the Natal Ministry and to both the Legislative bodies here, your Memorialists submit that the fact that the Bill has been accepted by them does not signify much. The very members who refrained from any active opposition to the measure are, as The Natal Witness puts it, distrustful of it.
Your Memorialists hope that they have shown to your satisfaction that the danger referred to above is imaginary and that the present Bill is unsatisfactory from the point of view of those who wish to see the Indians disenfranchised as also from that of the Indians themselves. In any case, however, your Memorialists claim that sufficient facts and arguments have been brought out to show that the question should not be hastily disposed of, and that there is no necessity for so doing. The Natal Witness thinks that “no explanation, at least no satisfactory one, has been given for the anxiety to rush the Bill through.” The Natal Advertiser opines that “this Indian franchise question is a most vital one and there should be no haste in settling it for ever. Indeed the best course would be to postpone the proposed Bill and have the whole matter for the consideration of the constituencies when they have accurate information before them” (28-3-1896)
The feelings of the Indian community may be well expressed in the words of the London Times. The Times (Weekly edition, 20th March, 1896) says:
- If the Indians are allowed to carry with them their status as British subjects to foreign countries and British Colonies whither they go in quest of work, the opening up of Africa holds out new possibilities to Indian labour. The Indian Government and the Indians themselves believe that it is in South Africa that this question of their status must be determined. If they secure the position of British subjects in South Africa, it will be almost impossible to deny it to them elsewhere. If they fail to secure that position in South Africa it will be extremely difficult for them to attain it elsewhere. They readily acknowledge that Indian labourers who accept a contract of service for a period of years, as the price of aided immigration, must fulfil the conditions of their contract, however it may curtail their rights. But they hold that after the period of contracted labour has expired, they are entitled to the status of British subjects in whatever Colony or country they have fixed their abodes.... The Indian Government may reasonably ask that after Indian labourers have given their best years to South Africa they should not be forced back upon India by denying to them the status of British subjects in their adopted homes. Whatever the decision may be, it will seriously affect the future development of emigration in India.
