Tolerance and Co-operation

The Problems of A British Colony

A Fijian's Plea For Tolerance and Co-operation

• This analysis of the chief governmental problem in Fiji—namely, how best to merge the indigenous Fijian race with the introduced races, Indians and Europeans, so as to create a small, united nation — was written for us by a Fijian resident of Melbourne Mr Joe Kamikamica. He is a student at the University of Melbourne and doing his final year for the degree of Bachelor of Commerce It discloses a capacity for analytical thinking, a breadth of view and a spirit of tolerance that are remarkable It is published with pleasure by “ PIM”, in the belief that, as a statef j View Fijian, H will be of help to the men who are dealing ‘with these problems on the spot, in Fiji.

I" INDUE stress has been placed U upon some aspects of Fijian de velopment, leaving untouched he main problem, which is one of ihange from a relatively under [eveloped economy to an in

lustrialised economy.

Most writers have made too much f problems relating to population, aces, land, and the economy. They .ave even suggested that a solution f one would solve the whole Fijian roblem. This is not practicable.

The problem of change in which lie Fijian is involved is not only ae of substitution of rule by custom ) regulation by competition, but a aange involving his whole way of fe, and of underlying methods of lought associated with it.

This process is complicated, and emands careful planning and

nderstanding.

But however efficient the plan ay be —or however great the nount of freedom given—the ex snt to which Fijians will emerge om this transition successfully— iat is, with a high standard of /mg —seems to me to depend ostly on the individual urge to ake progress. much generalisation on the whole race gives wrong im pressions—it fails to appreciate e individual.

For instance, I disagree with the atement in your paper that while e £ IJlans are the most amiable of 'Uth Sea Islanders, under the in lence of liquor they become a larrelsome pest. I can quote in mces, from personal experience, iere Fijians become quarrelsome m without liquor, and of instances len Fijians become happy under e influence. f also know some Fijians who do t drink liquor at all; but yet 10 deserve the description given your paper. [ claim that it is the individual lian who will be responsible in e end for dealing with the

problem of liquor consumption.

Other peoples, and religious bodies who have the interest of the Fijian at heart, could best serve him, in my opinion, by helping the in dividual to make the right decision, rather than by preventing him from deciding at all.

IREAD a complaint in your paper some time ago that students from Fiji in Tasmania called themselves Fijian students, although they belong to the Indian race in Fiji. This raises broad issues.

The presence of an Indian com munity in Fiji has been often ex plained. Although the Fijian chiefs originally objected to the “in dentured labour system”, the Euro peans in Fiji, because of their profit motive—or, more politely, because of their desire to industrialise Fiji —dismissed the objection.

As the Fijian economy developed, and the Indians, through their enterprise and their desire to make profits, became increasingly com petitive with Europeans in trade and commerce, the objection to their presence now comes—interestingly enough—not so much from Fijian chiefs, but from Europeans in Fiji who pose as the champions of the Fijian race.

I feel that to use words to create uneasy feelings between Fijians and Indians is to do a great wrong to both communities. After all they have been brought to their present situation by events which now are outside their control.

Naturally, the Fijian villager, in his communal life, is bewildered by the changes, and by the Indian in dividualist grabbing every oppor tunity to make a profit.

The Europeans in Fiji, if we re gard them as a group, enjoy a superior existence, which is generally accepted without question by the majority of Fijians and Indians. It is only when some Indians and Fijians have progressed far enough to be able to share the higher

amenities of life with Europeans, and to enjoy economic superiority, that racial distinctions become apparent. I offer, as an example, the Suva sea-baths, and the liquor permit system.

I do not blame the Indians for what they may have achieved through their hard work and busi ness ability, and their wish to secure equal recognition with Europeans in Fiji.

There are, of course, some Euro peans who have the interests of all persons at heart, and work to raise the standard of living of the whole community.

There are certainly Indians in Fiji who make first-class citizens; and Fijians who, in their own humble way, amid all the social and economic obstacles, do what they can to improve.

If we think of the people as in dividuals, the racial problem becomes simpler.

BUT there is an essential differ ence between the Fijian way of life (based on the communal system, with the emphasis on mutual assistance and help) in a controlled economy and that of the Europeans and Indians who operate in a free-enterprise economy, with the emphasis on the making of profit.

On this basis, it is foolish to com pare the material achievements of Fijians and Indians, or Europeans, for that matter.

However morally justified the basis of Fijian communal life is, it can not survive the competition of the free-enterprise economy, unless a well-thought-out plan for Fijian economic development is devised, and drastically enforced, to the last letter. This, of course, involves a loss of human freedom, and is opposed to democratic ideals. remains for the individual Fijian to make up his mind as to whether he wants to change or not; and, if he must change, it must be done quickly.

The belief that gradual change avoids the evils associated with accelerated change fails to recognise that this encourages inefficiency in the Fijian economy. It could mean putting an obstacle in the way of those who want to change, for the sake of those who want to stay as they are.

TO generalise, as some writers on Fijian conditions do, and say that the Fijian is happy-go lucky, easy-going, etc., is to overlook the important fact that this attitude is dictated by custom and tradition bound together by the security of the communal system.

It is understandable that those who have derided the Fijian atti tude to change do not really under fed the force of custom and t radition. Because of custom we obey cur chiefs; and if, because of respect,

or faith or what-it-is, our chiefs become the mouth-piece of the Europeans, who should be blamed?

I do not think it will get us anywhere if we blame one another for the situation we find ourselves in.

Rather, we must admit our responsibility for the situation and, as individuals (Fijians, Indians, Europeans) work for a better Fiji.

Our choice now, it seems to me, is not whether Fijians and Indians, Europeans and Chinese, part-Europeans and Islanders, should live together or not; but whether, living together, we should quarrel or cooperate.

Considerations of morality, economics and commonsense all point to co-operation. But there are powerful forces of prejudice, stupidity and political ambition, which drive us in the opposite direc-

tion. The quicker we realise this, the better for us all. , .

IN making these changes in living J. conditions, the Fijian should be made to understand the problems of Western civilisation, sir John Maud, one of Britain’s outstanding Civil Servants, has pointed out that industrialisation gives the possibility of more free dom and more slavery, more fellow ship and more loneliness, more civilisation and more barbarism — and that between these we cannot always choose. But to the extent that we can choose we can, by tak ing thought, avoid the worst ex tremes.

The problem is one of individual choice. By making a wrong choice, some Fijians have indulged in drink ing habits detrimental to them

selves and to the community. TT immediate need is, first, to convinu him of the need to change his sonal outlook, so as to acquire tl urge to make profit, and this turn will bring him into the coir petitive system on the same level ; Indians and Europeans in Fiji.