Policy Forecast?
pp. 5-6 · Read in the full issue
The Indians in Fiji—ls Reversal of Government Policy Forecast?
AFTER a decade of nominated Municipal Councils, the Government of Fiji proposes to wipe out the system introduced in 1936, and to elect the governing bodies of the towns on popular franchise. This may indicate a return, in due course, to popular government in the Colony generally. If the principle is good for the towns of Suva and Lautoka, it should be good for the whole of Fiji.
Our correspondent, reporting the new development, expresses the opinion that, “except among the old die-hards, there is nothing either to fear or worry about.” We hope he is right. But if the memories of the “old die-hards” take in the events of the quarter-century which preceded the introduction of the present system, in 1936, they have cause for all the trepidation which they may feel, This writer has a clear recollection of a long conversation with Sir Murchison Fletcher, in 1936. That far-seeing Governor of Fiji did not wipe out the remnants of democratic government there because he was a conservative “die-hard.” He was a clear-thinking man of liberal ideas; and, after struggling with his peculiar problems for years, he realised that if Fiji’s most cherished democratic institutions were not to be swamped by the jealous and clamorous Indian vote, his only course was to revert entirely to the nominative system.
It looked like a retrograde step, even then. Now, in the view of the young Europeans who have reached
voting age since 1936, it definitely was a retrograde step.
Nevertheless, in the face of ail the circumstances as we knew them prior to 1936, the Governor took the only course possible. Led by professional agitators, the Indian community had made life a misery to the Government. The basis of all Fiji Indian policy was their demand for the “common roll”—demand for official acknowledgment that an Indian was equal in all respects to a European, and that his vote should have the same weight.
However delightful in theory this may be, the British could not accept it in practice in Fiji, where the first duty placed upon the British Adminis tration is the fullest protection of the fundamental rights of the indigenous people, as defined in the terms of Cession. The Government put an end to it by making the whole system nominative.
Compared with the 1926-36 period, the decade since then has been a period of peace and tranquillity— except, maybe, that the shrill pro tests of the Indian leaders have been replaced, to a degree, by the more lusty arguments of the European Electors’ Association.
Certain evils were expected to follow the change in 1936; and, ac cording to our correspondent, those evils have developed, full-feathered and capable of much mischief. So, as memories of 1926-36 conditions
faded, there has grown up a demand by Europeans for a larger voice in the government of the Colony. To-day, the Fiji Qovernment, responsive to Whitehall (which is especially sensi tive at present on the subject of democratic institutions and racial liberty) is giving ear to the Euro peans’ demands. The pendulum swings again.
HOWEVER, there is no need for alarm. The plan, presumably, is to liberalise the system in relation to the government of towns. If it works satisfactorily, well and good. But if the Indians, as expected, take con trol of the towns, and display racial bias, then the warning may be taken, and there will be no change in the major administrative system affecting the Colony as a whole. It will be an interesting experiment.
Our Suva correspondent, represent ing youth and optimism, says of the Indian voter: “He will be as keen as any European in getting the best town Council he can, irrespective of race.” We hope so—but we do not believe it. We have a long memory of Fijian politics, and a knowledge of Indian ways and opinions, gained in various places where Indian com munities have established them selves.
The Indian character does not change in a decade or two. The in dividual Indian may be—and fre auently is—an intelligent and charm ing person. The probity and industry of certain Indians in Suva have done much to strengthen the economic structure of the whole Colony. But the dominant sentiments of the
Indian community of Fiji—estab lished there by accident, in defiance of good sense, and as a menace to the welfare of the Fijian race—are re sentment of the power and influence of the Europeans, and hunger for land. We dare not forget that fact— just as we may not forget the terri fying fecundity of the Indian.
There are less than 10,000 Euro peans in Fiji. There are 120,000 Indians there; and already the Fijians, in spite of their physical health and fine spirit, are being out bred and out-numbered by the Indians. In these circumstances, we British realise that there is no future for our race in Fiji; but that does not in any degree absolve us from our re sponsibilities there. We agreed, in 1874, that the care and protection of the Fijian people, and the security of their land rights, should be our obligation for all time. We, and not the Fijians, introduced to Fiji the restless and land-hungry Indians.
Similarly, but in a much lesser degree, the care and protection of the Indians are our responsibility. We have clear-cut obligations there, too, from which we may not escape.
WE may not forget the events of World War 11, in which our existence as a nation was at stake.
The Fijians, to a man, rallied to the help of the hard-pressed British. As soldiers and as labourers, they rendered distinguished service. In the Solomons and in Bougainville there was established, between British and Fijians, a blood brotherhood we never shall forget. The Indian community, on the other hand, was sour and un co-operative. By comparison, the war effort of the Fiji Indians was un inspiring—in fact, it should be for gotten—except at a time like this, when the future of Fiji is under con sideration.
The events of 1939-45 may regulate Fiji policy for a long time to come.
It is far too soon to give the Indian much share in the Government of Fiji. Politically and psychologically, he still is far too much under the influence of Mother India. But we must accept facts. Eventually, by sheer weight of numbers, the Indians will rule Fiji.
It is the duty of the British, while ensuring the progress and security of the Fijian race, to prepare the Indian for his future responsibility. That can be done only by properly edu cating and training the future generations of Fiji Indians. Indians who are deeply attached to Mother India are of no use in the Pacific Islands. But Indians who, for two or three generations, have been divorced from Asia might be entrusted with administrative responsibility.
French Colonial Administrator Nouvel de la Fleche, who was Governor Pelicier’s Chef de Cabinet in 1940 just prior to the arrival from Vila of Governor Sautot, and who later refused to rally to General de Gaulle, preferring to sail for Indo-China by the “Pierre Loti,” has been removed from the roll of French Administrators.