'the liberation of Fiji'

Now India wants to help in 'the liberation of Fiji'

India is doing everything possible to “assist in the libera tion of Fiji”, according to Mr. Dinesh Singh, Indian Minister for External Affairs. At the same time, it appears that the Indian Government is not prepared to buy into any large scale debate on Fiji’s future.

Mr. Singh’s statement about libera tion, which will be greeted with less than enthusiasm in most quarters in Fiji, was made during a debate in the Indian Parliament. It was repeated as part of a news statement released by the Information Service of India, Canberra, on March 12.

The news release, compressed into six paragraphs, probably took what Mr. Singh had to say out of context and was obviously designed for Afro-Asian bloc consumption and not for Fiji. India’s right to “liberate”

Fiji is nil; Mr. Singh acknowledged that fact in the last two paragraphs of the Canberra release: “In reply to a question, Mr. Singh said that it would be an extremely dangerous theory to propagate that India should take responsibility for welfare of people of Indian descent who had settled in various countries and were nationals not of India but of those countries.

“He said that when people of this category were ousted from their land of adoption, India did what it could, for humanitarian considerations, to assist them. Apart from that it was not India’s responsibility to look after such people. Indeed, if India did so, it would be tantamount to inter ference in the internal affairs of those countries.”

Independence delayed

Mr. Singh’s unhappy choice of the word “liberation” came about through an answer to an Indian MP.

Mr. Rameshwar Singh, who asked what his government was doing to speed up Fiji’s independence. He accused the government of abetting the British Government in delaying independence in Fiji.

The Foreign Minister rejected the accusation.

Two other members, Mr. Ravirai and Mr. Dharan, urged the Indian Government to exert pressure which would ensure that the United Nations obtained independence for Fiji.

Mr. Dharan claimed that British policy was to maintain its grip on its colony by getting its people to fight among themselves.

The Foreign Minister explained to India’s parliament that certain talks were in progress among leaders of Fiji on how that country’s colonial status should be ended and matters connected therewith. That was why when the question of Fiji’s indepen dence came up at United Nations some time back, India and other countries favoured postponement of discussions till leaders had come to some understanding as a result of their talks, he said.

In Mr. Singh’s opinion there could be no question that any section of Fiji’s people wanted continuance of colonial status. Difference of opinion, if any, could only be about how to achieve freedom.

He said that the Indian Govern ment had talks with the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Michael Stewart, during his recent visit to India, on the issue of Fiji’s indepen dence and had made it clear to him that India was in favour of indepen dence.

Mr. Stewart had replied that his country appreciated India’s role in this matter and that it was hoped that the present talks among Fijian leaders would help evolve some way towards the desired end. If Fijian leaders failed to come to some agreed formula, the UK Government would have to consider further steps in the light of that development. 9 Mr. Rudy Bambridge, one of Tahiti’s best-known businessmen, has resigned his seat in the local Terri torial Assembly following his nom ination as economic and social adviser for French Polynesia to the French Government. Mr. Bambridge’s new job will take him frequently to Paris.

His seat in the Territorial Assembly has been filled by Mr. Tacky Teuira.