Fijian Leader

'We Fijians Fear Indianisation'

Indians Rebuffed After Frank Speech By Famous Fijian Leader

Suva. Dec. 2.

A SERIES of the hardest rebuffs ever re ceived by Indian politicians in the Legislative Council of Fiji in a single session fell on the live Indian members during the recent protracted Budget sit ting.

It is hard to say just where the Indians overstepped the line. But, wherever it was, a more important fact was that the Indians, even more confidently clamorous than usual, seemed to ignore the exist ence of such a line and ran into trouble almost as soon as the adjourned debate on the Appropriation Bill was resumed.

Outside the Council, Indian political circles have made no bones about laying the blame for what they appear to regard as a disaster at the door of the press; and the virulence of the attacks on the “Fiji Times” in at least one Indian publi cation has been astonishing.

Certainly, the diminutive “Fiji Times” had the temerity to denounce (by implica tion —not editorially) what had been generally accepted as a more or less in advertent Indian statement of an Indian plan that, at some unspecified date, there should be absolute Indian domination of Fiji, under some form of control called “self-government.”

That Indian trouble-makers cherish this ambition has been common knowledge for years. But it has never before been ack nowledged; and the fact that it has now come out in black and white seems to have enraged certain sections far more than the fact that they have been unable to deny one word of the presentation of the Indians’ various ambitions in the “Fiji Times,”

Indian “Requirements”

I ATE in November, on the second day i of the resumed sitting, the “Fiji Times” printed the following under the headlines, “Amazing List of Indians’

Requirements in Colony”; To help in “moulding the destiny of Fiji,” the Indians want: Hundreds of schools; Hundreds of teachers; Fertile land (because the Indian agita tion which led to the demarcation of re serves has not, apparently, worked out entirely to Indian plans); Drastic cuts (if not elimination) of “iniquitious” taxation of Indians; Advances to operate Indian farms.

Reduction (at least) of various Indian trading licence fees (tailors, jewellers, etc.); “Opening up” of the Civil Service; End of “European monopoly” in the

higher gosts;

End of “racial discrimination” (not liquor this time —Civil Service again); End of Civil Service “imnorts”—de scribed as “raw recruits” —from New Zealand and Australia.

Stirring-up of Agricultural Department: Scrapping of parts of the Education Plan (backed by many Indians last year); More scholarships (for non-Europeans, but with emphasis on Indian needs); Universal suffrage (male and female); Civil Service salary cuts (affecting only salaries over £5OO a year); Indian (and Fijian) police officers in the higher police posts; and, lastly, Implementation of Great Britain’s stated aim of bringing Colonial territories along the road to self-government—but not, of course Fijian self-Government based on Fiji for the Fijians. (One of the main reasons for the demand for schools and teachers was admittedly the need for

equipping Indians for “self-government” in Fiji.) These demands, statements or sugges tions have been made in the- Legislative Council by Indian members in the last two days.

There was nothing particularly sensa tional —as journalism goes to-day—in either the story or the presentation, but the public reaction was marked. It was felt that the time had arrived for a political show-down with the Indian com munity,

Indian Hopes In Fiji.

ON the following day, in the Legislative Council, an historic speech was made by Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna, who is not only the most distinguished living Fijian, but is probably also the one man in Fiji’s four large communities who at tains the status of a statesman, accord ing to British standards.

It should be explained, as background to Sir Lala’s speech, that a number of Indians in Fiji, and Fiji Indians overseas, are insisting that they are “Fijians.” The claim is treated by native Fijians with quiet contempt—the Fijians know that behind it is the Indians’ ceaseless hope that they will some day be allowed by the British to rule Fiji. Europeans similarly reject the claim because they suspect that the Indians —especially those who are residing temporarily in New Zealand —are trying to cash in on the fine war record of the Fijian people, and the popularity in New Zealand of Fijian servicemen.

Sir Lala’s speech was preceded by one by the Indian representative, Mr. A. D.

Patel. As usual, Mr. Patel bewailed the plight of the Indians—including a section

of the traders who made fortunes during the war —and when he blandly demanded

the “Fiiianisation” of the Public Service, no one was misled

Straight Speaking.

SIR Lala opened quietly, and discussed annarentlv trivial things He made Mr Patel’s sneech the keynote of whnt h’p had to sav but his mind probably was influenced by the “Fiji Times” article. .“The Fijians fear Indlanisation.” said Sir Lala. “This word ‘Fiiianisation al^dianisati(m^ofl^l^l<^ndJ t DeDartment of the Education Department, and of other departments lock stock and barrel” aepartmenl:s ’ 10CK ’ SLOCK ana The' British pattern, made up of cooperation moderation and tolerance, had been proved to be the only effective pattern for inter-racial relationships, Sir Lala continued. “Because co-operation. moderation and tolerance are lacking in the Indians we oppose a policy of sharing schools’ with Indians. The Fijians fear Indlanisation—and the record of events leading to the establishment of the Dominions of India and Pakistan does not encourage a growth of confidence.

“The Fijians fear the Indians for this reason- the Indians possess an ancient culture of which they are proud and from which they have no intention of departing “I expected the Indian member for the North-Western Division (Mr. Patel) to say that he had no objection to men brought up in other world-cultures taking a hand in the education of Indian youth, but he did not. Yet in this small country irrevocable harm is done by the system of watertight cultural compartments.

British Pattern

“/CHRISTIANS could gain something V; from the Indians, and the Indians could gain something from the Europeans in an approach based on the

humanities linked with Christianity—an approach which has proved itself, especi ally in the case of the British pattern, as the only effective approach.

“The political approach of the Indian members in the last two years has con sistently disregarded European interests although, by the Deed of Cession, the British are the hosts of the Fijians,” de- Glared Ratu Sir Lala. “The Indians have

w^osl

selves, whose landed interests were grantea Member for the Southern Division (Mr. Vishnu Deo) had earlier objected strenuously to a statement made by Ratu E. N. Mataitini: “If the Indians don’t like Fiji, they can pack up and get back to India.”

Referring to this, Sir Lala said that Ratu Etuate had a recollection of the cry of “Quit India!” which, directed at the British, was heard throughout India in 1942. References to the title Defender of the Faith borne by his Majesty the King recalled the further fact that in 1942 the King was told by Indians to “pack up.”

Mr. Patel, said Ratu Sir Lala, had made much capital out of alleged inconveni ences inflicted on Indian farmers by the granting of temporary land-licences to tide over a period of transition.

“I must again explain that during the war years, when every one of us here was doing war service, and when the Fijian owners of the land were also doing war service, demarcation was not practic able,” he said. “When peace came, it was still not possible. Men had to be rehabilitated and officials whose leave was long overdue had to take leave.

“I should be happy,” Sir Lala con tinned, “if the Indian members could re member that because of the lack of funds and because of certain weaknesses in the Fijian social system—which we are doing our best to overcome—it will take years

for the Fijians to catch up even with the Indian standard of agriculture.

“So this cannot be made an excuse for taking away native lands.

“if the paramountcy of Fijian interests —to which this Council has subscribed— means anything at all, the Fijians have the right to demand time in which to change their way of life.”

Set-Back For Indian Politicians

FOLLOWING upon this, there were re ... dpvplonmpnts in n political sense, the Indians have taken a bad thrashing, The Fijians m the Council have de manded the complete stopping of Indian migration to Fiji (still going on whenever a ship comes direct) and the Europeans have backed them at every move, The Indians have lost every point they have fought for including the Immigra tion Bill, which they and the Indian Chamber of Commerce tried to block by secret appeals to Delhi, New York and London. ...

The story of the appeals was published in the local news; and then, in Council, Sir Hugh Ragg pushed Mr. Vishnu Deo into a corner where he had to admit that the newspaper account was right, The Indians were then told (by way of Sir Hugh) that no outside nation or combination of nations was going to over ride the Fiji and Imperial Governments.

Then the Liquor Bill (designed to give the Indians something like European Status) was torn to shreds by the Euro peans and Fijians, and will now go to a Select Committee—one of the hardest anti-Indian knocks on record, As this was the last of the major Bills, the Indian members, for this session, have now lost their last trump card.

Fiji-born Indians are already writing letters to the press strenuously dissociat ing themselves from their members’ blunders.