Fiji's Oratory

Springs Of

Dry Up

From a Suva Correspondent

Fiji’s Legislative Council

aced through an agenda con

lining 12 bills in one day’s sit ng near the end of October and osed a query. ¥HY, wondered observers, had the springs of oratory dried up since te 18 unofficial members had re irned from London?

A meeting at the end of September isted only 105 minutes. Speaker faurice Scott said at the close of ic October session that he thought srhaps travelling round the globe ad taken the members’ wind.

Whatever the reason, the 18 un [ficials, even the usually wordy ones, ave had very little to say at the two ost-London conference sessions.

The 12 bills dealt with in October icluded two which normally would ave produced some sort of debate, at there was nothing. One of the ills was a major piece of legislation, hich improved on existing laws for ic training of apprentices.

Its importance, as the Colonial scretary, Mr. P. D. Macdonald Dinted out, was that it might close ic breach through which an alarm ig number of Fiji’s skilled artisans e passing to newer and more profit )le pastures abroad.

No Arguments

Much could have been made of guments for raising wages, a neat tie election platform for next year, it few members had anything to say i the matter.

Mr. Andrew Deoki led protests gainst the use of the phrase “in mtured learner” in the bill and ;ked that the word be dropped be tuse of its associations with the past, hen the Indians first came to the olony as indentured labourers.

Could it be that the thoughts of lost members are on politics, racially id otherwise, and that the reluctance > speak is a sort of calm before the orm expected next year when the >uncil debates the new constitution? (This correspondent guesses that le debate will come about March id the elections for the new council i October.) Mr. Deoki managed to persuade the overnment to remove the word “in mtured”, which meant 102 amend icnts during the committee stage

of the bill. The Government was sweetly reasonable about it although the Attorney-General, Mr. Justice Lewis, produced a heavy-footed homily showing that the Indian people should be proud of the word because they had by their own efforts come a long way since then.

Mr. Lewis said that he had seen in Washington, DC, a large statue of a Negro—he had forgotten the name —who had reached an eminent posi tion. On the plinth were the words, ‘The son of a slave”.

The moral of Mr. Lewis’ story went over his congregation’s heads. They heard only the word “slave”.

Even the adjournment motion at

this session, which is the peg on which most unofficial members hang argu ments and appeals about everything and, sometimes, nothing, produced nothing newsworthy. Then it was all over until Budget Day at the end of November.

Although members have been re luctant to speak in the council chamber, the six Indian members — the four Federation Party men, Messrs. A. D. Patel. S. M. Koya, James Madhavan and C. A. Shah, nd the two independents, Messrs.

Deoki and C. P. Singh, have been addressing meetings in the Colony.

Mr. Singh, who at the London Con ference had moved over to the side

of the Europeans and Fijians on the common role issue, accepted the in vitation to address the meetings along with the other five.

Despite the hostility of Federation Party supporters, Mr. Singh defended his London stand at the meetings, which were called to put the Indians of Fiji in the picture on the London agreement. He said he had taken his attitude because to have insisted on a common roll would have damaged racial harmony.

The others were critical of every thing done at London. Mr. Patel thought that Mr. Anthony Green wood, the Secretary for the Colonies, should have presided throughout and not gone flying off to Aden, “sneak ing back to Britain unnoticed”, with his mind not applied fully to the Fiji problem.

Mrs. Eirene White, Under Secre tary of State, lacked experience— the most important quality to preside over such a conference, Mr. Patel said.

Common Roll Issue

Mr. Patel also complained that, as Rotumans, Tongans, Gilbertese and other Islanders living in Fiji had been placed on the Fijian roll and the Chinese had become Europeans for the purpose of inclusion on the Euro pean roll, everybody had the common roll except the Indians, and the Indians were the only ones who wanted it.

In his speech at Ba, Mr. Patel said that if the Indians had been able to ;how unity when Mrs. White was in Fiji she would have been very im pressed, but they had been split up nto so many parties. (When Mrs.

White was in Fiji, the Federation Party was claiming that 80-90 per :ent. of the Indian population was behind the party).

Mr. Patel told his audience that while passing through America on his way to London, he spoke to an Illinois ;enator who told him that the trouble with the Indian people all over the world was that they were too tolerant md mild and not aggressive enough.

Mr. Patel added that if they did not mt their foot forward now for their ights they would, in, say, five years, ;hed tears of disappointment.

Mr. Patel, at a Suva meeting, said le would do his best to crush the iroposed constitution by collective epresentation by all the leading ndian citizens of Fiji, who would )e called together to prepare a nemorandum.

He said that Fiji wanted indepen lence in the same way as Australia md New Zealand had independence, )ut in Fiji the Government was the

“daughter-in-law of the CSR Com pany”, and the country was virtually run by Australians. The British Gov ernment meanwhile had “cheated the Indians”.

Mr. Patel’s utterances brought a caustic editorial from the Fiji Times, which criticised him for “denounc ing” Her Majesty’s Government while holding a major portfolio in Fiji.

Said the Times : “Mr. Patel has inferred that the Government of Fiji (of which he and Mr. J. Madhavan are members) is under the influence

of the CSR, an accusation which will doubtless surprise the company as much as it will the people of Fiji.

“If Mr. Patel can produce specific examples of outside pressure to which he and his colleagues have been compelled to yield, then obviously in the public interest he should make them known.

“If, on the other hand, his state ment is baseless, then in making it he has displayed an irresponsibility which should likewise be exposed by his colleagues in the Government and

in particular by the head of that Government.

“Messrs. Patel and Madhavan and their two associates in the so-called Federation’ group of Indian members of the Legislative Council, Messrs.

C. A. Shah and S. M. Koya, are n a difficult position, created by Leir sorry performance at the London constitutional conference.

“They refused to discuss the subject natter of the conference with their ; ellow delegates, Fijian, European md Indian, and with representatives >f other racial groups before going o London. . . .

“They therefore had little or nothi ng of constructive value to contri >ute, but confined themselves to lemands for the immediate intro luction of common roll elections to which there was strong opposition fom the other delegates and for vhich there was little support and ess enthusiasm in Fiji). . . .

“It is clear to anyone in touch yith the feelings and opinions of »eople, of all communities, through int Fiji that the London recommen lations have found wide acceptance nd approval.

“They meet the aims for which the onference was called and Fiji people enerally are content to accept them ,s such, and are interested to see how hey will work out in practice.

“The stupidity of talk about smashing’ or ‘wrecking’ the proposals terns from efforts by a small group f politicians to distract attention rom their failure to measure up to hose standards of wisdom and tatesmanship which were called for t a time of historic decision.

“The ‘Federation’ four failed to be onstructive at London.

“They have produced no construc ve thinking since—nothing designed 0 increase the prosperity and con mtment of the people of Fiji, noth ig that will create more jobs or will jad to a stable atmosphere of good will in which men and women can ve in peace and children grow up 1 happiness.

“Personal vilification, racialism and aseless attacks on other Govern icnts, institutions and people are a oor substitute.”

It seems likely that the Federation 'arty will concentrate its attacks on hat part of the London agreement which gives the Fijians two more eats in the Legislative Council.

The extra seats were given because ic British Government and the Euro eans recognised a “special position” ccupied by the Fijians in their own ountry, but a demand for parity of eats by the Indians will no doubt e seen by the Fijians as an attack n that special position.