Prickly Character Of Fiji’S Indian Problem

Leading Residents Hesitate to Speak Freely

Prom Our Own Correspondent

SUVA, July 21 SOME unpleasant things about the Indian Community in Fiji were said in the New Zealand Parliament in mid-July, when South Pacific Commission matters were under dis cussion.

A Government supporter, Mr. H.

Dudfield, reminded the House that Fiji was within the South Pacific defence area for which New Zealand is responsible; that the extraordinary way in which the Indians have out bred the Fijians was clearly a threat to Pacific peace; and therefore NZ should concern itself with the Fijian population problem.

He declared that while the loyalty of the Fijians to the British flag was never in doubt, the same could not be said for the Indians. The Indians —“the cuckoos in the nest”—were simply biding their time, believing that, by weight of numbers, they presently would be able to absorb and dominate the Fijian population.

WHEN Fiji’s Indian problem thus boiled over in the New Zealand Parliament, the New Zea land Press Association cabled to a representative in Fiji for detailed “reaction” information from Suva.

In effect, what was wanted was authoritative comment with the names of the people who made the comment.

After rounding up Government officials, memers of the Legislative Council, churchmen, and responsible private folk—Europeans, Fijians and Indians—the NZPA representative had reams of comment, ranging from the diplomatic to the volcanic; but not one of the score of persons ap proached would permit his or her name to be published along with his or her comments.

This insistence on anonymity is a very significant thing. Nothing could illustrate more clearly the stickiness of Fiji’s predicament, or the precariousness of its inter-racial balance. Responsible people are afraid of becoming involved in a situation dominated by racial hates.

The Colony’s leaders in various spheres were willing to give their views on the Indian problem, but only as anonymous individuals.

Those opinions showed over whelming European and Fijian sup port for New Zealand’s doubts about Fiji-Indian loyalty. Time has not dimmed the resentment caused by

Indian disloyalty and sabotage in the war, and it is held that there is no proof of Indian change of heart in the event of a future conflict.

The Indians retort that bygones should be bygones and that nobody has the right to allege that to-day they are anything but “loyal British subjects.”

Most of the Europeans consulted referred to Mr. A. A. Ragg’s gradual Indian repatriation plan outlined in the June PIM. The consensus of opinion was that although London

was unlikely to adopt any scheme of the sort (with or without Indian agreement), Mr. Ragg deserved top marks for being the first responsible person to have the courage to deal with plain facts.

Indians, on the other hand, re garded Mr. Ragg’s plan as another unforgivable affront, to be resisted to the last ditch if anybody should back it up. No Indian offers any possible

solution to Fiji’s nightmare of Indian over-population, or attempts to ex plain how Britain is to honour her pledges to the Fijians if the Fijians are finally swamped by the Indian

birth rate.

One way and another, Fiji’s Indian problem seems insoluble. And to leave it at that implies acceptance of inevitable tragedy.