I~~~ mllll~mm m~m~ - DSpace@GIPE

•
June 26th. 1925
INDIAN OPINION
dll parties in that country is necel!8al"Y for the preservation
of a White South Afrim. should be sanctioned
by statute or by subsidiary legislation nnder
statute. If a policy of colour discrimination is to be
followetl. it matters little whether the policy is embodied
in law or in mere regulations; but in one
rellpect it is mucA better to have sppcific legislation
"~'ng Ilanction to this policy J".\ther than keep up an
nppearancp /'If equality'in the laws of the country
RntI proville for every kind of (listinction in regulationa.
to which public attention is not 80 easily
drawn. Since the best means of obtaining redreB8 of
an injustice is to expose it to the ~rntiny of the
worIJ. An all its nakedness. the native of Sonth Africa
will.lostt pothil)g bnt gain ~ethil\gJ by having th~
coIQ'r. b~ inserted in the I\'"ry, laws of the country
In.~ 9f wJ'll.ppizw it, up in l'Pgulations. Already
the ~onscience otJCood Christian men has spoken ont
verf!st~nglv ag.unstthis idea of keeping out natives
from certain occupations merely because they wear
black SkillS. but the idea has nothing new about it:
it is being consistently put in effect for several years
past. ,Yet the main point in the denunciation of th~
Churc4es is that the measure is "a disastrOus innovation."
etc.. It is neW only in the sense that it has
attracted attention now in quarters where it had BO
far escaped notice.
Asiatics too are specifically mentioned in this
legislatio~. They may be excluded just li}ce natives
from any of the occupations which the Union
GOYernmrnt wish to kecp as a preserve for the
whites. Gen~l Smuts has cnriously enough esponsed
the cause of Indiana on this point and has
already earned the encomiuJDs of superficial observers.
But anyone who carern~ly reads the speech
which G~"eral Smuts made on the Bill in the Union
Pllrliament will see that he is not opposoo. by any
means to EliscriPlil)ating against Asiatics if such discrimination
is neQesBary in order to maiptain white
SUPl'PQlac1'J~~~.!ltJ1.f~!Cla'li !ll ~ha~ he ohjects is
tha~!,lruliall4 'Art,AsJlliiCl}! sho~ld ,be mentioned eo
nom~, iJ\. th~
legis,ation. ".oenenij, Smuts has no
doubt cM8is~nUy ,avoide4 a reference to Asiatics as
suob in all antj-Asiatic legislation that he promoted.
The Class Areas mll. for instance. which was
directed against Indians and which was infinitely
more drastic in its reaction on them thirn the present
Colonr Bar Bm. still did not directly mention InlUans.
III, it seriously meant that our opposition
should b.e, less strong to this Bill which does not
mention Ind,ians by name but' 'tho very object of
which is to drive Indians out of the country by
making it impossible fo~ them to trade in important
centres than to the Colour Bar Bill. which makes a
direct D\ention of Asiatics but which after all will
not be so injurions to Indian interests as the other
Billilponsored by General,Smllbl?
We for our ,part
wou\d much Pfe(et:!' law which is discriminatory
both in f