THE H.B. TRIBUNE MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 1929 EAST AFRICAN PROBLEMS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 29, 21 January 1929, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 1929 EAST AFRICAN PROBLEMS

SATURDAY’S and to-day’s cable messages with regard to the proposed unification of control over the big East African areas at present under British adniinistra tion may not excite any very great deal of concern in 'this country. At the same time this marks a movement in British colonisation that is not only of very distinct importance to the Empire, but should also be of interest among a people who have not so very long emerged from the same stage of development. The scheme that has been put forward by the Commission set, up to investigate present conditions and make suggestions for the future embraces the regions now known as Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika. These have an aggregate area of somewhere about 675,00 square miles of land, about quarter the size of Australia, or between six and seven times the uzze of New Zealand.

Kenya (225,000 square miles) was originally administered by Great Britain as a native Protectorate, blit in 1920 the great bulk of it was formally annexed and constituted a British Crown colony. Exception, however, was made with respect to the coastal region, which forms part of the Sultanate of Zanzibar and as such continues merely under British protection. The population of the colony is put down at about 2-| million, of whom only' 12,500 are Europeans, while 30,500 are Indians and 10,500 Arabs, the rest being natives. Uganda (94,000 square miles, in eluding 15,000 covered by lakes), lies inland to the west of Kenya, and still retains the status of a British Protectorate. Its population is estimated at something over 3 million, of whom less than 2,001) are Europeans and about 11.500 are Indians. Tanganyika, formerly German East Africa (373,500 square

miles), bounded on the north by Kenya and Uganda, is territory conquered during the Great War, and is now administered by Great Britain, as is Western gjamoa by New Zealand, under mandate from the Council of the League of Nations. Its population, according to latest available estimates, is not far short of 4j million, of whom only about 5,300 are whites and close on 15,000 Asiatics. It will thus bo seen that in all this vast combined region there are altogether only some 20,000 Europeans, by no means all of British stock, while there are pretty nearly three times as many Asiatics, most of them Indians, and about fifty times as many natives. These figures should afford some idea of the difficulties that stand in the way of devising a governmental system that will justly consider the various interests involved and exercise its rule in such a way as to maintain internal peace and order. Not the least of these difficulties lies in the existence of an Indian element that so greatly outnumbers the European. This has already had marked evidence, more especially in Kenya Colony, where the Europeans were granted the right of electing eleven members to the otherwise nominated Legislative Council. The Indian community, on the other hand, was allowed only two representatives in the Council, and those nominees of the Governor. This discrimination led to prolonged agitation, the Indians claiming, as British subjects, to have equal rights with the Europeans and a common franchise. In this demand they had support, too, from the Govern ment of India. The white settlers, to whom the development of the country was almost entirely due, strenuously resisted this claim, at the same time alleging that the influence of the Indians upon the natives was anything but good. On the matter being referred to the British Government a decision was given that the interests of the natives must have first consideration here just as much as in the adjoining mandated territory under the League’s Covenant, and that Great Britain must retain the authority necessary to carry out her trusteeship. Still, by way of concession to the Indians in respect of the franchise, a communal system of representation was set up—that is, separate rolls for Europeans, for Indians, and for Arabs, and five seats on the Council were allotted to the Indians and one to the Arabs. This, however, has not satisfied the Indians, and although theit agitation has subsided it has not by any means died out. Here, again, as among both the native and the Indian population in the South African Union, we have the emissaries of Moscow continually busy stirring up and fomenting disaffection against British control. There is also another factor in the case that is more than likely to arouse some discussion. As has neen said, Tanganyika is mandated territory for whose administration the British Government is responsible to account to the League of Nations Council. Not only this, but Germany still entertains hopes of being eventually allowed to recover, some, if not all, the colonial possessions wrested from her by the war. Little has of late been heard of this, but the purpose is no doubt kept steadily in reserve for further exploitation. Possibly the present movement for what may easily be interpreted as a permanent administrative amalgamation with a British colony may lead to an early protest. That is, of course, unless the difference in the position of Tanganyika has been very fully and specifically recognised and preserved in the scheme of unification put forward by the Commission. On this point, however, our cable messages have so far thrown no light.