Fijians Rather than Indians

In Reply To Ratu Joni

Fijians Rather than Indians the Real Problem in Fiji

Ratu Joni’s article on the political and economic future of Fiji was written, I think, with complete sincerity. But some of the argument is mixed up, and the conclusions are unsound, as I shall try to show. “Economic under-development” is not necessarily a barrier to the Fijians having independence forced upon them by UN influences; but it certainly is a barrier to successful independence. There is a vital difference.

“IT'IJI,” says Ratu Joni, “has wide -T potentials in the field of agri culture.”

It is a common misconception that Fiji and other Pacific Islands are extremely fertile. Certainly, trained men can help, as Ratu Joni suggests, but they cannot by them selves perform miracles. A good Government agricultural extension service would do far more.

But above all, what is needed is a read spirit of work, and a recog nition that local produce must com pete in quality and price with that produced elsewhere. Far too many Indians and Fijians produce too little, of poor quality and, if they don’t get the price they expect, they fall back on mere subsistence pro duction and living—and blame every body except themselves.

I agree that more indigenous leadership is needed; and, as far as Fiji is concerned, all responsible people are endeavouring to en tourage it.

Ratu Joni says: “Europeans tven in these enlightened days, tend still to think of the Islands as a place of cheap labour”.

This is a widely-held belief among the Islands indigenous people and Indians. But I don’t suppose any Europeans actually living in the Islands have considered Islands labour as “cheap” in this century.

Islanders don’t see it; but, generally speaking, Islands labour is expensive, not cheap. True, wages are less than in Australia and New Zealand —and they must be, if the Islands are to compete, because pro ductivity is lower.

If wages rise, without a corres ponding increase in productivity, Islands produce will have no market, and employment will suffer. If pro ductivity rises and wages rise, em ployment will also suffer.

It is a sort of economic sound barrier and how to break through has not yet been solved.

The statement that one of Fiji’s serious problems is the presence of 200,000 Indians is typical of Fijian outlook. Indians, of course—and quite understandably—don’t see it this way.

A surprising volume of more thoughtful opinion in Fiji, among all races, would say (if they could be persuaded to voice a public opinion) that the problem of Fiji is less a matter of Indians than of Fijians.

The Fijians are nice people; but it is time they woke up and helped themselves.

Ratu Joni says: “The Indians are

Ratu Joni Vuiyasawa, a young Fijian student at Wesley College in Sydney, in PIM in December made a plea for a Colombo Plan for the South Seas. His article was forthright, sincere and con troversial. Here, a Euro pean resident of Fiji with long experience of con ditions, replies to some of the points raised by Ratu Joni.

there because the CSR wanted cheap and efficient labour”. A typical part truth.

CSR is still widely believed to have introduced Indians to Fiji, but the facts are very different. When Sir Arthur Gordon made his first speech in Fiji in 1875, he told planters that Fiji needed: Good government, Education, Capital.

Labour.

Gordon, widely admired by Fijians a s their friend, has proved to be their worst enemy. He was the (Over)

youngest son of the fourth Earl of Aberdeen, Prime Minister of England during the Crimean War. Gordon, as an MP, was private secretary to his father when the latter was PM, and also to Gladstone. He was Governor of New Brunswick, Trini dad and Mauritius before coming to Fiji, and in the last two places had seen the Indian indenture system in operation. He visited the India Office in London on the eve of his departure for Fiji and took part in a conference which decided to develop the Colonial empire by using Indian migrants.

In his first speech in Fiji, Gordon forecast the introduction of Indians; and in 1879 he implemented the scheme in the teeth of the opposition af European planters, who wanted [o use Fijians as labour to help Jevelop their own country.

Some planters then wrote letters to The Fiji Times, quite accurately forecasting that Indians, if intro luced, would decline repatriation and would settle and ultimately deprive the Fijians of their birthright—thus loing the very opposite to protect ng Fijians.

Gordon was an able, but a jonceited and stubborn man. He pressed on regardless. But while seeking to protect Fijians he did not nind exploiting other Islands peoples. It is not generally re nembered that introduction of other Pacific Islands labour into Fiji did iot cease until about 1910.

"Best of Two Worlds"

I do not question Gordon’s sincerity on behalf of the Fijian people. But it was influenced by lis desire to have the best of two worlds —(i) a settled indigenous lopulation administered under its iwn system and undisturbed by com nerce, and (ii) economic develop nent by outside capital which had :o have labour.

The first ship bringing Indians Drived in 1879, and at first they :ould not all be employed because ilanters were opposed to them.

In 1880, J. B. Thurston, Fiji’s Colonial Secretary, went to the Palace Exhibition in Sydney. There lie approached the board of the -SR Co. and induced them to build i large sugar mill on the Rewa River, at Nausori. The mill com nenced crushing in 1882.

The CSR Co. was then only one if a number of sugar companies, first, the CSR preferred Pacific Islands and Fijian labour (if it lould get them) and it was only shortage that forced it to use Indians.

What else could it have done?

It is untrue to say that no pro vision for repatriation was made.

Provision was made, but not accepted.

No obligation was placed on Indians to go back to India; and, after indenture, most preferred to stay on in Fiji, where they settled.

All indentured Indians were intro duced by the Fiji Government, under an arrangement made between the Governments. None was introduced by CSR, or any other employer.

To translate these facts as “the CSR assisted by the Colonial Office, left this problem of two distinct races

right in the lap of the Fijian people” as Ratu Joni has done, is in defensible. However, an under standing of what happened in the past is only of use in helping us to assess the present and the future.

Fijians, Indians, Government and sugar industry are all in Fiji, for better or for worse, and they simply must get along with each other.

“The Indians have nothing in common with the Fijians,” comments Ratu Joni. Maybe so. But they do have one inescapable thing in common—they are both Fiji born, and neither can be sent out of Fiji.

The Fiji Government has done

ilenty of thinking over this situation —probably more than most people lave given it credit for. If Govern nent has erred, it is because it has ontinued, for too long, the Gordon •obey of keeping the Fijian people n “cotton wool.”

I quote: “It seems that, like most overnments handling undeveloped copies, the only method they know f preserving racial harmony is that if bayonets and tear gas. In 1943, nd again in 1959, the Government esorted to these measures in clashes etween Fiji’s two peoples”.

The whole of this paragraph is a istortion of the facts. Tear gas /as not used in the troubles in the ugar districts in 1943. It was used i the Suva riots in 1959. On both ccasions armed police, and the local rmed forces, were used to preserve iw and order, not to prevent racial lashes between “Fiji’s two peoples” presumably Fijians and Indians).

The 1943 troubles arose out of iscontent with current wages and le price of cane, in the face of rising ost of living and other factors reated by wartime conditions, in luding the presence of large num ers of American servicemen and dollar richness”. It is alleged that ome Americans may even have istigated the troubles. As far as know, Fijians were not among le malcontents.

The story of the Suva riots is well nown. Fijians and Indians and thers were all amongst the rioters.

Neither event could be truly irmed a clash between Fijians and nd Indians. There were some racial spects—mostly anti-Europeans, or ather anti-“haves”, as opposed to have-nots”.

Incidentally, the reason why more ndians go overseas than Fijians is ecause they have the determina ion, and they help themselves.

Fijians have received far more Gov ernment help than Indians in the field of education.

I sympathise with much of what Ratu Joni says on the subject of “A Colombo Plan for Fiji”. But the greatest difficulty is lack of sufficient secondary education to provide an adequate springboard for tertiary education. The education department is well aware of this and has been doing all in its power to raise standards, and the numbers reaching that standard.

Actually, at the end of 1961, only 67 students finished the year with academic passes to qualify them to enter a university without further study. An overseas scholarship to UK, New Zealand, Australia, USA or India, is available for practically every one of them, thus in theory leaving none for intake into the civil service, industry and commerce.

This is believed to be the reason why South Pacific Sugar Mills Limited is giving scholarships to assist completion of secondary education, instead of overseas scholarships to universities.

Referring to visits to the Islands by skilled researchers, Ratu Joni says that “little or no benefits have accrued for our people out of these excursions”.

If this so, it is because they have rejected change and failed to take full advantage of a great deal of sound advice—e.g., the Spate and Burns reports.

It is my belief that in the first place more good would be done by assisting secondary education to university entrance standard.

A very big effect on the future Fiji— Sir Hercules Robinson (left) and Sir Arthur Gordon.

Sir Alan Burns —one of the "skilled re searchers" referred to above.