16481. · 2011. 11. 4. · 16481. 'The authorit of thy A.N.Ce prevaile. an thdd wore k of th A.N.Ce...
Transcript of 16481. · 2011. 11. 4. · 16481. 'The authorit of thy A.N.Ce prevaile. an thdd wore k of th A.N.Ce...
-
16481.
'The authority of the A .N.C . prevailed and the work
of the A.N.C, and its volunteers created a situation'.
What situation was that?— (A) I would interpret this
as a situation where the people were behind the A.N.C.
( "Q) But if it had been the policy of the A.U.C. to
tell the people all along 'You must not move, but when
the police come you mustn't resist? why should the
Government anticipate the date; what was the situation
which made it necessary for the Government to anticipate
the date? IJm asking you in regard to the A.N.C?—
(A) That was the policy of the A.N.C. It was explained
to the people that they must not move but when the
police come they must move. " I f that was the policy why
did the Government have to anticipate the date?— (A)
The Government had a different view of the plans of the
A.N.C. They did not think of our policy, that we were
not asking people to move voluntarily. That was why
there were statements circulated that we had gunpowder,
dynamite, guns*," ( "Q) When was that statement made?—
(A) I can't remember". ("Q) After the removal or be-
fore the removal?— (A The statement was made when the
date was changed," ( "Q) When was that statement made?—
(A) When the date wasannounced by the Government to change
the date".
Then I skip a page, my lords, and I deal
with the questions at page 11384. ("Q) Why does this
then say, because the A„N.C, that it was the A.N.C.
that caused all this?— (A) I t ' s a political body, my
lords. It so worked on people politically that they
followed our lead and the Government did not say it
was the other body. It was always the African National
-
16482.
Congress who were intending to burn Indian shops, who had
all these things." " I t did not direct attention to this
other body, it w as always the A .N .C . who had an armed
resistance." ("Q) I only want to know, is this paragraph
correct or incorrect, as it stands, beginning with the
words 'The authority of the A .N .C . prevailed'?" Then
there's a very lengthy answer. And at the top of page
11386, my lords, the question reads, ("Wow you say that
the policy first of all was to tell the people to resist
or not to go voluntarily, but if and when the police came
to go peacefully?— (A) Yes." ( "Q) Thereafter it was
decided to put the volunteers into action to remove
families ?— (A) Prom the areas where they had to be
removed from". ("Q) That was a change of policy"?—(A)
Just prior, my lords, it says there, 'Just prior to the
actual removal.
Then it goes on, Plans have been made for
A . I . and for nationwide support in various forms."
( "Q) What does A e I . mean?— (A) Industrial action".
C"Q) What is meant by industrial action?— (A) (Explained".
And at the foot of the page, my lords, ( "Q)
Well, it saje here in the face of the situation which ob-
tained, and the unpreparedness of the people, it became
apparent at this stage that these had to be abandoned
at the last minute"-- (A) Yes." ( "Q) Did the A.N.C.
in its campaign, when it addressed public meetings, did
it advise the "oopulation of this industrial action that
it proposed to take?— (A) I think the plans were not
really properly put forward; it might have happened that
in some cases a hint was dropped."
-
( "Q) Yes; is it correct to say, Dr. Conco, that in
this period that we are concerned with, it was the
policy of the African National Congress eventually to
take over the Government", then the witness asked a
question, (In other words, to take power?).
("Q) Yes?— (A) TO just take over the Government for
the A.N.C? ( "Q) Yes?— (A) Well, my lords, the policy
of the African National Congress was really not that we
would eventually take over the Government as a government.
The policy was step by step to achieve our a ims . . . . "
And then, my lords, although we rely on the
whole passage, I turn to page 11389 where the question
is asked at line 21, ( "Q) Well, did you in any communica-
tion to the United Nations at all indicate that the A.N.C.
wanted to have the Government of this country?— (A) It
might be there but I don't r emember, my lords, I don't
remember that. The A.N aC. fights for full citizenship
and stands for all the people in South Africa, white or
black," ("Q) There's a reference in the evidence to
a document alleged to have been compiled by Mandela,
'No Easy Walk to Freedom'". Then, my lords, there were
a number of questions asked on that document, and on
the following page there were questions on the possibility
of a punishment of whipping for v/omen. Then the question
is asked at line 24s ( "Q) Why I am asking that is because
there happens ':;o be also a reference to that in a document
apparently published by the WoI.D.l? in 1954, not on the
same basis, but in that document which is Exhibit E.149.
It 's a brochure entitled "That they may live, African
women arouse"?— I 've heard it , my lords.
-
16484o
( HQ) Alleged to be published by the Womens International
Democratic Federation in Berlin in February 1954. There
is a passage in the brochure which says - also dealing
with the Defiance Campaign - 'As a punishment for anyone
who has incited or encouraged there is a fine of £500
5
ten strokes or five years imprisonment, or two of these
penalties. The question has been raised in Parliament
as to whether women can be sentenced to be whipped.
The Minister has replied in the affirmative'." The
witness says, " I t might be the sa'® incident." 10
Now, my lords* the questions proceed on
various documents, particularly in these two pages 11391
and 11392 - on the document Be24 and the article in that
document by Lionel Forman, and then at the top of nage
11393 there is this question: ( "Q) What in your opinion ^
would be the difference; XTm just trying to find out
according to your view; what would be the difference
between the State achieved in terms of the Freedom Charter
and the Government in China„ The Stase of China is for
instance referred to b3r this writer?— (A) I'm not well 20
informed, my lord, about the democracy in China; really
I find it difficult to say" ,
("Q) Have you never made a study of that?— (A) My lor
-
16485.
to 1956 r more particularly perhaps towards the end of
that period, were there people in the A .N.C . criticising
the introduction of Communist theories in the A .N .C ,
policy", and the witness deals with that at some length.
The next question is;
( "Q) Well, after 1952 and up to the Freedom Charter,were
there criticisms by members of the A .N.C . that certain
plicies of the A„N,C„ appeared to be Communist?— ( A ) . . . .
that form of criticism came from people; I could mention
one chap I knew very well in Natal, John Jordan Nkubane
who was very emphatic on the question that the A.N.C.was
becoming influenced by Communism".
( "Q) Well, at that time did the A .N .C , consider it neces-
sary at all tc discuss the question, whether any of their
policies appeared to be something like Communism, or not,
or was the A.N.C. just proceeding on its way?— (A) It
was proceeding on its way, my lord, it had a basic policy
in 1944.
("Q) Yes, but after the Freedom Charter had been formulated
was there any criticism that the Freedom Charter was a
Communist document by members of the A.N.C?— (A) What
criticism; my lords? If I may add here, my lords, new
features appeared in the Freedom Charter, just one feature
which probably night have not been discussed in the A.N.C"
and he deals with nationalisation of the mines.
( "Q) Where did that come from?. In the Freedom
Charter ?— (A) It came from the Congressof the People".
( "Q) Not through the African National Congress?— (A)
Well, there were different views, my lords, within the
African National Congress itself on nationalisation.
-
1648 6.
That is why we felt discussion should be held on i t . "
Some were in favour of nationalisation and some were not".
And then, my lords,, at page 11396, the question
is asked;
( "Q) You say there was criticism in the A .N.C . of portions
of the Freedom Charter?— (A) Well, some people criticised
certain portions."
( "Q) And did the A,N.C. not worry about that?— (A) Well,
even though there was criticism the majority prevailed."
That is the longest passage on which we rely, my
lords, and our submission is , with great respect, that
it constitutes cross examination of the witness.
We make a similar submission in regard to the
passage 11397 to line 2 on page 11402, line 28 , my lords,
that this passage includes the question that was put on
11399» ( "Q) Dr. Conco, there is an extract from an article
which I want to read to you, and I want you to give your
opinion on it ; it is exhibit PJ.104; the portion I want
to quote is as follows: 'That the disease is more dread
than the system. It has been called a Police State, it ' s
been called a Dictatorship and a Fascist State. ' Call
it what you wish, the name is not important, 'There is
a grave disease in our political life that has eaten
deeply into the living tissues of our . . . . it has
undermined the Acts of Union and imperilM the honour
of our cause. (reads on) . ' I 'm putting this
medical term to you, as a medical practitioner, - ' It
is time for a new epoch but even now the surgical opera-
tion will be far from easy' - - there is further quota-
tion - - then the question follows ("Q)What would you say
-
16487
the writer or author of this document had in mind when he
says 'The Fascism in our country is incurable unless it
is surgically removed'." Then, my lords, there is a
lengthy discussion on that0
Now, my lords, those are the two passages
which I rely on in the argument on evidence of the wit-
ness Conco. There are three passages which I rely on in
my argument from the witness Luthuli.
KENNEDY J: Mr. Fischer, in regard to those
two passages, is your objection that they constitute
cross examination?
MR. FISCHER; Yes, my lord.
KENNEDY J; It falls under heading 2 of the
four points you make?
MR. FISCHERS Principally under heading 2 .
KENNEDY J; Are any of the other headings in-
cluded?
MR. FISCHER; Yes, my lord, they also fall
under heading 3.
KENNEDY Js 2 and 3?
MR. FISCHER; 2 and 3> my lord,
RUMPFF J ; That'3 the last passage you re-
ferred to?
MR. FISCHER; Yes, which we describe in
our argument as coming under 'political debate'.
RUMPFF J; Yes.
MR, FISCHER; My lords, it 's not always easy
- I had hoped to separate these passages and label e ach
one; it 's not possible to do that, my lords", your
lordships will realise that I covered there about 26
pages which in a sense brings the objection also under
20
25
30
-
16488o
1 heading No . l .
KENNEDY J: Oh, well perhaps it mightn't be fair
to expect you to classify them under each heading.
MR. FISCHER; I don't think it is possible, my
lords.
5
KENNEDY J; No0 Well, if you just say they
fall under one or other or some or all of the headings.
MR. FISCHER t I shall endeavour to do so, my
lord. Now, ny lords5 the next passage to which I wish
to refer is a passage in Volume 62, page 13234, line 14 10
to page 13237, line 18 . The questions are as follows -
( U Q) I don't understand your evidence at a l l . The first
article referred to by the Crown apparently was an article
by Mandela, ard he deals there with the parties in the
Union. He deals with the Liberal Party and he criticises 15
the Liberal Party for taking a middle course?— (A) That
is s o" .
( U Q ) A middle of the road course?— (A) That is so."
( "Q) And in dealing with that he says 'You can't achieve
anything by that?-— (A) That is correct," 20
( "Q ) He refers to a des peraS e resistance that will have
to be overcome?— (A) That is soa"
( "Q ) Now apparently in reply to that article PCW. Price
wrote and said that they - presumably the Liberal Party -
that they did not want any violence. He didn't use the 25
word violence but he said 'We don't want any storming of
bastilles, tattered banners, tombstones. We don't want
that '?— (A) I appreciate that, my lord,"
( "Q) Obviously meaning that the Liberal Party don't want
any clashes of violence?— (A) Quite correct, my lord,," 30
-
16489«
("Q) Now again in reply to that article Ruth First wrote
an article and listening to the passages which were quoted
from that she says1. 'That is nonsense'; she criticises
Price?— (A) Quite so, my lords-"
("Q) For being afraid of violence? That is one's first
impression when one reads t h a t . . , . ? — (A) My lord, did you
say criticises for being afraid?" .
("Q) She criticises Price for advocating peaceful means?—
(A) Peaceful means?"
( "Q) And she suggests that you can't achieve anything with-
out violence; that is what she suggests?— (A) Well, my
lords, I ' d better leave that with the Court."
(UQ) Yes, that is what I say is the impression I get from
her answer?— (A) Yes."
( U Q) She ridicules peaceful means; she is sarcastic about
it and she quotes ?— (A) My lords, would the peaceful
means be connected for instance with constituional means?"
( n Q) Well, you've heard the passage, I'm just giving you
my impression* The urima facie impression, listening to
this view, is that she suggests that a struggle without
the possibility of a clash is ineffectual, it will not
serve?— (A) My lords? just to clear my own mind in that
regard, is that any different from the attitude of the
African National Congress?", "What I have already said
in Court, namely that our programme of action for example
might result in the State taking action."
( "Q) That is the question asked by Counsel?— (A) That
I accept, my lordc I may not have made myself clear."
( "Q) I just want to ask you this; did you read these
articles at the time when they were published?— (A) No, my
-
16490
lord, I don't really recall. I must say that one reads an
article, but I am not a general reader - that I must say " .
( "Q) But didn't this present an interesting difference
between a man whom you knew well , Mandela, and Price,
and Ruth First?— (A) I must say, my lord, I am not a
general reader of these journals".
( "Q) But this is a magazine called 'Liberation*; did you
get it regularly?— (A) Not regularly . ."
( "Q) Were you not a subscriber to i t ?— (A) No, I 'm not a
subscriber." "But I get it fairly regularly when I 'm in Town.."
( "Q) Was it not sent to you?— (A) I cannot answer no or
yes, because one gets so many of these articles that I
can't remember, but I do get them - - I do generally get
i t . "
( "Q ) At this time were you President-General of the A.N.C
?-- (A) That is correct." 2 0
( n Q ) Were you doing any other work at the time, or was this
your full time occupation?— (A) No, Congressis part time.
That is , of course, you've got to do your own personal
work for a living. "
( "Q ) What work did you do at The time?— (A) I am a 25
peasant farmer." ''Then, too, my lords, as I say, I »
think it also depends upon one's pay how many journals
one receives . . . "
There is then a lengthy answer, my lords, and
the last question is ; 50
( "Q) Did you know members of the Liberal Party at the
time who were prepared to go the full way with your orga-
nisation?— (A) No, my lord. What I do know is that
since that time the Liberal Party has in many respects
-
16491
been considering the question s and revising its own con-
stitution."
Now, my lords, the next passage is at page
13445, line 12 . . .
RUMPFF J ; The same witness?
MR. FISCHER; The same witness, my lord, to
page 13446, line 16;
( M Q) Well, the difficulty is this, Mr. Luthuli, Counsel
asked you if the A aN 0C. visualised the possibility of
reduced government forces available for the removal by
industrial action. Why did it think that a reduced
government force would assist the people, the people who
were about to be removed?— (A) My lords, in this whole
general picture I find it difficult to - -
("Q) Well, I suppose the argument will be "
My lords, I understand this to be the argument
for the Crown -
"The argument will simply be that the A0N„C. wanted to
reduce the forces of government in areas concerned? they
were expecting violent action, and the smaller the Govern-
ment foree the less chance of the Government scoring
a success by violent action. May I put this to you:
have you got any other reason why the A.1T,C, wanted
the Government forces to be reduced?— (A) Well, my
lords I think that it is correct; I think that the
observation of my lordship there would be correct , ."
( "Q) I 'm saying, i f you say you don't understand the
question then the Crown may leave it at that, and it may
argue at a later stage that the only reason why the
A,N.C. wanted a reduction in the forces was because it
expected a violent clash; it didn't want the Government
-
16492.
forces to be concentrated in that area. That will be
the a rgument?— (A) My lords, I was going to say this,
that in a situation like that several factors may come
into it " and there is a lengthy answer, my lords.
Now, my lords, I am omitting some of the pas-
sages and I read from page 13724, line 15. The question
at line 16 starts as follows;
( "Q) I just want to ask you, Mr. Luthuli, about the so
called peace. You say that the African National Congress
is favourably inclined towards Russia insofar as she
sought peace, as she purported to seek peace?— (A) That
is correct, my lord." "And the other things that I have
mentioned 0"
( "Q) Now what was the peace of Soviet Russia as the
African National Congress understood it? What is meant
by peace?— (A) Well, my lords, I cannot be specific but
I think at UNO her pronouncers were in favour of peace,
and I think also, my lords, that the general pronouncements
of the Russian leaders were to that effect"e
" (Q ) I know that they may have been in favour of peace,
but what was the peace that Soviet Russia aimed at? What
was peace? What do you understand by peace? As far as
the African Naticnal Congress is concerned?— (A) I think,
my lords, we would understand it as a stage where there
is co-existence, commonphrase co-existence; each country
living peacefully and working out its own destiny in its
own way. We'd understand it that way."
( "Q) My question was, how did the African National Con-
gress understand the peace that Soviet Russia wanted and
propagated?— (A) I don't know that I follow, my lords."
-
16493.
( "Q) Well, you've indicated that insofar as Soviet
Russia explained itself to be in favour of peace, the
A .N .C . supported their point of view?— (A) Ye3, and
I thought, my lords „ , . »"
( W Q) I want to know from you what is the meaning of the
peace that Soviet Russia explained to be in favour of,
in the minds of the African National Congress? What did
the African *Titicn£l nongres° understand by the word
peace?-* (A) I'm afraid . . . . . "
( "Q ) l ' l l tell you why I ask . . ." and lower down -
("Q) Is it jufst that Russia didn't appear to be desirous
of engaging in battle?— (A) Yes, I would say so."
( "Q) Or is it something more?— (A) No, I think we were
thinking more in terms of world war" „•
( "Q) Why I ask you is because if my memory serves me cor-
rectly, there have been references to certain conditions
for instance that there can be no peace without libera-
tion?— (A) Yes, that is correct, my lord,"
Then? my lords, there is a considerable dis-
cussion on that 5 and in the last paragraph of page 13726
the witness is asked"
( "Q) Now i f that is so;; and that is really what I want to
enquire into, inoo the meaning of peace, is it correct to
say that peace as the African National Congress sees it
is not a mere state of non-war, not the mere state of
parties not fighting, it is a state in which a certain
political change has taken place throughout the world?—
(A) My lords, I think it would cover that, but I think
that generally in regard to the earlier questions of
your lordship, I think it 's more thinking of actual war
when we say peace„
-
16494.
Then I skip two questions, my lord, and thens
( "Q) NOW I take it that - is it correct to say that the
African National Congress did not worry about other coun-
tries which expressed themselves in favour of peace?—(A)
Well, my lords . . . . . "
( n Q) I ' l l tell you why I 'm asking you that question, be-
cause it knew or it thought that the peace suggested by
Soviet Russia was a peace based on the absence of oppres-
sion. In other words, if a Western power without any
Colonial possessions or interests let us take Denmark?
i f Denmark had expressed itself as a peace loving nation
and in favour of peace, that would not really have been
of interest to the African National Congress, because
that type of peace was an obvious type of peace - the
absence of war; but when Soviet Russia " and the
witness says, "Repeat about Denmark, my lord, I didn't
follow", and the question is repeated:
("Q) I say if Denmark had expressed itself in favour of
peace the African National Congress would not have been
concerned with that?— (A) We would have been glad, my n ord"
("Q) If you would have been glad, it would be because
ofr:a people expressing a desire forpeace, but now the
African National Congress did not go out of its way to
quote Denmark as a country in favour of peace?— (A) That
would be correct, my lordo"
("Q) Except Russia?— (A) That would be correct."
( " 0 ) Not I'm trying to find the reason".
Then there are some questions which follow;
I shall skip intermediate questions;
("Q) Did the AtN.C
-
16495
exists oppression there can't be peace."
( "Q) So that unless and until the world picture is such
that there is no oppression in any country of the world
true peace cannot exist?— "
I again skip a questions
("Q) Well, is the view then of the African National Con-
gress or was the view that until and unless there is no
oppression in any country in the world, true peace cannot
exist ?"
And then I take the three questions on page
13729, my lords:
( "Q) Would tha result be of that attitude that one would
require a political change throughout the world to re-
move oppression before true peace could exist?" Next
question:
( "Q) Would you agree with the Communist point of view
that if every country in this world became a Communist
country there would be true peace?" and finally:
( "Q) I'm not suggesting that you should; I'm merely
asking you whether you agree with the Communist point
of view that until every country in the world is Commu-
nist there can be no true peacec"
My lords, the passages which we rely on stop
at the 12th line 0:1 page 13730, and I wish to refer
only to one farther passage for the purposes of this
argument. That is the passage in Volume 67, page
14282, my lords, line 6 to start with. I 'm sorry, my
lord, that completes the portions from the witness
Lithuli and I'm now dealing with the evidence of Mrs.
Joseph. This is her evidence in volume 67, page 14282.
-
16496.
She was being cross examined by, or led by Lrvy ae fol-
lows s
( "Q) NOW did the Peace Council ever express the view that
British control of the Protectorates was a threat to
peace?" — (A) No, my lords, as far as I know the Peace
Council never expressed that view." 1 0
And then the question from the Bench:
( "Q) Why not, why didn't you?— (A) I don't think I can
give the answer why, my lords, I can only say that I don't
recall that it ever did."
("Q) Should it have done so?— (A) I 'm trying to think ^
that out, my lords. May I postpone the answer."
Then Levy asks; (Q) On the other hand, it is
correct, is it not, that the Peace Council had a differ-
ent view about the British control of Malaya", and the
witness answered 'For me to ascribe to the Peace Council 2 0
the view that it had a different view of Malaya - - I
find myself thinking along different lines "
"But I would not be correct if I said that was the view
of the Peace Council; I 've never heard it discussed by
the Peace Council. It 's merely my own view." Then 25
from the Bench:
( "Q) Would it be correct to say that in terms of the
Peace Council's view? if in Swaziland there weie a
Communist Party agitating for independence of sovereignty
than the British rule might constitute a danger to world
peace".
My lords, to try and keep this application
within limits I propose to rely on two other passages
from Mrs. Jsseph's evidence, one of them unfortunately
-
16497
is somewhat lengthy; I ' l l try and abbreviate it as far
as I can.
KENNEDY J ; Mr. Fischer, I 'm sony , I missed the
page where you ended in regard to the first portion.
MR. FISCHER; I ended, my lord, page 14282, line
6 to 11, and line 22 to 30, my lord, on the same page.
The next pasage is page 14512, line 14, and this, my
lords, we rely on the whole of this up to page 14527 -
line 2. My lords, this we submit constitutes something
like fifteen pages of continuous questioning during the
cross examination of the accused Mrs. Joseph. It starts
as follows; "Mrs. Joseph, may I put a hypothetical case
to you. If you had a country with a Fascist Government
using the organs of the State and the amE d forces to
govern, you have a majority of the people oppressed by
the Easist Government, a big majority of the people com-
pared to the minority who exercise the Government
what would you put as of prime importance; the achievement
of liberation, or the methods of the achievement?— (A) I
think I would find it difficult to separate the two, my
lords. I myself would not support a violent method to
achieve liberation."" If that is what my lord implies".
("Q) Not isctually what you would support; what would
you put as of primary importance, the liberation of an
oppressed people from a Fascist government, or the me-
thods of such liberation?-- (A) My lord, I cannot separate
them.
(MQ) I f you had a country where the oppresses masses have
no weapons and have no arms and couldn't employ violence
successfully, except by exercising couldn't make
their presence felt except by extra-parliamentary activities
-
16498,
- that would be one thing. It might in those circum-
stances be very foolish to encourage them to run up against
machine guns. What would your attitude be if you had a
oountry where a mass of people were governnd by a Fascist
government, but they had arms, and if they wanted to they
could by means of those arms in a very short clash get
rid of the Fascist government, and its authority and its
oppression, with a minimum of sacrifice as far as they are
concerned."?— My lords, there would never be a minimum
sacrifice in such a situation."
( "Q) What would your point of view be?— (A) My point of
view, my lords, would be and has always been that even if
it means a longer time to achieve liberation always sup-
port the non-violent means,
( "Q) Would you condemn an armed conflict in these circum-
stances? Even if you might not support i t? " .
The next question but one:
( "Q) Would you condemn the oppressed masses for using
violence? Would you condemn all use of violence? In
throwing off the Fascist government?— (A) My lords,
my lord presupposes the situation in which the ie ople
themselves have taken the decision that they are going
to achieve their liberation because they had arms and
they could through war achieve it . I would condemn it ,
( "Q) You would condemn it?— (A) If it came as the con-
scious decision on the part of these people, I would, my
lords
Then the next question is as follows:
" ( Q ) Well, assume you had a Fascist government which in
order to entrench itself as a government passed measures
to oppress that part of the population of its country 35
-
16499.
which it governs - - in other words, as you put i t ,
there was a movement in that hypothetical case by the
Government of that particular country, and if the people
had arms, would you then condemn the use of those arms
by the people in an effort to shake off that government
- and if the people wanted to establish a Peoples Demo-
cracy?— (A) My lords, the aims would then to me by less
important than the fact that human life could be lost
in the suffering entailed. . .
( n Q) Yes, but assume that the position was such that the
majority of the people oppressed as they are could by a
short violent clash get rid of the fascist government,"
( "Q) Would you condemn i t " . Next question:
( "Q) Why I'm asking you this is this: would that be the
attitude of the Congress of Democrats?— (A) There, my
lord, I 've been speaking for myself." " I don't recall
that we've ever had an a ctual discussion of this nature."
( "Q) Knowing as you do the Congress of Democrats, knowing
as you do the leadership, what is your opinion about the
view of that leadership concerning this matter which we
have been discussing? ~ 11 Next questions
( "Q) I 'm asking you this because of the evidence that
is before the Court. Have you ever in any document or
speech condemned the violence used by an oppressed
people to throw off their oppressive government?— (A)
Not as far as I can recall, my lords."
("Q) NOW if that is your personal opinion, and if you
are wedded to the principle of non-violence, why did
you not do so?— (A) My lord, I don't recall any specific
instance of oppressed people themselves initiating armed
conflict.
-
16500.
( "Q) Well , let 's take the case of Kenya and Mau Mai .
Did you ever condemn the use of violence by Mau Mau".
Next quest ion:
( "Q) Mrs. Joseph, are you putting this to us now, that
we as a Court of Law should find that there were no Mau
Mau?— (A) No, my lords, I'm not saying that there were
none - - as I know it they have been denied."
C"Q) Well, let'sput it on the basis of what appearedin
the papers, then you and I are I think able to meet on
more or less equal grounds. You read the papers, I read
the papers. Do we read the same papers? We don't know
that. There have been complaints against the MauMau's
brutal acts against innocent womenand children and farmers.
There were also complaints afterwards when the troops
occupied - against the Mau Mau - - some brutal acts by
the British troops. I'm putting that as a basis. Did
you on that basis ever condemn the Mau Mau,using the
word 'condemn' in a speech or a document?— (A) Do you
mean me myself, my lord?
( "Q) Yes?— (A) My lord, I think at that time the real
truth is that I didn't actually make any speeches or
write any documents; but in the Federation Conference
there was a resolution . . . ." Then there is a lengthy
answer, which is followed by these two questions:
("Q) That is why I am asking you the question. Having
regard to your personal stance and your acceptance of
certain principles in regard to violence, whether in
pursuance of those principles you ever condemned violence
used by any particular group". Then -
("Q) Having regard to the position in Kenya, to which I
referred just now, and you dealt with it , did you or did
-
16501.
you not at that time attempt to allocate blame." The
witness answered at the top of page 14518, ( I think I
must have expressed horror, my lords, ;)ust as I did
with the other, the killing of the European farmers and
the ir f amilie s ).
( "Q) I 'm asking these questions to ascertain whether you,
either you or the Congress of Democrats, ever treated
both parties on the same basis, because the impression
that I have is , looking at the documents published,
that the entire blame in regard to all the issues that
were mentioned in the documents - various clashes between
the oppressed and the government - in various parts of
the world - in every case the blame was squarely put
on the government?— (A) My lords* I think that that is
undoubtedly so because of the feelings of the liberation
movement," and the violence adopted by the government in
each case, whatever it may have been, was condemned.
( "Q) And in no single instance that I can think of - that
is why I am putting it to you - in not a single instance
is the violence adopted by the oppressed people condemned"
and the next question was;
(MQ)Would it be right to say that the condemnation of
violence in the opinion of the Congressof Democrats de-
pends on the situation".
Then I skip several questions, my lords, 5
and come to the foot of page 14519:
( "Q) You see, Mrs. Joseph, what I am asking you is this:
that we have a particular set, or we had a particular set
up in this country; we had the fact that people who
were being called the oppressed people did not have arms.
We had a government which was called a Fascist Government.
-
16502.
It had the power of the State behind i t , the police -
using the words in the document - the Courts, and even
if necessary, the army. So for any organisation to make
any headway amongst the masses it would be essential to
propagate a policy of non-violence, not so? Because
it would be suicidal to propagate violence in those cir-
cumstances. It depends on the situation where you are,
and that is why I'm asking you the question, to test the
real approach to the problem by yourself and by the Con-
gress of Democrats. I 'm putting to you the difference
between expressions of non-violence in this country, and
the failure on the face of the documents at least, the
failure to condemn violence in other countries where
circumstances existed more or less , shall I say, the same
as here, and where the oppressed people actually were said
to have used violence. You see the conflict?— (A) I see,
my lord, but that would suggest that non-violence is
purely a matter of expediency in South Africa. I 've never
seen it here, my lords."
( "Q ) That is my difficulty; that is why I am putting it
to you."
Then the next question was th ,
( "Q ) Now I think we can assume the fact that the libera
-tion of China did not take place in a non-violent man-
ner?— (A) That is so."
("Q)Now did the Congressof Democrats ever, in putting up
China as an example of the constitution to be adopted,
- I ' m putting it squarely in that form - - in the interests
of the oppressed people, did it ever in the same breath
condemn the violence that took place in China?— (A) No,
my lords, it did not, any more than we specifically
-
16503.
condemned the violence in the French Revolution, hut
nevertheless we hailed the principles that emerged."
( "Q) Yes; and it is for that reason that I am really-
asking you the question. Did the view, the point of
view regarding non-violence, was that not a point of
view which depended on circumstances." Next question:
( "Q) Again on the question of shall I say a relative
violence, did the Congress of Democrats support the
principles of the African National Congress, that in
order to achieve its aims it may be necessary to engage
in a unionwide struggle?— (A) In a Unionwide peaceful
struggle, yes, my lords."
( "Q) A Unionwide stay at home?— (A) Stay at home, yes".
( "Q) I didn't say struggle, I saidstrike?— (A) Sony ,
I thought you said struggle".
( "Q) A Unionwide strike?— (A) Yes, my lord."
( "Q) Did it support that?— (A) Yes."
("Q)
I skip a question, my lords:
( "Q) Did the Congress realise that in the case of an
ultimate strike which would be an indication of the
failure of any negotiation prior to the strike, that
there might be violence used by the State to break up
the strike?".
And, my lords, I skip page 14524, where
the previous questions had been on 14523*
( "Q) Well, I 'm putting it to you on the basis that once
there is a Nationwide strike it must have apje ared to
the Congress Alliance that nothing else could do anything,
could achieve anything. It would mean, it would pre-
suppose a situation of the Government being as hard as a
-
16504.
rock?— (A) Yes, my lords."
( "Q) And the Congress Alliance being as determined as
anything?— (A) Yes."
( "Q) That situation must be presupposed before one thinks
of a nationwide strike?— (A) Yes."
( "Q) NOW in that atmosphere, having regard to the fact
that the government of the day is hard as a rock, the
Congress Alliance is determined to carry on, what would
the Congress of Democrats, or you for that matter - what
would you envisage might happen?". The end of the
10
answer, my lords, is as follows: "Our people might have
had to suffer during that time, but the pressure would
be on the population as a whole because the country would
not be able to continue. Therefore negotiations would
be the result,, That is how we saw it , that people might 15 have to suffer imprisonment. That is true,"
( "Q) And blood flowing?— (A) Yes, we made that clear,too,
to our people0"
( "Q) And if the strike is on a nationwide scale, would
you exclude violence completely by the masses against 20
the authorities? If there were arrests?". .
Then I turn to page 14526, line 7» my lords,
( "Q) I 'm asking you these questions to see how your evi-
dence regards the fundamentals of your policy can be
reconciled to the hard facts of l i fe?— (A) My lords, 25
the fundamentals of our policy were reconciled to the
hard facts of life in India; it took a long time, but
they can be reconciled. I believe in that."
( "Q) Yes, but there may be this difference. In India
- between India and this country - - that the very xq
-
16505
idea of non-violence as propagated by Ghandi is an idea
which accordingto the evidence has not been propagated
to the same extent and in the same particular manner?—
(A) It started here, my lords."
I don't think I need read the balance of this
passage, my lords. The next passage, my lords, is a
passage at page 14690 of the record, line 6 , and the
whole passage - although I shall abbreviate it as much
as possible - extends to page 14699, line 22. The ques-
tions relate to mass action, my lords, and Mrs. Joseph
said any action involving a large number of people . . .
( "Q) I 'm afraid I don't follow this at all . I f the object
of the Congress Alliance has been to instruct and encour-
age people not to go voluntarily, but to submit themselves
to go under compulsion - that is how I understood your
evidence to be - - ?— (A) Yes."
("Q) What possible need could there be for mass action
in the sense that there has to be strategy explained to
volunteers, and in the sense that methods should be adopted
to prevent them from being isolated by the police cordons
etc? I don't follow this at all. Unless something much
more than mere submission to compulsion is envisaged.
That is why I ask you what mass action, in the sense
that you said 'yes' to the question. What is mass action'
Tnere is a lengthy reply, my lords. I skip some ques-
tions, and I come to the questions on page 14691
( n Q) Now if that is so, then I have great difficulty in
following both this document and also the document
which I put to you yesterday. I don't know whether you
want to think about it again, the report in which it was
-
16506.
suggested that there has "been a failure on the part of
the people to show a more militant action?— (A) Yes,
my lord, I did think about that document again ; I
wanted to come back to i t . "
( n Q) Wow if I may ask you to do that, having regard to
this evidence with which we are dealing now, I think the
document is C.41; the passage that I put to you yester-
day appears at 1547. It says: 'But in the final stages
of
at the time/the actual removal, the Congress message
did not prove effective enough to draw into militant
action those who "were to be removed'. First of all we
have a reference to Congress message which did not prove
effective enough; it assumes that there had been a
message put across to people to do something, because it
says that that message did not prove effective enough to
draw into militant action those who were to be moved.
Now, having regard to this passage, the one with which we
are dealing now, at page 18113, what is the meaning of
this? What was expected of the people to be moved?—
(A) My lord, it was expected that they would display
their unwillingness to go,"
( "Q) Then we come back to the ouestion of yesterday;
were they not in fact on the day in question legally
compel]e d to go by the presence of thousands of police
men armed with sten guns?— (A) My lords, I'm not clear
as to whether they were in fact legally compelld."
I skip a question:
("Q) May I just clear it up. Assume that they had not
even proper notice in terms of the Act, what did the
Congress expect them to do on the day of removal?— (A)
I think Congress definitely expected them to remain"
-
16507
" I f they had not been given a legal order to go" .
I skip two questions, my lords;
( "Q) Did the Congress expect them to resist or to get
on the lorries?" Next question -
("Q) Did the Congress Alliance then not decide how it
should conduct a campaign in this respect; did it tell
the people precisely what they should do? Did it keep
the order up its sleeve until the order became imminent?
— (A) My lords, that is what I do not know; I can only
assume that discussions would have taken place."
( "Q) Now that is the case then of a possibility of there
being no legal order and no order served on the people
who were about to go. What would the position be in the
event of the requirements of the Act having been complied
with?—"
That is debated, my lords, and I turn to
the s eventh line on page 14694: It relates to people
demonstrating their unwillingness:
(MQ) In what manner?—- (A) My lords, by not being ready
to- gO". "By not being packed up with everything ready -
by not themselves actually perhaps voluntarily loading
the'ir goods."
("Q) NO, I'm talking about what the Congress envisaged?—
(A) My impression of what they had in mind".
( n Q) In other words, to remain completely passive?— (A)
Yes, my lords."
( "Q) Not to assist in the loading, is that it? Not to
collaborate in any way?— (A) Yes*"
("Q) But if after the legal requirements were complied
with, and the policemen ordered the people to get on to
the lorries, did the Congress expect them to obey?--
-
16508,
(A) My lords, I would understand so, because this was
not conducted as a defiance campaign."
( "Q) Now then if that is so, what is the meaning of
this passage which we are dealing with, and which we
dealt with yesterday, 'The Congress message did not
prove effective enough to draw into militant action
those who were to be removed'".
My lords, I skip several questions and I
read from the middle of page 14-696:
("Q) Now then if also the people were expected to remain
completely passive and un-co-operative, what is the mean-
ing of this passage which has been put to you this morn-
ing, 'The organisation of volunteers should be improved
to ensure that the people have leadership at all times,
that they cannot easily be isolated by police cordons'.
What is the object of that?— (A) My lords, I would say
the object of this means that on the day of the removal
it appears to r& that because of the large numbers of
police that the volunteers who were expected to be there
to guide and advise the people, must have got cut off
by the large numbers of police."
( "Q) Why shouldn't they be cut off? If all the people,
i f the requirements in regard to all the people is that
they should remain passive until they get the order to
move, why was it necessary for this not to happen?— (A)
My lords, I would consider that even - - I do not know,
of course, how effective the Congress message was, but
I would expect that it would be accepted that the volun-
teers should be there on the day of the removal in order
to guide and advise people, to stop them from panicking."
-
16509.
( "Q) To assist the police?— (A) No, my lords, not to
assist the police, but to advise the people."
("Q) Either to assist the police, I take it , or to ob-
struct the police?— (I don't think so, my lords".
( "Q) What else?— (A) To be there to advise the people."
("Q) To do what?— (A) To behave calmly, to be calm and
not to panic."
( "Q) Not to be provoked?— (A) Yes."
("Q) In that case they would assist the police?— (A) My
lords, i f the police were provoking and the volunteers
were calling upon the people not to be provoked, that
would not be assisting the police."
On the next page, my lords, I read these ques-
tions :
( "Q ) In your opinion the presence of the police on that
occasion constituted acts of provocation? Do you de-
sire that provocation in your Congress or not?" The
last question was: Just above that it says:
( "Q) The immediate task in the Western Areas wasthat
of ensuring that this resistance grows, that nobody
collaborates with the authorities and that those who
are removed are removed by force, and that the 'M'plan
is put into operation. The aim should be to make it
necessary for the authorities to employ more and more
force to effect removals. Well, you've given your
answer."
(COURT ADJOURNED FOR 15 MINUTES)
-
16510.
ON THE COURT RESUMING:
MR. FISCHER: My lords, I have not much more
illustrative reading to do, but perhaps this is a
convenient moment at which to indicate to your lord-
ships what the fifth, ground is upon which we rely. a
Your lordships will see that/considerable
volume of passages has been relied upon; as I in-
dicated I shall hand in a typed l ist of further re-
ferences, but the fifth ground in our submission is
that these passages constituted an irregularity in
that the cumulative effect of the said interventions
by the learned Presiding Judge have created the im-
pression that he has not approached the Defence
evidence with an open mind, and has given rise to
a reasonable fear in the minds of the accused that
they are not obtaining a fair trial .
Now, my lords, I hope that I have read out
enough to indicate that there is a cumulative effect
of these interventions which in any event we submit
are mostly individual irregularities in themselves,
but to give your lordships the real impression of
the cumulative effect created by these passages, I
do want to mention that we shall in the result rely
on 119 passages taken from the questioning of eight
witnesses. Those are all the witnesses, my lord,
who have been called for the Defence up to the pre-
sent .
Now, my lords, to try and complete in as
short a time as possible the remaining passages
I refer first of all still to the evidence of Mrs.
Joseph, at page 14735, line 5.
-
16511
A document was being referred to which
says: as the question stated: 'But the final victory
for the people which means the end of the cheap labour
system in South Africa can only be finally achieved
by the overthrow of the ruling class, and by the
achievement of the Freedom Charter as the ruling policy
of South Africa. 1 This document, I think you said,
emanated from the National Consultative Committee?—
(A )• Yes, my lord. "
( "Q) Would it be correct to say that that body was a
class conscious body?— (A) I don't think I ever
thought of it as such. I thought of it as a racialism
conscious body, i f I may put it that way."
( "Q) Looking at this document - I haven't looked at
the rest of it for the moment - but look at this
passage in this document. Would it not be correct to
say that the author of this is a class conscious man".
There's a long answer and the next question was:
( "Q) Not the Government, the ruling class, you say,
are the white people?— (A) I don't think in terms
of classes; that would be synonymous with the fact
that the white people are in fact the people who rule . "
( "Q) Would it be correct to say that the Congress of
Democrats is a class .conscious organisation?— (A) No,
my lords."
( "Q) Would you say that the Congress Alliance is a
class conscious alliance?— (A) No, I wouldn't say so".
( "Q) I 'm just thinking about this; isn 't there a dif-
ference between an African National Congress before
say 1952 and after5 in this way: That before 1952
- maybe 1951, I 'm not certain about the date - but
more or less that time, before that day the African
-
16512.
National Congress was racial conscious, but afterwards 1
with the Congress allianc3 it became class conscious."
Next question:
( "Q) You say the Freedom Charter is free from class?—
(A) As I understand it , my lord.,"
( "Q ) I 'm entirely relying on my memory, but the impres- 5
sion that I have atthe moment - that is why I am putting
it to you - is tt>at the African National Congress as
such became class cons'-nous after 1952 - - what I want
to put to you is that having regard to the documents
emanating from the Congress of Democrats, whether the 1 0
class consciousness of the African National Congress
after that was not due to the Congress of Democrats?—
(A) My lo.-'de, no; my answer would be very firmly no
on that. "
( "Q ) I sn ' t the kernel of the approach to the Congress
of Democrats This very thing, that the Europeans
in this country must bo brought to realise that the
evil in the system is ,- ot racialism but the economic
set-up.r And I .k ip two questions, my lords.
( "Q) Anyway, I cau 51 rof'd.: to a particular document, 2 0
but there arc doc jrr r, -c jurp^rting to emanate from the
Congress of Democrats, or purporting to have been draft-
ed by persons who occupy leading positions in the Con-
gress of Democrats, which set out that particular approach.
You would disagree with that?— (A) My lords, I would
disagree with that i f they are alleged to be documents
setting out attitudes and points of view of the Congress,"
The next questions are;
( "Q) Those members at the time when the Congress of
Democrats was formed, a number- of people Joined who
-
16513v
were formerly members of the Communist Party . "
Next qusstion:
(*Q) I understood from you, I think yesterday, that not-
withstanding the fact that you allowed individual opi«*
nions to be expressed in the Congress of Democratsf
in regard to Hungary, you observed the feelings of
those who might be from shall I say the Communist
Party?— (A) My lords, the feelings of both - there
were strong feelings and we felt that it would be in-
correct for us to issue a statement as an organisation
when there was disagreement in our ranks."
( "Q ) Was there serious disagreement?— (A) There was
fairly sharp disagreement."
( " Q " ) When did it appear?— (A) My lords, it appeared
at the branch level, particularly with my own branch."
( "Q " ) Was the matter ever brought to a higher level
than branch level?— (A) My lords, I discussed this
matter in my branch on the 4th December and I was arrest-
ed on the 5the It wpp just at that time."
( "Q) Was this out of deference to those people who did
not want to cri+-,ois'- Tfcissia?"
Then the next question:
( "Q) On the bap-is of non-violence being an integral
part of the policy of the organisation, and having
regard to the expressions of condemnation of the
violence used by Imperialists, in these documents and
speeches, would it not have been expected of the orga-
nisation to hive expressed its condemnation of violence
used in Hungary by the Soviet Union?— (A) My lord,
I 'm trying to recall now exactly what took place."
( "Q) Be that as it may, the point is that the opinions
-
16514.
of those who were not enjoined to condemn the Soviet
Union were observed?"
Next question -
("Q) But for the sake of their views, the organisation
itself did not make a declaration?", and tShe next
question -
("Q) Yesf the question of Egypt and Israel of course
was peculiar; i f you have Jews in your organisation;
that is very peculiar indeed, but when it comes to
the position of Hungary there was no such problem at
all , was there"? Next question -
( " Q ) I t ' s merely a question of principle, not a question
of nationality".
Next question but one -
("Q) Anyway, the Congress of Democrats as such did
not stop the members of the former Communist Party
to propagate their own views at any time, did it?"
( "Q) So that those members could ha- e propagated class
consciousness throiigh the various magazines and organs
that were published!-— (A j) Yes, my lord, they could have.
Then, my lords, follows a series of questions
on the Leftist ascendency alHoged to have been gaining
ground in the African National Congress.
My Dords, I now turn to the witness Cachalia?
KENNEDY J; Where does this conclude?
MR. FISCHER: This concludes, my lords, at
page 14743, line 1 0 I now turn to the witness Cacha-
lia and I propose to read a fairly short passage at
page 15155, line 2Q, The passage extends to 15158
line 16, my lords„
-
16515.
The questions are:
( "Q) You say there is no penalty attached to a 1 day
strike? Let us put it the other way. You say that if
you called a strike, or caused a strike to appear for
a long time that may bring the country to ruin?— We
don't visualise that at all , my lords."
( "Q) I know, but you say that that is a possibility if
there is a long strike?— In a one day strike this
country won't become ruined."
( "Q) NO, so you draw a difference. You see the way
the question is coming, 1 stage, 2 stages - you are
preparing the community in such a way that the whole
machinery of The country will close down and it won't
function at all and a time of destruction will be ?
That is not the attitude with us; it cannot go that
far . "
( "Q) Why not? — My lord, you see you take a military
action for instance . . , . "
( "Q) No, no, don't worry abort military action. I just
want an answer here now, if you can give it . Why don't
you want a strike for eight days if it paralyses the
country?— People can't sustain that, you see; we don'
want to bring so [nucr. t^a. ffering on the people either."
And there is a lengthy answer after that. "That particu
lar action cannot go on for a very long time."
( "Q) Why not?— I t ' s not possible;" "Even in India it
never happened*"
( "Q ) YOU say that your organisation is prepared to
organise a Unionwide strike, a stay at home?— Yes 0 "
( "Q) Of all people possible?— Yes . "
( "Q) Of all those who work?— Yes . "
-
16516,
( "Q ) The organisation is prepared to cause a strike
to last for a day?— Yes. :
I skip a question -
( "Q) But you say that your organisation is not prepared
to organise a strike to last5 I 'm putting it a bit high
for a month, i f that strike may paralyse the country?—
My lord, for a month it may not paralyse the country,
( "Q ) Well, make it three months, just for argument's
sake; you don't want to paralyse the country?— It
can 't come about, we don't want to do that . "
( "Q) Not you rre putting cwo things. You say it can't
come about, ard you don't want to do it.1 '
( "Q ) I 'm tslking to you now purely on the theory; assume
that it is possible in theory to have a national stay at
home of 90$ of the workers."
( "Q) Why not?" - - that was after he had said it won't
function after that.
The lasT- question in this passage -
( "Q) IS the position that you do not want to force the
government on its knees?— Nos we want change of heart. .
My lords, I tarn next to the witness Lollan
and I refer to page 15456, This is a passage at 15456,
line 13, to 15459, line 23s
( "Q ) I just want to ask you, when Counsel put you the
question whether or not the Congress alliance considered
its position ia the event of South Africa becoming em-
broiled in an Imperialist war with another Imperialist
country. I think you said the Congress Alliance, being
an alliance based on non-violence, it would continue its
struggle on that basis?— That is correct,"
-
16517.
( M Q) Would you say why? Why is the Congress Alliance a
non-violent organisation?— Well, my lord, that is the
policy of the Congress, the policy it has adopted."
( "Q) Why?— Because they believe in non-violence."
( "Q) You believe that violence should not exist?— No."
( "Q) And I think you have also suggested that the Con-
gress Alliance is working for peace?— That is so . "
( "Q) Would you say that in terms of the evidence that
we have heard here that China is one of the countries
working for peace? Let's start off with the Soviet
Union. Is the Soviet Union your view of a country that
is striving for peace?— I think so, my lord. It has
been expressed that the Soviet Union is striving for *
peace."
( "Q ) I f I 'm not mistaken it has been expressed that
it is one of the leaders in the peace movement?— I
wouldn't know about it being the leader of the peace
movement, but it is a country striving for peace,"
( "Q ) Would you say that China is also one of the coun-
tries striving for peace?— I would say that it is natur-
al that China would be, my lord; a country that has
emerged from so many years of war should strive for
peace."
( "Q ) In its struggle for peace could it become neces-
sary to use violence?— I don't see how it could become
necessary to use violence in the struggle for peace,"
("Q) We have read, I think, that on the occasion of
the recent visiu of President Eisenhower to Formosa,
that China sent quite a number of bombs on....?®-: £
don't know that President Eisenhower had visited
Formosa, my lord . "
-
16518.
( "Q ) Have you not read that? You haven't heard about
it because you are detained?— No . "
( "Q ) Assume on the occasion of a visit recently by
President Eisenhower, that the Chinese mainland sent
thousands of bombs on Kramoi, do you regard that as
a non-violent act in the pursuance of world peace?—
I t can't be non-violent, my lord . "
( "Q) That is why I 'm asking you? why exactly do you
regard non-violence as necessary in the struggle for
world peace?— My lord, in the struggle for world peace
you struggle to eliminate violence, so you cannot have
violence in order to eliminate violence."
( "Q ) Why not?— It doesn't follow, my lord . "
( "Q ) It doesn't follow that you must, but is the use of
violence excluded?— To my mind, yes, my lord . "
( "Q ) And the use of arms? (q) Let us put i t this
wayiwould a country striving for world peace, as you
and your organisation see it , would such a country be
entitled to use arms to defend i tsel f?— Yes, my lord,
that is why even in India G-liandi' s policy was rejected
because Ghandi's policy was that India should not even
have an army."
( "Q) I 'm not imterested in India at the moment. As
far as your organisation goes. , . .?— Well, a country is
entitled to defend i t s e l f , "
( "Q ) And defend itself by force, by arms and force?—
That appears to be the only way, my lord . "
( "Q ) Not i f it is entitled to defend itself , why should
it not be entitled to seek after world peace by for
instance the destruction of a single country which stands
-
16519.
in the way of peace?— The world peace we seek after
is a peace where no human life is destroyed."
( "Q) I know, but principally if you are entitled to
defend your country by aras, why principally in your
view should you not be entitled by force to destroy
a country, a single country, or that particular country
that stands in the way of world peace?— No, my lord,
the means do not justify the end."
( "Q) Is that your organisation's view?— That is so. "
("Q)Would you say that that is the view of all coun-
tries that struggle for world peace?— I would not be
able to say."
( "Q ) I f they do not, why should there be a difference?—
I said that was in my view, my lord,,"
( "Q ) Assume that that is not so; assume there are coun-
tries, just for argument's sake, in a.struggle for world
peace they are prepared to use force . . ? — My lords,
it would be illogical to my mind for people to be pre-
pared to wipe out a country for the very ends which
they are trying to prevent„"
( "Q) We've had evidence here of the occasion when Russia
is alleged to have sent armed forces into Hungary; do
you remember that?— That I remember."
( " O Would that be in accordance with your view of a
non-violent policy of the struggle for world peace?—
I did not agree with that action."
) My lords, there is a short passage at page
15492, line 28. The whole passage is from page 15492,
line 29, to page 15495, line 21. It starts as follows:
( "G ) Except that that would be the case of a father who
says 'You must never go and sit on a stone'; your example
-
16520.
example would be a good example if the father was also
at the same time the father who told the son that he
must under no circumstances ever sit on a stone, and
he required discipline to the extent that if he was
told to sit on a stone he never had to sit on a stone.
Surely that is a good analogy, because here you have
an organisation ®ho says 'Under no circumstances -
violence, and the discipline is demanded to such an
extent that the speaker says ' I f violence is ordered
you must commit v i o l e n c e ' T h a t is answered, and
then follows the following questions : -
("C)Has it been explained over and over again, or has
it merely been mentioned casually in a speecn? You
see that is the difficulty that one has here, trying
to reconcile the two. You have documents and you have
speeches in which the phrase is used 'We are non-violent'
-a von-violent army, That is why I asked you this
morning, has the ideology of non-violence and its im-
plications, its practical implications, has that been
fully explained and if so, where? I may give you
another example. We've had the evidence here that
before the Defiance Campaign for Unjust Laws, volunteers
were carefully instructed as far as their duties were
concerned, and they were tested; they were not to commit
violence under any circumstances?— That is correct.
( "Q) Thereafter, on the evidence before us - and I 'm
giving you my inpression of the evidence - the use of
the phrase 'We are non-violent', and no more." That
is answered.
( " O Luring the evidence of these witnesses there hasn't
been a single suggestion to a witness that he left
-
Collection: 1956 Treason Trial Collection number: AD1812
PUBLISHER: Publisher:- Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand Location:- Johannesburg ©2011
LEGAL NOTICES:
Copyright Notice: All materials on the Historical Papers website are protected by South African copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, or otherwise published in any format, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.
Disclaimer and Terms of Use: Provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained therein, you may download material (one machine readable copy and one print copy per page) for your personal and/or educational non-commercial use only.
People using these records relating to the archives of Historical Papers, The Library, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, are reminded that such records sometimes contain material which is uncorroborated, inaccurate, distorted or untrue. While these digital records are true facsimiles of paper documents and the information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, Historical Papers, University of the Witwatersrand has not independently verified their content. Consequently, the University is not responsible for any errors or omissions and excludes any and all liability for any errors in or omissions from the information on the website or any related information on third party websites accessible from this website.