COLONIAL POLICY

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 157, 6 July 1931, Page 6

COLONIAL POLICY

FRENCH AND BRITISH METHODS

SYMPATHETIC TREATMENT OF NATIVES

(By MARSHAL LYAUTEY, the most distinguished of French colonial

administrators.)

It wae not until I was' forty that I begun my colonial career, but it soon gripped me and held me in its spell. First I had my own views on the work I had set out to do, fully conscious of the incapacity which my own people had often shown in dealing with big colonial problems. It was in Tonquin and Indo-China, however, that mv first practical experience of colony building was acquired, and in that very hard training school I matured very quickly, having as my mentor and guide General Gallieui, a man who, in my opinion, possessed all the qualities of an empire builder. In the meantime, too, I had frequent occasion to admire British methods, and, from what I saw in India and British colonies, realised more than ever how the British Empire had come into being. Britain, too, may have her politicians—and no politician ever created an empire—but where she differs from U6 is that she has rarely allowed them to nullify the efforts of her men of action. The colonial policy, in short, that Britain has always followed has. been characterised by a wonderful unity and continuity, not only in plan, but in method, a circumstance that l" attribute in the main to the enormous advantage of having a Colonial Office at Home whose personnel does not change with ; every new Government.

The power of British colonial enterprise i≤ made up of two things: its institutions and the single-mindedness of its servants. First the institutions, with their fixed and aristocratic elements, in the largest sense of the word, which ensure the permanency of programmes, the fixity of methods, the security of personal situations, the possibility of adequately preparing any scheme you have in view and of not seeing it materialise before the time is ripe. And secondly, the single-mindedness of its servants with their serious'bent in everything in life, their energy and disdain of routine and the strong individualism of the Anglo-Saxon race.

Xow my own method, as evolved in the course of my career, resembles and yet varies considerably from that adopted by the British colonists. It resembles it in the sense that we, too,_ extol all those qualities ot grit, perseverance, continuity and initiative that have been such important factors in the creating of the British Empire. I have, in a number of ways that time forbids my enumerating, sought to apply in our colonies British msthods, British hygiene, British comfort, British regard of the social, recreative and sporting needs of our men. On my way out Last I remember so well visiting British barracks, not only at Aden, but at Singapore, and how I was impressed by all that was done to give soldier.ar complete a life as possible; good sanitary accommodation, plenty of fresh air and sport, o-ood reading rooms, and. above all, quarters that were not built on the same pattern. Heavens. How they differed from our own! All this I have tried to "put right, and I think with success. Where I have differed, however, from British methods is in the role that we have set out to fulfil with regard to the native population. _ 1 have every possible admiration for British colonisers and fully agree, for instance, with the conclusions reached in Seeley , * "Expansion ot England," my favourite book, but I hold that methods that are applicable in one century are not necessarily applicable in the next. That is whv the politica. and administrative vole that we" have in view when dealing with our native population is perhaps rather different from that of Britain. Politically we insist on every colonial officer making as profound a study of the country and people he is going to govern as Iβ possible. We do not treat our native population as if they were of a different order of creation, for we try r every way to get such understanding of their character, tradition*, and individuality as will enable us to win them over to our side. \ ie\ved from the administrative aspect, however, our colonial policy does not differ materially from that adopted by British colonisers, and we try in every way to give the native population every civilised commodity—good roads, improved dwellings and hygiene, the elements of education. In short, we look upon a colonial career as a lite of personal sacrifice and devotion to a great cause, and I personally consider that a good colonial officer must possess very high qualities.

With regard to the question as to whether colonies will remain as they now are or if the big empires of to-day will ultimately be compelled to surrender them, no oiie can prophesy the future, but my own conviction is that if only countries adopt as their colonial policy methode similar to those which I have adopted in Morocco there will be no change in the status of colonies. Make friends of the peoples that circumstances have entrusted you with, treat them as you would children—that is to say, not with cut-and-dricd regulations, but according to each"individual ease—make them realise all the benefits of the links that unite them to the mother country, and T do not think you will find them unresponsive. If you would then ask me to define the best colonial method, I would say that there is not one method, but rather ten, twenty, or even more, the ideal method having as its attributes "souplesse, elastieite, conformite aux lieux, aux temps, aux cireonstances." Again I should say— don't kill your colonies by trying to make them too remunerative in a 'short time. Prepare the way for the future, and you will certainly build up bi°- empires by allowing them to develop freely. My conclusion, therefore, is that colony building is'by no means impossible in the future, if we treat it in the manner which I have tried to indicate.