Rhodesia
SIR,—Have we been fair to our 'kith and kin' in Rhodesia? Consider the following claims which are made by them:
Firstly, that they were promised independence be- fore the Second World War but that the question was shelved on the outbreak of war. They preferred to get on with the job of helping us to win the war and they were outstanding in the help which they gave.
Secondly, that they were offered independence as an alternative to federation but that they decided to forgo it in the interests of the larger hope.
Thirdly, that in entering into federation they were assured that it would not be broken up without the agreement of all the contracting parties. And they did not wish it to be broken up. Fourthly, that they were assured that if they accepted the 1961 Constitution and if the federation came to an end Rhodesia would be granted dominion status under that constitution. This is quoted in Han- sard of the Southern Rhodesian Legislative Assembly of June 20, 1961, and it has never been contradicted.
Fifthly, that a categorical assurance was given at the Victoria Falls Conference in 1963 that if the Rhodesians would co-operate in the break-up of the federation the British government would imme- diately deal with their independence and that the matter would be concluded not later than the grant- ing of independence to the other members of the federation.
The British government has never ruled in Rhodesia. The Rhodesian settlers have built up these countries and, since in two of the three Africans have been granted undisputed sway, in all fairness should not the white Rhodesians have some preponderance in the third? Here the franchise is open to all on an equal basis: a basis which only requires a minimal educational or income acquirement. Surely this is the only true basis for such a multi-racial society in Africa provided that a real endeavour is made to help all to qualify. Objection is made to the Preventive Detention Act. But when a country is fighting for its existence and survival against others who are almost waging war on it, it may be forced into doing things which are of rather an illiberal nature to combat terrorism and intimidation.
I should be glad to know whether any of the above claims are wrong. But otherwise is it such a very illegal act to have taken the independence which had been promised as part of a bargain and yet with- held? Are we being fair to the Southern Rhodesians? H. D. SILLS Hillstead, Great Shelford, Cambridge
Previous page
