|
This is a tribute written by E.S. Reddy to Oliver Tambo, leader of the South African liberation forces. O.R. Tambo and Reddy were comrades in arms, and in constant touch during the struggle in South Africa. Their letters are available on JSTOR.   In many colonial and social revolutions, the leaders of the people have had to go into exile to guide the resistance—or were imprisoned or deported—but continued to inspire their peoples in struggle.
The revolution in South Africa is, perhaps, unique in that the leadership and inspiration have been provided in a protracted struggle by a triumvirate in exile and prison: Oliver Tambo, President of the African National Congress, who has been in exile since 1960, while Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu have been in prison since 1962 and 1963 respectively after short period in the underground. The ANC has a tradition of collective leadership and significant contributions have been made to the movement by many others—such as Chief Albert Lutuli, J. B. Marks, Moses Kotane and Dr. Yusuf Dadoo—but the continuity of leadership provided by Tambo, Mandela and Sisulu has been crucial. Oliver Tambo, who will be 70 on October 27, 1987 has borne the burden of guiding the resistance and securing international support for a quarter century. But his political life is inseparable from that of his two closest colleagues. The three men joined the movement during the Second World War, when African youth raised the slogan “Quit Africa”, in the wake of the “Quit India” movement led by Gandhiji, and were among the founding members of the ANC Youth League in 1944. The League espoused African freedom rather than a mere mitigation of White racist oppression and mass action, instead of petitions and deputations to the racist rulers. The Youth Leaguers were able in 1949, to secure the adoption by the ANC of their “positive action programme” of demonstrations and strikes, and even civil disobedience. Walter Sisulu became Secretary-General of ANC, while Oliver Tambo and Nelson Mandela were elected to the national executive. The formulation of the strategy of the struggle was , however, not easy. For, South Africa was not a colony since Britain transferred power to the White settlers in 1910, but a country with a system of “internal colonialism.” The Whites, the Coloured People and the Indians constituted a quarter of the population—and the Blacks constituted the majority three quarters of the population. The task was not to oblige an external colonial power to leave but to secure transfer of power from a White minority regime to all the people. The small Indian community had carried on a great passive resistance campaign against discrimination from 1946 to 1948, and had attracted the participation of a few Africans, the Coloured and Whites in solidarity with them. Dr. Yusuf Dadoo and Dr. G. M. Naicker, who had emerged as its leaders, declared that the freedom of the Indians was inextricably linked with the freedom of the African majority and advocated united resistance by all the oppressed people, as well as democratically minded Whites under African leadership. The Government of India, led by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, made it clear that it sought no special privileges for Indians and promoted international support for the African cause as much as for the rights of the Indians. The turning point in the South African struggle came in 1950, when the ANC, especially its militant young leaders, became convinced of the need for a united multi-racial struggle against the tyranny of apartheid. After extensive discussions and preparations, the ANC and the South African Indian Congress jointly launched the Defiance Campaign—a Satyagraha—in 1952, in which over 8,000 people of all racial origins courted imprisonment. Congresses of Coloured and White people and a multi-racial South African Congress of Trade Unions were formed and became part of the “Congress Alliance.” They accepted as their common programme the Freedom Charter, formulated by an impressive multi-racial conference in June, 1955, proclaiming that South Africa belonged to all its people and pledging to struggle jointly for the total elimination of racial discrimination. Walter Sisulu, as Secretary-General of ANC, played a crucial role in organizing the Defiance Campaign and other joint actions. Nelson Mandela was the Volunteer-in-Chief of the Defiance Campaign. Oliver Tambo led the campaigns against the forcible eviction of African communities and the imposition of the “Bantu education” system. He also played an important role in forging the united front. As the rulers escalated repression to suppress non-violent resistance, the ANC leadership expected the banning of the organization and mass arrests of its members. It decided that one of the leaders should go abroad to mobilize international support and action. Oliver Tambo, who had been elected to a newly-created post of Deputy President, when restriction orders were served on the President-General of the ANC, Chief Albert Lutuli, was persuaded to undertake this task. Tambo escaped from South Africa in April, 1960, together with Dr. Yusuf Dadoo, President of the South African Indian Congress and Ronald Segal a well-known White journalist. The Indian Government helped them with travel documents and facilities to go to London to meet Commonwealth leaders. Tambo and Dadoo then visited Delhi for full discussions with Pandit Nehru, which led to the forcing out of South Africa from the Commonwealth and other international initiatives. Meanwhile, in May, 1961, a national strike against the establishment of a White racist republic – led by Nelson Mandela from the underground — was suppressed by a massive show of military power. Tambo immediately organized a secret conference of leaders of ANC and its allies in Bechunaland and it decided that an armed struggle had become imperative. The “Umkhonto we Sizwe” (“Spear of the Nation”), a multi-racial military wing, was founded under the leadership of Mandela. And, Tambo had to undertake the additional responsibility of arranging military training for its cadres. “Umkhonto we Sizwe” organized hundreds of acts of sabotage in the next two years, taking extreme care to avoid loss of life, in an effort to persuade the White minority to rethink and the international community to act. The Pretoria regime responded with mass arrests of militants, who were well known and had little experience of clandestine activity. Through brutal torture and savage sentences under draconian laws, it was able to destroy the underground structures in South Africa and the revival of the struggle, both non-violent and violent, under the most difficult conditions. It is largely due to the respect enjoyed by him, his remarkable leadership and tireless efforts that the unity of the liberation movement was sustained and strengthened despite the serious reverse. By the mid-1970’s, the underground structures were re-established and made secure. Mass mobilization against apartheid reached unprecedented levels and armed struggle developed rapidly with thousands of young volunteers. Tens of thousands of people began to defy the law and virtually “unbanned” the ANC. Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu remained in prison rejecting offers of conditional release, as symbols of the indomitable spirit of resistance. The movement found ways to keep them abreast of the struggle and they have truly contributed to the development of its strategy even from behind bars. Tambo in exile and Mandela and Sisulu in prison have thus been the guiding spirits of a revolutionary upsurge involving people of varied racial origins and ideologies, and combining civil disobedience and armed struggle. The authorities are unable to suppress it despite the State of Emergency, the detentions of tens of thousands of people, mass torture of prisoners, even of children and murder of militants by vigilantes. International solidarity, too, has advanced tremendously, though a few powerful governments continue to block decisive action and the anti-apartheid movement has become one of the most significant popular movements of our time. Oliver Tambo has proved an outstanding leader of his people and has earned respect and admiration around the world as a “statesman-in-exile.” I met Oliver Tambo in 1960, soon after he escaped from South Africa, and have been closely associated with him and his family since I became the Principal Secretary of the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid in 1963. His broad vision, deep attachment to democracy and non-racialism, tremendous integrity and personal warmth have been a source of inspiration to me. He is the mould of the great leaders of the Indian struggle for freedom– and a sincere friend of India. A brilliant student, teacher and lawyer – in association with Nelson Mandela he ran a legal firm — he sacrificed a promising career to lead the freedom movement. His long exile has been painful with his closest colleagues in prison and he had to resist the urge to be among his people as they fight a monstrous tyranny. Tambo could spare little time to spend with his family – his wife, Adelaide, and their three daughters — or even to care for his own health, as the demands of the struggle have given him no respite. A modest man, he has rejected all honour to himself— and accepted an honorary degree from the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi most reluctantly while encouraging the world to honour Nelson Mandela, who is like a younger brother to him. Indeed, there was no one else to receive awards on behalf of Mandela like the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding and the Third World Foundation Award to Nelson and Winnie Mandela. But the numerous friends around the world— whom he inspired and for whom he symbolizes the spirit and vision of the great freedom movement of South Africa— will find ways to pay tribute to him.
0 Comments
This is an excerpt from the Dadoo Memorial Lecture delivered by E.S. Reddy in 1996 in New Delhi. The lecture touches upon the relationship of the struggle against colonialism in India to that against Apartheid in South Africa and the legacy of Yusuf Dadoo. The emphasis is all Reddy's own.  During the course of history, people from India have settled in all regions of the world. And people of Indian origin have contributed to the struggles for freedom and human rights in many countries around the globe but nowhere more than in South Africa.
Dr. Yusuf Mohamed Dadoo is symbolic of thousands of people of Indian origin who gave their lives, or spent long years in prison, restriction and exile, in the struggle for the liberation of South Africa from apartheid and racism. In honouring Dr. Dadoo, let us recall and pay tribute to the many Indian martyrs in South Africa:
Let us remember the great leaders of the long struggle who passed away before they could see the new South Africa - Ahmed Mohamed Cachalia, Parsee Rustomjee, Thambi Naidoo, Dr. G.M. Naicker, and many, many others. Let us also recall with respect Mahatma Gandhi who, as long ago as 1908, spoke of his vision of a new South Africa where "all the different races commingle and produce a civilisation that perhaps the world has not yet seen". By their contribution to the liberation struggle, side by side with the Africans, under the leadership of Dr. Dadoo and others, Indian South Africans have earned not only their right to full citizenship but respect in South Africa. Gone are the days when the minority racist regimes sought to expel the Indians from South Africa and incited Africans against the Indians. Indians constitute less than 3 percent of the population of South Africa. But today, of the 25 Ministers, five are Indian. The Speaker of the Parliament is Indian and until recently the Deputy Speaker was also Indian. The Chairman of the Law Commission, the Director of the Commission on Higher Education and the Chief Executive of the SABC radio are Indian. Many ambassadors are Indian. I can think of no other country where a small minority has earned so much recognition by its sacrifice, competence and contribution. We cannot but admire the generosity and the statesmanship of the African National Congress and its leader, Nelson Mandela, and, indeed, of the South African people. BUT YUSUF DADOO WAS MUCH MORE than a leader of the Indian South Africans. He was one of the architects of the unity of the Indian and African people - indeed, of all the oppressed people and democratic whites - a unity which brought down the monster of apartheid. His thinking was moulded by the legacy of Gandhiji and the Indian national movement, by the suffering and struggles of the African people, and by the anti-colonial and anti-fascist movements around the world. He responded to the call for the unity of the oppressed people and democratic whites which emanated seventy years ago from the International Congress against Imperialism, held in Brussels in February 1927, which was attended by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Josiah Gumede, the President of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC). Dr. Dadoo's return to South Africa in 1936, after medical studies in Edinburgh, was in a sense a landmark in the liberation struggle in South Africa. That was a time when the African, Coloured and Indian people were subjected to new oppressive measures by the Hertzog government. They needed not merely leaders adept at drafting and presenting petitions, but freedom fighters who were prepared to make personal sacrifices and mobilise the people in militant struggle. Dr. Dadoo was such a fighter, fearless and ready to give his life if need be for his convictions. He was soon leading the Non-European United Front in the Transvaal and the Nationalist Bloc of the Transvaal Indian Congress (TIC). Mahatma Gandhi recognised his dedication and lent him encouragement and support. In 1940 and 1941, Dr. Dadoo was arrested for inciting the Africans against the war. He had already become popular among the Africans and a square in Orlando, the African township of Johannesburg, was named after him. In 1945, he led the struggle of the African people against the inhuman pass laws and was elected Vice-Chairman of the Anti-Pass Council, of which Dr. A.B. Xuma, President of the ANC, was Chairman. He was arrested in that campaign. He was thus incarcerated thrice in struggles of the African people before he served two terms of imprisonment in the Indian passive resistance of 1946-48 which he led with Dr. G.M. Naicker, President of the Natal Indian Congress. In March 1947, Dr. Dadoo and Dr. Naicker signed with Dr. Xuma the pact of cooperation between the African National Congress and the Indian Congresses of the Transvaal and Natal. He was one of the planners and leaders of the great Campaign of Defiance against Unjust Laws in 1952, which led to the Congress Alliance, a fighting alliance encompassing all the oppressed people and the white democrats. In appreciation of his contribution, the ANC bestowed on him its highest honour in 1955. He was, in fact, the first to receive the award, together with Chief Luthuli and Father Trevor Huddleston. In later years, Dr. Dadoo was to go into exile and become one of the leaders of the political and military struggle for liberation waged by the ANC. Nelson Mandela described him in 1960 as "one of the most outstanding leaders in our movement, revered throughout the country". At his funeral in 1983, Oliver Tambo, President of the ANC, called him one of the foremost national leaders of South Africa, a "giant" of the liberation movement. Walter Sisulu, the elder statesman of the ANC, in his message to this meeting, describes him as "a giant among mortals" and "one of our foremost heroes of the struggle for a free, non-racial, non-sexist and democratic South Africa". YOU HAVE DONE ME A GREAT HONOUR by inviting me to deliver the first Dadoo lecture. My own interest in South Africa began in 1943 when, as a student in India, I happened to read a pamphlet by Dr. Dadoo calling on the Indian community in South Africa to fight against racist domination in cooperation with the African majority. It is a happy coincidence that the Dadoo lecture is inaugurated this year. It was in 1946, as President of the Transvaal Indian Congress and as a leader of the Indian passive resistance movement, that Dr. Dadoo came into national prominence and became known around the world. It was also during that year that Dr. Dadoo was charged with inciting the great African mine workers' strike of August 1946. In November that year, I joined a demonstration against South African racism in New York, led by Paul Robeson, to support the Indian passive resistance and denounce the massacre of African mine workers. Since then my own life came to be associated with the liberation struggle in South Africa. I have been privileged to have had the friendship of Dr. Dadoo during the last two decades of his life when I was able to seek and obtain his guidance in promoting United Nations action against apartheid. He was a man who loved life but was ready to give up all pleasures for the struggle. A leader respected around the world, he was very modest, a foot soldier whom I often saw in picket lines and demonstrations in London. I HAVE CHOSEN TO SPEAK on the theme "India and South Africa". I will not attempt to expound on the past, present and future relations between the two countries, but will only draw attention to a few aspects of Indian-South African relations. As this meeting is under the auspices of the Institute of African Studies, I thought it appropriate to make special reference to the contribution of our Africanist scholars. If I point to the deficiencies, I hope it will be understood that it is only because of my concern for friendship between India and South Africa, and the importance I attach to the role of scholars in informing and moulding public opinion. INDIA IS ENTITLED TO BE PROUD of its consistent and unflinching support to the liberation struggle in South Africa.What began as an action in defence of India's honour and the rights of the Indian minority in South Africa developed into a total identification with the struggle of all the people, under the leadership of the African National Congress, for the liberation of the country. The sacrifices made by India in solidarity with the South African people are more than generally recognised. By instituting the trade embargo in July 1946, India lost five percent of its exports and one percent of its imports - and a very favourable trade balance - at a difficult time in the aftermath of the Second World War. Perhaps even more important, India's uncompromising opposition to racist South Africa earned her the hostility of South Africa's allies, particularly the governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America. I believe that non-alignment proclaimed by India in September 1946 assumed its deeper content because of the attitudes of the Western governments toward colonialism and South African racism, which were the most important concerns of India at the time, and especially their desire to neutralise free India. Some of you may recall that soon after the United Nations debates on South Africa and Namibia, John Foster Dulles, an American delegates to the United Nations and later Secretary of State, described the interim government of India, led by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, as the "Hindu Communist Government". Confronting South Africa, valued by the Western Powers as a source of profit for their corporations and a reliable ally in the cold war, required courage. It is not generally known that when the issue of apartheid was raised by India and twelve other countries in 1952, conspicuous among those who did not sign the request were the two black African States in the United Nations at that time - Ethiopia and Liberia - which were under strong American influence. The United States was able to prevent a condemnation of apartheid until the Sharpeville massacre. I have had occasion, as head of the United Nations Centre against Apartheid, and even after my retirement from the United Nations, to approach the Indian government on several occasions to suggest new actions against apartheid. India was always ready to respond without any hesitation. It was the first government to contribute funds to provide assistance to political prisoners in South Africa and their families. It gave the first major international honour to Nelson Mandela - the Nehru Award for International Understanding for 1979. It was the only country to declare members of the segregated chambers of parliament in South Africa "prohibited immigrants". Without publicity and without seeking any recognition, India gave generous assistance in cash and kind, including military assistance, to the liberation movement. It provided hundreds of scholarships and places in educational institutions to South Africans. Of special significance is the fact that all political parties and organisations in India favoured support for the struggle against racism and apartheid. Perhaps the first issue on which Indian public opinion was united nationally - from "moderates" to "radicals", from students to princes - was support to the satyagraha led by Gandhiji in South Africa early in the century.In the 1940s, all parties supported sanctions against South Africa - and they were instituted by the Viceroy's Executive Council in which N.B. Khare pressed for action despite the reluctance of the Viceroy, Lord Wavell. The decision to bestow the Nehru Award on Nelson Mandela was taken by the Janata government, in which Atul Behari Vajpayee was the Minister of External Affairs. In 1986, when the Africa Fund of the Non-aligned Movement was set up on the proposal of India, and officials in the government were considering an Indian contribution of five or ten million dollars, there was fear that public opinion may not appreciate a contribution when India had serious foreign exchange problems. Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, however, decided on $50 million and there was not the slightest public opposition, but only pride at India's action. I would also like to draw attention to the particularly valuable contribution of the government and people of India, as well as Indians in South Africa, in organising international support for the liberation struggle in South Africa. Friends of Indian independence became friends of the South African struggle. The first committee in the West set up especially to support the South African struggle was the South Africa Committee founded in 1946 by the India League in London, with the participation of several members of Parliament. In the anti-apartheid movements, Abdul Minty and Vella Pillay in London, Kader Asmal in Dublin, Yusuf Bhamjee in Wales, and Sam Ramsamy of SAN-ROC, and many other Indian South Africans made outstanding contributions. One of the first to court imprisonment in an anti-apartheid demonstration was Cheddi Jagan of Guyana. Ramesh Chandra, as President of the World Peace Council, made a significant contribution in promoting support to the ANC, and was honoured by the United Nations in 1982. In my contacts with numerous student, youth and other anti-apartheid groups around the world, I found that young men and women from India were often among the most tireless activists. Opposition to apartheid became a passion for India. For us, this was more than solidarity with the South African people; their struggle became our struggle. I recall meeting Oliver Tambo, President of the ANC, in March 1983, soon after he had returned from a visit to India. He was glowing with praise for India. "E.S.," he said, "we have countries in Africa which are geographically the Frontline States. But in India we have a country which is totally committed, a Frontline State in feeling and action." WHILE REFERRING TO INDIA'S PROUD RECORD, I must warn, however, against thoughtless exaggerations - such as that Gandhiji started the struggle against racism in South Africa - which are untrue and insulting to the South African people who have a great tradition of struggle against alien occupation. I also hope that the saga of friendship between our two countries will not be vitiated by any suggestion that India is entitled to recompense by free South Africa. In providing support to the liberation movement, India looked for no return for itself or for Indian South Africans. Freedom in South Africa was the only reward we sought because we believed that our own independence was not complete until all colonial countries were free.Moreover, the history of Indian-South African relations did not consist only of assistance by India to South Africans. We have shared experiences and our countries influenced each other. Gandhiji brought to India from South Africa his detestation of untouchability and his urge for Hindu-Muslim unity because of his experience with the humiliations in South Africa and the imperatives of resistance. South Africa was a mirror in which he looked at Indian problems. It has remained a factor in shaping our national thinking. If we contributed to South Africa, South Africa has contributed to us too. OUR RELATIONS WITH SOUTH AFRICA did not begin in 1893 when Gandhiji went to Natal or even in 1860 when the first shipload of Indian indentured labourers landed in Durban. They have a long history. Dr. Cyril Hromnik, a South African historian, claims in his book Inda-Africa published in 1981, that Indians had settled in southern Africa more than two thousand years ago to exploit gold and other minerals. According to him, the term "Bantu" comes from the Sanskrit word bandhu (relative) which the Indians used for their African helpers or servants. I am not competent to evaluate the archaeological and linguistic evidence he produced in support of his thesis. But there are records since the Dutch settled in the Cape in 1652 and they are still waiting to be studied by Indian scholars. We used to think that it was Africa's great misfortune to be the victim of slave trade and India's fate to have many of her sons and daughters exported as indentured labour to toil under semi-slave conditions when slavery was abolished in the nineteenth century. But researches on slavery in South Africa - by scholars from South Africa, Britain and the United States - have shown that Indians were taken to the Cape from the 1650s to be sold as slaves and that their descendants may well outnumber the Indians in South Africa. Many of the prominent Afrikaner families have Indian ancestors. The Coloured community of almost four million has perhaps more ancestors from India than from any other country or region. Some Indian slaves learnt African languages and found refuge among Africans, especially in the Transkei. It may be painful to delve into this past but we cannot undo history and we should not avoid the truth. In fact, the result may well be a coming together of the Indian and South African peoples as we learn and acknowledge that people from Bengal, Coromandel and Malabar are related by blood to the Afrikaner and Coloured people of South Africa and perhaps even to the Africans. The struggle for freedom in South Africa began with the resistance of the indigenous people, the San and Khoisan, and the uprisings of the slaves, long before M.K. Gandhi landed in Durban in 1893. Indians were often among the leaders of the slave revolts. There was considerable trade between the Dutch settlements in India and the Cape in the 17th and 18th centuries. Trade between the two countries expanded after the Cape came under British rule. The Cape was the way station between India and Europe until the Suez Canal was opened in the second half of the nineteenth century. Raja Rammohan Roy was one of the many Indians who stopped over in the Cape on the way to Britain.Coming closer to the twentieth century, we know of the Natal Ambulance Corps, organised by Gandhiji during the Anglo-Boer War, and its service for a little over a month, but we hardly know of the 7,000 Indian auxiliaries who served in South Africa throughout the war. Many of them settled in South Africa and now form part of the Indian community there. More than nine thousand Boer prisoners of war were confined in camps all over Indian subcontinent. One of them even became a scholar of Indian religions. I would urge our scholars, in cooperation with their counterparts in South Africa, to undertake research on the little known but significant aspects of Indian-South African relations, to some of which I have made reference. Translation by Archishman Raju 
Archishman Raju is a contributor to and editor of this journal.
Jahanzaib Choudhry  The events of Operation Al Aqsa Storm on October 7th and Israel’s genocidal campaign on the people of Gaza has shaken the foundations of world politics. Imperialist plans for a new Middle East have been scuttled and the battle is on against neocolonialism and genocide in West Asia. A great moral question stands in front of humanity which will determine where the world goes. Operation Al Aqsa Storm Operation Al Aqsa Storm was launched on October 7th 2023. It was led by the Al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s armed wing, but included fighters from the organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad, as well as from two Marxist factions, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The attacks are a form of military resistance, something recognized under international law. The Israeli command collapsed as a result of the operation and chaos ensued. It is unclear how many Palestinians, including civilians, entered the Israeli territory from Gaza during this period. The Western media alleges atrocities by Al-Qassam and other Palestinians. Hamas denies its fighters intentionally engaged in any atrocities and is calling for an International investigation into what happened on October 7th. While Israeli soldiers as well as civilians were taken hostage, Hamas offered unconditional release of civilians if Israel stopped bombardment of Gaza, something which was only temporarily accepted by the Israeli government. At the same time Israel holds some 2,500 Palestinian civilians without charges. It has been revealed that the IDF used the Hannibal Doctrine, which directs the IDF to fire upon their own soldiers and civilians to prevent hostages from being taken. Dubious persolanities have been repeating baseless allegations of coordinated sexual violence against Al-Qassam forces in an attempt to sway public opinion in support of Israel’s war. Some have asked whether Operation Al Aqsa Storm was justified given that it was known Israel would engage in violence in retaliation. Firstly, the Israeli war on Gaza as well as the ongoing occupation are both illegal under international law. Those occupying territory have no right to self-defense. Secondly, anti-colonial leaders have always asked their people to sacrifice to win their freedom. The leaders of Hamas have called for sacrifice comparable to that of the Russian, Algerian, and Vietnamese people. All evidence indicates that on the ground Israel is failing to meet military objectives. A recent New York Times story cites anonymous Israeli commanders as saying Israel will not be able to release hostages through military means or debilitate Hamas. Available evidence indicates the armed resistance is defeating the IDF in ground engagements. The IDF has relied on indiscriminate aerial bombardment and by the most brutal ground attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure including and laying siege to hospitals. The supposed logic for Israel’s genocidal assault on civilians is to restore deterrence by instilling fear in the Palestinian and wider Arab population after a historic humiliation on October 7th. Despite this, Western analysts sympathetic to Israel are admitting it is facing unprecedented challenges on multiple fronts. Netanyahu was in a politically precarious position to start with. Only the outbreak of the war ended the largest protests in Israeli history over Netanyahu’s planned judicial reforms to save himself from corruption charges. The success of Al Aqsa Storm has created a crisis of confidence in Netanyahu’s government as well as the defense establishment, who have traded blame for dereliction. Events since October 7th have put Israel under a historic degree of military and political pressure. The behavior of the current Israeli regime emerges from an extremist shift in Israeli politics. This shift has been due to the failure of the Western and Israeli political class in fulfilling any just solution to the occupation of Palestinian territories under the framework of the Oslo Accords. Netanyahu during his various tenures as Prime Minister was central to this failure. In 2017, Netanyahu’s government passed the Nation-State Law declaring Israel the exclusive land of the Jewish people and illegal settlements in the West Bank as necessary. The growth in settlers has led to the rise of even farther right political figures, including from movements previously banned from Israeli politics, with whom Netanyahu has cut deals to ensure his own political survival amid myriad corruption scandals. His cabinet includes Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir, who has been previously convicted of terrorism in Israeli courts and whose party has conducted extreme violence against Palestinian civilians. The same Ben Gvir is in charge of security in the West Bank and leads rallies calling for the demolishing of Masjid Al Aqsa. Indeed one explanation for the collapse of Israeli defenses on October 7th is that the IDF was overstretched in protecting Ben Gvir and his thugs in their provocations in Jerusalem. It is no coincidence that Hamas named its operation Al Aqsa Storm, as it has aimed previous operations at stopping assaults on Masjid Al Aqsa. The vile nature of Israeli politics means that forces akin to the Nazis are in power. Their crimes in Gaza reveal a state that should be treated as a pariah state and has no place in modern civilization. Yet the West has been trying its hardest to force acceptance of the apartheid state on the world stage, especially in West Asia and the Global South. A New Middle East During the general debate at the UN General Assembly in September 2023, Benjamin Netanyahu held up an illustration of a new Middle East “at peace” with Israel including countries that had not yet recognized Israel such as Saudi Arabia and Sudan. Coming out of the Abraham Accords, this meant a capitulation of the Arab world to Israel, throwing the Palestinian people to the wayside. The accords succeeded in normalization with the UAE, Morocco, and Bahrain but the big prize was the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Normalization and recognition by the Arab states has long been sought after by Israel. This is because opposition to Israel’s occupation of the holy sites of Islam in Jerusalem and its treatment of the Palestinians is something of a civilizational imperative in the Arab and larger Islamic world. Historically even pro-Western Arab and Muslim governments have refused to recognize Israel, as a way to maintain legitimacy in front of their own populations. The Biden administration sought to connect Saudi Arabia’s entry into the Abraham Accords with the EU-Middle East-India corridor, an initiative announced at the G20 summit in Delhi, to both ensure Israel’s normalization in West Asia as well as keep China’s Belt and Road Initiative out of the resource rich region. Due to West Asia’s role in the world economy this would have had a great impact everywhere. Saudi Arabia’s independent-minded Prime Minister, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) had made a number of significant, sometimes contradictory moves in recent years. He had openly denounced the fundamentalist Wahabbi ideology promoted by the kingdom since the Cold War, embarked on radical reforms in Saudi society, and arrested much of the older leadership of the country. In foreign policy he embarked on a brutal war against the revolutionary forces in Yemen since 2015 with US support but also improved relations with Russia and China, and defied Biden administration pressure to cut oil production to hurt the Russian economy. At the same time he showed a willingness to support normalization with Israel but in 2023 also signed a China-brokered normalization agreement with longtime nemesis Iran, coinciding with a ceasefire in the war on Yemen. MBS being an independent actor was heavily courted by the US and Israel, and negotiations were ongoing including US support for a Saudi nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia’s war on the so-called Houthis of Yemen has an intimate connection to the current situation in Gaza. The Western media refers to them as Houthis, a reference to the Houthi tribe from which its founder Hussain Al-Houthi and his brother and successor hail. They are referred to as “Islamists” representing the Zaydi Shia sect, a subsect of Shia Islam different theologically from the Jafari Shia present in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, which represents about 35% of Yemen’s population. The reality is that they emerged in the post-Cold War period out of the struggle against the imposition of Wahhabi ideology on Yemen by Saudi Arabia and against IMF structural adjustment policies and corruption imposed by the previous Saleh government. They took de facto power in a relatively bloodless revolution in September 2015, in which the bulk of the Yemeni Army switched allegiance from the Saleh government to Ansarallah. The president and ministers fled to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis, fearful of losing lucrative oil deposits, organized a military intervention. Sadly, this brutal war received approval by the UNSC, with Russia and China supporting it, as well as multiple extensions since then. Ansarallah and their allies fight alone, and despite having de facto control of most of Yemen’s territory are recognized only by Syria and Iran. The war from 2015-2023 was brutal, even genocidal. The Yemeni people faced bombing, a Saudi invasion using largely mercenary troops, as well as famine. The West militarily backed Saudi forces to the hilt. Yet Ansarallah forces fought so tenaciously that an Australian commander compared them to the Viet Cong. The fighting only entered a ceasefire with the China-backed Saudi-Iran normalization agreement. This makes the actions by Ansarallah entering the Israel-Palestine war even more significant. They have earned the direct military intervention of the US through their seizing of ships headed to the Zionist entity. Indeed after South Africa’s filing charges of genocide against Israel at the ICJ, Ansarallah has claimed their actions are under article 1 of the 1948 Genocide Convention. They act purely out of principle and ideological commitment to the ending of oppression. Ansarallah spokesperson Muhammad Al-Bukhaiti told American journalist Max Blumenthal that “a victory on the awareness front is more important than victory on the military front” citing the role of global public opinion as crucial to stopping war and genocide. After Israel’s war commenced, Hezbollah similarly entered the battle through rocket strikes on targets in Northern Israel in solidarity with Gaza. Using missile strikes they have succeeded in keeping a significant amount of Israel’s military engaged on their northern front, away from Gaza. Similarly resistance groups in Iraq which are friendly with Iran and Hezbollah have also declared solidarity with Palestinian forces in Gaza. The Western media charge Iran with being an alleged mastermind behind these armed resistance groups. It is certainly true that it is Iran that has been an ideological, political, military, and financial center for what is called the Axis of Resistance. This is a concept coming out of the Iranian Revolution for a united front against Western imperialism and Zionism in West Asia. Qassem Soleimani, who was murdered in a US airstrike in 2019, played a major role in training resistance forces such as Al-Qassam, Hezbollah, the Ansarallah, and resistance factions in Iraq. This is a major reason why Iran is targeted by the West for sanctions and regime change. However, all of these forces act independently. This is not a war of realpolitik but an ideological one. The struggle between the forces of Zionism and imperialism against the Axis of Resistance is a military, political, and ideological struggle between the forces of neocolonialism and apartheid against freedom and civilization. Crisis in the US Meanwhile, within the Western World and in the United States in particular, extreme Zionists have targeted university presidents for failing to sufficiently repress student activism against Israel on campus. This infighting has revealed a great deal about the reality of US academia, with Harvard’s president Claudine Gay being revealed as a plagiarizer. Ironically, it was revealed that the wife of Bill Ackman, a Zionist banker who led the campaign against Gay, had also plagiarized as a professor at MIT. This infighting is threatening to reveal the reality behind the illusion of academic rigor at elite universities. This is a danger for the ideological power that these institutions exercise on behalf of US imperialism. US President Joe Biden’s approval ratings have been in sharp decline since the Israeli war started. Specifically among young voters who are crucial to his reelection. Over 400,000 Americans marched for a ceasefire in the largest demonstration for Palestine in US history. This is a dramatic moment in US political history, with a movement against US and Israeli actions emerging on moral grounds. Unlike the movement against the War in Vietnam, where students march to stop being drafted, here the movement is purely for moral reasons. This is both heightening the crisis of the US ruling elite as well as creating conditions for a new peace movement in the US. South Africa’s Stand and the Need for World Action South Africa rose to take up the case of the Palestinian in international courts. Accusing Israel of genocide at the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. During the proceedings at the ICJ South Africa presented a well documented indictment of Israel’s intent to destroy the Palestinian people and called upon the court to act in good conscience by ordering Israel to stop. Yet the Western powers who supported apartheid in South Africa and the Israeli occupation through the decades continue to do so by opposing South Africa’s case.US Secretary of State called it “meritless”. Germany intervened on behalf of South Africa in the ICJ. This prompted an official statement from the president of Namibia, pointing out that Germany is yet to apologize for its genocide when it ruled Namibia at the turn of the century. South Africa’s principled stand is a testament to the values of the anti-apartheid movement. The South African government is returning the solidarity it received from people of conscience all over the world. As Colombian President Gustavo Petro has said “The motto Liberty, Equality, Fraternity that was created by the French Revolution no longer has its place in Paris but in South Africa. That is the new reality."The ICJ delivered its ruling on January 26th, ruling that South Africa has made a plausible case for genocide, ordering Israel to take multiple measures to protect Palestinian life, and calling for Israel to submit a report on these measures within one month. Though this ruling fell short of a ceasefire order it is being hailed by South Africa as a victory and the Hamas leadership has called on the international community to pressure Israel to accept the verdict. It opens the way for the UN General Assembly to hold Israel accountable for legal violations and also gives a strong legal ground for the actions of the Ansarallah of Yemen. Yet this is only the beginning of what is needed. The Nazi-like Israeli leadership must face Nuremberg-like severe justice for their crimes against humanity. Their enablers in the West must also be held accountable. We are witnessing the consolidation of forces that can end these crimes. Other states including Mexico, Chile, and Indonesia have lodged referrals and complaints against Israel for war crimes and occupation in international courts. The OIC, BRICS, and NAM and G77 have all called for a ceasefire. This indicates a divide between the neocolonial West and the states of the Global South. On one side is Israel’s genocide, which is in reality an intensification of many decades of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians which has been enabled by the West. Western hypocrisy on democracy is visible to all, as it supports an Israeli regime as vile as the Nazis. On the other side is a resurgent freedom struggle led by armed resistance fighters but consisting of the sacrifice of all levels of Palestinian society. The Axis of Resistance fights against the imperialist vision of a “New Middle East” in favor of an anti-imperialist West Asia. The role of the BRICS nations as well as the peace movement worldwide will be crucial in determining the outcome of this. Jahanzaib Choudhry is a historian and a member of the Saturday Free School for Philosophy and Black Liberation.
by Jeremiah Kim
Jeremiah Kim is a peace activist, poet and member of the Saturday Free School for Philosophy and Black Liberation.
By Catherine Blunt  Great people are about great and mundane tasks. They are beacons of Hope lighting the way to a future for Humanity and enduring Positive Peace. E. S. Reddy was such a person whose life’s history also reflected the history of both the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa and its connection to the Indian struggle for National and Independence from the United Kingdom or Britain. It is a history of the two struggles on 2 different continents co-joined by the life and teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and his satyagraha movement of peaceful resistance which began in South Africa and moved forward to become the tool of passive resistance to British Colonial Rule in India and ultimately leading to the independence of India in 1946. E. S. Reddy’s life is also a narrative about struggle, courage, commitment, and solidarity with South African liberation forces seeking to end apartheid in South Africa and Namibia and the end to the neo-colonial rule at its core. According to Reddy, Mahatma Gandhi, while in South Africa and speaking about the inhumane treatment of non-whites / non-Europeans in South Africa, prophesied: "If we look into the future, is it not a heritage we have to leave to posterity that all the different races commingle and produce a civilisation that perhaps the world has not yet seen?" Gandhi’s remark foreshadows Martin Luther King, Jr.’s belief in a “Single Garment of Destiny” shared by all Humanity and his advocacy for a “Beloved Community” in which Humanity loves, shares, and protects and a ”World House” promoting world peace through peaceful coexistence and conflict resolution as the alternatives to war. Gandhi’s prophetic vision also anticipated a visionary like Martin Luther King, Jr. which he foretold during an interview with Howard Thurman, a remarkable and well-known African-American minister who led a group of Black Clergy to India in 1936: “he said with clear perception that he said it could be through the Afro-American that the unadulterated message of non-violence would be delivered to all men everywhere.” Clearly, Gandhi’s influence in the struggle against racism and injustice in South Africa, India, and throughout the world has had a profound impact on freedom and civil rights struggles in the United States which in turn has had an additional impact on the people of the world struggling for self-determination and liberation and in particular South Africa. E.S. Reddy, like his family, was influenced by Gandhi and the Indian struggle for Independence. All the E.S. Reddy stories and commentaries about him note that influence along with the same basic information about his life and his life’s work: the November 5, 2020, New York Times article by Sam Roberts, the South African History Online (SAHO) website, an E.S. Reddy interview in No Easy Victories, and during a 2018 interview with Archishman Raju, a member of the Saturday Free School. However, it was Ramachandra Guha, a historian and biographer introduced to Reddy by Gopal Gandhi, who sectioned Reddy’s life into 3 phases:
Phase 1. Growing Up and Getting Acquainted with South African Apartheid E. S. Reddy, was a celebrated Anti-apartheid advocate, a fighter for peace and a just world, and an avid Mahatma Gandhi Scholar was born in the Southern part of British India in July 1924 and died in Cambridge, Massachusetts in the United States (US) in November 2020 at the age of 96. He was born into an activist family of Gandhi supporters who were involved in the independence struggle to free India from British colonial rule. It is in that family, at that time and in that all-encompassing culture of national liberation with the influence of Jawaharlal Nehru, and through the Satyagraha teachings of Gandhi that E. S. Reddy learned about the commitment to the freedom struggle and the importance of solidarity with the struggling peoples of the world. It is because of that special and direct link between the early civil rights struggles of Indians’ living in the pre-apartheid, separatist Union of South Africa still under British control but governed domestically by a minority settler-regime of Dutch descendants or Afrikaners in 1910 and the Indians struggling for national liberation at home from Brittan’s official occupation and control of India beginning in 1858. It was Mahatma Gandhi, his method of struggle and movement of non-violent resistance against oppression and injustice or Satyagraha that he began and achieved success in South Africa that initially linked the two struggles when he returned home to India in 1915 and engaged in the struggle for national liberation against British colonialism using the same ideology and methods of struggle including building a mass movement of massive, non-violent resistance or satyagraha which ultimately led to Indian Independence in 1947. Mr. Reddy remarked in the No Easy Victories interview: " In India, in our generation, we're all influenced by Gandhi. So there is Gandhi under the skin ... We're influenced by Nehru. ... We wanted to have a society which is socialist, like Nehru wanted to have. So it was that kind of a radical outlook. ... Coming from that background, with both Gandhi and Nehru, ... we had a duty, not only to get India's freedom, [but that] India's freedom should be the beginning of the end of colonialism." Mr. Reddy completed his University studies in India in 1943 and a master’s degree in political science at New York University in the US in 1948 then attended Columbia University. He preferred living in New York City which allowed him access to news about home and South Africa. He became an intern at the United Nations in and in 1949 was hired as a political affairs officer. Originally, he frequented the Council of African Affairs because it gave him access to news weeklies from South Africa. Its members included Paul Robeson and W. E. B. Du Bois and the activities focused on anticolonialism and Pan-Africanism. Later, he became involved in Council affairs, with its members, and became friends with Alphaeus Hunton, the Council’s Director who did the research and wrote much of the educational pieces circulated. Reddy had frequent encounters with Robeson but only rare ones with Du Bois. However, both men and the organization also had a profound influence on helping prepare Reddy for his life’s work in the United Nations, especially with the newly independent Countries of Color who regarded him and his work as instrumental in the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa and Namibia (then called Southwest Africa). Of Alphaeus Hunton, Mr. Reddy said: “He did a lot of research, he published a bulletin, he published a book, he published a number of papers, pamphlets and other things. And he was the one, also, who kept in contact with the United Nations. There was a man called Chapman, Daniel Chapman, in the United Nations Secretariat at that time. And Alphaeus knew him well so he used to go to see him and through him make other contacts. Daniel Chapman—after Ghana became independent, he became the first ambassador of Ghana to the UN. Eventually and in retaliation for his anti-racism, anti-colonial work, Hunton was arrested by the US government which also banned the Council on African Affairs. This was in the early 1950s, during the McCarthy Era named after Senator Joseph McCarthy noted for his anti-Communist witch hunts against US citizens who were for peace nor war; who were for civil and human rights for US Black citizens, not economic, political, social, and cultural injustice; who were for unions, full employment, and decent wages, not unemployment, underemployment, poverty and starvation; who were for peaceful coexistence, not the US cold war and isolation of the Soviet Union. Hundreds were imprisoned and thousands lost their jobs. These experiences in the US among African-Americans struggling for their own freedom and the international struggle waged by People of Color to free themselves from imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism added to the clarity of his vision and the determination of his purpose. Reddy’s growing knowledge about the liberation struggles of the African, Colored, and Indian populations in South Africa which through the Satyagraha Movement of Mahatma Gandhi linked the 2 countries (South Africa and India), linked their diverse populations, and linked the 2 struggles for freedom with his own youthful experiences growing-up under and resisting with his family British Colonial Rule over India. Reddy’s commitment to peaceful, non-violent action leading to “revolutionary change” was sealed. Phase 2: United Nations and the Struggle to end Apartheid in South Africa and Namibia Before retiring in 1985, Mr. Reddy had been a diplomat at the UN who led the anti-apartheid efforts at the UN’s Committee Against Apartheid. He was its Secretary from 1963 to 1965 and its Center Against Apartheid Director from 1976 to 1983. He also served as the Director of the UN’s Trust Fund for South Africa and the Educational and Training Program for Southern Africa. He used his various offices to campaign for sanctions against South Africa — economic and social-cultural boycotts. He also lobbied for the release of the African National Congress or ANC’s political prisoner, Nelson Mandela. He was appointed as the Assistant Secretary-General of the UN from 1983 until his retirement in 1985 using this opportunity to further educate and bring world awareness and attention to apartheid South Africa through seminars, international conferences, boycotts as well as providing scholarships to the families of South African political prisoners. Mr. Reddy commented to Archishman Raju in his 2018 interview about the substantive change in scope and effectiveness that occurred in the UN as more Nations of Color became independent and were admitted: “I was in the UN from 1949 and I didn’t think highly of the UN. It gave enough money to buy my groceries. UN was dominated by the western countries at that time. It was a sort of neocolonial space. By 1963, the composition changed, many African and Asian [nations] became members. These countries now constituted a large majority. That also affected some of the secretariat which was dominated by rich countries which could make large contributions to the budget. When the Special Committee against Apartheid was set up, my director, my supervisor, wanted to be secretary. He asked me if i wanted to be deputy. I said, No I don’t agree with you. But then the Western Countries decided to boycott the committee, he lost interest. The head of the department, a Soviet ambassador, offered me the job. I accepted and said, You are giving me a lifetime job because South Africa will not become independent unless all of Africa becomes independent. There is so much foreign involvement – economic, political, military - in South Africa. That proved true, South Africa became independent after I retired. “Now my job and my convictions were identical. I found a great satisfaction in the job but also a determination to do the best. There was also a feeling that as an Indian, I should do the best.” The No Easy Victories introduction explained Mr. Reddy’s role thusly: “From 1963 to 1984, he was the UN official in charge of action against apartheid, first as principal secretary of the Special Committee Against Apartheid and then as director of the Centre against Apartheid. When he retired in 1985, he had achieved the rank of assistant general secretary of the United Nations. “Beginning with his position as secretary of the Special Committee Against Apartheid, and in the face of opposition from the Western powers, Reddy facilitated the work of the small countries who were members of the Committee and who had taken up the responsibility of working to end apartheid. It was Reddy who supplied them with suggestions for action, draft resolutions, speeches, and reports. As director of the United Nations Centre against Apartheid, he played a key role in promoting international sanctions against South Africa and organizing the world campaign to free Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners. Recognizing the importance of public action for the effectiveness of the United Nations, he worked with and supported anti-apartheid movements around the globe. He [brought a] special insight to the discussion of support movements for African liberation in the United States because he saw numerous organizations at work over more than 40 years. He observed the power of American racism to influence not only U.S. government policy but also the support movements themselves. Throughout, he used the resources at his disposal to help bring an end to apartheid.” And his first involvement happened as a result of his affiliation with the Council on African Affairs which he frequented and became involved. At an early age and in his various roles at the UN, Reddy traveled all over the world and gained many friends especially in the international struggle against apartheid especially after 1970 when the Committee received a larger budget. Reddy traveled as a part of the UN Delegation to and in Europe (Western and Eastern) and in Africa to meetings with foreign ministers, heads of state, and conferences providing and collecting information about anti-apartheid struggles. They even hosted conferences as well as seminars which led western countries to begin to support sanctions against South Africa: “…we had many conferences and seminars organized, maybe about 40 organized. There you get the anti-apartheid movements and others in many countries. So even the Western countries slowly—in the beginning none of the Western countries supported sanctions. In the beginning it was very hard to get any Western country to vote against South Africa. But later smaller countries started changing. And in the '60s, first the Nordic countries, the Scandinavian countries, and then other Western countries like Netherlands and others started changing, becoming more friendly, contributing money for the prisoners and so on, saying that sanctions are good but that everybody should agree, although nothing would happen but at least they agree in principle. Which meant, we are trying to get them on our side, to isolate the few countries which had the most trade with South Africa and most military contact with South Africa and so on. And so that strategy worked.” E. S. Reddy’s life, experiences, and observations confirm for him and through him confirm for Humanity’s ability to push through and beyond man-made obstacles intended to interfere with, derail, and/or shackle human progress. Imperialism, colonialism, and neo-colonialism are those obstacles used by Western countries to dominate and subjugate the vast world of Countries of Color. Reddy’s Anti-Apartheid work in and beyond the UN is about defending and building world peace through peaceful struggles against colonial exploitations and exploiters like Gandhi’s Satyagraha as practiced in Apartheid South Africa, in colonial India, in the Civil Rights Movement in the US, and the BDS Movement against Apartheid Israel. For his work and vision, E. S. Reddy was acknowledged universally and won many awards as well as citations, especially for his work in the UN. It is clearly understood and he is regarded as the person whose efforts and contacts shaped UN policy against Apartheid in South Africa and Namibia as well as greatly influenced the international movement of boycotts and sanctions against apartheid. When he passed November-2020 at 96 years old, his death was announced by the President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, who hailed E. S. Reddy’s “commitment to human rights” and his epitomizing “social solidarity,” as reported by Sam Roberts of the New York Times. Sean MacBride, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and former United Nations commissioner for Namibia and quoted in No Easy Victories said of Mr. Reddy: "It has been my privilege to work with E. S. Reddy for close on 20 years, and ... there is no one at the United Nations who has done more to expose the injustices of apartheid and the illegality of the South African regime than he has. E. S. Reddy has done so with tremendous courage and ability. ... He dedicated his entire energy and skills to the liberation from oppression of the people of Southern Africa. He had to face many obstacles and antagonisms, coming from the Western Powers mainly, but he had the skill, courage and determination necessary to overcome the systematic overt and covert opposition to the liberation of the people of Southern Africa." Phase 3: E. S. Reddy, the Researcher, Gandhi Scholar, and an Archivist of Gandhi and Anti-Apartheid Artifacts During his retirement, Mr. Reddy researched and wrote about the early history of Anti-apartheid Movements, Black Liberation, and the linkage between the Indian and South African liberation Movements. He was a consultant to the ANC of South Africa, helping to develop historical documents and assisting with the UN Collection of Anti-apartheid artifacts. He also became a renowned Gandhi scholar, focusing on the links between the Indian and South African Liberation Movements. Mr. Reddy, in his Gandhi research, discovered documents indicating an early relationship between Gandhi and the formation of the precursor to the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC): the South African Native Congress created by 4 African Lawyers representing African organizations in South Africa. Mr. Reddy says by 1906 Gandhi was a non-violent revolutionary and a mass leader who had ceased petitioning the South African regime for civil rights. He had moved on to mass, direct, non-violent action and had become increasingly interested in the struggles of the African people of South Africa, “sons of the soil,” whose lands were to be confiscated. Gandhi supported the creation of the South African Native Congress, met with its major founder, Seme, and its President Dube, whom he introduced to the then President of the Indian National Congress of India visiting South Africa at the time. Accounts of these meetings were published in the Gandhi Newspaper. Mr. Reddy also edited Gandhi and South Africa 1914 -1948 with Gopalkrishna Gandhi as well as researched and wrote about members of Gandhi’s movement in South Africa like Thambi Naidoo and his Family and Kasturba Gandhi and the Satyagraha in South Africa - its roots and examples. E. S. Reddy described himself this way: “Well, I wouldn't call myself a pacifist. At least at that time. Now I'm more of a pacifist. But in India, in our generation, we're all influenced by Gandhi. So there is Gandhi under the skin. So there is pacifism in the system. Then we're influenced by Nehru, who was a socialist. The younger people were greatly influenced by Nehru. So I would say I was radical. In terms of the type of struggle against the British to get freedom, we believed in mass struggle—Gandhi also believed in mass struggle. But [the emphasis for us was more on] organizing the workers, peasants and so on. We didn't have much spiritual attitude towards violence the same way as Gandhi. And we wanted to have a society which is socialist, like Nehru wanted to have. So it was that kind of a radical outlook. “Now I come to the United States. In '46, as I said, there was this movement in South Africa which was a combination of Gandhians and communists. So the South African struggle all through the years of the struggle, from '46 on, has been a combination of pacifists, communists, and various other types of people. It was a sort of united struggle. Our own struggle in India was also a united struggle, except at certain times during the war when the communists and the nationalists couldn't get along, had problems. So that was the outlook.” The world of committed people who are believers in and dedicated to the struggle for truth, non-violent solutions, and self-sacrifice or satyagraha see E. S. Reddy as a proud son of India who was the embodiment of the history he lived, witnessed, and helped to create. Catherine Blunt, Educator and Community Activist — Member of the Saturday Free School
|
CategoriesArchives
September 2024
|
RSS Feed