Durban man seeks refuge in the US amid claims of injustices faced by the Indian community in SA
ROBIN Naidoo, chairperson of the Indian Land Claimants Association (Ilca), believes there is hope for Indian South Africans as the US opens its doors to minorities facing discrimination.
According to the US embassy and consulates in South Africa, the refugee admissions programme for South Africans, according to President Donald Trump's executive order, now includes disfavoured minorities – Indians and coloureds – who are victims of unjust racial discrimination.
Robin Naidoo is among the first Indians who is considering applying for the 'opportunity'.
Naidoo was initially upset when Indians were not awarded the same opportunities as the 49 Afrikaners who left for the US on May 13.
He said he was delighted that minorities in South Africa could apply for 'asylum' in the US.
'I am extremely grateful that the doors to the US are opened to all minorities. Our future growth has been stifled by over 200 laws in the country and sadly, I believe the ANC discriminates against us. This option to got to the US is under serious consideration by my family. It's not just my decision but that of my family too. It's a big decision so it has to be done correctly. They are keen but have to tie up loose ends, before we take the plunge,' said Naidoo.
He said he was considering this opportunity because of the 'unfair discrimination Indians faced in South Africa'.
'The ANC government began the expropriation of land from Indian South Africans, soon after they took over power in 1994. The land that was taken away from us during apartheid was passed on to the ANC, by the outgoing white Nationalist Party. They expropriated the land from Indians pre-1994, under the apartheid laws, the Group Areas Act.
'Most of the expropriated land from Indians remained vacant and were soon illegally occupied by squatters in most cases. Yet, we are the minority race in South Africa with only two million Indians in the country,' said Naidoo.
'The ANC eyed our claimed land and without following the legal procedures under the Restitution of Land Claims Act, which was started by the white regime in 1992, the ANC started the illegal expropriation of our claimed land. In my view, this was racism and expropriation against Indians by the State for the second time,' said Naidoo.
He said given the history of Indians in South Africa, he along with others should have been offered refugee status by the US at the start of the programme when it was offered to the Afrikaner farmers.
"We faced appropriation of land without compensation, we were moved from our land. So what about our plights? The Afrikaners did not lose their land like we did.
'We would also like have better opportunities for our children. We lost our opportunities when we our farming land was expropriated,' he added.
'Thirty two years on and we have still not been given our land back. Why was the door to the US not opened to us from the beginning?' asked Naidoo.
He said that Indians, who have been victims of many injustices, were never treated the same as other races in South Africa.
'Our children struggle to get jobs despite their qualifications and experience. We are discriminated against, denied our land and university entrance. Yet we were not given the same mercy as the Afrikaner farmers. I want my children to have the same opportunities as others and now that we have been given the go-ahead, I hope my children's lives will be better if we choose to take the offer and move to the US,' said Naidoo.
To be eligible for US resettlement consideration, individuals must be:
- Of South African nationality
- Of Afrikaner ethnicity or be a member of a racial minority in South Africa
- Able to articulate a past experience of persecution or fear of future persecution
THE POST
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
The fallout from Trump's Afrikaner project on Ramaphosa's National Dialogue agenda
President Cyril Ramaphosa has defended BEE as an engine of growth. Image: GCIS President Cyril Ramaphosa's upcoming national dialogue aims to tackle critical issues facing the country, including the divisions sparked by US President Donald Trump's controversial offer of resettlement to white Afrikaners, alongside pressing concerns regarding unemployment and poor governance. On Wednesday, Ramaphosa announced the appointment of an 'eminent persons group,' comprising 31 South Africans, who will spearhead the National Dialogue scheduled for August 15. One of the eminent persons, who requested anonymity, said the dialogue can be seen as a response to concerns, aiming to address the country's challenges and promote national building. 'The issue should definitely come up, although everybody has a choice to leave the country. "We are way beyond the colour lines now and should focus on nation building with the people who are in the country, instead of dwelling in the past. 'Sure, it's a bone of contention but we do have bigger problems," she said. However, not all are on board with Ramaphosa's dialogue initiative. The uMkhonto weSizwe Party has rejected the dialogue as an "elitist farce," saying it is a "staged theatre for the political elite". In a statement its spokesperson, Nhlamulo Ndhlela, asked why there were no ordinary South Africans, such as shack dwellers, represented? 'The so-called Eminent Persons Group, handpicked by the very same ruling class responsible for mass unemployment, deepening poverty, collapsing infrastructure and the ongoing betrayal of the Freedom Charter, is a mockery of the suffering endured daily by millions of destitute and despondent South African,' Ndhlela wrote. The EFF has also expressed skepticism, questioning the government's motives and the selection process for the Eminent Persons Group. "The challenges Ramaphosa's National Dialogue seek to address are not a product of triumph of human sacrifice against evil, which require collective national reconstruction, but are a product of man-made destruction and corruption of which he and the party he leads have been at the centre of," the EFF said in a statement. The DA's national spokesperson, Willie Aucamp, welcomed the National Dialogue saying his party would embrace the opportunity. 'I think it's high time that we as a nation get together and discuss collectively what we see as a road forward for this country,' he said. Build One South Africa (BOSA) described the announcement as a positive and necessary step forward for the country at a time of great political uncertainty, public anxiety, and economic malaise. The GOOD Party's general secretary Brett Herron said it was long overdue as the wait had been frustrating.
The Citizen
an hour ago
- The Citizen
‘Bring all to dialogue': Experts insist national dialogue must be people-driven
Political analysts stress the need for land restitution and broad participation to ensure a meaningful and effective national dialogue. Experts say the envisaged national dialogue must not be a top-down process, but people-driven and discuss contentious issues like land and racial polarisation. But more importantly, said one expert, the dialogue required full commitment from various actors to find a collective solution to the country's myriad problems. Political analyst and scholar Dominic Maphaka from North-West University said the dialogue was necessary to unite the diverse and divided country. National dialogue necessary to unite country He said, as outlined by President Cyril Ramaphosa, stakeholders, including business, labour, civil society, communities, youth and people with disabilities, should form part of the dialogue to chart the way forward. 'But the dialogue will require a commitment from various actors to form part of a collective solution to the myriad problems faced by the country,' Maphaka said. ALSO READ: Thandiswa Mazwai says she would've accepted invite to national dialogue had Ramaphosa sent it He alluded to the fact that, due to the vibrant civil society, nonstate actors were often at loggerheads with government and opposing its development policies. 'Despite having divergent ideologies, it is not far-fetched that South Africans share common problems in many areas. I therefore think that ideologies should not take precedence in the dialogue; instead, stakeholders should deliberate and find common policy solutions to address common policy problems,' Maphaka said. Ramaphosa yesterday said he would call a National Convention on 15 August, which would set the agenda for the National Dialogue. National Convention to set agenda A follow-up convention would be held early next year. He said the convention would be a representative gathering, bringing together government, political parties, civil society, business, labour, traditional leaders, religious leaders, cultural workers, sports organisations, women, youth and community voices. Some experts believed people and civil society, not government and political parties, should lead the planned dialogue process, including the convention. ALSO READ: Ramaphosa urges caution as floods claims lives in Eastern Cape Political analyst Lesiba Teffo said the national dialogue was not supposed to be driven by the state because that was where the seeds of its failure lay. 'It was contested from inception and some of the initiators are now in the periphery. A reasonable modality would be to start in the provinces whose reports would feed into the national convention. Otherwise, you are likely to end up with another voluminous, glossy and expensive National Development Plan 0.2 Vision 2040,' Teffo said. The need for an all-inclusive national dialogue was first proposed by former president Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki, assisted by Jacob Zuma, was the ANC's first chief negotiator at the pre-1994 Convention for a Democratic South Africa (Codesa) talks before they were replaced by Ramaphosa and Mohammed Valli Moosa. Need for national dialogue first proposed by Mbeki There seemed to be a common view that dialogue should involve various roleplayers – from civil society, to state, business, trade unions and political parties. It is understood that the struggle stalwarts' foundations were involved in consultations to kick off the process, while Nedlac was identified to play a role as one of the facilitators due to its composite nature with business, trade unions, community and government. ALSO READ: 'A meaningless publicity stunt by a limping president': EFF slams Ramaphosa's national dialogue call Political and heritage analyst George Tsibani, who supports the idea of a national dialogue, said such a gathering should address the question of land in its proper perspective. He said democratic South Africa was a result of a negotiated settlement that was underpinned by Sunset Clauses that were a compromise and did not address the land question. 'If we pretend that there was no compromise, it would take the focus away from the land issue. The land redistribution and restitution must form the cornerstone of national dialogue,' Tsibani said. Previous Codesa process failed The previous Codesa process failed to address many issues due to the Sunset Clause that allowed for the continuation of white control of the state. 'So Codesa 2 must address the land issue in its totality, meaning there must be a deliberate restitution of land for the people who lost their land during the colonial and slavery periods,' Tsibani said. NOW READ: Ramaphosa, Chief Justice mourn passing of Judge Temba Sangoni
The Herald
an hour ago
- The Herald
Higher education minister keeps up stonewalling on 'SETA panel'
Higher education and training minister Nobuhle Nkabane continues to dig in her heels over the submission to parliament of the names of the 'independent selection panel' she relied on to make controversial appointments to SETA boards last month. Nkabane had until the close of business on Wednesday to submit records and minutes of the meeting of the 'independent panel' that she says advised on the appointments of the chairpersons of Sector Education and Training Authorities that she was last month ordered to reverse by the presidency. But at the eleventh-hour on Wednesday, it emerged that Nkabane wrote a letter dated June 10 to Tebego Letsie, an ANC MP who chairs the portfolio committee on higher education, asking that the June 10 deadline be extended by a further 20 days, to June 20. The higher education committee had given her the deadline of June 11 last week after she refused to disclose the names and full details of her 'independent panel' at a heated meeting, with Nkabane citing the Protection of Personal Information Act. Nkabane landed in hot water several weeks ago after it emerged that she had appointed controversial and politically connected people to chair the boards of the SETAs. Among them were Buyambo Mantashe, the son of minerals minister Gwede Mantashe who was once deputised by Nkabane in that portfolio. Also on the controversial list were former KZN premier Nomusa Ncube-Dube, former KZN MEC Mike Mabuyakhulu and Johannesburg MMC Loyiso Masuku. The move has pitted Nkabane against President Cyril Ramaphosa, who first ordered her to withdraw the names and most recently also asked her to submit a report to him on the matter. Sources in the higher echelons are adamant that Nkabane's stonewalling on this issue is slowly catching up with her and she will soon run out of options, with some casting doubt on the existence of the 'independent selection panel'. In her letter to Letsie, which has since been shared with all members of the higher education committee, she placed on 'record and confirm my full intention to comply with the portfolio committee's request'. Again citing the POPIA and the Promotion of Access to Information Act, Nkabane said she needed more time to ensure that the information she was preparing to send to parliament would be disclosed in a lawful manner. She told her oversight committee that she had been 'assured that I am legally permitted to disclosed the panellists' details in a lawful manner'. 'For these reasons and in acknowledgment of the panellists' rights to privacy, I have written to each of the members of the selection and evaluation panel and advised them of my intention to comply with the portfolio committee's request. 'However, it remains unlikely that my engagements with them will be completed by the 11 June 2025 deadline. In the circumstances, and to allow the panel members an opportunity to respond to my letter or exercise whatever right they may have, I request an extension of the deadline to 30 June 2025.' The higher education committee was expected to discuss its response to Nkabane's deadline request in the coming days.
