Indians Claim Fijians As Their

‘Brothers’

Many Writers Seek Solution of Difficult Problem

From Our Own Correspondent

Suva. Nov. 18.

THE widely-publicised editorial in the October “PIM” (“No Little India Will Be Tolerated in the South Pacific”) has stirred up the commotion which is usually stirred up when someone steps on Indian political toes, asks pertinent ques-

tions, and says, frankly, what many people are thinking. It has also brought S£ l S Bl j& h gSS t ’ wh h h d Printed the article.

One or two points in the correspond ence are interesting. A European writer

(“O. Sagos”), for instance, seriously dis

cusses the Implications of the removal of the Indian population from Fiji, if such a course if feasible; and he suggests that it could very well be made feasible.

“In our hearts we know that any alternative could be only a makeshift, merely staving off the inevitable swamp ing,” he writes. “ . . We cannot change the Indian psychology; nothing will ever alter that.”

There would be dislocation, but it need not be crippling to the economy of Fiji, the writer continues. “For instance, the sugar industry at present is based on the principle of small holdings (for the most part) Indian tenants who farm with single-furrow ploughs and horses or bullocks. But, with modern methods of cultivation, areas of 200 to 500 acres could be economically farmed.

“For those operations where hand labour is still needed the Fijian people would have to play a part, and this brings up the crux of the matter. It would be for the Fijians to decide whether they were prepared to work for their heritage, or whether they would rather see it taken by others, as has already happened to a very considerable extent.

“In my opinion, the Fijians are per fectly capable of setting up an efficient labour organisation under Government supervision, just as they proved them selves to be superb soldiers, willingly sub mitting to Army discipline.”

Like many others, the writer agrees that things cannot be allowed to continue to drift. Since the 1946 census, he says two very common questions have been: ‘What will be the position in 50 years?”

“Where will it end?”

“The usual reply is a shrug of the shoulders and ‘God knows—at which juncture we hastily reassert that the paramountcy of Fijian interests will be preserved, come what may.”

Indian Retort

ON the other side, an Indian (J. M.

Christopher) writes: “Fiji is already the Little India of the Pacific, whether the ‘Pacific Islands Monthly’ likes it or not.” , .

Replying to arguments raised in the editorial, Mr. Christopher makes these points: • Are permanent English residents in Australia regarded as traitors to their adopted country if they welcome a new United Kingdom Commissioner in Aus tralia? • Before Australian publications criticise the court figures in Fiji they might do something about cleaning up the Sydney underworld. • In Fiji, the big monopplies are in European (including Australian) hands, while many Indian and Fijian workers are hard put to it to meet the high cost of living. It is, therefore, inevitable that the European community should pay more in taxation than the Indians. • During the war, the Indians in Fiji did not enlist because they were not and still are not offered equal status with Europeans in all walks of life, whether military or civilian. • In some districts Indian children have no alternative to Christian mission schools. What about Roman Catholic children attending Protestant schools, and vice versa? Are such children com pelled to change their religion? • There are a number of Indian nurses in some hospitals, but the reason why they are so few is that Indians are not given the same opportunities as Euro- Pe * n ft was neither the Fijians nor the Europeans who turned Fiji from bush land into a land of milk and honey; but for the Indians. Fiji to-day would be like New Guinea. Therefore, it was logical for New Delhi to send a commissioner as

soon as India had “broken away from the shackles of Imperialism,” and the Indians have every right to cry ever more loudly for a large share in the administration of the Colony.” • As for the Fijians, the European “trustees” do not appear to do much for them beyond making promises on paper, The Indians have a great respect for the Fijian race, and have no expansionist designs against anyone.

“Our Brothers And Our

Country”

QOMEONE signing himself Fiji-Born O Indian” makes these statements in “Oceania Daily News”:- “We have, to a large extent, adapted ourselves politically, educationally and socially to the conditions prevalent in the Colony. We associate with the Fijians friendly, more freely, and wilfully than

Mr. Robson thinks we do. I am afraid he is not well informed.

“The entire population has reached a stage where we can see beyond, and the time is not far when our joint efforts will secure us things that Mr. Robson and his like would rather withhold from us.

We regard the indigenous population as our brothers and their country as our country, and we will ask Mr. Robson to let us alone, inasmuch as our policy to day is ‘Let the dogs bark.’ ’’

Editorial Note

The TIM’ Is Not ‘Anti-Indian’

A GREAT deal of material has come in by mail, dealing with this Indian situation in Fiji, and our October article. Much of it is anti-Indian; much expresses, rather furiously, the Indian point of view. We have not space for all of it.

We dealt with the situation, frankly, and we believe truthfully, in October.

We do not propose to recapitulate. We have printed the foregoing article just as we received it from Suva, because therein an- attempt is made to present the Indian viewpoint; and, under the con ditions of our Western civilisation, the Indian is entitled to express his opinion in this free newspaper.

The arguments of the Indians can be effectively answered; but that may be left for another occasion.

WE should like to say, however, that the attitude of the “Pacific Islands Monthly” is not anti-Indian. Only an ignoramus or a fool would merit such a description.

The history and culture of India—or, should we say, of the best of the races on the Indian sub-continent —give the Indians a place in human affairs which is just as high and as honourable as that of any European race. A cultured Indian quite properly ranks equally with a cul tured European—or a cultured Fijian.

Any distinction or discrimination as be tween such individuals is merely silly.

But the “PIM” is definitely anti-Fiji Indian, insofar as the Fiji Indian wants to control the Fijian race, with a view to imposing the ideas and culture of India upon it.

Because of circumstances which Europeans could not control, and con ditions which we may not discuss here, the Fijian race was obliged to abandon the culture and living standards of ancient Oceania, and adapt itself to something different. For half a century, or more that adaptation was a sort of hit-and-miss affair, of little benefit to the Fijians or anyone else; but, for the last fifty years, it has been under the intelligent direction and control of Europeans, and the Fijians have been launched upon a sociological and cultural change which is calculated to take care of their national future, and from which they already have benefited much.

Already, in the councils of the Colony, there have appeared native Fijians who rank ill ability, statesmanship and ideals with the Europeans, and who have gained, on their own merits, the good will and respect of the Europeans. If the policy inaugurated and the processes launched fifty years ago are not inter fered with, there is nothing to prevent the Fijian people, in due course, taking administrative control of Fiji.

BUT there now enters into the picture the people of India, demanding— with an impertinence that is very hard to bear— co-trusteeship with the

(Continued on Page 70)

British in the government of Fiji. The British insistence that the Indian justify himself before he makes such a demand has nothing to do with racial distinc tions.

The Indian can share with the British the responsibility for Fiji only if he can (a) abandon entirely the ideas and in hibitions of Mother India, by which scores of millions of people are shackled and destroyed; (b) accept the ideal of a clean, free young nation in the South Seas, in which the fundamental rights of the indigenous people shall be acknowledged and protected; and (c) disclose that ad ministrative ability that is essential if the Fijian is to be assisted to take his rightful place in his own country.

It is that last proviso, above all, which defeats the Indians’ ambitions. There is nothing in the recent history of India which suggests that the Indians can be entrusted with the government of a race like the Fijians. The recent history of the British Empire contains many ex amples to show that the British, especi ally, are equipped to assist the Fijians to independent nationhood.

The Indians are intruders in Fiji. That fact might had been overlooked if, in Fiji, they had subscribed to the ideals of good citizenship, entered fully into this new life, and gradually grown away from their Asiatic associations. They have not done that.

In 1942-43, they had a unique opportunity of standing beside the British and Fijians in defence of Fiji, and thus earn ing an unchallengeable place in the future life of Fiji. They did nothing—except, it is strongly suspected, pray heartily for the success of the Japanese. That was

hoots.

their great chance; and they forfeited it, and with it any right to ask for any share .in Britain’s Fijian trustee-ship.

That is why the “PIM” is anti-Fiji Indian. We cannot forget the Fiji Indian’s shameful record in 1942-43.

THE solution of the Indian problem in Fiji will come when the anti-British Indian lawyers and the mischief making Indian political opportunists take themselves (or are kicked) out of Fiji; when the Fiji-Indians are sufficiently freed from their overseas associations to allow them to grow up and develop natur ally as the decent, kindly people they are, at heart; and when the British, as the trustees of Fijian freedom and security, are satisfied that the Fijians will not be injured by conceding greater authority to the Indians.

Until “then the Indians, as the intruders in Fiji, will retain their present status. If they do not like it, there is nothing to prevent their return to India. The wel fare of the Fijian is the paramount con sideration. As against that, the status of the Fiji Indian does not matter two

R. W. Robson.