Sandew Hira


Is the defacement and tearing down of statues of Gandhi a progressive step in the fight against racism? For some activists, the answer is unequivocal: “Yes”. Gandhi made a number of racist statements about black people. Such a person does not deserve a statue. For many people, especially in the Indian community, Gandhi is the leader of the Indian liberation struggle against British colonialism and is honored in many ways. The defacement and tearing down of his statue is viewed with horror. How should you deal with this as a decolonial activist?

You should start by trying to get the facts about Gandhi and the black struggle? What  are the facts?

Gandhi ‘s sayings go back to his collected works which are available for free download on the internet . It concerns 98 volumes of an average of 500 pages, so there is a total of about 50,000 pages. It was commissioned by the Indian government. The material was collected between 1956 and 1994 and is now available. The compilers did not censor the publications, so you also have Gandhi ‘s statements that he would be ashamed of if he was alive.

Gandhi was born in Gujarat , India, on October 2, 1869, and was assassinated at the age of 79 by a Hindu fundamentalist on January 30, 1948, six months after India declared its independence on August 15, 1947.

Gandhi graduated as a lawyer in London at the age of 22 and returned to his native country where it was difficult for him to set up a practice. In April 1893 he left for South Africa to become legal adviser to an Indian businessman. He would stay there for 21 years and become closely involved in the struggle of the India community against apartheid. In 1915, at the age of 45, he returned to India where he successfully led the fight against British colonialism that resulted in India’s independence.

Gandhi ‘s relationship with the black community involves two communities:

  • South Africa.
  • The black community in the US.

The accusation of racism relates to his time in South Africa.

South Africa

South Africa as we know it today emerged in 1948 as a unitary state. The Western colonization of South Africa began with the establishment of a military fortress and trading post on the Cape by the Dutch East India Company in 1652 under Jan van Riebeeck . They forced black people into slavery. In 1795, the Dutch faced competition from another colonial power, England, who eventually took control of the area in 1815. The Dutch and British regularly went to war against each other. The Dutch Boers separated themselves into four independent republics: Transvaal, Orange Free State, Natal and the Cape. In 1869 diamond was found in Transvaal and Orange Free State and in 1886 gold in Transvaal. The British tried to gain control over these areas. In 1880 the first Anglo-Boers war was fought which was won by the Dutch Boers. In 1899 the second Anglo-Boer war took place which brought the British the final victory over the Boers in 1902. Gandhi would live through this war and sided with the British. He offered help to the British in the form of nurses from the Hindustani community.

The Indian community in South Africa has two sources of origin: several thousand enslaved people from Bengal and South India who were brought to the Cape by Van Riebeeck and associates in the seventeenth century and 150,000 indentured laborers who were brought under the system between 1860 and 1911 from “ indentured labour ”. They were recruited in India and taken to South Africa to work on the sugar plantations in Natal . They were British subjects. Gandhi was active in this community. The relationship between the Indians and Africans was complex. On the one hand, both groups were suppressed for the white population through apartheid legislation. The land of Africans had been stolen by the white colonizer. He then deployed black police officers to keep the contract workers in check with brute force: the old divide-and-conquer tactic.

In 1888, the Pass Law for Indians was introduced in Natal to control their movements in apartheid society. Gandhi arrived in South Africa in 1893 and soon began to lead the movement against the pass law. He was sent to prison four times for his resistance.

The criticism of Gandhi in South Africa concerns three points:

  • Gandhi was an admirer of the British system.
  • Gandhi supported the British during a rebellion of black Africans led by Bambatha kaMancinza in 1906.
  • Gandhi made racist statements about black people.

Admirer of the British system

Two South African Historians – Ashwin Desai and Goolam Vahed – make this point in their book “The South African Gandhian – Stretcher Bearer of the Empire”. [1] They quote Gandhi from are farewell speech in Cape Town in 1914 when he decided go back to India: “I have always believed there is something subtle, something fine in the ideals of the British Constitution. Tear away those ideals and you tear away my loyalty to that Constitution; keep those ideals and I am ever a bondman. [Cheers] Both races should see that those ideals of the British Constitution always remained a sacred treasure.” [2]

Desai and Vahed don’t pose the question: how is it possible with this attitude of Gandhi to become a leader in the struggle for Indian independence from Britain? It is a fair question to ask.The answer is simple. Gandhi was colonized in his mind in 1914 and had to undergo a mental liberation in order to assume the role of leader of the liberation movement. Is it difficult to understand that people grow in their spiritual development? Desai and Vahed don’t go into this question which is crucial in the assessment of Gandhi’s contribution to the world.

We see the admiration for the Western system among more anti-colonial leaders. In 1964 Nelson Mandela gives a comparison between communism and the Western system. “From my reading of Marxist literature and from conversations with Marxists, I have gained the impression that Communists regard the parliamentary system of the West as undemocratic and reactionary. But, on the contrary, I am an admirer of such a system. The Magna Carta , the Petition of Rights and the Bill of Rights, are documents which are held in veneration by democrats throughout the world. I have great respect for British political institutions, and for the country’s system of justice. I regard the British Parliament as the most democratic institution in the world, and the independence and impartiality of its judiciary never fail to arouse my admiration. The American Congress, that country’s doctrine of separation of powers, as well as the independence of its judiciary, arouse in me similar sentiments.” [3]

Should we bring down statues of Mandela because of this quote?

Support for the British in the 1906 Rebellion

In 1906, the British introduced new tax laws. Africans led by Bambatha kaMancinza from the Zulu community organized an armed uprising against the British. The uprising was bloodily crushed. Gandhi had offered the British to mobilize nurses from the Indian community for the colonizer.

Desai and Vahed point to this pro-imperialist action of Gandhi and they are right : “The Gandhian pattern that emerges during the South African War and the Bhambatha Rebellion is the erasure of Africans as a people who suffered and resisted a brutal system. Alongside this was the use of war and violence as opportunities to display loyalty to local settlers and, by extension, to the British Empire.” [4]  We advocate solidarity with other oppressed groups. The fight against colonialism and imperialism is international. Gandhi was on the wrong side of history in 1906. Gandhi himself explains his attitude as follows: “We are in Natal by virtue of British power. Our very existence depends upon it. It is therefore our duty to render whatever help we can.” [5]

Later his attitude would change radically, but Desai and Vahed don’t mention that.

Racist statements

Teachers of the University of Ghana have filed a petition asking the board to remove Gandhi ‘s statue from the university grounds. In that petition they cites a number of racist quotes from the collected works of which Gandhi should be ashamed. Here are some quotes:

  • “A general belief seems to prevail in the Colony that the Indians are little better, if at all, than savages or the Natives of Africa. Even the children are taught to believe in that manner, with the result that the Indian is being dragged down to the position of a raw Kaffir.” [6]
  • “In the face, too, of financial operations, the success of which many of their detractors would envy, one fails to understand the agitation which would place the operators in the same category as the half-heathen Native and confine him to Locations, and subject him to the harsher laws by which the Transvaal Kaffir is governed.” [7]
  • “So far as the feeling has been expressed, it is to degrade the Indian to the position of the Kaffir.” [8]
  • Desai and Vahed add: “In The Green Pamphlet Gandhi objected to the fact that ‘Indians are classed with the natives of South Africa—Kaffir races’ . For example, Indians had to use the same entrance as Africans at the post office in Durban. ‘We felt the indignity too much and . . . petitioned the authorities to do away with the individual distinction and they have now provided three separate entrances for natives, Asiatics and Europeans.’ Gandhi was irate that ‘the sons of this land of light [India] are despised as coolies and treated as Kaffirs’ “. [9]

The general picture from such quotes is that Gandhi regarded black Africans as inferior to Indians. If you are reading this, you should be outraged by these statements and not try to understand them. The question you also have to ask, however, is whether Gandhi has kept these views for the rest of his life or has said goodbye to them.

In the collected works you will also find other quotes from Gandhi which are the opposite of the one mentioned above.

  • “I regard the Kaffirs, with whom I constantly work these days, as superior to us. What they do in their ignorance we have to do knowingly.” [10](1910 quote)
  • “In cocoa plantations, Negro workers are subjected to such inhuman treatment that if we witnessed it with our own eyes we would have no desire to drink cocoa.” [11] (1913 quote)
  • Among the Negroes, the tallest and the most handsome are the Zulus. I have deliberately used the epithet ‘handsome, in connection with Negroes. A fair complexion and a pointed nose represent our ideal of beauty. If we discard this superstition for a moment, we feel that the Creator did not spare Himself in fashioning the Zulu to perfection. Men and women are both tall and broad- chested in proportion to their height. Their muscles are strong and well set. The calves of the legs and the arms are muscular and always well rounded. You will rarely find a man or woman walking with a stoop or with a hump back. The lips are certainly large and thick, but as they are in prefect symmetry with the entire physique, I for one would not say that they are unshapely. The eyes are round and bright. The nose is flat and large, such as becomes a large face and the curled hair on the head sets off to advantage the Zulu’s skin which is black and shining like ebony. If we ask a Zulu to which of the various races inhabiting South Africa he will award the palm for beauty, he will unhesitatingly decide in favor of his own people, and in this I would not see any want of judgment on his part. The physique of the Zulu is powerfully built and finely shaped by nature without any such effort as is made by Sandow and others in Europe in order to develop the muscles. It is a law of nature that the skin of races living near the equator should be black. And if we believe that there must be beauty in everything fashioned by nature, we would not only steer clear of all narrow and one-sided conceptions of beauty, but we in India would be free from the improper sense of shame and dislike which we feel for our own complexion. If it ‘s anything but fair.” [12] (1926 quote).

The earlier quotes are from his early period in South Africa and the later ones are from 1910, 1913 and 1926. Should we leave out the latter quotes, as Desai and Vahed do, if we to make a assessment of Gandhi’s contribution to the world?

His views on blacks were later mainly determined by his view of the struggles of the black community in America.

The black community in the US

Gandhi wrote a lot. He also wrote regularly about the plight of blacks in America. In 1926 he wrote: “The Negroes of the United States have accepted Western civilization. They have embraced Christianity. But the black pigment of their skin constitutes their crime, and if in the Northern States they are socially despised, they are lynched in the Southern States on the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing.” [13]

He regularly published articles on the injustices that were done to blacks. Take this example: “In South Carolina (USA) a white man stole a motor car. He’s got four weeks. The same Court of Justice sentenced a Negro to three years’ penal servitude for stealing a bicyle . A Delaware (USA) ‘colored’ man was sentenced to death for committing rape on a white girl. At Alabama (USA) two whites were fined $. 250 each for committing rape on colored girls.” [14]

In 1929 he made a comparison between the caste system in India and the US: “There can be no true comparison between the two. They are dissimilar. Depressed and oppressed as the untouchable is in his own country, there is no legal discrimination in force against him as it is in the case of the Negro in America. Then, though our orthodoxy sometimes betrays a hardness of heart that cannot but cause deep anguish to a humanitarian, the superstitious prejudice against the untouchable never breaks out into such savage fury as it does sometimes in America against the Negro. The lynching of the Negro is not an uncommon occurrence in America. But in India such things are impossible because of our tradition of nonviolence. Not only that, the humanitarian sentiment in India has so far prevailed against caste prejudice as to result even in the canonization of individual untouchables. We have several untouchable saints. I wonder whether you have any Negro saints among you. The prejudice against untouchability is fast wearing out. I wish somebody could assure me that the tide of color prejudice had spent itself in America.” [15]

Eight years later, he returns to the comparison and emphasizes how in India the caste system was part of the Hindu religion, while in the US it was not. Gandhi: “Can it be a divine law that some persons are born untouchables and remain so for generations? Even men do not have such a law. It does not exist anywhere in this world. The duty of Negroes in America is very bad. They are untouchables but they are not considered to have been born so. Treating them as untouchables is not considered a dharma. There are a vast number of people who treat Negroes as untouchables but such behavior is not considered a part of religion.” [16]

Gandhi had a conversation with black American soldiers in Madras. A soldier asked him: “There are several religions in the world. They were all originated in foreign countries. Which one of these should Africa follow? Or should she discover her own religion? If so, how?”

This is Gandhi’s answer : “It is wrong to say that all religions were originated in foreign countries. I had fairly extensive contact with Zulus and Bantus and I found that the Africans have a religion of their own, though they may not have reasoned it out for themselves. I am not referring to the rites, ceremonies and fetishes that are prevalent among African tribes but the religion of one Supreme God. You pray to that God.” [17]

Here he begins to recognize that you have to reason outside the box and recognize that there is such a thing as an Indigenous African philosophy with its own roots.

Another soldier asked : “How can a continent like Africa fight down the fetters of slavery when it is so hopelessly divided?”

Gandhi: “The moment the slave resolves that he will no longer be a slave, his fetters fall. He frees himself and shows the way to others. Freedom and slavery are mental states. Therefore the first thing is to say to yourself: ‘I shall no longer accept the role of a slave. I shall not obey orders as such but shall disobey them when they are in conflict with my conscience.’ The so-called master may lash you and try to force you to serve him. You will say: ‘No, I will not serve you for your money or under a threat.’ This may mean suffering. Your readiness to suffer will light the torch of freedom which can never be put out.” [18]

Gandhi took up the issue of mental slavery and the need for the decolonization of the mind. Writes in 1931 he about the British education system in India: “We know what history we learn in schools and what we have to unlearn by bitter experience. We are taught to imagine the blessings and virtues of British rule; we learn, as we grow, to know the contrary. Our greatest enemy is therefore ignorance often spread willingly to prejudice us.” [19]

Finally a soldier asked: “Africa and India both drink of the cup of slavery. What necessary steps can be taken to unite the two nations so as to present a common front?”

And Gandhi makes the following connection : “India is not yet free and yet Indians have begun to realize that their freedom is coming, not because the white man says so but because they have developed the power within. In as much as India’s struggle is non-violent, it is a struggle for the emancipation of all oppressed races against superior might. I do not propose mechanical joint action between them. ‘Each one has to find his own salvation’ its true of this as well as of the other world. It is enough that there is a real moral bond between Asiatics and Africans. it will grow as time passes.” [20]

He was right. Black leaders from America connected with Gandhi. The most notable is Marcus Garvey. Garvey had built an international organization of radical black activists with over a million members. Garvey was well aware of the tensions between Africans and other colonized communities, including between Indians and Africans. But Garvey saw Gandhi ‘s significance to the international struggle against colonialism. In 1924, when his organization was at the height of its development, Garvey sent a telegram to Gandhi that read: “The Negroes of the world through us send you greetings for fight for the freedom of your people and country. We are with you. Fourth Annual International Convention Negro Peoples of the World. Marius Garney , Chairman.” [21] Two years later, his wife , Amy Jacques Garvey sent, two books by Garvey to Gandhi (“The Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey” and “Africa for Africans”). Gandhi sent her a note of thanks on May 12, 1926. [22]

Another important black leader, the founder of the NAACP, WEB du Bois, was in regular contact with Gandhi . Du Bois published articles by Gandhi in his monthly magazine Crisis. Du Bois was a Pan-Africanist . Many Pan-Africanists in West Africa were inspired by Gandhi .

The core of that inspiration lay in the strategy that Gandhi had developed with regard to . nonviolent resistance. One of the early leaders of the civil rights movement in America was Howard Thurman (1899-1981). He was an African American theologian and a mentor to Martin Luther King. Thurman writes in his autobiography about his trip to India and meeting Gandhi : “He had questions . Never in my life have I been a part of that examination: persistent pragmatic questions about American Negroes, about the course of slavery, and how we had survived it. One of the things that puzzled him was why the slaves did not become Muslems . “Because,” he said, “the Moslem religion is the only religion in the world in which no lines are drawn from within the religious fellowship. Once you are in, you are all the way in. This is not true in Christianity, it is not true in Buddhism or Hinduism. If you would have become Moslem, then even though you were a slave, in the faith you would be equal to your master…. He wanted to know about voting rights, lynching, discrimination, public school education, the churches and how they functioned. His questions covered the entire sweep of our experience in American society.” [23]

Thurman was an important leader in the American civil rights movement. He was a mentor to Martin Luther King Jr. King had studied Gandhi’s techniques of nonviolent resistance especially with the bus boycott in Montgomery. King writes in his autobiography : “Like most people, I had heard of Gandhi, but I had never studied him seriously. As I read I became deeply fascinated by his campaigns of nonviolent resistance. I was particularly moved by his Salt March to the Sea and his numerous fasts. The whole concept of Satyagraha ( Satya is truth which equals love, and agraha is force; Satyagraha, therefore, means truth force or love force) was profoundly significant to me. As I delved deeper into the philosophy of Gandhi, my skepticism concerning the power of love gradually diminished, and I came to see for the first time its potency in the area of social reform.” [24]

The strategy, tactics and techniques developed by Gandhi were adopted by large groups of black activists in Montgomery. King: “In the summer of 1957 the name of Mahatma Gandhi was well known in Montgomery. People who had never heard of the little brown saint of India were now saying his name with an air of familiarity. Nonviolent resistance had emerged as the technique of the movement, while love stood as the regulating ideal. In other words, Christ furnished the spirit and motivation while Gandhi furnished the method.” [25]

King has described, explained and defended his strategy of nonviolence in his book Stride Toward Freedom. He goes into detail on all philosophical, strategic, tactical and technical aspects of nonviolent resistance, including the arguments against this strategy. At every step he harks back to what he has learned from Gandhi .

Prime minister Nehru of India was in the US and invited King and his wife Coretta to visit India. Gandhi was already dead by then.

King describes his experience in India: “We had a grand reception in India. The people showered upon us the most generous hospitality imaginable. Almost every door was open so that our party was able to see some of India’s most important social experiments and talk with leaders in and out of government, ranging from Prime Minister Nehru, to village councilmen and Vinoba Bhave , the sainted leader of the land reform movement. Since our pictures were in the newspapers very often it was not unusual for us to be recognized by crowds in public places and on public conveyances. Occasionally I would take a morning walk in the large cities, and out of the most unexpected places someone would emerge and ask: “Are you Martin Luther King?” We had hundreds of invitations that the limited time did not allow us to accept. We were looked upon as brothers, with the color of our skins as something of an asset. But the strongest bond of fraternity was the common cause of minority and colonial peoples in America, Africa, and Asia struggling to throw off racism and imperialism. We had the opportunity to share our views with thousands of Indian people through endless conversations and numerous discussion sessions. I spoke before university groups and public meetings all over India. Because of the keen interest that the Indian people have in the race problem these meetings were usually packed. Occasionally interpreters were used, but on the whole I spoke to audiences that understood English. The Indian people love to listen to the Negro spirituals. Therefore, Coretta ended up singing as much as I lectured. We discovered that autograph seekers are not confined to America. After appearances in public meetings and while visiting villages, we were often besieged for autographs. Even while riding planes, more than once pilots came into the cabin from the cockpit requesting our signatures. We got good press throughout our stay. Thanks to the Indian papers, the Montgomery bus boycott was already well known in that country. Indian publications perhaps gave a better continuity of our 381-day bus strike than did most of our papers in the United States. We held press conferences in all of the larger cities—Delhi, Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay—and talked with newspapermen almost everywhere we went. They asked sharp questions and at times appeared to be hostile, but that was just their way of bringing out the story that they were after. As reporters, they were scrupulously fair with us and in their editorials showed an amazing grasp of what was going on in America and other parts of the world.” [26]

It is interesting to see how King and his companions became acquainted with the issue of reparations and affirmative action in India for the “untouchables ” in a conversation with Nehru. He compares that policy with the policy in the US regarding black emancipation. King writes : “The Indian government spent millions of rupees annually developing housing and job opportunities in villages heavily inhabited by untouchables. Moreover, the prime minister said, if two applicants compete for entrance into a college or university, one of the applicants being an untouchable and the other of high caste, the school is required to accept the untouchable. Professor Lawrence Reddick , who was with me during the interview, asked: “But isn’t that discrimination?” “Well, it may be,” the prime minister answered. “But this is our way of atoning for the centuries of injustices we have involved upon these people.” From the prime minister down to the village councilmen, everybody declared publicly that untouchability is wrong. But in the United States some of our highest officials declined to render a moral judgment on segregation, and some from the South publicly boasted of their determination to maintain segregation. That would be unthinkable in India. Although discrimination has not yet been eliminated in India, it is a crime to practice discrimination against an untouchable.” [27]

King gave the gist again from the relationship between Africans and Indians : “The strongest bond of fraternity was the common cause of minority and colonial peoples in America, Africa, and Asia struggling to throw off racism and imperialism.”

Unity makes strength, division breaks strength

The issue of unity among oppressed peoples has been an important theme for many leaders in the colonized. European powers had colonized the world and ruthlessly oppressed and exploited the peoples. They have used the strategy of divide and conquer and the colonization of the mind. All the leaders of the liberation struggle against colonialism realized this essential rule: united we stand, divided we fall.

The divide-and-conquer strategy was often very effective. Among all colonized communities there is fear of the colonizer and anger at the humiliation, oppression and exploitation. The divide-and-conquer strategy directs the focus of fear and anger away from the colonizer and toears one’s own communities. In the black communities, the color shade was used as an instrument: the lighter the skin color, the better the social, economic and cultural position. In the multicultural communities, Africans were pitted against Asians and vice versa. And if that strategy was combined with mutual violence, the consequences for generations are incalculable: the anger is directly linked to suffering inflicted on each other.

In the Caribbean, Indians and Africans have been pitted against each other in elections. Politics was based on the manipulation of tensions between these populations. In 1950 the Marxist Chedi Jagan (India descent) and Forbes Burnham ( African descent) together founded the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) as a socialist party that would lead the fight for independence from England. The PPP won the 1953 elections and began to implement social reforms on its way to independence, which was finally achieved in 1966. The English sent soldiers to Guyana and deposed Jagan. The British and American intelligence services began to act on the PPP and effected a separation between Indians and Africans. That was effective. In the 1957 election, two factions of the PPP (Jagan and Burnham ) ran separately in the election, but Jagan won 9 of the 14 seats and Burnham 3. Many Africans had voted for Jagan. The CIA, with the support of the British, set up a campaign to drive the two populations apart. Anger about racism and colonialism were directed at each other. Colonized Indians tell racist stories from the white colonizer about the inferiority of Africans and their desire to rape Indian women. Africans tell racist stories from the colonizer about greedy Indians who want to exploit blacks. These tensions are combined with strikes and demonstrations and resulted in hundreds of deaths in the early 1960s. It has disrupted ethnic relations in Guyana for decades. Stephen Rabe , who has extensively documented the British-backed US intelligence campaign in Guyana, concludes: “US policymakers generated political instability and economic chaos and incited race warfare in the British colony .” [28]

Social movements often have to deal with intelligence services. The Black Panther Party in America has been wiped out by FBI infiltrators. The Russian revolutionary Victor Serge has compiled a handbook for revolutionaries entitled: “What everyone should know about suppression ”. The archives of the Russian intelligence service had fallen into the hands of the revolutionaries after the 1917 revolution. Serge explained in his handbook how intelligence services work to undermine social movements. An important element is the use of provocateurs who use divide-and-conquer strategies and create mutual distrust. [29]

A similar handbook was compiled fifty years later by American CIA agent Philip Agee entitled “ Inside the Company – CIA diary ”. [30] Agee spent 12 years working for the CIA in Latin America against anti-imperialist organizations. He later regretted it and collected his experiences in the form of a manual that has been used by social movements on how to deal with intelligence services.

The general lesson is: you fight divide and rule by putting the focus to where it belongs: the fight against colonialism. Leaders of the Asian and African liberation movements have understood this well. They know well the anger in their communities about humiliation and oppression and realize that that anger must have a focus: the colonizer. If that focus shifts to infighting, then you have lost an important battle.

The removal of statues of slaveholders has a clear focus: the colonizer. Removing Gandhi’s statue is not part of that. Gandhi was not part of the colonizer. He was colonized in his mind like many people of color. He decolonized his mind. Shifting the focus from the colonizer to him is part of divide-and-conquer . Therefore, decolonial activists should not support these actions. We can have a honest and balanced discussion on how to assess the contribution of leaders in our liberation struggle and include their weaknesses in their growth. That conversation is much needed. But it must be based on facts and the big picture. Then it is part of the growth of social movements, otherwise it becomes part of the divide-and-conquer strategy.


Agee, P. (1975): Inside the Company. CIA diary. Stonehill Publishing Company. London.

Carson, C. (1998): The Autobiography of Martin Luther King Sr.. IPM/Warner Books. New York.

Desai, A. and Vahed , G. (2016): The South African Gandhi. Stretcher Bearer of the Empire. Stanford University Press. Stanford.

Gandhi, M.K. (1956-1994(xx)): The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. Accessed 6/19/2004 . The reference to the different parts is included in parentheses ( xx ).

King, M. L. (1958): Stride Toward Freedom. The Montgomery Story. Beacon Press. Boston.

Mandela, N. (1964): I am not a communist. From speech in his defense at the Rivonia Trial while Secretary General of the ANC, in June 1964. The speech is known by the title ‘I Am Prepared to Die’. in: Bragança , A. de and Wallerstein , I. (eds.) (1982), p. 91-95.

Petition (2016): Gandhi’s Statue at the University Of Ghana Must Come Down. Accessed 6/20/2020 .

Rabe , S. (2005): US intervention in British Guiana. A cold war story. Univ. Or North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill.

Serge, V. (1979): What everyone should know about repression. New Park Publications. Original: 1926.

[1] Desai, A. and Vahed , G. (2016): The South African Gandhi. Stretcher Bearer of the Empire. Stanford University Press. Stanford.

[2] Desai, A. and Vahed , G. (2016), p. 36.

[3] Mandela, N. (1964), p. 95.

[4] Desai, A. and Vahed , G. (2016), p. 89.

[5] Gandhi , M.K. (1956-1994 (1)), p. 179.

[6] Gandhi , M.K. (1956-1994 (1)), p. 193.

[7] Ditto, p. 225.

[8] Ditto, p. 229.

[9] Desai, A. and Vahed , G. (2016), p. 30.

[10] Gandhi , M.K. (1956-1994 (11)), p. 107.

[11] Gandhi , M.K. (1956-1994 (12)), p. 432.

[12] Gandhi , M.K. (1956-1994 (34)), p. 11-12.

[13] Ditto, p. 79.

[14] Gandhi , M.K. (1956-1994 (36)), p. 397.

[15] Gandhi , M.K. (1956-1994 (45)), p. 148.

[16] Gandhi , M.K. (1956-1994 (63)), p. 351.

[17] Gandhi , M.K. (1956-1994 (89)), p. 280.

[18] Ditto.

[19] Gandhi , M.K. (1956-1994 (52)), p. 102.

[20] Gandhi , M.K. (1956-1994 (89)), p. 280.

[21] Gandhi , M.K. (1956-1994 (29)), p. 28.

[22] Gandhi, M.K. (1956-1994 (36)), p. 361.

[23] Thurman, H. (1979), p. 132.

[24] Carson, C. (1998), p. 34.

[25] Carson, C. (1998), p. 72.

[26] Carson, C. (1998), p. 127-128.

[27] Carson, C. (1998), p. 136-137.

[28] Rabe , S. (2005), p. 175.

[29] Serge, V. (1979).

[30] Agee , P. (1975).