From the book: Passive Resistance 1946 - A Selection of Documents compiled by E.S. Reddy & Fatima Meer

United Nations Organisations

1946

India Acts - Trade Sanctions to aid South African struggle

The Government of India has given notice to the Union Government that, in consequence of the refusal to hold a Round Table Conference to discuss the pending anti-Indian legislation, trade relations will be broken off between the two countries.

Commenting on the decision in Bombay, Mr. Sorabjee Rustomjee, leader of the South African delegation in India, said: "We are not entirely satisfied." He demanded the withdrawal of the High Commissioner in South Africa.

Aga Khan presents memo to Viceroy to call for Round Table Talks

Led by the Aga Khan, the South African delegation this week presented a memorandum to the Viceroy, Lord Wavell, which said:

"There are many historical precedents that when members of a race have gone and settled in another country and have been subjected to unfair treatment, the mother country has supported them, even to the extent of going to war. We are appealing to the Field Marshal, who is one of the world's famous creators of the League of Nations' original constitution and the UNO's Security Charter which is to bring peace to the world, to be true to his principles. We are asking for a definite procedure of settlement in keeping with the ideals advocated by none more ably or consistently than Field Marshal Smuts."

India to bring the issue of oppression of Indians in South Africa before UNO

The Indian Government is to take steps to bring the issue of the oppression of South African Indians by the Union Government before the United Nations Organisation.

Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar, Leader of the House, in the Central Assembly this week, announced the decision amid cheers.

He added that the High Commissioner for India in South Africa "would be returning to India" very shortly.

Nehru vs Smuts before UNO?

The South African delegates who have returned from India and England feel confident that the General Assembly of UNO will deal with the South African Indian case when it meets in New York 'Member. India will raise the matter and it is expected that other countries whose nationals are affected by the definition of the term "Asiatic" in the Act, will add their objections. It is hoped that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who is the next likely Foreign Minister in a National Government of India, will be India's spokesman at UNO. Speaking at the welcome meeting on Sunday, Mr. S.R. Naidoo said that there was no difference of opinion in India about the issue being placed before the UNO. "The testing time for South Africa has come. If she claims that she is democratic and civilised, she will have to stand her trial before the UNO."

"I would like," Mr. Rustomjee said, "to see Nehru and General Smuts crossing swords at UNO."

Letter from the Delegation of India to the United Nations, Addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting the inclusion of an item, "Treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa" , on the Agenda of the General Assembly, 22 June 1946

Mr. Trygve Lie
Secretary-General
United Nations
New York, N.Y.

22 June 1946

Dear Mr. Secretary-General

I am directed by my government to submit forthwith to you, as Secretary-General of the United Nations Organisation, the request of my government that the question of the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa be included in the provisional agenda for the second part of the first session of the General Assembly, which is to be held on 3 September 1946. A brief resume of the case is given below:

1. Indians in South Africa, mostly residing in Natal province, number about a quarter of million as against two and a quarter million Europeans. They are mostly descendants of labourers who proceeded to South Africa between 1860 and 1911 under the agreement between the government of India and the then government of Natal and of traders who migrated in wake of indentured labourers prior to 1913. Although one of the conditions of the arrangement was that labourers would be allowed to live as free men, enjoying all rights and privileges of citizenship, Indian settlers in South Africa have progressively suffered discrimination and deprivation of elementary rights ever since 1885. Amongst their disabilities are lack of parliamentary and municipal franchise, restriction of rights of ownership and occupation of property, restriction on trading, employment in public services, and travel, and lack of education facilities. Discrimination against Indians reached its climax in recent enactment of Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act, which is designed to segregate Indians into particular areas, for residence and for ownership and occupation of fixed property.

2.Government of India, being a party to arrangements which resulted in Indian emigration to South Africa, has felt continuing responsibility and has from time to time intervened on behalf of Indians with South African government. The latter has frequently sought the Indian government's comment and advice on proposals affecting Indians in South Africa. On two occasions, namely in 1926 and 1932, there were formal round-table conferences between the two governments. In the former year over the question of segregation of Indians, agreement known as Cape Town Agreement was concluded between the two governments and in 1932 joint statement was issued to the effect that Cape Town Agreement was to continue and there should be continued cooperation between the two governments. Principle of segregation was, however, again embodied in Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Bill, but the South African government rejected suggestion of Indian government for another round-table conference to explore means of amicable settlement of outstanding questions. Passage of this bill into law constitutes unilateral repudiation of the Cape Town Agreement and of joint statement of 1932.

3. Reactions to these measures have been so serious in India that the government of India has had to give notice of termination of trade agreement between the two countries and recall their High Commissioner for consultation.

4. A situation has thus arisen which is likely to impair friendly relations between India and South Africa, and under Articles 10 and 14 of the Charter is submitted for consideration of General Assembly.

A detailed factual memorandum dealing with this subject is being sent to you by my government.

I remain, etc.

(signed) A. Ramaswami Mudaliar

Leader of the Indian Delegation to the General

Assembly, and Member, Government of India

Smuts to face Indian woman at UNO

General Smuts will face an Indian woman when he appears at the UNO to defend South Africa's treatment of the Indian people, for the Indian delegation which will present India's case before the UNO will be led by Pandit Nehru's sister, Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pandit, who is also Minister of Public Health in the United Provinces. A Sapa message states that the delegation will include the former Agent-General in South Africa, Sir Raza Ali, and the liberal leader. Pandit H. N. Kunzru. The fact that Sir Raza Ali will go to the UNO is an indication that whatever the internal differences in India, all Indian statesmen are united in espousing the abuse of the Indians in South Africa. Sir Raza Ali, having renounced the British honour, is now plain Mr. Ali. Both Mr. Ali and Pandit Hirdaynath Kunzru are well acquainted with the position of the Indian people overseas. Mr. Ali has first hand experience of the treatment which is meted out to South African Indians, gleaned during his term of office as Agent General. Pandit Kunzru has made a deep study of the position of Indians abroad and has, with the exception of South Africa, visited every Dominion in the Commonwealth. Mrs. Pandit is a pioneer politician and fighter in the cause of an independent India. The official adviser to the Indian delegation will be Mr. R.N. Bannerjee, Secretary of the Commonwealth Relations Department. The Interim Government will put the preparatory arrangements in final shape.

Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pandit

At 46, Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pandit, who will present the case of the South African Indians to the UNO, is still one of the most beautiful women in India. She comes from a family of Kashmir Brahmins and is the sister of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India. Her father Motilal Nehru was an old Indian aristocrat, who joined early in the fight against British imperialism. She was a member of the United Provinces Government from July 1937 to November 1939 when the Congress Ministries were in power. She held the portfolio of Education and Local Self-Government, but resigned with all the other Congress Ministers when India was declared a belligerent without the Ministries or people being consulted. Mrs. Pandit is a widely travelled woman who has visited both the Continent and England. Recently she visited the United States, spending about two years there and returning at the beginning of this year. She has been elected once more to the Legislature of the United Provinces on an unopposed Congress ticket and holds the same portfolio as before.

She has three daughters, all of who have studied both an England and in the USA. The two older girls, Chandralekha and Nayantara, took their B.A degree at the Wellesly College in America. During college holidays, Chandralekha engaged in journalism and intends to continue with this in India. Their father, Ranjut Pandit, died recently from pleurisy. He was keenly interested in animal and plant husbandry. At his summer home, "Khali" , in the foothills of the Himalayas, seven miles from Almora in the United Provinces, he grew and experimented with various kinds of vegetables and fruits He worked in his garden during the intervals he was not translating the Sanskrit Classics into English. He was also interested in the development of a better type of animals for India. Mrs. Pandit herself is an active member of the All-India Women's Conference.

"General Smuts is in the Dock"

"General Smuts is in the dock ... South Africa is on trial ... the complaint of the Indian is a test for the future of UNO."

These points were made at a mass demonstration of the Indian people on the Red Square on Wednesday evening to mark the opening of the sessions of the United Nations.

After the demonstration, 355 resisters courted imprisonment by defying the Ghetto Act.

The group known as the "UNO Batch" , included people of all races. Natal sent 255, of which 11 are women, and the Transvaal 100 of which

27 are women. Reverend W.H. Satchell, of St. Aidan's Mission, was among the resisters, as was Mr. Manila Gandhi, son of Mahatma Gandhi.

Mrs. Pandit's moving plea

New York, Friday: "We seek no dominion over others - we claim no privileged position over other peoples, but we do claim equal and honourable treatment for our peoples wherever they may go, and we cannot accept any discrimination against them," Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pandit, leader of the Indian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly, told the Assembly today. We have brought before the Assembly, the treatment of Indians in South Africa. The way this Assembly treats and disposes of this issue, is open to the gaze not only of those who are gathered here, but to millions in the world - progressive peoples in all countries, more particularly, non-European peoples - who are the overwhelming section of the human race. The issue we have brought before you is by no means a narrow or local one, nor can we accept any contention that a gross and continuing outrage of this kind against the fundamental principles of the Charter can be claimed by anyone, least of all by a member State, to be a matter of no concern to this Assembly."

"Bitter memories of racial doctrines are still fresh in the minds of all of us. Their evil and tragic consequences are part of the problems with which we are called on to deal. India firmly believes that imperialism, political, economic or social, in whatever part of the world it may exist and by whomsoever it may be established and perpetuated, is totally inconsistent with the objects and purposes of the United Nations and its Charter."

"The sufferings, frustration and violation of human dignity, and the challenge to world peace, freedom and security that the Empire represents, must be one of the prime concerns of this parliament of the world's people. Millions look to us to resist and end imperialism in all its forms, even as they rely on us to crush the last vestiges of Fascism and Nazism."

"We regret that none of the major political issues examined by the Security Council, with the exception of the Syrian and Lebanese questions, has been satisfactorily or conclusively disposed of."

"We express our regret that not all the mandatory powers have offered to place the territories for which they hold Mandates under United Nations trusteeship. We are gravely concerned (hat South Africa proposes that South West Africa should be incorporated."

"We move, in spite of difficulties, towards closer cooperation and the building of a world commonwealth. Let us do this with more deliberation and speed. To this end, let us direct our energies and remind ourselves that in our unity of purpose and action lies the hope of the world."

Sir Maharaj Singh exposes Union's Native Policy as a bar-to the incorporation of South-West Africa

Speaking in the Trusteeship Committee of the United Nations on Wednesday, General Smuts lashed out strongly against the Indian Delegate's (Sir Maharaj Singh) complaint of racial discrimination in South Africa and his condemnation of the Union's Native Policy, as a bar to the incorporation of South-West Africa in the Union.

* General Smuts began his speech with a reference to the communal clashes in India, and went on: "One does not like to refer to painful matters, but at least Indians should be the last persons to throw stones and make charges of class distinction and discrimination.

* I speak not in anger, but in pain, sorrow, and deep sympathy with India's suffering millions, but no less in solicitude for the people of South Africa.

*South Africa is still a peaceful, well-behaved and well-ordered country, free from these violent internal antagonisms, and it is the policy of the Union Government to keep it so.

* It is to prevent such conditions of social clash arising in South Africa, where so many races, cultures and colours come together that the Union is doing its best on fair, decent and wise lines to keep the different elements as much as is convenient and possible, apart and away from unnecessary inter-mixture, and so prevent bloody affrays like those in India or such as we read in other countries.

*We are honestly trying to find a human way of life for a racially, socially and culturally mixed community where the different sections may dwell alongside one another in peace and goodwill.

* I should, however, not pass by in silence, the allegations made by Indian Delegate against the Union in its internal Native Policy. He speaks as a witness but presents an entirely prejudiced, one-sided and distorted picture of the situation in the Union. This, perhaps, is based on ignorance as well as prejudice.

* The Indian delegate has forgotten to mention that the Natives in the Union have their own elected representatives in we Union Parliament. The Union is spending more money on Native education than all the territories of Africa south of the Sahara

* This charge comes with ill grace fro a delegate speaking on behalf of India. Is there a country in the world were there is more social discrimination between communities and classes than in Indian society? Has the delegate for India forgotten the 50 000 000 of depressed classes with all the social stigma and humiliation they have to endure - a phenomenon unknown in South Africa and in the rest of the world?"

Statement by Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Pandit, Leader of the Indian Delegation, at meeting of the Joint Committee of the First and Sixth Committees of the United Nations General Assembly, 26 November 1946

The honourable representative has also stated that what is on trial here today is not South Africa but the entire Western civilisation. We are in agreement with him on this point. The issue before this Committee this whether western civilisation is going to be based on the theory of racial supremacy or whether the barriers imposed between man and man on grounds of colour are to be broken down and justice and equality are to be considered the due of all...

The representative of South Africa has justified the national Policy of South Africa with regard to different races on the ground long the maintenance of Christian civilisation. In fact, Sir, we had a long sermon on Christianity. I am not aware of any Christian principles which warrant the treatment of one section of the human race by "other as its inferior. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the paradox of Mr. Heaton Nicholls' speech on this point is realised by the honourable members of the Committee. He refers to the Christianising mission of the white man, but according to the Immigration Act of 1913, Jesus Christ Himself, if he were in our midst today, would be a prohibited immigrant.

My friend has emphasised the barbaric state of the indigenous population of South Africa to whom, if to anybody at all, the country belongs. If, after so many years of civilising influence, they still remain barbaric, it merely proves the hollowness of the claims which have been made on behalf of European achievements...

We are told there is no colour bar in South Africa and that a native can drive a train or become a judge of the Supreme Court. Not a single native. Sir drives a single train in South Africa. Not only are there no native judges in the court, there are no native magistrates, prosecutors, or even clerks of the court ...

Mr. Heaton Nicholls ... knows that his contention that there is no legal colour bar in South Africa is a distortion and evasion of the true position. The colour bar starts in Parliament which is confined to Europeans only and ends in the cemeteries where segregation is Adjust as vigorously in death as in life. No secret has been made of the fact that segregation is essential to the maintenance of western standards of life. When South Africa contends that the presence of Indians in that country constitutes a threat to western civilisation, what is meant of course is that it is a threat to European domination. It is not civilisation that is threatened but the doctrine of white supremacy. Safeguarding white supremacy means in effect safeguarding economic domination of a particular race overall others.... South Africa uses the pretext of western civilisation to retain economic control over the 8 000 000 non-Europeans. This is a classic example of the State reflecting the wishes of those who control it. There is no such thing as an impartial State. In South Africa where Europeans control the State by reason of their almost exclusive monopoly of the vote, it is only natural to expect a widening of the gulf between them and the non-Europeans.

A slighting reference has been made. Sir, to the movement now going on in South Africa as a protest against the Land Tenure Act. I have already mentioned the nature of this movement in my opening statement. It is a moral revolt of great significance. Mr. Nicholls has been pleased to describe it as child's play, I would not expect him to understand or appreciate the technique of passive resistance

I have, a few minutes before this Committee met, received a telegram from South Africa which reads as follows:

"Indian women of Natal follow with admiration your courageous fight for human rights for all oppressed peoples and send you their heartiest congratulations for the success so far achieved. Two hundred and four women sentenced to date. We are prepared to continue struggling until complete emancipation is achieved.

Secretary, Women's Action Committee, Natal Indian Congress"

I sincerely wish, Sir, that the honourable representative of the Union of South Africa had shown compassion for the sufferings of those who are fighting for a principle and who are his own nationals His cynical outburst was unworthy of a representative in this great world forum.

In concluding, I would like to say with all the earnestness at my command that we have not submitted this matter to the United Nations in that grave and momentous issues are involved in the question before pus and that on its proper solution, the future of a large section of human race depends. Let us not be influenced by passions and prejudices but try with understanding and goodwill to remove a blot which affects us all equally.

•   This is an extract from a statement made by Mrs. Pandit in reply lo Mr. Heaton Nicholls, the delegate of South Africa.

Mrs. Pandit and General Smuts clash

In the most dramatic personal clash yet staged before the United Nations Assembly, Mrs. Pandit, leading the Indian delegation and General Smuts, the veteran South African statesman debated the Indian complaint. Between these two vividly contrasted personalities, the dispute between a Dominion and a Nation, which is just passing the threshold of freedom, was thrashed out before the joint Legal and Political Committees, under the chairmanship of Senor Roberto Jimens of Panama. Speaking in the debate on the treatment of Indians in South Africa at the joint meeting of the Political and Legal Committees in New York, Mrs. Pandit, head of the Indian delegation to the United Nations, said: "The issue is a political and not a legal one, it is not even an issue between two countries alone, but possibly a world issue. It calls for an effort in statesmanship. It will not be solved by unilateral insistence on some narrow concept of domestic jurisdiction The only method of a peaceful solution open in our opinion is the exercise by the United Nations, of their collective wisdom and moral sanction in the cause of justice and fair play. The Government of India submits, in all earnestness that their dispute with South Africa is properly a matter for discussion and disposal by the Assembly because the legislation to which they object offends the purposes of the Charter. They submit, with equal emphasis, that the Assembly is concerned with this dispute because the law to which they object is not likely to impair, but has already impaired, the friendly relations between the two member States."

"It has been urged that since conditions are worse in India than anything that exists in South Africa, Indians should not complaint of the provisions of the Tenure Act, which are designed to avert the racial tensions that may endanger the peace of all communities.

"The danger of this argument, proved by practical expense lies in the fact that each new concession to the prejudices politically dominant in the European community has led to fresh demands for racial discrimination. Comparison with the conditions in India'' profoundly misleading. In India we are doing everything in our power to remove, as rapidly as possible, the social evils which are the inheritance of the past. Neither in India nor before world opinion, do we seek to justify this. In the Union, what is being done is the reverse process, legalising difficulties which with us never had the force of the law and which we are attempting not without success, to remove. The disappearing evils of India are not an example for the introduction, or perpetuation, of old evils in South Africa."

"The legal argument that the Government of the Union of South Africa is competent to legislate for any class of its nationals without interference, does not dispose of the fact that the legislation in question has resulted in the severance of relations between India and South Africa. In as much as the cause of the dispute is racial, the subordination of the just claims of the members of one race to the unjust demands of another, its repercussions will extend beyond South Africa and India. It has been suggested that what happens to the Indians in South Africa is exclusively the concern the of the government of the Union."

"The Government of India does not contend that the Indian people in South Africa are not South African nationals, but they have a moral and political obligation towards their people. They were responsible for sending the forebears of these Indians to South Africa. They did so on the clear understanding that the original immigrants as well as their descendants who settled in the Union lawfully, would enjoy equality of opportunity and rights with any other class of South African citizen. Their whole effort has been directed against the extension of existing, or the imposition in South Africa of new disabilities."

Mrs. Pandit told the committee that ever since the principle 'segregation was first introduced in the Transvaal; the Government in India consistently opposed it.

"They have always contended that Indians should be allowed town and occupy fixed property without segregation wherever they are lawfully resident in the Union. This is not merely a matter of national pride, important though that it is. Segregation, in our view, is our view denial of an elementary human right - the right of an individual to town and occupy property according to his inclination and means."

Resolution 44(I) Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, 8 December 1946

The General Assembly:

Having taken note of the application made by the government of India regarding the treatment of Indians in the Union of South Africa and having considered the matter,

1. States that, because of that treatment, friendly relations between the two Member States have been impaired, and unless a satisfactory settlement is reached, these relations are likely to be further impaired;

2. Is of the opinion that the treatment of Indians in the Union should be in conformity with the international obligations under the agreements concluded between the two governments, and the relevant provisions of the Charter;

3. Therefore requests the two governments to report at the next session of the General Assembly the measures adopted (o this effect.

UNO Debate ends in complete victory for India

From Eric Lloyd Williams, Sapa's Special Correspondent

New York, Monday: The most controversial issue before this session of the United Nations General Assembly was decided last night in an atmosphere of considerable excitement. The long bitter and vigorous debate on the South African Indian dispute, came to its close as the hands of the clock in the big assembly hall crept towards midnight - it ended with a complete victory for India-a victory which even the Indian Delegation had not expected.

It was the United Nations most exciting day of the present session and looking back on its end, these are some of the pictures which come to mind:

* Mr. Heaton Nicholls, seizing a name plate marked South Africa and waving it frantically to attract the attention of the chairman and requesting a roll-call on the voting.

* Mrs. Pandit walking down from the rostrum through a wall of applause, dabbing at her eye with her sari.

* Sir Hartley Shawcross smiling quietly towards the end of the debate. Mr. Vyshinsky looking at his watch as he hurried through his last speech.

The following are the countries which voted in the United Nations' General Assembly on the South African amendment and the French-Mexican resolution in the dispute between South Africa and India:

For the South African amendment referring the matter to the International Court of Justice: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, El Salvador, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Sweden, Turkey, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States.

Against the amendment: Byelo, Russia, Chile, China, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, Dominica, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, Haiti Honduras, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Mexico, 'Norway, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ukraine, Soviet Union, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.

Bolivia and Afghanistan abstained.

The following countries voted for the French-Mexican resolution asking both Governments to report at the next General Assembly what measures they have taken about the treatment of Indians in South Africa: Afghanistan, Byelo, Russia, Chile, China, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, Dominica, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Mexico, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Ukraine, Union, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yugoslavia.

The following countries voted against it: Argentina, Belgium,

Canada, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, South Africa, United Kingdom. United States.

The abstentions were: Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Denmark, Ecuador, Sweden, and Turkey.

"I ask no Favour, No Pity, No Mercy" - Mrs. Pandit

In her final plea to the General Assembly of UN, Mrs. Pandit the leader of the Indian delegation declared:

"We must create for the United Nations the abounding confidence of the common people in it as a defender of justice, of public law and morality. This is what I ask you to do; I ask for no favour for India, I ask for no pity, no mercy, no concession for the Indian population of South Africa who have, in my humble opinion, raised the standard of human dignity by inviting suffering and offering resistance to injustice. They nave not lowered the standard of western or any other civilisation. I ask for the verdict of this assembly on a proved violation of the Charter; on an issue which has led to acute dispute between two member States, on an issue which is not confined to India or South Africa; and on which must make or mar the loyalty and the confidence which the common people of the world have placed on us. Mine is an appeal to the conscience, conscience of the world. I will say no more."

Britain's Betrayal

New York, Thursday: Commenting on the vote on the Indian dispute, Dr Lanka Sundaram, the authority on the problems of Indians overseas, said that it was a great day for India to obtain a moral victory.

"The most amazing thing is the betrayal by Britain in striving I unsuccessfully - to strangle discussion."

"Britain's part in the debate will go down in history as evidence her double-dealing with India."

"He thought that India might not get the requisite two-thirds majority in the plenary session.

But, he said, it was clear that the proposals to refer the complaint to the International Court of Justice might also be rejected. "Even if such reference to the Court becomes possible, India's moral and factual victory over South Africa is complete."

Indian issue before International Court

New York, Thursday: The Joint Legal and Political Committees will probably decide tomorrow evening to accept the suggestion made by Sir Hartley Shawcross (Britain) to send the issue to the International Court for an opinion on "whether or not South Africa has neglected to observe any international obligations in her treatment of Asiatics."

This suggestion, which is really a compromise between General Smuts proposal and that of India, will probably result in the General Assembly deferring a final decision until the Court has given its 'opinion. General Smuts proposed that the International Court be asked merely whether India's complaint came within the jurisdiction of UNO.

The Indian delegation, which is fighting strongly against the ye to refer the matter to the International Court, will enter the debate again today and tomorrow in a last minute attempt to swing the delegates to the point of view that South Africa should be requested change her policies and inform the next General Assembly that she has, in fact, done so.

In the Trusteeship Committee, it is clear that South Africa will be badly voted down in her proposal to incorporate South-West Africa .

Mrs Pandit attacks Britain

India's success at UNO over South Africa "is really the success of the United Nations," said Mrs Pandit, the leader of the Indian delegation to the UNO, at New Delhi. "If India's resolution had fallen through, there would have been ample reason to suppose that the United Nations foundations had not been well and truly laid," she said.

Britain had sabotaged everything that Indian delegation had brought up before the United Nations, she declared. "This was done subtly and in a clever fashion, but it was sabotage." Referring to India's future, "Even placed as we are, we were able to get the world's sympathy, and when we are free, we shall progress-in a much shorter period than Russia did after World War 1-to a place possibly even higher than Russia has attained today."