KENYA CONTROL

Northern Advocate, 26 July 1923, Page 5

KENYA CONTROL

NATIVE INTERESTS SUPREME.

FRANCHISE TOE INDIANS.

UNDER COMMUNAL SYSTEM,

(Received 9.5 a.m.)

LONDON, July 24,

A White Paper regarding the government' of Kenya Colony states that the British Government is of opinion that the interests of the African native must bo paramount, wiliile the interests ' of other communities, European, Indian and Arab, must also be safeguarded.

The granting of responsible government to Kenya at the present time is out of the question.

With regard to the claims of Indianfc domiciled in Kenya, the Government has decided that the interests of all Mill be best served by adoption of a communal system of representation in the Legislative CounciL Under this system Indians will be granted wide franchise.

The existing practice of' reserving agricultural land in highlands for Europeans must be maintained, but an area in the lowlands will "be reserved in case there is a dettrond for agricultural lands among the Indians.—A. and N.Z. SOUTH AFRICAN PROBLEM. \ EQUITABLE TREATMENT PROPOSED. i -- I ( Received 10.45 a.m.) I CAPETOWN, July 25. ' In a speech at Pietermaritzburg General Smuts outlined the Government's policy on the Asiatic question, which embraced a; substantial measure of segregation. He wanted to pass legislation whereby it would bo optional for towns in future to set aside an area for Indians both for residence and trade. Future licenses would only be granted in such areas. The Government would have the final say, in order to ensure that Indians ■ were fairly treated in the matter of locality. Ho did not see why such a policy should •be resented by Indians or why a breakup of the Empire should be v threatened because of it. There was such a thing as caste in India, some classes refusing to associate with others. There was a 1 heavy programme, never attempted by. any South African Government before, but they as a European community h-.d a plain duty and asked to be masters in their own house. The Indians had put forward a demand for equal franchise. Mr Sastri wa3 going about criticising the Empire. He (Crensr&l Smuts) was not going to follow that . example, but regarding the franealse he saw no reason why they should make any difference between Indians and Natives. If the Indians had the franchise, so must the Natives.—A. and N.Z