The Reminiscences of Zafrulla Khan — Page 226
210 REMINISCENCES OF SIR MUHAMMAD ZAFRULLA KHAN For instance, they could easily safeguard their economic interests if they were prepared to give up, gradually, their position of political dominance. But they seem to feel that once they give way on that, everything would be lost. I do not agree. Everything may be lost, say, in half a century, in the sense that white dominance may disappear. But in half a century the world will have a different complexion from what it has today. People go on thinking of half a century hence or a century hence as if conditions will continue as they are today. The world will not continue in anything as it is today; mankind is on the march and it is the era of change. On the other hand, if the present situation is sought to be frozen, it is bound to blow up. You cannot maintain a situation like the present one in a country like South Africa. When it blows up, nothing will survive, I mean, from the point of view of the whites, and that would be a great disaster. It will not be a victory for either side; it will be a disaster for South Africa. I hope they may begin to appreciate where their long-term interests lie. I can appreciate that it is very difficult for them to face a radical change in the present situation. They have all been brought up in it, and are oriented in it. It is taboo for them to think of the indigenous population or the Cape Malays or the brown or the Chinese people as human beings possessing equal rights with them. The Boer is very rigid. On the other hand, he is, as the world goes today, on the whole religious. He is a reader of the Bible; he is anxious to uphold the standards and values laid down in the Bible. He believes in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. But his definition of man is confined to the white man. That is not only utterly wrong, it is also utterly unrealistic in today's conditions, from the point of view of their own interests. But they will not see it. Question : In reading over the transcripts of what you have said so far, one thing that struck me is that, I think it is true that you are the only figure who was prominent in public life, that is, in actual participation in the government, in India in the 1930s and 1940s, who is still playing a public role. One question that interests me is what differences do you see now, in looking back, between your years as minister in Delhi, of the Government of India, and your functioning as minister in an independent Pakistan? Any striking differences ?