in Fiji?

Is There Room for Indians in Fiji?

A CORRESPONDENT who signs himself “Fiji- Born Indian,” writes about an article pub lished in this journal several months ago, wherein certain Fiji-Indians were referred to as “cheeky swine” and “mongrels”:— An Indian is never “ ‘cheeky’ to a ‘Sahib.’ ” Of a “Gora,” the average Indian does not take much notice, but if the “Gora” calls for “cheek” he probably gets it. As for the appellation “mon grel,” I will pass that over, as the vapouring of a diseased mind. I do not think your corres pondent meant the word in the dictionary mean ing.

Your remark, that we Indians will overwhelm and push our Fijian brethren out, is absurd and, to say the least of it, uncomplimentary to the Fijians.

How are we likely to overwhelm the Fijians?

There is so little of intermixing of blood between us that it is negligible.

How are we likely to push the Fijians out?

There is enough land lying idle in Fiji to absorb all the Indians and still there will be enough land left for the Fijians to expand in. Our lives and the Fijians’ lives run parallel and are not likely to cross for a very long time, if at all.

Your conception of the present-day Fijian is about 50 years behind the times. The Fijian re cognises the struggle for existence nowadays and is coming to the fore. I know Fijians who have well stocked stores and are carrying on success ful trading businesses. I know Fijians who are settled on their own bits of land and are raising stock and produce for the market.

If more room is needed for Fijians in Fiji then make it—but make it by getting rid of Asiatics who are not British subjects.

Your remark that the Fijians do not supply suitable labour for developmental enterprises is incorrect. Two big developmental enterprises that I know of—namely, the gold mines of Vanua Levu and Viti Levu—employ several hundreds of Fijians, to the complete exclusion of Indians. This seems to point to the fact that the Fijian is not as useless as you think he is.

The statement that “any more Indian publicity will spoil the well-earned reputation for fair deal ing, etc. ...” is not only illogical, but seems to have had its birth in a mind completely void of fair play. It is by publishing both sides of a question that you earn a reputation for fair deal ing.

It certainly is to be deplored that you only publish the abusive part of your correspondent s letter I wonder if you have made him the hap piest man in Fiji. If a letter is not worth pub lishing in its entirety, you should not go publish ing the nasty bits out of it. That sort of thing tends to widen the breach that we should ad fry to bridge.