The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1923. KENYA COLONY.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIX, Issue 96, 28 August 1923, Page 4

The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 1923. KENYA COLONY.

Indian opinion seems to have been deeply stirred by the British Government's decision in reference to Konya Colony, us evidenced by the decision to observe a hartal. And no less deeply stirred have been the European settlers of ,t'he Colony, who some urn? «fo threatened to

use force unless the British Government acceded to their demands. The problem was very fairly discussed in a recent issue of the Indian “Pioneer.” Regarding the claims of Indians, both at home and in Kenya, the “Pioneer" said: Taking their stand on the declarations made at the Imperial Conference of 1921, they maintain that anything hut absolute equality in Kenya would be inconsistent with the resolution that “in the interests of the solidarity of the Commonwealth, it is desirable , that the rights of such Indians to citizenship should be recognised.” The Conference, indeed, stated that “there Is an incongruity between the position of India as an equal member of the Empire and the existence of disabilities upon British Indians lawfully domiciled in some other parts of the Empire.” In view of, these expressions of opinion, In- ' tllaus claim that their equality with other citizens of the British Empire in Kenya should be established beyond doubt. Moreover, they argue that the Conference of 1921 referred in the main to the self-governing j Dominions and, a fortiori, the pos- * ition of Indians in a Crown Colony should not be inferior to the position of Indians in England herself or in the self-governing Dominions. Indians further rely on the long trading connection between India and East Africa, and contend that', if India’s membership of the Empire is to be more than a phrase, her people should have unrestricted access to the British possession which lies nearest her shores. Although, remarks the “Pioneer,” theoretically and logically there may be justification for this attitude, the heat engendered by the controversy has, perhaps, obscured one or two vital facts which, if considered in their proper bearings, might help to suggest a solution, , Kenya, with its 2,500,000 native Masais, 9600 Europeans, and 30,000 Indians, cannot for generations become a self--governing Dominion. Government [by an official majority and by a [ majority of the representatives of + tbe British Government is bound to be maintained. It seems, therefore, i that, provided the Indian view is j adequately voiced by Indian representatives in the Council, the practical requirements of the political situation are met. Nor are the Mas,ai a negligible factor in the colony. They were conquered by the British settlers and, before the British arrived in Kenya, the Indian trader, who is not of the fighting classes, seldom ventured Inland. Although numerically in the majority in Konya, the Indian residents there could not hold the colony for an instant were the British settlers to withdraw. It would be impolitic and Illogical, therefore, to insist on interpreting the doctrine of equality ,in such a way as to give the preponderance of political power to the section of the population which could not fulfil the maxim “Lot him rule who can hold.”