![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
The article argues that the term passenger Indian has contributed to a divisive understanding of migration from the Indian subcontinent to South Africa. It has led to the stereotype of the wealthy Gujarati trader and it excludes much. By focusing on Indian migrants in Cape Town, the argument is made that the term must be redefined to include workers who came from not only Gujarat but also from Maharashtra and the Punjab and that those marginalised by simplified definitions need to be given a place in the historiography. Biographical sketches of workers are provided freeing one from the narrow chronological choices historians have made and include family where possible. Details are provided of what kind of employment Indian immigrants found in Cape Town and the severe effects of the permit system and immigration laws on the free mobility of Indians. The article points to the migrant (and circular) nature of Indian labour in Cape Town with consequences for wives and children in the villages of India and argues that parallels may be made with African migrant labour.
Notes
WCAD, IRC 1/1/101 2485a.
IRC 1/1/216 4987a.
IRC 1/1/142 3449a.
IRC 1/1/159 3833a.
IRC 1/1/139 3374a.
In this article Cape Town is used as it is understood today – greater Cape Town rather than the small municipality that it was in the early 1900s, with Mowbray, Rondebosch, Wynberg, Claremont, Woodstock and Kalk Bay for instance all having their own local government.
In 1905, for instance, Hardit Singh of Durban wrote to the Cape Colonial Secretary that he had come to Durban seven years ago with a ‘passenger pass’ (IRC 1/1/116 2825a). Vendenayagum Lawrence who had worked as a clerk for Gandhi in Durban argued in 1907 that he was ‘a passenger from India’ and asked to be exempt from the various restrictive laws such as the liquor, gun and franchise laws (Bhana and Pachai Citation1984:23).
There is some justification for this separation – the ex-indentured could easily slide back into indenture if they were unable to pay the annual £3 tax, the price of their freedom from indenture.
She gives administrative reasons for a separation. The ex-indentured were still listed under the records of the Protector of Indians Immigrants and were subject to separate registration of marriages, births and deaths.
Kuper, for instance, draws attention to passenger Indians from Madras and Calcutta and also Ceylon and east Africa. She focuses on Parsis and Jains as well as Urdu and Memon speakers.
Kuper (Citation1960:16–7) and Meer (Citation1969:19) are exceptions.
Badassy Citation(2005) has, however, focused on interpreters. While Vahed Citation(2005) has pointed to the fairly large number of shop assistants amongst the passenger Indian he does not deal with them in any substantive manner.
This article recognises that many slaves came from the Indian subcontinent between the seventeenth and early nineteenth centuries but that historians have failed to find any lingering Indian identity.
The IRC files which deal with movement between India and the Cape indicate some movement from Tamils between Kimberley and Port Elizabeth to India and back but at this stage of the research very few Tamil names surface for Cape Town.
See SC 16-1908, Report of the Select Committee on Asiatic Grievances, pp 13, 15–19, 30; also IRC 1/192 2282a Ebrahim Norodien's file.
IRC 1/1/ 71 1738a.
IRC 1/1/124 3076a, see letter from Vazir to Capetown Government, 21 September 1911.
See WCAD, CO, Vol 7415 file 409, Report of the Protector of Emigrants, 5 September 1901; Medical Officer of Health to Colonial Secretary, 10 October 1901; Note from Colonial Secretary to Medical Officer, 11 October 1901.
Cape Times 9 October 1901, editorial.
G.63-1904, Report on the Working of the Immigration Act, 1902 (Cape Town, Government Printers, 1904:8, 11, 21–2, 35–6.
IRC 1/1/141 3417a, Attarsing Ralaram to Immigration Officer, 28 October 1908, 11 November and reply of Immigration Officer, 21 November 08.
WCAD, NA, Vol 511 Part 1, 281, James King to Commissioner of Native Labour, 14 January 1902 and 8 March 1902, reply to King, 7 February 1902.
WCAD, NA Vol 511 Part 1, 281, Director, John Jackson Ltd, to Civil Engineer in Chief, Admiralty, London, 30 October 1902, Secretary to Native Affairs Department to Prime Minister, 24 February 1903 and to Director, John Jackson Ltd, 6 March 1903.
See IRC 1/1/167 4036a, contract of Mahomed Salie and others with Hoosen Ebrahim.
IRC 1/1/71 1738a, Note by A Karie, 1905 and reply of Officer in Charge, 6 March 1905.
See SC 16-1908, Asiatic Grievances, Appendix, pp ii–iii, petition of South African Indian Association; Thawerdas Shewakram was allowed to enter in February 1909 as a cook ‘for reasons of religion’ for Pohumool Brothers (IRC 1/1/177 4191a).
See for example IRC 1/1/137 3336a, case of Faker Ebrahim, 1905.
SC 16-1908, Asiatic Grievances, pp 35–6.
By 1911 numbers in the Cape had decreased to 6,606, with Natal at 133,031 and the Transvaal at 10,048 (Bhana and Brain Citation1990:194).
SC 16-1908, Asiatic Grievances, p 40, evidence of Hing Woo, President of the Chinese Association of Cape Town.
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (cd Government of India, New Delhi, 1999), Vol 6, pp 201–2, Indian Opinion, 29 December 1906 (Gujarati) and Vol 7, pp 254–5 Indian Opinion 12 October 1907.
For a greater discussion of the issues around this archive and knowledge production see Dhupelia-Mesthrie Citation2009.
Indentured Indians were at first the only ones offered a free passage back home but in 1914 any Indian wishing to return home was provided with a free passage on condition they surrendered their rights to return to South Africa. Bonuses were also offered as additional incentive in 1921. The state did not have altruistic motives, it wanted to reduce the size of the Indian population (Mesthrie Citation1985:36–56).
The attitude of Indians to female migration needs to be explored further. There seems not only to have been patriarchal attitudes but females themselves were reluctant to relocate. After 1927 the law specified that a wife had to accompany a minor child being brought to South Africa and this raised the numbers of female migration. Some women returned to India after fulfilling this requirement.
IRC 1/1/125 3107a.
IRC 1/1/89 2217a.
IRC 1/1/159 3838a.
IRC 1/1/116 2833a.
IRC 1/1/205 4798a.
IRC 1/1/182 4290a.
IRC 1/1/214 4925a.
IRC 1/1/214 4942a.
IRC 1/1/100 2442a.
IRC 1/1/100 2469a.
IRC 1/1/214 4933a.
IRC 1/1/100 2441a.
See IRC 1/1/185 4340a and IRC 1/1/205 4797a.
IRC 1/1/132 3240a.
IRC 1/1/86 2140a.
IRC 1/1/222 5086a.
IRC 1/1/85 2090a.
IRC 1/1/152 3683a.
IRC 1/1/229 5238a.
IRC 1/1/216 4984a.
G.9-1908, Report of the Chief Immigration Officer for the year Ending 31st December 1907, p 6.
IRC 1/1/147 3540a.
IRC 1/1/105 2608a.
IRC 1/1/187 4401a.
IRC 1/1/225 5137a.
IRC 1/1/135 3290a.
IRC 1/1/170 4078a.
IRC 1/1/185 4356a.
IRC 1/1/21 504a.
IRC 1/1/160 3857a.
IRC 1/1/162 3914a.
IRC 1/1/151 3657a.
IRC 1/1/33 784a.
IRC 1/1/148 3591a.
IRC 1/1/214 4948a.
IRC 1/1/116 2841a.
IRC 1/1/141 3420a. For other workers in this sector see IRC 1/1/103 2533a, 1/1/166 4004, 1/1/70 1709a, 1/1/151 3652a, 1/1/163 3945a.
IRC 1/1/116 2826a.
IRC 1/1/182 4295a.
IRC 1/1/145 3493a.
IRC 1/1/178 4211a.
IRC 1/1/230 5253a.
IRC 1/1/105 2598a.
IRC 1/1/71 1755a.
IRC 1/1/117 2862a.
IRC 1/1/109 2693a.
IRC 1/1/198 4659a.
IRC 1/1/90 2224.
IRC 1/1/140 3409a.
IRC 1/1/164 3966a.
IRC 1/1/133 3257a.
IRC 1/1/125 3098a. He worked there for four years and returned to India in 1908.
IRC 1/1/104 2570a. For others working at the mines see IRC 1/1/181 4277a Mackan Bangia; IRC 1/1/31 705a Heera Dajee and IRC 1/1/120 2974a Meta Vallabh.
IRC 1/1/139 3374a.
IRC 1/1/148 3591a, Letter to Janoodien, 4 March 1915. This is a translation.
IRC 1/1/140 3403a, Letter from Ismail, 28 June 1929; reply of immigration officer, 27 July 1929; letter from Ismail, 7 August 1930; reply 6 September 1930.
IRC 1/1/124 3076a, Letter from Vazir, 21 September 1911; Cousins to Vazir, 21 October 1911.
IRC 1/1/125 3105a.
IRC 1/1/153 3699a, See Gunga to immigration officer, 19 July 1935 and 8 November 1935; reply of principal immigration officer, 7 August 1935 and 21 November 1935; secretary of the Siri Guru Singh Sabha Mombasa, 10 January 1938 and reply of immigration officer, 18 January 1938.