Unless notice of objection to the Report is given at the next sitting of the House, the Report will be considered as adopted.

When the House adjourned last night I was just explaining that as far as the Indian community in Natal was concerned, this measure was practically of no use because they have already entrenched themselves there. They have already looked for their advantage and found it, and they are already entrenched. As far as that is concerned this measure which the hon. the Prime Minister is now bringing forward is of no avail. But another aspect of the matter is this. Now that the Indians have helped themselves in Natal and have entrenched themselves there, an excellent opportunity has been afforded for the same position to be created here in the Cape Province exactly as it has been created in Natal. The soil here lies fallow and nothing on earth, if legislation is not passed, will stop particularly the wealthy Indians who are now in a favourable position in Natal, from coming to the Cape Province and doing the same things here that they have done in Natal and particularly in Durban. The same dangers which are threatening in Natal now after all these years will also be created here in the Cape Province. Why cannot the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that a few years ago in 1939 and in 1943 it was necessary to apply the Pegging Act in order to prevent such a position from being created, why, I say, cannot the Prime Minister do it now? I put this question to him directly. The Prime Minister says that he personally uttered a warning which may possibly deter the Indian community from trying to do the things here in the Cape Province which they did in Natal. May I say to the Prime Minister with due deference that no law on earth which may have been passed in the past, not even his Pegging Act and all his warnings to the Indians, have prevented the Indians from doing what they have done. One will simply be faced with the same position in the future that the Government after a number of years will throw up its hands in despair and say: “We have made an historic mistake.” In the past we have made historic mistakes and in the same way this action will be described as an historic mistake. Mistakes have been made in other parts of the country. They are already referring to such a mistake in connection with the coloured community. The Government party is already throwing up its hands in despair as far as that problem is concerned. They will simply say that unfortunately an historic mistake had been made which could easily have been prevented and it was not necessary to have allowed the Cape Province also to become a victim in the same way as Natal and the Transvaal. That is a serious aspect which we should fully take into consideration. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister held a pistol to our heads in introducing the Bill and said that the Bill consisted of two parts, the one dealing with land tenure of Indians and the other with the franchise, and he threatened us and said that if the one part was not agreed to, the other part could not be passed either. The two parts must be passed together. He combined the two and we have to accept both or nothing. That is his attitude. We on this side of the House could still possibly find something good in the first part of the Bill, however inadequate it may be, but we are squarely opposed to the second part, and because the Prime Minister has come along and held the pistol to our heads I say quite frankly to him, and I am talking on behalf of this side of the House and of white Afrikanerdom, that in that case we do not want to have anything to do with either part of the Bill and we are rejecting it totally.

It is easy to talk like that when one goes through the Free State.

It was not so easy to keep our province pure, but I want to tell the hon. member for Rustenburg that with his aid what has happened in Natal could easily still be prevented from happening in the Transvaal. But he sits here and he does not lift a finger to try to stop this development. His children, the Afrikanerdom, posterity will settle accounts with him because he had not safeguarded their future. If he has any children they will still one day put their foot on his grave and say that when their father had the opportunity he did not make use of that opportunity. The hon. member talks of the Free State. Thank heaven that the Free State has been saved the misery which has been caused to the other provinces. But a situation is in the process of development, and things are being done which are bringing these dangers closer to the provinces which have so far escaped the misery. There is a movement to extend the franchise to the coloured people also in the north. There has already been a knock at the door of the Free State. In due course there will also be a movement to allow the Indians to roam freely all over the country, including the Free State. The danger is there. We see here that the danger is increasing since the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will perhaps one day be succeeded by the Minister of Finance, a person with a totally different view of our colour problems. Last year when he was overseas, the Minister of Finance made a speech in London in October to the Empire Parliamentary Association, and there once again he preached the principle that all human beings are the same, irrespective of race or colour. He talked there about the coloured question in South Africa. I do not have the time to go into that. Other speakers will see to it that he hears more of this speech this afternoon. The Minister of Finance will perhaps be the successor to the Prime Minister, and since we are continually hearing of the extension of the franchise to the north, we are wary of the dangers which are threatening us. We want to keep our Free State clean and pure, and we will ward off these dangers. Hon. members on the opposite side realise fully the dangers which are threatening their existence and that of their progeny, but they do not want to do anything about it. The person who has to succeed the Prime Minister is a person with a totally different outlook on the matter, quite contrary to the outlook of any good South African. Why do we not want to grant any representation to the Indians? Because we would then have another bloc of three here in addition to the bloc of three native representatives which we already have here. They would not confine themselves merely to looking after the interests which they are representing here, but they would concern themselves with all other matters and would want to be the arbitrators in disputes between Europeans in this House over questions affecting Europeans only. That is a dangerous position, and I would like to tell the hon. the Prime Minister in all seriousness that if he pushes through this Bill with his steamroller majority against the wishes of the people, then he should at least place restrictions on the three representatives of the Indian community in this House in order that they may concern themselves only with matters affecting the community which they will represent here. To mention one instance, as far as the question of entering into a war or not is concerned, they should not be allowed to vote. As far as a motion of confidence or no confidence in the Government is concerned, they should not vote. They are not elected to do that, and I am saying in anticipation that steps should be taken to ensure that the rights of these people are restricted. We are dealing with dangerous legislation which now has to be rushed through the House. As I have said, there is a movement to extend the franchise of coloured people to the north, and it is now the proper time for white South Africa, and I appeal to them, to face the whole question squarely. Let me tell you this, that the Free State is prepared for battle, the white man in the Free State is ready for battle. I represent a border district on the Natal border, where the first Indians will be met who will swarm over the Drakensberg in a black cloud if the gates are thrown open, but I tell you that we will stand at the ready with machine-guns to avert the danger. If we have to perish, let us then perish fighting as an honourable people. I want to make an appeal to all the members of this House, white men as they are sitting here, who ought all of them to have the interests of white South Africa at heart, to face this danger squarely. There is a dark cloud of destruction which is rolling on towards us. Can you not see it? It is a dark cloud which is throwing a shadow over the white race. It reminds one of the calm before a storm when the birds seek shelter amongst the leaves of the trees. That is the time which has come. It is the calm before the thunderstorm which will break over white South Africa. You laugh in your stupidity and your folly, if you do not see it. I appeal to the entire white South Africa: Rise in all your strength and fight and win, and avert the downfall of white South Africa.

There is one thing I want to congratulate the Prime Minister upon most heartily, and that is his express determination to allow no outside interference in the solution of this problem. I wholeheartedly endorse that, most emphatically so. This is a matter of supreme importance, it is true, to South Africa, and the fact that a large number of the people concerned namely the Indians, rushing about all over the world, first going to India, then to Great Britain, and now I understand to U.N.O. leads me to believe that they do not regard themselves as citizens of South Africa, but rather as a section on their own who consider only their own interests, and in fact they have said so, without any regard to the rest of the community in South Africa. Hon. members of this House have to approach this matter with a thorough sense of the responsibility that devolves upon our shoulders. We have as far as possible to envisage the likely developments, ramifications and repercussions of our action upon the whole community and that being so, it behoves us most carefully to examine the proposition that has been put before us by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. Now, in my absence my party in its wisdom moved an amendment. It is unfortunate, of course, under the rules of the House that amendments moved on Bills must be of a similar character, whoever may move them. They inevitably and invariably mean and carry with them the deletion of the original proposition for the purpose of substituting something else. In this case the alternatives have been by no means varied. My party, following the usual Parliamentary practice, has moved the deletion of the words “that the Bill be now read a second time,” their object being, along the lines that I have already indicated, that the most close scrutiny, examination and thoughtfulness, should be applied to the solution of this Indian problem. In other words they have asked for a Select Committee, as indeed the Nationalist Party has also asked for a Select Committee, and also the native representatives, but all out of different motives. The Nationalist Party has one motive, we have another, and the native representatives still another. It may be that in some directions and on some point we agree with each other. On the other hand we may not, but the outstanding fact is this that everyone of these parties is keen—and I believe I can say so with some certitude, that hon. members opposite on the Government benches also have qualms — that in order to deal with this all-important problem, all-important from the point of view of South Africa, the matter should have the most careful consideration prior to being put into legislative form. Now, my party moved that in my absence, and I want to state emphatically that I most thoroughly and heartily endorse the attitude adopted by them in this matter. In other words I am supporting as strongly as I possibly can the reference of this matter to a Select Committee.

How long will it take?

Rather tell me for how many years this problem has been before us.

For 92 years.

My hon. friend is a nonagenarian in these matters, and also in his outlook, I am afraid, on many points. However, we leave such trivialities aside. As I say, this is too serious a problem for us to chivvy each other across the floor of the House. We should bend all our energies together with a view to the future of South Africa. Now, on the merits of the Bill I am wholeheartedly endorsing the reference of it to a Select Committee. It may be argued, as the hon. member interjected a few moments ago, like we hear so many interjections from the scullery maids there: How long will it take? How long has it already taken? But is that a reason, or rather an excuse, for hurried legislation which may not ultimately solve the problem? I propose to show how, in my judgment it will not solve the problem. I want to deal now with the merits of the Bill. This Bill is in two parts. The hon. the Prime Minister was almost verbatim reported in the Press, and I have had the pleasure of reading his speech, although cold print does not do full justice to the eloquence of the hon. Prime Minister.

Do you like it hot?

Yes, I like it hot, almost from the horse’s mouth, you might say. Now, the Prime Minister puts this Bill before Parliament with two associated principles. One being the establishment of a zoning system for Indians in South Africa.

In Natal.

Order, order.

Thank you, Sir. I have so many guides, philosophers and friends in this House that I sometimes become confused, but your clear-cut direction puts me right. In the end it is South Africa, because people ought to look ahead. I have asked the House to view this from the point of view of South Africa, for what you do for the Transvaal and Natal today will be insisted upon by the other provinces tomorrow. Let us face that issue fairly and squarely, and do not condone any action that you may contemplate on the basis of its applying only to Transvaal and Natal. That is why I have deliberately stated that we are dealing with legislation that will apply ultimately to all South Africa. At all events, one part of the Bill provides for the zoning of Indian territory in Natal and the Transvaal. My party is wholeheartedly in favour of that zoning, whilst at the same time reserving to ourselves the right to alter as far as may be and as far as we can the details of that zoning. Whilst we agree with the principle of zoning, we are not necessarily in agreement with the actual zoning envisaged in the Bill and enshrined in the Bill, another potent reason why we should have the matter discussed in the calm atmosphere of the deliberations in the Committee Room upstairs. If I only cite this example of the benefit to be derived from referring the matter to a Select Committee, I claim that I have made out a case for the examination of the Bill in the Select Committee, where all interests involved or likely to be involved, all those whom the ramifications of this measure may affect or interfere with, will have an opportunity of putting their points of view before the Committee; and that Committee in its wisdom can weigh up the pros and cons and come to a decision after having obtained knowledge on all sides. That is as far as the zoning is concerned But here I want to say most deliberately, with a due sense of responsibility, that we do not agree with the franchise proposals which are associated with the first portion of the Bill.

I regret very much indeed that the Prime Minister has seen fit to make the one portion contingent upon the other. I am very sorry about that. It does not give hon. members a fair chance of expressing their views, or voting on this matter in the manner in which they should be able to do so. I am not saying that in order to get cheap applause. I am examining this question as fairly and squarely as I possibly can, being a South African anxious to see that the future of South Africa is absolutely secure, and that the white race shall not suffer. Again I say that I regret that the Prime Minister made that a condition, that he cannot have the one without the other. We on these benches are wholeheartedly in favour of the principle of zoning, or in other words to prevent further penetration by Indians, except in demarcated areas and under control. I think that will meet with approval of members on all sides of the House.

Where is your Mr. Sullivan, and what does he say about it?

My Mr. Sullivan says exactly what I say about it and that is a very cheap gibe, almost as cheap as the interjections sometimes heard from the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). The hon. Minister will see how every member of my party views this question if he will only be patient. We will not allow ourselves to be squashed by what the Press commentators or by what the hon. Minister who interjected say in regard to the individual members of my party. Besides, all these remarks are wrong. Well, my party opposes the franchise proposals of the Prime Minister for various reasons. I have not had the privilege of listening to the whole of the debate, but I understand that hon. members on the Opposition side are in favour of zoning and against the franchise. I think my hon. friends the native representatives are also against the franchise proposals. I say that for various reasons parties in this House, whether really in opposition or only nominally so in some cases, are opposed to the franchise proposals of the Prime Minister. I am not going to say they are wrong. Certainly I am not going to say we are wrong. That goes without saying. It is one of those self-evident facts. But for various reasons a very large proportion indeed of members of this House are opposed to the franchise proposals. Hon. members may belong to whatever party they like, they can please themselves as to what they do, and as to what United Party members do in their caucus meetings, that is their business, just as my own caucus meetings are my business. Now if, as I claim, I have made out a case for meticulous examination of the question on which we are all agreed in principle, namely, zoning, how much the more have I made out a case for the examination, the very closest of examinations of the franchise proposals of the Prime Minister? Apropos of the interjection a little while ago, “How long is this going to take?”, I say this, that, anxious as I am to get this matter concluded—and I take second place to none in that desire—yet I say the matter is so all-important to the future interests of the people of South Africa that, even if does take a little longer, we can take the necessary measures for stop-gap legislation in the meantime.

That is the effect of our amendment.

All right. I hope my friend’s anxiety to be associated with me is not taken very seriously. But we think alike on that matter. It is strange how opposites meet, although it is the case that if you go far enough East, you will get to the West.

That is what you have done.

This is not a matter to be taken light-heartedly. It is not a matter on which to score debating points. It is not a matter on which to say: Oh you did so-and-so on such-and-such an occasion. This is a matter for calm, cool, serious deliberation and decision on the part of every member in this House. No one should allow himself to be dragooned into adopting a particular attitude. I say in all seriousness that as there is such a large body of opinion in favour of considering more carefully these franchise proposals, and indeed the details of the zoning schedules, I do hope sincerely the right hon. gentleman will find it in his mind to allow such an examination.

Let us examine a little in detail the franchise proposals. As for the details of the franchise my hon. friends here object to the communal franchise. I am afraid they are a little inconsistent because they sit here as native representatives by virtue of the communal franchise. I am looking forward to the next time they confront their electorate—not mine—to see how they deal with that subject.

[Inaudible.]

I accept that at once. But this is the point I want to make. If this House or any member in this House hugs the fond delusion to his breast that by giving this communal and indirect representation they have seen the last of the franchise demands by the Indians, they are living in a fool’s paradise. Then what on earth is the use of doing it? Those of us who have had wide experience of the Indians as a race know we have to sub-divide them in this way: It is only the rich highly-placed Indian who is demanding all these things, not the mass of the Indians. The working class know nothing about it, but they are being used by these interested parties who are flying all over the world—to India, Great Britain and U.N.O. [Interruption.] I quite agree, but I am one of those who does not believe in cutting his own throat to show his affection for the other fellow. You have to understand what the Indian is. He is not too particular how he achieves his object. The rich influential and highly privileged Indians use all sorts of devices to attain their object; and it is not so much the franchise as what they can use Parliament for, and that is in their own individual class interests.

Does it matter?

It matters everything, because by the exercise of these devious methods of theirs they are successful in many instances, and in the end they will achieve complete control of this House.

Oh.

You may “oh” as much as you like, but the fact remains; and I want to bring up another point. Have the handful of Indian merchants, a great proportion of them born in the country, demonstrated that they claim South African citizenship above all things? They certainly have not, and whatever claim there may be for natives to have direct representation in this House, it certainly does not apply to the Indians in the peculiar circumstances of their association with us.

If you are so certain, why do you want time to consider the matter?

That is a typical Goldbergian interjection, without any doubt. The renegade is always hottest in his attack on his old friends. This only applies to the Transvaal and Natal. It does not apply to the Cape. It will have to.

It will some day.

The necessity for it is now, because since this debate started we have had numerous instances of the intrusion of Indians in the Cape, such as the Natalians have been objecting so strongly to in respect of their area.

Where is your proof?

If my hon. friends want proof let them vote for the select committee and we will produce it. I will only mention one instance, one outstanding example. One Indian has already bought in the centre of Johannesburg a plot of land on which it is proposed to erect a building at a cost— building and plot together—of £2,000,000. I will guarantee every member of this House has had some example at one time or another of the devious methods they employ, and of the manner in which they try somehow to get into every financial activity.

That is why the Bill should go through now.

That is not a reason why it should go through now. My hon. friend represents a constituency that enables him to know that the morality of the country is involved. No one knows that better than the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie).

He knows nothing.

Yes, he knows this. The hon. member knows what I am referring to. European capitalists are to blame in this, too. Yes, I am hitting all round the wicket. Afrikaner girls employed by the tobacco factory there and also by your farmers’ co-operative society are paid so low a wage and, as is natural with every girl, they desire to look nice and pretty and they go to the Indians because the Europeans will not give them credit. They go to the Indian stores and they are given credit far beyond their opportunity for repayment, and what happens? Suddenly the squeeze is put on and — “We will forgive you your debt provided you come out with us for the evening.”

No, no. You must withdraw that.

You should not bring in Afrikaner women.

I am saying what the Indians say. I am not saying what the women do. And I think my hon. friend is not fair to me to make that suggestion. As I say it is only an example of the devious methods they employ, and I want to remove from South Africa any possibility of that sort of thing.

You are insulting Afrikaner women.

I resent this twisting of my words. I appeal to hon. members’ sense of decency. Have I done that?

Yes.

That is a lie. [Interruptions.] I was saying what the Indians say, not what the girls do. Have it your own way, but it is very unfair, and it is twisting what I said. The fact remains you cannot examine the position sufficiently in the course of the debate on the second reading, over a few days. You cannot examine it sufficiently in the Committee stage. We in the Labour Party are in favour of the property provisions and we in the Labour Party are opposed to the franchise proposals of the Prime Minister, and in consequence I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment of the hon. member.

I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly, not that I think it is a perfect Bill; but I think it is the only Bill that will have the support of the people of Natal and also of the people of South Africa.

You cannot speak for your own constituency, so how can you speak for South Africa?

I will vote for the Bill as it stands. I have the full support of my constituents, who have made representations to me. I am sorry the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has got so hot in speaking on this particular Bill. He agrees to the first part of it with regard to the demarcation of the land, but he objects to the franchise proposals. He has not, however told us one word of the lines along which his thoughts are travelling. He has not even told us why he objects to the franchise proposals, we have no idea why he objects to them. All he says is that this is such an important matter that the best way to consider it is through the means of a Select Committee. I do not think the hon. member realises what will happen if we agree to a Select Committee. Does he know that the Pegging Act comes to an end at the end of this month?

We will have to extend it. That is my point.

I do not think the hon. members opposite realise what the Pegging Act is. If you extend the Pegging Act it will only apply to Durban and not to other parts of the country. We shall have the same position as we have now. We shall have the same debate and the same objections. The Pegging Act does not protect us in other parts of the country. We will come to the country. It does not even touch the question of protecting our farms; we have no protection; they are outside the Pegging Act. If we, as suggested by the official Opposition, leave things for the next two years we will give the Indians the opportunity of entrenching themselves in these European areas, and when that happens this Bill will not be of much use for the future. It has been said by one of our members that he knows that Natal is already lost, that nothing we can do can prevent Natal from becoming an Indian province. That may have been so, but for this Bill. I contend this Bill is the only thing that will help us and that will safeguard European rights in Natal in the future, because it does protect us. The Natal representatives and the people of Natal greatly value the land clauses of this Bill far and above anything else in the Bill. Our land and our homes mean more to us than I can say in this House. We take great pride and love our land and homes, and if this Bill will protect them, as it does, then I say the Bill will do a great service to Natal and the people of Natal and, I will go so far as to say, to the people of South Africa. The idea of all the Natal people is that the great feature of the Bill is the land clauses. Once we lose our land Natal is gone, it will become an Indian province, but as long as we can protect the land in Natal there is a great future for Europeans there. We do not want anything to be done to delay the passing of the Bill. A Select Committee cannot give us more information than we have. We have been considering and discussing this matter for years and years. We have had commissions of all sorts and the whole position and all the information with regard to the Indian problem is known to everybody in this House. Why cannot we deal with it in this House at once, and in the Committee stage improve the Bill, if it is possible to do so; but why waste time by referring it to a Select Committee, which will not, I am quite sure, improve the Bill, but may make it a weaker Bill?

This problem can never be solved by the extreme views of members on that side of the House, or of members of the Labour Party, or of the native representatives. I claim that we on this side of the House do not hold those extreme views. We realise in recognition of the benefits we shall get under the land sections of this Bill we are prepared to make concessions to the Indian people with regard to their franchise rights. I do not think many people realise what we are taking from the Indians. Up to the present the Indians, with the exception during the Pegging Act, have had all the full rights of Europeans in Natal except the franchise. They could buy land, they could do anything the European could do. Under this Bill we are taking those rights away from them, and as far as the European areas are concerned we feel we shall be safe under this Bill for the future. In respect of those areas in which the Indians will have to live and make a future for themselves we do not debar Europeans from buying land and Jiving there. That is done at the special request of the Indians themselves, but I hope no Europeans will live in those areas and buy land there. We should regard them as purely Indian areas.

This is the thin end of the wedge.

No, it is not the thin end of the wedge, but if any European wishes to live there the Bill does not deny him the right. It is sufficient for the Europeans in this country to know they will and can develop in the European areas and those other areas will be left entirely for Indian development as they have asked for.

Why do you not make provision for separate areas in the Act?

We do that; we are giving them a great deal more than that. We are undertaking to give them many advantages. They will get education, health services and all the amenities the Europeans enjoy; they will get them in those areas. If they accept the position there is, I believe, a future for these Indians in these open areas. We who are supporting this Bill have been criticised by people who should know better on the ground that we have adopted our present attitude in regard to the Bill as the result of colour prejudice. It is not colour prejudice, I maintain. It is purely instinct. Instinct is something we have from the laws of nature and the laws of nature are the laws of the Almighty. The first law of nature is the preservation of your race or of your species, and the second law is that your species and your race should be kept pure and not mixed. You call it colour prejudice, I call it instinct. It is the natural instinct of every human being, and indeed of every animal. In nature animals do not mix, they develop an individuality of their own. If we resist the laws of nature we will be doing a disservice to this country. I also feel that when the churches and the clergy take part in this propaganda against the Bill they are not improving the position but they are doing a great disservice to South Africa. I also agree with the hon. member for Benoni and others who have spoken in regard to this being an internal South African matter. I would also like to thank the Prime Minister for his statement on that point. No pressure from outside would, he said, deter the Government from the course they have set in passing this Bill. I am quite sure every section of the people will support the Government in that attitude to the very hilt. I appeal to hon. members opposite: Do not let us be sidetracked by bringing in other issues. Let us deal with this purely as an Indian Bill. We in Natal know what has happened there and what may happen in other parts of the Union. Do not let us introduce the native question or the colour question, but let us confine it to the Indian question. In the passing of this Bill we in Natal are satisfied our future will have been safeguarded and that Europeans will not only have a future there but a great future, because we will be able to develop within our own areas, with our own people, and with the culture and the ideals we stand for. We in Natal have a great love for our land and for our homes, and will make great sacrifices to safeguard and protect them.

That is why you are selling them to the Indians.

An interjection of that sort makes a laughing stock of this House. I am trying to speak seriously, but an interjection of that sort throws ridicule on the House. While this Bill has not been passed to prevent it, the Indians have the right to buy, and if there are Europeans who are willing to sell you cannot stop the Europeans from selling the land to Indians because it is under the law of the land. If some do not sell, somebody else would; and it is only by these means of control you can stop that sort of thing in the future.

With regard to the franchise, I feel the Government is adopting the right course. You can only do this by communal representation as proposed in this Bill. The Leader of the Dominion Party has proposed that the representation should be confined to the Senate. While I have no objection to that I am quite certain it would not be acceptable to the Indians.

The Indians will not accept this Bill.

I believe the Indians will accept this wholeheartedly. As has been said by others, the opposition to this Bill comes only from a small section of the Indians, and the majority of them will accept it wholeheartedly, and they will be thankful when the Bill is passed. The majority of them are not traders, they are people who work on the land.

They will not have the franchise qualifications.

The majority of the Indians will have the qualifications. In Natal you see splendid Indian schools all over the country where they get the best education. I have been to performances in my own town where the Indians have presented performances in which all performers were matriculated students; and they have told me that every year the Indian university in Natal turns out over 1,000 matriculated students. Nor are they all the sons of rich traders, they come from the Indian working classes, too. If this Bill is passed I am quite sure this agitation will die down and Indians will accept the position and settle down, and be glad to be recognised as citizens of this country. And the sooner we get to that position the better. There will be peace in the country. They will know where their rights are and they will respect ours. For that reason I am going not only to support this Bill but I shall vote for it as it is printed today, unless there is some improvement that can be made in Committee. But as I see it at present, after discussing with those who have the best knowledge, I do not believe this Bill can be improved. It is all that you want, and I am quite sure that the Prime Minister when he goes overseas can feel that he has the support of this country.

Overseas they are not taking any notice of him.

Overseas they will recognise that this is a question for us to settle ourselves, and I do not believe that this matter will be raised before U.N.O., as is being threatened at the present time. Why raise all these bogeys? Let us deal with our own domestic matters as best we can and let us pass this Bill, and I believe that the Indian question will be settled for the future. That is all I wish to say and I hope that hon. members will not delay the passage of this Bill any longer than is necessary.

The way in which the hon. member who has just been seated handled this question makes it perfectly clear to me that he has not made a study of this Bill, and in the second place I do not believe that the hon. member is very interested in what goes on around him. The hon. member rose and said that the Indian masses would be satisfied with this Bill. Does the hon. member really mean to imply that he is not aware of the fact that the great mass of Indians are against this Bill, and that they have in fact rejected it?

That is not so.

Does the hon. member not know that yesterday between 6,000 and 8,000 Indians assembled in Johannesburg, where they resolved to have nothing to do with this Bill?

That does not mean a thing.

Does the hon. member know that one of the Indian leaders who presided there yesterday actually insulted the Indian community by saying to them: I did not expect you to pray, but to revolt and act. And all this is aimed at this Bill. Does the hon. member want to tell me that he does not know that a deputation even came here this week from Vryburg to address the Government in connection with Indian penetration there? They do not want the Bill as such. But the restriction imposed on Indians in Natal is driving them out, and they are investing their money in other parts of the country. I will not dwell on this aspect any longer. The other objection of the hon. member is that if the Bill is not accepted now, the Indians will enjoy the right for at least another two years of penetrating freely as they choose. Why? If the amendment of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is accepted, it is unnecessary that the Indians should have the right for another two years. The hon. member will admit that this legislation offers no solution. As regards the speeches made by the native representatives in this House, chiefly that of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and that of the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming), I will make no comment thereon except to say this: I hope that their speeches will now make the Prime Minister realise into what chaos he will plunge South Africa and also this House if, when this Bill goes through, he allows yet three more isolationists to come and sit here, who will spread the same propaganda and the same poison which was propagated here yesterday.

Who put those three members there?

You did.

My friends on the other side put them there. The Hon. Leader of the Dominion Party read a telegram here yesterday which he received from the Indian community. I think that after the last portion of his speech he can expect this telegram this afternoon: “Please do not unnecessarily quarrel amongst yourselves. No Indian is interested in your benevolent offer of communal franchise. For once we wholeheartedly support Col. Stallard.”

Where does it come from?

We congratulate you on your new ally.

That goes to show the intelligence of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) and the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock). I did not say that this telegram actually arrived. I said that after his speech of yesterday afternoon, he ought to receive such a telegram today from the Indian community. In his speech yesterday, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister adopted certain viewpoints with which we on this side of the House cannot identify ourselves. On the contrary, I can see no justification for the viewpoint adopted by the Prime Minister, and to say the least of it, the Prime Minister was very unconvincing yesterday in his speech. The putting through of this Bill is a law of Medes and Persians; there is no time now for a Select Committee or for investigation. On the contrary, the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) showed perfectly clearly in his speech that it is a party measure and that his party is prepared to proceed with the matter, but not, as he himself said, in the way that my hon. Leader set to work at the time in connection with this question. We on this side of the House admit that the Indian question is a burning question. But it has not only been a burning question since yesterday. It is a problem which has existed for years now, and since the introduction of the Pegging Act this question has become very real. Why has an attempt not been made during all these years to find a solution on a national basis? Why not consult all parties on this question who are very interested in it? And if since the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister had made use of such a step, we would have made much more progress in this matter. Thus there is absolutely no excuse as far as this question is concerned. The first portion of the Bill envisages segregation. And in this connection I want to say to the Prime Minister that we on this side of the House always stand for segregation; it is our policy.

But not that sort of segregation.

But we speak of segregation in the right sense of the word; we do not want half measures.

We do not want a mixed affair.

As my hon. friend says, we do not want a mixed affair here. The Prime Minister endeavoured to explain that he wanted to solve the Indian question on the basis of segregation. I want to ask the Prime Minister this question: Where is the segregation in this Bill? Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5, and more particularly Articles/ 4 and 5, do most decidedly make provision for a restriction on the occupation of land in Natal and the Transvaal. That we are completely in agreement with. But then the Prime Minister comes along with Article 8, and by the provisions contained in that article he immediately nullifies all the good intentions of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5. This clause deals chiefly with the permit system. And now I want to put this question to everyone with common sense in this House: By entrusting a question like this to our present Minister of the Interior, what is going to happen? I am convinced in my soul that he will not refuse one single permit. He is the man who years ago began this question in Natal. Unasked he offered the Indians the franchise and following closely at his heels was the Minister of Finance. I say that while provision is now being made to obtain permits to buy in those areas, of which those former articles make mention, you will agree with me that there is no question of segregation. And then comes Article 9 (2) and this makes the position still worse. Areas are now being created where not only Asiatics but also Europeans may purchase land. Here again we have a mix-up. The hon. member for Drakensberg said that if a European wanted to go and live there, let him do so; that is his affair. That is not the way we as responsible people should tackle the problem.

Responsible people!

That sort of interjection, as my hon. friend has said, will fit very well into a certain newspaper which is known as “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly”, but not here in the House where we are dealing with serious questions. I say that Articles 8 and 9 make it perfectly clear to us that there is no question of segregation in this Bill.

And now we come to another matter. Let us take the Transvaal Gold Act of 1908. Under Articles 130 and 131 provision is made that no Asiatic or coloured person may live in proclaimed areas, except in separate areas, areas which are set aside for that purpose. These articles were later amended as a result of the report of the Feetham Commission, by which the possession of land by Asiatics—illegal possession—was virtually legalised. We want to know from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister what is going to happen there? It makes me think of another case, of an area in Johannesburg into which Asiatics were not allowed to penetrate. Penetration took place and a prosecution resulted. But on the very first prosecution of an Indian instructions were given by the Minister of Justice to stop the prosecution. There was penetration on a large scale; that is the position. We want to know what the position is in connection with a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). If this morning we want to advance the argument to the nation that we must accept this Bill because it will bring about segregation, then I say that we are throwing dust in the eyes of the people. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) rose yesterday and he wanted to assist the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. He said—

Where is that protection? He said—

I did not think that a responsible person, a representative of Natal, who knows what the problems are in Natal, would say that. But after having offered the Prime Minister that help, he changed front and said—

And by saying that he nullifies all his previous arguments. The other viewpoint adopted by the Prime Minister was that we are now taking away so much from the Indian and that we must give them something. The Prime Minister said—

Inter alia, the Prime Minister said—

I admit that it must be a question of give and take, but in this Bill adequate provision is made for the Indian community as regards land ownership. Why then extend the franchise to the Indians? No, I say the Prime Minister wants everything to come from the side of the Europeans and nothing from the Indians. Yesterday the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister had another supporter, that one-time Nationalist who sits against the wall on the other side, the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), and he rose and praised the Prime Minister for not allowing himself to be influenced from abroad and for looking after our domestic affairs himself. I want to indicate in passing the pressure which has been exerted from abroad all these years, and I want to point out that the provision made here by the Prime Minister is what Gandhi asked for in Madras as long ago as 1896. The hon. member for Vryheid says that he admits that these two civilisations cannot become reconciled and he feels inclined sometimes not to vote for the measure, but why does he advocate it? I have his words here. He said—

He has nothing in common with his fellow Afrikaner in South Africa. Is that perhaps the motive the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has in view in forcing this Bill through the House in such haste? The hon. member for Vryheid told us briefly yesterday what Gandhi said in connection with the Indians who came to South Africa. I will just read a few lines. Gandhi said this on 26th October, 1896, in Madras —

We hear that it is the white man’s fault that they are in South Africa. I will read further—

That applies to all immigrants.

I do not say that it does not apply to all immigrants; I say that Gandhi said this with relation to the Indian immigrants. But I want to say this with relation to interference from outside. About a dozen proofs could be furnished out of Gandhi’s speech, but I will only quote one—

That is the year 1894—

Who said that?

I have just said that it appeared in the London “Times” of the 27th June, 1894. Then Gandhi went on to say—

That is precisely what the Prime Minister is doing today.

And they are still not satisfied.

They are still not satisfied. All sides envisage building up a united nation in South Africa comprising the two big European races, and if this is the case, it is surely perfectly logical — it is self-evident that the white man in South Africa should decide the future of his own country and the ultimate destination of our own nation. In that regard there can be no difference of opinion among us, chiefly and more particularly in relation to the ultimate destination of an independent white South Africa. But whereas the Government is today taking a leap in the dark, I do not think it out of place to utter a word of warning to my Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking friends who in the majority of cases feel just as I do about this question, and it is this. They must realise what the implications of this Bill are going to be when it is first applied in practice. Where it is precisely the white race who must decide the ultimate destination and lot of our nation, it would be fatal today for the Government to come to the House with its Parliamentary majority and to extend the vote to a non-European race in South Africa, whom it is not only impossible to assimilate with the people of South Africa, but who have an entirely foreign and opposite outlook on the interests of the country and on the nation’s problems as we see them here today. I say it would be fatal. We cannot allow it. I believe that where the white man is determined to ensure the ultimate destination of the white man, we must also ensure that legislation and legislative power remains in the hands of the white man, and in no other hands. I say that if this legislation goes through and if the vote is extended in this way to that race, it will mean the thin end of the wedge. This Bill offers no solution. The Indians have rejected it. I want to say in passing that the Prime Minister’s speech did not even cause a stir among the general public. His own nation do not want the Bill. Why then does he go on with it? In this Bill he offers no solution, but the Prime Minister is committing his country, South Africa, very deeply. This is what is going to happen. The interference is not only limited to that which I have already mentioned. The Indian is not entitled to demand citizenship in this country. Here we have a Sapa report which was sent yesterday. The Indians are not only turning today to England, America and India; they are also appealing to China and Russia, and they are going to protest to the U.N.O. The Prime Minister said that this was a domestic affair. If that is the case, what right has any outside power to interfere in the domestic affairs of South Africa? If the Indian is running around everywhere asking for help, and while they call themselves subjects of India and not subjects of South Africa, how can they expect us to grant them citizenship? We cannot do it. What will be the result of this Bill? Today the Prime Minister is going so far as to extend the vote for the first time to the Indians in Natal and the Transvaal, as well as in the Provincial Council of Natal. And now I want to ask the Prime Minister who has first claim in that respect, the coloureds or the Indians? We cannot get away from it; if this legislation goes through the House, it will at once give rise to the coloureds in the Transvaal saying: “If a foreign race, an unassimilable race with a foreign outlook on our country’s interests, can obtain representation in Parliament, and while the Cape natives can obtain representation and the Cape Coloureds enjoy the vote, why can the vote not be extended to the coloureds in the Transvaal and Natal?” And what about the native population there? Does the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister realise the implications of this matter? Here in the Cape Province you have a quarter of a million natives and they have three representatives in Parliament. Will the native population in Natal and in the Transvaal not be dissatisfied if you give the vote to the Indian and not to them? I say the Prime Minister is allowing a state of affairs to develop in South Africa which will result in conflicts in the future, and before the measure goes through the House, we want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister not to force this question through. It is against the will of the people, and I am convinced that it is against the will of his own people, when you converse with them in the lobby.

They are not dissatisfied.

I am not discussing people who come from Hospital Hill.

He hums like a wasp.

I say it is a great pity that the Prime Minister should introduce legislation of this nature at this juncture, at a time when there is agitation afoot in the country and when all the coloured races want to stand together to demand their rights and to exert pressure.

You force them together.

I have here in my hand a copy of a report of 3rd November, 1945, which appeared in one of the Afrikaans newspapers in Johannesburg. Here we see that Europeans, Indians and natives were assembled together at a meeting to demand these rights.

What paper is it?

It is “Die Vaderland” of 3rd November, 1945. We see this [translation]—

And further—

That is what you say.

If that hon. member had said it, then I could take it from whence it comes.’ The report goes on to say—

Here we have even an Indian who took part in the demand for rights—

That is what is happening today, and now I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he does not regard it as fatal to allow this propaganda to be carried on at this juncture in the history of the country, Whatever kind of vote the Prime Minister gives to the Indians, they are only going to use it as a springboard for further political propaganda and for the achievement of absolutely equal rights in South Africa. They are not satisfied with this measure.

Now I want to come to the Minister of Finance. The week-end before last, when I happened to be on the Rand, he’ made a speech at the University (on graduation day). There again the Minister of Finance labelled us a “herrenvolk” because we fight for segregation in this country. He has become colour-blind, and today you are seeing the repercussions. At this meeting in Johannesburg to which I referred yesterday evening, the following took place; I will read the newspaper report [translation]—

I say that the Minister of Finance in his colour-blindness has once again made a speech which will result in these coloured races further propagating their pernicious propaganda in South Africa. I say heaven preserve us if he—as far as I know he has been pointed out as the successor to the Prime Minister—should one day occupy the place of the Prime Minister.

He is a first-class man.

He will be first-class in pleading for the disappearance of the colour bar. I admit that he will be the best one to bring about the disappearance of the colour bar. What then is the solution? Let us get together and reason over this question. Why act in haste? Accept the amendment of my honoured Leader. Let us deal calmly with the matter in the conference room. You can solve the question if you do not tackle the coloured problem in bits and pieces. Then you create chaos. That is why my honoured Leader asks: Come and let us tackle the question on a broad basis. Let the problem of coloureds, natives and Asiatics be considered in the conference chamber, and let us find the best solution for the future. What is the difference between this amendment and that of the Labourites? We also ask for a Select Committee, just as they do, but we ask that the whole coloured problem should be tackled and solved on a broad basis, and therein we see the only way to the salvation of South Africa. If there are members on the other side who want to prove the opposite and want to allow the coloured problem to develop as it is doing now and to extend the vote, and thereby save the country, then I say that it cannot be done.

It is the only plan.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said that he could not give Indians representation in the Province of the Transvaal on the Provincial Council, for their numbers are too small. But what then will be the position in a few years when there are enough? During last month the birth rate in Durban of Indians was three times as high as that of Europeans. You find the position everywhere. What is the Prime Minister going to do then? How are you going to preserve white civilisation then?

We will manage it.

Yes, if all of us sat in the hospital where the hon. member comes from. It is the thin end of the wedge. That is why I say that when viewing this matter, it looks as though the decisive hour has arrived, but we must not allow our children to be able to reproach us one day when they look back on us and ask: What did you do when the decisive hour struck for the nation? Once again we make a final appeal to the Prime Minister to abandon this measure, and to face the dangers which threaten by accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Piketberg.

Probably this is one of the most difficult subjects that the House has ever been called upon to debate for many years, and the tragedy of it all is that at the time of Union when we had the best brains then available to deal with the problems before us, this the most difficult problem at all, was not dealt with and settled at the time. We have had a legacy since then which has caused us constant trouble. Those of us who know the Transvaal realise what difficulties there were in those early days when the Prime Minister had to deal with this problem, and we saw the steady and illegal encroachment which was going on then, and we realised that sooner or later this problem would have to be tackled in order to safeguard the interests of the Europeans of South Africa. But that does not mean that we have to be unfair or unjust to those other interests that have come in here. These people are here at the invitation of the Europeans. They have been used by Europeans, and if today there are difficulties about property and trading, they have been caused mainly by the Europeans themselves who sold their properties, and when I see the difficulties and complaints about trading stores in this country, I also ask myself who is responsible for having maintained and built up those Indian stores, and the reply is that it is mainly the European people. We therefore have been largely responsible for the creation of this trouble and the difficulties that exist, and we have the right, I think,, to ask the European population today to make some contribution and to try and find some solution, even if it is only a partial solution, of the problem. It is perfectly true as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (Col. Stallard) stated that the Indians have turned down this proposal. They will turn down any proposal unless we submit fully to their demands, which would amount to complete political, social and economic rights which must eventually turn this country into a black one. The position is quite impossible and they know it. I say that the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister do make a step forward and give them something which after all they have been clamouring for in the past, an opportunity of expressing their views in this House. In listening to this debate and to the criticism that has been directed at the Prime Minister and the various suggestions made, there is one very significant fact which appears, that with all the skill, all the knowledge and ability of members opposite, the only proposal put before the House is to refer this matter to a joint committee or a select committee, in an attempt to find some other solution for the problem.

A permanent solution for the whole problem.

I may surely ask my hon. friends opposite: Why, from the studies they have made of this problem—and this is an old problem—have they not been able to come forward with some broad outline for a solution to the problem? After all, this is a partial solution which has been proposed by the Government.

Why not make it a wider solution?

You may disagree with it, but it is not enough to say that it must be sent to a select committee in the hope of finding a solution. I say that from the studies members opposite have made of the subject, they should be capable of giving us some concrete solution.

Why did you not make the same demand in regard to the native legislation of 1936?

The native legislation was also before the House. But I wish to deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). The terms of that legislation were dealt with at a joint conference. I do not wish to go back on this problem, because in point of fact the solution had been at different times suggested by the various parties in the House. But in this present problem we have the broad basis of the Bill. I put this to members opposite: Your amendment will be turned down. In fact, I hope it will be. What I ask is this: Do you then propose to vote against this Bill after that?

Yes.

Yes.

You will vote against the Bill, against the property sections, as well as against the franchise sections.

If the one is bound up with the other we must do so.

Hon. members are not prepared, apart from the question of what they may want to do under Part I, to give the franchise to Indians in principle.

We are not prepared to be blackmailed.

Then why not say so straight out in the amendment, that you object to the principle of the Bill, instead of bringing up a camouflaged amendment?

We want a Bill to be passed with all the information and wisdom that it is possible to obtain, pooling all our efforts.

If you have any wisdom.

I do not want to enter into a debate on the relative merits of our knowledge, but I think we should keep this matter out of party politics, and should have some constructive proposal.

We made them. That is our amendment.

Was any party consulted before the Bill was brought before the House.

The people of this country have been consulted for many years, not in the sense of being asked direct questions. Such things are not done.

I want to deal with some of the remarks made in that most unfortunate speech we heard yesterday from the hon. member for Cape Eastern. There is one thing I think members of this House have a very great responsibility for. In this particular matter the words of members go far afield beyond this House, and especially the words of the native representatives are studied most carefully. What did they say? Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Cape Eastern, waving her usual admonitory finger at members of the House, and pointing out our lack of knowledge, wisdom and of principle, stated that we have never treated the native people properly, or even the coloured people, and in fact she made a definite statement that after the native laws of 1936 the position of the native people today is worse than it was ten years ago.

You must be careful of what you say.

I listened very carefully to the speech, and the impression left on the mind of everyone was that she said that the position of the native as regards his standard of living generally may be better, but economically and socially it was worse.

You did not listen very carefully or else you were not in a very receptive state of mind.

I will read what the hon. member said:

What does that mean? Does it mean that they are worse off now than they were then?

That is not what I meant.

The Prime Minister said that.

That definitely is not true. I say that during the last ten years a very great deal has been done for the natives in this country. I say that as a result of the native Bills the trust was created. The hon. member made no allowances for the war period of the last six years.

I do.

She condemned the Government for the lack of progress made. But she made no mention at all of the money spent, the increased money spent, on native education, an increase from £600,000 to £2,600,000, and of the money spent on land purchases for natives; there was no mention at all of the different areas acquired by the Native Trust. But it has gone out to the world that we in this country have treated our natives worse as a result of the legislation passed, and that is one of the reasons also why she objected to the passing of this Indian legislation, because they would be treated worse afterwards.

You are very confused.

I may be confused, but I think that is how it was interpreted by all hon. members in the House. Her argument as to why this Bill should not be passed was based on the assumption that the native people were worse off now than they were before legislation was passed. I say that is unfair and untrue. I say the people of this country have done a great deal for the uplift of the native people of this country. I do not give way to anyone in my regard for the interest of the natives and coloured people, But I say that speeches like that on a most critical occasion do not do anything at all to help the solution of the problem.

And then you want more native representatives!

What is the solution of the native representatives? Their solution is far from confining this trouble to Natal; she welcomes the throwing open of the boundaries and the flooding of the country with Indian traders.

I did not say that.

In answer to a question by the hon. member for Hospital Hill (Mr. Barlow) that is what the hon. member for Cape Eastern said, that she was prepared to throw open the boundaries.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of explanation…

Is the hon. member prepared to give way?

Yes.

Just for the satisfaction of the House I would like to remind them that the hon. member questioned me and asked “What about the Transkei?” and I replied that we had always made our position clear in regard to the Transkei, and that we regarded it as an area of land settlement with the protection of all land settlement areas.

I still say that what she said will intensify the position with regard to the Indians. There is one thing which is rather extraordinary, that whatever measures are proposed in this House by a certain section of the community, when any proposal is made for limiting certain rights or restricting Indian encroachment, a certain section always considers it to be an insult to India. I have had occasion quite recently to come across cases where Indians themselves have definitely broken agreements that have been made.

What agreements were those?

Property agreements in the Transvaal. I can give instances where within the last week or two attempts were made by European women married to Indians under the Mahommedan law to try to get property registered and to transfer property, and you only have to go into the matter to see how every possible attempt is made by certain sections there to avoid the property restrictions laid down in the Transvaal.

It is the Europeans who did it.

I agree, but I have already dealt with the European side of it and admitted that they are to blame, and I would have liked to see the Government take strong measures against them, but that does not alter the fact that the Indians also broke the agreements. And I say that today a definite step is being taken by the Government to try to solve this matter at any rate temporarily, and to bring it to some finality. Now it is quite impossible for this House to say what future generations will do. The trouble has been that the past generations would never face up to this problem, and therefore it has increased and become more complex. The steps which the Prime Minister proposes to take now will at least peg the position for the time being, and will give the people of this country an opportunity to realise what they should do, and it will bring home, too, as the hon. member stated yesterday, as the Indian representatives act in this House, and according to the sense of responsibility they show, so it will help in future perhaps to give them wider responsibilities. But I want to ask this: Do hon. members, when they ask us to treat this question as if these people are just the same as ourselves, one race, one colour, with the same ideals and standard of life, take into account the opinions of the rest of the population? No matter how much individual members may be advanced in their thoughts and ideas, we know perfectly well that the bulk of the people in this country will not submit to the representatives in this House of Indians or other sections of the nonEuropean population.

We have never claimed that.

It is not what you claim, but the whole tenor of sending this Bill to a Select Committee is what? It is to take away the communal franchise and to introduce a loaded franchise. To me, if there is an insult in a communal franchise, there is also an insult in a loaded franchise. Hon. members may differ, but I venture to say that you are having discrimination against a section of the people

We want less discrimination and you want more.

I do not want more. We know perfectly well that if you put this proposition up in the Transvaal, where feeling is very strong, you can never hope to advance quickly, but must go slowly along the path of solving this problem. I want to say again that any proposals put forward for sending this Bill to the Select Committee are merely intended to shelve the problem. The proposal to send it to the Select Committee made by the Leader of the Opposition, the Committee to report in two years, would bring it to the eve of the general election, which means that it could not possibly be considered by Parliament for another two years, and so it could not come before the House for another four years. I say that to ask the Government to hold the Bill up for another four years will lead to chaos and animosity not only here, but also outside.

Are you not having it now?

It will be a continuous process.

I say this, that when the Prime Minister goes overseas and explains exactly what has been done, I venture to say that there will be a change of view and of opinion on the part of the people over there.

What have they got to do with it?

I just want to show how little our problems are understood. Take the remark made by the leader of the Indian people in London, who suggested to the Prime Minister that a break should be made in order that a repatriation scheme could be introduced, and that those who wished to return to India could do so. They do not realise that there was such a scheme. If there is one weakness in this Bill it is this: I will ask the Prime Minister to consider, either in this Bill or another Bill, to reintroduce the question of repatriation.

You want some of the English repatriated. How can you repatriate Union nationals?

You know what happens in Europe.

That repatriation scheme is still open today.

What is this Indian petition presented to the House ? The Indians do not themselves consider that they are citizens of this country. In their petition to India to help them, they appeal that they should be helped because they have no rights. I want the Government to do everything they can to press forward the repatriation scheme, and to let the world know that far from hindering repatriation, we would gladly welcome it. But we know from experience that far from it being their desire to return to India, they wish to remain here. They are raising a cry in other parts of the world, in Britain and in India. Well, many of them should feel that they themselves are the cause of the trouble here, and that those who caused the trouble—which is not the vast majority of them—should be told to leave here.

The hon. member said that in connection with this problem we have to perform an operation, and the sooner it is all over the better. That is exactly where we differ from the hon. member and from the opposite side of the House. Our contention is that in regard to such an important problem one should first of all deliberate most carefully and make sure that the right steps are being taken. That is the reason why the Leader of the Opposition proposed that the matter should first be referred to a Select Committee which could determine what would be the best operation, as the hon. member has put it, with regard to this problem.

Time and again in the history of this House we reach moments when weighty decisions have to be taken which may have far-reaching results for our country and our people. We have once again reached one of those moments because we are dealing here with South Africa’s most important problem, namely, the race problem. As distinct from most other countries, we have in South Africa to contend with great racial problems. We do not have a homogeneous population in this country. We have a mixed population, and this mixture results in a lack of solidarity, and with a view to greater unity it is in the interests of our country that steps should be taken to confine the mixture of our population to a minimum. I had hoped that in dealing with the Indian question we would have made use of this opportunity to try and reduce the mixture of populations.

The main distinction in respect of our race relations in South Africa is the division between European and non-European. On both sides of this division, however, there are divisions and groups, and one had hoped that when this question was tackled an effort would be made to confine the subdivision on both these sides to a minimum. I regard it as being in the interests of the country that in dealing with the racial problem, our object should be to make the racial division one between European and non-European only by taking steps to make both groups as homogeneous as possible. There are people who will go still further and who would not even acknowledge this division between European and non-European and who preach the doctrine of absolute equality which will result in a large homogeneous population in South Africa, even although that population would then be a mongrel population such as we find in many South American States. This liberal group, as they are being called in South Africa in recent times, is becoming rather vociferous lately, particularly because they draw strength from the new Bolshevistic holism which is shedding its influence from Russia. This theory that in our country no difference should be made between colours but that we should have a homogeneous population, has clashed with the conception of the older generation here in the southern part of our country. Quite early in our history our ancestors here in the south upheld the idea that a separate European nation should be established here. This conception was carried to the north by the Voortrekkers who established this idea in our history with their blood and with great sacrifice. There was a time in our history, therefore, when there was a difference of opinion about this idea amongst the Europeans, but today I think that we can assume that well-nigh ninety or more out of every hundred European persons in our country endorse this view. There was a time in our history, however, when a very large section of our population, especially the later arrivals, did not regard South Africa as a place where they must find a home for a white race, not as a place where a separate European civilisation should be built up, but they regarded South Africa merely as a territory to be exploited for its profits and riches, and when that has been done, to be deserted if they so desired. It is owing to this conception that we have had the doctrine of equality here in the Cape Province, which resulted, for instance, in political equality of European and non-European. The same conception resulted in the permitted entry into the Transvaal of the Indians and later of the Chinese. Fortunately that period is now behind us. Today we can say that it is assumed well-nigh generally by the European section of the population that there should be a division between European and nonEuropean. Having assumed then that we should have on the one hand a European race with a Western European character and on the other hand a non-European group with a Bantu character, that is in my opinion the only division in South Africa which should prevail here. All other groups should orientate themselves or be removed to the one or other side.

It is with a view to this conception of having two groups in South Africa, that we should determine our immigration policy in South Africa. For that reason, for instance, we could not associate ourselves with any idea that the non-European group in South Africa should be supplemented. We have enough non-Europeans here. I wish, therefore, to utter a warning and to bring the fact to the attention of the Government that we are not being sufficiently cautious today. We are permitting natives from outside our borders to enter the Union of South Africa. The cry that owing to a shortage of labour people from outside the Union should be brought to the mines and other sources of employment is the same cry which was raised in Natal at the time, and we are making the same mistake which was made in Natal when the Indians were imported to work on the sugar plantations. We should adopt an immigration policy which will put a total stop to any more non-Europeans being permitted to enter the Union.

Does that also apply to farm labour?

Yes, that also applies to farm labour. I am willing to have a stop put to any non-European immigrant from outside our borders coming to the Union. I think that if we do not do that, we will be making the same mistake which Natal made with the immigration of Indians, and I hope that the Government will give its attention and take steps in that direction. As far as European immigration is concerned, I hope that we will bear in mind that no immigrants should be allowed who would weaken the homogeneity of the European population. It is for that reason that we on this side of the House so strongly advocate that only persons who would strengthen and not weaken our Western European culture and character should be allowed to enter South Africa. We want only those two groups, a white group with a Western European character on the one hand, and on the other hand I feel that there should be only a non-European group with a Bantu character. Under this division you will notice that I can see no place in South Africa for the Oriental. It is for that reason that I can under no circumstances support this Bill, because it recognises, protects and establishes a further racial and cultural group in our political and economic life. We should not have taken any steps in that direction, but, on the contrary, we should have tried to reduce the heterogeneity of our population instead of strengthening and consequently perpetuating it. That is my first great objection to this Bill.

The second objection is against the manner in which this legislation has been introduced by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was asked that he should not make this matter a Government measure. He should have regarded if, as an important national problem which should have received serious consideration from all sides of this House on a non-party basis. In the past, when important problems in South Africa were tackled, they were set about in a different manner. At the time of Union, a National Convention was held, and after lengthy deliberations, the South Africa Act was drafted. When the Native Bills were introduced, we had a Select Committee which sat for years to discuss the native problem with all its complications, and to deliberate thereon, and it was only after many years that the legislation was introduced by the Government. Instead of the Government pursuing that course in this instance, the Prime Minister comes along in a hurry and introduces a Government measure, and he issues the ultimatum that he wants it to be agreed to in the form he has proposed it. I do not think that this manner of doing if is designed to ensure a solution of this problem along the best lines.

My third objection against this measure of the Government is that it presents no solution of the problem whatsoever. On the contrary, it aggravates the problem. What we would have liked to see was that the Prime Minister should have listened to the voice of the people of South Africa. It seems to me as if the Prime Minister did not lend an ear to the wishes of the people of the Union, but he lent an ear to voices overseas. He is in a hurry because he has to proceed overseas shortly, and if he succeeds in having this legislation passed he wants to present this legislation in the assembly halls of the nations overseas as evidence that South Africa has taken measures to grant political rights to the coloured races. If the Prime Minister had given a hearing to his own people, I am convinced that he would have received a different message, and would have come along with a better solution of the Indian problem.

I now want to be so bold as to present my views with regard to a solution of this problem, and I think it is the same viewpoint and solution which would come from the European population today if the people of South Africa had been given the opportunity of expressing their views. It is that this problem can only be solved along the lines of the repatriation or removal of the Indians, and along no other lines. Now it will be said that such an attempt was made in 1926 and that it was not a success. My contention is that we are living in a totally different period today. In 1926 the people of South Africa were not as conscious of the gravity of the problem and were not prepared yet to make sufficient sacrifices in order to solve this problem. Whilst the people then thought in terms of thousands or tens of thousands, they would today be prepared to spend millions if the right solution of the problem could be achieved. I contend that only by means of removal, not only of the repatriation of Indians who came here from India, but of all Indians from South Africa can this problem be solved. It can be done on a friendly basis with India, provided that we on our side are prepared to make the largest possible concessions and sacrifices in that connection. We see today that all over the world attempts are being made to solve racial and minority problems and the heterogeneity of populations in various states by means of migration of racial groups. Why should we not make a similar attempt? As far as our own European population is concerned, we have proved that we could solve the problem as far as our own Europeans were concerned in Other territories along those lines. We took steps to have the Boers from Angola transferred back to the Union. We took steps to have the people who migrated to the Argentine transferred back to South Africa. Why cannot we also make an attempt to transfer the Indians back to India or to some other part of the world where they will be happy? It is a problem which in our country has not the same dimensions as in the countries of Europe. There they are transferring seven or eight millions of people because they are forming a minority group in a state. While we in South Africa do not see our way clear to remove a quarter million people. I think that only along those lines can this problem be truly solved. I do not think that it is already too late, but in due course it may become too late to solve this question along these lines. For that reason I want to make an earnest appeal to the Prime Minister not to set aside this solution. It has been said that the Indians want to appeal to U.N.O. If we cannot, by the way of friendly agreement with the Indians in our country and with India, solve the question along these lines, I see no danger in such a matter being laid before U.N.O. U.N.O. is helping to solve these problems in other countries and it may assist us to solve the problem in South Africa where the problem is still of such small dimensions and because the people of South Africa are willing to make sacrifices in that respect. It is necessary that this problem should once and for all be solved in the right and proper manner because as I have already said, it has an internal as well as an external aspect. As far as the internal aspect is concerned, we are not prepared to make room in our population for the Oriental. But there is another reason why we should solve this matter and that is because India is the nearest large power to South Africa. There we have a country of 400 million people which in due course will become independent. It will not always remain a colony of England. It is in the interests of South Africa to see to it that India does not become its enemy but that we should secure as much goodwill towards South Africa as possible. If we could then solve this problem amicably by removal and repatriation it would be in the interests of South Africa, because apart from other considerations, India will be a country to which we could export a lot of our products and from which we could import quite a lot. Purely from the materialistic point of view, it would be to our advantage to have this problem solved properly, but then we should not delay. The native problem was always postponed. In this case it is necessary to tackle the problem in due time and energetically and to do everything which is necessary. The road of procrastination and compromise leads only to trouble and will not ensure any satisfactory solution. If we do not do that, the result will not only be that we would not reach an agreement with India but that there will always be strife between us. We have already had signs of it; but there are also other dangers. We have already seen that there are Indian statesmen who have imperialistic tendencies. I do not know whether friends in this House remember what Gandhi said in this connection. Gandhi is the greatest Indian nationalist. At the time when Sir Stafford Cripps went to India during the war to try to solve the Indian problem in India, Gandhi practically presented England with an ultimatum. He said: The white man must get out of India and out of Africa. He did not mention only India. The leader of the Indian people, who is regarded as an Indian nationalist, even at that time cherished the imperialistic motive for India because he already thought in terms of Africa being a possible territory for the expansion of India. If he says that the white man should get out of India, he implies that the white man should be removed from India. Why cannot we then propose that the Indians should be removed from South Africa especially as we are prepared to do it in a not unreasonable manner, but to compensate them and to give them opportunity of making a start elsewhere. If Gandhi says that the white man should get out of India, then we have the right to say that every possible step should be taken to get the Indians out of South Africa. We have noticed recently that prominent Indian leaders in India have taken a threatening attitude towards South Africa as far as the Indian problem is concerned. Some of them said that they wished that India could declare war on South Africa. It was only last week that Dr. Khare, the Commonwealth Relations member of the Indian Government said the following in Nagpuhr in connection with the legislation now before the House—

For that reason I feel that we should try to remove this conflict between us and India, and as I have said, it may become too late for that. I think that if we could obtain the opinion of the Europeans in South Africa particularly, then the feeling will be that this question should be solved along the lines I have indicated. And we need not be afraid of submitting that solution to U.N.O. For these reasons we feel on this side of the House that this Bill should not just be agreed to by this House in two twos. It is an important problem and we should consider all aspects and all possibilities in order to find the very best solution. This proposed solution is not acceptable. We should not let this opportunity pass of finding the right solution because if we do so I fear that we will do inestimable harm to South Africa. I wish therefore to warn the Prime Minister that if he follows the course he has now taken, he will not receive the gratitude of posterity in South Africa, but only its reproach. Because at a time when he was faced with this great problem, when he could have acted judiciously and done the right thing, he did not do so but through hasty action and other considerations he chose the wrong course, the course which from now on will prove to be the wrong course for us, a course which leads to our downfall. I want to express the hope that the Prime Minister will not proceed with his Bill and will not insist that this solution of his is the right one and the only solution, but that he will also consider other courses in order to see whether there is not a better and lasting solution of the problem.

We have had the first alternative suggestion to this Bill presented to this House by the last speaker. The alternative suggestion he proposes is that we should try to get the Indians sent over to India or to some other suitable place in the world. May I point out to the hon. member we have been trying that method since 1927.

Hear, hear.

… and the position has not improved, it has actually become worse. The Bill we have before us is a definite proposal of how we should now attack this problem. On Monday we listened to a large number of speeches on the history of the Indian question in South Africa. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister outlined the proposals of this Bill, and he also outlined the problems we have to face. He, together with others, has given us a historical survey of the Indian question in South Africa from its beginning up to the present time. Now he says we will have to face the future and decide what we intend to do.

I should like to deal with some of the points that have been raised in the debate so far. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, as well as the Deputy-Leader, has referred to the “onbillike posisie dat ag miljoen van ons naturelle net drie verteenwoordigers het en ons nou besluit dat ’n kwart miljoen Indiërs ook drie verteenwoordigers sal hê.”

Jy is ’n bietjie verkeerd. You are making the wrong deduction.

I am not.

Yes, I will tell you just now.

He said they would say that would be unreasonable.

He referred to it and so did the Deputy-Leader. He said in reply it was unreasonable. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, is it any more unreasonable than that we should have two million whites with 150 members? I cannot see that argument carries us anywhere.

It does not carry us anywhere, but nobody used, that argument.

It was used here.

Get Hansard and read it.

I think we do agree— and even the Indians agree—that the policy of our country should be controlled by the white population of South Africa, and we will be forced to have arbitrary figures. That argument, therefore, we can wash out.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) advanced the argument that because the South African Indian was annoyed and had appealed to India, there was now every excuse for the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to drop this legislation and adopt the Opposition’s amendment. I would point out to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad that most of the Indians we have in our country today are South African born Indians, and they are therefore our subjects, and they are therefore our responsibility. To the Indians here I would also say, as they are South African born subjects, I would advise them to appeal to the South African Government for any help they wish to get, and not to go to overseas governments. They are not subjects of overseas governments, but they are our subjects here, and it is to us they have to look. The Prime Minister also rejected the suggestion of a round table conference with India. That, I think, was perfectly correct. This is a South African problem, and should be solved by South Africa. It is a domestic problem of our country, and we should attend to it ourselves. The majority of South African Indians willingly accept separate residential areas, as they do not wish to live cheek by jowl with the Europeans. Not long ago I spoke to a prominent Indian, one of the members of the Congress, who said: “We go even further. I as a Moslem would not live next to a Hindu. We prefer to live with those who have the same social station and religion that we have.” In the Pretoria Agreement they said that that had always been their principle and they adopted it. The only objection the Indian has today is that he does not want it to be made the law, while in actual practice he wants it. But what difference does it make? If that is what they want it cannot make any difference that they should now be told by law that certain areas are reserved for Europeans. The Indians for generations in India have believed in separation, in different religious sects living together, and they have carried that out. I cannot see why we should listen to this small minority of Indians in South Africa which is today trying to tell us that residential segregation is an insult to them. They know perfectly well that it is not an insult. I want to refer to one remark by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). She told us that industries have under the Pegging Act pushed market gardeners out so as to be able to get cheap labour.

She said this Bill might do it.

I clearly understood her to say that it has already happened, that that is the way industries get cheap industrial labour. But the Pegging Act did not apply outside Durban. It did not apply to the farms. The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Strauss) says that the present Bill gives us no more than the Pegging Act. I do not think I misunderstood the hon. member there.

Yes, you did.

May I just read out a copy of the resolution that has been handed to the Prime Minister by the president of the Natal Municipal Association—

What right have they to speak for the Indians.

The hon. member for Harrismith (Mr. Strauss) said that we were not getting anything beyond what we already have. This association says that we are getting something we did not have.

You are also giving away a lot.

There are many people who do not live in Natal and do not know our problem and who tell us what to do but that means nothing at all. I will refer a little later to what our farmers have to say about it, but just let me read a telegram which has been read before in this House, and which was referred to by the member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz)—

Read the second one.

I have just been handed this one by the hon. member for Johannesburg West (Mr. Tighy)—

The first telegram stated that the United Indian Organisation completely supports the Nationalist Party here.

Do you honestly believe that?

I will now read portion of the petition which all members of Parliament have received from the South African Indian Conference.

Then why bother to read it.

I want to read it to show the relationship between this telegram and this petition—

Can you not understand when you read both these documents….

Which telegram, the first or the second?

The first. And when you read those with the amendment of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition where he says that we should postpone this matter for two years, extending this Pegging Act which does not apply to the farms of Natal but only to Durban and which cannot apply to farmers….

Why not, you can extend it.

Of course you can extend it.

Order Order.

And does not apply to the whole Province, that the Indians say: Extend the Pegging Act; leave us free to buy as many farms as we like; we support Dr. Malan. That is their reason for supporting it. Give them two more years, and let them buy as much as they like. Postpone it. Discuss it. Have Select Committees. Have a joint meeting of the House. Argue amongst yourselves for the next two years and the Indian will be free to buy land in the meantime.

I really did not think you were as stupid as all that.

What has worried the people of Natal who are most concerned is that Indians have been buying more and more land from Europeans, and in this respect the Bill will save us. One man said to me: “The time will come when the Europeans will have the vote and the Indians will have all the land and that is what we have to prevent today.

But now you want to give them both.

The Pegging Act applies to Durban but not to the rest of the Province, and our farmers are very perturbed at the amount of land being sold to Indians today. Rich Indians buy the land but do not farm. The following is an extract from a letter about Zanzibar that I recently received—

What European wants to go to Zanzibar? Have you ever been there.

The same problem applies in East Africa and the question is how to protect the African from the Indian.

There are no Africans in Zanzibar.

I welcome the provisions of the Bill which protect the land both in Natal and in the Transvaal and which will ensure to future generations their portion of the farming and other land. In that connection I want to quote figures I have quoted before in this House. These figures were taken out by D.G.S. in consultation with the Census Department. In January, 1944, it was estimated that the number of Europeans in Natal was 229,000 and the number of Indians 204.200. Under 16 years of age there were 68,000 Europeans and 104,700 Indians. Over 16 there were 161,000 Europeans and 99,500 Indians. It is not necessary then to protect the land for future European generations? And this Bill gives us that protection. It gives us much more than the Pegging Act has given us. It gives us what we are asking for. We are asking for protection but we are taking away some rights, and we must be prepared also to pay a price for it.

And do you get value for your money.

Everyone in Natal will say that they get value. The big problem is to save the land. Although I firmly believe that this is a domestic matter and that no other Government should be allowed to interfere, I also say that no Government, if it wishes to exist, can afford to get completely out of step with world opinion. We have to watch our step as regards world opinion. World opinion allows us to protect ourselves, but it also insists on justice to those under our rule. That is one of the reasons also why we are prepared to give the franchise to Indians. The world demands fair play for our subject people. We can show that we are giving them fair play. We give them an opportunity through their representatives to put their views before the highest court of the land. That is something which even though today the Indians do not want it, they have no right to deny to their future generations. It is something they should cherish. We know we are paying fair value for what we get. They do not consider it to be fair value at the moment, but the day will come when they will realise that we had a Government which did the right thing, and which did not take their rights from them without giving them just payment. We as legislators have a great responsibility. We believe that the best and wisest form of government is government of the people by the people and that if we could give every section of our people representation, we should be getting nearer to the ideal state. It is recognised that South Africa is the testing laboratory of the world as regards the colour question. In Africa today we have 155 million people, and we have 4 million whites altogether on the continent. In South Africa we have about 2½ million whites and 8 million natives, apart from the other coloured races. It is to us in Southern Africa that the world is looking. We are carrying out a great experiment and the world wants to see the results. It may be that today we are not only establishing policy for South Africa but also world policy, because we are tackling one of the most difficult problems, a problem which has been stated to be completely unsolvable. I do not say this is a complete solution, but it is a step in the right direction, and as long as one takes steps in the right direction, eventually one must reach the goal. When, as in our case, the policy lies in the hands of Europeans, there is a special obligation placed on us Europeans to see that all sections of the community have justice meted out to them. It is more than an obligation. It is actually self-preservation, and I am thankful to the Prime Minister for having had the courage to lead us here and not to go on postponing this problem forever, but for putting something concrete before us. He is the only man who has ever yet done that for us and therefore we are prepared to stand by him. He is carrying on courageously, and we will support him. This Bill has been criticised but we must look at the ultimate result. We must build up a harmonious relationship between all sections of the community, and our subject peoples will then give us their respect and will become if they are not so already — some of them are not so — loyal South Africans. If we fail to pass this Bill this year, the responsibility for the position in which we will find ourselves by merely postponing it will rest on the members of Parliament who served in this House in the year 1946. I commend this Bill to the House, and sincerely hope that it will be accepted, although it is open to us to make alterations in the Committee stage, and if we can improve it, let us do so, but let us pass something definite now. With regard to the working of this Bill, its success will depend on the way it is administered, and I hope that we shall be very careful in appointing the boards, that we shall have men on the boards who have studied the problem and know it. We want men of the highest character serving on our boards, and we want to be able to correct any mistakes that may be made. If an area has been declared wrongly, we want to be able to correct these mistakes.

How will you correct it after Indians have settled in that area?

If Indians live in a free area and a man wants to, say, open an industry there, and they are prepared to sell land to him, what is wrong in doing that? If in addition he wants areas nearby for his European employees to live there, they might meet him. I believe that everyone should have his own house. These are the sort of things which we have to be able to correct.

If the Prime Minister area and a man wants, say, to open an earnest effort to show why this Bill should go to a Select Committee before it is further dealt with. Far be it from any of us on any side of the House to come forward with refractory or perverse proposals when the Government is dealing with such a serious problem to our country. In any event I am very pleased to say that I was pleasantly surprised by practically all the speeches to which I listened in this debate. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister stated in the course of his speech that he felt that someone had the right to ask for a Select Committee. For that reason he stated in advance that he hoped that it would not be necessary to refer this measure to a Select Committee. Now I want to ask him with all due deference to listen to the following reasons: We are dealing here with a Bill which embodies an altogether new principle, a principle which has been unknown hitherto in connection with the relationship between the Indian community and European South Africa. It is an entirely new principle, and when we accept a new principle in this House I should like the Government and the Prime Minister to be able to say that public opinion in South Africa endorses their view, that the population which is charged with the duty of governing the country approves of this legislation before it is moved in this House. The question may be asked what evidence there is? I say that when addressing the House this is not the place to produce evidence. Here we express our opinion; we do not produce evidence here. When the House requires any evidence the House appoints a Select Committee, and I say that a measure such as this should be based on facts, and the very first fact which must be taken into account is to what extent the people of South Africa are in agreement with this measure, to what extent public opinion supports this idea. There is no evidence that there is any measure of support in the country for this measure. For the moment I am confining my remarks to that section of the Bill which deals with the franchise, not the question of delimitation. The question of delimitation is a matter with which I shall deal later. I say that there is not the slightest justification to say that the people of South Africa accept this measure. Then there is another argument which I want to mention. Telegrams are freely quoted in this House, and the House is not in a position to know whether these telegrams are genuine or not. This House does not know by whom these telegrams were inspired. But when you have a Select Committee the Select Committee can go into the matter and determine whether these telegrams in question actually interpret the view of the Indian community. The Select Committee can thoroughly go into the question to what extent the European population support this measure, and there is no evidence in that connection. In accepting this new principle there is another question that we ought to ask ourselves, namely, to what extent this measure conforms to the objects and aims of democracy. One of the underlying motives of this Bill is to give so-called democratic rights to the Indians in this country. We cannot get away from that. In what form are we giving democratic rights to the Indians? What right have we to describe as democratic rights these rights that we are giving to a section of the population when we know full well that we are giving these rights to a small group of enriched Indians? How can we say that we are giving representation to the Indian population as such? We are going to give representation only to a certain number of privileged Indians. That point should be thoroughly investigated by a Select Committee. We cannot act only on loose telegrams which are quoted in this House. We do not know what value we can attach to those telegrams. We do not know who inspired these telegrams. The third point I want to make is whether this is not going to give representation merely to a handful of enriched Indians. It is my opinion—and I think in this respect I shall have the support of the whole House—that the people to whom we are giving this representation, namely, this handful of privileged Indians, were not imported into South Africa, rightly or wrongly, to work in the sugar plantations. But these are Indians who came here at their own risk because South Africa was an El Dorado for business people; and if it is alleged that these people who are flourishing in this country today did not come here at their own risk, then I say that those privileged people are the last people in South Africa who have any right to be dissatisfied, because if originally they were not amongst those poor Indians who were imported into this country, then they came from a country where they were poor and where they worked under conditions of slavery, and they have enriched themselves in this country. I say that those people have no right at all to level the reproach at this Government that they have not been fairly treated, because where did they accumulate the wealth they have today? They enriched themselves in this country. These are matters which can be thrashed out before a Select Committee. In this House we can only express our opinion; we cannot produce evidence here, and for that reason this matter should go to a Select Committee. In the fourth place I want to know to what extent this measure represents a departure from the previous policy and what it means for the future. To what extent are we departing completely from the recognised policy which was laid down in the past? To what extent are we departing not only from the policy which was laid down in the past, but to what extent are we coming into direct conflict with the policy which was laid down by this Government and which was recognised by the Indian Government? This is another matter which ought to be thrashed out thoroughly before a Select Committee. We must remember that this is a policy which applies to a section of the population and which has the support of another country with whom we do not want to be on terms of enmity. We must ask ourselves, therefore, what justification there is for entirely departing from that recognised policy. I have already stated that this is not the place to produce evidence to prove our contention; we can only express our opinion, but I am in a position to give this information to the House, with which the Prime Minister is familiar, but to which I am obliged to draw his attention. I refer to the fact that it has never been recognised in the past that the Indian community forms a permanent part of the people of South Africa. I just want to support that with the information at my disposal and then I want to leave it to the House to judge what value the House can attach to it. I am reading from the memorandum which was submitted to the Prime Minister recently by the City Council of Durban, in October, 1945. There we find that it is alleged by the City Council—and it is a historical fact—

Not the Transvaal—

Now we come to this important passage—

This is the official document in which it is stated that the Indian community is not regarded as a permanent part of the population of the Union. I now come to the letter of the Minister of the Interior to which reference is made here—

Perhaps that is one of the Government’s reasons, but he goes on to say—

What was the reply of the Indian community at that time to this attitude on the part of the Government? What was the attitude of India herself at that time? What was their opinion? Let us see what was the attitude of all the parties concerned. Let me again quote from the memorandum of the Durban City Council—

Speaking for India and for the Indian community he said—

That is the Indian Government—

That is the South African Government—

When I came to my fourth point I said that we were entirely departing from the recognised and accepted policy laid down in the past. Let us take it that the Prime Minister agrees that the repatriation scheme failed. Let us accept that. In that case, I say that when introducing a new policy which is in direct conflict with the policy laid down in the past, it is definitely not refractoriness on our part on this side of the House when we ask that in adopting a new policy it should be based entirely on facts, and that we should get those facts both from the Europeans in this country and the Indian community as well as from the natives; in other words, that the population of South Africa as a whole should say what their opinion is about giving the Indian the franchise on this basis. But apart from the accepted policy, in conflict with which we are now acting, can we justify this measure by saying that it is being taken in pursuance of the spirit of the agreements which have been entered into from time to time? Are we still acting in the spirit of the agreement of 1927; are we still acting in the spirit of the agreement of 1932? Again I am merely giving my opinion, but I feel that it should be left to a Select Committee to determine whether we are not acting in direct conflict with the spirit of previous agreements. I cannot produce any data in this House; this is not the place for it, but this is a matter which should be examined by a Select Committee.

Now we come to another matter which should be thoroughly investigated by the Government, in respect of which every member in this House and the people outside and the country as a whole will eagerly support the Government, i.e., if the Government will undertake to find out who the Indians are who are protesting so vehemently against segregation, who maintain that South Africa has been treating them so badly and is still treating them badly? Who are those people? Are they the masses who have obtained better conditions in this country than the conditions under which they lived in the country from which they came? Is it the handful of rich people who are employing all the agitators in the world to make a hullabaloo here and to oppose this measure? Then the question also arises what role India herself is playing in this agitation. The Government ought to ascertain those facts, because we are being told that we will be taken to UNO to be put on trial. I do not think anyone in the world will be more pleased than I if that happens, and no one will have a better case than the Government of South Africa, because I imagine that if the Government of South Africa compares the conditions of the masses in India with the conditions of the Indians in South Africa, the Union Government ought to emerge from that trial as brilliant victors, and for that reason the Government ought to ascertain who those agitators are. It was said here today by an hon. member that the Indians would not be satisfied if they were given representation in this House. We know that. We know how they have carried on in the past. If we give them three representatives in this House they will demand in the near future that they are entitled to more, and as soon as we give them more representatives they will complain that they are being oppressed, that we are discriminating against them, and they will demand that they, too, should have the right to have a member in the Cabinet, and as soon as they have a member in the Cabinet they will ask why an Indian cannot be Prime Minister of this country. We are dealing here with insatiable demands. Then I come back to the seventh reason that I mentioned in passing, and that is what role India herself is playing in this agitation. The Government can ascertain by means of a Select Committee and through the presence of the Agent-General in South Africa to what extent this agitation has been set afoot overseas. We cannot do it in this House, but before a Select Committee we can determine to what extent the agitation in this country is being inspired overseas, and by which movement it is being inspired. We ought to know all those facts when we seek to lay down a new policy.

Then we come to another reason. In such a Select’ Committee it can be ascertained immediately on what grounds the Government is prepared to give political rights to the Indian in the Transvaal, which the Government is not prepared to give to the coloured person, and the Select Committee can then ascertain what repercussions it will have on the 40,000 coloured persons in the Transvaal, and what repercussions it will have on the majority of the natives of the Transvaal who at least belong to this country, when the franchise is given to the Indians without their having asked for it and although it is denied to the coloured persons. Those facts can only be cleared up by a Select Committee which could obtain all the relevant facts in that connection. In this House we can only state our opinions. The Government has a golden opportunity to prepare its case in advance. If we are reported to the United Nations we will at least have all the facts. The Select Committee could go into this matter properly and make a comparison between the social and political rights of the Indians in this country and the rights of the Indians in India. I say that such a comparison could then be made. Although I am not a member of the Government party today, I nevertheless remain responsible for and to a certain extent proud of this country that I represent, and when it comes to the question of war, it is my bounden duty to support my country without question, and when there is a possibility of my country and my Government being put on trial before the tribunal of the nations, I should like to see that our case is properly prepared so that we may be protected from accusations which are false and so that we shall be in a position to justify our case in the eyes of the world. We cannot do that unless we appoint a Select Committee. We cannot do it in this House. We can only do it if we appoint a Select Committee to ascertain all these facts. I can assure the Government that no one would be more anxious than such a Select Committee to get all the relevant information in the interests of the people of South Africa, and in the interests of the Government, so that the Government will be able to go to the United Nations with a clean record and say: “These are the conditions under which the Indians in South Africa are living; this is the position of the Indians who, it is alleged, are being oppressed, and these are the conditions in India. This is the complete picture.” I definitely reject the tendency on the part of some people in this country to make the world believe from time to time that the Union Government is the greatest oppressor of the native population or the Indian population. On the contrary— and no one can accuse me of saying this in order to white-wash any party—I think that as far as the treatment of the nonEuropean races is concerned, we compare favourably with any part of the world, especially when it comes to the general conditions amongst the lower classes.

Now we come to a very important point, and I should like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to give his serious attention to this matter. This measure is going to have far-reaching consequences for European South Africa, for the coloured population and for the native population. If I understood the Prime Minister correctly the other day when he spoke, he described it as a faux pas or a mistake to have imported Indians into this country in order to supply the labour market. Since we are departing from the policy laid down in the past, since we are now going to take the step of giving the Indians further rights of citizenship, without their having asked for it, rights of citizenship for which, I may say quite frankly, I am not prepared to vote at this stage because I am definitely opposed to the granting of the franchise to the Indians, especially for the reason that scarcely had the Government announced that it was going to introduce this Bill or an enormous agitation was set afoot. In these circumstances I say that no one can accuse us if we bluntly refuse to give the Indians any measure of control in Parliament until such time as they satisfy and convince the country that they no longer regard themselves as an appendix of India but that they regard themselves as part of the population of this country, and since they expressed the opinion only a short while ago that they do not want to remain here permanently, I am opposed to this legislation as far as the granting of the franchise to the Indians is concerned. Now I want to put the following question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can see very far into the future, but it seems to me that sometimes I can see just a little further; of course, it depends where we stand. I want to ask him to reconsider this matter very carefully before granting the franchise to the Indians as proposed in this Bill. When the people of South Africa indicate their willingness and when they express the opinion before a Select Committee that the Indians should be given a measure of say in this country, the Government will then have a good case to give the franchise to the Indians, but until such time as the opinion of the population as a whole has been obtained, this is a dangerous step, and the time may come when we shall regret the fact that this House decided to give the franchise to the Indians. If this measure goes through, we shall have a bloc of six members in this House representing the Indians and the natives. When that day comes the natives may just as well forget about representation, because this bloc of six that we shall have here will to all intents and purposes be Indian representation, because this small section of Indians who are demanding these rights know how to make their influence felt and they will endeavour to bring compulsion to bear on the other representatives in this House who are not chosen direct by the people. Indirect representation is subject to the greatest danger, and very often I feel sorry for the three members who represent the natives in this House. It is one of the most dangerous forms of representation imaginable. The only trustworthy democratic representation is by the man or woman who is chosen direct by the people. I think the House is more than ever convinced of the fact that this form of representation does not pay. This is not representation. It is dangerous and I visualise that the time may arrive when this bloc of six in the House may be under the influence of another country. No matter how one argues that bloc will not be under South African influence. It will always be under Indian influence. It may be the deciding factor in this House and it may bring the Government to a fall at the will of India and not at the will of South Africa. This is a very dangerous thing. Now we come to the question of delimitation. I think the provisions in this Bill with regard to delimitation will give entire satisfaction to the country, provided the delimitation takes place in a reasonable way. But I am under the impression that the Prime Minister stated on a previous occasion that the established rights are not to be interfered with. My constituency is one of those which throughout these years has suffered under this problem. In my constituency there is an area in the heart of the town into which all sections have penetrated, and if this Bill is passed that position will remain unaltered. I think the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will discover, if he appoints a Select Committee, that it is the wish of the people in the urban areas as well as in the platteland areas — and this is the most reasonable solution in the minds of all reasonable people — that we must have an unassailable policy of segregation and not the policy that we have at present, namely, that there will still be open and mixed areas where there will be a repetition of the existing evils. In other words, the solution which the Prime Minister hopes to provide by means of this legislation will be no solution. On the Witwatersrand, and particularly in my constituency, the problem will remain just as acute as it has been in the past, and if there is one area in South Africa which has the right to talk, it is that area. Do you know what the town council of my constituency did? The Minister of the Interior is familiar with the state of affairs in my constituency. He congratulated us. My town council set aside a block of land where they proposed to give every facility to the Indians to establish a modern town, and do you know what their reply was? They consistently refused. In other words, as the city council correctly points out in this document, in Durban too, there is not the slightest sign of willingness to co-operate in order to solve this problem in a gentlemanly way. There is no such thing. Perhaps that is the reason why the Prime Minister feels that he ought to take the whole matter into his own hands and do what his conscience dictates. I do not doubt for a moment that the Prime Minister feels that he is doing the right thing. But in dealing with such an involved and serious matter, I feel that the Prime Minister is unduly hasty, that he proposes to push this measure through the House in a short space of time so that the whole country will be astounded and wonder what happened, and within a short space of time we may discover that we will have cause deeply to regret this step which is being taken here. I want to put this question to the Prime Minister in all seriousness, and I think his own party supporters in the platteland will agree with me when I say that before giving the Indians these citizenship rights he should take time to consider this matter further. No one can accuse the Prime Minister that he is unfair if he extends and improves the present measures so that he may have a full opportunity to place this whole question on a sound footing, with a view to attaining his objective. But surely the Prime Minister will feel at once that here he is going to create a new political situation, the foundation of which is extremely dangerous, and which contains the germs of a class struggle. You will have a continual struggle; the Indians will always blame us, and the natives will always query the rights of the Indians. There will always be a struggle in regard to their respective rights, and I should like to know whether the Prime Minister has given his attention to this aspect, that in giving this representation to the natives and in giving this representation to the Indians he will practically call into being in this country a council of nationalities. The only country, as far as I know, where such a council exists is Russia. Are all the other races not going to ask for the same thing at some future date? The natives will later say: “We are divided into various races; some of us are Basutos; some of us are Xosas, and we also want a council of nationalities.” We are adopting a dangerous policy here.

The Jews will also ask for it.

I do not want the Prime Minister to think for a single moment that I want to delay the passage of this Bill, but I would prefer to see this Bill delayed for a few days or for a few weeks so that we can lay a sound foundation. Here we are accepting something which we may regret in the future, and if more time is devoted to it and more data collected, and if the opinion of the nation as a whole is obtained to a greater extent, you will have much more satisfaction in the long run than you will have if you rush this matter through the House.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) is unfortunately not in his place, but I think I can congratulate the hon. member on the speech he made here today.

He will be glad to hear that.

It is perhaps more than anyone can say of any speech made by the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll). We think we can congratulate the hon. member for Krugersdorp on the stand he has taken in connection with this Bill. Apart from the fact that there are many points of difference between us and the Labour Party on several questions in South Africa, the hon. member for Krugersdorp has today taken a line which corresponds more with the policy of this party than it does with the policy of the Left Wing of the Labour Party. If this is a new manifestation of an intelligent approach to matters, even by a section of the Labour Party, it is something that we in South Africa can welcome; but if one looks at the Labour Party which until recently has been the ally of the party opposite, and which perhaps remains still largely under the influence of their co-operation with that party over the course of six years, no one can assume that they will be prejudiced in favour of the standpoint we on this side adopt. One can more readily deduce that the standpoint they would take up would be an objective standpoint, merely to decide this issue on its merits. It is very refreshing to see that persons who are in a position to pass an objective judgment are, without exception, dissatisfied with this legislation, and their attitude in connection with it is the same as that which has been announced from this side…

The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson), who was the last speaker on the other side, frequently got worked up and heated, and the more heated he became the further did he wander from the realities of the case. I do not want to deal with his whole speech, but there are two points in his speech on which he became especially warm, and where he was all at sea. He tried to build up a sound argument on a false premise. He said that the Leader of the Opposition had stated that if three representatives are given to 250,000 Indians, we could work out for ourselves how many members 8,500,000 natives should have. This is precisely what the Leader of the Opposition did not say. What he really said is this: If we give three seats in the Assembly to 250,000 Indians, then the eight million natives, 24 times the number of Indians, will demand that they are entitled to much greater representation in this House than they have already. On this false premise, representing the words of the Leader of the Opposition as he did, he tried to build up an argument. I do not need to go further into that argument, because it breaks down on account of the premise having been wrong. On the second point, he became still more excited. He suggested the reason why the Indians sent that telegram in which they said that they agreed with the Nationalist Party that the Bill should be rejected. The reason was supposed to be that the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition is that he wishes to extend the Pegging Act for two years, so that a Joint Select Committee could investigate the matter further in order to obtain a better solution of the problem. His argument was that this is exactly what the Indians want, because under the limited powers of the Pegging Act they will find it possible to acquire an enormous quantity of the platteland of Natal

That is quite correct.

Yes, but that is not what the Leader of the Opposition said, nor is it what he proposed. He saw that difficulty, and if the hon. member for Newcastle reads our amendment he will see that it is stated there that the Pegging Act should undergo the necessary alteration in order to ensure that in the interim the position in Natal will not deteriorate. Those were the two principal points in the speech of the hon. member for Newcastle. Both are based on a misconception of what this side has stated and proposed I do not wish to go further into his speech. These are the two main things he said, and they are both wrong.

The proposal that has been made by this side is that we must be given two years in South Africa to try to solve the coloured question in its wider aspects. The remark was repeatedly made from the opposite side that we should hurry, that we must get this Bill through, and why should this legislation be delayed, What does it amount to in the history of South Africa whether this legislation should go through within 14 days or after two years? Two years is a drop in the ocean in the history of South Africa, but what is more important is that when we are searching for a solution of the thorniest subject in the country, it is necessary that we should set to work in a judicious manner and not rush through legislation that should really be given our attention over a period of years. The colour question is the most important problem with which we have to deal. We cannot dispose of this problem piecemeal in a hurried and superficial manner. We must give an opportunity to all sides of the House, to every interest in the country and every opinion in the country to pass a proper judgment on it, and in that way solve the problem in a way that will assure the future of European civilisation in South Africa. This is not a problem with which you can trifle. There are two policies which South Africa can adopt in the future. There is the policy we adopted in the past—the dominance of western civilisation that we wish to safeguard. There is the other policy which implies the watering down of this western civilisation. There may be people who wish to adopt the other policy, the watering down of western civilisation as we know it in this country. We have to choose between these two policies. There may be people who wish to see the country progressing in accordance with western civilisation. There may be others who wish to see it diluted by another element, so that it will develop in another direction. I stand for the maintenance of the western civilisation in South Africa as we know it. The majority of us stand for that, and we shall do our best to safeguard that western civilisation in South Africa. When I say that we stand for the maintenance of western civilisation I do not mean for a single moment that in maintaining it we should do any injustice to the other elements in South Africa. What we stand for is that we must keep South Africa in the future on the course it has followed in the past, and that we must be certain that European civilisation in South Africa will be maintained in future.

I return for a moment to the question of a postponement for two years. We have had experience of something similar in the past. In connection with the native laws we had the Select Committee and the committee which was comprised of members of both Houses. That committee sat for several years. When it commenced with its work there were tremendously divergent opinions as to the solution, but after the committee worked more and more on the Bills they began to understand each other’s opinions about them, and eventually we had legislation on which, with the exception of certain details, there was a large measure of unanimity. The proposals that the Joint Committee of both Houses presented to Parliament were unanimous. I mention this to show that here where there was a much wider difference of opinion than in connection with the present subject it was possible in that way to obtain a common opinion and a large measure of unanimity. If it was possible to do this in connection with the native legislation I am convinced that if we come together at a round table we shall achieve a much greater measure of unanimity than we obtained in connection with the native legislation.

We have this position that many members on the other side have been virtually forced to support this Bill. Some of them are doing it in silence while others stand up and try to justify their attitude. They are really apologising for their attitude, but I am convinced that many of the members on the other side hold precisely the same opinion on this legislation as we do. There are members on the other side who have risen and said they would vote for the Bill not because they like it but because in the circumstances it is the only thing they can do.

That is not so.

That was the attitude of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), that was the attitude of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson). There are many members on the other side who feel exactly as we do.

You are dreaming.

This is a serious problem and the hon. member can well leave it to serious people. I am perfectly convinced that if we follow this course we shall find that such a committee dealing with this Bill would eventually be enabled to present unanimous proposals to this House, proposals which will be well thought out and which will not be superficial and hurried legislation, but legislation which will deal with this problem, not as a minor problem that can stand on its own but as part of the larger colour problem in the country.

Why cannot it be done now?

That hon. member will not be able to do anything after two years nor after twenty years. I am speaking of people who will be able to do something in two years. It is wrong to bring such a serious matter so suddenly before the House and to push it through within a few weeks. It is wrong to do it as a result of the seriousness and extent of the problem, and it is wrong because it is a problem which does not stand alone but which will have repercussions on other problems in the country. Consequently sufficient time must be given for its consideration.

There is a further criticism I would address to the Prime Minister. This is not a new problem, it is an old problem. Why has the Prime Minister waited until now to introduce it — practically until a crisis had arisen? This is the complaint we have against the Prime Minister. It is always necessary to have a crisis for him to function. If we look back into history we find time and again when problems begin to develop he does not tackle them while there is time to do so easily but he waits until there is a crisis, for a time in which to make an emotional approach to the subject when people cannot treat it in a calm and logical way, and in that time of crisis he suddenly takes action. We only need to refer to the strike of 1922. I do not wish to go into details. We knew that that strike was brewing and the Minister did nothing. He allowed it to develop to a crisis, and when the crisis was there he took action, and drastic action. The same thing occurred with the difficulties at Bulhoek. The same occurred with the Bondelswart difficulties. The same occurred with the strike we had the other day on the Witwatersrand. In all these instances it was his policy that things should take their course; he observes in which direction they are going and he takes no steps before a crisis arrives. This is not our policy, nor is it the right policy. We must not wait until a problem has reached a crisis. We must solve it before the feelings of the people begin to run high and before an emotional approach makes the solution more difficult. What we are doing here is not solving the problem in a calm and reasoned manner, but we are endeavouring to reach a permanent solution during a period of crisis. The Prime Minister has made peace several times in South Africa and in the rest of the world, and he knows that an emotional time of crisis is the worst time to try to reach a solution of a problem. He will recall how he refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles because he thought it was bad to draw up a treaty of a permanent character during a period of emotional crisis. Here we have the same thing in South Africa. In comparision it is a smaller matter but to us it is a very important matter. An emotional time of crisis is not the time to look for a permanent solution of the problem. It cannot be approached then in a calm manner; we cannot obtain a reasoned solution of the difficulty. What are the consequences of this hurried measure we have before us? When one looks at it you find that there is hardly anyone who is satisfied with the Bill. This side is not satisfied and the overwhelming majority of members on the other side are not satisfied.

How do you know that?

They are not satisfied. The hon. member for Drakensberg has told us that the Bill must be altered. This is clear proof that he is not satisfied with it. He hopes the Bill will be improved. The native representatives are not satisfied; the Indians are not satisfied, and no one is satisfied. This is a baby that the Prime Minister has placed on the doorstep, and no one is satisfied with it. Perhaps they are not satisfied with it because they are dissatisfied with the father. In connection with the section covering the property provisions Natal is supposed to be satisfied. No one can tell me that Natal wants Indians to sit in their Provincial Council. This is the price that they would have to pay, but they do not want it. We know the crisis that arose in the Prime Minister’s own party over the question of Indians in the Provincial Council in the Transvaal. Later the concession was made that they would have representation not by Indians but by Europeans in this Parliament. Cape Town is definitely not satisfied with the Bill, because it will have repercussions which will within a short period lead to a crisis in Cape Town. This Bill should satisfy the Indians in Natal and the Transvaal. That is the object of the Bill. Can the Prime Minister tell me that he has succeeded in that? I have before me a report of meetings held yesterday in Pretoria and in Johannesburg, and if half of what is stated here is the truth the Indians as a whole are dissatisfied. But in connection with one meeting there is a point which I take strong exception to. It is the point that certain of our religious denominations in South Africa are meddling with this problem with which they have nothing to do, a problem which is very difficult to solve in South Africa and in connection with which they have not been asked to intervene. I shall read from a report in this meeting as published in the Cape Times—

Hear, hear.

You must remember that here they are taking exception to the “herrenvolk” attitude of the Prime Minister himself. The report continues—

I do not want to stand up here and argue against the Anglican Church….

Leave that to the Minister of Lands.

…. But all the same, I want to say this, that I very much regret that a church with a status of the Anglican Church should meddle with this very delicate problem we are called on to solve here in South Africa, and that the meddling of the Anglican Church is not meddling that will contribute to making a solution of this problem any easier; they are mixing up with a set of agitators who are trying to make the matter difficult for the future.

Political parsons, Andrew.

Now I shall go on to say what was stated by some of the Indians—

At the beginning of my speech I said that this was a very important problem, and that we should endeavour to solve it, and when we criticise amongst ourselves we should not do it in a flippant manner. I am sorry that there are certain sections on the other side who apparently do not realise at all the seriousness of the problem, but who sit here and jabber like a bunch of schoolchildren on a picnic. We have come here to take up this matter seriously, and if they cannot do it let them take their frivolity to a place where it is more appropriate. We are now dealing with the Indians who take up that attitude, that uncompromising attitude. It is a question that affects the Indian population very seriously, and when you try to look for a solution and try to look for it objectively, you have at least the right to expect that these people for whom we are introducing this legislation in the Assembly will approach this matter and deal with it objectively, but when you note this attitude of absolutely no compromise taken up by the leaders of the Indian population, when you listen to the threats they hurl at white South Africa, then you ask yourself whether it is worth while giving these people representation in the Assembly. Is it right to give these people representation in the Natal Provincial Council and to give the Transvaal and Natal Indians representation? It is the class of people who say these things who are going to sit in the Natal Provincial Council. Are they going to approach matters there from an objective standpoint? Are they going to attempt there to make this legislation easier for the future, or are they going to use the Provincial Council only as a place to disseminate propaganda and to spread this sort of propaganda? Now we are going to have three Indian representatives in the Assembly. Many unflattering things have been said by people who know the Indians well; many unflattering things have been said about the Indian community in South Africa. If half of those things are true, I am convinced that the people who will represent the Indians in Parliament will not really be a great credit to this Assembly. I look now at the representatives of the natives in this House. We often differ from them; we differ a great deal from them; we differ from them almost as much as the Minister of Native Affairs differs from them. But we have great respect for them as individuals. But we know the class of people that like the Indians, and that associate with the Indians in their business and financial affairs, and I fear that the people we shall have in this Assembly will be white editions of this Rev. Sigamoney and these people who made these statements at the meetings in Johannesburg, and that they will never come here to try to make this legislation work better; they will not come here to smooth the relations between Indians and Europeans, but they will come here as agitators filled’ with the ideas of the Rev. Sigamoney and others who appeared with him on that platform in Johannesburg. We want to solve this question; we all want to solve it; we want to establish a better relationship between the Indians and the Europeans. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), who sits there, said in her speech that she could not say that the relationship between European and native has improved by the fact that there are three representatives of the natives in the Assembly.

Do you believe that?

I want to endorse that. The relationship between European and native has not thereby improved. What right then have we to assume that the relationship between European and Indian will improve by giving the Indian representation in the House? Will things not take the same course, and as apparently we shall have to deal with people who are of a different type to the native representatives in this House I predict that the relationship between the Europeans and Indians will greatly deteriorate and that the conduct of the Indian representatives in the Assembly will not improve the relationship in the future, but that it will make our future relationship between European and Indian much more difficult than what it has been in the past.

Now I want to return to the point that the hon. member for Newcastle misunderstood at the commencement, and I would just say this. We are going to give the Indians in the Transvaal and in Natal representation here in the Assembly. There are at the moment 28,700 in the Transvaal. Let me just say what the figures are; they are the latest figures in the Year Book for 1941. It has been corrected until 1941, but not until 1946. We have the right to assume, if the growth has been the same as in the past that the figure is now probably over 30,000. But I am basing my arguments on the figure for 1941. We are now going to give representation in the Assembly to 28,700 Asiatics in the Transvaal. There are 56,000 coloured people in the Transvaal, and those 56,000 coloured people, just twice the number of Indians in the Transvaal, are going to demand that they too should have representation in this House, and their claim is going to be a stronger one than that of the Indians, because the Indian is a man who came comparatively recently to South Africa, and in few instances have they been in South Africa for more than one or two generations, while these coloured people have lived in South Africa for centuries. This is their only country, and they are going to say that if the 28,000 new immigrants in the Transvaal are going to have representation in the Assembly they, with their 56,000, have much more right to representation in the Assembly.

What is your reply to that?

I would only say that for me it would be very easy to oppose the grant of the franchise to the coloureds in the Transvaal because I am opposed to the franchise being granted to the Indians in the Transvaal. But it is going to be very difficult for members on the other side of the House who have advocated that 28,000 Indians in the Transvaal should have representation. It will be very difficult for them to refuse to grant representation to the 56,000 coloureds in the Transvaal. But it is not only the Transvaal where this new claim is going to arise. It will arise in the Free State and in Natal. At the moment the position in Natal is that they have about 21,000 coloureds, and these 21,000 coloureds in Natal are going to claim that they are also entitled to ask for representation in the Assembly if representation is given in the Assembly to 28,000 Indians in the Transvaal.

But they have it.

Rubbish.

In the Free State you have the position that there are approximately 18,000 coloureds and in Natal and the Free State together there are 39,000 coloureds. Those 39,000 coloureds in Natal and in the Free State together are not going to accept that representation can be given in Parliament to a smaller number in the Transvaal without them also having representation. The position is that as you are giving representation in this House to 28,000 Indians in the Transvaal there are in the three northern provinces 94,000 coloureds to whom you are not giving representation, and I ask any man who is advocating that those 28,000 Indians in the Transvaal should be given representation in the Assembly how he can refuse the claim of the 94,000 coloureds in the northern provinces. I should not like to be in the shoes of hon. members on the other side of the House.

In conclusion I wish to refer to one other aspect of this problem, namely, the repercussions that are going to occur in the Cape Province. We cannot close our eyes to it. One of the greatest objections that the Natalians have, that everyone has to the Indian problem, is the way in which the Indians purchase land and business sites and houses in Natal. The principal object of this Bill is to stop that unrestricted purchase by Indians in the northern provinces. There we have unanimity. It is one of the objectives of this Bill. But there is an enormous amount of capital in the hands of Indians in South Africa and as soon as you start damming up the usual channels in which that capital flows, that capital must flow in another direction, and the only direction in which that Indian capital can flow for investment will be in the Cape Province, where they can buy land without restriction. Do you know what the position is? Do you know that in the Cape Province a prohibited immigrant who is an Indian can own land, and when land is bought by an Indian in the Cape Province no enquiry is even made whether he is permitted to live in the Cape Province. He may not have the right to live in the Cape Province, but he may own land and businesses in the Cape Province, and we have tangible evidence that that Indian capital from the north that will now be dammed is already beginning to flow to the Cape Province, and it is flowing very quickly in the Cape Province. I can only give these figures to the House. I compare 1943 with 1945 and my figures are taken from the Deeds Office in Cape Town, and they relate to the part covered by the Cape Deeds Office. In 1943 there was an average of 30 purchases by Indians in that area monthly. In 1945 the figure had risen to 48 per month. In other words, in 1943 land was bought by 360 Indians in this Area and in 1945 by 585 Indians, and the value of the land bought by Indians in the area of Cape Town, according to the Deeds Office, was in 1945 very close on three quarters of a million pounds. Of the 585 properties bought by Indians in the Cape Province 336 were bought from Europeans. You can say it is wrong that Europeans should do this, but that is not the point. The point is that it is being done, and the point is that that flow of capital that is blocked in the North has to flow in another channel, and the channel is here in the Cape Province. As my time is now up I would just say in conclusion that we are creating a problem in the Cape Province without solving the problem in the North, and one of these days another crisis will come and it will perhaps be the first occasion on which the Prime Minister will take action, and then it may be too late to solve that crisis in the Cape Province.

I do not wish to add to the difficulties, and they are great, which confront the Prime Minister in connection with this measure, but I think it would be wrong not to state that I and some other members of this House, as well as many supporters of the Government outside the House, view this measure with distaste, and will swallow it with reluctance. Even at this eleventh hour I would have preferred a further attempt along the lines recommended by the Broome Commission to try, by means of a round table conference, to reach some arrangement by which we could have agreed separation instead of imposed separation, and I would have preferred the suggestion made by the Broome Commission in favour of a common roll with a loaded franchise, to which the Indians agreed, adopted rather than the communal franchise now suggested in this Bill. In this House we have had only two political amendments. I am not at present referring to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). We have had an amendment from the Labour Party asking for a Select Committee. With what object? A Select Committee to ascertain facts. Be we know the facts. The issue before the House and the country is not a question of the extent of the segregation to be carried out. The issue is not a question of discovering details as to whether the communal or the common roll will be better. That we all know. The issue before the House are on matters of principle upon which members either agree or disagree, and therefore, as regards the Labour Party’s amendment, they are proposing a Select Committee which will merely delay the Bill. The Labour Party is in favour of segregation. In fact, judging by some of the statements made, I think they would even go further than the Government has gone, but as far as the franchise is concerned, they have not told us yet, in spite of many requests, whether they favour the communal franchise, the common roll, or no franchise at all for the Indians, and I think in fairness to the House and the country, they should, before the debate comes to a conclusion, make clear their view.

Then we have another amendment from the Nationalist Party, and whilst I would be inclined to agree with the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Sauer) that a delay of one or two years is not very serious, my serious objection to that amendment is that they seek to import into this problem another problem. In their suggestion for a joint committee of both Houses, they seek to import the question of the whole coloured population. That is not before the House, and as far as I am concerned we know that any attempt to alter the status of the coloured people would be entirely contrary to the policy which in the past was advocated by the Nationalist Party, and particularly by the late Gen. Hertzog, who always objected to treating the coloured people on a basis of segregation, or on a basis of communal franchise. It is also an issue on which the Prime Minister and the S.A. Party have been very clear. In this connection I hope, and I am sure, that the House and the country will not go back in the direction of further retrogressive measures, but will go forward and rather review the idea of communal franchise in favour of a common roll, because I believe that in the long run, if you have a communal franchise for the non-Europeans, natives, Indians and coloureds, you will gradually have a state of affairs in this House in which the representatives of these groups, instead of becoming accustomed to looking at things from the national point of view and co-operating with the white population, will be forced into a position of being concerned purely with the sectional and racial interests of the groups they represent, and ultimately we may find ourselves in the position—and it has already arisen outside this House—of these groups combining to fight the white people in this country.

Does that mean that you are in favour of a common franchise?

Therefore, I believe that we would be much safer on the basis of a common roll, provided it is adequately loaded as the Broome Commission recommended, and as agreed to by the Indian Congress.

On the point of the coloured population, I would like to refer, before going on to other matters, to a quotation that appeared in the “Cape Times”, and let me say at once that the “Cape Times” has assumed in connection with this matter a very progressive and liberal line of thought. They were obliged to do exactly what some of us are obliged to do. They view the measure with distaste, but ultimately have to swallow it because, with the present feeling in the country, they cannot see that anything else can be ’done. In the “Cape Times” they quoted the following statement of the hon. the Prime Ministers’ speech in which he said—

Order, order.

You cannot quote a newspaper.

The article stated—

Order, order. The hon. member cannot read any commentary on speeches made in this House.

I express my own view, but I agree with others. And when the Prime Minister replies to this debate I hope he will make clear what his point of view is on the subject of the coloured population, and that what has been attributed to him is not his real intention. I would have preferred to see even at this late hour a round table conference where the question could be discussed and a last minute effort made to arrive at a settlement on the basis of agreed separation and not on the basis of imposed separation. And I would like to see the franchise dealt with on the basis of a common roll, loaded as has been recommended, and as it is loaded in this Bill. I would go further and say that whilst some hon. members have suggested that we should first deal with the land question and leave the franchise alone, I would have liked to see a reversal of the position, first dealing with the franchise, so that we can show the Indians and people overseas our honesty and that the Indians could feel that they have a share in the government of this country, which would make things much easier as regards a settlement of the land question.

Hear, hear.

It may be that we might have had to extend the Pegging Act for a year. I do not think it would have taken very long. In that regard I see no difficulty at all, after we have drifted in this connection for so many years, since the 1860’s—and there I agree with the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) who suggested a two years’ delay—I do not believe that a twelve months’ delay would make the position so much worse, whereas on the other hand we can improve the position and certainly improve the country’s reputation outside the Union. Certain objections are raised. One of them I have touched upon, the question of the time limit. Another objection raised is that after all this is purely a domestic matter for South Africa, and that therefore there can be no question of any round table conference with India in connection with the matter, or allowing anyone else to interfere. I want to say in that regard that while I entirely agree that this is an internal matter and agree that in the U.N.O. Charter, in section 7 of the first chapter, provision is made for non-interference in our domestic affairs, at the same time I think that the Prime Minister more than anyone else will agree that the period of isolation has come to an end. Just as disease has no boundary, so equally any economic and political policy adopted in a particular country which may have repercussions and affect other countries outside also has no boundary, and therefore as far as we are concerned it would be a great advantage to try to deal with the matter in such a way as not to create repercussions outside the Union, and I think that if we did that it would be a big advantage. I hold the point of view that after all, whilst we are making certain concessions in connection with the matter, those outside South Africa who do not always recognise the difficulties with which we are confronted should be made to recognise the complicated structure of our society and try to understand our position. Here again I believe that we would have a greater opportunity of securing that understanding by having such a round table conference than by merely saying that we are having nothing to do with them.

The third argument that is frequently used—the Prime Minister used it, although I think not with the same emphasis with which he used other arguments—is that the poverty in India is so much greater than the poverty amongst the Indians in South Africa, that the caste system exists in India and that the communal franchise exists there. That is perfectly true, but the Indian population in South Africa has made great economic advances. They are in a much better position economically than are the people in India. But let us remember that if they have made these economic advances, they have not only advanced themselves but also South Africa, and have contributed to the development of the country, thus increasing our national income. Let us remember that if the caste system exists in India, that is no reason whatever why we in South Africa who stand for a policy of progress should at this late hour come along and use that as an excuse for not progressing. Further, let us remember this that if the communal franchise exists in India, that is no reason whatever, especially in the light of what I have said before, why we in South Africa should apply that system to the Indian population, instead of adopting a more progressive policy. In any case I think we have to remember this, that the Indian Congress has been moving in the direction of doing away with the caste system, that Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Nehru and other leaders have been fighting to abolish the caste system, and as far as the communal franchise is concerned the very fact that the Moslems under the leadership of Mr. Jinnah are fighting to the death against any arrangement that might be made with the British Government and demanding Pakistan, shows how the Indian Congress and the overwhelming majority of Indians today have gone away from the caste system and the communal system.

I come to the question of the loaded franchise, and there again I want to put a point to the Prime Minister which I hope may be dealt with in the Committee stage. When the recommendation was made by the Broome Commission in favour of a loaded franchise it was on the assumption of a common roll being established, and that loaded franchise had as its intention the securing of the white population in Natal against being swamped, and so you would have had a local franchise which would only apply to a handful of Indian people in Natal. But if we are going away from the common roll and substituting the communal franchise with three representatives, the fear of swamping the white people does not apply, and under those circumstances I would ask the Prime Minister to consider whether, when the matter comes before the Committee, something may be done to liberalise the franchise so that it should not be a franchise only for the wealthy classes but also apply to the poorer Indian people and the middle class Indian people.

Would that be fair to the natives?

We are discussing the Indians now. Obviously if three representatives are to be given to 250,000 Indians and only three representatives for eight million natives, that too is unfair, but we have to go as far as public opinion will allow us. That being the case I do hope when this matter comes to the Committee stage some consideration will be given to liberalise the franchise as far as the Indians are concerned.

Then I come to the land question. I was told by my friend here that there is no possibility of getting any agreement. I agree there have been difficulties in the past. Agreement was arrived at, thanks to the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition, who brought in Bills which were much more reactionary than the present measure, the Class Areas Bill and the Areas Reserve Bill. He abandoned those Bills and arranged a round table conference, and an agreement was arrived at. It is perfectly true that agreement has broken down, but it shows an agreement was possible. I take another case, the case of the Pretoria Agreement, which was a very creditable act on the part of the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Interior, who were responsible for securing that agreement. The Pretoria Agreement sought to apply the principle of agreed separation instead of compulsory separation, and that agreement was arrived at with the representatives of the Indian community. It did not work because of a limited number — I do not think many — of vociferous people in Natal, the Joint Ward Associations. One does not know how many there were, but because of their vociferousness they forced the Prime Minister and the Government to abandon that agreement. I maintain if we adopt the attitude of not being influenced by a noisy minority, and if we try to get an agreement even at this late hour, we may reach agreement in connection with this matter. In the absence of such an attempt I must admit that the land provisions in this Bill, and I say this with all sincerity, in spite of the fact that I disagree with the principle of segregation, makes a great advance. I compare it with the Class Areas Bill and the Areas Reserve Bill, and I say it is an advance. When I look at the exempted areas and the provisions under which Indians will be represented on the Joint Board — and they should appreciate that as something of value — and when I see the provision that further areas may be exempted as need arises and that under Clause 8 provision is made that joint boards may recommend to the Minister the exemption of further areas, and provides that permits for acquiring property and for occupation may be granted in areas outside the exempted areas, I say it is a great advance and improvement on the existing position. Under these circumstances I feel that this is a measure which it would be wrong to reject because at any rate it is going some way to improve the position. But I want to say very frankly there is another reason why I am prepared to vote for this Bill — apart from my personal loyalty to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister; and I think if any hon. gentleman deserves loyalty not only from members of this side of the House but from members generally in the House, when he puts his hand to an important measure of this description, which must be distasteful to him, it is the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister — I am prepared to vote for this Bill because in my view nothing whatever is permanent, we are in a changing world. What is the position today may not be the position tomorrow, and I look at this measure as a stop gap, as something that may lead to further progressive action in this country until we may break down the prejudice that exists at the moment and ultimately eliminate it, and lead South Africa along the path which may lead to a united nation.

I want to approach this problem, Mr. Speaker, in the light of certain basic principles, and the first principle which I wish to enunciate, and with which I feel sure the Prime Minister will agree, is that South Africa has the right to determine the composition of its own population by means of restriction on immigration in the first instance. That is a basic principle which I feel sure the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will accept. It is a principle which was accepted at the Imperial War Conference in 1918, and it was reaffirmed at the Imperial Conference in 1921. I do not say that that gives it any authority; but what I do say is it is an inherent right of every self-respecting nation to have this right to determine what is going to be the composition of its population. The second principle I want to put before this House is that the granting of the franchise to any member of the population in this country is a purely domestic matter, a matter on which South Africa must be the sole judge, in the light of its population policy, in the light of its western civilisation mission, in the light of its moral obligations and its practical difficulties. I think that, too, is a proposition to which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will accede. I do not want to put any authority before him, except that again it is a matter which is accepted generally, and I will only quote one authority in respect of it, apart from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister himself, and that is a statement by the Duke of Devonshire, who was at the time Secretary of State for the Colonies. At the 1923 Imperial Conference he said—

On the same occasion the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister submitted a memorandum on behalf of South Africa in which that proposition was also accepted. Again I say it is a matter of honour to every self-respecting country to have that as an axiomatic right, as an inherent right. I am sure that the one respect in which at any rate there is unanimous approval of the Prime Minister’s attitude in regard to this Bill is in the attitude he has taken up with regard to interference from outside quarters. I am glad he has taken that stand, that South Africa will brook no interference in a matter that is purely a domestic concern, and that no amount of appeals to any Power outside South Africa will intimidate South Africa, will stampede her, will coerce her, into an attitude she is not prepared to accept of her own free will In that respect I think we can agree, and I am only sorry that it is the only important point upon which we can agree with the Prime Minister.

I pause here to say I am dealing more particularly with the franchise provisions, because we do agree with the principle of segregation as far as it is embodied in the first part of this Bill. We do not think the Bill is sufficiently far-sighted in this respect. It is not damming up all the possible outlets which in the past have caused the trouble in Natal. We think it ought to go further, and not only provide for what has been the cause of trouble in the past, but that it should also try to prevent the recurrence of that trouble in future in other parts of South Africa, and particularly the Cape Province. But I am more particularly concerned, in the remarks I am making, with the question of the franchise.

The third basic principle I put before this House is that the maintenance of western civilisation here and of a white South Africa is an important and over-riding consideration in the approach to a problem of this kind. That, I think, is the fundamental principle, and if anybody is not in agreement with that principle I cannot ask him to accept the argument which I am developing here, because it is the basis, the very foundation of that argument that we in South Africa, not on this side alone, but on the other side as well, have it as our mission to see that western civilisation is maintained in South Africa, and that South Africa remains a white South Africa. Those are three basic principles. There are also certain propositions. I do not say they are in the nature of principles, but I am asking this House to accept them, and the first of these proposition—I would almost say they are admitted facts but let me put them in the form of propositions—the first is that the granting of the franchise to Indians, with all its implications, would sound the death-knell of western civilisation in South Africa; and by “with all its implications” I mean with all one must naturally expect the present form of franchise to develop into in the future. When I say this I am thinking particularly of the form of franchise which has been here advocated by the hon. member who has just sat down, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I have said it is almost an admitted fact, but I should perhaps just remind the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister of his own views with regard to this proposition. On the occasion of the 1923 Imperial Conference, when this point was specifically raised, the Prime Minister expressed himself in the following words in regard to the claim made by the Indian representatives at the Imperial Conference that the franchise should be extended to Indians in South Africa—

He is expressing the position in regard to the native population—

Hear, hear.

I take it the gentleman who said that does not agree with the third basic principle I enunciated; to him it is a matter of indifference whether South Africa remains a white South Africa or whether western civilisation is maintained here or not.

It was one of your own men.

The Prime Minister went on—

And then he referred to the plea which had been made by the Indian representation that so far as India was concerned it was a question of dignity. The Prime Minister said—

And he ended by saying—

I say I do not think the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will disagree with the proposition I have laid down that the granting of the franchise, with all its implications, would sound the death-knell of western civilisation and of white South Africa. If he said this, if those were his views — unless he has recanted his views—and I take it, after all, they are matters of principle and not matters of opinion which you can shed as you shed your daily suit of clothes, I take it if they are matters of principle they are as cogent today as they were then.

Did he refer to the common franchise?

I will deal with that point later. The second proposition I am putting is this, and I think again I can invite the concurrence of members on the other side to that proposition, that there is no guarantee whatsoever that the half-way house on the franchise road will be its terminus. There is no guarantee whatsoever that what is today the half-way house on the road, of which the natural terminus is full franchise to the Indians, can be maintained. You cannot do it. It will inevitably have to run its full course to the terminus, and it is the terminus of which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister was speaking here. If there is any doubt in the mind of any person in this country whether you will be able to peg the position as far as the franchise is concerned to what this. Bill gives, you would have only to listen to what the hon. member for Troyeville said to see that, within the bosom of the Prime Minister’s own party, there will be an agitation, and there will be continuous agitation, to proceed further along that road, and to change the communal franchise into the common franchise. And if that is done—and that is why I said deliberately if the franchise is given “with all its implications”—it must sound the death-knell of western civilisation in South Africa. The third proposition I want to put to the House is this, that the grant of the franchise to the Indians, in whatever form it is given, must have a profound effect on the general question of the franchise of nonEuropeans. Again I think the Prime Minister will agree with me. I have only to refer to the remarks I quoted here in which he himself pointed out to the Indians that the Indian franchise question is not a self-contained and an independent question, but it is an interlinked problem. It is interlinked with the other problem of the franchise not only of the natives but also of the coloured people.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to put the fourth proposition, and that is, as far as South Africa is concerned there is no pledge or undertaking given by South Africa which is broken by not giving to the Indians the franchise either in this form or in any other form. There is no undertaking to which any member of this House can point, no undertaking by South Africa which held out the promise or the prospect of the franchise when the Indians came to this country. I say, Mr. Speaker, if one surveys the history of the Indian in South Africa there is one outstanding fact, and that is that there never was any idea on the part of this Government in the Union, or in Natal, or in any other province, there was never any question that Indians should become a permanent part, that they should be permanently incorporated into the social and political and national life of this country; and that is a fact that has been admitted all along the line. When the original indentured Indians came out for a short time they came out without any government supervision, but soon it became a matter of an agreement between the two governments, the Natal Government and the Government of India, and they came out under supervision and for a fixed number of years, and the basic idea was they were to be returned to the country of their origin…

They were induced to stay here.

They were induced to stay here by the excellent conditions they enjoyed in Natal, which were far better than any conditions they had ever enjoyed in India or ever would enjoy there. I say they were given this free right and they could at any time have demanded a free passage back home. At no stage were they induced to come here on the assumption they would become a permanent part of this country. Even those who came here not as indentured labour but as non-indentured labour had as their main purpose, the purpose of the majority of them, as expressed by one of the Indians themselves, the Rev. Pitt Bonarjee, who is honorary organising secretary of the British India Commonwealth League—

What made them remain here is the advantages they had received in South Africa over what they had enjoyed in India. What made them remain here was the knowledge that what they had in South Africa was infinitely better than what awaited them if they returned to India. That was the position; and the Rev. Andrews told them—after the repatriation arrangement of 1926 — he advised the Indians in this country not to make use of these provisions to be repatriated but to remain here because they had a much better time in South Africa than they would have in India. That was originally recognised by both governments. The Indians were to be a non-perament part of the Union population. That is a policy which has been reiterated for years — by official utterances, by legislative tendencies, and in other ways. One need only refer to Act No. 8 of 1896 of Natal, where the further enrolment of Indians on the voters’ roll was put a stop to, and there was a later ordinance in which the same was done in regard to the municipal franchise. There were the immigration laws. All these show very clearly that at a very early stage South Africa had expressed the wish that it should never have, as a permanent part of its population, the Asiatic in its midst. I say those who came here knew, or they ought to have known clearly the conditions under which they were received and under which they would be allowed to remain here. There was never any undertaking or any pledge given to them that they would be permanently incorporated, but the whole idea was of a temporary sojourn in this country for a specific purpose, and when that was over they could return. If they did remain here it was to make a sufficient competence to return to India and live there happily. If those conditions of which they knew, or ought to have known, were irksome, no one coerced them into coming here. They came of their own free will, and they tacitly agreed to accept those conditions by coming here and by remaining here. In the words of the old legal expression they “came to the nuisance” and they cannot complain now of that “nuisance.” Neither were they kept here against their will. On the contrary, right through, from the very beginning almost, they had the right to demand a free passage back to India. They had the right to demand that. So there is no question that they were kept here against their will; and if conditions here were a “nuisance” to them, they had it in their power to put a distance between them and this “nuisance” if they wished. But the fact is that they did not do so. Now I go a little further and come to the Cape Town Agreement of 1927. The whole object of that agreement was to get as many Indians as possible repatriated. There was no undertaking whatever on the part of the Government. There was a clear admission in this agreement by both governments of the temporariness of the sojourn of Indians in this country. I can just quote one passage from a speech by the then Minister of the Interior in which he deals with this question. Dr. Malan, in a letter to the Potchefstroom Chamber of Commerce, published on 12th April, 1927, said—

The Cape Town Agreement itself, in clause (3), states specifically that the object was to have repatriation as much as possible to India or to other parts of the world. I want to draw attention to these words. Even in the original 1926 agreement paragraph (3) stated—

That still recognises the temporariness of their stay in South Africa. Then I come to the 1932 agreement, also between the two Governments, where they go further and say—

They say the possibilities of the repatriation scheme are exhausted. The repatriation scheme had not taken away more than 15,000 Indians, and it was exhausted—

That is a recognition that they are not a permanent part of our nation, a recognition of the fact by both the two Governments, when these Governments solemnly agree that they will co-operate for the purpose of removing Indians from South Africa, either to India or to other parts of the world. Here you have a clear recognition of the fact that the whole idea underlying the stay of the Indians here was that it should be a temporary arrangement, and it was never contemplated that they would be incorporated into the social and national life of the country. But I go further. In 1932, in the same year, in a speech at Kimberley, the leader of the delegation from India (Sir Fazli Hussein) said—

Hear, hear.

That is the Indian Government admitting, through their representative, the very point that at no time was there any contemplation on either side that Indians should form a permanent part of the population of the Union; and that was said as late as 1932. I do not think I need go further. I think that right along the line, from the earliest history of the matter until the latest admission in 1932 by India’s accredited representative, we have the fact that Indians were never recognised as a permanent part of the population of South Africa. And if that is so I ask them on what basis they can come here to demand the franchise? They came here as wayfarers and sojourners. They were to return to India, but remained What right have they now, and what moral duty is there on South Africa, to give them rights which are only the rights of the permanent population?

Do you refer only to non-South African-born Indians?

No. This colonisation scheme was not a scheme only for Indians born outside South Africa. This admission was not made only in regard to such Indians.

What did the agreement say about those who were to remain, the uplift clauses?

The whole idea and the point I am making is that there is an admission, not that some Indians should not permanently settle here, but it says that both Governments had agreed that none of the people shall permanently settle here. It is quite true that if some of them chose to remain here, there is no undertaking that they would ’ ever be given the franchise. What there is is an undertaking that they would be given reasonable facilities in education, etc.

And would not lag behind any other section of the population.

Not with reference to political rights. There is no doubt about that. I defy the Minister to point out to me that there was any promise in the agreement that they should be given equal political rights with the Europeans in this country. I go further and say that it is quite clear from the interpretation of that agreement, as expressed by the Minister of the Interior, that there was no obligation upon the Union and no promises whatsoever. The hands of the Union Government were entirely free to legislate in whatever way they wished to.

In regard to segregation, firstly I want to say that it is a policy which applies both ways. Segregation or separation is never a one-way street. It need not therefore involve judgments of inferiority or superiority, although necessarily it must imply a recognition of difference: but that is all, and I think it is clear. The way it was put here is that it was really the European section who will be segregated now. Do we feel that to be a stigma on us? I have no objection to it. But in its very essence segregation cuts both ways. It cuts both ways, and therefore I fail to see that there is any insult to the Indians I go further and say that if there are objections to segregation, the last people who should object to it are the Indians themselves. I quote one of them, the Rev. Pitt Bonarjee, to show how essentially segregation is an Indian principle, acknowledged and practised throughout India. He says this, at page 32 of his pamphlet—

That is why I asked the hon. member for Cape Eastern to move her amendment, proposing to abolish segregation, in India and not in South Africa. He continues—

There is no question of inferiority of the one and superiority of the other except in the case of the outcasts—

They have also told us that they would voluntarily segregate themselves in this country, but we have waited in vain for many years for the implementation of that promise.

Those are not the facts.

Stick to your natives. You are not an Indian representative.

Perhaps it is just intelligent anticipation on the part of the hon. member. I say, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, that it is a matter of the very existence of South Africa. Self-preservation of our civilisation is the object, and that selfpreservation I submit is a moral injunction. We are pledged to the maintenance of western civilisation in South Africa, of a white South Africa. That is the sacred trust of which the ultimate beneficiaries are our unborn descendants. The defence of that sacred trust has become to most South Africans a moral commandment. The heritage we have received from our forefathers is not one which we are free to squander away by shortsighted opportunism or by moral cowardice. In preserving our own— and let me say here at once that we demand nothing for ourselves in South Africa which we are not prepared to concede to Indians in India—we need not and must not be unjust or unfair to others. But I believe that there is a way, if only we would bend our energies to finding it. And that is the object of this amendment, not to be hasty now, not on the twentieth day of the twelfth month of the last year of the Pegging Act to throw this Bill before the House and expect to have it passed within twenty-three days. That is not the way to settle mighty problems. If there has been delay, it is not on this side. If we propose any further delay, it is because we think it is right that South Africa should pause before taking this vital step and introduce this new principle which is fraught with such grave dangers for the future of white civilisation in South Africa. I think, and I want to commend it to the attention of the Prime Minister, that the possibilities of the solution envisaged by the 1932 agreement have not been sufficiently explored. South Africa made a tentative move, a preliminary effort, and there the matter has rested ever since. In terms of the 1932 agreement there was to be co-operation between the Indian and South African Governments to find a place to which Indians from South Africa and India could be sent. In fact there was never any joint effort. In this report by the Indian Colonisation Commission, the Young Commission, it was said by the Minister of Finance that they had decided to have this preliminary investigation by South Africa alone, purely as a preliminary step to the joint tackling of the problem, and that they had done this with the concurrence of the Indian Government. This provisional committee made certain recommendations, but nothing further was heard of it. I suggest, as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) has said, that along that way something could be done. One faces the pistol which the Prime Minister is holding at our heads today, saying that we must accept both parts of the Bill, or none. I am not prepared to have a pistol held at my head, nor are any of us on this side so prepared. We are prepared, if the Prime Minister is bent on having these two parts linked together to vote against the Bill. But at the same time, in terms of our amendment, we say that we shall ask you to extend the Pegging Act and to extend it in accordance with present day conditions. No, I think that the experience of mass removals of minorities by voluntary co-operation during the past ten or twenty years has taught us that that is a practicable and equitable means of solving minority problems. Why cannot we attempt a solution along those lines? Why must we be stampeded into taking action the full implications of which, in this land of racial groups, we cannot foretell? We have tarried so long in dealing with these racial problems, that a little further delay, a little more time, provided we do not fritter it away in inactivity, is justified by the momentous nature of the decision which the Prime Minister wishes us to make. Therefore I say: Let us have a little more time to pool our ideas, to see what can be done. Let me put this to the Prime Minister, that this far-reaching concession which he is offering today to the Indians has been flung back in his face with contumely. They have not accepted it. This minority group did not hesitate to invoke the aid of its country of origin and of other foreign countries to which neither they nor we are bound by any ties of blood or kinship. The Indian government has been stampeded into unfriendly action and South Africa’s fair name has been defamed by her would-be nationals. Lawlessness on a grand scale has been threatened. It is clear that the Prime Minister’s concessions, far-reaching as they are, have not placated the other side. It is equally clear that they have estranged many of his own side. Would it not have been more statesmanlike to consult your own ranks, to speak with the united voice of European South Africa and to raise this issue above party? Instead of having done that the Prime Minister has only alienated his European friends without placating his Indian opponents. It is clear that the minority group will not be placated unless and until its exorbitant demands are met in full, if not today, then tomorrow. To meet such demands must inevitably spell the doom of European civilisation in South Africa and undo the great experiment begun on these southern shores almost three hundred years ago. [Time limit.]

Tonight all eyes are turned to the East, whether we look only as far as the Indian Ocean and the African coast line, or whether our gaze carries us as far as India itself. We could wish some wise man from the East could come and persuade the Government to accept the resolution of the Labour Party to refer this matter to a Select Committee. It is not every Indian in South Africa who is asking for the franchise; it is not every Indian who will receive the franchise by this legislation. There are millions of Indians in India who have never enjoyed the franchise, and who have never been so well clothed, and who have never dreamt about the franchise, and why should we grant to Indians in South Africa privileges that are not extended to them in their own country? Is it our idea to make a second Zanzibar of this country without a struggle? In India itself there are millions of Indians who do not possess the privileges Indians in South Africa enjoy. Millions of Indians in India do not live in their own land in the way our Indians in South Africa live, and why should they be treated better here than they are treated in their own country? Give them the franchise, whatever the form it may take, and you will be giving them an anchorage in South Africa. Who of us can predict how far the Indians will yet penetrate in our country? The impertinence of the telegrams that we received from the Indians — we do not know precisely where they came from because although President Street is mentioned on the telegrams they contain no address — is in itself a justification for a Select Committee in connection with this matter. We appeal to the Prime Minister and to members opposite to give us that Select Committee so that we may have a thorough investigation and analysis of the situation and then arrive at a decision. Subsequently we can, if necessary, proceed further and reach an agreement in this House. Are we going to surrender the European civilisation which we have bought at so heavy a price in South Africa just because a few affluent Indians in South Africa are pressing for the franchise; are we going to surrender our white civilisation to placate foreign countries? Personally I am not prepared to do it. The responsibility for such a surrender of South Africa will recoil on this Parliament after the members of 1946 have ceased to sit in this House. We make an appeal to the Prime Minister. I would point out that the hon. member for Heidelberg (Mr. H. J. L. van Niekerk) has in his constituency the village of Balfour. It was an enterprising platteland village years, ago, but today it is nothing else than an Indian camp. Today not a single European can make his living there. It is all to be ascribed to the way in which the Indian has gained a footing in our country. He is acquiring the trade, and if he now gains the franchise he is going to address himself to seizing our lands. Is this what we have so long fought for in the past; is this what Englishmen and Afrikaners have made sacrifices for in the past? Is this the way to treat those who have come to the southern point of Africa to establish a civilisation here? No, we are not entitled to do this, and I again ask the Prime Minister to accept this amendment of the Labour Party. It is an amendment which will give an opportunity to the whole country to express its opinion on the matter and to indicate how far they are to succumb to the propaganda and the pressure that the Indians are now exerting.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable care to the speech of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) this evening. And listening to that speech I was convinced of one thing. And that is that however moderate the tone of approach of some hon. members opposite to this problem, however suave their manner in these racial matters, their failing is the same—it is fundamental—it is that they always want to hark back to the dim and distant past. The hon. member discussed at great length the circumstances under which the Indian community came to Natal, and he told us, in order to found the submission which he asked this House to accept, that in the years gone by we were and that therefore today we are still entitled to look upon the Indian community as sojourners in our midst and as forming no part of the permanent population of this country. If that were so, were we entitled to allow them to entrench themselves in this country, to purchase land, to build homes, to establish businesses, to seek employment and to do everything which men do in a land which they regard as their country and as their permanent home? Were we morally entitled to look upon them as people merely spending a few years in this country as birds of passage and at the same time to allow them to act in that way? Then the hon. gentleman referred to the Cape Town Agreement, and very conveniently dealt with that aspect of the Agreement which was an attempt to repatriate as many as would go. But he was very careful to make no reference to the fact that we asked the Indians who were unwilling to go and who were desirous of remaining, to remain, but to adopt a western standard of civilisation. We asked them to do that so as the more readily to become integrated into the national life. And then there was the uplift clause, under which we undertook a solemn obligation to help them attain such standards. Was that the attitude of a Government towards a people who were to be here temporarily? For many years the Indian community, this community living here te inporarily we are now told, has clamoured for the franchise as a fuller recognition of themselves as part of the permanent community. Let me make one further observation about the speech of the hon. member. I was more than astonished to hear a learned counsel quoting from some leaflet or some pamphlet and asking the House to accept that as conclusive evidence of the facts alleged by him. That is all very well for some of his colleagues, but it is indefensible at the hands of the hon. gentleman. At a recent meeting in Durban, the Nationalist Leader for Natal, Dr. Jansen, dealt with the Indian problem. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) tonight, without saying so, quoted what Dr. Jansen said at that meeting. Dr. Jansen said that he would say nothing disparaging of the Indian or his nation, and that he would not suggest that there was any question of superiority or inferiority involved in the Indian question. That is an attitude which I would commend strongly to members on the opposite benches, as much as I would commend it to the somewhat intemperate leader of the Labour Party. If this Bill makes its way to the Statute Book I shall not look upon it as an occasion for triumphant joy.’ I feel about this Bill, about this proposed step, much as many of us felt about the end of the war. It was the end of a phase. It was the end of a very intense and bitter struggle, a struggle which we had hoped might have been avoided, but which was forced upon us by circumstance. We realised that arising out of this conflict there would be great and many problems to face, and that the war would have been fought and won in vain if in relation to these problems we did not measure up to our responsibility. That is how I feel about this Bill. I ask myself whether there is a problem and whether this is an honest attempt to deal with the problem, or whether there is another way. I ask myself how likely are we to succeed. It would be folly, I think, either to ignore or indeed to minimise the ’fact that there is in South Africa, putting it at its mildest, an antipathy towards the Indian. I do not excuse it. I bitterly regret it. It would have been easy to give way to that prejudice; it would have been easy to have put upon the Statute Book a Bill reflecting those prejudices. It would have been as easy to do that as it would have been to approach the problem in a spirit of doctrinaire liberalism as if there were no problem at all. And I cannot resist the feeling that the Indians here, and perhaps even more so the Indians abroad, aware of this feeling throughout these years, have allowed themselves to assume that this legislation is in fact a giving way to the prejudice which exists, that the Government has given way to the demand for oppressive legislation. I say again that that would have been an easy way out. But it would not have required months and months of patient investigation and consideration by the Prime Minister if this were in fact a reflection of the feeling to which I have referred. On the contrary, I believe that this Bill is an attempt, at any rate, to lift this problem out of the realm of’ prejudice. What does it seek to do? The hon. member for Fauresmith enunciated the principle involved. I enunciate it in a very different form. This Bill is an attempt to reconcile a growing consciousness throughout the world of the need for a more enlightened attitude towards the non-European sections of any community, a need for reconciling that with an appreciation that there is a difference, without any implications of superiority or inferiority, between the culture and the outlook and the way of life of the Indian and the European. And the keynote of this Bill is to give recognition to that essential difference, and as between the two to preserve for South Africa the essential features of the European way of life, but with this proviso, that we should not deny to the Indian the fullest opportunity of living a full life according to his lights. It is said that that attitude is an insult to the Indian community. Is it an insult for the Europeans of South Africa to say without rancour that there is this difference and that it is desirable not only to recognise it, but to give effect to that difference, provided effect is given to it merely to the extent that it is necessary to preserve the European structure of South African society. I ask whether this is an insult, and yet it is not an insult for Mr. Jinnah, the President of the Moslem League in India, to say that the Moslems and the Hindus are two separate nations, and to insist for that reason on “Pakistan”, so that the Moslems shall not be dominated by the Hindus. Just as I believe that when Mr. Jinnah says that that no reflection is intended bn his Indian colleagues, so there is no reflection and no insult intended in the distinction drawn here. Surely in the matter of insult the question of intention is the determining factor. But more than that, the distinction and its corollary have been conceded by responsible Indian opinion. In 1912 that very distinguished Indian, Mr. Gokhale, said this in relation to South Africa—

And the third Broome Commission in 1945 was repeatedly assured that that point of view was fully accepted by the leaders of the Natal Indian Congress. Moreover, when the previous Broome Commissions investigated the question of penetration, the case for the Indian was not that penetration created no problem, that to have objected to penetration would have been ethically indefensible; their case was that in point of fact no penetration was taking place, and that to the minor extent that it was due to causes beyond their control, such as lack of housing and other amenities. If the principle was then conceded that penetration could rightly be objected to, what by implication was further conceded? Surely the recognition that a degree of separation was essential to that end. And if that was implicit in the attitude of the Indian leaders before the various Broome Commissions, it was however reluctantly conceded explicit in the Pretoria Agreement. It has been asked whether this is an internal problem or whether it is an international problem. I believe that if we apply the proper standards and the proper tests, the distinction in a large measure falls away. Clearly it is a domestic problem. The decision must be ours, but the verdict will be that of world opinion. With the reservation then that the full implications of the situation here may not be appreciated beyond our borders, I say that our decision must in consequence be one which can stand up to the challenge of world opinion. If it were otherwise we should be conceding the wholly untenable proposition that we were free in dealing with a domestic problem to apply a lower moral standard than if the problem were dealt with otherwise. It is also said that the problem has international implications. I appreciate that if that meant that because we shall be judged by world opinion, we must be wholly just. I can understand that, but if that consideration is pressed further then surely it means that if we consider the problem as a domestic problem we should naturally be influenced by considerations that are material, but if we allowed the problem to be considered as an international problem, we should be invited to allow considerations which are not material to influence our decision in the hope that we may be diverted from taking the course which we propose. No, Sir, responsibility is ours, and we have to face up to it. I could have wished that before we were called upon to deal with any land tenure rights of the Indian community that they had enjoyed representation in this House. That would have been more logical. But since that is not the case I regard myself as shouldering a greater responsibility than if I were solely the spokesman of the enfranchised European. It is a matter of regret to me that the Pretoria Agreement was not found acceptable to European opinion. But the fact of the matter is that it was not. The charge has been levelled against the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that he failed to implement an undertaking in respect of the Pretoria Agreement. I ask whether the Indian leaders who themselves raise the cry of democracy suggest that the Prime Minister should have assumed dictatorial powers to ensure that the Natal Provincial Council promulgated an ordinance embodying the Pretoria Agreement against its will. Surely what is sauce for the goose must be sauce for Gandhi. This Bill goes further admittedly than the Pretoria Agreement, and I regret very much that the circumstances of the day are such that it has been found necessary to go beyond the terms of that agreement. But because it does, does that in any way justify the fears of the Indian community; does it found a cause for the grievances which they have raised? I do not consider it worth while to deal with the suggestion that the Indian community will be reduced to a state of helotry. I know of no helots enjoying free trading rights determined solely by the ordinary laws of the land. I know of no helots free to engage in professional life in open competition with Europeans. I know of no helots encouraged to form trade unions so that their standard of labour might be improved thereby. I do not know of any helots encouraged to go in for technical education and education on a general footing. What kind of a helotry is it that leaves untouched practically entirely the economic life of the Indian community? So much also then for the cry of economic strangulation. If it had meant economic strangulation in any sense I would not be a party to this Bill. The Asiatic community is bound up in the fabric of our national economy, and you cannot separate into water-tight compartments the economy of the European and that of the Asiatic. Far from the proposed legislation being an insult I for my part am impressed with the fact that the Government has taken particular pains to avoid in this Bill anything which might savour of a stigma or reflection on the Indian community, and that it has not gone beyond recognising the principle which I enunciated earlier and which I say again has been conceded by responsible Indian opinion. No, if this legislation is viewed against a background of complete equality for the Indian in all directions which has never obtained in South Africa, it is clearly discriminatory and repressive. But if it is viewed against the background of an unenfranchised section of the community struggling for a settled and established status within the fabric of our society instead of being the constant butt of reactionary politicians and facing rapidly deteriorating Indo-European relationships, I say against that background it is an honest attempt to grapple and to deal with the problem.

I come now to the second part of the Bill. The Labour Party through its leader, this afternoon, allied itself with those who have suggested that this Bill might be postponed. I then put to the hon. gentleman what I though was a pertinent question. He did not reply so I repeat it this evening. If the hon. gentleman had said that he was not quite satisfied in which form the franchise should be given to the Indians then I could have understood his plea. But the hon. gentleman made it plain that he was as opposed as anybody could be — and he said it rather viciously — to the conferment of the franchise in any form and at any time on the Asiatic community. That being the case, I asked him what then was the necessity for time to reflect and consider. It has been suggested by my erstwhile leader that we ought not to confer the franchise on the Asiatic because the Asiatic himself has rejected it. I say that it would be preferable; it would have been most welcome if the Indian community had accepted the franchise in the form in which it was offered to them rather than reject it. But if it has been rejected that does not determine the matter. We are not now entering into a bilateral agreement between two parties in which event the first and the sole consideration would have been an agreement between the parties as to the terms of their contract. We are discharging an obligation as legislators and it seems to me to be wholly illogical to say to the Indian community: “We believe that you are entitled for your sake and for ours to the franchise; we propose to confer that right upon you but if you say that you will reject it we will withhold that right from you.” It makes our task all the more difficult if there is a want of co-operation, but our responsibility remains the same, and that is to do what is right in all the circumstances. It has been said, also by the hon. Leader of the Dominion Party that in any event this franchise is a quid pro quo. I believe that in some respects it is, and I can see no reason to quarrel with that. The whole burden of the Asiatics’ cry throughout the years has been in relation to any projected legislation, that it would involve a stigma. The Asiatics’ attitude has been: “You will reduce us to the status of second-class citizens.” We have said to him: “We appreciate your fear; we appreciate your anxiety; we have no intention of so stigmatising you, and in order that there should be no ground for assuming such a reflection, we will actually raise you in status; we will by comparison with your present status raise it by conferring upon you the franchise.” I say that in that respect it can be regarded as a quid pro quo. And what of it? I take a very strong view that there is an unchallengeable moral right, quite apart from the provisions as to Land Tenure, to the conferring upon the Asiatic the franchise—and I am going to say in a moment that I share also the discomfiture as to the communal franchise— but I say that we have an unanswerable obligation to confer the franchise on the Indians. If I need any reinforcement for that view, may I remind the House that in 1938, within a matter of three months of the general election, a number of Parliamentary representatives were interviewed by the Durban Press on precisely this question of representation for the Indian. Four members of the Dominion Party, of which I was then one, committed themselves categorically to the principle of the franchise for the Asiatic. One of them went the length of saying that the Indian community could not hope for more than the franchise on the communal basis, because the Government of the dav was not a liberal Government. Well, it fell strangely upon my ears in the light of that knowledge, knowing that these views were at that time unchallenged by anyone in the Dominion Party, to have heard yesterday that they were at variance with the views of the party’s leader. I have no doubt about this question, but, as I said earlier, I am far from happy about the form in which we propose to give the Indians the franchise. I shall content myself by saying that my reasons are those enunciated by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), and that they do not need amplification. On this question of the franchise, I had assumed at one time that the effect of the loading proposition would be to enfranchise the wealthier class of Indian at the expense of the artisan, and apparently that is the view taken by the hon. member for Troyeville, who is under the impression that is the effect of the Bill. But the effect will be quite the reverse. The effect will be quite the reverse; by virtue of the educational standard required, the middle classes and the middle-aged will not enjoy the franchise under the provisions of this Bill, and the franchisement benefits will go almost exclusively to the young, rising generation who, whether they be artisans or professional men, and I say this without reflection, are not the conservative element to which the middle classes and the middle-aged belong. The reason for that is this, that the middle classes were only able to enjoy educational facilities up to Std. IV, and the requirement in this Bill is Std. VI. I want to throw out a suggestion which I know is contrary to accepted precepts in matters of this kind, but in order to meet the situation I make the suggestion that for a limited period this class of person, the responsible element in the Indian community who will have a weighty determining influence on the type of representative who will find his way into this House, should not be required to have passed Std. VI, but that for a limited period we should lower the standard to Std. IV, having it embodied in the Bill that at the expiry of that period the standard automatically becomes raised to Std. VI. I do hope, however, that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will be persuaded to give further consideration to the form of franchise.

I cannot avoid one final observation on this question. Citizenship such as enfranchisement confers involves reciprocal obligations. We shall have to face very great responsibilities towards the Indian community. We shall have to make up our minds now that we have to meet the problem of removing that fear of domination. We shall have to make up our minds to regard the Indian community in this country as an integral factor in the body politic and in the national life of South Africa. That is our responsibility. I say in turn that the Indian bears a responsibility, too Citizenship must be earned, and in the conferment of this right we hope, as we are entitled to expect, that the Indian will play his part and make his contribution to the common weal and make this, in fact, a land of promise. I hope he will.

The Prime Minister when he introduced this Bill referred to the advent of the Indians in Natal, and he stated it was the fault of our ancestors that the Indians were allowed in, and now seventy or eighty years later we must set right the consequences of having admitted them. I have no hesitation in saying that after listening to all the speakers tonight it is clear that we are occupied with legislation that in 70 or 80 years’ time posterity will condemn us for. We are engaged on legislation that will mean the disappearance of European civilisation from the scene, if we go on with it, consequently we feel that if ever there was a Bill that should be kept above the level of party politics, that should be tackled on the basis of a national problem, it is this Bill, and the course is indicated in the amendment of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, namely, that the whole colour problem should be dealt with in its broad aspect. Let us just take the free areas where the Indians can purchase land. Here it is not a question of demarcated separation where the Indian only can be a landowner. Here you have the position that Europeans may also become landowners in those areas. Who are the Europeans who will become landowners there or who will live there? It is the poorer section of the community, it is the people who have low incomes, who are employed on wages which will not enable them to vacate land there when it drops in value and then buy land in areas where the Asiatics may not purchase. The result of these higgledy-piggledy living quarters for Indians and Europeans will be the creation of another coloured community. I can assure the Prime Minister that he would have had the wholehearted support of this House for the first part of this Bill if he proposed complete separation there and if he had set aside an area where the Indians could be complete owners, as is the case in these free areas. I go further. As I understand the Bill, the Indians who own properties in European areas will retain these properties.

That is right.

It is true that they may not sell it to other Indians, but I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Indian can bequeath it to his children.

Of course he can.

He may not sell it, but he may bequeath it to his child, and that will mean that the Indians who are property owners today in the European areas will remain there always. Indians will always remain there if the owners can bequeath the property to those who follow after them. But the Indian problem is not an isolated problem as far as the colour problem in South Africa is concerned. It is only a subdivision of the whole colour problem in South Africa. The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) stated yesterday by way of interjection that there are no coloured people in the Transvaal. Is he another Rip van Winkle who is fast asleep? He only wakes up now and then to make an interjection. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has already pointed out that in 1941 there were 56,000 coloured people in the Transvaal, 20,000 in Natal and 17,000 in the Free State, altogether 94,000 in the northern provinces, and these coloured people in the Transvaal are today more entitled to representation than the 30,000 Indians in the Transvaal. This coloured community belongs to the permanent population of South Africa. These are not immigrants, these are not a race that can make an appeal to the Government of another country like the Indians are doing today. What is the position in the Cape Province? We say that the Indian problem is a problem for the whole country. In the Cape Province, unfortunately, we have no statistics in regard to Indians, because the Indians are distributed among the coloured races. But what do we find? According to the year book, there are 750,000 coloureds in the Cape Province. And what is the position of the coloured people? I have figures here showing the number of schoolchildren in the Cape Province. In 1944 there were 157,323 white children sitting on the school benches, and in 1945, a year later, the number was 157,483, an increase of 160 white schoolchildren. But look at the figures for the coloured children. There were 142,900 coloured schoolchildren in the Cape Province in 1944, while in 1945 the figure was 152,837, an increase of 9,937 compared with an increase of 160 in the number of European children. As far as native children are concerned, there were 222,572 children at school in 1944, and in 1945 the number was 239,120, an increase of 16,548. In addition to that, as far as European children are concerned, practically all of them attend school, while in the case of the coloureds only about 75 per cent. are found on the school benches, and another 50,000 are running around in the Cape Province. As far as the native children go, the 239,000 represent about 48 per cent. of the total number of children of schoolgoing age. But let us go further and look at the increase that has taken place in the last ten years. In 1935 the total number of European children in the schools was 154,000, and in 1945, ten years later, it was 157,323, or an increase of only 3,000 children in a period of ten years. But as far as the coloured and native schoolchildren grouped together are concerned, in 1935 there were 268,000 at school, and in 1945 382,000, an increase of 114,000 in the Cape Province. That shows how great the non-European problem is. I do not think anyone will deny that it is the most serious problem with which we are faced. No intelligent European, whether he is English-speaking or Afrikaansspeaking, will say that we can tackle this great problem piecemeal. You must tackle the problem as a whole. It is a problem that stares us in the face as a European civilisation, and the question that arises in my mind is whether it is possible that the European civilisation should be so blind to the dangers that are threatening our future. Is it not possible for us to place this problem above party politics? We sometimes hear cheers from the other side when we mention a problem that should be kept out of the party arena, but hon. members on the other side are bound to vote against their convictions. I go further, and I say that if the Prime Minister allowed his party to vote as they wished, the Bill would not go through the House. That is how they feel about it. The Prime Minister comes here and makes a party question of South Africa’s thorniest problem. I do not think anyone will deny that the non-Euorpean problem is the biggest problem we must tackle and solve. Is it too late to ask the Prime Minister now at the last moment to withdraw the Bill and to accept the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition? Is it too late to lift this matter out of the party arena, and to make of it a national question that we may solve along national lines by coming together and investigating in the best way how the problem should be approached? The Prime Minister is getting on in years. One of these days he will stand aside. I would ask him tonight whether he does not think that this may be one of his last public actions, one of the last Bills that he will bring before Parliament, and does he not reflect that this is probably one of the biggest disasters it is possible to bring to the people? Should he not consider that he may still look back on this measure and reproach himself for having in his old age introduced legislation that has brought disaster to our European civilisation, legislation that will have made this a black man’s country, because this Bill is the thin end of the wedge? However the Prime Minister may argue, this is the thin end of the wedge. They will not be satisfied with this Bill, but there will be an agitation; and now that the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has pointed out in his speech that the Indians have no right here that there was never any idea that they should be part of the permanent population, the Prime Minister ought at once to withdraw his Bill.

I have listened very attentively to this debate and it takes my mind back to ten years ago when this House was discussing the Native Bills. Very much the same arguments were used and very much the same attitude was taken up by the Leader of the Opposition on that occasion. There is, however, to my mind a great difference between this Bill and the Native Bills, inasmuch as the Native Bills proposed to take away from the natives certain political rights they possessed, whereas this Bill seeks to give the Indians in Natal and the Transvaal for the first time, some political representation; it seeks to give them a franchise, and for that reason I support this Bill wholeheartedly. I do so also because I realise that the question of the Indian problem in Natal must be settled. It cannot be allowed to drift any longer; and I feel the longer it is allowed to drift and the more time that is wasted in discussing this problem the more difficult it will be to find a solution.

I accuse the Nationalist Party and other members of the Opposition of running away from this measure. They have done what they have always sought to do in the past and avoided their duty to South Africa at the crucial time. Their claim that the whole matter should be referred to a Select Committee for consideration is to my mind purely a means of delaying the action we desire to take, and which it is absolutely necessary for us to take; because they have no solution to put forward and they do not intend to bring forward a solution. For years the fundamental policy of their party has been: No franchise rights whatever to natives or Indians; therefore it needs no Select Committee to tell us what they want. I feel that the Indian in Natal has the right to expect some quid pro quo, some recompense in respect of certain privileges we are now denying him. To my mind this is the only quid pro quo we can give them, which will be of any benefit. It is true it does not go to the extent they might like to have it, and I also feel the Broome Commission was correct in saying the Indians should be granted a position on the common roll with a loaded franchise, but I realise there is no possibility of getting such a franchise through this House as it is constituted today. All through this debate we have seen the opposition there is to any form of franchise at all. But it is inevitable if we are to justify the action we propose to take to show that we are trying to give these people a square deal and some form of representation to which they are entitled. I say that the Opposition Party are not facing up to the realities of the position, and I base that argument on this point, that they wish the matter to be deferred for a period of two years. They say: Extend the Pegging Act for two years, and during that time let us have round table conferences and Select Committees and consider what is best to be done. But I do not believe in their hearts they believe such a solution would be found. Such a delay would, I feel, be conducive to more agitation, more striving on the part of those opposed to the measure, and it would make it more difficult to bring about a solution.

Read the amendment.

I have read the amendment, and it does not impress me a little bit, especially that part which tries to bring in the coloured population. There you have the old policy of the Nationalist Party, bringing the coloured population into every problem of importance in this country.

I might say as far as the coloured people are concerned, and as far as the statement goes that was made by the Prime Minister a few days ago, I am entirely satisfied in my own mind that the Prime Minister is not departing one iota from the statement he made on many occasions, that the political rights of the coloured people of the Cape will not be interfered with in any way whatever. The coloured community is anxious about this Bill because they feel perhaps the time might come when they, too, might be put on a communal roll, and they will be reassured when they know that this Government does not intend anything of that kind whatever. I am quite satisfied regarding that. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) said that the way in which in this Bill we provided communal rights of franchise to the Indians with three representatives in this House was the halfway house to common franchise rights for them. He may be right. He may be wrong. If he is right and the Indian community agree with that view why do they make this agitation, why do they not accept it is a step forward towards the gaining of full political recognition in South Africa? We know that the Indian wants nothing else than full democratic rights, political, social and economic. So do the coloured people and the natives. To my mind it is a perfectly natural instinct, an instinct which will naturally develop as they get educated. The more educated they become the more insistent the demand will be. Whether we can accede to it is something which the future alone will show. But we have to realise that if South Africa is to progress to the fullest extent, if we are to develop to the heights to which we aim, these people must be uplifted, they have to be recognised as citizens of South Africa, and they must not be kept in the gutter, because if we are trying to keep them down we shall eventually go down with them. The Indians should try to realise that by giving them this communal representation in the form proposed in the Bill we are not insulting them, far from it. In proportion to their numbers, in comparison with the natives, they are getting a far larger proportion of representation than they are entitled to.

They say they do not want it.

They may say that, but I am sure in time they will come to appreciate it when they get it. I believe the agitation has been created by the wealthier type of Indian who does not want his present rights restricted. They are the ones who agitate. But the poor Indian is not concerned, and he will be satisfied, I am sure, in the long run with the measure before us. I do not say it is perfect, far from it, because no compromise of this nature can be perfect.

You accept the principle of segregation?

No, it is not segregation. If you like to say that the Europeans are segregated I will agree with that, but I do not agree the Indians are segregated under this measure. The Indians will have certain free areas and the Europeans will have access to them, too, if they wish to go there.

That is our point, it is not segregation.

They are not being taken from any area in which they are at present residing. The Indians are getting as fair treatment as we can give them under the existing circumstances. If we had a greater measure of unity amongst our members in this House in regard to the political future of the Indians perhaps we could give them something better. Yet in this House we have a certain section who feel we are being too liberal, and to come to a compromise and to get a Bill through Parliament I feel the Prime Minister has done the only thing possible in bringing up the Bill in its present form, and I am prepared to accept it accordingly to the fullest extent.

Finally I want to say this. It is really an appeal I wish to make to the members on the Opposition benches. I wish them to try in future when a measure comes before this House dealing with any particular section, not to try to drag in all sections of the non-European population. I could spend a lifetime quoting from Hansard speeches made in the past by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and members on the other side. He, at one time, had quite a different outlook in regard to the coloured people than he has today, and he was prepared to give the franchise to the coloured women.

No, no.

That is nonsense.

You cannot prove that.

I am quoting from Hansard.

That is not Hansard in your hand.

This is the Hansard for the Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament in connection with the Native Bills in 1936. I shall quote from page 82. It is what Dr. Malan said on an occasion when he was addressing the Cape Malays in the City Hall at Cape Town.

Hansard of the City Hall?

Hansard of the Joint Sitting in 1936. It relates to an incident when Dr. Malan, then Minister of the Interior, said to the Cape Malays—

A little further on he assured them that they—

Then the hon. Leader of the Opposition at that time wrote a letter to the editor of the A.P.O. magazine, and extracts were quoted from it during this Joint Sitting, on 19th February, 1936, and reported in this Hansard as follows—

Whose speech are you reading from Hansard?

This is from a letter written by Dr. Malan. The hon. member may try to laugh it away, but the facts are there nevertheless. I should like also to read a small paragraph from a speech made by the late Gen. Hertzog at that time, but as the hour is late I shall leave that to a future occasion while the Bill is still before the House.

It being 10.55 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 28th March.