COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION
o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
How to cite this thesis
Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/ M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved from: https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za (Accessed: Date). THE EARLY MUSLIMS IN PRETORIA: 1881-1899
by
ISMAIL EBRAHIM JAFFER
SHORT THESIS
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS IN SEMITIC LANGUAGES
in the
FACULTY OF ARTS
at the
RAND AFRIKAANS UNIVERSITY
PROMOTOR: PROF. J. A. NAUDE CO-PROMOTOR: PROF. H. J. VAN ASWEGEN
January 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS
* Acknowledgements 1 * Abbreviations 2 * Introduction 3 CHAPTER ONE THE EARLY MUSLIMS IN SOUTH AFRICA 8 1.1. Introduction 8 1.2. The Cape Muslims 8 1.2.1. Their Arrival 8 1.2.2. The First Muslims 7 1.2.3. Shaykh Yusuf 10 1.2.4. Other Notable Personages 12 (a) The Rajah (King) of Tambora 12 (b) Tuan Said (Sa'id) 13 (c) Tuan Guru 13 1.2.5. Period after ReligiousFreedom 14 1.3. Muslims of Natal 15 1.3.1. Search for Labour 15 1.3.2. Request for Indian Labour 16 1.3.3. The Arrival of Muslimsfrom India 17 1.3.4. Port of Embarkment 18 1.3.5. The Labourers 18 1.3.6. The Traders 19 1.4. Muslims of Transvaal 20 1.4.1. Arrival of Cape Muslims 21 1.4.2. Arrival of Muslims from India 21 1.4.3. The Muslimsfrom the Cape 22 1.4.4. The Muslimsfrom India. 23 Notes for Chapter 1 23
CHAPTER1WO EARLY MUSLIMS OF PRETORIA 27 2.1. Introduction 27 2.2. Origin 27 2.3. The settlement of Muslims 28 2.4. The MuslimTraders 29 2.4.1. Biography of a few Muslim traders 31 2.5. Jumma Masjid-Queen Street 41 2.6. The Heroes Acre 42 Notes for Chapter 2 43 - iii -
CHAPTER THREE THESITUATION OF EARLY MUSLIMS UNTIL 1885 46 3.1. Introduction 46 3.2. The Queen's Proclamation of 1858 47 3.3. The Pretoria and London Convention 47 3.3.1. Pretoria Convention of 1881 48 3.3.2. London Convention of 1884 49 3.4. The Muslims and commencement of the agitation 50 Notes on Chapter 3 52
CHAPTER FOUR LAW 3 OF 1885 AND ITSAMENDMENT 54 4.1. Introduction 54 4.2. Negotiations between the South African Republic and the British. 54 4.3. The Enactment of Law 3 of 1885 58 4.4. Reaction to Law 3 of 1885 60 4.5. The amendment to Law 3 of 1885 64 Notes on Chapter 4 66
CHAPTER FIVE THEPROBLEMS OF ENACTING LAW 3 OF 1885 68 5.1. Introduction 68 5.2. Reaction in the South African Republic 68 5.3. "The Implementation of the Law 70 5.4. The Ismail Suleman & Co. Case 71 5.5. The Events after the Test Case 72 Notes on Chapter 5 76
CHAPTER SIX ARBITRATION TO THEANGLO-BOER WAR 77 6.1. Introduction 77 6.2. The Arbitration of 1885 77 6.2.1. The Preparations 77 6.2.2. The Arbitration 78 6.2.3. Reaction to the Award 81 6.3. The Test Case 82 6.4. The enforcement of the Law 85 6.5. Other Laws and Restrictions 86 Notes on Chapter 6 88 CONCLUSION 89 BIBLIOGRAPHY 91 APPENDICES 97 AC KN OWL ED GEM E NT S
I am indebted firstly to my parents, my father the Late Ebrahim Jaffer and my beloved mother, Mariam Bibi for their support and sacrifice during the course of my early studies.
I am truly grateful to Professors J.A.Naude and H.J. Van Aswegen for accepting to supervise my research, their patience, guidance and encouragement. It was indeed a pleasure to be a student of two meticulous and thorough promoters.
The Assistants at the Transvaal and UNISA Archives were very helpful in my search for
material. Their contribution was invaluable to me.
My gratitude also exterids to all my relatives, colleagues, friends and well wishers for their
keen interest in my research. Mukhtar Ahmed needs be mentioned for his constant
encouragement and his volunteering to proofread my Thesis.
Finally, my gratitude goes to my wife, Zohara and two children Zakira and Faheem.
Without their support it would be impossible to fulfil this task. They all assisted in typing
when I needed a rest and encouraged me to the end. ABBREVIATIONS cwt. - carat weight. d. - cent.
£ - British pounds. lb. - pound. pkt, - packet,
R.P. in E.Store - Retail Price in European Store.
R.P. in I.Store - Retail Price in Indian Store. s. - shilling.
ZA.R.- ZuicJ-Afrikaansche Republiek.
ICSA - Islamic Council or South Africa.
TAD - Transvaal Archives Depot. INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
The history of Muslims in Pretoria began two decades after the arrival of the first Muslims to Natal from India and over two centuries after those in the Cape.
Historians and researchers have undertaken the study of the Cape Muslims and pioneers of
Natal. There is no book written on the Muslims in the Transvaal region. The two main centres in the Transvaal are Pretoria and Johannesburg.l
The village of Pretoria was founded in 1858, two and a half decades before Johannesburg.
The first Muslims came to the vicinity in the 1880's, when it was still a small village consisting of.12 shops. The pioneer Muslims witnessed the growth and development of this village into a city.
It is from the Pretoria region that the Muslims moved into the interior of Transvaal. The problems of the Muslims began in this city, and later spread to other town areas. This city was the centre of trade and business links to the other towns.
As a Muslim citizen of Pretoria, it was considered best to undertake the study of the
Muslims in this area. It was assumed that there would be no difficulty in obtaining basic source material on the historical aspect of the Muslims of Pretoria from the first arrival to the end of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek (ZA.R.)2 Government. At one stage the exercise of collecting data on this subject proved futile.
However, it was after referring to a few books on the history of Indians in general, that it gave me some direction of the situation in the ZA.R.. It was found that the focal point of discussion and problems in this region were based on the Law 3 of 1885. Even the primary - 4- source materials obtained were somehow related to the above law, its implementation and the problems of the Muslims.
In undertaking this research, the material was obtained from archival sources; published officialpapers, reports and documents; articles, brochures and the secondary sources.
This study is an attempt to focus on the Law 3 of 1885 and the situation of the Muslims due to its enactment.
The thesis basically deals with the historical, political and economical aspects of this period.
The available sources in these fields have still to be researched. The social and ecological aspect is not included as the Muslim traders did not have their families with them. There was no formal religious institution nor any material available of the religious aspect besides the purchasing and related issues.
This study begins with the arrival of the first Muslims in Pretoria in the early 1880's to the
outbreak of the Anglo-Boer war in 1899. It discusses the historical, political and business
sector of this group, The social, religious and cultural aspects are not included, as there were no source material available nor individuals able to give information on these aspects.
The first chapter deals with the early Muslims of South Africa. It gives an historical account
of the Cape Muslims, their arrival and the early Muslims, brief biographical information of
important personages and their contribution to the preservation of Islam at the Cape. This
is followed by a discussion on the Muslims in Natal, their reason for coming to this region,
their arrival, port of embarkation and as traders. Thereafter, the Muslims in the ZA.R. are
discussed. The Muslims after coming to the above two provinces moved to the ZAR.
Therefore the Muslims are shown as coming from the Cape and from India via Natal. - 5-
Chapter two is focussed on the early Muslims of Pretoria. The origin of these Muslims, the area they settled, their establishing themselves as traders and some biographical imformation that are available from the primary sources. Also included is the Jumma
Masjid-Queen street and the problems in obtaining this property and the Heroes Acre, where Muslims were buried.
Chapter Three evaluates the situation of the early Muslims until 1885. It gives a background of the reason for Muslimscoming to the ZA.R. It begins with the assurance of protection given by Her Majesty in the Queens proclamation of 1858. Furthermore, the
Pretoria and London conventions once more gave them protection and security in the
Z.A.R. This is followed by the condition of the Muslim traders in the early period and the beginning of the Agitation.
In Chapter Four the focal piont of the study is given. It begins with the correspondence between the ZA.R. and the British regarding the implication of the two conventions, namely tje Pretoria and London Conventions. The Z.A.R. sought to gain the consent of the
British to include the Muslims and other Asians with the natives of this country. The British
Government gave consent to include Chinese and Indian Coolies, but to exclude the "few
Arabs". Thereafter, the chapter continues with a discussion of the enactment of Law 3 of
1885, the reaction to it and fmally the amendment of the mentioned Law.
Chapter Five discusses the reaction of Muslims, British and others in the ZA.R. to the enactment and implementation of the Law 3 of 1885. The Ismail Suleman & Co. case, although it took place in Middelburg, is given here because its verdict affected later decisions regarding the Muslims. This is followed once more by correspondence between the British and the Republic Government on the implications of the early letters and the two conventions. -6-
Chapter Six evaluates the arbitration of 1895, the Award and its criticism. The South
African Republic intended the enforcement of law 3 of 1885, this led to the test case
undertaken by Tayob Hajee Khan Mohamed. After the verdict of this case was given, the
Republic Government were determined to enforce the Law. Finally, other laws and
restrictions are enumerated.
A few names of groups are often mentioned in the thesis that may lead to some confusion.
These names are inter-related and are at times comprehensive but used for a smaller
group. The words used are "Asiatics", "Indians", "Arab" and "Muslims".! will briefly give the
usage of these names:-
The term Asiatic refers to an individual that comes from the Asian continent. It includes
the Chinese,Indians and the Muslims.
The term Indian refers to a person whose origin is from India, whether he is a Muslim or a
Hindu.
. The term Arabs refered to the Muslims in distingiushing them from the non-muslims of the
same population.
There was distinction made between the Indians, Asiatics and Arabs. But later they all
became linked together and therefore the Muslim was refered to as either an Arab, Indian
or Asiatic. Therefore, the use of the word in its broad sense may in many cases refer to the
Muslims only.
This work is intended to be a beginning in the study of Muslims of the Pretoria region.
Future researchers may explore the various aspects of the society, the other towns in the
Transvaal and continue after the Anglo-Boer war. -7-
However, there is a paper that was presented by Maulana A. Ishaq, A ShoJ1 Survey ofthe Indian Muslims of Transvaal with special reference to the Introduction ofIslam in India.idated 1979), that discusses in brief the Muslims in Transvaal. There is also a booklet published by ICSA, Meet the Muslims ofSouth Africa, giving a general view of Muslims in South Africa. Most of the books on this region discussthe Indians in general. 2 In this thesis the abbreviation ZA.R. will be used instead of 'Transvaal' or 'Zuid Afrikaansche Republiek'. CHAPTER ONE CHAPTER ONE
THE EARLY MUSLIMS OF SOUTH AFRICA
1.1. INTRODUCTION
The early Muslims of South Africa came to the Transvaal via two coastal areas. The first group of Muslims came from the Indonesian Archipelago to the Cape of Good Hope and the second group came from the Indo-Pak Subcontinent to the Natal region.
Before discussing the early Muslims of Pretoria, it is neccessary to give an historical account of the early Muslims of the Cape and Natal, as they were the pioneer Muslims in
Southern Africa.
1.2. THE CAPE MUSLIMS
1.2.1. THEIR ARRIVAL
The arrival and subsequent history of the Muslims in the Cape (and South Africa) dates back to the settlement of the Dutch in 1652.According to l.S.Mayson , who confirms oral tradition, that "in 1652 a few Malays of Batavia were brought by the Dutch into their
Residency, and subsequent settlement of the Cape of Good Hope."
S.E.Dangor in his thesis mentions that it was not long after the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck
"at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652 that the first Muslim, Ibrahim of Batavia, was brought here as a slave."2
There are historians who differ in their dating of the arrival of the first Muslims. Achmat -9-
Davids contends that oral tradition relates that there were a few eastern servants in Jan van
Riebeeck's party and they were registered as slaves. It is uncertain whether any of them were Muslims.' He gives the probable date of the first Muslims on the arrival of the
Mardyckers at the Cape in 1658.4
Furthermore it is not defmite whether the Mardyckers did arrive on the request of Van
Riebeeck in that year.! Du Plessis mentions that "according to Theal the first group of
Malays arrived at the Cape in 1667."6
It is of little importance to enter into a lengthy discussion on their date of arrival. Suffice it to say that the arrival of the early Muslims at the Cape, dates back to the early years of the
Dutch settlement.
1.2.2. THE FIRST MUSLIMS
The Mardyckers? were the first Muslims (as mentioned above) to arrive in the Cape. They were free people from Amboyna in the southern Molucca Islands. They were brought to protect the forts. and as labour force to the newly established Cape settlement. Their religious activities and practices were severely restricted by the Dutch,"
The Dutch had established themselves in Batavia and conquered Moluccas, Macassar,
Bantam and Mataram and became a force to be reckoned with in the Indonesian
Archipelago. The Indonesian rulers strengthened their ties with the Muslims of India and
Mecca through Achin, the Sultan of Malaya who had resisted the Dutch attack. This led to a form of jihad? and also a rapid spread of Islam during the seventeenth to the nineteenth century to resist the Dutch in the Archipelago. The greatest resistance came from well established Muslim Sultanates, which resulted in the Dutch either leaving the Muslims or in undertaking lengthy and costly wars. The conquered Muslim leaders were captured and -10 - sent to the Cape. Due to this the Dutch were very weary of the spread of Islam and endeavoured to suppress its movement in the Cape.to
In 1667 there was an influx of easterners to the Cape who were sent there as captives of the
Dutch East India Company. The Eastern Batavian Empire became the main source of procuringslaves for the Cape colonists. These were either slaves or political exiles.'!
On 13th May 1667, the first political exiles arrived in chains at the Cape. These three persons were rulers, known as 'Orang Cayen', and men of wealth and influence from the west coast of Sumatra. The Dutch East India Company took great caution not to leave them with the general populous as it would most probably cause harm to the company.
Therefore, two of them were sent to the company's forest and the other to Robben Island.P
There was hardly any contact between them and the rest of the slaves; and they were unable toinvolve themselves in the establishment and spread of Islam at the Cape.
After 1681, the Cape became an official place of confining the political prisoners. The Cape authorities found it difficult to accomodate them. They feared that they might escape or create problems at the Cape. Therefore, they were posted to the outstations of the
Company.A prominent person amongst these 'Orang Cayen' is Shaykh Yusuf of Macassar.
1.23. SHAYKH13YUSUF
The history of the Cape Muslims in South Africa "is incomplete without mentioning the name ofShaykh Yusurt4• Therefore, a brief biographical sketch of this pioneer of Islam at the Cape will be given.
Abidin Tadia Tjoessoep popularly known as Shaykh Yusuf, was born in 1626 at Goa, East
Indies_IS On his maternal side he is related to the Kings of Goa. In 1644, Yusuf undertook -11- the pilgrimage to Makkah (Mecca). There he studied the religious sciences and gained proficiency in the Arabic Language.
In 1646, after acquiring -knowledge he returned to the East Indies with his family. He did not go to Goa, but stayed at Bantam. He established himself in the Court of Sultan Ageng
(Agoeng) and captivated the hearts of his students through his religious devotion and dedication. He was active in the spread of Islam in Java. He married the daughter of the
Sultan Ageng in Bantam. He became a man of great influence and an Imam's to his people.
He assisted in fighting against the revolution headed by Sultan Ageng's son, Pangerang Haji
(or Sultan Hajijin 1680. The Dutch assisted Pangerang Haji and defeated the Sultan. The force of the Sultan resisted for some time and eventually surrendered in 1683, but Shaykh
Yusuf and the Sultan's younger sons continued for another year. In 1684 he was persuaded to surrender by Van Happel on the promise that he will be pardoned. However, this promise was not fulfilled and he was irnprisoned.F
In September 1684, Shaykh Yusuf was sent to the Castle of Colombo in Ceylon. The King of Goa requested his release, but it was refused. Fearing any attempts at rescuing him, the
Company decided to transfer him to the Cape in 1693.18
He arrived on board "De Voetboog' on 2nd April 1694with his group of forty nine persons, consisting of his two wives, two slave girls, twelve children, twelve religious scholars and
several friends with their families. He was given a royal welcome by the Governor, Simon van der Stel. On 14th June 1694 it was decided by the authorities to send Yusuf and his
party to the farm of Zandvliet, near the Eerste Rivier.l?His sanctuary at Zandvliet became
a place of safety for fugitive slaves. This was the first established Muslim community at the
Cape, which lasted for a short period until hisdeath on 23rd May 1699 at the age of seventy
three. Thereafter, the people of his party were sent back to Indonesia on the De Liefde -12 -
and De Spiegel, with the exception of his daughter, Zytia Sarah Marouf and two others
who remained.
Shaykh Yusuf is often referred to as the founder and pioneer of Islam in the Cape.20 But
what is certain is that he is not the first Muslim in the Cape, for there were other political
exiles before him. Furthermore, his influence was limited to Zandvliet. However, despite
his limitations he has proved to be the first person to whom the early Muslim slaves looked
for community in the Cape.21 1.2.4. OTHER NOTABLE PERSONAGES Besides Shaykh Yusuf, there were other notable persons who had been banished to the Cape as political exiles or for criminal offences. Some of the other notable exiles to the Cape are mentioned below:- (a) THE RAJAH (KING) OF TAMBORA Tambora was part of the Makassarian (Maacassarian) Sultanates, but with the defeat of Goa it was ruled by the Dutch. He arrived in 1697 at the Cape, after being convicted for rebelling against the Company and starting a conspiracy against the King Dompo and the .murder of the Queen. He was placed in the stable of the Castle, but on the intervention of Shaykh Yusuf he was moved to Vergelegen in the District of Stellenbosch. Whilst there he wrote the Qur'an from memory and presented it to the Governor van der Stel. The Rajah like his counterparts, the 'Orang Cayen' were isolated and had no effect in the establishment of Islam at the Cape. This has been clearly illustrated by the children from his marriage to Zytia Sarah Marouf (Sitina Sara Marouft), daughter of Shaykh Yusuf, as they all became Chrlstians.P -13 - (b) TUAN SAID (SA'ID) Said Aloewie of Mocca, known as Tuan Said was brought to the Cape in January 1744, together with Hadjie (Haji) Mattarim, who died on Robben Island. Tuan Said served his sentence of eleven years. Thereafter, he was brought to the Cape and became a policeman. This enabled him to enter "locked and guarded" slave quarters and propagate Islam. He was from amongst the 'De Vryezwartem' (Free black community) who were dedicated and enthusiastic about the propagation ofIslam even in adverse circumstances.P (c) TUAN GURU 'Abd Allah Qadi 'Abd al-Salam.P known as 'Tuan Guru' arrived at the Cape as State prisoner on 6th April 1780. He was a prince of Tidore in the Ternate Islands, and had a thorough knowledge of Islam. There is no clarity regarding his crime, but he served on Robben Island until 1793. During his term of imprisonment, he wrote a book on Islamic Jurisprudence in Arabic and Malayu. By 1800, his handwritten Qur'ans, entirely from memory, were widely circulated amongst the Muslims. He was the principal teacher of Islam at the Cape in the eighteenth century and is remembered to this day as 'Tuan Guru'. He was the founder of the school, which by 1807had a student role of 375 slave children ; and taught them the precepts of the Qur'an and to read and write Arabic.25 According to oral tradition of the Muslims at the Cape, it was through the efforts of Tuan Guru that a mosque site was obtained and the officials adopted a lenient and relaxed attitude towards Islam.26 Besides the above mentioned persons, there are other Muslims that contributed to the - 14- upholding and preservation of Islam at the Cape. 1.2.5. THE PERIOD AFTER RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, 1804-1838. One has to appreciate the early Cape Muslims, especially persons like Shaykh Yusuf, Tuan Guru, Tuan Said and other early Imams for the courage, devotion and dedication to the preservation of Islam. They used their own homes as places to congregate for worship and teach Islam. Furthermore, they undertook to propagate and teach Islam to the masses under difficult and restricted conditions. It is due to them that the Islamic identity and culture at the Cape not only survived but also developed. On 25th July 1804, in the Decree of the Commissioner De Mist the Muslims were granted religious freedom together with the various other religious groups. It was only after this that the Muslims were able to practice their religion openly. The British granted equal protection to all religious groups, but they were still required to apply for permission to erect places of worship.27 Despite the above there were still social restrictions and political inequality prevalent at the Cape. This became an obstacle to the spread of Islam. The Awwal Mosque (i.e. the first mosque) in Dorp Street Cape Town, played an important role in the cultural and social development of Muslims. It was the principal institution of the Cape Muslims in the nineteenth century. In 1838 Slavery was abolished completely. Thereafter, the Muslims increased in numbers and began to develop spiritually, and many other mosques and institutions were established in the Cape Colony. ·15 - 1.3. MUSUMS OF NATAL 1.3.1 SEARCH FOR LABOUR In 1834, during the time of Earl Gray's ministry, the British Empire abolished slavery. Due to this the labour market in the world had a slump and suffered a great loss of man power. The British government tried to compensate the farmers but it was not adequate. This led to a great industrial depression.P In 1834, the Indians began to emigrate to other countries in search of a better means of living. The first immigration was to the Island of Mauritius, followed by British Guiana, Trinidad, Jamaica and later South Africa.29 After the abolishment of slavery and because of the scarcity of manpower, the European immigrants made efforts to obtain cheap labour [ .from the Asiatics and negroes. . The British found the land fertile for the growing of sugar cane, tea and coffee. In 1847 they began with the first sugar plantation. The Zulus of Natal were found to be unsuitable on the sugarcane plantations, as they were accustomed to their pastoral life. The shortage of reliable labour began to threaten the economic conditions of Natal. They tried various means to obtain cheap and reliable labour but were unsuccessful. Therefore in 1855, the settlers of Natal addressed a petition to Queen Victoria on the 9th of November, 1855 imploring the use of imported convict labour, but they were refused. They tried to introduce the Amatongas from Portuguese East Africa in 1858. But the attempt also failed as they refused to be contracted for long periods. During the same year, the planters thought that by obtaining some Chinese and Malay labourers it would be a -16 - great relief and a lead to success. This condition was not to last as the Chinese returned to their homes after a period, and furthermore the colonial secretary of Hong Kong refused to supply Chinese labour on meagre wages of ten to fifteen shillings per month.t? The first suggestion of obtaining labour from India was made in a letter to the "Natal Mercury", of the 25th April,1855. The letter gave an historical experience and evaluation of the condition in Mauritius with the immigration of Indian labour. The writer of the letter, J.R.Saunders advocated that Indian labour be introduced in Natal on the basis adopted by (Mauritius.31 1.3.2. REQUEST_ FOR INDIAN LABOUR Sir George Grey, the Governor of the Cape Colony visited Durban in November,1855. The Natal farmers requested him to assist in introducing Coolie labour from the East. On his return to the Cape, he instructed the colonial secretary, Mr.R.W.Rawson to write to the Government of India to permit Coolies to emigrate to Natal. This request was turned down, as it found no useful purpose nor any gain by authorising such an immigration.P A second attempt was made to procure Indian or Coolie labour, and the representative of the "Select Committee of the Council"33 assured that it was prepared to pay equal rates and benefits, if not better than those offered in Mauritius and West Indies. The Government of India acceded to their request after assurance of the Colony abiding to certain conditions. Finally, on 21st July 1860, the Legislative Council of British India passed Act No.33 of 1860, permitting the immigration of indentured Indian labourers to Natal.34 - 17· 1.3.3.THE ARRIVAL OF MUSLIMS FROM INDIA r: ( The first group of indentured Indian labourers on board the 5.5. Truro reached Durban on \ \ the 16th November 1860. In this group were very few field labourers, as many amongst \ \them were mechanics, traders, gardeners, barbers, carpenters, accountants and domestic I Iservants.35 ) The general impression given in books of history is that the people who came in 1860 as indentured labourers were from the "untouchables" and living in semi-starvation. Whereas, the list of the first group on the 5.5. Truro indicates that there were persons from various \grofessions, different fields of labour and also different religions. The following illustrates the number of persons on board the 5.5.Truro 36 :- Men 197 Women 89 Children 54 Total 340 Their religious affiliations are Hindus 101 Malabars 78 Christians 61 Muslims 16 Rajput 1 Marathee 1 unknown 82 Total 340 ·18· The above is given solely to indicate that the Muslims arrived in Natal as part of the Indian sector, came on the first shipment in 1860. Thus, we may state that the Muslims in Natal have a history dating from the arrival of the first group of indentured labourers from India. However, there seems to be no record of them as part of these immigrants, as the Muslims were included amongst the Indians. 1.3.4. PORT OF EMBARKATION The two ports of embarkment were Calcutta and Madras. The labourers from Bihar and North West Provinces of Agra and Oudh embarked at Calcutta. Those from the nothern districts of the Provinces came via Madras.J7 1.3.5. THE LABOURERS The colonists were pleased at their being able to procure reliable labour. This invaluable acquisition was expressed at official and unofficial levels, and also the importance of obtaining these labourers for the economic prosperity of Natal. The total number of immigrants that arrived between 1860 to 1866 is 6448. This total comprised of 4116 males, 1463 females and 869 children. During the period 1866 to 1874 immigration was suspended, as India stopped sending its indentured labourers due to the complaints it received about the illtreatment of labourers and violation of terms of indenture by employers. Another reason was the depression of trade in 1866.38 In 1874 immigration was reintroduced after special pleas were made by the Natal Government to the Government of India,39 giving assurance that it would take steps to protect the Coolies. Natal was then able to procure 6025 indentured labourers in 1874. -19 - According to Dr. Iqbal Narain, the years between 1874 and 1884 were years without discrimination. It was during this period that the indentured labourers were taken as prospective part of the Natal Governments subject population. It took the responsibilty of their welfare, treated them with equality and granted them the opportunity to develop their social structure.P There were approximately 13000 applicants, of which only 53 accepted the 15 acres of land, which was reduced from the 60 acres promised.'! Those that remained began to either cultivated on their lands, worked as free Indians for a wage or started their fruit and vegetable business. 1.3.6. THE TRADERS After the reintroduction of indentured labourers in 1874, a new group of people came from India and Mauritius. They were traders and merchantsf who came to cater for the needs of the Indians in Natal. It is reported that the first amongst them was a certain Muslim trader, Abubaker Ahmad Jowhery.P who traded in Mauritius.r' Abubaker Jowhery decided to expand his business operation to Natal. He approached the Natal Government and was granted permission to conduct his business in the colony. Word of his success and prosperity reached his relations and friends in Porbandar, India. Within a - 20- short period other merchants, Muslims and Hindus from Gujarat, Surat and Saurashtra made the arduous journey to the Natal Colony.45 Thereafter a number of Muslim traders came to Natal, settling in Durban and other regions. These traders were industrious and enterprising , therefore able to gradually establish themselves and become prosperous. This led to the envy of their counterparts, the European trader, who systematically began to curtail the rights of "free Indians" and prevent further immigration.f Their fear of an economic competition by the Indians, led the Europeans with the assistance of the Natal Government to deprive the Indians of their rights, one after another. The Muslim traders in Natal were very conscious of their Islamic identity. They were very keen to preserve their religious norms and values, social customs and their cultural heritage and traditions. This may be observed to this day on meeting the Muslim family. . Abubaker Jowhery purchased a site in Durban for the erection of a mosque. Before the tum of the century a mosque was built. It is the same site upon which the "Jumma Masjid Grey Street"47 stands to this day.48 As the needs of the community grew other mosques and madressas were established. 1.4. MUSLIMS OF TRANSVAAL (Z.A.R.) The Muslims in the ZA.R. came from two regions, namely the Cape and Natal. The Cape Muslims arrived in this province before those from Natal and India. ·21- 1.4.1. ARRIVAL OF CAPE MUSLIMS The official record of the first Muslim to the Z.A.R. could not be traced. However, according to Maulana A. Is'haq oral tradition mentions that the first Muslims to arrive were Malays from the Cape in 1870.49 1.4.2. ARRIVAL OF INDIAN MUSLIMS There seems to be no offical record existing of the exact date of arrival for the first Muslims from India.50 Various writers have given different years like 1881, 1882 and even 1883.51 It is difficult to determine precisely when the first person or group of Muslims came to the Transvaal. According to Calpin, "there were no Indians in the Transvaal before 1881."52 This is verified by the report of the Asiatic Enquiry Commission in 1921, which was unable to give a conclusive date, but referred to the statement made by Mr.E.F.Bourke (an old resident of Pretoria) at a National Conference in November,1904. He stated that "when the 1881 convention was concluded, there were no Indians in the Transvaal, and there is little or no doubt that the Asiatic side of the question never presented itself to the authors of that document sitting in Pretoria and a study of the whole of the provisions of that document clearly shows that the white races and the native residents in the colony alone were contemplated".53 According to a travel agent.54 who was previously in contact with the immigration office, he obtained an official file from the Immigration Office at Pretoria for the family of a Mr. Shaikh Mohamed Essack. In the file was a form of his particulars and it had written on it the words, "the first Indian in the Transvaal" whichwas dated 1881.55 - 22- A brochure was published in 1983 on the occassion of the 100th Anniversary of the pioneer Muslim firm, namely the M.H.Joosub & Sons(Pty) Ltd. The brochure titled as :4 South African Adventure Story", gives some biographical details of the founder of the abovementioned firm. It mentions that Mohamed Hajee Joosub came to South Africa in 1876, on board a vessel called the 'Petronella'. After seventy-nine days by ox-wagon from Cape Town he reached the Church Square in Pretoria.x The authenticity of the above date cannot be verified nor disapproved.f? There are no official documents that indicate it to be before 1881 nor any that reject it. There could be a possibility that a few muslims came before 1881 but their number did not warrant any mention of them in the Pretoria Convention of 1881. 1.4.3. THE MUSLIMS FROM THE CAPE58 As mentioned above, the first Muslims to settle in the Transvaal were the Malays. The historians now refer to them as early Cape Muslims, rather than the "Cape Malays" due to the preference of this community in the Cape.59 However, here the term "Malay" will be used for those in Transvaal, as the situation of these two groups of people are distinct. The Malays were later classified as "Coloureds" , whereas the Muslims of Indian origin as "Indians". There is no reference to any Malays residing in Pretoria before the Anglo-Boer war nor during the early twentieth century. During the formation of the Pretoria Mohammedan Congregation (now Pretoria Muslim Congregation) in 1906 there was no reference made of them. This organisation was represented by the various ethnic groups amongst the Muslims of Pretoria, but there were no representatives from the Malay community. - 23- The Malays came from the Cape by train to Kimberley, from there travelled by ox-wagon to the Transvaal region. They moved frequently between Johannesburg and Kimberley due to the diamond rush. Paul Kruger gave them land to settle in Fereirastown, Johannesburg, which was known as the Malay Camp. They pitched a tent in this area for performing their prayer.60 The Kerk Street Mosque is built on this same place. Besides those residing in the Malay Camp, there were a few craftsman in the Malay area, Brickyard. There were two groups of Malays in the early days. The one was from the Cape or the 'Kaapenaars' and the other from Port Elizabeth known as 'Baalnaars'A' The names of the people who came from these respective places are given by oral tradition. They are the Tuamanarys, Fatoes, Tofees and Maulana, Ibrahim, Khalil, Hajie Rushdien, Hajie Ishaq, etc from the Cape. The others from the Port Elizabeth were Imam Muhammad Tayob Sallieh,62 Hajie Khairullah, Hendriks and Rafie. During the Anglo-Boer war the Malays sided with the Boers. The behaviour of the British soldiers, who camped where the City Hall stands today, was intolerable. Therefore, the Malays requested Paul Kruger-' to give them some other piece of land. In 1900, he gave them the area known as Vrededorp (Pageview). They then moved from the Malay Camp to their homes in the new area. They were also granted land for a Mosque and Madressav'. This mosque is known as 23rd Street Mosque or Fietas Mosque. A burial ground was given at the Braamfontein cemetery.6S The families of these pioneer Malays still reside mostly in the Johannesburg area in places like Newclare, Bosmont, Riverlea and Eldorado Park. ·24· 1.4.4. THE MUSLIMS FROM INDIA The Muslims from India came via the Natal Port. In the South Afri~an Republic they first settled in the Pretoria region. It was from Pretoria that the Muslim traders began to disperse to the outskirts of the city and to the rural areas in the Transvaal, and also to the Witwatersrand area. It must be noted that majority of the people settled in the Johannesburg area only after the gold rush in 1886. Though there is no concrete evidence of the above, the events that took place in the South African Republic do indicate that the starting point for the settlement of the Muslims was Pretoria.Muslims in the various towns in the South African Republic will not be discussed, as they came at a later period to these towns. NOTES 1 Mayson J.s. 1865. The Malay ofCape Town. Manchester: Cave and Sear. p. 11. 2 Dangor S.E. 1982. Shaykh Yusuf. Durban: Iqra' s Reasearch Committee, p. iii. 3 Davids Achrnat. 1980. The Mosques ofBo-Kaap, Athlone(Cape): The South African Institute of Arabic & Islamic Research. p34., Du Plessis 1.0. 1m. The Cape Malays. CapeTown: AA.Balkema. pJ. 4 Ibidp35. 5 Ibid p.19l. footnote 7. 6 Du Plessis 1.0. p3. 7 Mardycker is from the word "Mardycka" or "Maredhilca"which implies "freedom". Davids Achmat. pJ5. 8 Ibidp35. 9 Jihad is the struggle for the sake of Islam. The other connotations of this term are not required in this thesis. 10 Ibid. pJ5-36. 11 Ibid. p36.,Du Plessis J.D. pJ. 12 Ibid. p37. 13 The writer has used the spelling according to S.E.Dangor i.e. "Shaykh". Other writers have spelt it as Sheikh (Davids A.) and Sjech (Du Plessis I.D.). 14 Dangor S.E. p.iii. 15 Ibid. p.L, Davids A. pJ7. 16 Imam refers to a person who is a leader ofthe community and also the one who leads the daily congregational prayers. 17 Ibid. p.22 18 Ibid. p.25. 19 Ibid p27. 20 Davids A. pJ9. - 25· 21 Dangor S.E. p.59. 22 Davids A. p.42. 23 Ibid.pp 43-44. 24 This name is spelt according to Dangor S.E. (p.52) in his thesis on Shaykh Yusuf.,Davids A. (p.45) spelt it as Imam Abdullah Kadi Abdus Salaam. 25 Ibid. p.44-45. 26 Ibid. p.45. 27 Ibid. p. 46. 28 Narain Iqbal, 1962. The Politics ofRacialism, (Ph.D Thesis, Agra Univ.). Agra: Ahiva Lal Agrawala & Co. p. 3. 29 Joshi P.S., 1942 The Tyranny ofColour. Durban: E.P. & Commercial Printing Co. Ltd. p.4l. 30 Ibid. p.42. 31 Narain Iqbal. p. 11. Also cf. Pather S.R. p. 33. 32 Mukherji S.B., 1959. Indian Minorityin South Africa, New Delhi: People's Publishing House. p. 15. 33 The Select Committee of the Council was appointed on 6th April 1857 for the purpose of 'introducing Indian and Chinese Labourers, and the measures necessary for facilitating the introduction of such labourers: 34 Pather S.R. p. 43. 35 Ibid. p. 47. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. p, 52. 39 De Villiers Les, 1980. South Africa drawn in Colour, Denver (SA.): Gordon Publishing. p. 43: 40 Narain Iqbal. p. 72. For further details refer to chapter three of his book, The Politics of Racialism'. 41 Pather S.R. p. 55. 42 The Indian traders or merchant are also refered to as • Free passengers' . 43 His surname is spelt as Jhavery (d. ICSA, 1984. p. 16) Jhavary (Meer F., 1969. p. 16) and the spelling used here is of Ishaq A. (1979). 44 Is\haq A. Maulana, 1979, A Short SUM'ey of the Indian Muslims of Transvaal with special reference to the introduction ofIslam. Johannesburg: RAU. p. 21. Also refer ICSA. 1984. Meet the Muslims ofSouth Africa. Durban: ICSA p. 15. 45 ICSA p. 15. 46 Mukherji S.B., 1959. p. 21. 47 The Grey Street Mosque in Durban is the largest mosque in the Southern Hemisphere. 48 ICSA. p. 16.. 49 Ishaq A. Maulana.p. 21. 50 Indo-Pak subcontinent was previously the undivided India. Therefore, this refers to Indian Muslims. 51 Pillay B.,. 1976. British Indians in the Transvaal (1855-1906). London: Longman Group Ltd. p. 1. 52 Calpin H., 1949. Indians ill South Africa, Pietermaritzburg. p. 21 Also refer Banphot Virasai, 1977. The Emergenceand making ofa Mass Movement Leader: PortraitofMahatma Gandhi in South Africa (1893-1914), (unpub!. Ph. D Thesis) Univ. of California. p. 25. 53 Narain I. p. 21. This is a qoured from the Asiatic Enquiry Commission Report (1921). 54 Shamshoodeen Mohamed born in Mahpral, Ratnagiri (India). Travel Agent. Resides at 349 14th Avenue, Laudium. 55 These papers were passed on to a family member of Mr. Shaikh Mohamed Essack, but it is unfortunate that it could be retrieved from the person. Therefore, the statement could not be verified. Furthermore, on contacting the Immigration Office I was unable to obtain the file, nor were they able to guide and assist in obtaining the file. 56 Brochure titled "A South African Adventure Story" printed by M.H. Joosub & Sons (1983) p. 3. Also refer to Joosub H.E., 1958. Bitterness towards Indians. Pretoria: Joosub H.E. p. 10. 57 The writer was unable to verify the date as he contacted Dr. H.E. Joosub to do so, but wasnot able to get his co-operation, nor obtain some proof of the validity of the dates. 58 Due to the lack of information and sources regarding the Muslims in Transvaal, which the writer desired to briefly introduce, he based this section mostly on Maulana A. Ishaq's paper. 59 Bradlow F.R. & Cairns M., 1978. The Early Cape Muslims, Cape Town: AA. Balkema. p. 5. 60 Ishaq A. Maulana. p.21. - 26- 61 Ibid. 62 Imam Muhammad Tayob Sallieh was appointed chiefpriest for Malays by Paul Kruger (Oom Paul). 63 Paul Kruger was refered to as 'Oom Paul'(Uncle Paul) by the Malay community. 64 Madressa or vernacular schools are conducted during the afternoons to impart religious education to Muslim children, as the children attend the secular schools in the morning. 65 Ishaq A.Maulana. p.23. CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER TWO EARLY MUSLIMS OF PRETORIA 2.l.INTRODUCTION In the previous chapter the arrival of the early Muslims at the Cape, Natal and the Z.A.R. (now known as the Transvaal) were discussed. This chapter will be confined to the Pretoria region, where the early Muslims settled in what was then known as the ZA.R. The Muslims came to this part of the country mainly as hawkers and traders. These individuals went about hawking or established small businesses to earn a living. They were without their families and after accumulating some wealth, went back to their homeland. After staying there for a short period they would return to South Africa either alone or with their families. 2.2. ORIGIN According to P.SJoshi there were three classes of Indians in South Africa. They were as follows:- "(1) Those who were under indenture. (2) The ex-indentured Indians, i.e., the Indians who had completed their term of indenture and earned their livelihood as free Indians. (3) Traders and other Indians who had gone to Natal at their own expense,"! -28- This study concerns the third group, namely of traders. This group has been referred to as "Arab traders'P "Indian merchants" or "Indian traders'P The original usage of the word "Arab" for the Muslim traders cannot be established. But they could have been associated to the Arabs who had traded in East Africa and elsewhere," However, according to Fatima Meer the Muslims from India were welcomed by the farmers in the Z.A.R. as 'Arabieres' i.e. Arabs.I The Muslim traders of the Z.A.R. were mostly from Gujurat and Kathiawars, the Bombay Presidency? and the district of Ratnagiri, south of Bombay," 2.3. THE SETILEMENT OF MUSLIMS When the Muslims came to the Z.A.R.they settled in the village of Pretoria where there were not more then twelve shops. This included a butcher, baker and blacksmith." They settled in the central area of town. They first established their businesses in Van der Walt and Prinsloo streets, between Church and Vermuelen streets-? The Muslims gradually began to move further to other areas in Pretoria and then to the interior of the Republic. Before the outbreak of the Anglo-Boer War the Muslims moved ~ to Prinshof, that lies to the north-east of Pretoria. Others went to Trevena which is situated to the east of the Apies River in the surroundings of Esselen street-l! The Muslims were allocated land in the Asiatic Bazaar about 1892-1893, but they did not move to this area until after the Anglo-Boer war in 1902.12 due to the British intervention and negotiations on behalf of the Muslims, the Test Case and later the outbreak of the war. .-29- 2.4.THE TRADERS The Muslim traders arrived in Pretoria before the discovery of gold and the establishment of the Witwatersrand in 1886.13 As mentioned previously, Pretoria was still a small village consisting of not more than twelve shops. It was at this stage that Muslims came to settle and establish their businesses in this region. Pretoria and Johannesburg became the main centres for the MuslimsP The reason Muslim traders moved to the Z.A.R. is mentioned by Gandhi. He states that the "Indian (which basically includes Muslims) traders had heard that they could trade with the Boers, who being simple, frank and unassuming, would not think it below their dignity to deal with Indian traders. Several Indians therefore proceeded to the Transvaal and opened shops there. As there were no railways, they earned large profits. The expectations of the Indian traders were fulfilled and they carried on a considerable trade with the Boers and the Negroes as customers.t'! This is verified by Fatima Meer. She states that the Boers "were simple, warm hearted and straight thinking. They welcomed them as ~rabieres'(sic),and if it was too late to travel further, put them up in their wagon houses, bringing them hot coffee, and at times a live chicken to 'halal'" and cook according to their custom."? The Muslim traders became successful in their businesses, They soon attracted the attention and also proved to be inconvenient competitors to the European traders. They were conspicuous due to their colour and distinctive dressinglf The pressure of Muslim competition led the European traders to conduct meetings -30- regarding the Muslim traders, distribute pamphlets, write letters to the newspapers and they sent various petitions to the President and the Volksraad of the ZA.R As a result various restrictions were imposed and led to problems for the Muslim traders-l? The President, Paul Kruger, himself was disposed to leave matters as they were, as he felt the Muslim traders performed a useful service for the poor burghers/", The differences in the price of some of the commodities by the European and Indian(Muslim) traders has been illustrated in the De Volkstem.21 This is shown in the table below:- RP. in RP. in Quantity E. Store I. Store Coffee 2s0d Is 2d lb. Tea 4s Od 2s6d lb. Cheese 2s3d Is Od lb. Candles 2s0d Is Od pkt. Tin Milk Is 6d Is Od tin Sardines 2s0d ls Od tin Sardines Is Od 6d tin Matches Is Od 6d box Rice 9d 4d lb. ~ White Sugar Is Od 6d lb. -31- The above clearly indicates that the Muslim traders charged very low prices for commodities and at times even less than half the prices as compared to the European traders. This was a great benefit to the consumers. The problems of the Muslim traders willbe discussed in the section on the Law 3 of 1885. 2.4.1. BIOGRAPHY OF A FEW EARLY MUSLIM TRADERS A brief account of a few early Muslims is given below, as these were the only persons whose names and a few details were made available from archival and other sources. (1) ABDOOLA ESSACK HAJEE He was born in 1887 at Ranavav, Kathiawar, India and also received his education there. He came to South Africa in 1898 and settled in Pretoria. He first started a business in partnership. In 1906 he started his own business and later in 1910moved to Standerton.P (2) ABDOOL GAFOOR He came to Pretoria in 1895 and opened a shop at erf 205 Prinsloo Street. Due to the war he had to leave Pretoria. On the 30th September 1899, he locked his shop and left his goods and books in it. He paid £4:15:00 for a ticket from Durban to India. He had no possessions nor any money left and lived in India for two years with the assistance and generosity of his family.23 (3) ABDUL GANI JHETAM He was amongst the first Muslims to settle in Pretoria. He came from Kokan, south of Bombay.e' -32- (4) ALLIE ISMAIL He was born in Bombay, India. In 1893 he came to Pretoria and the following year he established a clothing business on the comer of Boom and Prinsloo Streets. The shop was made of wood and iron. On the 30th September 1899, due to the outbreak of the war he left in a hurry without making any prior arrangements. He went via Durban to India during the Anglo-Boer war.25 (5) AMOD GAFFOOR He was a general dealer in Prinshof, north of Prinsloo street. He rented the premises from Omar Ali for £7:10/- per month. Before his departure on 27th September 1899, he took stock of his goods and left it at Mohamed Hajee Joosub's store, which was next to John Jack Ltd. in Church street, for safe keeping during the war.26 (6) AYOB AMOD & CO. The brothers Alli Amod, Carrim Amod and Ayob Amod were partners in this business. They conducted.their business from erf 339 Prinsloo street. In 1897they lived in a building of wood and iron in Prinsloo street. They paid £80 for the rooms. On the 1st October 1899 they left Pretoria and went to IndiaP (7) AYOB HAJEE BEG MOHAMED He came to Pretoria in 1888 and was a general merchant and an Importer-s He had three shops in town. The first was at erf 334 Church street on the property of P.M.Marais. He paid a rental of £20 per month. The second shop was erf 376 Van der Walt street and another at erf336 Church street. -33- A few shopkeepers and hawkers left their goods for safety in his shop during the war. He left Pretoria on the 14th October 1899 to live in Cape Town for the duration of the war.29 (8) AYOOB NOOR MOHAMED He was born in 1865 at Ranavav, Kathiawar, India. He received his education at Ranavav and came to South Africa in 1887. After a short stay in Durban, he moved to Basutoland and eventually arrived and settled in Pretoria. He started a business in Pretoria, and later opened a branch in Johannesburg. Thereafter he became owner of a large wholesale business and had a property company known as "The Land & Trading Co." He was the first Muslim to own immovable property in Pretoria. He was the secretary and life trustee of the Pretoria Mohammedan Congregation.P On the 30th September 1899, he packed his goods and left it at Calcutta House. He then proceeded to Delagoa Bay during the war.31 (9) CASSIM lOOMA He had a shop at erf 339 Prinsloo street. He left for Delagoa Bay on the 1st October 1899. Before his departure he packed his goods and left it at Calcutta House.P (10) CAJEE ISMAIL AHMED He was born in 1872 at Kholvad, India. He received his education in Kholvad and Pretoria. He came to South Africa in 1888 and was first in private employment, and later became a partner in one of the branches of Mohamed Ismail & Co. In 1893 he returned to India and came back to South Africa after the Anglo-Boer war to settle in Standerton.P -34- (11) CAJEE ISMAILAMOD He was born in 1870 at Kholvad, India. He came to Pretoria in 1892 and stayed there for twoyears. He then went to trade in Middelburg.e' (12) DADA HAJEE JOOMA He came to the ZA.R. in 1888. He opened a business on erf 339 Prinsloo street. He lived at the Calcutta House which belonged to Hajee Habib. On the 1st October 1899he packed his goods and left it at the above place and went to India during the war.3S (13) DADA HASSAN He arrived at Pretoria in 1888. He had a shop on erf 295 Prinsloo street. At the outbreak of war he packed his goods in packages and stored it with Ayob Hajee Beg Mohamed in Church street. On the 3rd October 1899 he left for Delagoa Bay where he stayed for two months. He then proceeded to India for a period of one and a half years and then South Africa to spend six months at Vryburg.36 (14) DADA HASSIM He was born in 1867at Bombay, India. In 1885he arrived in Durban and stayed there for a . short period. In the same year he moved to Pretoria. He undertook the rigorous task as a hawker. He continued in this trade until 1909,when he established his business in Prinsloo Street with his son, Moosa Dada.F -35- (15) EBRAHIM HAJEE SULIMAN He was born in 1884 at Ranavav, Kathiawar, India. He received his education in Ranavav. In 1897 he came to Pretoria. He began as a hawker on the Pretoria-Pietersburg rail-route. After the Anglo-Boer war in 1905 he established his own business.v (16) ESSA HASSIM He owned two shops in Prinsloo street. The one was situated off Proes street and the other near Market street. During the war he lived in Delagoa Bay.39 (17) ESSOP HAJEE EBRAHIM HAJEE He arrived in Pretoria in 1891. In 1896 he opened a general dealer shop on the comer of Vermeulen and Queen streets. He traded there until the end of the September 1899. He then left for India via Durban/? (18) HAJEE HABm He was born in 1867 at Porbandar, District Bombay, India. He received his education there and then came to Durban in 1879. From there he moved to the ZA.R. and settled in Pretoria, where he began his own business. From 1896 he became involved in social and public activities of his community. He was the owner of Calcutta House wherein many of the early Muslims resided and also kept their goods during the war. He was amongst the prominent ZA.R. Muslim leaders. He took part in the struggles with Gandhi. He was the Chairman of the mosque committee, and later the secretary of Pretoria Mohammedan Congregation and Pretoria Indian Community.'! -36- (19) HAJEE MOHAMED JOOSUB He was born in 1865 in Ranavav, India. He came to South Africa in 1873. He first started his business ventures in Durban, he then moved to Johannesburg and fmally settled in Pretoria. In 1878 he returned to India. After his marriage, in 1879 he came back to Pretoria and was offered a partnership in the firm of Ismail Suliman & Company. In 1883, he established his own business in Van der Walt Street, Pretoria. He is one of the pioneer Muslim merchants in this region. In 1893, Mohamed Hajee Joosub changed his business into a wholesale and imported goods from Britian. In this way he was able to eliminate the problem of being a competitor to the hawkers and small shopkeepers whom he supplied goods. He was a trustee of the Pretoria Mohammedan mosque and madressa. He also took keen interest in communal activities and the educational advancement of his people.42 (20) HAJEE MOOSA HAJEE KHAN MOHAMED He had a shop at erf 376 Van der Walt street. He paid a monthly rental of £30 to a Mr. George Hess. He constructed a wood and iron building in BIoed street at a cost of £125. On 1st October 1899 at the outbreak of the war he locked his shop and went to India during the period ofthe war.43 (21) HASSIM EBRAHIM He was born in 1883 at Bhanvad, India and also received his education there. In 1895 he came to South Africa and settled in Pretoria. He joined his brothers Ayob Ebrahim and Latib Ebrahim (nothing more is known of them) in business. At the outbreak of the Anglo- -37- Boer war in 1899,they closed their business and returned to India. On his return in 1903 he settled in Potchefstroom.s' (22) HASSIM HAJEE MAHOMED He was born in 1870 in Asna, District Surat, India and received his education in this village. In 1895 he came to South Africa and settled in Pretoria. He started his own business in Church Street, Pretoria West after the Anglo-Boer war. He was a life trustee of the Pretoria Mohammedan Congregation.P (23) ISMAIL SULIMAN In 1890 he opened a shop in Prinsloo street. Later, he established another wholesale and retail business at erf 48 on the corner of Schubart and Struben streets. This property belonged to Mr.M. Marais for which he paida monthly rental of £2:10/-. He left his goods on the shelves and locked the shop before leaving for India in September 1899.46 (24) JOOSUB KHAN MOHAMED He had a clothing and blanket shop at erf 338 Prinsloo street. At the outbreak of war he left his goods at Calcutta House before going to India.47 (25) KALLA HAJEE ISMAIL MAHOMED He was born in 1879 in Ranavav, India. In 1895 he arrived in South Africa and settled in Pretoria. He worked for a few years and became a partner with his brother in the firm T.M.Kalla until 1905. Thereafter, he moved to Pietersburg.f • -38- , (26) MOHAMED HAJEE ABDOOLA He had a shopon erf 336 Prinsloo street. On the 29th September 1899he kept his goods at Calcutta House and then went to India for the duration of the war.49 (27) MOHAMED MOOSA He came to Pretoria in 1892 and opened a clothing shop at 157 Van der Walt street. He had to leave at the end of September 1899 due to the war. After the war he settled in Johannesburg.so (28) MOOSA AMOD He was a hawker before the war. He had a few sales representatives to sell his merchandise. During the war he went to Cape Town." (29) MOOSA KHAN MOHAMED He had a shop at erf 339 Church street. He placed it under the management of Alii Mohamed Khan Mohamed, whilst himself resided in Lorenco Marques. It was the property of Mr. J.E.Parker and he paid a monthly rental of £150. His partner and manager left Pretoria during the war.52 (30) OSMAN HAJEE CASSIM He was born in Porbandar, India. He came to Pretoria in 1887. He went to India in 1892 and returned after two years in 1894. He continued with his soft goods business. At the outbreak of the war he kept his goods at Calcutta House and went to Cape Town.53 -39- (31) OSMAN HASSIM He came to Pretoria in 1891 and opened a general dealer shop at erf 295 Prinsloo street. -During the war he left his goods at Calcutta House. On 1st October 1899 he left for Delagoa Bay and then to India.54 (32) SACCUT(sic) ALLY He came to Pretoria in 1895. He opened a grocery shop on the comer of Kock and Struben streets. This property was owned by Mr.Neft. On the 1st October 1899 he had to leave Pretoria due to the war.55 (33) SHEiKH AMOD ESSACK He was born in Bombay, India. He was in partnership with his brother, Sheikh Mohamed Essack at erf 294 Prinsloo street. In 1897 he obtained a lease of ten years from Mr.M.Marais. He erected a building of 110ft x 30ft, which consisted of seven shops and ten rooms at a cost of £1300. Thereafter, he left and returned in September 1899. He remained in Pretoria for a few days and was forced to leave due to the war. He went to Delagoa Bay and from there to India.56 (34) SHEIKH MOHAMED ESSACK He came to Pretoria in 1887. He was a wholesale dealer at erf 294 Prinsloo street. In April 1894 he returned after a short vacation to India. He left Pretoria at the outbreak of the war.57 -40- (35) SHEIKH OMAR He came to Pretoria in 1895.He opened a general dealer shop on the comer of Boom and Prinsloo streets. On 29th September 1899 due to the war he had to leave for India.58 (36) SULIMAN DAWJEE He came to Pretoria in 1887.He had a shop in Buffelspoort and another in Skeerpoort. He was forced by the Boers to move to Pretoria for three months during the war. Thereafter, he was sent back to Skeerpoort from where he left for India.59 (37) SULIMAN TAYOB In 1899 he came to Pretoria. He had a shop selling native goods at erf 339 Prinsloo street. This property belonged to a Mr.J.E.Parker. He left Pretoria on the 30th September 1899 and kept his goods for safety at Calcutta House/II> (38) TAYOB HAJEE KHAN MOHAMMED He entered the ZA.R. in 1883.61 He was a leading pioneer trader in Pretoria. He purchased the piece of land on the corner of Vermeulen and Queen Streets, on behalf of the Muslim community and contributed greatly towards it.62 In 1898, he was prepared to undertake the test case with the ZA.R., when he was refused the renewal of his trading licence in Church Street, Pretoria.63 (39) TAYOB MOHAMED KALIA He had a shop at Prinsloo street near the East End School. He was forced to leave on the 1st October 1899. -41- The abovementioned persons came to the ZA.R. from the early 1880's to about 1895. These people were engaged in commerce. Amongst them were hawkers, general dealers, drapers or outfitters, wholesalers and importers. Most of these people resided in Calcutta House, as they were without their families. At the outbreak of the Anglo-Boer war in 1899 the Muslims left Pretoria and went to Delegoa Bay, Cape Town, Durban or returned to India. The goods were either left in their shops or at Calcutta House. The people returned after-the war to Pretoria and found their shops were emptied and lost of goods at Calcutta House. These places were broken into and looted during the war. The British Autorities requested them to fill in their claim forms and promised to recompense them. 2.5. JUMMA MASlID-QUEEN STREET The first mosque built in the Pretoria region is situated in Queen Street, known as the "Jumma Masjid-Queen Street".64 The Muslims arrived in Pretoria in 1881.Within a few years their numbers increased, and a need arose for congregational prayers. In 1887,a Muslim resident of Pretoria, Tayob Hajee Khan Mohamed's purchased the piece of land on behalf of the Muslim community from a Mr.David John Bower.66 The land was erven numbers 284 and 285 situated on the corner of Vermeulen and Queen Streets. The land was purchased by the Muslims, who were well aware that Asiatics(including Muslims) were prohibited by law from possessing any property in town except in areas allocated for their residence. Therefore, the Muslims were unable to register the property in their own names? -42- The Muslims made an arrangement with Mr. Bouwer to be nominee for them until they were able to secure the registration of the property in the name of the Muslim community. Mr. Bouwer agreed to be their nominee for the interim period/" However, the property remained in the name of Mr. Bouwer until 1906. The Muslim merchants of Pretoria contributed to the purchasing and the constructing of the mosque. They raised the sum by introducing a voluntary tax of 3d. a ewt on imported goods and the rest from other sources.s? It is also claimed that the original trustees, who were involved in 1887 in purchasing the land and converting of the building thereon into a mosque, undertook it basically with their own wealth, and only obtaining some monetary assistance from a small group of Muslim businessmen in Pretoria.P The trustees with the consent of the members of their congregation controlled the affairs of the mosque. They even took the liabilities upon themselves. Furthermore, they erected other buildings on the same piece of land to earn some income for the expenses of the mosque.I! According to Maulana A. Ishaq the mosque was made of a zinc structure.P The existing structure was built in 1928. 2.6.THE HEROES ACRE At the Church Street cemetry, known as the "Heroes Acre", Muslims were buried there until 1910. According to Maulana A. Ishaq there were about twelve muslim graves.P -43- The names and records of the persons buried at the Heroes Acre are kept at the Rebecca Cemetery. The officer-in-charge mentioned that in 1978 the City Council of Pretoria planned to build a road across the cemetery grounds. It wanted to extend Lorentz street from the Asiatic Bazaar to Church street. It notified the Muslims of their intentions to exhume the bodies in those graves.They received no objection to their notice. On 14th July 1978, they removed the bones from the 143graves and transferred it to grave number 43 in the Laudium cemetery. The names of those buried in Heroes Acre could not be traced by the cemetery officials.P The record book has the names of the various groups of people. There is a chart that shows the 143 graves, but it seems they have not taken care of writing or preserving the names of the Muslims. The Muslim graves did not have stones nor plates to identify them. Over the years the graves were neglected and flattened. The last Muslim buried there was in 1910. The children of those buried in Heroes Acre have most probably passed away and there is no person to identify them. Due to this it had become difficult to identify the persons in the Heroes Acre. NOT E S 1 Joshi P.S. p.48., Pillay B.p.l. 2 Ritch L 1907(pref. date).•British Indians and the Transvaal. No place: St Clements. Press. p.5-0. .3 Michael Vane. Date unknown. The South African Indians. South African Affairs Pamphlets., Khan SA (Sir). 1946. The Indians in South Africa. Allahabad: Kitabistan p.16 4 Pillay B. p.2. 5 Meer F. 1969. p.1S. 6 Mukherjee S.B. p.l9., Meet F. 1969.PortraitofIndian South Africans. Durban: Avon House. p.l6. 7 Pillay B. p.3. 8 Ishaq A.(Maulana).p.37. -44- 9 Joosub H.E. 1958.Bittemess towards Indians. Pretoria: The Pretoria Indian Commercial Association. p.l0. 10 Nothling FJ. 1984. Die vestiging van Gekluerdes in en om Pretoeia, sI9O().1914. Pretoria: Die Sraatsdrukker, p3., Fouche J.H. Die Asiatevrrzagstuk in die doe van die Suid·Afrikaanse Republiek ; Historiese Studies, Vol VII(2 & 3), pp 49-120. 11 Nothling FJ. p3. 12 Ibid. p.6. 13 Walker EA.(et.a1) 1936 The CambridgeHistory ofthe British Empire, Vol. VIII, p.781. 14 IshaqA.(Maulana). p38. 15 Gandhi M.K. 1928 (1972 print). Satyagraha in South Africa. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House. p.23. 16 According to Islamic terminology Halal means 'lawful'. Here it refers to eating and drinking that which is lawful according to Islamic Law. 17 Meer F. p.18. The wordArabie~srefers to the early Muslims. Haial refers here to 'lawful food' according to Islamic terminology. 18 Pillay B.p3. 19 This issue will be discussed in chapter three. 20 Pillay B. p.18. (Also refer to CO 417/22, Report of British Agent (Pretoria), 8 August 1885). 21 De Vo1kstem,4 September 1888. 22 Bramdaw D. 1935. The South African Indian WHO'S WHO and Commercial Di~ctory, 1936-1931. Pietermaritzburg: The Natal Witness. p33. 23 TAD:CJC 142. File no.2758. 24 Ishaq A. p.22. 2S TAD:CJC 141 File no.2743. 26 TAD:CJC 141 File no.274O. 27 TAD:CJC 141 File no.2737. 28 TAD:CS 235 File no.1063. 29 TAD:CJC 141 File no.2741. 30 Bramdaw D. 1935. p37.. Bramdaw D. 1939.p.344. 31 TAD:CJC 141 File no.2745. 32 TAD:CJC 140 File no.2732. 33 Bramdaw D. 1935. p.47., Bramdaw D. 1939. p.75. 34 Ibid. p.48. 3S TAD:CJC 141 File no.2738. 36 TAD:CJC 141 File no.2739. 37 Manjoo M.E. 1972. The Southern Africa Indian W7to~ WT,o. Pietermaritzburg: Universal Printing Works. p.89 38 Ibid. p.99., Bramdaw D. 1935 p.61.,Bramdaw D. 1939.p.98. 39 TAD:CJC 141 File no.2707. 40 TAD:CJC 137 File no.2657. 41 Manjoo M.E. p.70.,Bramdaw D. 1939.p.ttt. 42 Ibid. p.14S., Bramdaw D.1939 p.127., M.HJoosub.1983.A South African Adventure Story.Pretoria. p3-7. 43 TAD:CJC 142 File no.2751. 44 Bramdaw D. 1939. p.llS. 45 Ibid. p.70. 46 TAD:CJC 142 Fde no.2757. 47 TAD:CJC 140 File no.2736. 48 Bramdaw D. 1939. p369. 49 TAD:CJC 140 File no.2734. SO TAD:CJC 141 File no.2705. 51 TAD:CJC 137 File no.2647 -45- 52 TAD:CJC 141Ftle no.275O. 53 TAD:CJC 142File no.2756. 54 TAD:CJC 140File no.2733. S5 TAD:CJC 141 File no.2690. 56 TAD:CJC 142File no.2752. 57 TAD:CJC 143File n02767. 58 TAD:CJC 139 File no.2687. 59 TAD:CJC 141File no.2708. 60 TAD:CJC 141File no.2749. 61 CO 417/246. Report on the Tayob Hajee Khan Mohamed case. 62 TAD 5508/06 Letter from Stegman, Esselen & Ross to the Secretary of the Law Department, Pretoria dated 21stAugust 1906. 63 CO 417/246. The test case will be discussedin chapter six. 64 Pretoria MuslimCongregation. 1984. Pretoria Muslim Congregation (Brochure). Pretoria. p.I, 6S TAD 5508/06. Letter from the Attorney R.L.O. Versfeld to the Secretary of the Law Department, Pretoria dated 29th August 1906., Letter from R.L.O. Versfcld to Messrs. Stegman, Esselen & Ross, dated 27th August 1906. 66 Pretroria MuslimCongregation. p.40. 67 TAD 5508/06. Letter from Stegman,Esselen & Ross to the Secretary of the Law Department, Pretoria dated 21st August" 1906. . 68 The names of trustees are not mentioned in the letters. The only person mentioned is Tayob Hajee Khan Mohamed who was made a representative of the muslims. 69 TAD 5508/06.Letter from R.L.O. Versfeld to Messrs.Stegman,Esselen & Ross, dated 27th August 1906 70 Ibid 71 TAD 864. Governor Arthur Lawley (Jhb.) to Alfred Lyttleton,Colonial Office, dated 12thDecember 1903. 72 Ishaq A.(Maulana).p.23. 73 Ibid 74 Interviewon 7th October 1990withMr. Malan at the RebeccaCemetery, Pretoria .. CHAPTER THREE CHAPTER THREE THE SITUATION OF THE EARLY MUSLIMS UNTIL 1885 3.1. INTRODUCfION In the study of the Muslims of the Z.A.R. and in particular the Pretoria region, one has to have a background of the Law 3 of 1885. The Law 3 of 1885,played a vital role in the establishment of the Muslims in certain areas. Ifit were not for this law, the Muslims would not have been mentioned in the Government records, nor be mentioned as a community existing within the Republic. Most of the historical data available on the Muslimswere based on or revolved around Law 3 of 1885. The implementation of the above Law began in Pretoria, as the first Muslims came to this area, and then moved to other towns and villages. Although Johannesburg has a greater number of Muslims, the majority of the traders came to it only after the discovery of gold and the founding of this city in 1886. This was the period of influx into the Johannesburg area, not only of the Muslims but various other groups of people, who came to seek of the new found fortune. A brief discussion of the main factor that induced Muslims to travel northwards to the ZA.R. will be given. The question is what really prompted them to travel such great distances in search of new fortunes and livelihood? What form of security or protection did they possess? Were they sure that this would be an ideal place to settle? These are questions which have to be answered. - 47- 3.2 THE QUEEN'S PROCLAMATION OF 1858 The Queen's Proclamation of 1858, was destined to playa vital role in the history of the Muslims in the ZA.R..1 The Muslim traders felt secured to reside and conduct their businesses in the ZA.R. due to the Queen's Proclamation. After the Indian Mutiny of 1857, the British Government began its rule in India and replaced the East India Company in India. It was after the establishment of its suzerainty in India, that the Queen's Government tried to pacify the people. The British Government published the Queen's Proclamation of 1858. It promised to introduce reforms and give .certain concessions in India. The Proclamation states:- n We held ourselves bound to the natives of our Indian territories by the same obligations of duty which bind us to all our other subjects, and these obligations, by the blessing of Almighty God, we shall faithfully and conscientiously fulfil, It is our further will that, so far as may be, our subjects, of whatever race or creed, be freely and impartially admitted to offices in our service, the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability and integrity, duly to discharge.n2 This Proclamation gave an assurance to Muslims and other Indians as British subjects, as to their right of protection from the British Government. Therefore, the Muslims were confident as British subjects to be welcomed and treated well by the ZA.R. Government due to the Pretoria Convention of 1881. 3.3. THE PRETORIA AND LONDON CONVENTIONS A brief background to the conclusion of the Pretoria Convention of 1881 and the London Convention of 1884 would be necessary. as these events gave further assurance of protection and security to Muslims as British subjects. In 1877. the British annexed the ZAR. The war of independence took place, and the - 48- British Government although reluctant were eventually obliged to restore the independence ofthe ZA.R.. 3.3.1. PRETORIA CONVENTION OF 1881 In 1881, the retrocession of the Republic by the British to the Boers took place. This was done by the Pretoria Convention according to which the Republic was granted 'complete self-government to the suzerainty of Her Majesty.'3 Article 26 of the Convention guaranteed full rights of citizenship to "all persons other than natives".4 The fIrst draft approved by both parties at the Pretoria Convention was as follows.- "The subjects of Her Majesty conforming themselves to the laws of the Transvaal States (a) will have full liberty with their families to enter, travel or reside in any part of Transvaal State; (b) they will be permitted to hire or possess manufactories, warehouses, shops, and premises; (c) they may carry on commerce either in person or by agents whom they may think fit to employ; (d) they will not be subject, in respect of their persons or property, or in respect of their commerce or industry, to any taxes whether general or local, other than those which are or may be imposed upon Transvaal citizens; (e) they willbe exempted from all compulsory military service whatsoever.P The Colonial Secretary, Lord Kimberely instructed Sir Hercules Robinson, the High Commissioner and a delegate at the Pretoria Convention, to make a few alterations to Article 26. The alterations were:- (1) The words, "The subjects of Her Majesty" was to be replaced by "all persons other than natives." - 49- (2) The word, "entitled" was inserted instead of "permitted". (3) The section (e) refering to the exemption from military service was deleted. Lord Kimberley justified his amendments that it was his desire to include aliens within the said article, as the British Government would be responsible for the Republic's (ZA.R.) foreign relations, and there may be a possibility that they will receive grievances from foreign powers, whose subjects may have been excluded from the country.P The Republic Government accepted the amendments to the Convention, but they objected to the British Government having control over their relations with foreign governments and the neighbouring African tribes. 3.3.2. LONDON CONVENTION OF 1884 An agitation began in the Republic, and the document of the Pretoria Convention was replaced by that of the London Convention of 1884. The name "Z.A.R." was restored instead of "Transvaal", to indicate abstention from any form of suzerainty. The Article 14 of the London Convention read as follows:- "All persons other than natives, conforming themselves to the laws of the South African Republic (a) will have full liberty, with their families, to enter, travel, or reside in any part of the South African Republic; (b) they will be entitled to hire or possess houses, manufactories, warehouses, shops and premises; (c) they may carry on their commerce either in person or by agents whom they may think fit to employ; (d) they will not be subject, in respect of their persons or property, or in respect of their commerce or industry, to any taxes, whether general or local, other than those which are or may be imposed upon citizens of the said Republic.? The Article 14 of the London Convention of 1884, was an obstacle in the formulation and execution of the Law 3 of 1885. The Republic tried to obtain clarity as to whether the - 50- Muslims and other Indians were included in the above article. This led to a great deal of controversy. The main purpose of the London Convention was for the Z.A.R. to increase its jurisdiction over its own affairs. After giving no indication of the British Government imposing its suzerainty, the Republic claimed later that British suzerainty no longer existed after the London Convention had replaced the Pretoria Convention. There was no specific mention made of Muslims, Indians or other British subjects. This became a problem when the British sought to protect its other subjects.8 3.4. THE MUSLIMS ~D THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE AGITATION Previously it had been mentioned that the date of the arrival of the Muslim traders had been deduced as 1881. Even if these people were present in Pretoria at the time of the Pretoria Convention, their numbers must have been so few that the parties involved in the framing of the document were least concerned with them.9 Between 1881 and 1884, there was a rapid growth of the Muslim population in the Republic.to The reason for the Muslims moving northwards was the increasing hostility towards them in Natal.11 Therefore, a few traders entered the ZA.R. to explore new fields of trade. The majority of these persons were Muslim (Muhammedan) traders from the single district of Surat. 12 These people settled in the Republic mainly as merchants, traders and hawkers.13 There were a "few" Indians or ex-indentured labourers who also ventured into the Republic. The Free-Indians came as traders in fruit and vegetables or were employed in various types of manual labour. I At the beginning, these traders conducted their business without any problems. The traders were permitted to enjoy the protection in the Republic within the spirit of the Pretoria I! Convention)4 At the same time, the presence and freedom of movement of the traders I l was not objected to by those already present in Pretoria. - 51- It was not long before the Europeans began an agitation against the Muslims in Pretoria. The exact date of the rising of the issue is not mentioned by the historians. The first official report regarding this was addressed by the State Secretary of the ZA.R., Eduard Bok to Lord Derby, the British High Commissioner in a letter, dated 6 January 1885.15 s opposed to Natal, in the Republic there was no demand for the services of Muslims for ny form of labour. The majority of the Muslims came to the Republic as merchants.16 l~ Lange Commission in 1921 referred to the early Muslim traders of Surat as "quite a ~rerent class."17 Sir Shafa'th A.Khan further describes this group of traders in the ftOWing words:- Fey are born traders and have the reputation of being remarkably capable, astute usiness men, a~d competent to hold their own against their European competitors in that respect."18 against the free-Indians, but with the Arab (Muslim) traders in particular. As De Villiers states that "the burghers of Kruger's Republic soon showed unease and resentment at the sight of these "Coolies" and "Arabs" in search of a new life away from the increasing restraints of Her Majesty's Natal colony."19 The attitude of both groups to each other was not a burning issue of the society as is viewed of the press cuttings. Therefore not much could be written on their attitudes and relationship towards each other. The European traders started an agitation against the Muslim traders, and drew up \ petitions. These petitioners claimed that they feared the "threatened invasion of Asiatics such as has already commenced at Pretoria."20 Another petition states that "the population of Arabians and Coolies is much increasing in this town and state."21 - 52- ( The agitation was not started by the burghers, as they were mostly farmers. It was started by "the rival European storekeepers, many of whom were neither Transvaal burghers nor yet British Subjects."22 The proceedings of the Volksraad of the Z.A.R. in 1896 recorded that "the European storekeepers charged poor people very high prices for the staff(sic) of life, while the Coolies charged much less."23 The standard of living of the Muslims was low and therefore Ii \ they were able to sell their goods at a far lesser price than the European traders. This led to I jealousy and anti-campaigns against the Muslim traders, as "nearly all of them being I storekeepers and settled in the Republic."24 I The Europeans expressed their resentment of the Muslim and Indian traders in pamphlets. This was followed by petitions signed by the European merchants. The Muslim traders sent a contra memorial to the ZA.R.Government on 25th August 1884.25 President Kruger was approached by a delegation of European traders to get rid of Muslim I hawkers. He refused to accept their request, and he argued persuasively that the Muslim traders were "useful to his people."26 Ij .Thereafter, the correspondence between the Z.A.R. and the British Government I, commenced. The ZA.R. desired to enquire whether they were at liberty to frame I \\ regulations relevant to the above regarding the Muslims in conjunction with the conventions of 1881 and 1884.27 This is the theme of the next chapter. NOT ES 1 Pillay B. p.xiii. 2 LTG 95/06. Petition by Abdool Ganie and others to the British Governor of the Transvaal, dated 31st October 1902.,Mukherjee S.B. p.24. 3 Walker EA 1960.A History ofSouthern Africa. London. p.386. 4 Narain Iqbal. p.159. 5 CO 291/10. Confidential telegram, Robinson to Kimberely, 25th July 1881. 6 CO 291/10. Telegram, Kimberley to Robinson, 27th July 1881. 7 C 7911. 1895.Papers of the GnevancesofHerMajestys Indian Subjects in the South African Republic. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode. p.50., Narain Iqbal. p.159., Mukherjee S.B. p.23-24., Joshi P.S. p.50., Huttenback - 53- RA 1971. Gandhi in South Africa.London: Cornell UniversityPress.p.102. 8 Huttenback RA p.102. 9 Ibid. p.104. 10 Ibid. 11 Joshi P.S.p.49. 12 Khan SA(Sir). 13 Joshi P.S. P.49.. 14 Narain I. p.160. 15 C 7911. p.51.Also cr. Narain I. p.160. 16 De Villiers Les. p.4S. 17 Khan SA(Sir). p.16. 18 Ibid. 19 De VilliersLes. p.4S. 20 Ibid. p.4S., Mukerjee S.B.p.24. 21 Ibid. p.4S. 22 Ritch L. 1907(pref.date).British Indians andthe Transvaal. (No place) St.Clements Press. p.5. 23 De Villiers Les. p.4S., The Volksraad made no distinction here between Muslim traders and the coolies, although the Muslim traders protested against it. The government was not bothered by the insistence of the Muslims. 24 C 7911. p.51. 25 Ibid. 26 De Villiers Les. p.4S. 27 Narain I. p.161. CHAPTER FOUR· CHAPTER FOUR LAW 3 OF1885 AND ITS AMENDMENT 4.1. INTRODUCTION The Z.A.R. had to please the European petitioners, but could not do so until it was able to receive the consentof the British government regarding the position of the British subjects residing in the Republic. Thus, negotiations began between the two governments which involved a lengthy discussion of the Article 26 of the Pretoria Convention of 1881, which was reaffirmed by article 14 of the London Convention of 1884. 4.2. NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE Z.A.R. AND BRITISH The Pretoria and London Conventions had permitted the Muslims along with other Asians to enjoy their protection and citizenship rights in the ZA.R.. In the early days of the Republic there seemed to have been no objections to the presence and activities of the Muslims'! The European traders very soon realised their presence as they affected their businesses and became competitors in trade. This was more evident in Pretoria than Johannesburg, as the European traders in Pretoria were engaged in the retail trade, whereas those in Johannesburg were mostly wholesalers who sold their merchandise to the Muslim traders. Itwas for this reason that the anti-Asian campaign began at Pretoria. The Government of the ZA.R. sent a letter to Lord Derby, the British High Commissioner on the 6th January 1885.2 In this letter it is mentioned that since the arrival of 'Orientals' there had been agitations and anti-Asian Campaigns through the media, pamphlets and petitions. It further states that the "Volksraad was not unwilling to meet the wishes of the white petitioners, entirely or partly; for example, by assigning to the Orientals thus - 55- immigrated locations or wards within certain prescribed limits."3 In the concluding part of the letter it expresses the views of the petitioners that the London Convention does not include the group of people (viz. the Muslims) against whom they had petitioned. Therefore, it sought clarity from the British government on the matter in terms of the convention. By its giving consent to institute such regulations for coloured persons, the Z.A.R. will be able to meet the needs of the European traders.' The above mentioned petitioners argued that the officials at the Pretoria and London Conventions had not thought of including the Muslims and Asians when stating "all persons, other than natives." Therefore, the Muslims were not entitled to enjoy the privileges granted to the British. There is no indication whether the above term "all persons, other than natives" is confined to Europeans only. The reports of the convention in 1881 does not refer whatsoever to 'Asians','Coolies' or 'Arabs'. It had been phrased in a comprehensive manner that would include and permit all British subjects who were not 'natives' to enter the Z.A.R.. The Muslims understood the above clause to include them. It was due to this that many travelled northwards to the Republic to seek new fortunes. The discussion of Muslims at the two conventions were irrelevant. Since the main issues dealt withwere: (1) The independence of the Z.A.R. after the war of independence in 1880-1881 at Majuba. (2) British influence in the north. (3) The Republics relation with other powers.> - 56- Sir Hercules Robinson , the High Commissioner, in his letter to Lord Derby on 28th January 1885 states that Lord Kimberley on receiving the draft of the convention, sent a message on the 27th July 1881 to omit the words, "the subjects of Her Majesty" and insert "all persons other than natives", which was done. The reason for the alteration was not given. Sir Hercules Robinson consulted one of his colleagues at the convention, the Chief Justice, Sir Henry de Villiers regarding the above phrase. He is positive that both groups to the Pretoria Convention had clearly understood the implication of the word "natives". According to the authorized Dutch version of the convention the word 'inboorlingen' is used, which always meant 'the coloured aborigines of the country'. Therefore, it is apparent that the Arabs, Indians, Chinese and other Asiatics were not to be included amongst "natives", but with "persons other than natives" according to Article 14 of the London Convention.? In the same letter, Sir Hercules Robinson observes that there were no restrictions on the ZA.R. to institute special legislation for Muslims, Indians or Chinese Coolie immigrants. He recommends that the Government of the Z.A.R. should be informed that the British Government are keen to amend Article 14 of the London Convention and insert the words "African natives or Indian or Chinese Coolie immigrants" instead of "all persons other than natives". This amendment was to have excluded the few Arab (Muslim) traders that were present in Pretoria. They were now entitled to enjoy the liberties granted under the articles of the convention to British subjects," The State Secretary of Great Britian, Lord Derby in his letter to the High Commissioner dated 19th March 1885, agreed with the recommendations proposed by Sir Hercules Robinson. He gave his consent to inform the ZA.R. of his willingness to negotiate. The following reply was given: "I have carefully considered your suggestion as to the amendment of the Convention, and, if you are of opinion, that it would be preferable and more satisfactory to the Government of the South African Republic to proceed as you propose, - 57- Her Majesty's Government will be willing to amend the convention as suggested. It seems to deserve cosideration, however, whether it would not be more correct for the Volksraad to legislate in the proposed sense, having received an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not desire to insist upon any such construction of the terms of the convention as would interfere with reasonable legislation in the desired direction.f The concluding passage of Sir Hercules Robinson regarding the "few Arab traders at present in Pretoria" had raised another question. Whether he desired to protect the rights of only those "few" Arab traders who were then present at Pretoria? What was the situation of those Arabs who may subsequently settle in the Republic? His contradicting the words of the European petitioners by stating "few", to their choice of description such as "swarm", "flood"and "hordes". It seems that Sir Hercules Robinson drew a distinction between Arabs and Coolies, whereas the Republic had placed all under a single group. Sir Hercules Robinson's words of "fewArab traders" at Pretoria does not conflict with the statements of the European petitioners. As stated above, he made a distinction between the various groups of immigrants in the ZAR. Virasai Banphot in his thesis mentions that a sizeable number of Indians moved to the Transvaal (Z.A.R.), "probably belonging entirely to the ex-indentured catogery" of Madrasis. He further states that the remainder were traders from Surat and Nothern India. This obviously refers mostly to the Muslims. The Muslim traders amounted to approximately two hundred in the Transvaal (Z.A.R.)9 So, it is obvious that the number of Arab (Muslim) traders in Pretoria must have been "few" persons. Furthermore, ifwe take into consideration the area they were confined in central town.l'' it is safe to assume that they could not amount to a large number. The letter of the State Secretary of Great Britian, Lord Derby which was sent through the High Commissioner, Sir Hercules Robinson to the Republic created much controversy. The issue here was whether Lord Derby accepted the suggested amendment by Sir - 58- Hercules Robinson, which excluded the Arab traders; or the proposal of the Z.A.R., which included the Arab traders. From the letter it can be deduced that Lord Derby did not refer to the proposals of the , Z.A.R.. It indicated an agreement to the suggestions of Sir Hercules Robinson. The use of the words "your suggestion", "you are of opinion", "to proceed as you propose" undoubtly leads to the indisputable conclusion that it referred to Sir Hercules Robinson's recommendations. The ZA.R. held the contrary view. They based their argument on the concluding words of the letter, that is, that the British Government assured them that it will not "interfere with reasonable legislation in the desired direction". The Z.A.R. took this to be an acceptance of their "desired direction" as expressed in their letter to Lord Derby on the 6th January 1885. This indicated that the Volksraad were granted permission to legislate in the "desired direction". However, the Z.A.R. had to act upon what they perceived to be the implications of the Lord Derby's letter. The onus of drafting the law was placed with the Republic, after which it had to be sent to the British for examining and giving its view. The Z.A.R. prepared and placed a draft of the law before the Volksraad. The Volksraad with minor modifications adopted the legislation, which is known as Law 3 of 1885. 4.3. THE ENACTMENTOF LAW 3 OF 1885 Immediately on receiving a reply from the High Commissioner, Sir Hercules Robinson, the Republic drafted a bill, that restricted the Muslims and other Asians in the Republic. The Law 3 of 1885 was approved and enacted by the resolution of the Volksraad, under - 59- Article 225 on the 1st June 1885. The enactment was as follows:- Article 1. This law shall apply to the persons belonging to any of the native races of Asia, including the so-called Coolies, Arabs, Malays and Mohammedan subjects of the Turkish Dominion. Article 2. With regard to the persons mentioned in Article 1, the following provisions shall apply: (a) They shall not be capable of obtaining burgher rights of the South African Republic. (b) They shall not be capable of being owners of fixed property in the Republic. This provision shall not be retrospective. (c) Those who settle in the Republic for the purpose of carrying on any trade or otherwise shall be bound to have their names entered in a register to be seperately kept for the purpose by the landdrosts of the various districts, in accordance with a form to be prescribed by the Government. On such registration, which shall be effected within eight days after their arrival, a sum of £25 sterling shall be paid. Contravention of the provisions contained in sub-section "c" above shall be punished with a fine of from £10 to £100 sterling, or in default of payment, with imprisonment for a period of from fourteen days to six months. The above-mentioned registration shall be effected free of charge in the case of those persons who settled in the Republic before the coming into operation of this law, provided they report themselves to the Landdrost, in the case of those living in the district of Pretoria, within thirty days, after the coming into operation of this Law. (d) The Government shall have the right to point out certain streets, wards and locations for them to live in. This provision shall not apply to those who live with their employers. - 60- Article 3. This law shall come into operation immediately after publication in the Staats Courant, in accordance with Article 12 of the Constitution.U 4.4. REACTION TO LAW3 OF 1885 Close observation of the Law shows that the Law transgressed the proposals agreed upon by the British Government. Firstly, it included the Arab traders, who were specifically excluded by Sir Hercules Robinson in his letter to Lord Derby. Secondly, it took drastic measures which in a single enactment deprived the Muslims and other Asians of political, vocational and property rights, along with it freedom of movement. 12 The Muslims protested against the restrictions imposed upon them. There was some reaction from the European sector in the Republic. The Manager of Standard Bank petitioned to the Republic against the restrictions imposed upon the bank's clients.P Furthermore, the Muslim and Asian case was highlighted in the Press by J.F.Cilliers, the editor of the De Volkstem, a popular Dutch newspaper. In the editorial section he discussed the bill at length and was surprised at the extraordinary haste of its enactment. The bill was published on the 27th May 1885 and became law on 1st June 1885. He did not find it appropriate to congratulate the parties involved in the drafting of this Law. According to him the petitions of the Europeans were organised and it did not reflect the general feelings of the European public against the Muslims. The Muslims were surprised that J.F.Cilliers became their defender. Due to ignorance in political affairs they did not capitalise on his reports. However, he had the support of some Europeans who were prepared to view the issue as he did. Cilliers mentioned that the Government was unable to explain why the "civilised Mohammedan trader" was placed on the same level as the local natives who were deprived of all rights and privileges. The De Volkstem condemned Law 3 as "pernicous" for it robbed the Muslims and others of their - 61- rights.14 It took a firm stand against law 3 of 1885. In spite of this the law was added to the statute book without any amendment. De Volkstem printed a few letters supporting the Muslims. They observed that the Muslim trader was the person, who provided a useful service at very reasonable prices for the poor burghers.P The words of these persons were not considered, as their influence in the Volksraad was minimal. The voting figures in the Volksraad clearly indicate their strength. For example, Article 1 was decided by thirty-eight votes to three, as well as, Articles 2a and 2b. The Article 2c regarding registration was decided by twenty four to eighreen.lv The above figures show that those opposing the clauses were outnumbered. Even though many were not in favour of seperating the Muslims or imposing certain conditions of registration they were less in number. J.F.Cilliers failed to gain support for the rejection of the Law, as most members of the Volksraad were pleased to refer to the situation of Indians prevalent in other parts of the world. He felt that they should be lenient with the traders as they could act as buffers between Europeans and Natives. But, the Muslim traders were not keen on this arrangement, as they would not want to be mere agents between these two groups.l? After the promulgation of Law 3 of 1885, the poor burghers and Africans continued to trade with the Muslims. The Wholesalers were also pleased to deal with them, and in some instances gave the Muslims better credit facilities than the whites. The traders were found to be honest in their business dealings, although there were a few exceptions. The Republic after the enactment and approval of Law 3 by the Volksraad and the British Government, did not implement the law immediately. The reason being that the traders were an asset to the poor burghers. There was no agitation, and the situation was normalised and calm. The effects ofLaw 3 of 1885was not felt by anyone for some time. I - 62- It was not long before the Muslim traders realised how the law could affect their obtaining any property. The Republic began the application of the law in two instances. The first was when the General Manager of the Standard Bank of South .Africa was involved in a business transaction of a -client, but was unable to secure the transfer of the property. The general manager then wrote to the High Commissioner, explaining how the Law 3 affected and restricted the Muslim trader.l'' The other was when the Assignee of the estate for Hollins and Holder, S.C.Cornwright found it extremely difficult to conclude the transfer to Muslims due to Law 3 of 1885. He sent a petition to the Secretary of State of the colonies to complain of its effects.l? The British Government was once again involved in the negotiations. According to the correspondence before the enactment of law 3 of 1885. It was stated that the law would not affect those who entered the South African Republic prior to the passing of Law 3 of 1885, that is, before June 1885. Those who enter after this period should be made aware of the restrictions and penalties imposed. If they elect to reside in the Republic,they were bound to abide by the Law. Since it was evident that the Law 3 of 1885 included the "Arab traders" who resided in Pretoria, Sir Hercules Robinson addressed a complaint to the Colonial Secretary, Sir Frederick Stanley.20 Referring to the Law 3 being passed after assurance was granted by the British Authorities in Lord Derby's letter.21 Thus, the British and the Z.A.R. resumed their correspondence and made cross references to previous letters. The debate of the two governments were confined to Lord Derby's letter. The Imperial Secretary, Graham Bower in his letter to the High Commissioner, endeavoured to explain to the Republic the manner in which Lord Derby gave consent regarding the Chinese and Indian Coolie immigrants.22They refused to accept the above explanation. In 1886, the new Colonial Secretary, Lord Granville wrote to the High Commissioner, Sir Hercules Robinson - 63- about the Governments' refusal to accept their interpretation of Lord Derby's letter. He requested Eduard Bok, State Secretary of the ZA.R. to consider some amendments that would not impose serious disabilities on the traders, particularly those residing in the Z.A.R. prior to June 1885.23 The British Government now changed their strategy by shifting their emphasis. Previously, they desired total exemption for the Muslim traders but now requested to "remove the serious disabilities". In this way it gave the right to institute other minor laws. The Z.A.R. immediately undertook to present their case. They revived the issue of public health and alleged that Muslims along with the other Asiatics did not pay much attention to sanitation, they carried the plague and that their living conditions were a threat to the Europeans.e'This was mentioned to gain the favour of the public against the Muslims. However, there was some truth in the above allegation. Whilst these traders were known to be conscious of personal cleanliness and of their homes, they totally neglected their environment. Their gardens and backyards were in poor condition. This created a bad reflection and earned a bad reputation for them. It is also evident that the Europeans generalised their allegations after observing the "Coolie Indian".25 There seems to be no reference of the ZA.R. taking any steps to remedy the above situation, nor did they take the necessary precautions to alleviate this condition. The health authorities did not keep a strict control nor prosecuted the offenders. The only reason for the ZA.R. to raise the question was to have an acceptable excuse to present to the British Government. This would make it easier to secure the consent of the British Government to an amendment of Law 3 of 1885. In this way the Republic would be able to restrict the movements of the Muslims. According to Mukherjee, the "sanitary purposes, were, however, a camouflage. The motive -64- behind Law 3 of 1885, , was in reality an economic one."26 The agitation was led by the European traders of Pretoria as they were mainly engaged in the retail trade, and they were directly affected by the Muslim traders. Therefore, they were more strongly opposed to Muslim traders than their counterparts in the Johannesburg area, who were wholesalers.27 The ZA.R. received a letter from the Colonial Secretary Lord Granville, dated 24th February 1886, demanding the revision of the Law3 of 1885, as it was in direct conflictwith the views of the British Goverment and a contravention of the London Convention.28 The State Secretary, Dr. William Leyds, on behalf of the Z.A.R. wrote to the High Commissioner, Sir Hercules Robinson explaining his Governments' view. At first, he expressed the Republic Governments regret that the Law 3 of 1885 was not quite in accordance with the British view, and the misunderstanding of the British Governments' waving of rights by insisting on the strict interpretation of the London Convention.29 He continues by trying to justify the Republic's object of instituting the law in the following words.- "It was for the sake of public health, having in view that experience acquired in other countries and colonies, and here also already, very desirable and necessary, to take sanitary measures regarding those Eastern strangers who established themselves here in increasing numbers after the conclusion of the Pretoria Convention, and chose their dwelling places everywhere in the midst of the white population.v'' In this way he was able to come out of the predicament, as the British were more involved in legal technicalities than the true spirit and purpose ofthe legislation. - 65- 4.5. THE AMENDMENT TO LAW 3 OF 1885 He further emphasized that the Republic was not hesitant to allow the object (i.e. sanitary conditions) to appear more vividly to the British, at the same timethe Z.A.R. desired to fulfil the wishes of the British Government. It was with this object in mind that the Z.A.R. requested and obtained the authorisation from the Volksraad to amend Law 3 of 1885. The amendment were as follows» "I. That after the first division of section 2b of Law No.3 of 1885, shall be added the words: 'Excepting in those streets, wards and locations which the Government shall assign to them for sanitary purposes.' II. That the sum of £25, mentioned in the second division of section 2c of the said law, shall be brought to £3. III. The section 2d of the said law shall read as follows:- 'The Government shall have the right for sanitary reasons to assign to them defmite streets, wards and locations for habitation. This provision does not apply to those who live with their masters. ' According to these amendments, the Orientals mentioned in thelaw shall not be prevented from acquiring landed property in the Republic."31 A careful study of the above amendments illustrate that the Z.A.R. evaded the real contention, i.e. the exclusion of Arab traders (Muslims). They emphasized their desire to satisfy the wishes of the British Government, but at the same time persisted in their own contention. They continued to include Arab traders within the law on sanitary grounds, but - 66- gave some concessions. The Government of the Z.A.R. still maintained the power to allocate to the Arab traders and other Asiatics certain streets, wards and locations for habitation based on sanitary reasons only. The Muslims were still required to register, but the amount was reduced from £25 to £3. It was financially a major concession to the traders. The ownership of flxed property was modified so as to enable the Arab traders and other Asiatics to own property within areas which the Government had the right to indicate for their residence on sanitary basis. Despite the concessions granted, the amended law did not grant equal rights and citizenship to the Muslims. Sir Hercules Robinson was satisfied with the amended version of Law 3 of 1885, and recommended the British Government to give favourable consideration regarding the above issue. He wrote in the conclusion of his letter dated 24th September 1886, as follows:- " Although the amended law is still a contravention of the 14thArticle of the Convention of London, I shall not advise Her Majesty's Government to offer further opposition to it in view of your Honour's opinion that it is necessary for the protection of the public health."32 The Z.A.R. were now given the consent to promulgate the law as they desired without any problem. The British accepted their reasons for seeking seperate areas for the Muslims. NOTES 1 Narain Iqbal. P.l60. 2 C 7911. 1895. Papers of the Grievances ofHer Majesrys Indian Subjects in the South African Republic. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode. p.51., ZAR 118. Official Correspondence ofthe South African Republic. p.2l. 3 Ibid. p.51. 4 Ibid. 5 Pillay B. p.14. 6 C 7911. Letter of Sir Hercules Robinson to Lord Derby, 28th January 1885.pp.50-51. 7 Ibid. p52. 8 ZAR U8. Letter of Lord Derby to Sir Hercules Robinson. 19th March 1885. p.2l., C 7911. p52. 9 Virasai Banphot. p.25. 10 Nothling FJ. p3. 11 C7911. pp. 54-55. 12 NarainIqbal. p.l64. - 67- 13. C 7911. p37. 14 De Volkstem, 7 September 1885. 15 PillayB. p.l3. 16 ZAR 55. Minutes of the meeting, 28 May 1885. 17 De Volkstem, 15June 1885 18 ZAR 118. Letter from the General Manager of Standard Bank to the High Commissioner, dated 9th October 1885., CO 417/10. The. transaction referred here took place in Potchefstroom, where a client of the bank offered 1250pounds incash for a property. The sale could not be concluded as the government of the ZA.R. refused to transfer the property on the clients' name. 19 Ibid. pp.39-40. Petition by S.C.Cornwright to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 19th October 1885. CO 417/10. 20 C 7911. Letter from Sir Hercules Robinson to the Collonial Secretary, Sir Frederick Stanley, 20th January 1886. p.52. 21 Refering to Lord Derby's letter, dated 19th March 1885. 22 ZAR 118.Letter from Graham Bouwer to Eduard Bok, 23rd October 1885. p.36., C7911. p.53. 23 C 7911. Letter from Granville to Sir Hercules Robinson, 24th February 1886. p.5S. 24 Ibid. 25 Huttenback RA. p. 26 Mukherjee S.B. p.26., Vane Michael. The South African Indians. No date (about the end of the nineteenth century)and place of publication. p.14. 27 PillayBala. p.12. 28 C 7911. p.5S., Narain Iqbal.p.l64. 29 Ibid. p.56. The State Secretary of the SA. Republic to the High Commissioner, 6th September 1886., ZAR 118.pp.45-46. 30 Huttenback RA."p.107., Narain I. p.16S. 31 C 7911. pp.56-57. 32 ZAR 118.p.46. CHAPTER FIVE CHAPTER FIVE· THE PROBLEMS OF ENACTING LAW3 OF 1885 5.1. INTRODUCTION The British Government had given their consent to the amended version of Law 3 of 1885. The South African Republic were pleased as they supposed that the matter was finally settled.! The Government was in no great hurry in the implementation of the law.2 Neither was the law enforced in its entirety.I due to the reaction and petition of the Muslims and British intervention. The Republic laid down the policy but did not provide a penalty for contravening the law. Therefore, the Muslim traders continued to conduct their businesses in the town area. According to the Asiatic Inquiry Commission of 1921 the Muslims were able to trade and reside outside the locations. They were also able to acquire properties outside the locations through a nominal European trustee.f It was due to the relaxed attitude of the Republic Government that the issue was revived in 1887 by the European traders. 5.2. REACflON IN THE Z.A.R. The European traders once again revived the anti-Asian campaign. The issue was now based on the question of sanitation of the Muslims. The newspaper, De Volkstem undertook to lead the debate on this issue. But this time adopted an aggressive attitude towards the Muslims and Asiatics and displayed no sympathy towards them. At the same time, the De Volkstem published letters that presented the Asiatic view on these issues.f - 69- These letters were written in defense of the trading practices of the Muslim traders. They discussed irregular trading hours, price cuts, low wages to the staff, and other aspects pertaining to the businesses.f The Government did not respond to the issues expressed by the Europeans in the press. They were aware of the true conditions prevalent at that time, and perhaps deemed it not necessary to take immediate action. If their claims were valid and there truly existed a danger to public health, the Government would have definitely taken drastic measures. During this period there were a few Europeans in the Z.A.R that presented petitions to President Kruger of the ZA.R. in favour of the Muslim traders, as they found them to be a great benefit to the poorer class of the Europeans. The first petition confirms the suspicion that the agitation was not based on sanitary conditions but was an economic one. It states: "We firmly believe that the agitation (against Indians) owes its origin not to their habits of sanitation, but to trade jealousy, because owing to their frugal and temperate habits, they have been able to keep down the prices of necessaries of life, and have therefore been an inestimable boon to the poor classes of the society in the State."? Another group of the European petitioners recognized the traders as "a peaceful and law abiding and therefore a desirable class of people. To the poor they are a veritable blessing in as much as bytheir keen competition they keep down the prices of the necessaries, which they can do owingto their thrifty and temperate habits...g The petitioners stated that the removal of the traders from the Republic would cause great inconvenience and difficultyto Europeans residing away from the business centres, as they -70 - depend on these traders for their daily requirements. They concluded by appealing to the Government not to undertake to do anything that may "scare the Indians from the Transvaal"(ZA.R.). The Government ignored the petitioners and their advice.9 On the other hand,"The Press" an organ of the ZA.R. Government, expressed that the traders were "the. canker eating into the very vitals of the community", and feared that they run the risk of exposing themselves to leprosy and syphilis, as it was alleged that many Indians suffered from these diseases.l'' 5.3. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW The Secretary of State, Eduard Bok undertook to select sites for the Asiatic location. The Landdrosts (magistrates) and the local officials of the towns and villages were delayed in sending their information of their areas as they were distant from the central town. This retarded the progress in the allocation of areas to the Asiatics.U The Government was under constant pressure from the European traders. Therefore, in its . intention to move the Muslims to the location, the government refused to renew their trading licences. They were further requested to make preparations to vacate their premises and move to these locations allocated to them by the end of 1888. This precipitated matters and the traders had to take legal assistance. They doubted whether the government could legally refuse them trading licences.V The Government tried to ensure that the traders not only resided but also conducted their businesses in the locations. The implications of Law 3 of 1885 became evident to the traders, and in the opinion of the Government of the ZA.R., the Law demanded that the Muslim traders should reside and trade in special locations which were separated by the Municipality.13The legal position of the government's implementation of this law was tested in the Ismail Suleman & Co. case. -71- In June 1888, the Muslim traders in the Z.A.R. requested the government to exempt them from being included with the natives of Africa, as regards the law which prohibited them from being in the street after nine '0 clock at night. Their request was rejected by the Republic Government.P The legal position of the government's implementation of this law was tested in the Ismail Suleman & Co. 5.4. THE ISMAIL SULEMAN & CO. CASE The case of Ismail Suleman & Co. is significant, as it gave a new interpretation to the word "habitation" and that it included residence, as well as, the trading place. This was used as the basis for later discussions on Law 3 of 1885. The Republic claimed that it was putting into effect the judgment of the High Court. Ismail Suleman & Co. wanted to trade in Middelburg and tendered their licence fee to the Landdrost, who refused to accept the amount. The Landdrost was prepared to issue a licence to them in a special area that wasallocated beyond the boundary of the town. In August 1888, the firm of Ismail Suleman & Co. applied to the High Court for an order to compel the Landdrost of Middelburg to issue to them a trading licence to conduct its business in the town of Middelburg. The applicant argued that the Government was obliged to indicate a healthy site in the location to the company, as the locations in Middelburg were in an unhealthy condition. The Government was granted the power to allocate areas for Muslims to reside, but had no rights to point out sites for trading purposes. The High Court did not concern itself with the application nor considered the possible repercussions of its judgment. The court supported the governments view and refused to -72 - get the licence granted. The Chief Justice, J.G.Kotze found that the government had the right to allocate these special areas on sanitary grounds. He was asked whether the Muslims were expected to reside in locations and trade elsewhere, or to reside and trade in the same area. He made no distinction between a place of business and residence.P This judgment was vital as it became a source of reference for the Republic and laid down a new definition for "habitation". The Republic was keen to remove the Muslim traders from the town, leaving the European traders with a greater benefit of trading in the town area. 5.5. THE EVENTS AFTER THE TEST CASE The Muslim traders were dissatisfied with the verdict of the case, as the Government of the Z.A.R. were able to refuse the issue of licences outside the location and the Muslims could not insist on its issue. Complaints were launched with the British Government regarding this issue. The British office instructed the High Commissioner, Sir Hercules Robinson to urge President Paul Kruger to postpone the action of evicting the businessmen until the Volksraad had a meeting to discuss this matter, and to renew the licences issued prior to Law 3 of 1885.16 The correspondence between the British Government and the ZA.R. ensued with reference to the position of the traders. The correspondence began from the December 1888 and continued until the 4th January 1890.17 The British Agent, Ralph Williams endeavoured to prevent the Republic Government from V' -73 - forcing the Muslim traders to vacate their business premises within the town by prolonging the discussion. Sir Hercules Robinson was very complacent in this matter and adopted a more accommodating attitude towards the Republic. He writes in a letter to the Republic that: "Whilst fully appreciating the difficulties of Your Honour's Government in this matter, I trust that you will be able to meet in some respect the wishes of the Indian traders." He continues to state: "It appears to me that the traders may reasonably claim that the law should respect vested interests, and should not apply to persons who acquired rights, previous to the enactment of the law, on the faith of the protection accorded by the Conventions of Pretoria and London."lS The Colonial office was annoyed and became frustrated by the situation, as is indicated in the minutes of 26th November 1888. "You all see the Transvaal govt. insisted that the law was required for sanitary reasons only, on that on this ground, altho'(sic) we held it to be a clear breach of art. 14 of the Convention of London, we acquiesced in the legislation. But, I imagine this would not have been the case if there had been any idea that it was to be used for the purposes of driving out these Indian traders. Sir H. Robinson seems to me to take the matter too coolly, and in his friendship for the Boers to forget that these people have claims to our protection as British subjects."l9 The Republic replied that the leaseholders, who possessed leases prior to the date of , I -74 - surveyingof the locations, would be permitted to continue their businesses until the leases expired. Thereafter, they would have to move to the Iocations-" This was not a satisfactory answer to Robinson's enquiry. Even after Paul Kruger's giving assurance, the British Agent Raplph Williamsreceived many complaints from traders. The Secretary of State, Lord Knutsford wrote to the newly appointed High Commissioner, Sir Henry Loch to discuss the matter once more with President Paul Kruger. Lord Knutsford in a letter dated 26th November 1889to the High Commissioner expressed his viewon this matter. He writes: "The right of residing, trading, etc. under the London Convention appears to be restricted, as regards Asiatics, by the law of 1885, amended in 1886, by requiring residence in certain localities selected for sanitary reasons and by registration, but not otherwise, and if trading licences are granted to other persons on application, Indian traders have clearly a right to obtain them. Moreover, the law only prescribes locations for "habitation", and there does not appear to be any prohibition as to "trading" in places other than locations.S! The issue of "habitation" became a controversial one. The British Government were of opinion that residential premises did not include places of trade. Therefore, the inclusion of trade in habitation was a contravention of Article 14 of the London Convention. Whereas, the Republic adhered to the earlier correspondence and contended that the British Government admitted the rights of the ZA.R. to defer any action regarding the traders and the renewal of licences granted before 1885 until the meeting of the Volksraad. The Republic contented that the British Government accepted that "habitation" included trading as well, and their rejection was merely an after-thought reaction. In the initial correspondence between the British and the Republic it was found that the -75 - British Government only sought the protection of the vested interest of the Muslim traders in the execution of Law 3 of 1885 and its amended version. They totally ignored the inclusion of 'trading' in residence, as it was not of great importance to them.22 The two governments in their correspondence presented their arguments and contentions. The Government of India joined the British office in its opposition of the Republic's anti Asian legislation. Thus, a third group was introduced into the negotiations, and the whole issue commanded a wider platform of attention. The British office was more concerned with the protection of the Muslim or Arab traders. Whereas, the Indian office was determined to assist in the protection of the "Coolies", whose immigration to South Africa was sponsored by them.23 While the issue of the locations continued, the Muslim traders were allowed to own property through nominal European trustees. According to the discussion of the Volksraad in 1890, the Republic Government was involved in the traders dealings with indirect ownership of property.24 .Meanwhile the Europeans pressurised the Republic Government to take action against the trading activities of the Muslim traders. The Executive Council decided to undertake the plan of establishing locations for the resettlement of the Muslims and other Asians. The Uitlanders, the British who were ZA.R. citizens, of Johannesburg petitioned that the Republic should approach the British Government and re-open negotiations to amend Article 14.25 The civil service of the Republic took its time in the working out of the location system. The process was slow due to the delay in the preparation of reports of the lethargic officials in the distant districts and the problem of selecting suitable sites. In the meanwhile, the officials informed the petitioners of their plans. The agitation gradually ended for some -76 - time in the Republic. Between 1891 and 1894 several attempts were made to resettle the Muslim and Indian traders to locations without compensation. On 8th September 1893, the Volksraad resolved that all persons that are included under Law 3 of 1885, as amended in 1886, would have to move to the locations on or before the 29th January 1894. The Volksraad wanted to do so, but was advised against amending Law 3 of 1885 by the Petition Committee, as this required the consent of the British Government. NOTES 1 C 7911. p.20. 2 Huttenback RA. p.109., Pillay B. p.17. 3 Vane Michael. p.14., Joshi P.S. p.52. 4 UG 4/21. 1921.Asiatic Inquiry Commission. para.26. 5 De Volkstem, 8th November 1887. 6 Pillay B. p.17. 7 C 7911. p.43. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 The Press, 5 April 1895.,C 7911. p38. 11 ZAR 81. Report ofthe Commission of Asiatic Problem, 1893. 12 Narain I. p.166., Pillay B. p.25. 13 Huttenback RA. p.109. 14 LTG 95. p3. 15 C 7911. p.22. 16 Ibid. p.21. 17 Ibid. p.9. 18 Ibid. p.9. 19 CO 417/24. Minutes of November 1888. 20 ZAR 118.WJ.Leyds to the High Commissioner, 13August 1889.p.17. 21 C 7911. pp.21-22. 22 Narain I. p.168. 23 CO 417/37. Indian Office to Colonial Office, 19 November 1899.,Huttenback RA. p.110. 24 CO 417/32. Copy of Art.283 of the Volksraad, 22nd May 1889. 25 Fouche J.H. 1946.Die Asiate-vraagstuk in die van die Suid-Afrikaanse Republiek. (Historiese Studies, Jaargang VII. 1946) p.69. CHAPTER SIX CHAPTER SIX ARBITRATION TO THE ANGLO-BOER WAR 6.1. INTRODUCTION After the Ismail Suleman & Co. Test Case, the Republic began with the issue of settling the Muslims in the locations. The Muslims petitioned to the British Government to protect their right as British subjects. The British Officials began to negotiate with the Z.A.R. Government. The two Governments referred to earlier correspondence and were confused about the entire issue of the rights of Muslims. Finally, they agreed to engage an arbitrator to solve their differences and give his verdict on the issue. Besides Law 3 of 1885 there were other bye-laws and restrictions imposed upon them by the Republic Government. 6.2. THE ARBITRATION OF 1895 6.2.1. THE PREPARATIONS The British Agent at Pretoria, Sir Jacobus de Wet held many discussions with the Secretary of State of the Republic, Dr.W.J.Leyds. Finally in February 1894 both parties agreed to refer the question of the interpretation of Law 3 of 1885to an arbitrator. Sir Jacobus de Wet conveyed the gist of this idea to Sir Henry Loch, who neither objected nor committed himself to it. The officials of both Governments were so confused by their -78 - arguments, disagreements and misinterpretations that they had no alternative but to resort to arbitration. Sir Henry Loch suggested that the Chief Justice of the Orange Free State, Melius de Villiers should be appointed as arbitrator. This was to be undertaken on condition that both parties amicably agreed on the principle of arbitration and terms of reference'. The British officials received the approval from London and proposed their view to the South Afrcan Republic. The Republic accepted their principle of arbitration. During March 1890, the Imperial Secretary Graham Bower met with Dr. Leyds and the Executive Council to discuss the details. In the meanwhile, the local newspapers announced the appointment of a Council to prepare the Republic's case for the arbitration in April 1894. The Muslim traders were surprised by the disclosure in the newspapers. They retained the services of aleading advocate in the country, Charles Learnord and Rooth & Wessels as their attorneys. The British Agent at Pretoria had to explain the reason for not consulting the Muslim traders before completing the negotiations. The Imperial Secretary, Graham Bower assured them that their interests would be protected. He mentioned that they were not in need of the services of Charles Learnord and of Rooth & Wessels. The Colonial office appointed M.W.Searle, the legal advisor to the High Commissioner and J.S.Curlewis, as the junior counsel to assist him. 6.2.2. THE ARBITRATION The Chief Justice, Melius de Villiers accepted to be arbitrator. The dispute was heard on the 16, 18 and 19th March 1895. The two parties presented their claims and arguments for three days, after which the Arbitrator, Melius de Villiers gave his decision. -79 - The British Government in their statement claimed: "(a) That the Indians and other Asiatic traders, being British subjects, be allowed to reside in the towns of the Z.A.R., in some quarter (wards and streets) which, for sanitary reasons, may be assigned to them; (b) That they be allowed to carry on their trade or business in shops, or stores in any part of town".22 Whereas, the Z.A.R. claimed: "(a) That the South African Republic is fully entitled to make such regulations concerning Coolies, Arabs, Malays and Mohammedan subjects of the Turkish Empire as it may think fit. (b) That their Majesty's Government is not entitled to object when the Government of the South African Republic prohibit Coolies, Arabs, Malays and Mohammedan subjects of the .Turkish Empire from having business premises in villages and towns on other places than those assigned by the Government ".3 On close examination of the above claims, it clearly indicates that the contention between them was whether the Z.A.R. had the right to allocate separate areas to the Muslims, both for "residence" and "trade" or only for "residence". The Arbitrator after giving great consideration to the entire issue and pondering over matters that were discussed verbally and in the correspondence, gave his verdict. He dismissed both claims, and then decided that the ZA.R. was entitled to give full force and effect to the provisions of Law 3 of 1885, and its amended version of 1886, which was to be - 80- subjected solely to the tribunals of the ZA.R..4 The Arbitrator granted the followingaward on 2nd April 1895: (a) The claims of Her Majesty's Government and of the Government of the Z.A.R. respectively are disallowed, safe and except to the extent and degree following, that is to say: (b) The South African Republic is bound and entitled in its treatment of Indian and other Asiatic traders, being British subjects, to give full force and effect to Law No.3 of 1885, enacted and in the year 1886 amended by the Volksraad of the South African Republic, subject (in case of objections being raised by or on behalf of any such persons to any such treatment in accordance with the provisions of the said law as amended) to sole and exclusiveinterpretation in the ordinary course by the tribunals of the country.liS The Arbitrator mentioned that the British Government was entitled to object to the resolution and to any amplification by the Legislature of the Z.A.R. regarding the Law No 3 of 1885.6 It appears that the Arbitrator left the main issue undecided. He did not give his decision on whether "habitation premises" included "trade" or were separate. He left the decision to the judiciary, whereas he was requested to arbitrate against the judicial verdict, which asserted that the "habitation premises" included "trading premises". The British Government accepted the award, but reserved to itself certain liberties expressed by the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Chamberlain:- "The liberty, later on, to make friendly representations to the South African Republic as - 81- regards to these traders and possibly to invite that Government to consider whether, when once its legal position has been made good, it would not be wise to review, and decide whether it would not be better in the interest of its own burghers, to treat the Indians more generously, and to free itself from even the appearance of countenancing a trade jealousy, in which I have some reasons to believe does not emanate from the governing class in the Republic,"? The Republic government had obviouslyno reason to object to the Award as it was in their favour. To express their acceptance of the decision, the Volksraad on the 8th October 1895 repealed the resolution of 8th September 1893, and the circular of December 1893. In this way they brought the law in harmony with the Award. 6.2.3. THE REACITON TO THE AWARD After the Arbitration in 1895, the Government started its preparation to remove the Muslims from the town area. The Muslims filed a test case against the Z.A.R.. The verdict was given in favour of the Republic Government. The Republic Goverment was to resettle them, but due to the war they were unable to undertake their project. The reaction to the outcome of the Award was prompt. Two petitions were submitted to the British Agent. The first was sent by the Hindu group, mostly Tamil speaking, who protested against the Award and expressed the consequences of this decision. 8 The second petition was sent by the Muslim traders led by Tayob Hajee Khan Mohammed, Abdul Gani and Hajee Habib Hajee Dada, who were leading merchants of the community. They found it absolutely futile to approach the High Court, as the ruling of the court would result in further restriction being imposed upon them.? - 82- A third petition was submitted to London on behalf of the Muslims and Hindus giving a more comprehensive and impressive statement of their case. It provided some figures and refuted the allegations of them being filthy. The High Commissioner, Sir Henry Loch sent the petitions to London and expressed his views. He found it idle to discuss whether the treatment accorded to the Muslims and Indians were just and fair. The issue under discussion was the legal aspect and whether the British could improve the position of the above groups within the context of the Arbitrators Award. After reviewing the case and observing that no steps were taken to raise the issue with the Republic, the only course left for them was to appeal to the High Court.l'' On 29th August 1895 a deputation of eight members met Chamberlain. The deputation expressed their grievances to him regarding the owning of property, the franchise, freedom of movement, the right to trade and the freedom to choose business and trade premises. The deputation were dissatisfied with Chamberlains reluctance to offer proof of his determination to give British support to their claims in seeking justice from the Republic. 6.3. THE TEST CASE In 1897 several issues were brought to the attention of the British Government. The Muslim traders made plans for a test case related to their trading rights. The Republic had by then become determined to move the Muslim traders to the location. They also intended to pass an immigration law that would prevent any further Muslim immigration.U The British Indian Association were confident that the British Government would give them financial assistance for the proposed test case. Milner accepted to support their request and was prepared to engage the counsel to observe the proceedings.V He was of the opinion that if the same lawyer was engaged to handle the case, then there would be no ·83- additional costs involved. Milner was confident that they would be able to prepare the best possible case before the Arbitrator. Chamberlain did not accept the recommendation made by Milner. To justify his position, Chamberlain claimed that if Muslims took the responsibilities of the case themselves, they would probably receive a more fair judgment.P He felt that if the British Government paid the costs in this case, it would set a precedent for future aggrieved British subjects. Chamberlain feared that if the judgment went against the traders, the British would be blamed. Its involvement in the case would give an international character to the test case and lead to more complex issues. Milner was of opinion that by involving the British in the case there was a possibility that they would be given a chance for a fair verdict. He and Greene were suspicious of the impartiality of the High Court. The Muslims with no prospect of receiving financial assistance from the British Government, had to raise the necessary funds from its own community.14 Meanwhile, the ZA.R. had decided to enforce the amended version of Law 3 of 1885. The Volksraad on the 3rd and 4th November 1896 passed a resolution to this effect. The Government then sent circulars in March and July 1897 to execute the resolution. However, its implementation was left in abeyance. On 17th December 1897, the Muslim traders were served with notices to vacate their premises and move to the locations by the 1st January 1898.15 By the 7th of January 1898, the Republic Government arrested forty two traders in Pretoria and Johannesburg for trading without licences. Amongst them were those who tendered their money to the licensing officers, who refused to accept their payments. There were - 84- others that had licences valid until 1897. Greene and Fraser approached the Republic officials and obtained the release of these traders. Tayob Khan Hajee Mohammed, a Muslim trader, was served with a notice to vacate his premises on Church Street in Pretoria. On the 8th February 1898, he filed a case against the Z.A.R..l6 The arrangements for the test case were fmalised in August 1898. The court was requested to decide whether the Muslim traders' place of residence and trade were one or separate. If the places were combined then the traders were obliged to move to the locations. On the contrary, if it was separate, then the Muslims could be restricted to locations for residential purposes only, but were free to conduct their businesses in any area. The plaintiff in this case was Tayob Khan Hajee Mohammed, and the defendant Dr. W.J.Leyds, the Secretary of State for the ZA.R.. The Judges Esser, Morice and Jorissen were appointed to hear this case. The plaintiff, Tayob Khan Hajee Mohammed claimed that it was illegal to deprive him of .the right to trade in Church Street in Pretoria. He was ordered to move his business to the location and pay a monthly rental of 7/6 for the new premises. The Government reiterated its initial claim that for the sake of protecting the health of its people, it was necessary for the traders to both reside and trade in the locationP On 8th August 1898, the High Court gave its majority judgement in favour of the Z.A.R.. The Judge Jorissen gave a decision in favour of the plaintiff, whereas the Judges Esser and Morice, who were in the majority of the court ruled in favour of the defendant, i.e. the ZA.R.. Judge Esser based his opinion on the precedence he assigned to the Constitution of 1858 - 85- over Article 14 of the London Convention. Judge Morice's judgement was more an apology. He admitted that he would have given a decision in favour of Tayob Hajee Khan Mohammed, had it not been for keeping in consistency with the decision given in the Ismail Sulaiman case of -Middelburg. Judge Jorissen dissented from the decision, as he found that there was a difference between a place of residence and trade.l'' The High Court was criticised for its partiality in its judgement of the test case. In the 'Johannesburg Star' of 9th August 1898it was stated, " from a purely ethical standpoint, the judgement is not fair and just." Similarly, 'The Natal Adviser' of 10th August 1898 mentions that "on public grounds, no doubt, there is no reason to regret the decision But as a matter of argument, the decision of the High Court is open to question and we doubt very much whether any judges would care to be compelled to regard his dwelling house and his office as synonymous and identical.S? 6.4. THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW The Muslims had apparently lost hope for any success in their struggle to preserve their vested interests in the Republic. The Republic on receiving a favourable verdict began to prepare for the enforcement of Law 3 of 1885. On 15th November 1898, the Volksraad passed a resolution ordering Muslim traders to move to the locations before or by the 1st of January 1899. The Landdrosts and Mining Commissioners prepared two lists of the Muslim traders. There were those who traded for a considerable period outside the locations and it would be difficult for them to move their businesses within a short period. The Landdrosts and Mining Commissioners discerned the persons that were to be granted a period of three months or six months to vacate their premises in town. They were to move respectively on the 1st April 1899 and 1st July 1899. The Muslims had to seek postponement themselves to vacate their premises and give valid ·86- reasons.20 The Republic was unable to enforce the Law and remove the Muslims and other Asians to the locations. This was due to other events that eventually led to the outbreak of the war.21 Fouche quotes L.E.Neame who gives the reason for the failure in removing the Asiatics :- " The way was thus clear for removing all the Asiatic traders to locations. The law, however, was not enforced, the explanation offered in the Volksraad being that if the Executive fixed a location in one place, the Coolies would flock to the place where there was none."22 6.5. LAWS AND RESTRICTIONS i i !, Besides the main issue of removing the Muslims from the town and allocating separate i, , locations for their trade and residence, there were other laws and restrictions that caused I \ great inconveniences and difficulties for them. \ The effects of the laws and restrictions on the Muslims will be enumerated briefly. \a) The Muslims along with other Asiatics had to pay a registration fee of £3 on entering ~he Republic according to the amended version of Law 3 of 1885. I !f,JJ) In June 1888, the Muslims petitioned to the Republic Government not to include them J with the natives in the execution of the law prohibiting them to be in the streets after nine I '0 clock at night. The request was rejected by the Republic.23 I ,! / (c) The Railway Regulations prevented the traders from travelling in first or second class.24 Some of these traders owned property in Delagoa Bay and received good treatment - 87- rin Mozambique. There they travelled only by first class coaches, whereas in the Republic they were debarred from using first class facilities. In 1898 separate provisions were made available in the first class compartments, provided that advance notice of travel were given.25 (d) On 5th August 1896, an Official Gazette published the Town Regulations and included the Muslim amongst "Coloured persons". The Z.A.R. prohibited them from walking on the pavements, to live in houses on the public street and they were required to carry passes.26 There were generally no problems as the hawkers moved freely in the streets and traders walked on the pavements. There was an isolated case where a few merchants were arrested for using the pavement. A big issue was made of this incident and the traders sought a repeal of the regulation. In 1898 the Secretary of State assured them that this law would not affect them in future.27 i The hawkers were required to have their passes on certain occassions. It was generally I assumed that only natives were to carry passes, and the regulations referring to 'Coloureds' did not include Muslims and Asiatics in general. In 1896 steps were taken to include Muslims in the definition of "Coloured" in the clause of Gold Law 21 of 1896. This made it difficult for the hawkers to move about freely. Whilst they were expected to carry passes in the goldfield area, the passes were not being issued to them. The officials in Pretoria informed them that the passes were for 'natives' only and not for them. In 1898, the State Attorney informed the district officials that the hawkers were not required to carry passes.28 (e) The Morality Law No.2 of 1897, section 12, gave a wider definition of "Coloured man" ( as the "male individuals of all coloured persons and races(sic) of South Africa, and further Coolies, Arabs and Malays." Section 8 of the law imposed special penalties on Coloured persons for having relations with European wornen-? - 88- Law 3 of 1897prohibited marriages between coluored persons and European women. (1) In 1896, the Republic introduced the legislation to control immigration. This was done to check "the influx of undesirable foreigners" who were mainly Muslims. It kept a register of the foreigners that entered the ZA.R.. The person was granted a 'travelling and residing' passport that had to be renewed periodically, if the applicant was able to submit proof of possessing personal means to support himself.30 NOTES 1 Pillay B. p36. 2 C 7911. p.14. 3 Ibid. 14. 4 Ibid. p.29-30. . 5 Ibid. p.14. 6 Ibid. p30. 7 Ritch L.W. p.7., Narain I. p.171. 8 CO 417/148. Petition by L.Padiyachy and 3 others (Johannesburg). 10th April 1895., C 7911. p31. 9 C 7911. Petition by Tayob Hajee Khan Mohamed. Abdool Ganie and Hajee Habib Hajee Dada.16th April 1895.p32.. 10 Ibid. Petition by Indians(including Muslims)in the South Mriican Republic, p35-41. 11 Marais J.S.p.127. 12 CO 417/219. Milner to Chamberlain,2Sth May 1897. 13 Ibid. Memorundum of Colonial Office, 27th May- 6th June 1897. 14 Huttenback RA. p.1l3. 15 Pillay B. p.64. 16 Narain I. p.l73. 17 CO 417/246. Repoort on Indian Merchants Test Case, 9 August 1898., Huttenback RA. p.1l4. 18 Fouche J.H. p. 114. Also cf. Huttenback RA. p.114., Narain I. p.l73-174., Pillay B. p.70. 19 Narain I. p.174. 20 Fouche J.H. p.103-104. 21 CO 291/72. Lyttleton to Milner, 18th November 1904. 22 Fouche J.H. p.105. 23 LTG 95. Petition by Abdool Ganie and others, 31st October 1902. p3. 24 C 7911. pAO. 25 Pillay B. p.47. 26 ZAR 118. The Staatscourant, 5th August 1896. 27 Narain I. p.ln. 28 SSa 658. Circular ofState Attorney, 7th May 1898. p.61. 29 Pillay B. p.242 (cf. Appendix 4) 30 Mukherjee S.B. p52. CONCLUSION CONCLUSION Many difficultieswere encountered during the research on the Muslims of Pretoria during the Z.A.R. period. However, a great amount of material was collected to discuss the problems prevalent during the first two decades of the Muslims in this region. The Muslims were welcomed to this province and had a good relationship with the poor burghers. The people were recognized due to their honesty, integrity, soberness and reputable character. As businessman, their acumen was unsurpassable. Within a few years in Pretoria they prospered. This initiated the jealousy and aggressiveattitude of the European traders. \' The Chamber of Commerce under the leadership of T.W.Beckett, led a campaign against ! the Muslims. They endeavoured to arouse the sympathy of the Government and get rid of ! the Muslims from the town. This eventually led to the enactment of Law 3 of 1885, which is i I ~. the focal point of this study. r I It was due to this Law that many restrictions and disabilities were imposed upon the Muslims.This led to reactions from the Muslims,British and many others from the Z.A.R.. There was a great deal of correspondence between these two Governments. The first test case was filed by Ismail Suleman & Co. in 1888, contesting that habitation was separate from the place of trade, and therefore refused to move to the location. The verdict was given against him. Thereafter, the two Governments held lengthy discussions on this issue, which eventually led to the arbitration. The Chief Justice, Melius de Villiers - 90- gavethe award in favour of the ZA.R.. Immediately the Republic Government took steps to enforce the Law 3 of 1885 and move the Muslim traders to locations. Notices were sent to the traders to vacate their premises. Tayob Hajee Khan Mohamed filed a test case against the Republic Government, as he refused to move from his place in Church Street. However, the verdict was given in favour of the Republic Government by a majority decision of the court. Before the Muslims could move to the locations, the Anglo-Boer broke out. Therefore, the Republic Government was unable to enforce the Law 3 of 1885 and fulfil their aims. It was after the British annexation of this region that the laws not implemented during the previous regime were enforced. It is ironical that the British who opposed the Boers about their treatment of Muslims, were the ones who fulfilled the aims of the Republic Government. A study of the period after 1900 indicates that the conditions of Muslims greatly worsened under the British rule. · BIBLIOGRAPHY - 91- BIBLIOGRAPHY SECONDARY SOURCES Aiyar P.S. 1925. The Indian Problem in South Africa. Durban: African Chronicle. Anirudha Gupta. 1968. Indians Abroad: Asia and Africa. London: Orient Longman. Arkin AJ. 1972. The Contribution ofthe Indians to the South African Economy, 1860 1970. Durban: Institute for Social and Economic Research.(U.D.W.) Bhana Sand Pachai B. 1984. A Documemtary History of Indian South Africans. Standford California: Hoover Institution Press. Boeseken AJ.. 1977. Slaves and Free Blacks at the Cape 1658-1700. Cape Town: Tafelberg Publishers Ltd. Bradford B.W. 1968. Planning for separate Racial Groups in Pretoria. (M.Sc Thesis, Univ. of Pretoria). Bradlow ER. & Cairns M. 1978.The Early Cape Muslims. Cape Town: A.ABalkema. Brand C.M. 1966. Solidarity Patterns in a Minority Group. (M.AThesis,Univ.of Stellenbosch). Collier J. 1965. The Purpleand the Gold. Johannesburg: Longmans SA (Pty) Ltd. Dangor S.E. 1982. Shaykh Yusuf.(MA.Thesis, UDW). Durban: Iqra's Research Committee. Davids Achmat. 1980. The Mosques of Bo-Kaap. Athlone,Cape: The South African Institute of Arabic and Islamic Research. De Kock V. 1950. Those in Bondage. London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. - 92- Du Plessis J.D. 1972.The Cape Malays. Cape Town: AA.Balkema. Gandhi M.K. 1928. Satyagraha in South Africa. Ahmadabad, India: Navijivan Publishing House. Gandhi M.K. 1949.An Autobiography. London: Phoenix Press. (Translated by Mahadev Desai). Hancock W.K. 1962. Smuts-The Sanguine Years, 1870-1919. Cambridge: University Press. Huttenback R.A. 1971. Gandhi in South Africa. London: Cornell University Press. Joshi P.S. 1942. The Tyranny ofColour. Durban: E.P.& Commercial Printing Co.Ltd. Khan S.A.(Sir). 1946. The Indian in South Africa. Allahabad, India: Kitabistan. Marais J.S. 1961. The Fall ofKruger's Republic. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Manjoo M.E. 1972. The Southern Africa Indian Who's Who. Pietermaritzburg: Universal Printing Works. ~ Marais I.S. 1968. The Cape Coloured People, 1652-1937. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press. Mayson I.S. 1970. The Malays ofCape Town. Pretoria: The State Library. Meer F. 1969. Portrait ofIndian South Africans. Durban: Avon House. Mukherjee S.B. 1959. Indian Minority in South Africa. New Delhi: Peoples Publishing House. Muller C.F.J.(et.al). 1974. A Select Bibliography of South African History. Pretoria: University of South Africa. - 93- Narain Iqbal. 1962. The Politics ofRacialism. (Ph.D Thesis, Agra Univ)Agra : Shiva Lal Agrawala & Co. Newtown A.P.(et. al). 1936. The Cambridge History of the British Empire. Vol VIII. Cambridge: University Press. Nothling FJ. 1984. Die vestiging van Gekleurdes in en om Pretoria, 1900-1914. (Ph.D Thesis, Unisa) Pretoria: Die Staatsdrukker. Pachai B. 1971. The International Aspects of the South african Indian Question, 1860 1971. Cape Town: C.Struik (Pty) Ltd. Pather S.R. 1960. Centenary ofIndians (1860-1960). Durban: Cavalier Publishers. Pillay Bala. 1976. British Indians in the Transvaal; 1885-1906. London: Longman Group Ltd. Presler G.S. 1938. Old Pretoria. Pretoria: Die Afrikaanse Kultuuraad. Ross R. 1963. Cape ofTorments. London: Rontledge & Kegan Paul. Simons H.I. & R.E. 1969. Class and Colour in South Africa, 1850-1950. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd. Stein Z.A. 1942. A History of Indian settlement in Natal from 1870-1893. (M.A.Thesis, University ofCape Town). Theron Bridget Mary. 1984. A Social History of Pretoria during the First Phase of the Anglo Boer war, 1899-1900. (MA.Thesis, Unisa) Vane Michael. (Date unknown). The South African Indians. SA. Affairs Pamphlets. - 94- Virasai Banphot, 1968. The Emergence and Making of a Mass Leader: Portrait of Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa, 1893-1914. (Ph.D Thesis). Berkley: University of California. Wetherell Violet. 1946. The Indian Question In South Africa. Cape Town: Unie Volksperks Bpk. Worden N. 1985. Slavery in Dutch South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ARTICLES AND BROCHURE ICSA. 1984. Meet the Muslims ofSouth Africa. Durban: Islamic Council of South Africa. Ishaq A. (Maulana). 1979. A Short Survey of the Indian Muslims of Transvaal with special referenceto the Introduction ofIslam in India. (BA.Hons. paper, RAU) Joosub H.E. 1958. Bitterness towards Indians. Pretoria: The Pretoria Indian Commercial Association. .Joosub M.H & Sons. 1983. A South African Adventure Story. Pretoria: M.H.Joosub & Sons. P.M.C. Committee. 1975. PretoriaMuslim Congregation. Pretoria: P.M.C. Polak H.S. 1909.(pref.date) The Indians of SA. helots within the Empire and how they are treated. Madras: GA Natesan. Ritch L. 1907.(pref.date) British Indians and the Transvaal. S1. Clements Press ·95 - PRIMARY SOURCES 1. OFFICIAL MANUSCRIPT SOURCES a) Colonial Office Files. (Microfilm in the Transvaal Archives Depot (TAD),Pretoria) CO 417 - South Africa dispatches and correspondence, 1884-1900. CO 291 - Transvaal dispatches and correspondence,1881-1882; 1901-1907. CO 886 - Confidential Print-Treatment ofAsiatics in the Dominions. b) Archives of South African Republic, Pretoria (TAD). Correspondence of the Secretary of State for the South African Republic, 1884-1899. This includes books that are bound, like the SS and SSa. BA· British Agent's Correspondence,1885-1899. MGP - Incoming correspondence of the Military Governor, Pretoria. CS - The correspondence files of the Colonial Secretary, TransvaaL CJC - Archives of the Central Judicial Commission, 1902-1906. It dealt with the claims of the traders for loss during the Anglo-Boer war. 2. PUBLISHED OFFICIAL PAPERS, REPORTS, DOCUMENTS a) Great Britian C 7911. Papers relating to the Grievances of British Indian Subjects in the South African Republic. 1895. C 8721. Complaints ofBritish Subjects, 1897 Cd. 1684. Dispatch from the Governor of the Transvaal respecting the position of British - 96- Indians in that Colony, 1903. Cd. 2239.Correspondence relating to the position of British Indians in the Transvaal, 1905. b) South Africa ZAR 54 and 55. Debates of the Volksraad ZAR 118. Greenbooks, printed official correspondence and circulars of the South African Republic. ZAR 79. Local Laws of the South African Republic. ZAR 81. Report of of the Commission on the Asiatic Problem, 1902-1906. UG 16/14. Report of the Indian Enquiry Commission, 1914. UG 4/21. Report of the Asiatic Enquiry Commission, 1921. G.c. 7-'30. Report of the Select Committee on Asiatics in Transvaal, 1930. Town Clerk's Office. Extracts from Laws and Notes relative to Asiatics, 1911. 3. NEWSPAPERS· De Volkstem. The Johannesburg Star. The Natal Advertiser. Pretoria News. The Press. APPENDICES -97- Appendix 1 NAMES AND POSITIONS OF PERSONS Alexander Edmund Fraser (c.1860). Secretary to British Agent at Pretoria 1897-1899. Hercules George Robert Robinson (1824-1897). Governor of the Cape Colony and High Commissioner for South Mrica, 1880-1889 and 1895-1896. J.F.Cilliers (1839-1893). Early journalist and established the De Volkstem in Pretoria 1873. John Henry de Villiers (1842-1914). ChiefJustice and President oC Legislative Council 1873-1910; drafted the Pretoria Convention of 1881. . Joseph Chamberlain (1836-1914). Colonial Secretary in Unionist Administration 1895 until his resignation in September 1903. Lord Derby, Edward Stanley (1826-1893). Secretary of State for India Aug 1858 - June 1859; Foreign Secretary 1866--1888 and 1874-1878;Colonial Secretary 1882-1885. Lord Granville, George Levenson Gower (Earl of Granville) (1815-1891). Foreign Secretary 1880 1885 and Colonial Secretary 1886. Lord Kimberley, John Woodhouse (1826-1902). Colonial Secretary 1870-1874; Secretary of State for India 1882-1886 and 1892-1894; Foreign Secretary 1894-1895. Lord KnutsCord, Henry Thurston Holland (1825-1914).Colonial Secretary 1887-1892. Melius de Villiers (1849-1938).Judge in Orange Free State 1874 and ChiefJustice in 1889. Ralph Williams. British Agent at Pretoria 1888-1890. Sir Alfred Milner (1854-1925).High Commissioner Cor South Africa 1897-1905. Sir Frederick A. Stanley, son oC Lord Derby (1841-1908). He was Colonial Secretary 1885-1886. Sir Graham John Bower. Private Secretary to High Commissioner (Cape Town) and Imperial Secretary 1884-1897. Sir Henry Brougham Loch (1827-1900). Governor of Cape Colony and High Commissioner Cor South Africa 1889-1895. Sir Jacobus Albertus de Wet. British Agent at Pretoria 1890-1895. Sir John Gilbert Kotze (1849-1940). Judge oC ZA.R. 1877-1897; Chief Justice in 1881-1897 until he was dismissed by Presindent Paul Kruger in 1897. -98- W. Conyngham-Greene (1854-1934). Diplomat. British Agent at Pretoria 1896-1899. Willem Eduard Bok (1846-1904). He was the State Secretary of the Z.A.R.1884-1888. Willem Johannes Leyds (1859-1940). Politician, ambassador and historian. State Attorney in Z.A.R. 1884 and State Secretary 1888. -95- Appendix 2 (A) LAW No.3. 1885 Coolies. Arabs and other Asiatics (A pproved and enacted by Resolution of the Volksraad, Art. 255. . dated l st June. 1885.) This Law shall apply to the persons belonging To whom to any of the native races of Asia. including the law so-called Coolies. Arabs. Malays. and Moham applies medan subjects of the Turkish Dominion. 2 With regard to the persons mentioned in Art. 1 the following provisions shall apply:- (a) They shall not be capable of obtaining bur Burgher gher rights of the South African Republic. rights (b) They shall not be capable of being owners Owners of fixed property in the Republic. This of fixed, provision shall not be retrospective. property (c) Those who settle in the Republic for the Registration purpose of carrying on a trade or otherwise shall be hound to have their names entered in a register to be separately kept for the purpose by the Landdrosts of the various districts. in accordance with a form to be presented by the Government. On such registration which shall be elIected within eight days after arrival. a sum of £25 sterling shall be paid. • Contravention of the provision contained in Penalty sub-section "C" above shall be punished with a fine of from ten to one hundred pounds sterling. or in default of payment with imprisonment for a period or rrorn 14 days to 6 months. . The above-mentioned registration shall be Time for effected free of charge in the case of those registration persons who settled in the Republic before the coming into operation of this Law. provided they report themselves to the Landdrost, in the case of those living in the district of Pretoria. within eight days. and in the case of those Jiving in other districts within thirty days. after the coming into operation of thislaw, (d) The Government shall have the right to Locations. point out certain streets. wards. and loca etc. tions for them to live in. This provision shall Exception not apply to those who live with their employers. 3 This Law shall come into operation immediately Operation after publication in the IIStaatscourant", in accordance with Art. 12 of the Grondwel. S. J. P. Kruger State President W. Eduard Bole State Secretary Government Office. Pretoria June 10. 1885 -lCG- (D) Amendment of Law No.3 of 1885, approved by Volksraad Reso lution, Article 1419, dated 12 August, 1886. 1 After the first part of Article 2(B) of Law No.3 of 1885, the following shall be added: 'save only in the streets, wards, and locations which the Govern ment shall for sanitary purposes point out to them for habita tion'. 2 The sum of £25 named in the second part of Art. 2(c) of the Law shall be reduced to £3. 3 Article 2(d) of the law quoted shall read as follows: 'The Government shall have the power, for sanitary purposes, of showing them fixed streets, wards, and locations for habitation. This provision is not applicable to those who reside with their employers.' . (C) VOLKSRAAD RESOLUTION dated 16th May, 1890, Art. 128 Amendment of Art. 2. par. 1, letter (c) of Law No.3, 1885. (Asiatics) The said Art. 2, par. 1, letter (c), of Law No.3, 1885, shall be amended as follows: Such coolies, Asiatics, etc., as established them- Coolies selves in the Republic to carry on business or other- wise, shall be enrcgistered in a separate register, to be kept therefor by the landdrosts of the respective districts or other officials who may be thereto appointed by the Government, according to a model to be prescribed by the Government. -101- Appendix 3 Notes Disabilities imposed on Indians ill the South African Republic. other than those imposed by Law No.3 of 1885. 1 Law 21 of 1896. section 3 -definition clause of Gold Law defines Coloured person as 'every African. Asiatic native or coloured person. Coolie or Chinese'. Section 98 provides that 'no coloured person may be a licence bolder or in any way connected with the working of the diggings except as a workman in the service of whites'. Section 153-Indians required 'to possess a monthly pass within the boundaries of a public digging'. This provision conflicted with the definition of 'native' in the Pass Laws, i.e, Law 22 of 1895. section ] 6. Law. 23 of 1895. section 4, and Law 31 of 1896. In these laws Asiatics were exempt from the provisions requiring 'natives' to carry passes. 2 The definition of a 'coloured person' (kleurling) occurred in the following Gold Laws: Law]90fI895.section 3 Law 10 of 1891. section 89 Law 8 of 1889. section 89 Law 8 of J885, section 89 In 1895 the definition was extended to include 'American coloureds'. Gold Law 1 of 1883. section 26. provides for the refusal of a licence to a coloured person. but does not define a COLOURED PERSON. The flogging of coolies who traded unlawfully in gold was provided for by Section 79 of Law 8 of 1889. 3 The Base Metals Law. 14 of 1897. provides that licences shall only be granted to white persons who conform to the law and have paid their taxes. This provision occurs in the earlier law on the subject. Law 17 of 1895. and is only an application of the principle adopted in the Gotn Law. 4 The Drink Law. 13 of ] 897. section 5. similarly defines "kleur ling' to whom no strong liquor may be sold. as 'every African. Asiatic. Native or Coloured American person, Coolie or Chinese. either of the male or female sex ', The earlier Drink Laws 18 of 1895. section 29. 13 of 1892, section 25, and 12 of 1891. section 18, contain a similar definition, except that the American Coloured is not included. 5 The Morality Law 2 of 1897, section ]2. defined 'coloured man' as the 'male individuals of all Coloured persons and races [sic] of South Africa, and further Coolies, Arabs and Malays'. and section 8 .imposes special penalties on them for having relations with white women. 6 The Native Marriage Law defines 'kleurling' as 'any person belonging or being descendant of any native race of South Africa and persons being descendants of one of the races named in Article I, Law No.3 of 1885. 7 Staatscourant, 20 April 1898 . In the genera] instructions to the police is the following: . '39. Natives or Coloured persons as such are considered, any African or Asiatic. Native or Coloured person, Coolie or Chinese.' In practice. the Government of the S.A.R. had already acted on this definition when they classed Indians as 'coloureds' under the Dorps Regulasies (Town Regulations), published on 5 August ]896. Coloureds were forbidden to walk on pavements, or live in a house on the public street, and were required to carry a pass. -102- Appendix 4 -103- j j ! ";. : -104- Ij I I I I I \ . i I I• : I I I I. I i ! ~ ~ I -105- ---:::- ~- .- .- "._ .. -.... _. ~- .--"""'""; ._~·-~c.."l .'•• •_.9-.'_,w, ;:.; :., j1 ~~"t~:-: 'I' if~'I:i~~· ...-· .. ' ....:."' ··:····.7A.\··,:·· .: ~".. . ~ .'. ~ '; ...... "."... " . . . .. -- .. ----- •._-'------+-:-- r . I.. : . ~. . , I'!. i. I', I' I I ... Appendix 7 -107- 1 . I 1 i i , i I, I { ! I { ! f. I Ii '.. ·r~. , ! I c =