The Fijians Have Opposed the Indian Invasion For Sixty Years

Sixty Years

From a Special Correspondent

Suva, Oct. 23.

rrtHE frequent “PIM” reiteration of the x demand for something to be dpne about the increasing threat of Indian domination in Fiji, with all that that

would mean in N the South Pacific, obviously finds ready support in a majority of the non-Asiatic communities. But. as this journal has also pointed out, the first question is: What can be done?

Europeans in Fiji have repeatedly told the Fijians that it is the Fijians who must make the first move. Why, they ask, did the Fijians not protest in the years before the situation reached its present critical stage?

The answer to this is easy. As long ago as 1938 the Fijians were protesting against the Indian influx.

The First Shiploads

Under the indenture system, shiploads of Indians began arriving in Fiji in 1879, and by 1900 there were 15,000 of them in the Colony. Those Indians were not dragged to Fiji as unwilling slaves— which is the propaganda line adopted by Indian politicians in Fiji to-day—but came voluntarily, with a Government guarantee of free passages back to India when their terms had expired.

That most of them did not choose to return to India, and that an enormous pioportion of those who returned screamed to be “re-patriated” to Fiji, does not sup port the “slavery” story.

In 1888, nine years after the first in troduction of Indians, the question of their continued introduction was raised in the Council of Chiefs by Jonacani, a Fijian Stipendiary Magistrate of Rewa.

The Governor of the day assured the council that there was no occasion for alarm, because Fijian interests would be safeguarded.

Fijian Statement

The Fijian resolution stated: “Although we do not wish to be inhospitable, we cannot help observing that their number is increasing and that they are becoming a source of annoyance to us by their thieving propensities and by their customs, which are entirely different from ours and are distasteful to us. Further more, some of us have been punished when deserters were found in our villages.

We have therefore weighed this matter carefully in our minds and have unanim ously agreed respectfully to ask your Ex cellency to explain to us the future posi tion of those who are likely to settle in the Colony.”

To this reasonable and far-sighted question the Governor’s reply was, inter alia: “The number of settling coolies is not likely to increase rapidly, and it is yet an open question whether they will settle in any number. . . As to the future position of those Indians who may settle in the country, it is this: They will either settle in towns like Suva and Levuka, as house servants or as gardeners, masons, road makers, petty storekeepers and so on; or they will rent land and settle in the country, out of towns. In this case they will probably live together in communities under control of the Government, like other people. ...

“There will be head men over them and officers appointed from among them, who will be' responsible for keeping order, and these head men and officers will be paid by their community.

“The Government will take care that they behave in an orderly and proper manner, neither injuring nor annoying the natives, but, it is hoped, being of use to them.”

Admirable And Fatuous

To-day, when more and more of Suva and other town property is passing into Indian hands, when a Commissioner of

the Government of “free” India is estab lished in the capital, and when Indians are in a numerical racial majority in the Colony, these admirable sentiments appear fatuous in the extreme.

Despite this Government assurance of 1888, by 1916, when the indenture system was wound up the Indian population of Fiji had increased to 60,000. To-day it is about 125,000.

Thq apprehension of the Council of Chiefs in 1888 was mentioned by Mr. A. A.

Ragg in the Deed of Cession debate in the Legislative Council in 1946.

In the same debate. Ratu George Toganivalu, a member of both councils, referred to the following resolution passed by the Council of Chiefs in 1933: ‘This council records its strong and unanimous opinion that Fiji, having been ceded to Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, her heirs and successors, the immigrant Indian popula tion should neither directly nor indirectly have any part in the control or direction of matters affecting the interests of the Fijian race.”

Ever-Growing Demands

In the course of his speech in the 1946 debate, Ratu George said: “It is evident that with the rapidly in creasing Indian population, their demand for land and more land, and the insistent cry for a wider franchise, for a form of Government based on the theory of political equality as between the Indian and the European, it is impossible to see how the Government is going to preserve the principle of trusteeship for the Fijian race and the security of native interests.”

Referring to the demarcation of Fijian land reserves—a process instituted as a result of ceaseless Indian political de mands—Ratu George said: “Will the Indians have sufficient land in the years to come? Reserves are no guarantee against future increases in population.

There again it is bound to be a clash be tween the Indian and the Fijian. . .

“It is quite true that the Indians have benefited the country economically,” he continued, “but has it done the Fijian any good? Where large rent payments are made, I find the standard of Fijian morale much lower than in places like Lau or Kadavu, where the influence of the Indian moneylender is not felt.”

Fijian View In 1948

To conclude this record, the following is quoted from the letter of a Fijian published in the “Fiji Times” on Oc tober 23, 1948—sixty years after the Coun cil of Chiefs had asked the first appre hensive question: “The Indians in Fiji will never come out in the open and co-operate in the progressive work of the Colony. They re vealed this lack of co-operation during the Second World War, when they refused pointblank to serve in the forces at the rates of pay then existing.”

Referring to an extremely controversial statement made by the new Indian Com missioner in a speech—that the Indians had come to Fiji and turned the virgin forest into a paradise—this Fijian says: “I challenge the Commissioner’s state ment. . . Do they refer to the sugarcane areas as the foundation for this claim?

If so, I say that it was due to the CSR Company, to which the Indians in Fiji owe so much and which the Indians stabbed in the back in 1944.”