Dr Sheetal Bhoola is a lecturer and researcher at the University of Zululand, and director at StellarMaths (Sunningdale)
Image: Supplied
“South Africans have little ambition, are complacent and have poor work ethic” — these were the words Wits University’s Head of Sociology, Professor Srila Roy, posted on her X (formerly Twitter) account, which has now led to her resignation.
The Department of Sociology confirmed Roy’s resignation from her role as head of department in a statement on February 26.
Within the realms of striving towards social cohesion in South Africa, and amidst global politics, it is rather hostile for Professor Srila Roy to publicly air such a perception, especially since she is of Indian origin and not a South African.
Her behaviour does not align with sociological worldviews, the interdependencies and connectivity of peoples, societies and cultures which we can all relate to now on a global scale. Her academic background should have been her guide in fully comprehending the descriptive words she chose to air her differences or frustrations with her South African fellow beings.
Roy's actions depict that she was oblivious to the repercussions of behaviour that stems from xenophobia, ethnic and racial discrimination. Furthermore, as the Head of the Department of Sociology at the University of the Witwatersrand, her stance also indicates the possibility of continual ethnic and racial discrimination in democratic South Africa.
As a leader, her stance was unacceptable and demeaning to South African citizens in all industries and from all class groupings.
The idea that nationality-based discrimination can still be utilised in contemporary South Africa is alarming, considering that South Africa and India have had a long interregional relationship in the Global South. The relationship has been further entrenched by immigration, migration, anti-colonial solidarity and post-colonial cooperation, forming a foundation for contemporary political and economic partnerships.
Following the immigration of indentured labourers and ongoing labour contracts between Indians and colonial South Africa, India is documented as one of the earliest and strongest international opponents of apartheid. In 1946, India cut trade ties with South Africa over racial discrimination and became the first country to impose sanctions on apartheid South Africa.
India committed to and stood by the United Nations in support of the international isolation of the apartheid regime. These actions not only strengthened relationships but became a foundation for solidarity between India and the African National Congress, the Natal Indian Congress, and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania. Full diplomatic ties were established after South Africa attained democracy in 1994.
Our late President Nelson Mandela emphasised the historic moral debt owed to India for its anti-apartheid stance. Today, the countries continue to collaborate and cooperate in several international groupings such as BRICS, the IBSA Dialogue Forum and other South–South partnerships.
This political history and present economic and associated ties are undermined when representatives of either nationality demonstrate a lack of respect and cognisance of one another. What is more disturbing is that a leader within the field of scholarly development and academia can perceive this behaviour to be acceptable, even though it can be legally classified as stereotypical, part of hate speech, defamation, character assassination, as well as in direct conflict with human rights practices.
The practice of hostility and differentiation against people of other nationalities is xenophobia and, in this case, it may be particularly located within universities.
Universities, ideally, should be spaces where freedom of speech exists, articulated together with a clear differentiation between opinion, perception, scholarly empirical research and facts. All academics understand the differences within spaces of both written and spoken communication, and the impact of presenting inaccurate information without the necessary supporting research and statistics.
Professor Roy’s stance, as a representative of the Indian and global academic fraternity, is indeed harmful and disappointing. The impact is greater because of her leadership role at Wits, as well as her position as an international academic located within the Global South.
It depicts a picture of digression rather than progression in relation to human dignity amidst Asian and African cultures. Hate speech such as this is often a primary reason why certain individuals, social groups and communities are excluded. It is exacerbated on mass media platforms, as these platforms often influence people, shape their thinking and erode normative practices.
These platforms are globally accessible, which increases the visibility and seriousness of such hate speech that has hurt many South Africans.
South Africa has enacted the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), commonly referred to as the Equality Act (Act 4 of 2000). Its purpose is to give effect to the equality clause in the Constitution (Section 9) and to minimise unfair discrimination in all its forms while addressing prejudice, racism and sexism.
It is concerning that a leader at Wits may not fully appreciate the extent of our laws, even though we have formalised processes in place to build social cohesion post-1994.
*The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper.*
DAILY NEWS