1953 South Africa Article

The Government’s Policy and Practice of Racial Discrimination and Oppression in the Union of South Africa

Spotlight on Africa, August 13, 1953

IV. Incitement to Violence

The South African Government has sought to explain the causes of African unrest and protest in terms of Communist incitement, agitation by non-white “extremists” and “radicals,” Mau Mau, and interference from those outside South Africa, particularly India. It is never admitted that Africans have genuine grievances, or that they have a long tradition of struggle and require no artificial incitement to arouse them to demand their rights. To admit these things is more than can be expected from those who cling to notions of white supremacy.

In the pursuit of scapegoats, the South African white ruling circles propagate fabrications, which in turn breed hysteria and fear among the whites, and in this atmosphere the Government finds sanction for its word and deeds which promote racial hate, oppression, and violence.

In playing up the bogey of Communism, the Nationalist leaders followed in the footsteps of Smits, who tried to send52 Communist leaders to jail on charges of conspiring to incite the great strike of African mine workers in 1946. After an extended trial, the Government found it necessary to withdraw the charge – it had no evidence. Malan’s Minister of Justice Swart, urging the enactment of the Suppression of Communism Act in 1950, argued that Communism was a vast and deadly conspiracy and the he had reliable information that there was a Communist-instigated plot to poison the reservoirs and water-supplies of the country. Mr. Sam Kahn immediately repudiated the allegation, comparing it to Goering’s Reichstag plot, and challenged the Minister to appoint a commission to investigate and determine whether any such plot existed. Mr. Swart ignored the challenge and never launched any investigation or prosecution of the alleged “water poisoners,” but in 1952 he again repeated the fabrication and revived the other one about the Communists having incited the African mine workers to strike.

In November, 1952, it became the custom of Malan and his cabinet members to warn the country of the dangers of Mau Mau, implying that it was somehow linked with the Campaign of Defiance of Unjust Laws and with the clashes between Africans and the police at Port Elizabeth, Kimberly and East London. Mr. Swart said that the South African riots followed the Mau Mau pattern. Mr. Tom Naude, Minister of Posts, said that all whites were threatened by the present attitude of the non-whites, and added, “We have our ‘skietkommandos’ [volunteer vigilante corps] upon who we can rely for defense of our country in an emergency, but the time may come when the women of South Africa may also have to be trained in the use of firearms to defend themselves.” (N.Y. Times, Nov. 23, 1953) The Minister of Justice, Mr. F.C. Erasmus, announced that machine guns would be issued to the Skietkommandos. These and similar statements by other Government leaders precipitated a rush by whites to buy guns (Non-whites are forbidden to purchase or own guns).

The allegations made by Nationalist newspapers that the Defiance Campaign was responsible for the police disorders in October and November, 1952, were completely without foundation. On the contrary, it was the leaders of the African National Congress who prevented the disorders from getting out of hand. The conduct of the Defiance Campaign was remarkable for its discipline – during the arrests of thousands of Defiance volunteers not a single act of violence occurred, though there were ample provocations.

The National Action Committee of the African National Congress and the South African Indian Congress charged that the riots and disturbances which occurred in October and November, 1952, at Port Elizabeth, Kimberley and East London were “deliberately incited and provoked by the Government.” “We challenge the Government,” the Committee’s statement said, “To hold an impartial judicial inquiry into these riots as we have reason to believe that they were actuallyprovoked. Authentic reports suggest that these disturbances were engineered by provocateurs and that the shooting order of Mr. Swart played a major part.” (Minister of Justice Swart announced on November 15th that he had instructed police officials not to wait until their men were killed or injured in riots before they fired. “They have been told to shoot first,” he said.)

Opposition leader J.G.N. Strauss also asked for the appointment of an impartial judicial commission to investigate the disturbances. A similar demand was made by liberal white leaders and organizations. The Government turned a deaf ear to all these demands: it refused to order and inquiry.

Following the disturbance at East London, which started when police attempted to break up a religious service for which official permission had been granted, the East London Daily Dispatch stated: “But for the imposition of the ban on public meetings there would have been no trouble yesterday at Duncan Village…the Minister of Justice today must feel his responsibility. It was he who gave the police their instructions and it was he who plugged the safety-valve of free speech. On his shoulders must rest the responsibility for the aftermath.”

There is considerable basis for the belief that the Malan Government is set upon a course of deliberately goading and inciting Africans to resort to violence. Since the have only sticks and stones to fight with, they will then be at the mercy of the armed police and skietkommandos. And the Communists, or “Native agitators,” or India will be blamed for the pograms that follow.

NEXT: Part V: International Peace at Stake

CLICK PHOTO BELOW TO DOWNLOAD A PDF COPY OF ROBESON'S ADDRESS TO THE SOUTH AFRICAN INSTITUTE OF RACE RELATIONS 1950