Future Of Fijian

Lands

Re-Statement of British Pledge

SUVA, April 27.

TN the days of political disturb i ances and non-co-operation in Western Samoa (more than 25 jears ago) the Samoan nationalist irganisation adopted the motto Samoa mo Samoa” (Samoa for the ;amoans). Since peace returned to Vestern Samoa, the NZ Govern ment has implemented the slogan :d the point where the trusteeship srritory is near complete self-gov irnment.

The independent Kingdom of 'onga is emphatically all-Tongan.

“Fiji for the Fijians,” however, ; not a current slogan. The question If whether it may become one has ieen raised lately.

The latest faint murmur (from luropean sources) has risen from -of all things—a passage in the sport of the 1953 Economic Review Jommittee. It has come down with solid reaffirmation of the sanctity f the Fijian land reserves.

It points out that in 1938 the 'ijians, “by a generous and far ighted act which must forever band to their credit,” agreed that sserves should be set aside for leir present and future needs and lat the rest of their land should e made available to the Native and Trust Board for leasing.

The reserved land, the report con jures, is the inalienable property f the Fijians, and “in making any jcommendation to the Fijians we salise that this is their country, rat the land has been guaranteed ) them by the most solemn and revocable undertakings, and that e can only advise and exhort lem.”

The Fijians’ greatest protection >r the future, the report states, vill be full and adequate use of le land they have.” It also men ons that “it is a fact of history rat land not used becomes land rveted, and land coveted leads to scontent and strife.”

JO one is likely to quarrel with “ such pronouncements. But the question may well be asked why is necessary for the indigenous ;ople’s rights to be stated and re ated so often.

In 1949, the former Governor (Sir rian Freeston) told the Legis tive Council that there can be no ting back on history and no icroachment, by legislative or her changes, on the principle that .jian land belongs to the Fijians, id will not be taken from them, bat was clear enough, and the iteration of the solemn pledge evitably leads to speculation. Why

must it be emphasised so carefully and so frequently?

The delicately-implied warning to use the land or somebody else might grab it (meaning the land in the demarcated Fijian reserves) in spires a degree of exasperation.

Imagine such a thing being hinted at in the case of the touchy and politically-conscious people of the African and Eastern colonies! With the example of the Indians, who told the British to “quit India,” and of the British, who obligingly did so, in front of them, who could blame the Fijians if they started thinking along the lines of Fiji for the Fijians?

As for the use of their lands, some people think that the Fijians, in

spite of heavy obstacles, are doing a remarkably good job, and the bulging coffers of the Fijian Develop ment Fund is partial proof of it, (The fund is being built up from levies of £lO a ton on Fijian-pro duced copra, to which in the near future may be added parallel levies on bananas, yaqona (kava) and other profitable products).

Finally, the report makes no mention of the drain on the Fijian population (total 135,000) repre sented by the withdrawal of many hundreds of the finest young Fijians for Army service at home and over seas, in addition to those drawn into the police, the shipping ser vices, mining and urban industry, and Government service. Only a

uandful, if any, of these young men .ire available for food-growing and export crop cultivation.

It has been suggested that the west answer to warnings and ex portations might be an all-out Fijian •»ack-to-the-land movement. And where would Fiji’s industries be (hen?