Problem

Fiji’S Growing Population

Amie Ragg Renews Plea For Some Clear-Cut Official Policy

Letter To The Editor

LET me congratulate you on pub lishing (in June) the article by Mr. Shankar Pratap, giving the Indian point of view on Fiji’s population problem.

This is a splendid piece of special pleading; but it conveys to the superficial reader a picture in which the fundamentals of the problem are obscured by pleas based on emotional and economic grounds, and it highlights the subtlety of the Indian mind. The fundamental facts as I see them are:— (a) Fiji was ceded to Queen Vic toria unconditionally by the Fijian Chiefs and People by a Solemn Deed known as The Deed of Cession in which the Queen agreed to protect the Fijians with justice and generosity.

It is evident that, if the terms of The Deed of Cession are to be honoured, then no race—European, Indian, or otherwise—is entitled to supplant or dominate the Fijians.

The function of the Europeans is implicit in the terms of the “Deed” —viz., to give the Fijians an ordered and stable Government, and in the process to develop the Colony, edu cate and Christianise its aboriginal inhabitants—and in this function the Indians have no part.

Obviously, the Fijians, when sign ing The Deed of Cession, did not envisage that these functions were to be carried out by a people who, as far as they were concerned, did not exist, and who, in their then state, were little if any more civilised than the Fijians them selves. Their civilisation in Fiji has proceeded pari passu with that of the Fijians, and they have partici pated in the benefits accruing from the ordered and stable govern ment which we Britishers have brought into being, (b) At the time of Cession, India was a subject country under the Crown, and giving alle giance to the Queen. To-day, India is a foreign country in fact, though not in theory.

Further, there were no Indians in Fiji at the time of Cession consequently, they are not a party to the Deed, nor do they participate in its provisions.

The fndians are not and never rere British citizens (British sub sets, yes); and it is a striking ommentary on British rule in Fiji hat an immigrant race with a teraey inferior to that of the ijian has been granted by the Im enal Government greater political nvileges than the natives.

O In view of the fact that these

Islands were ceded to Her Sovereign Majesty the Queen of Britain, all British Citizens {not subjects, as the Indians were at the time of Cession ) are co-trustees with her Majesty, and are therefore in duty bound to protect and pre serve the racial and territorial integrity of the Fijians.

The fatal error made by the Im perial Government was to introduce aliens into the Colony without pro viding the safeguards necessary to implement the Deed of Cession.

This lack of foresight is not due in any way to the Indians who, like the Fijians, are the victims of con ditions due to our commercial greed.

Consequently, it is our duty (if the honour of our Queen, and that of ourselves is to be preserved) to solve the problem by doing justice to the Fijians in accordance with the provisions of The Deed of Ce ssion, and by giving sympathetic treatment to the Indians for the part they have played in the eco nomic development of the Colony

(d) There is nothing in The Deed of Cession which gives power to Her Majesty to do anything to impair the well-being of the Fijians in their homeland; and, as the Queen can do no wrong, her Ministers are constrained to act in accordance with that principle.

No right-thinking person would say that the Indians have not per formed a great work in helping to develop Fiji. But it must not be forgotten that the part they have played is only a fraction of the ef fort that was necessary to bring Fiji to what she is to-day.

Cotton, copra, sugar and other plantations were in being when the Indians arrived in Fiji, and in the year 1900 there were only 15,000 Indians in Fiji. Up to that date, the cutting down of our forests, clearing the land, the development of the plantations and the begin ning of our reading system were done by Fijian, Solomon, Tokelau and New Hebridean labour, so that the extravagant claims that the In dians make, that they transformed Fiji from a wilderness into an earthly paradise, is unadulterated hyperbole. (e) The Indians are an assisted im migrant race introduced to help in the task of developing the Colony's economy, and so have only prescriptive rights as com pared with the pre-emptive rights of the Fijians. rRNING now to the specific points raised in Mr. Pratap’s letter we may consider the following:— That the wholesale deportation of the Indians is politically imprac ticable, and would bring about the economic collapse of the Colony.

Nothing is politically impractic able in this problem, if there is the will to do. Unfortunately, neither the Imperial Government, the com inercial European community, nor the Indians are prepared to tackle the problem—the Imperial Govern ment, for fear of political and eco nomic re-actions in India; the Fiji Europeans because any change of this nature will affect their econo my interest; and the Indians be :ause they are on a good thing for the present and, like us all, do not fish to relinquish any of the poli ical or economic advantages which hey now enjoy.

None of these parties considers he ultimate effect on the Fijians mo, even in Mr. Pratap’s own mrds, will not have in the future ufficient land to meet their needs.

I quote:— “Even if wholesale de ortation took place and the Fijians [ere left to themselves in this -oiony with their resources unde eioped, a day would come when f® would n °t be able to 1 PP9 rt the increasing population.”) This latter statement transcends le limits of illogicality, for if in le future, the laSds of the Colony

are unable to support the in creasing Fijian population, how are the Fijians and the Indians to be provided for? It must be remem bered that the ratio of the increase of Indians to Fijians is 16 to 10.

Further, does this statement im ply that the Indians are the only people who work in Fiji? If so, then it is an insult to the Fijians, and brings to light the absurdities in the claims made by Mr. Pratap.

I ask the following questions, as a natural corollary to this state ment, and I give the correct an swers : (a) Who developed the first plan tations in Fiji?—the Fijians. ib) Who do the stevedoring on

our wharves?—the Fijians. (c) Who dig the gold out of our mines?—the Fijians. id) Who produce the major por tion of our copra?—the Fijians. ie) Who grow our bananas and native foodstuffs?—the Fijians. if) Who supply the major portion of our unskilled labour for our roads and public works?—the Fijians. ig) Who, when wars come, take a rifle and go and fight for our Freedoms?—the Fijians.

It will be seen from the foregoing that, except for the sugar industry, the Fijians play a greater part in our economy; so, if the Indians are repatriated, they need not worry

themselves unduly about Fiji’s economic future.

I, like Mr. Pratap, was born in Fiji. That was 75 years ago; and, during that time, I have had Fijians under me, as labourers, launch cap tains and hands, seamen, clerks, etc., and I am quite convinced that the Fijians, under proper guidance, will, when the Indians are repat riated, continue the development of Fiji along the lines predicated in The Deed of Cession, and so retain their paramountcy and territorial integrity in their homeland.

ITURN now to the racial relation ships in Fiji to-day. Mr. Pratap makes great capital out of the friendly relations existing between the Fijians and the Indians in contrast with the isolationism of the Europeans. In making such statements he apparently forgets the caste system, which still pre vails in India, in spite of all at tempts to democratise the people.

It is well known that since I raised, in Legislative Council, the question of the ultimate domina tion of the Fijians by the Indians, some six years ago, the Indians have been very active in wooing the Fijians in every way, so that they may be lulled into a sense of false security. Unfortunately, the average Fijian has not the cunning or subtlety to realise the long-range objective of the Indians which (all denials to the contrary notwith standing) is the final and total do

mination of the Fijians in the territorial, political, and economic fields.

The following incident indicates the attitude of the young Indians to their future in Fiji: A number of young Indians were travelling by bus and, speaking English among' themselves, were discussing the political situation. One remarked that “the Indian section of the

community was the most numerous and important in Fiji, and shoulo have a greater say in the Colony’;' affairs.” “Yes, I agree,” said anothen “The cheek of the Europeans, hav' ing equal representation with us hi Legislative Council. We shoulo have seven, the Fijians five, ano the Europeans two members.”

This demand will be made aj soon as the time is ripe for action

I warned Government when I was in Council of the likelihood of this demand being made, but no notice was taken of my warning.

What the Indians will claim in fifty years’ time if they are not re patriated is anybody’s guess. At the present natural rate of increase there will be about 20,000 Euro peans, 425,000 Fijians, and 825,000 Indians in Fiji. This future pre ponderance of the Indians is our basic political problem.

As no Government can fight population, what is the answer? I say, repatriation without delay.

In regard to land —an Indian settler on the Upper Rewa River was questioned by a European re garding availability of Fijian lands.

He replied that land was very diffi cult to get. But, he added, it will not be for long—we will take it.

Enough said!

MR. PRATAP takes exception to what he calls irresponsible statements, such as: “There is racial antagonism between the Fijians and the Indians, and each holds the other in contempt.” How naive on the part of Mr. Pratap!

We all know that there is a strong sense of frustration in the minds of the Indians, due to the difficulty in getting the land which they covet. And there is a feeling of resentment on the part of the Fijians at the preferential treat ment given the Indians in many walks of life.

Some time ago, a number of young Fijians were discussing con ditions on the Suva wharves, and they expressed themselves as dis satisfied with the differential and discriminatory treatment accorded them in the matter of the better paid jobs. They wanted to know why the Indians were favoured in this regard, when they were equally capable of filling them. One said: “Our fathers and ourselves have worked on these wharves for over 70 years and now, when we are be ing educated, we find the Indians getting the well-paid jobs.” An other said: “Yes, something will have to be done, otherwise the blood will run, and if our Chiefs will not help us we will club them.” This, from the rising generation of Fijians, is very significant for the future—and for the friendly rela tions between Fijians and Indians, so strongly emphasised by Mr. Pra tap.

A further confirmation of this phase of the developing situation is the following excerpt from a letter by an educated Fijian to The Fiji Times : ‘7 have good reason for stating that if the worst happens, the Fijians will not tolerate political and economic domination by an Asiatic immigrant race; our history does not lead us to any belief that we should weakly become sacrifices to political expediency or the re quirements of commerce”

The statement that a condition of

tolerance and goodwill exists between the two races is to lull the public into a sense of false security, and to cover up the problem which is daily becoming more menacing Fiilin 6 , safety and security 0t the J QUOTATIONS from the speeches , ot the Governor in 1918, from Sir Winston Churchill, and

from the Honourable Indian Mem ber in Fiji’s Legislative Council are not convincing when to-day’s con ditions are seen against the provi sions of The Deed of Cession The Governor’s statement indl cated the official attitude of the preoccupied wlth the economlcs ot the Colon y’

(Continued on Page no)

was prepared to sacrifice the F T and their homeland to politics; pediency and the requirement commerce.

Sir Winston Churchill’s s ment was made long ago, India was a dependency of « Britain. That state of affair longer exists, and I doubt, whi in light of recent development would repeat his eulogiums to.

Probably, he was and is unaws the solemn promises of The of Cession —otherwise he woull allow the Fijians to be sqm out by the Indians.

Apropos of the squeezing -outh cess, I draw r attention to a s ment made by Governor Muro Fletcher, 20 years ago, in the I lative Council to the effect ths.

Europeans should get their chix out of Fiji, as there was no fi for them here. The result hasa a steady exodus of the pii< families, and at the present i they are selling their properties leaving the land of their pii< fathers. Gresham’s law is opeie in our racial field.

I was in Legislative Council J the Indian Member made his : ment. But events during and I the war tend to disprove whajs no doubt his sincere desini achieve racial collaboration, ever, things are moving fast... uneasy calm prevails, but iU sages a storm which could disaster and desolation to Fiji its peoples.

I MAY, at this point, state s facts reflecting on the con of the Indians during ther 30 years, to show the depth ano cerity of their loyalty to the O and Fiji: In the early twenties, afte:s Indian strike, the Indian lei set out to destroy the economic of the Colony by advising thri dian workers to return to I Some 30,000 applied for repjq tion; ships were chartered; ; about 3,000 departed, and ther were preparing to go.

When the first lot arrived iii dia, they were stripped of possessions by the harpies i battened on them. Frantic o passed between the Govermu; of India and Fiji seeking theis turn. Unfortunately, the Fiji i ernment agreed and they returd a disappointed and disillusei crowd with hardly a rag to fly y Many others, who were awjv passages, quickly cancelled when they saw the poverty-stnd state of the returnees. Thiai. done, not for love of Fiji, bd save their own skins.

The behaviour of the Indian World War II is too well knoro require emphasis. rampant, and the Indians sie to use our time of trial for i

m ends. Their lack of loyalty ntrasts markedly with the loyal rvice given by the Fijians in both jod and treasure. Yet, from the Idence available, we are taking t. asp to our bosom and throwing t loyal Fijians to the wolves.

Ihe only conclusions that a rea ring man can draw from these !ts are (a) that the promises ide in the name of Her Majesty \ Queen 80 years ago are not now tog honoured by the Imperial Ivernment; (b) that this lack of icern for Fijian interests, is not e to any love of the Indian as !h —the underlying reason is a did desire for commercial gain.

Che gaunt spectre of a displaced Iple, fighting in the future with sir displacers, at starvation level, I living space, appears to have no Tors for those who control the tiny of Fiji. The policy now be ' followed, if carried to its logical iclusion, will bring dishonour to 1 Queen and disaster to both the lans and Indians, claim that a policy of inaction told no longer be tolerated, and t the following steps should be en:— hut down on all permanent im ;ration.

Repatriate all Indians between ages of 16 and 45 years at the 3 of 12,000 per annum; repat es to be chosen by ballot. Under > plan, all Indians over 45 years I live and die in Fiji, ompensate the Indians for their dings, and pay their passages [ expenses to India or Borneo or tish Guiana, where there is Die room for an increasing popu on. • hould these proposals be pted, the promises in The Deed Session would be honoured, and homeland of the Fijians will be ored to the Fijians to support future generations of the in

creasing Fijian race. Should the present policy of inaction continue, the future of Fiji must be distracted by internecine strife and the good work of the past will come to naught.

I am, etc.,

A. A. Ragg, Iso, Mice.

(See “How Much Longer Will Britain Ignore Her Problem in Fiji?” on another page.)

The lease of the old Kokopo Hotel site, near Rabaul, has expired and District Commissioner Mc- Carthy has recommended that the Expropriation Board be approached with a view to taking over the lease, thus making more land available at Kokopo.