THE FUTURE OF EAST AFRICA
[To the Editor of the Sem-rAvon.]
SIR,—In spite of some obvious differences, there is a striking parallelism between the problem of India and that of Kenya
Colony.
A letter in the Times of July 12th by Mr. Richard Law,
under the heading " Lord Irwin and his critics," contains observations with reference to India which fit the position in Kenya with singular aptness. Substituting " Kenya " for "India," and " settlers " for " educated Indians,- and omitting one parenthesis, the passage referred to runs as follows :— "The problem of the future relationship of this country to Kenya is, I take it, a political problem, and in politics one must consider not only what is just and right, but what is humanly possible. Of two solutions to any given problem, indeed, it is sometimes necessary to choose the one which is ideally the less desirable.. Of such a nature, I submit, is the problem of Kenya. We in this country may know without any possibility of error what is best for our fellow-subjects in Kenya, but unless we can convince the settlers that it is in fact best, it becomes the worst— for it can, never be realized. The task of British statesmanship is surely to enlist the support of the settlers in a POII1111011 (and perhaps imperfect) cause, rather than to impose upon them an ideally perfect Constitution which they will refuse to work and which they will throw off at the earliest possible moment."
It is not easy to understand why the same circumstances which in the case of India call for anxiously sympathetic treatment, should in the case of Kenya elicit only such con- temptuous reprobation as that of your correspondent, Mr. J. H. Driberg. His conclusions that the settlers' " members " are unrepresentative, that their counsels are to a material extent divided on main issues, and that less than 25 per cent. of them are actively concerned with political affairs, do not follow from the premises advanced and cannot safely be accepted in default of any assurance that he is in possession of first-hand and trustworthy information about the feeling in the colony.
The White Papers just published suggest several questions the answers to which arc not easy to find. Is a Government not trustee for all sections of the population it governs ? If so, can it treat the interests of one section as paramount over those of others without a breach of trust ? If Govern- ment is " irrevocably responsible for maintenance of its trusteeship " for the African how came it to delegate its trust for the natives of Juhaland to Italy ? If the answer is that Jubaland was ceded in implement of part promises, is one entitled to implement a promise to commit a breach of trust ? - Is not every trust " sacred," and is our trust more " sacred " quoad the African than quoad the non. African ? If so, why ?
It appears to one of your readers that the effect of the superfluous word " sacred " in the White Paper is to introduce into the discussions a highly undesirable element of Peck- [The two cases of Indians in India and white settlers in Kenya are in no sense analogous.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
