. the Kenya Committee in London? Were they in touch with I really don't remember. I was a member and I don't remember this part. They may 15 have, but I don't remember. You were elected in 1953 as a Vice- President? lossibly, yes. This was not my job to be in Peace Council all the time. In principle I accept this position of establishing peace in this world, removal of 20 frictions all over, that I understand. But the leace Council was not something which I was in it all the time. I may not know a lot of information about it. Did you take part in the activities of the leace Council? Yes, the activities, for instance 25 we got petititiens signed from the people, send it to the government that atom bomb must be stopped, the using of atom bombs and so on and so forth, that we did. As a member of the Peace Council, did you receive its publications? From? 30 From the Peace Council, the documents an 1 reports? Yes. But so many times I wouldn't read

17 then. I used to get them. itnd did you attend meetings of the Peace Council? Yes, some meetings too. And these times when you didn't read the Peace Council publications, were you afraid to read what 5 was standing in them? No, not that, you may not have time, you didn't put all your heart and soul in one movement My lord that you wanted to know from top to bottom what was going on there. It was a general peace movement you see, with this idea that war should be stopped in this 10 world somehow, yu see. y BY MR. JUS TIC-j RUMPFF ; Was your heart and soul not in the movement? I mean that I believed in it, oh yes, My Lord. I believed in it, but I did not take part actually, you 15 know, but I know the general principles that these were the principles and we must see that they must be carried out. ^ BY MR. TR^NGOVP s i.part frim the fact that they were striisring20 for peace, you say you know very little of the activities of the Peace Council? Yes, I know this much. You see, My Lords, for instance in the leace nova.-nt the views of the non-europeans generally is this, although late President Roosevelt was one of the best democrats in 2 5 the world, but when it comes to using atom power, it was used in Hiroshima and Ngasaki, but not in any towns of the Germans, and as such the people's minds generally in Asia and Africa was that when it comes to using atom bombs and atrm weapons, it will he used on the non-.-juro- 30 peans, who are subjected as a colony or they are discriminated against and so and so forth, you see.

18 That is the main reason why the non-suropeans, generally people of ^sia and Africa, would follow the peace movement, so that pressure is brought about, somehow, upon the powers - upon the great powers that this sort of nuclear weapons may not be used at all. And the reasons 5 which create war and trouble in this world, are colonies and so on. That should be eliminated in this world so that there will be no mor.3 wars and no more using of nuclear weapons. From that point of view we were interested in that. 10 You know that your South African Indian Congress was one of the bodies responsible for establishing the South African leace Council? I don't know, I don't think so. leace Mov ments started on it own, as far as I < think. 15 BY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF : According to your experience, wasn't the view also of the Africans and Indians that the Americans might use the atom bombs igainst Russia? There, you see, these were the, two big powers and great powers, they 20 can use simultaneously on one another. But as far as the non-isuropeans are conc.rned, the colonial powers, the people of Asia and Africa, are in such a position that they become the first "targets. That is how people feel, and it is a general feeling. 25 BY MR. TRJNGOVL : So you don't know, Mr. Cachalia, that the South African Indian Congress was one of the movements that really were responsible for establishing the South African laacs Council? No, I don't think so, they did 30 not establish it. No resolution was taken by the South African Indian Congress as far as I remember. They may

19 (I.A. CACHALIA) have supported that, yu see, but to initiate the Peace Council, I don't think so. I want to put it to you Mr. Cachalia that the South African leace Council took a special interest in the liberatory struggle in Kenya? and that they got 5 information from overseas ab^ut the struggle in Kenya and that information they iisseminated in South Africa, inter alia to the various Congress nnv ments. You don't know that? They used to get information about all the colonies of all the places. They used to publish them. 10 That is what used to happen. And do y~>u know if the information that the leace Council got, whether it was entirely one-sided or was it an unbiased factual statement of what was happening in Kenya? Do you know? My Lord, the Peace 15 Council gets the news, and they publish the news. They publish this news from ne point of view, and that is to - from this point of view that the colonial powers must give up the colonies, and then you see when ther«is trouble they expose it and say these are the difficulties 20 and hardships, these ar ; the things which are going on, because of the colonial system. We were interested from that point of view, as far as I understand. Now I want to get back to the Indian Congress. Is it correct that the leace Council was the 25 source of information to the Indian Congress? No, not necessarily, why? The Indian Congress don't derive their information from the leace Council. Not? No, not necessarily. The members may get the news from them, some of them. The 30 Indian Congress "r the members of the Indian Congress 1 n't belong to the leace Council as such. Some belongs

20 (I.A. C.iCHALlA) to it. You see, Mr. Cachalia, and if you doubt it I can give you the document, but the leace Council used to send nur circulars to the Trovincial leace Councils, in which they gave certain information to the 5 provincial leace Council, and they said that this information had to be disseminated at meetings, house meetings or at household meetings of the African National Congress, the South African Indian Congress and the Congress of Democrats. Do you know if the leace Council used to do 10 that? My Lord, the Indian Congress doesn't hold house meetings. Do you know if the leace Council did that? They may have sent circulars or some literature or some information to be given in the house meetings or to 15 - house meetings which may be called by the people who are working in the leace Movement, it is quitepossible. And the object of that was to disseminate it to the A.N.C.? the Indian Congress and the Congress of Democrats? No. It is to explain to the people what 20 the leace Movement is. But they were explaining it rhough the African National Congress and through the Indian Congress? The Indian Congress had only a Working Committee, Executive meetings an 1 mass meetings, they don't hold 25 household meetings at all, My Lord. Whatever kind of meeting they hold? Public meetings, yes. But whatever meeting they hold, whether it is a Working Committee or whatever it is, the Peace 30 Council was working through them to spread its information? No, we nev^r used Peace Council material in our

21 organisation as such. We never did that. Any person who night - an individual who may belong to the Peace Movement and if he feels like it, putting his point of view, to a meeting, that is a different story, but we did not make it our business to carry on on that- basis. 5 You know what you are saying now is untrue? It is quite true. Mr. Cachalia, I want to put it to you that the Indian Congress had an entirely biased view of what was happening in Kenya? No, not at all. Indian 10 people are - the Indian community there is suffering, and Indian people know very well that the members of the Indian community in Kenya are suffering there. They know th^t very well. And the Indian Congress held the view 15 that to the extent that the oppressed people were using force and were resorting to violence in Kenya, that was being forced upon the oppressed people by the imperialist oppressor? Yes, you see, when there is a colony, when this sort of thing happens, for Instance we arj morecon- 20 c.rned if Mau-Kau carries on their activity in Kenya, as a member of the Indian community, we are always worried about it that one day they might turn against the Indians. Anything may happen, because of some privileged position I suppose or something, or as it happened in India. We 25 had that as ur experience right through, and therefore - also if the colonies are given their full rights and if they are free, the cause of friction eliminates immediately. We were intjrested from that point of view. Mr. Cachalia, the Mau-Mau were using 30 violent methods, not so? Yes, certainly. ii-nd you held the view, your Congress held

22 the view that the violence they were using was forced upon them Toy the oppressor, they couldn't do otherwise? It is time, it is forced, like violence "being used in India, you know between Hindu and Muslim against the government, against this and that. And we always believe 5 that it is forced upon because of the system of rule. That we always believe, but that doesn't mean that we approve the violence in any respect. We d n't approve of violence. ^ Why is it that the people in Kaaya are 10 forced to use violence? '/hy must they resort to violence?. - That we don't know, you see, it depends, for instance in Algeria people are using... We are talking about Kenya..? We don't know, you see it happens in so many countries, it 15 happens, and it is so confused that we will never know what is at the back of it. The only thing we know is that it is because of the colonial powers... Why did the people in Kenya, the Mau-Mau - you say you don't know why they had to resort to 20 violence? 7»e lon't know the actual cause and why they do that. Some people may believe like that. It is forced on them somehow, feut we don't know. But you are not really speaking the truth now? I am. 25 You said just now that they used violence because it was forced upon them? >, Yes, it happens so you see. How do you know it was forced on them? We don't know, we don't know their actual working, 30 actually their plans, how they came about, we really d n't know. k

23 But how do you know it was forced upon them? It happens all over that in some places people use violence and in some they don't. How do you know that in Kenya the oppressed people used violence because it was forcedupon them? 5 - We don't know what were the conditions^: you see, the condition may be that they are so much oppressed and that they might have taken that decision, that is their business, none of our business. We are not linked in planning or anything whatsoever. 10 I don't understand your explanation. you say it is forced upon them, what do you mean? If When we say that, we talk generally, that the cause - that because of this colonial system, here people have to resort to this, that is how we take it. 15 -^o you mean that if people resort to violence to overthrow the colonial system, then they are forced to use violence? It happens yes, and it so happens that if the leadership there feels that this is the best method to do that, it is their business, yes. 20 So that you held the view that the people in the liberatory struggle in Kenya resorted to violence because they thought that that was the best way to overthrow the colonial system? They are the judges, yes. 2 5 And if the colonial people in thosecircumstances r-sorted to violence to overthrow the colonial system, was the British Government entitled or not entitled to use violence and force to suppress this revolt? You see, the things have advanced in this 30 world to that extent now that the British - there is only nne alternative for the British Government, and that is

24 negotiate and bring about a settlement between them. If the people in Kenya revolt to overthrow the system there, you say that what the British Government should then do to capitulate? To bring about negotiation, by negotiation bring about a settlement. 5 And would that - a settlement arrived at in those circumstancss, you say that would be a peaceful settlement? Yos, you see at present in spite of all this violence and all that in Kenya, they are talking settlements. There was a deputation I think this year BY MR. JUoTIC^ RUIIIFF : Counsel is asking you a question on a general basis? I want3d to show how the negotiations come about, My Lord, and there is some sort of negotiation going on which lo ks quite satisfactory. 15 BY MR. TR.^IGOVa ; You say it would be this revolt of the oppressed people in Kenya, you concede I take it that that revolt endangers the safety and security of the state in Kenya? Yes, because of colonialism of course it was so.20 You concede that in those circumstances the government which has to maintain the safety and security in the country, that they are entitled to use force to suppress that revolt? Yes, but you see they should negotiate, otherwise it goes on and it makes things 25 worse. Would the oppressed people revolt before the possibility of negotiation has fallen away? Surely the first thing - surely the oppressed people will first try and negotiate and if that breaks down, then they 30 revolt? Yes. Now what possibility is there for

25 negotiating when once the oppressed people arise in armed revolt? But thereis negotiation going oh now, it went 31* But in the meanwhile, isn't the state entitled to suppress that revolt by force? Immediately 5 they get on to negotiation, that is the end of it. But before they get to negotiation, before they agree, what is going to happen in the meanwhile? The polioe - if they do violent acts, My Lord, then the police will of course naturally c^me and stop it. I mean 10 that is the duty of the state. Now in Kenya, you say that the oppressed people rose in armed revolt to overthrow the colonial power, because they decided that there was nothing else that they could do? I don't know, that part you see, 15 the one portion might have done that. There were others who were not doing this, they would not indulge in violence. Let us forget the others. Let us now confine ourselves to the Mau-Mau. They resorted to violence to overthrow the state, and you said that you 20 held the view that there was nothing else that they could do, and that is why they apparently decided...? That may have been the position. Now was it right for the government, until negotiations hj,:l been completed, was it right for 25 the government in Kenya to suppress that revolt by force of arms? They wruld suppressthat, but they should negotiate immediately. It aggravates the position. There are a lot of other people there with whom the government could havenegotiated, other organisations. 30 Was it right for the government to suppress that armed revolt by force of arms? Yes,

26 certainly, yes. Who was to start negotiations, the Mau- Mau or the government? Why? The government. Well, you see, if the government - you see, we put our demands, and the government 5 would negotiate with us. We can approach them as well. Whoso duty is it to ask for negotiations? The movement always asks for negotiations, always. Tha is the first thing that they ask for, certain demands. I don't know. Now did the Mau-Mau try to negotiate? 10 o you can't really say who was to blame for the situation in Kenya? Colonialism is to be blamed, there is no getting away from that. That is the general view of all non-european people of Asia and Africa, 15 with no exception, My Lord. Who was to be blamed for the violence in Kenya? I dcn't know. If say for instance the rights were taken away from the people, a spark starts from somev^here, we don't know where it comes from at the 20 beginning. Now who is to be blamed? The government is to be blamed because they force some people into that condition. Sometimes it happens so too. There was also a liberatory struggle in Vietnam, and that was also a violent struggle, and the 25 Indian Congress held the view that the people of Vietnam also had to resort to violence to overthrow the colonial oppressor, is that correct? You see, there again it is different. There there were factions, it was divided into two or three parts. There there was armed warfare 30 going on. And that was all because of French colonial power who wants to divide different parts, you see.

27 That was the reasonl The people were revolting against the government? Against the government, also against fighting themselves, the one part with the other part and so on. 5 The Indian Congress held the view that was a liberatory struggle? Yes, you see as long as this French colonial system is there, it would go on like that. And immediately the French withdrew, well things have changed now. There may still be trouble of under- 10 standing between them, but that is ended. let us just be quite clear. I am not really very concerned about what your own knowledge is, but what the view is that the Congress held. Congress also held the view that there were violent struggles in Malaya,15 in Indo-China, in Morocco and in Algeria, is that correct? In Malaya I don't know whether there was violence - whether you could say that that was all... No, the view that Congress held? You see, here the way you wanted to show that we are supporting20 the violence all the time, ihat is net correct, you see. Here, when we wanted t support the liberatory movement or when we wanted to see this bloodshed and this colonial power which rule and suppresses the people in different colonies must go, then you want us to show that we only 25 linked ov rselves with the violence. I think that is not correct at all. In Malaya that was not the case. I don't know where the violence in Malaya came from. We are not happy about violence at all, My Lord, and we don't want to take part in - we are not happy about 30 violence. The causes which bring about this violence

28 W ' must "be eliminated. I am just putting it to you that C ngress held the view that the struggle in Malaya, Indo-China, Vietnam, Algeria, Morrocco, there were violent struggles, and that those were liberatory struggles? You see, 5 liberatory struggles, yes. But whether we approve of the violence is a different story, that is what I want to make very distinct. I will give you full opportunity just now. I just want to know that you accepted the position 10 v that...? Not in Malaya, I don't know, and in the other countries too, I really d^n't know their inner workings. BY MR. JUSTICE RUMIFF i The point is this. Counsel puts to you that at this time, up to 1954, Congress, the Indian 15 Congress knew and accepted the position that with relation to the countries named by Counsel, there was going on a violent struggle, not necessaryly a 100$ violent struggle in the sense that everybody was prepared to commit violence, but in the sense thax the strug, le in relation 20 to any one of those particular countries was accepted to w be not a passive resistance struggle, but a violent struggle? Yes, My Lorl, you see there were violent struggles too and there were other struggles which they had nothing to do with those who were carrying on the 25 violent struggle. on in each country. There were two sorts of things going I don't know about Algeria, but in other countries, yotjl see. In Morocco, for instance, it wasn't so. The leader wasn't carrying on the struggle of a violent struggle, you see, armed revolt and so on. 30 t It wasn't so. In Kenya too^: there were some Indians and some African, a chap called Botela, I think I have met him,...

29 Counsel is not concerned with, that at the moment? What we were supporting, we were supporting the liberatory movement as such, that this liberation must cone about, so that the friction of war and all this trouble is wiped out. That is what we ware concerned 5 about, not to say that we were connected with them somehow. We were not connected with thorn in any respect. BY MR. TR-jNGQVX : In many speeches and in many documents, Indian Congresses and the Congress movement as a whole, 10 referred to those liberatory struggles in those countries and the one element they always emphasised is that the oppressed people wore involved in a violent struggle against the imperialist oppressor. Do you admit that? This point that is made that they were fighting againstl5 the oppressor is correct, and perhaps in different forms. In regard to those countries, not a word was said about any other form of struggle than the. :t' a actual violent struggle that was carried on then? Thoir general liberatory movement was supported, generally 20 we gave then their lue. BY I'IR. JUjTICJ RUI.IT FF : The point is this, I think Counsel wants to know this, In expressing its opinion about the various countries named by Counsel, the Indian Congress, according 25 to the speeches and documents which the Crown has produced, the Indian Congress did not condemn the violence committed by the oppressed people in those countries, and supported only the non-violent campaign by certain oppressed people in that country, but generally approved 30 of the struggle in general terms? We approved the struggle of their liberation in general terms, but we

30 approved - all who were fighting against liberation, whoever it may be. BY MR. TRdNSOVL : ^nd I want to put it to you, Mr. Cachalia, that you expressed your solidarity with the people who 5 wgre engaged in a violent struggle against the duly constituted governments in those countries. You expressed your solidarity with them? With the people who were fighting, yes. And you leclar^d their struggle as your 10 own? Yes, with the, that if thore is one colony left in this world, then the colonial system retains its hold and it will spread again, and therefore we wanted to see that all the colonies from this earth must be wiped out. We believe in that, and we are very 15 firm about it. "nd in that sense you said that wherever there was a liboratory struggle, that struggle was your own? That struggle is their own, only our own from this point of view that we wanted to see that all 20 the colonial system must be wiped out from the earth, but we are not taking any active part in them. Our organisations are not linked with them, that is what I want to make clear. Mr. Cachalia, why didn't you condemn 25 the violence fthicb the oppressed people were using to achieve their liberation in those countries? My Lord, nobody in the world or no governments of all of Asia which are free governments will condemn that. Quite a number of governments don't like this sort of 30 thing, violence, and yet what they do...

31 BY MR. JUSTICE RUMPFF : The question was not what other governments did. The question was why does the Indian Congress...? I wanted to show that... But we are not interested in other 5 governments. The question was why did the Indian Congress not condemn the violence? You se^, nobody condemns them. We wanted to see that these rights are acceddd, that is what they wanted to see. It is not the question of condemning, they..don't condemn. Who are we to condemn 10 a struggle of freedom of any other country. I mean what right have we? We have only one right, that we feel that this is wrong, that we must see that it must "be eliminated. That is our duty. BY MR. TRaNGOVI ; 15 Mr. Cachalia, why didn't the Indian Congress condemn the method that the people were using in the liberatory struggles in the countries that I have just mentioned? It is not in our province. We can't go on condemning other countries. Nobody does that. 20 Nobody has done that. On the other hand, why did the Indian Congress condemn the imperialist powers for trying to maintain law and order by using force? You see, it is our experience of hundred years, what it all means 25 to us, and it must be eliminated, you see, and therefore we ask the colonial and imperial powers to give up the colonies, give them self-determination so that better human understanding can come about. That is what we are concerned about. That may very 'well be, why did you not condemn the violence; used by the oppressed people, but

32 you condemned the imperialist powers who had to m J aintain law and order, you condemned them for using violence? After hundred years of oppression, if people come to that stage and if they burst out somehow, are we going to dictate the policy of different countries. We here in this country wanted to see that we don't want to use violence, but if some other people want to do that, we have no connection with that. If we have discussion, I will tell each and every one that try and bring your rights ov r by non-violent methods, that would be my business you see, but if there they take any other decision and any other lines, it is nore of our business. It does seem to be your business to tell the imperialists how they must maintain law and order? Certainly, most certainly, of course yes, and the reason 15 is that we have been exploited for the last hundred years through colonies, and you must know the conditions of these colonies how the people are living, growing and so on and so forth, and then one knows that what the feeling of those people would be. 20 But a deciple of Gandhi and a satyagraha b lieves that the strongest force is not resort to violence, the strongest force is the soul force, anl if those countries, those oppressed colonial countries, if they make use of the soul force, then they are much 25 surer to get lasting peace and liberation than they are if they resort to violence, is that not so? No. I'll give you an example again. Jawarhar al Nehru, he is a deciple of Gandhi, he sees this struggle in Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and all the places, he asked the French 30 government and oth^r colonial powers and imperial powers to negotiate with the people there. He doesn't tell them

33 (I.t. CACHALIA) to stop your struggle because it is violent, he doesn't do that, but this is what he did. I can giveyou a lot of statements to that effect by Jawarharlal Nehru. So that is the position of ours. We also believe in - We don't believe in nonviolence as a creed as I explained 5 to you the other lay, fi r our struggle we use this method as a policy in achieving iur ends. Mr. Cachalia. the struggle in Korea, you know the North Terrene were fighting the South Koreans, you know that? Yes. 10 Was that a liberatory struggle? Yes, you see again there the South and the North Korea was divided, if certain factors and if certain powers wouldn't now have taken part in that, then the whole matter would have been left in Korea, Korea would be a united Korea. 15 But something else happened and then there was war, and we were always afraid and it is true that nepalm bombs were used. Again you feel you see because it was an Asiatic country and these sort of things were used there. Arms were supplied by Americans, nepalm lombs and all sorts of 20 things were supplied, you see there was bacterian warfare going on. I mean these are the things that must stop, and therefore we conrwir this sort of thing. Was the struggle in Korea a liberatory struggle? Of coursc you see because there are imperial 25 powers again putting in their nose. They should leave that - We believe they should leave that Korea to Koreans. Who were the imperial powers that were interfering in Kor: : a? Britain, the Americans, all these countries were there and they supplied all the 30 arms, the bacterial warfare which went on there, the nepalm bombs. The Koreans didn't have them, the two

34 factions who were fighting there. Was America supplying these arms to both North and South Korea? South Korea. And where was North Korea getting its arms from? You see, there the friction came, you see, 5 the two partitions came, you see, that is what comes about. Where did North Korea gets its arms from? From China. And...? I don't know any other country. China supplied them I understand. 10 V Was it right for China to supply them? It may or may not, I don't know. bad for China to supply, I don't know. It may be just as But the point is that they must bring about some sort of settlement there. China may be afraid that here they will have a foothold on 15 the Continent again, and they might invade China again through these atoms - the atom weapons, we don't know. But if this was left to the Chinese - I mean the Korean people, things woiild have been different altogether. That is how we feel. 20 ^'he Congress movement condemned America as a warmongering imperialist for interfering in Korea, is that correct? Yes, because they supplied these things and it was too terrible. The Congress movement never condemned 25 China for its intervention in Korea, is that correct? We feel that if they get a foothold there, then it means that Asia again - again they have a foothold on Asia and this thing might reverse back you see, that is a fear the people have. They have an honest throughout, 30 you go to each and every Asiatic country or African country, and ask the Africans and the Indian people, the

35 Asian people, they will fear that thib thing might come hack and we must see that it is stopped. Forget about your fears. you never condemned the actions of China? You admit that No, they don't want to, because you see China is afraid of this foothold 5 and so all the Asiatic countries were afraid. ^o because communist China was afraid that the Americans would g^t a foothold, they were entitled also to take part in the Korean war? We are not 10 interested in China or communist China, I am not interested particularly whether it is communist, it is China and the Chinese people, that is what we are afraid. Mr. Cachalia, you know very well that the intervention in Korea was an intervention, if it was, by the United Nations? Yes, I know. But then we felt... Just pausing there. At the time the United Nations intervened, was there already a conflict in Korea or not? I don't remember... BY MR. JU.TICii; RUMPFF J 20 Why did the United Nations intervene? Because again you see there was world politics, My Lord, and... "/hat was happening for the United Nations to intervene? There were two factions you see, the 25 North and the South Koreans, and trouble was caused. Now there will be so many versions as to who caused the trouble, and if we go into it, I don't know where we will eventually go, but somebody will accept the position, and somebody won't accept. But here you see the two parts, 30 one of the major one that the American and other powers wanted to get a foothold on Kor.a and from there onto the

36 Asiatic mainland. That is how they feel. BY MR. TR5NG0VL i You don't accept the position that the United Nations intervened in Korea because the fight that was going on there bjtween the Communists and the 5 non-communists had become a threat to world peace? I don't know. You see in the Security Council there are only four powers which have the say, and the others did not have th say, because most of the other countries didn't like it. 10 You don't accept the position that the United Nations interfered for the sake of world peace? I really don't know. BY MR. JUSTICE B^KKiJR : The Unit id Nations claimed to have done 15 so? It claimed. Here you see again it was a political game like, for instance, My Lord... All I want to know is this, did the United Nations in intervening in Kor^a claim that it did so to preserve world peace? My Lord, what I wanted to explain20 here is that there are four powers which have the vote of veto in the Security Council. Now Russia was there too. Now if Russia wanted to veto and stop the war - the United Nations taking part in Korea, Russia could have done that. Really up to now I don't understand why Russia did not 25 do that. It is beyond me, I couldn't understand that, and there wouldn't have been any war on the part of the United Nations in Korea, if Russia would have vetoed it. It is beyond me. BY MR. TR-JNGOVIb : 30 Mr. Cachalia, Russia must have thought that it was right for the United Nations to intervene? -

37 I don't know. It is again you see communists who were fighting the others. I don't know, I couldn't make it out, it is some sort of game that is played, but what we are concerned with is that on the Asiatic land, this sort of bombs and things which were feared were used. 5 I put it to you that your organisation gave an entirely biased and onesided view of the activities in the various countries where liberatory movements were being conducted, an entirely biased view, and on your own admission you didn't have sufficient informa- 10 tion to form a correct opinion? You see, it is a matter of views. You may think it was biased, we think that it is not biased, but that this sort of colonial system must go. Take your position now with Korea, you 15 don't even know what the pssition there was? We know one thing, sfchat this war and this terrible war which was waged there should not come about and should not have happened, that we know vory well, and particularly in Asia we were v^ry certain about it, it shouldn't happen 20 at all. BY MR. JUSTICE RUKPFF ; Mr. Cachalia, you say it was your view that the Soviet Union could have vetoed the intervention? Yes, m"" Lord. 25 Was that view shared by the IAdiann Congress? We all know that, My Lord. If that was the view of the Indian Congress, did the Indian Congress attack Russia, did the Indian Congress condemn Russia for not vetoing? We say that the war should not go on, we couldn't understand this position.

38 If the Indian Congress did not condemn Russia, why did it not condemn Russia? We don't know how it came about, this manouvre, really it was beyond us. 'That we were worried is that this war should not go on there. 5 But did that - was the view of the Indian Congress, rightly or wrongly...? If Russia had supplied arms there, we would have done the same thing. If that was the view of the Indian Congress, rightly or wrongly that the Soviet Union could 10 veto intervention, why did the Indian Congress not specifically express its disapproval of Russia for not using the veto? Russia was not taking part in the war, they weren't supplying arms as far as we know. Russia wasn't doing anything. 15 BY MR. TRiUNGOVL s The references in the Congress documents and in Congress speeches by Congress members in reg&rd to the liberatory struggle, and the terms in which they approve of the struggles of the oppressed people in those 20 countries, I put it to you that the reason for making those speeches and statements in South Africa, the reason was to encourage the people in South Africa to resort to that type of struggle when the time was ripe? In South Africa? 25 Yes? Where do you get that from? I put it to you? I say absolute not correct. I also want to put it to you that your principle source of information on international affairs 30 and the line that yo.i followed was the line laid down by the World Peace Council? No. COURT ADJOURNS.

39 Collection: 1956 Treason Trial Collection number: AD1812 PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand Location:- Johannesburg 2011 LEGAL NOTICES: Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only. People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate, distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.