ABSTRACT
Albert Sarraut-the Radical deputy who has already come into this survey, as a successful Governor-General of Indo-China. and as the leading exponent of the association theory-outlined his policy in Indo-China in the French Senate as early as February, 1920, and in the Deputies in July of the same year.1 But it was not until 12 April, 1921, that the scheme was put forward in its final form-in that form of a general programme which has since been accepted as the basis of colonial development.2 He commenced his exposition by showing how the general colonial question had been metamorphosed by the conditions of the War. Until then. the image had been blurred: but, by 1920. he argued. the pressure of economic facts had given it definiteness. The theory of the day was that French destinies depended on increased production. To do this, colonial and metropolitan action had to dovetail in to each other, and the colonies were to become reservoirs of raw material and emporia for home manufacturers. But the striking feature, as he emphasised it. was the mutual interdependence of France 'and the colonies, and the realisation that the former depended on the latter as much as the latter did on the former. A new interpretation was given to this interaction. 'Here again: said Sarraut, 'and the phenomenon is of a relatively recent date, the image of colonial reality comes to adapt itself as a necessary complement to that of metropolitan existence'; and this realisation on the part of French politicians was something entirely new.3 Instead of the improvised empiricism of pre-war years, there was to be what Sarraut called 'colonial incorporation', a term which in itself expressed the mutualism and the necessity of colonial aid. 4
To realise this new objective, Sarraut held that all colonial efforts had to be co-ordinated. The earlier policy of petits paquets -of desultory and discontinuous schemes. was anathema to the reformers. The Millerand Ministry stood for the elimination of such policies from national existence. and nowhere had they been more noticeable in the past than in the colonies. :rhere, a fixed plan was needed above all things. A division of labour was necessary, if the maximum output was to be obtained. and this meant specialisation. Each colony, therefore, had to confine its development to those particular directions that would strengthen the general structure: the older notion of an attempt to secure something like colonial selfsufficiency was definitely discarded. Colonisation had to become specialised. 'Our colonies must be centres of production and no longer museums of specimens,' -development had to be made efficient and co-ordinated. Mass-effort on the best factory-principle was the word of the day-in short, the application of the principles of modern industry was to transform the colonial regime.
