How A Publicity Seeker Was Exposed By

A STIR IN THE FIJIAN CANEFI ELDS

His Own Verbiage

By R. W. Robson, in Suva

THERE has been an extraordinary disturbance lately in that section of industrial and commercial Fiji that is dominated by sugar— and that is practically all Fiji For the most part, the interest and excitement is confined to Fiji; but PIM readers elsewhere may like

to know the background of the row, and what it is all about.

On first glance, it may seem to be the outcome of discontent among the very many thousands of Indians who grow cane on contract for the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. The CSR (as it is everywhere called) is the very large Australia-based organ isation which owns and runs the sugar industry in Fiji, and which thereby has provided this prosper ous British Colony with at least two-thirds of its economic backbone.

But the trouble is not economic or industrial. In my view, it stems directly from the personality and ambitions of an unusual type of European—a British lawyer named N. S. Chalmers, who has assumed leadership over a section of the Indians, and apparently envisages himself as a sort of Moses, leading poor helpless Asians out of the British-Fijian wilderness. He is a tireless and most prolific letter writer.

Actually, I think he is a menace to the peace and security of the more responsible type of Fiji-Indians (who are certainly in the majority) and, so far as Fiji generally is con cerned, if he is taken seriously he can be a public nuisance.

First, let me try to show how “Nat Chalmers” (as he is usually de scribed) comes into this picture.

THERE are seven separate unions of Indian cane-farmers, and not one of them claim to speak for the cane-farmers of Fiji, as a whole.

Political considerations seem to enter largely into the activities of each union. To a large extent, each union might be called an extension of the political personality of its principal leader, or group of leaders.

The unions tend to line them selves up in accordance with the political groupings of their leaders.

Changes in these groupings occur from time to time. These changes sometimes result from personal an tagonisms or rivalries. Sometimes they are the result of bargaining between the various leaders.

It can be assumed that usually, if one union or group of unions advocates or supports a proposal, those unions with leaders in rival groups will oppose it. It is unusual for the unions to speak with a united voice. Rivalry tends to in crease in election year, as the vari ous political leaders jockey for posi tion.

As nearly as I can get it (and I have been assisted here by an ex pert on Fijian affairs) the following is the disposition of the groups: The two main opposing groups are (Continued on Page 155)

by the Maha Sangh and the ;an Sangh. The Farmers’ Asso bion of the Southern District is re or less independent.

Maha Sangh Group

. Maha Sangh : Headquarters at li. At present led by Krishna [dy (Nominated Member of Legis ve Council). James Madhavan, of lasa (Elected Member for Eastern ision) is a close supporter. . D. Patel and Swami Rudranand e also prominent in the Maha igh, but Krishna Reddy appar iy quarrelled with them last year, ;n it was suggested that the nakrishna Mission should take r the assets of the Sangam. (The en India Sanmarga Ikya San i” is an organisation, mainly of th Indians, which runs schools other institutions. The Sangam 3s at Nadi publishes Pacific Re o and Jagriti.) he struggle for power between shna, Reddy and the Swami and D. Patel appears to be still go on within both the Maha Sangh the Sangam.

Vishal Krishak Sangh. Head rters at Ba. Leaders are Bakshi ?h and Baijnath, but they follow Maha Sangh closely—e.g., a lished letter attacking the Imers strike threat was signed :he presidents of both unions.

Nausori Kisan Sangh. Leader Z. B. Singh, former member of islative and Executive Councils, is opposed to Chalmers and ihya Prasad and is allied with ). Patel. At present it is perhaps e correct to say that this union Dposed to the Kisan Sangh than ; it is linked with the Maha gh.

Kisan Sangh Group

Kisan Sangh. Headquarters at toka. N. S. Chalmers is Pre nt, and Ajodhya Prasad Gen- Secretary. Ajodhya Prasad is an Elected Member of Legis re Council for the North Western rict, having defeated A. D. ;1. In my opinion, Mr. Patel is real leader; but Mr. Chalmers useful front, making speeches writing letters in a ceaseless *t to get publicity. The aim is aake him popular as a martyr y to sacrifice the approval of Europeans for his efforts on be of the cane farmers.

Rewa Farmers’ Union. Head ters at Nausori. Leader —Faiz ammed.

Labasa Kisan Sangh. Leader, iu Lai.

Farmers’ Association Of

R Thern District. Head

ters at Nausori. Leader is nu Deo, for many years Indian ted Member for the Southern rict. He is a shrewd and able ician who follows the line (in ndence or alliance with other ns) rendered most desirable by situation of the moment.

THE present excited controversy began in mid-February, when the Kisan Sangh held a largely attended general meeting in wadi, and endorsed a rather provocative proposition by Chalmers that, unless the CSR made some economic con cessions, and the Government promised quite far-reaching consti tutional changes, the cane-farmers should “go on strike” in June.

The meeting was reported at some length by a European who was pre sent by invitation; the report was supplied to The Fiji Times; and the latter rather unwisely published the report with banner headlines on its front page; thus giving to Mr.

Chalmers and his threats and his tub-thumping a prominence and an importance that are not justified.

Repercussions were abrupt and re markable. Some of the unions usually grouped with the Kisan Sangh gave Mr. Chalmers qualified approval; but practically all the others dissociated themselves promptly from the general strike threat of Mr. Chalmers.

ANE outstanding event was the v/ reaction of the Fijian Associa tion, the chairman Of which is Ratu Edward T. Cakobau — a highly educated Fijian noble, who for a time was the Lieut.-Colonel in charge of the Fiji Battalion in Mr. Chalmers asked the Fijians

io join him in his campaign.

Ratu Cakobau said, in plain and simple language, that the Fijians represented in his Association had no wish to be associated with Mr.

Chalmers in his so-called demands for “constitutional reform;” that they deplored his threat of a gen eral strike; and that they preferred to follow their own line, as an organised community of Fijians, in seeking from the Government what

ever constitutional changes seem desirable in view of the growing literacy of the Fijians and the socio-economic progress of the Colony.

The Fijians expressed no hostility or ill-will to the Indians on the contrary—but they made it clear that they wanted nothing to do with Mr.

Chalmers and his methods. „ „ . rjIHE reply of Mr. Chalmers was JL written on February 18, and was something unique.

It opened with a series of bombastic demands—Who and what is the Fiji Association? How many were Civil Servants? Did they not know that he had a definite mandate from his 8,000 members to demand these reforms, and if they

were not granted, to carry the de mand to the “League of Nations?”

That was all right, as far as it went; but then Chalmers, in the course of his extremely long letter to the Fiji Association, plunged over into a tirade of insult and abuse of the Fijian race, such as I seldom have seen equalled.

Among other things, he described the Fijians as totally unreliable and untrustworthy: “most of our jails are filled with Fijians;” and he ended up with “Fijian women are now also becoming common prosti tutes in Suva and the towns,” with more to the same effect.

The Fiji Association replied to that briefly, and with dignity, but without mincing words. It clearly was the end of the road for any

association between Fijians and i Chalmers-led Kisan Sangh.

The Fijian Association did! clever thing. It persuaded The I Times to publish Chalmers’ let! exactly as he wrote it—with rn spellings, insults, threats, and all J evidence of (shall we say) sew emotional upset and the Fijias reply to it.

It all took up most of one is* of The Fiji Times (February ; and it caused a mighty stir. Eves one seemed to take sides—but neae everyone not already commit) hastened to dissociate himself fn Mr. Chalmers and his deplorae sentiments.

The Fiji Times has been to busy dealing with letters of praj comment and invective. I Chalmers is around, in full panoc of fountain pen and barbed wo< —he seems to have an endll capacity for writing, and a boundll egotism. But the excitement sg the shouting are dying away.

IN my opinion, the misguio gentleman will do all he cam drive a wedge between the cs farmers and their livelihood, order that the Government and i CSR Co. may be embarrassed.

But the threat can be taken seriously. Some sections of i Kisan Sangh really may wish travel the Chalmers road, at tt stage; but when the deadll approaches, in June, they mos will waver, and refuse to go chi ing moonbeams with a man who— put it mildly—is not regarded wj confidence by the Euroneans, Fiiis and a large section of the IndiaE The Indian section of Fiji is co; trolled by a sugar economy. T rates paid for Fiji sugar by the woe are not arranged by Fiji or by 1 CSR Co. —they are created by< combination of circumstances, « of which is the cost of labour s production in great areas, like the West Indies.

If Fiji had to sell in close coc petition with West Indies sugar, \ Fiji sugar workers would get 1«J Fortunately for Fiji, the major dustry there is helped by Britt protection.

The Indian cane farmers here ; not live on the Australian workir class standards; but. still they very well, and quite content with their lot. Slow as the Fijian-born Indian adju himself to Fiji conditions, his must improve—in his home life,, well as socially and nolitically.

This process cannot be hastem It is tied in irrevocably with many kinds of slow-moving devel ments.

Therein lies the danger ofl slick-tongued, ignorant man I N. S. Chalmers. He nominallv is? educated man, a qualified lawy and, of course, he impresses r instructed, semi-literate India They are not to know that as economist, and a political theon he is either a menace, or a blun erer or a joke—whichever way : see it.