Fiji

Why Franchise Was Withdrawn In

Two Angles of an Extraordinary Racial Problem

Letter to the Editor.

ABOUT 1921, after the deportation of the Sadhu Basist Mani and the return of the Bau and Tailevu Special Fijian Constables to their homes, when the Indian Franchise question first loomed on the political horizon of Fiji, a letter was written to the Hoko Tui Tailevu as follows; “The beginning of next year, with the arrived of the Commission from India, will bring up many serious questions affecting the future of the Fijian and his country.

“The main thing you and the other high chiefs orf Fiji will have to be on your guard against, will be the flattering wiles, which undoubtedly these Orientals will pour into your ears, of equal status with the Europeans, equal franchise rights, the joint demand by Indians and Fijians for and the inevitable granting of them by the Colonial Office, if the Fijians are foolish enough to

be caught by these glittering baits. They will leave no stone unturned to get you to unite with them in these demands, so that later on they may rule you and your country by their increased numbers. You have only to refer to the last census papers to find out how long this would be in coming about. They are increasing by leaps and bounds while the Fijians are almost stationary.

“There can be no doubt, that the franchise, and equal status with the Europeans, would spell the absolute end of the power of the Chiefs in Fiji.

This is most undesirable. The Fijian race, for many years to come, must be ruled through the far Chiefs and by their Chiefs for their own good.

“From an educational point of view, they have a prior right to the franchise, as nearly all Fijians to-day, thanks to the Missions and Govemnjent, can read and write their own language, while of these aliens, who are only lip-loyal British subjects (the recent strikes and disturbances, caused by the Manila! and the Sadhu, must have plainly shown us all this) not more than 10 pier cent, can read and write their own language. If the Fijilans are not ready for the franchise, then the Indian in Fiji is still less so, and you must make it plain in no uncertain voice, that you, the owners of the country, will not tolerate any franchise to the alien Asiatic, British subject or not, which would give him an equal voice with your own in the Councils of the Government of this Colony.

The British Government cannot treat the ‘deed of cession’ as a ‘scrap of paper,’ They took over this Colony from your forefathers in order that you might all enjoy the benefits of British ride and practically to hand it over to India which the granting of the franchise and equal status would do in a very short time, would be a gross betrayed of tjheir trust. The great danger for you all, is that the Fijians might be caught with the idea of obtaining self-government by uniting with the Indians, in their demand for equal status and the franchise. This would be fatal folly, and you Chiefs in your wisdom must look further ahead than the immediate present. You must think first of the future of your fine race.

“For the sake of a temporary measure of self- Government, to hand them over to the final domi nation of an alien people, who only came to the Colony as labourers and have not advanced as a whole any further, would be racial suicide.

“There can be no doubt els to Mr. Sastri’s line of action. He has already assumed that you are ail with him and his people in the demand for the franchise and equal status. He will go on assum ing this, until people believe it is a fact, unless you very emphatically and unitedly show him that the Fijian Chiefs and people have no intention whatever of supporting, and will in fact oppose to their utmost, any form of franchise, which would now or later on, give the Indians the controlling voice in the affairs of this Colony through their numerical strength. A franchise which would give them representation in the Council, limited always to a smaller number than your own representa tives, is the utmost you can concede or agree to the Government conceding to these people. Any thing further would endanger the Fijians’ birth right and heritage and you must not allow yourselves or your people to be allured by pro mises, offers, or anything, over the boundary of safety.

“Your best plan of action would be to consult with the Chiefs whom you know that you can rely upon and trust. Place the matter clearly before them, as I hope I have placed fat before you, and then, through them and the native officials and missionaries, endeavour to permeate the whole of the Fijian race with the fixed idea that the grant ing of the franchise and equal status to the Indians in Fiji, would mean the ultimate loss of their lands and rights and later their final ex tinction from the face of the earth.

“I have no doubt whatever upon these points, otherwise I would not write so strongly to you.

You will, of course, remember how the Fijians were misled by Apolosi and his doctrines, prin cipally ‘Fiji for the Fijians.' This is a much more serious matter and would mean undoubtedly ‘Fiji for the Indians.’ The flowery language used (‘consolidation of the Empire,’ ‘mutual understand ing of the races,’ ‘equal status and rights for all subjects within the British Empire,’ &c., &c.) is

only a velvet covering for the steel claws under neath, waiting for the opportunity to grab as much as they can, cling to it tenaciously, and finally control the whole of any portion of the earth in which they have settled themselves.”

Eventually, in 1922, the Commission arrived and received a rather mixed re ception. Mr. Sastri did not come until much later on, but his views on the ques tion had already preceded him, and por tions of a letter reporting the Commis sion’s activities will show the develop ment of matters up to that date.

Commission Of 1922

The Commission found on their arrival that there was strong opposition through out the Colony to the granting of the franchise and equal status, and that the native owners were absolutely opposed to any scheme of Indian settlement, which would alienate native land under govern ment control.

When the members of the Commission saw the good terms offered by the Fijian Government there can be no doubt that they decided to make the franchise and equal status the base from which the other terms should be discussed. Mr.

Sastri’s utterances had made it quite clear that the political side of the question was paramount, even to the extent of assum ing that the Fijian natives were with the Indians in their demand for the franchise, and “that the British Government would not be turned aside from its purpose by the wishes of 5000 whites, against the wishes of 90,000 natives and 70,000 Indians.”

As for supplying labour to the Colony to carry on its industries, that was their last consideration. The two questions, economic and political, must be considered and settled quite separately, to give any satisfaction at all. The members of the Commission all insisted that each be con tingent on the other and, as soon as they found their political demands were un

likely to be fully acceded to, they imme diately lost all interest in the economic portion; so much so that they did not visit Ba, which was the centre of indus trial disturbance and economic trouble, and only made a most perfunctory examination of the conditions existing on the side of the Island on which the majority of Indian labourers were em ployed. It was evidently their intention to report Fiji as unsuitable for further immigration and give as a reason the inability of the main industry to pay what they consider a fair living wage—the real reason would be the non-attainment of their full political aims.

I do not think the Colonial Office is fully cognizant of what is at the back of all this political agitation and cry for equal rights for all British Subjects, together with the full franchise, in all Colonies where Indians have settled. How ever much the different parties may diverge on other matters, they all seem to be pretty solid and unanimous on these points, which make it obvious that they are all out to grab as much of the British Colonial Empire as possible for the ulti mate sole use and benefit of their own people.

The anxiety to impress upon everybody that, having received the franchise in India, it is only logical to expect it to be extended to all parts of the Empire, is to me camouflage, to cover their own know ledge of a serious flaw in the validity of their claims. They are endeavouring to “force the application of a general prin ciple,” without any consideration of local conditions, or the rights of other com munities. With the knowledge that the granting of the franchise would mean the ruling by the majority, they are leaving no stone unturned anywhere to attain their end. A portion of our Colonial Empire is threatened with a much greater danger than the German peaceful penetra tion ever was to us.

Elections By Default

Some time elapsed before the Constitu tion was altered to allow the Indians a limited franchise, to elect three of their own members to the Legislative Council —a number equal to the native nominated representatives, so, really, more than they were entitled to.

At the first meeting in 1929 they loudly voiced their discontent and demanded at once the Common Electoral Roll. When they were told plainly that their demands would not be acceded to, following the non-co-operation movement then in vogue in India, they walked out of the Council and refused to take part in any of the proceedings.

At the next election, in 1932, they were so much interested in their “electoral rights” that they did not nominate anyone in one constituency, and allowed two others to go in unopposed, expecting them to refuse co-operation, when the demand for the common electoral roll was again turned down by the Council.

All sorts of threats, even of personal violence, were made against the members who decided to retain their seats and work for their constituents in the Coun cil; and, when the§e members realised that another election would mean the

(Continued On Page 65)

return of the political agitators to the Council, leaving the minority sections of the community without any representa tion at all, they decided to support the move for a return to the nominative system.

Incidentally, the European community also were “so keenly interested in their electoral rights” that they allowed all the members of the Council to be returned unopposed, in spite of the fact “that a return to the nominated system would be preferable to a continuance of the elec toral, with the danger of a common roll always looming in the near future,” had been agreed to by practically all the elected members of the European com munity.

During the last two Or three years, feel ings have changed considerably in the minority sections of the Indian com munity. Mahommedans, Madrassis and others have realised that it would not be to their best advantage to be governed by a majority of Hindus and Ayra Samajists, and now would prefer to return to the nominative system and trust to the government to give them a fair repre sentation in the Council.

The agitators and Common Roll sup porters also realise that their non-co operation was an error and are now screaming for the retention of the elective rights which they ignored in the last election.

Unfortunately, a number of Europeans are doing exactly the same thing, regard less of what the ultimate result of their

protests may be. Reference to the “common roll bogey” is frequently made, and a lot of hot air blown off, about “retaining our elective rights given to us in 1902 by the Secretary of State and fighting for them to the last ditch,” etc.

The common roll is no “bogey”—it is a sinister and definite menace, especially to the European community, which is only too lucky to be given the chance of reverting to the nominated system again.

The case is clearly one in which we must he prepared to sacrifice our rights in order to do our duty—a duty we owe to our rising generation and those who follow, if we wish to keep up the status and prestige of the British race.

Under The Surface

At present the Fijians are quiescent, but quite determined that the elected or nominated Indian members of the Council shall have no say whatever in native matters, as their motion passed in the Council of Chiefs os Bose vaka taraga very forcibly indicates.

There is, however, a possibility always of another “Apolosi” appearing upon the scene and advocating a united appeal with the Indian community for a common roll and self-government, in order to undermine or destroy the power of the Chiefs.

There are many pernicious influences at work to cause unrest and disaffection amongst the natives, but it is only when a case comes before the Courts and a convic t ion is secured that we observe the undercurrents which are disturbing the even tenor of the native communitv life.

W e must remember that the first matter which brought up the franchise question in J? 21 . , was . Purely a local one, viz., the continuity of a labour supply to carry on the industries of the Colony. th- To-day it is associated with the prob- In'? 8 i a -™ b J ect of much greater magnitude, viz., the passing of a measure for a

form of self-government for India. Con sequently, the pressure from India through the Indian Office upon the Colonial Office is infinitely greater, and we are very lucky indeed to have the chance offered to us, of a return to the nominative system. It will not occur again if we turn it down this time, and we shall have to abide by the results of our choice if we are foolish enough to insist on regaining the elective system, which can only lead to “common roll,” followed by domination by the Indian sec tion of the residents in these islands.

There is no middle way. j am e^-c ’

Old Settler.

Suva, April 10, 1936.