Is It Possible To Modify The Fijian’S

Way Of Life?

BY DR. D. W. HOODLESS, of SUVA

A RECENTLY published book, The Fijian Way of Life, and articles in the February PIM, have focussed attention on the Fijians’ communal system of living.

This system, with local variations, is found also in Tonga, Samoa and other Islands groups.

Fijians, living in their own vil lages, and far away from any in dustrial centre, lead a peaceful and sedate life. The chief occupation of all of them—men, women and children —is to ensure that food is available and suitably prepared.

Children of school age will go to school, and all will attend religious services as often as possible; but, for the most part, the daily life of a village Fijian is a monotonous one —food; grow it, or get it; pre pare it; eat it.

There are, of course, occasions when gales or heavy storms, etc., may cause damage to houses, gar dens and paths, so that repairs be come necessary or extra time is devoted to growing crops; but the pattern does not vary much over the years.

The chief break in village life routine is a council meeting. Little or no preparation is necessary for a village council meeting, for no travelling or feast is required. But a District Council meeting calls for travel for most members, and additional food preparation in the tillage where it is held. A much greater break from routine is in volved in the annual Provincial Council, for which there is elab crate preparation of extra food stuffs, and much rehearsal of old and new mekes.

The communal system, as prac tised by Fijians, enables them to lead a peaceful and simple life, with ;he minimum expenditure of effort, aut without any possibility of ac cumulating wealth.

PERHAPS the most serious criticism of the communal sys tem is that it prevents all thrift and accumulation of wealth, n the form of either property (houses, plantations, herds of cattle, etc.) or money. The Fijian custom known variously as vasu, or tauvu, or kerekere (under which a Fijian can demand any property from another), cannot be refused )r denied: the Fijian has yet to be corn who can hold out against a request for one of his most treasured possessions, if that re luest is sanctioned by Fijian cus tom.

Thus, there is a definite clash between the thriftless communal system of the Fijian, and the in iividualistic and thrifty (and per haps selfish) way of life of the

European, Indian or Chinese in this Colony.

In the more remote islands, like Kandavu, or Lau, the Fijians have almost no cqntact with other races, so that their own communal way of life concerns only themselves.

But on Viti Levu and Vanua Levu— and especially near the industrial centres where Europeans, Indians and other races are congregated— the contrast between the Fiji communal system and the indi

vidualism of the other races shows up very clearly.

Let us take, for example, a Fijian and an Indian, each working for the same pay for the same em ployer. The Indian may save and save, and after a few years (if he remained at the same work) you will find him to be a married man, in a small bungalow, with several children. But the savings of the Fijian, on the same wage, and conditions, ,would probably be nil— although probably he has sent various amounts at odd intervals back to his village, and is looking forward to the time when he can return to his own village life.

Of course, there are exceptions to every picture of life, and there may be a few isolated cases where

a Fijian has been thrifty, and settled down in a strange place without any intention of returning to his village; but I have not found such a case.

BUT time marches on—the 20th century is half gone—and the Indians in Fiji now out-nurn ber the Fijians, and the Fijian con tinues thriftless and the Indian is thrifty. So what?

Undoubtedly, there are good features in the Fijian communal system. There is no such thing as a Fijian pauper; and no Fijian need ever starve, for he will always be given a meal, even in a strange village, if he behaves properly. And it may reasonably be argued that the communal system is as good as any other system, provided, of course, that all the other neighbour ing races are practising a similar system. Therein lies the rub: for if the neighbouring races are strongly individualistic and thrifty, they constantly will forge ahead.

Let us take another example. An Indian boy from here goes to New Zealand or Australia, and qualifies as a doctor or lawyer, on funds pro vided by his own father after years of savings. This young Indian re turns to Fiji and sets up in practice.

His chances of success are as good as those of any European doctor or lawyer, and depend on his own in tegrity and work. A Fijian boy of comparable ability is sent to NZ or

Australia—funds being provided by his Province or by the Fiji Govern ment—and he also qualifies as a doctor or lawyer, and returns to Fiji to practise. As a private prac titioner in medicine or law it would be impossible for him to earn a liv ing, if his work is among his own race entirely. In fact, if his pro fessional education abroad has been paid for by Provincial Funds, every Fijian of that Province would ex pect—and consider it fair and reasonable —to be given free medi cal treatment or legal advice for all time.

IS it possible to modify the present communal system of the Fijians, so as to encourage thrift and in dividualism? Are these the only alternatives: • Let the present system continue as it is, with only small modifica tions occurring from time to time, as they have done during the last 70 years. • Abolish the communal system of the Fijians, if the majority of the Fijians so desire. • Modify the present communal system of the Fijians so that a limited number of them, in defined areas, can become individualistic and thrifty.