Is the African National Congress Communist-controlled? Does it represent the African people? Albert J. Lutuli, President-General of Congress, gives views on these vital questions in an exclusive interview with Drum.
Congress long ago decided that they would not discriminate against anyone because of his other political affiliations. So long as a member subscribed to Congress policy, which was first of all African unity, and secondly working for the welfare of the African people, and so long as he was an African, he would not be debarred from membership. Long before the present flare-up about Communists, there have always been members of Congress who were Communists - even before Congress adopted its militant programme. Congress did not ally itself with Communism because it had Communist members, and it even took a stand against Communism as such.
Recently Congress, like other organisations, has grown to be the spearhead of the liberatory movement. Anyone in the liberatory movement, so long as he pledges himself to work for the realisation of freedom for all people in South Africa, would be welcome. We have the Congress of Democrats now, who are part of the liberatory movement, and no doubt they have members who are ex-Communists; but there are also people in the Congress of Democrats who have never been Communists.
When we initiated the Defiance Campaign the people in it were the African National Congress and the South African Indian Congress. No one could honestly say that these two organisations were dominated by Communists. What is more likely is that our thinking was influenced by the success of the "non-violent passive resistance" of the Indian National Congress of India. People who say that the Campaign for the Defiance of Unjust Laws was initiated by Communists forget that Communism has never embraced "non-violence" as a basic philosophy for its struggles.
The general plan to make Congress more militant was agreed on in 1949 under the presidency of Dr. Alfred Xuma. A committee was formed at the time to study the form that militancy should take. No one in a sane mood would accuse Dr. Xuma of being a Communist; and the same is true of his successor, Dr. Moroka and also very true of Dr. Moroka's successor, Albert John Lutuli.
As far as Mr. Sisulu's visit to Moscow is concerned, it was a personal invitation, not an invitation to Congress; his visit was not in any way an official Congress visit. Professor Matthews also accepted a private invitation to go to America. On their return, both Mr. Sisulu and Professor Matthews gave semi-official reports to Congress on their visits; but this does not mean that Congress was influenced either by America or Russia.
I believe Congress, in general, follows the foreign policy of Nehru; we wish to be neither East nor West, but neutral; and we welcome co-operation from those on either side who will help to further our aspirations for freedom in democratic set-up. If we get more support from the East than from the West, it is not our fault. In fact, to my knowledge, we have enjoyed considerable support from the West - perhaps even more than from the East - and I am grateful for it, as I would be grateful for legitimate support from the East.
The African National Congress has consistently, through its presidents and other leaders, indicated that they are interested in democracy within the present framework of the Union. There is nothing to suggest that behind Congress there are people working for Moscow. If ever I were convinced that Congress was working for Moscow, I would definitely resign.
What in fact South Africa is hearing from the African National Congress is the voice of African Nationalism rather than Communism. African Nationalism will become a much more powerful and appealing force than Communism. In fact our task as leaders is to make this Nationalism a broad Nationalism, rather than the narrow nationalism of the Nationalist Party.
Some people say that the fact that ex-Communists are elected to Parliament by the Cape Western constituency shows that Congress is influenced by Communists. It does not. These candidates have won their seats because of their part in working for the people locally; in fact this should be a lesson to White South Africa, that Africans will judge you by what you do for them, not by your ideologies.
I personally have a lot of friends in the West, and at present I have no friends in the East. But that does not mean that Congress is inclined to the West. So far as I know, Congress lays no bars to its leaders, duly invited, going to any country in the world.
It has come to my knowledge that Government propaganda against me has recently taken the form of telling Chiefs that they must not associate with me, because I went to America in 1948, and got rotten ideas there. Yet when I went to America all my contacts were with churches, schools, colleges, organisations such as Rotary. I never adorned a political meeting or made any contact with any political organisation. In fact my programme was made by an American Mission Board in Boston, U.S.A., who had invited me to undertake this lecture tour of our Christian Churches in the United States.
One ex-Communist in Congress has said, "I would quarrel with my own colleagues if they were to use the Congress platform to further Communist objectives, because at present we are engaged together in a liberatory movement. When we have freedom, then might be the time to split and fight on ideological questions."
At present we are engaged in launching the Congress of the People assembly, which is being sponsored by the African National Congress, the South African Indian Congress, the Congress of Democrats and the Coloured People's Organisation - but at the invitation of the African National Congress, as a result of the decision taken at the Queenstown Conference last year. The Congress of the People is entirely a Congress idea, to which others are invited in accordance with our principles. The idea originated with Professor Matthews at the Cape Provincial Congress; I cannot conceive of Professor Matthews being influenced in any shape or form by Russia. It is an insult to Professor Matthews to suggest (as was done by one police officer) that he was influenced by Paul Robeson in America.
I would be much surprised if ex-Communists formed as much as one per cent of Congress membership. I can quite believe that the banning of the Communist Party has led African ex-Communists in Congress to be more active than before within the Congress programme; but this does not mean that Congress is becoming more Communist.
I learned with delight that Christian Action was organising a meeting in London, England, to speak on the vital question of the Protectorates in South Africa. Thanks to the growing spirit of brotherhood in the world, especially among those men and women who truly believe in justice and fair play, a brotherhood that cuts across race, colour, and even creed, I am happy to feel that it is the spirit of brotherhood which prompted Christian Action to invite me to send a message of goodwill to this meeting. And so I, too, moved by the same spirit of brotherly fellowship, wish you in this meeting God's blessing. I pray that its deliberations may bring forcefully before the people and Government of Great Britain, the needs of the Protectorates, and the legitimate wishes of their inhabitants. May such a forceful reminder result in making Great Britain more mindful of her responsibilities to these territories, which yearningly expect her, as the protecting power, to lead them to full self-realisation along the democratic road.
On this question of the High Commission Territories in South Africa, I must advise, at the outset, that the African people in South Africa would consider it to be an unfriendly act on the part of Great Britain, if she should ever consent to the transfer of these territories to the Union of South Africa without the consent of the people of each Protectorate concerned. Such an action would make Great Britain an accomplice in the policy of apartheid of the Union of South Africa, a policy which rightly, has received world-wide condemnation, since it results in the violation of the universal declaration of fundamental human rights contained in the United Nations Charter.
For myself, I am confident, however, that the British sense of justice and fair play would deter any British Government from ever acting in such an unfriendly way towards the African people: since it would be a shameful and dreadful betrayal of the people of the Protectorates, and would greatly shake whatever confidence the people of the Colonies have in her. It would disastrously strain and embitter black-white relationships, not only in the Protectorates, but throughout Africa, and earn her the anger and contempt of freedom-loving people everywhere.
The propaganda of successive Union Governments has subtly attempted to frighten the people of the Protectorates, and Great Britain, to agree to the annexation of these territories to the Union, by stressing the wide measure of economic dependence of Protectorate Africans on the Union, since large numbers of them come to the Union labour centres for wage earnings. I feel that the Union Government underrates the sense of values of the Africans of the Protectorates. They are not likely to trade their potential opportunities of becoming a free people for a mess of pottage that would land them on the lap of the apartheid monster. I cannot see them voluntarily surrendering themselves to exclusive white rule in the Union of South Africa, a rule that would submit them to permanent white domination, and all the evil consequences that flow from it.
The potential material resources of the Protectorates, when fully exploited for the benefit of the inhabitants, seem adequate enough to meet the needs of the people reasonably. But it must be sadly admitted that successive British Governments have shown culpable neglect of the Protectorates, with the result that at present they cannot adequately meet the needs of the inhabitants. Apparently, Great Britain forgot that her inescapable primary concern as a protecting power was to develop fully the resources of the territories for the benefit of their inhabitants.
It is never too late to mend. This state of affairs in the Protectorates poses a serious challenge to the British Government, and the British people, to launch without delay a bold, co-ordinated, comprehensive development programme that will train and harness the African people of this territory to contribute to that development for the benefit of the people. Such a comprehensive, all-round development plan must be designed to give the people full expression in all spheres of human activity - social, economic, religious, and political.
Such an undertaking would bring about beneficial results. It could well be a practical demonstration to other Colonial powers and Dominions of the possibilities of securing the co-operation of the African people in a development scheme, that is not a blind alley when it comes to political development, and not hedged in by discriminatory regulations and practices that hinder the unfettered development of the African people, and so causing them to be frustrated and unco-operative. I can well see such a scheme, properly run, becoming a stimulant to forces in other parts of Colonial Africa, including those in the Union of South Africa, and the Central African Federation, to work hard and with hope for the full emancipation of Africans in the lands of their birth, notwithstanding hostile forces that work for white supremacy.
It is most fitting and encouraging that such a challenging meeting should be convened by a Christian Group, for the Church of Christ, if it is to be true to the mission assigned to it by her Master, must boldly challenge the conscience of' the rulers and the people to create in their country conditions that would bring about the realisation of Christ's programme, which He enunciated to be "to preach good news to the poor, proclaim release to the captive, and the recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."
I speak as one belonging to an oppressed group - the non-white in the Union of South Africa - where discriminatory, oppressive laws, in growing intensity, are bearing heavily on non-whites. We are witnessing a terrific onslaught by the apartheid policy of the Nationalist Government, on the limited civil liberties more or less, hitherto enjoyed by non-whites. This is bringing about unprecedented human suffering on non-whites in the country - disastrous displacement of people from their long-established homes, the muzzling and banishment of people who protest against these and other atrocious injustices, are the order of the day. But yet we are not despondent. We are encouraged in our struggle for freedom by seeing our stand of opposing apartheid vindicated by the justice of our cause, and the undoubted growth of the freedom front in our country. It is also encouraging to us to find our cause attracting the support of such organisations as yours. I wish to say in all sincerity how much we appreciate the moral support we are getting from CHRISTIAN ACTION, and other Christian and secular agencies in many lands.
Long live justice and fair play!
Long live freedom!
Long live Africa!
"The struggle for freedom in our lifetime must go on", said Chief A. J. Lutuli, President-General of the African National Congress in an exclusive interview with New Age last week.
"Police intimidation, bannings, banishment, the introduction of Saracens to arm the police force and the enactment of laws which remove every vestige of democracy for the people must spur us forward to greater deeds and we must with grim determination re-dedicate ourselves to the noble cause of Congress."
Chief Lutuli - whom we had to interview at the home of a friend in Stanger, as non-African cannot visit him at his home at the Groutville Mission reserve without first obtaining a permit from the Native Commissioner - was as lively and full of optimism as ever.
"I am confident I shall not stay in banishment for five years," he said. The growing tempo of the struggle in our country and the forward march by the peoples of Africa indicate that the days of colonialism and oppression are numbered."
In reply to a request for a special message to the people of South Africa on the occasion of June 26 this year, Chief Lutuli said that June 26 has become an important landmark in the people's struggle in this country. It has become closely associated with the launching of the most important struggles in recent years.
"Directive will be issued by the Congress suggesting ways in which this day should be observed. I call upon those associated with the freedom struggle to observe the day in a manner befitting such an important landmark in the history of our struggle for freedom.
"We should use this day to remember the efforts of those who struggled for freedom before us.
"Their devotion to the task of ending the enslavement of the oppressed people in the Union should fire us with a burning determination to complete their unfinished task - the liberation of the oppressed people of South Africa - by redoubling our efforts to get freedom in our lifetime."
Commenting on the official launching of two campaigns on June 26 - the first to make 1959 the greatest Anti-Pass year in the history of the struggle against the Pass Laws, and the second to boycott Nationalist products and hit the Nats in the stomach - Chief Lutuli said that he hoped that all South Africans, regardless of colour or race would support both these campaigns.
"The struggle against passes is as old as Congress", he said. "It has become evident to the leaders of Congress that it was and still is the strongest weapon in the hands of the oppressors.
"We should like to see the 1959 campaign so rouse the people of South Africa that they will say: No more passes for us."
& and Boycott
Dealing with the Economic Boycott campaign to be launched on June 26, Chief Lutuli said that in pursuance of the policy of non-violence the Congress was launching a boycott of Nationalist goods because it was the Nationalist Party that was the spearhead of our oppression.
"This Nationalist boycott will not preclude local boycott directed against firms and institutions voluntarily practising apartheid," he added.
Other steps to be taken on June 26, said Chief Lutuli, will include abstaining from frivolities and even common pleasures and offering substantial material gifts in kind or in cash to the cause. The hour demands less words and more action."
"It would be a grand thing if in this spirit of self-denial, beer halls, cinemas and other pleasures were given a holiday for a few days," he said.
Message to Chiefs
In a special message to African chiefs, Chief Lutuli said that he would like to take the opportunity to call upon them to live up to the call of their office.
"They are a centre around which the people should rally to protect themselves from the attack of the oppressor," he said.
"Some of us hope that on reflection, Paramount Chief Botha Sigcau will see what injury he did to his own dignity and person and that of the African people, when he so prostrated himself at the feet of the oppressors on the occasion of his assuming office as chairman of the Transkeian Territorial Authority. This was an occasion when he could have shown the natural dignity of an African Chief. I would warn those of our people who have been taken in by the Bantustan fraud by saying: Apartheid in any stage or form is not for us, it is for our destruction as a people."
Beware of Provocation
Concluding, Chief Lutuli said that the oppressor, as other oppressors have done and are doing in many countries, may attempt to provoke us to violence so as to have an opportunity to mow us down with machine guns and Saracens, but if we keep faithful and observe faithfully the Congress policy of non-violence we shall make the oppressor look foolish by being armed to the teeth against an unarmed and defenceless people.
"We are not without power. Along the non-violent path, we can effectively harness our buying strength and our labour potential to defeat our enemy if we do so in the spirit of unity and determination," he said.
Here I am, caged in, in the Lower Tugela District, by the oppressor's ban on me. The confinement resulting from this ban is a painful reminder to me and to you all also that apartheid laws deny us freedom of movement.
Feudal days in Europe could not have been worse.
Fortunately, the oppressed people, here and elsewhere in Africa, are becoming increasingly aware of their plight, and are making heroic efforts to free themselves. It is gratifying to record that African women are playing an admirable part and, in close co-operation with their sisters of other races, are showing a growing aggressive opposition to serfdom.
Ever since the mighty anti-pass protests to the Union Buildings5 African women have joined Congress in large numbers and have increasingly played their part in it.
Many successful local demonstrations have been organised against the issue of the "Dom" Pass to African women.
In the attempts to boycott Bantu Education schools, women were there. As managers in the home they have contributed significantly to the recent Potato Boycott.
To the admiring surprise of many of us, including many outside Congress circles, African women in Natal for the last two months have engaged in spontaneous Natal-wide local demonstrations.
The demonstrations have highlighted many important current issues affecting Africans in urban centres and in rural areas alike. What a challenge to our Congress! The only jarring note in these demonstrations has been the appearance of violence in some areas.
Violence does nobody any good, but does our cause much harm.
We are indeed in the women's era in the liberation struggle in the Union.
The freedom road is likely to be long and weary. We shall need all the stoic fortitude and wisdom to face and surmount mountains of problems, troubles and miseries that are generally met with on the march to FREEDOM.
With the heroic contribution of our dauntless women we shall succeed, I have no doubt.
May South African women continue to play their noble and heroic part in our liberation struggle.
I charge them to use their womanly influence and tactics, to win increasingly into Congress and into the struggle, growing numbers of men. If gentle persuasion should prove unavailing, goading them to it by derisive words and actions may be used. Women are generally masters at this!
Women of other races and groups including our own, have used this tactic from time immemorial when a crisis demanded it from us.
May this Conference inspire all of you to present a dauntlessness that will enable you to defy all the fiery darts of the oppressor and even his Saracens.
The formulation and declaration by the United Nations Organisation of human rights and the fundamental freedoms was a great achievement. It marked a significant stage in human development when organised world opinion showed an acceptance of a common humanity of all men and that "all men are born equal and are entitled to civilised human standards of treatment."
Through the lead of some freedom lovers in the United States of America, Human Rights Day - December 107 - was observed in many parts of the civilised world last year.
The suggestion to have it annually found ready endorsement in many quarters including some freedom-loving groups in the Union of South Africa.
This statement is intended to urge and plead for a nation-wide observance of this day again this year.
Whatever is done, should be done in a non-sectarian way and spirit and should be a joint undertaking embracing all freedom-loving groups and individuals in that area.
To do otherwise would be contrary to the nature and spirit of the United Nations Organisation which, for all its shortcomings, tries to be a true representative forum of organised and progressive world opinion and an agency that promotes the cause of peace and freedom in the world.
The anniversary of this Declaration of Human Rights Day should have a special meaning and significance to freedom-lovers everywhere, but more so to the oppressed peoples who are cruelly and unjustly denied these rights and freedoms by the powers that be in their land, as is the case with Non-Whites in the Union of South Africa. The observance should flare up the hope in, and among, the oppressed people that the best is yet to be - and soon too!
I direct member organisations of the Congress Alliance to take the initiative where none has been taken to invite other progressive groups and leading personalities in an area to work in the joint venture to make the anniversary worthy of the noble objectives and status of the United Nations Organisation that formulated and declared these noble human rights and fundamental freedoms.
It is hoped that the observance will prick to repentance the conscience of White South Africa that believes in white supremacy, completely oblivious of the suffering this policy inflicts on the Non White peoples and the harm it does to the name of South Africa in the outside world.
MR. TRENGOVE (of the prosecution): The African National Congress was working for the overthrow of the ruling classes?
A. J. LUTULI: My Lords, the African National Congress was not working for the overthrow of the ruling classes. It was working for being given an opportunity to participate in the government of the country.
Would it be incorrect then to say that the African National Congress was working for the overthrow of the ruling classes?- My Lord, if it means that the A.N.C. was working to just get rid of the ruling class which is White and then take over a Black government, that would be incorrect.
We will come to that. The African National Congress was aiming at the seizure of power in this country? Is that correct?- That is not correct, My Lord. Again one must say that in the light of what I have said, it could only mean having an opportunity to participate inasmuch as now we are not participating in the government, but I would not interpret it to mean - in fact it has never been the purpose of the African National Congress in the light of its activities to say that it wants to seize power in the sense of throwing out the White Government and replacing it by a Black Government.
MR. TRENGOVE: You held out the view that the White electorate had certain inherent qualities of goodness and if you applied a little pressure, those good qualities would result in the White man granting you your claims?
A. J. LUTULI: Some.
Wouldn't it have to be the majority?- I think, My Lords, I did indicate in my evidence in chief that there are degrees and degrees of response, to the struggle.
I am talking of the ultimate response. Ultimately?- Ultimately, My Lord, I repeat this that we hope that we will have brought pressure on the electorate so that the majority of the electorate come to see the justice of our claims and demands.
MR. TRENGOVE: Now as a result of the pressure which you were going to bring to bear on them, what would happen, why would the pressure make the White man change his mind?
A. J. LUTULI: My Lords, I don't know that I can satisfactorily answer without going back to what I said in my evidence in chief, namely this, that I indicated there and I indicate now that you would have some of the Whites through sheer moral persuasion seeing the justice of our cause. You might have others, My Lord, who through ignorance might not have known the conditions under which we live, and maybe through prejudice, but who when they see us struggling would begin to think and think on this - think on our demands. There would still be yet another group which would only come to concede, in fact maybe reluctantly, to our demands because of the fact that you are now affecting the man's interests.
MR. TRENGOVE: This change of mind or change of heart on behalf - on the part of the white electorate, either on the grounds of moral principles or out of self-interest, you say that it was all along the purpose of the African National Congress to effect that change of heart or change of mind, call it what you will?
A. J. LUTULI: That is so.
You expect the white man to undergo this change of heart:- I do, My Lord.
And I take it you expected it only if you applied what one might call sufficient pressure?- That is so, My Lord.
Now what do you mean by applying pressure?- I mean. My Lord, applying pressure along lines clearly laid out in our Programme of Action.
We know what is contained therein. By the means set out in the Programme of Action you wanted to apply this pressure?- That is so, My Lord.
So it was not going to be a question of persuasion, it had to be pressure or coercion or intimidation of the White public, is that correct?- I don't know about the question of coercion or intimidation. All I am saying, My Lords, is this, that you would apply pressure. I don't know that you would be intimidating. You are merely applying pressure so that the man comes to consider otherwise. I don't know that you would call it intimidating. He thinks, and then he says, in the circumstances I think rather than jeopardise my interests I think I should concede.
So he wouldn't willingly concede?- I wouldn't say he would willingly concede. He would - the pressure would eventually get him to. He wouldn't be a man who starts off willingly.
MR. TRENGOVE: Incendiarism, is that a type of pressure that you think one could bring to bear on the public or the government to change its policies.
A. J. LUTULI: No, My Lord.
What about burning of passes?- My Lords. I don't know that I would - well, it depends upon interpretation, but the question of burning a pass to me, if I may elaborate, is an entirely different proposition. I come to a position where I feel that in this country, South Africa ought to be free, I ought not to carry a pass. I come to the position when I feel that in order to demonstrate that, I must subject myself to whatever the law might do to me, and I just throw away my pass. That is all there is to it. In fact I am exerting pressure on no one, I am merely saying now as evidence of the fact that I hate a pass, I get rid of it.
Anything you hate you can set a light to?- I wouldn't say that, some things I would set a light to. I wouldn't say everything.
You said on Friday that you were against the burning of passes by individuals?- Yes.
If it took place on a mass scale then it would be different?- I did.
Do you still adhere to that view?- I do.
Did you on occasion in the past commend the burning of passes where it took place in isolated instances?- I didn't.
Leaving out what happened over the weekend, prior to that, had there been burning of passes by Africans?- There had been in past years and even in recent years, there have been instances where Africans have burnt passes.
You say that doesn't carry your approval?- It doesn't carry my approval, for reasons that I think I gave.
MR. TRENGOVE: On the question of burning of passes, do you know if that type of certificate was issued by the African National Congress to women who burnt passes? That bears your signature at the bottom?
A. J. LUTULI: That is so, My Lord.
And also the signature of Nokwe?- That is so.
And what does it say?- "African National Congress. Award of Merit. This award is conferred upon Johanna Moketeli in the name of the oppressed people of South Africa for outstanding service given in a spirit of selflessness and courage in resisting oppression on the occasion of the Anti-Pass Campaign, 1958 pass burning. By this service the day of liberation from oppression has been brought closer. Signed A. J. Lutuli, President-General. D. Nokwe, Secretary-General."
Have you any comment to make?- I have no comment to make, save this My Lord, that quite frankly I had forgotten about the recent demonstration by women, when I said I don't recall in recent years-but I recall this.
What do you mean recent? 1958?- Yes, recent.
So that you did approve of the burning of passes in isolated areas in previous years?- My Lord. I don't know that I would take the situation here as having been an isolated case. If the questioner knows the situation - at the time women throughout the country were agitating greatly and we supported them, as African National Congress, against passes. Now some of the women in that struggle voluntarily, without any instructions from us, burnt their passes, and I wouldn't take that really as an isolated instance as an individual or a group burning a pass. Mind you, I think I must make it quite clear that insofar as the principle is concerned I am not against it. It was merely a question of saying well, if you do burn a pass, it must be furthering the struggle, and I would interpret this as having
been help in furthering the struggle, insofar as the pass in concerned.
MR. TRENGOVE: Assuming that the White people said that they were not prepared to grant a full franchise immediately, what would the attitude of the African National Congress have been at this time, 1952 to 1956?
A. J. LUTULI: My Lords, all I can say to that is this, that as I have already indicated, the African National Congress had not discussed compromises, and I would not be truthful if I were to say now the African National Congress would do this, because I would not know. I might have my own views, but I cannot say the African National Congress would do this, because we had not come to the position of discussing compromises as we had not reached that stage at all. That is all that I can say, My Lords.
Now the position is this, and you know it very well, that the African National Congress - that this very question was considered by the African National Congress and its attitude was no compromise with the oppressor and no achievement of freedom by gradualistic reforms. You wanted full freedom immediately or nothing else?- My Lords, it is possible that there would be statements and maybe many statements by African National Congress leaders and documents, to that effect. But one must realise My Lords, the stage at which we are in the struggle. In other words, you must tell the people exactly where you stand and what you want. I do not think, My Lords, any leader can say to his people at the time of making the demands, I want this, but I'll take this.
BY MR. JUSTICE KENNEDY:
Why not, Mr. Lutuli?- I think you want to make your case very clear to your followers and to the world.
Did you not consider saying while we demand or desire full rights, we are prepared to negotiate in regard thereto and compromise about this?- No, My Lord. We - with respect, My Lords, we would say generally I think that in a situation such as ours of a struggle, you make your demand as strongly as you can, and wait to react to proposals. My Lords, I must say this that we have as an organisation, the A.N.C., made overtures to the Government, not on demands but to sit down and discuss. We have made those overtures ourselves, My Lord.
MR. TRENGOVE: Now, you did not regard the white oppressor as being fair and reasonable; you regarded the white oppressor as being vicious and brutal?
A. J. LUTULI: A section.
The ruling section; the majority?- The majority, yes.
MR. TRENGOVE: Yes; and you also propagated the view - the African National Congress - that the white majority would resist pressure to the point of drowning the whole country in blood?
A. J. LUTULI: I wouldn't say the African National Congress said so. You might hear individuals saying so, I won't deny that, but I don't think it was ever said by the African National Congress - never.
MR. TRENGOVE: Mr. Lutuli, let's just examine the replies that you've been giving in the last quarter of an hour in the light of what is stated in this document, "No Easy Walk to Freedom" [by Mandela, Document 2]& Then at the bottom of page 4 the writer states, "The cumulative effect of all these measures is to prop up and perpetuate the artificial and decaying policy of the white man. The attitude of the Government to us is that 'Let's beat them down with guns and batons and trample them underneath our feet.' 'We must be ready to drown the whole country in blood, if only there is the slightest chance of preserving white supremacy.'" Now, Mr. Lutuli, that was the attitude of the African National Congress towards the reaction of the White majority in this country, if pressure is applied?
A. J. LUTULI: My Lords, that would be the view of the writer, but not of the African National Congress. I have already said so. I have already stated the view of the African National Congress. Its aim is not to try and force the Government to shed blood; it hoped the Government would see reason before that but if the Government doesn't see reason and goes on - I have already said the oppressed people will carry on their struggle, within the framework of the policy of the Organisation.
MR. TRENGOVE: Do you regard the publication of this type of statement as dangerous?
A. J. LUTULI: I would say that I could wish my colleagues had been a little more careful. I'd leave it on that basis.
Why, Mr. Lutuli?- The use of words and statements are liable to give a wrong point of view, a wrong interpretation of Congress view.
Yes, but what is wrong with this type of statement; what harm can it do?- I've already indicated, My Lords, that this last particular statement as given me might have the interpretation that the Government would go on shedding blood and never coming to the point which I've already tried to tell this Court, that one always expects, even before the Government starts shooting - it might negotiate. Some other Government might do so. It depends upon the Government. But it's not our aim to say "I must force this Government to a position where it starts shooting," far from it.
MR. TRENGOVE: Mr. Lutuli, I would now ask you to listen to a tape recording of a speech made by Resha9 on the 22nd November, 1956. The speech was made at 37 West Street, which was the offices of the African National Congress, is that correct, those were the offices?
A. J. LUTULI: That is correct.
And Mr. Lutuli, it was a secret meeting, at which only certain delegates who presented their credentials were allowed to be present&
TAPE RECORDING OF RESHA'S SPEECH PLAYED TO WITNESS [saying, "if you are a true volunteer and you are called upon to be violent, you must be absolutely violent, you must murder! Murder! That is all."]
Mr. Lutuli, you have listened to what the Crown alleges to be the voice of Resha who was really the Supreme Commander of the 50,000 top brigade of volunteers. Now would you just - you heard this speech? - I have, My Lords.
Do you agree that it is a subversive speech? It is a speech inciting people to violent action?- My Lords, I will not say subversive because I don't know the legal meaning, but it is a violent speech, it is a very violent speech.
Did you hear the reaction of the people to whom he was speaking? - Yes, I heard.
And what was that reaction? - They applauded.
[The prosecution stated that E. P. Moretsele, chairman of the Transvaal ANC, presided at the meeting and that Duma Nokwe and Leslie Masina were among those present.]
MR. TRENGOVE: Now do you know why these people tolerate this violent speech and applauded it?
A. J. LUTULI: No, My Lords, I wouldn't know.
Is it entirely inconsistent with your alleged policy of non-violence?- In parts it is, yes.
Now Mr. Lutuli, did any of the members of the National Executive or anybody ever take any steps about this speech?- My Lords, I wouldn't know to what extent the Executive - the National Executive became aware of the speech. I wouldn't know. I was not aware of it, I don't know how many were aware of it, other than those who were there at the meeting, I wouldn't know.
Now having listened to the speech, are you shocked to hear that a speech of this nature was made?- There are some parts that shock me. There are some parts what one might call a fighting speech, but there are some parts that I absolutely don't like at all.
MR. TRENGOVE: You see, Mr. Lutuli, if the Volunteer-in-Chief makes that type of speech, who is in a better position to know what the duties are of a volunteer than the Volunteer-in-Chief?
A. J. LUTULI: Oh no, that doesn't follow. If I may make an illustration, My Lords, I don't know about army technique and things like that, but surely if a General were to do something that is not right, I don't think it can be said that therefore in fact the whole policy must now be aligned to what that particular General who is wrong, does. I wouldn't accept that proposition.
I am not asking you to approve of what he did. I want to know who was in a better position than Resha to know what the duties of a volunteer are? Was there any person in a better position than Resha?- No, there wouldn't be any person in a better position than Resha to know the duties, that is true, that is quite true.
And I put it to you Mr. Lutuli that Resha made this speech and he gave those instructions to the volunteers because that was exactly what volunteers were expected to do? And you know that?- I don't. I don't. Because Resha would be expected to lead the volunteers along the policy of Congress. Now if Resha as a General departs, he departs as Resha. It has nothing to do with the policy of the African National Congress, definitely.
And judging by the reaction of the people whom he addressed, do you think they thought he was departing from policy?- My Lords, it is difficult to say about the whole meeting, a group of people. No doubt it was a time when feelings were very high, and their applauding actuated by the feeling in the circumstances might be interpreted as approving. On the other hand, My Lord, insofar as the meeting applauding it would not necessarily be to say they are applauding the violent aspects. My Lord, I wouldn't really go as far as that. As I have already indicated, I don't approve, it would be contrary to Congress policy, and if they were applauding that part, then they are wrong. But on the other hand, My Lords, I think I am right in saying it was a time when the feelings of the people were high and therefore they could have been - applauding, actuated by the emotions of the times, not necessarily saying we are foregoing Congress policy. I am talking now of the crowd as a whole, My Lord.
MR. TRENGOVE: Now Mr. Lutuli, do I understand you correctly that you say that the only explanation you can give for the speech that Resha made was that he was deviating from policy because he was inciting or making a violent speech?
A. J. LUTULI: That is correct, My Lord.
And you can't suggest any reason why in those circumstances he should have done it?- My Lords, I wouldn't be able to say why in those circumstances he did it, and I don't like to advance excuses at all. I have said in general it was a tense moment, but I should think that even in a tense moment a responsible person should be able to hold himself.
MR. TRENGOVE: & I just want you to explain one or two matters which you already dealt with but which I am still unable to follow. The first one was that the people shall govern. According to that the attitude of the African National Congress was that everybody should have the vote, irrespective of sex, irrespective of colour?
A. J. LUTULI: That is correct.
And there was to be no - apart from perhaps a qualification as to age, there was to be no other qualification?- That is correct, My Lord.
So that every person would be entitled to participate in parliamentary elections?- That is correct.
Now that was a claim on which the African National Congress was not prepared to compromise in any way?- That is correct, My Lord.
So that if there were any negotiation at any stage, that had to be conceded as fundamental?- I wouldn't go as far as that, My Lord, because when you come to negotiation, My Lords, there are several factors to consider, and I could not here from the witness box anticipate and say now this might happen. But let me illustrate a possibility, just a possibility, to indicate how difficult it would be in a witness box to say it would be this, a thing that has not been discussed. Supposing the government of the country came along and said look, we now accept in principle your demand for universal adult franchise, we accept it. But, we cannot implement that next year. We will have to consider certain factors because the country has been run after all on this basis, we will have to consider. Now my Lords, I take it that negotiators there would have to sit down or rather go and report back to other leaders, and the leaders would consider in the light of what the government says, so that I cannot say My Lords that - what will take place, but it is definitely a clear goal that we are striking for, uncompromisingly. On the other hand, supposing the government had to say now well, we have called you here, we want to improve wages and things like that.
We are just dealing with the vote?- Yes, but I am just giving an illustration, you touched on negotiation. And then they were to say well, insofar as the vote is concerned now we don't feel we can. I think the negotiators would simply say right away oh no, so far as that is concerned, we think that is a fundamental issue. Thank you for whatever you may do in the economic field, we are not throwing that away, but insofar as this is concerned, - so you see, one really can't anticipate and say what will happen at negotiation.
MR. TRENGOVE: Mr. Lutuli, negotiation was never contemplated, and you know that?
A. J. LUTULI: It has been all along anticipated. My Lord, even at this moment, we would be very, very happy if the government would take up the attitude of saying, come let us discuss. We would be extremely happy, in fact even to discuss, even if at the end of the discussions we didn't agree.
Mr. Lutuli, it is sheer hypocrisy to make a statement like that and you know it. That was never your attitude?- You may be allowed in Court, I don't know what your rights are, but to call one a hypocrite, really it does hurt. And I will defend myself, My Lords, although if I recall at the time when I was being led by Counsel, reference was made to the fact that I wrote as President-General of the African National Congress a letter in 1957 with - to the Prime Minister, pleading exactly for what I am saying here now, and for me to be called a hypocrite, publicly be called a hypocrite, well Counsel has the right to say so, but it does hurt one.
MR. TRENGOVE: Mr. Lutuli, I want to put it to you that you and the whole Congress movement, you accepted the position that the Freedom Charter was a revolutionary document, and that it couldn't be put into effect without breaking up the whole political and economic set-up of the present South Africa, that is correct, is it not?
A. J. LUTULI: I think that is generally correct.
And that one would have, once the demands are put into effect, one would have a state which differs radically and fundamentally from the present state?- My Lords, I think in some respects. I think that if you read the whole of the Freedom Charter, My Lords, you will find that the demands made in the Freedom Charter [are] as such demands really, My Lord, that you get in any bill of rights. For an example, I think that if you were to make comparisons with the Freedom Charter, you will find that.
I am not asking you to compare it with anything else. I am asking you to compare it with the present political and economic structure of the Union?- I am saying that in some respects there are radical changes, in others they wouldn't be so radical.
Mr. Lutuli, I also want to put it to you that you never expected that the White oppressor would ever accept your demands and concede your demands?- My Lords, I wouldn't be in Congress if I didn't expect that White South Africa would some day reconsider. That is my honest belief, and one has grounds for it. I think I have already indicated them, but I firmly believe that White South Africa will one day reconsider. When, My Lords, I cannot say.
But you were not prepared to wait for that one day. You were telling the people now, not next year or any other year, now. Your - leading members of your organisations said within a matter of five years. You weren't going to wait for the White electorate to change their minds and you know that, Mr. Lutuli?- I think that the Prosecutor in my view, My Lords, is really putting a wrong construction into a phrase or motto intended to gear people's determination.
[This statement was to have been made to the court before the passing of sentence, after which I had been found guilty of burning my pass, guilty of disobeying a law by way of protest, and not guilty of incitement. At the time I voluntarily accepted the advice of my lawyers, and because of the very poor state of my health I did not make it. I am still not sure whether I made the right decision. I place it on record here and leave the reader to decide. Whether he applauds or derides, he will know what I feel.]
I stand before you, your Worship, charged with the destruction of my Reference Book (or Pass) and because of that with the crime of inciting my people to do the same. I have pleaded legally not guilty to all the charges.
What I did, I did because I, together with the overwhelming majority of my people, condemn the pass system as the cause of much evil and suffering among us. We charge that it is nothing less than an instrument of studied degradation and humiliation of us as a people, a badge of slavery, a weapon used by the authorities to keep us in a position of inferiority.
It cannot be very easy for you, sir, to understand the very deep hatred all Africans feel for a pass. I say this not as a mark of disrespect to your person, sir, but because only a direct experience and contact with a pass and all that it means can make one really understand and appreciate the justice of our charge against the evil thing, the pass. We are deeply conscious of, and grateful for, the fact that there is a growing number of fellow white South Africans who appreciate our situation and feel deeply about it; but they, too, can never really fully understand the depth of our suffering. Can anyone who has not gone through it possibly imagine what has happened when they read in the Press of a routine police announcement that there has been a pass raid in a location? The fear of the loud, rude bang on the door in the middle of the night, the bitter humiliation of an undignified search, the shame of husband and wife being huddled out of bed in front of their children by the police and taken off to the police cell.
If there is a law in any country in the whole wide world which makes it a crime in many instances for husband and wife to live together, which separates eighteen-year-olds from their parents, I have yet to learn of it. But the pass does so in the Union of South Africa.
Each year half a million of my people are arrested under the pass laws. Government Annual Reports tell of this tragic story. But statistics can tell only half the tale. The physical act of arrest and detention with the consequence of a broken home, a lost job, a loss of earnings, is only part of this grim picture. The deep humiliation felt by a black man, whether he be a labourer, an advocate, a nurse, a teacher or a professor, or even a minister of religion, when, over and over again, he hears the shout, "Kaffir, where is your pass? - Kaffir, waar's jo paas?" fills in the rest of this grim picture.
Our feelings about the pass laws are not new or something born in recent years. The whole history of the African people since Union is studded with our complaints, petitions, mass demonstrations, pass burnings, etc.
In all these campaigns, sir, over the years, other sections of the South African population have gradually come to see the justice of our claim that the Pass Laws are oppressive in the extreme. One way or another, large and varied sections of the population have come to understand that the well-being of South Africa, no less than the cause of humanity and justice, demands the abolition or the drastic curtailment of these laws. I will refer you, sir, only to such well-known facts as these: that in the war years the late Mr. Deneys Reitz, then Minister of Native Affairs, spoke publicly of the need to repeal these laws, and in fact, for a time, virtually suspended the system of summary arrest on which these laws are based; then in 1948 the Fagan Commission, presided over by a man who as Minister of Native Affairs had administered these laws, and as judge had punished those who broke them, recommended a drastic revision and curtailment; that in more recent years these views have been echoed by churches, by the South African Institute of Race Relations, by at least two recognised political parties in the country, the Liberal Party and the Progressive Party, and by many hundreds of people and organisations of different kinds. In fact, sir, most public commissions appointed since 1912 by successive governments have been, to say the least, highly critical of it. World opinion generally has been critical too, and some sections of it, at times, outspokenly condemnatory. It has been a cause of regret and even bitterness amongst our people that in spite of such widespread condemnation, internal and external, of the inhumanity of these laws, the present Government has not only not seen fit to curtail or abolish them, but has extended and intensified their operation, cancelled all exemptions from these laws and, to add insult to injury, extended them, for the first time in the history of our country, to our womenfolk. All this is done in terms of the "Abolition of Passes and the Co-ordination of Documents Act." We are asked to be grateful for this. Grateful for what? For stitching neatly into a single book various pieces of paper formerly needed to comply with the law. If this is not contempt for our national feelings, sir, it must be cruel mockery.
Each year since the so-called "Abolition of Passes Act" came into effect more of our people have been arrested for pass law offences. We do not have to read the Government Blue Books or Statistics to know this. Almost every African family knows this to their cost from their family experience.
It has long been clear to us in the Liberatory Movement that this Government action, to enforce and extend these laws, would increase tension between the African people and the Government and further strain white-black relations to the injury of the true interests and welfare of our country.
I do not want to comment much on the tragic events that occurred on 21st March of this year at Sharpeville, save to say merely this. All versions of this shocking event agree that the crowd which collected at the Police Station in Sharpeville did so because of - and only because of - the Pass Laws. All that is in dispute is whether people came to hear an official statement on the future of the Pass Laws or to demonstrate against these laws. Whichever version may be true, the end was an event which shocked and horrified every decent South African, black and white, and outraged the world. A large number of my people lost their lives, and a much larger number were wounded. If ever the cup of bitterness against the Pass Laws ran over, it was then. It was with deep feelings of disgust for the Pass Laws that many people, black and white throughout the country, responded magnificently to the A.N.C. call to observe a National Day of Mourning to mourn these late victims of the Pass Laws and for Africans to burn their passes.
In such an atmosphere it is understandable that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Africans, to show their mourning, voluntarily destroyed the symbol of bondage and burnt their passes; spontaneously, without urging, sir, many, many did so.
For me, sir, the situation demanded a momentous decision. I felt it my inescapable duty to give meaning to the Congress call to observe in a peaceful way the Day of Mourning and to bear witness in a practical way to our abhorrence for a pass. I saw no other effective peaceful way than to burn my own pass. This I did.
There comes a time, sir, when a leader must give as practical a demonstration of his convictions and willingness to live up to the demands of the cause, as he expects of his people. I felt that was the hour in our history, and in my life, for this demonstration. I am not sorry nor ashamed of what I did. I could not have done less than I did and still live with my conscience. I would rightly lose the confidence of my people, and earn the disrespect of right-thinking people in my country and in the world, and the disdain of posterity.
In all humility, I say that I acted as was my duty in response to the highest moral law in the best interest of the people of South Africa, because I am convinced that the urgent need of our country, for the maintenance of peace and harmony amongst the various races, black and white, is the immediate and wholesale abolition of the pass. It is my firm belief that it is the duty of all right-thinking people, black and white, who have the true interest of our country at heart, to strive for this without flinching.
The result of the General Election has brought about no real change. If anything, it has given the Nationalist Party a much firmer mandate to press ahead with its apartheid, Bantustan policy.
The result was not unexpected. White South Africa has once again rejected the hand of friendship that has been extended to it by the Non-White peoples. Once again it has withdrawn itself into the laager of white baaskap.
Even the limited programme of integration proposed by the Progressive Party has been rejected, except by a very small minority of the electorate.
Yet, thinking South Africans should realise that a blank cheque of another five years to the Nationalists means five years of strife and bitterness between the various racial groups that make up our South African population: five years of living on the brink of States of Emergencies; five years of increasing economic difficulties for both the working man and the businessman; five years of further attacks against South Africa by the democracy-loving peoples of the world.
What is more it means five years of pistol clubs for the White womenfolk and added expenditure from an already strained budget to arm almost the entire White race in South Africa.
Now that the Government has been given a further mandate to pursue its ideological programme of so-called separate development for the Non-White peoples through the establishment of Bantu Authorities, Urban Bantu Councils, Coloured Advisory Boards and Indian Affairs Departments it is inconceivable that the Non-Whites who have repeatedly stated that compartmentalisation is detrimental to their interests and, in the long run, detrimental also to the interests of South Africa as a whole, will passively allow the Government to pursue this policy, which is the very antithesis of democratic form of government.
These schemes are being offered by the Government as an alternative to full democratic rights and will never be acceptable to the people, who will reject anything less than full franchise on a common roll for all in South Africa.
South Africa cannot live in a vacuum - it cannot live in isolation from the rest of the world. In recent years we have seen the growth of a number of countries that have been granted independence, not far from our own borders. The effect of such independence must have a marked effect on the voteless majority in our own country.
This, taken together with the attitude of abhorrence to apartheid expressed clearly and unequivocally by the majority of the free nations of the world at the United Nations, must undoubtedly give rise to an increase in the political consciousness of the oppressed masses of South Africa.
In the coming period it can be expected that the Nationalists will show an arrogance and intransigence beyond anything the country has experienced in the past - and that, in the light of thirteen years of Nationalist mis-rule, is saying something. If they have paid little attention to the Parliamentary opposition in the past they will ignore them completely in the future.
For progressive South Africans - White and Non-White - there can only be one course of action. Where the official Parliamentary opposition as represented by the United Party continues on the road of dishonourable compromise, we must reaffirm our principles.
We cannot and must not look to Parliament for any redress for the many economic and political problems that beset us.
All truly anti-Nationalist Parties - and here I want to include the Progressives, but not the United Party - must make common cause with the extra-Parliamentary force as represented by the Non-Whites in the country, on a limited programme viz., that of defeating the Nationalists.
Let me re-state the fundamentals on which such a broad united front could be built:
This short-term, four-point programme could rally the entire Non-White population and could, I am confident, win significant support from the White population as well. I use this opportunity to call on all organisations, Black and White, African and European, Indian and Coloured, who subscribe to this programme to work unceasingly for the establishment of a United Front as suggested.
Time for Action
The struggle ahead is dark and difficult but this is not the time to bemoan the fact; this is not the time to turn away from the hard road of struggle.
On the contrary, this is the time to stand firm and face the oppressor with a united and unquenchable determination to be free from apartheid slavery.
The people's cause is just; White baaskap must be replaced with interracial co-operation. This is the century of the common man. All over the world the oppressed peoples are freeing themselves from the shackles of imperialism and exploitation. More and more African states are reaching out for independence. Many are already free.
It is Verwoerd and not the common man in South Africa who is out of step with this mighty world trend.
No minority tyranny in history ever survived the opposition of the majority. Nor will it survive in South Africa. The victory which the votes have given Verwoerd bears testimony to their fear that the end of White Supremacy is very near.
Let us take heart, therefore, in the knowledge that the Non-White peoples are not alone. There is a growing number among South Africa's White population that realise that the Non-White cannot forever remain "the hewer of wood and the drawer of water." All over the world the common man and even governments are rallying to our cause.
Let us go forward with hope and courage and fight the Nats on every front.
FORWARD TO A NATIONAL CONVENTION!
FORWARD TO A FREE AND DEMOCRATIC SOUTH AFRICA!
Congratulations to New Age and its predecessors. Twenty-five years of uninterrupted production is an achievement that is remarkable for the progressive press of any country. It is even more so in the case of New Age and its predecessors which have had to face all the hardships imposed against them by successive Governments.
Despite arrests of members of its staff and bannings, New Age and its predecessors have regularly come out, not giving in on any basic question affecting the civil and political rights of any person, black or white, in this country.
Since my advent into active politics I have found New Age to be forthright and brave.
I have not always agreed with everything it says, but on questions affecting the Non-White people in South Africa, New Age has been and continues to be, the fighting mouthpiece of African aspirations.
I sincerely trust that in the future, too, New Age will play its part in exposing the rottenness of the society in which we live and to this end, I want to add my best wishes to the paper and all members of its staff, from the Editor downwards.
More power to your pens, gentlemen, the people need you as much as they need their organisations.
The struggle to which you have dedicated yourselves must triumph. Forward to a non-racial democratic South Africa in which colour bars and discrimination between man and man will be a thing of the past.
"The violence and terror that could be unleashed by the Government against all its opponents once it is armed with the draconian powers implicit in the Sabotage Bill may, I fear, ultimately lead to bloodshed and even open revolt by the oppressed people - a situation which we have worked so hard to avoid," said Chief A. J. Lutuli&
In an exclusive interview with New Age, Chief Lutuli said that he had already made an earnest appeal to all leaders - both black and white - to come together with a view to forming a broad united front so as to rouse the whole of South Africa against "the fascist measure."
"I am pleased to state that already my appeal, which has been published in a Durban daily, has had good response. Roman Catholic Archbishop Rt. Rev. Dennis Hurley, Dr. Alan Paton, Mr. P. R. Pather, President of the South African Indian Organisation, Dr. Naicker, President of the S.A.I.C14. and others have informed me that they are willing to serve on such a committee," he said.
Reiterating his appeal for a united front, Chief Lutuli asked: "In the face of this fascist measure can anyone doubt the role that democracy-loving people should play in view of this Nazi conspiracy to destroy the last vestiges of freedom in South Africa?
"Is it not time to close our ranks in the face of this threat by the Government to rule us by terror?"
"The broadest possible united front of all anti-Nationalist forces is an inescapable priority - NOW!
"Tomorrow may be too late!" he declared.
[Chief Lutuli named the people he would like on such a united front. Amongst others he said he would like to see, the following on such a joint committee: Ex-Chief Justices, Hon. Mr. Centlivers and the Hon. Mr. Fagan, Sir De Villiers Graaff and Dr. Steytler, Dr. Paton of the Liberal Party and Rev. Mahabane of IDAMF, Dr. G. M. Naicker, President of the S.A.I.C. and Mr. P. R. Pather, President of the S.A.I.O., Paramount Chief Sabata and Dr. van der Ross of the Coloured Convention Movement, Archbishop Dennis Hurley and Archbishop Jooste de Blanc, Mr. Basson, Mr. Leon Levy, President of SACTU and Mr. L. C. Scheepers, President of the T.U.C., Canon Zulu and J. N. Singh, banned Vice President of the South African Indian Congress.]
[Chief Lutuli said that it was no coincidence that he has chosen New Age to make this statement. "New Age has already been threatened under the Sabotage Bill with banning and I have decided to make this statement to your paper precisely because it is read by the politically conscious peoples of South Africa, and because it may appear in the last issue of this most valuable fighter for freedom and democracy in this country," he said. His statement continued:]
On the occasion of June 26, 1962, I want to address my message to all sections of the South African population - both Black and White. I want to address it to the peasants in the country-side and the workers in the factories. I want to address it to the Chiefs and the leaders of the all-White political parties, to the intellectuals and students, to the religious leaders of all denominations and religious groups.
In the atmosphere in which we live it is imperative that all those who value freedom should make common cause and with courage and determination face the threat which the Nationalist Government has imposed upon us by the introduction of the Sabotage Bill.
There can be no compromise in our struggle to make South Africa a truly democratic country, and in the coming fight against the monstrous Sabotage Bill which aims at destroying all vestiges of freedom in this country there can be no neutrals. The choice before South Africa is open unadulterated fascism or full democracy for all.
In this situation a greater responsibility rests with White South Africans. By the nature of things they are in the ruling group and it is in their name that all this evil is being done.
This does not mean that the Non-White peoples must now hope for their salvation through the ballot box. Theirs is the role of continuing the struggle, which began with our forefathers. They must draw inspiration from the great battles and the sacrifices of Tshaka and Moshesh, of Gandhi and Hintsa. They must also draw inspiration from our more recent martyrs who fell at Sharpeville and Langa, at Pondoland and Cato Manor, at Zeerust and Sekhukhuneland.
They must draw inspiration from the hundreds who rot in exile in the far corners of our beloved country and those who languish in prison because of their love for freedom. They must draw inspiration from their many gallant leaders who have been gagged and restricted because of their role in the struggle for freedom for all in South Africa.
In the dark and difficult days that lie ahead of us, we must not only draw inspiration from our martyrs for freedom - past and present - we must also re-dedicate ourselves for the bitter fight ahead. We cannot and must not allow fascism to take root in our beloved country. We must not allow the despotism and degradation that befell the peoples of Nazi Germany, Fascist Spain and Portugal.
It is only the determined will of the people that can stop this dangerous trend in South African politics.
I call on the people not to be despondent. The battle has long been joined. It is not the beginning of our fight for liberation, but the beginning of the end of our struggle.
The future may look black and the problems insurmountable, but history has many examples which teach us that no power on earth could stop a determined and courageous people. History also teaches us that no power on earth could stop progress - and our struggle is for progress.
Raise the Banner!
Join your respective organisations and help organise the unorganised peoples, instil courage into the waverers and determination into those who are with us and finally, but most important, unite with all anti-Nationalist forces in this country so that jointly we can march forward to a glorious free and democratic South Africa, free from all the evils of apartheid and race barriers, free from want and fear.
Raise the banner of democracy high and proudly say to the world: "We are not defeated by this Sabotage Bill. We have dedicated ourselves to the fight for freedom and until it is won we shall continue no matter what the cost. We shall lay down our lives, if need be, for what is the use of living in darkness and terror."
FIFA - the world soccer body has suspended the all-White South African Football Association from international football for the second year in succession Reason: SOUTH AFRICA'S COLOUR POLICY.
The International Olympics Association will give serious consideration to the continued participation of White South African athletes in future Olympics. Reason: SOUTH AFRICA'S COLOUR POLICY!
In every field of sport South Africa's colour policy is under fire& Sportsmen throughout the world are taking action against South African participation because of the colour bar practised by the all-White sporting representatives of this country. Sportsmen of the world condemn apartheid in sport!
In South Africa, however, whilst there has been some measure of opposition to the colour bar in sport, many thousands of people continue to patronise all-White sporting events Recently in Durban, nearly 20,000 non-Whites - mainly Indians, paying almost R4,000 attended an all-White soccer match at Kingsmead. They sat in segregated enclosures.
Similarly in other centres and in all fields of sport we find thousands of non-Whites making huge contributions to witness all-White events sponsored by organisations which refuse to end apartheid in their ranks.
What does this mean in effect? It means those amongst us who attend such racially exclusive events are in fact - morally and financially - supporting the perpetuation of apartheid.
Whilst we appreciate that the vast majority of those who attend such apartheid sporting events are in no way supporters of apartheid and all its attendant evils, we would like them to take into account the abhorrence with which apartheid is held internationally and by the Non-White peoples of South Africa.
Is it not time for South African sportsmen - players, athletes, administrators and spectators, both Black and White, to sacrifice this one pleasure and in so doing support their own non-racial organisations in the fight against apartheid?
In the apartheid atmosphere in which we live in this country this seems to us an urgent and important matter. The question is: do you support racialism in sport? Each person must ask himself this question, honestly and sincerely - without any rationalisation - and then decide what steps he is going to take in the future.