"Fijians And Indians Must Make

Friends: It's The Only Way!"

By John Griffin

Covering as it does more than a third of the world, the Pacific is big enough for several island groups to legitimately style themselves “crossroads”. However, none is better located or suited for the role in the South Pacific than the British crown colony of Fiji. It lies both on the border between Polynesia and Melanesia by the International Dateline, and between Hawaii 3,000 miles to the north, and Australia and New Zealand closer to the south.

Fiji has some 800 islands and islets with a total land area of 7,095 square miles, slightly larger than the Hawaiian chain.

Most of the islands are low coral atolls or limestone dots, often suited only for the growing of palms. Only 100 are inhabited. But Fiji also has “high” islands, built not just by gushing volcanos, as in Tahiti or Hawaii, but also by great upthrusts from the ocean floor.

These mineral-rich “continental” structures are another mark of Melanesia.

Two of these islands, Viti Levu and Vanua Levu, dominate the area in size and economic importance; they have about 90 per cent, of the total land area. Some three-quarters of the colony’s population lives on Viti Levu (“Great Fiji”). The capital and only major city of Suva, with 55.000 people and a fine harbour, lies some 70 miles across this circular, mountainous island from the inter national airport at Nadi and other larger towns of the coastal cane growing area.

It’s population embraces the econo mically and politically commanding Europeans, the Indians, Chinese shop keepers and traders, part-Europeans who over several generations have become a local sub-culture, Poly nesian natives of nearby Rotuma which is a dependency of Fiji, and a variety of other Pacific Islanders.

Latest population estimates a 513.000 total, broken down this way; Fiijans 215,000, Indians 257,000, Europeans 12,000, Part Europeans 10,000, Rotumans 6,000, Chinese 5,400, other Pacific Islanders 6,600.

It’s important to note that the immigrant Indians now make up just about half the total population while the native Fiijans are a 42 per cent.

minority. But more important is to understand that this is a multiracial society not really integrating yet. It is not a Hawaii situation where Hawaiians have become a colourful but depressed and relatively un influential minority. Fijians may eat Indian curry; Indians may sometimes take to the Fijian drink of kava or yaqona; all may like British tea and Australian beer. But the hard goals here now still involve setting up

means for peaceful coexistence that can lead to a more hopeful future.

So it is that race is the touchstone of almost everything else in Fiji today. It is possible to sensationalise the situation. One can exaggerate Fiji’s tensions when in fact it may be the lack of them is more notable, considering the situation; the average visitor is hardly disturbed.

Still it would be both perilous and impossible not to underscore the deep concern about Fiji’s racial situation. There is plenty of public lip-service to the idea of togetherness, but privately there are also plenty of statements such as these: “We have been pushed back enough. The time is coming when we will have to take care of them with this,” says a Fijian worker holding up a fist and indicating towards a couple of Indians drinking down the public bar.

“We may have to

get tougher”

That Fiijan worker may have been drunk and poor but he was not alone in his opinions. Two days later in an airconditioned office a respected Fijian chief and leader said very soberly: “It looks like we may have to get tougher. The Indians must see that one alternative they face is getting booted out . . . There could quite easily be trouble”.

A top Indian leader expressed concern that so many of his people were leaving Fiji out of uncertainty, concern for the future and a short age of opportunities. Yet he and others stressed that the big majority of Indians saw their future as people of Fiji, and, contrary to what some others might say, were not afraid to fight for their rights if necessary.

One of my more memorable meet ings was with an American with much experience in the islands. For an hour he told me about Fiji’s great economic prospects and the part he hoped to play. Then as we parted he

* John Griffin, of the “Honolulu Adver tiser”, wrote this report as an Alicia Patterson Fund winner. Fiji’s constitu tional future is at present being discussed at an important conference in London.

added: “There is going to be trouble here some day. I only hope it will be over quickly and will teach them a lesson that will last for 30 years”.

Another dimension was added by the wife of a prominent local Euro pean politician, who with her husband nodding assent said: “Most of the Fijians still show the old respect.

But there is a rise of anti-Euro peanism here that I find disturbing”.

On a more fundamental level, there is the remark of an anthropo logist who has lived in Fiji and studied the various Pacific peoples: “I don’t think you will find two less compatible races in any one place than the Fiijans and Indians. They really aren’t attracted to each other”.

“ Religion, not race,

is the barrier”

These differences run through race, type of culture, language, economic specialisation, school systems, and religion. (“It may be that religion rather than race is the big barrier,” says one social worker “Virtually all Fijians are Christians, mostly Methodists. But only 2 per cent, of the Indians are Christians. The rest are Hindus or Muslims”).

Everything considered, relations between people of two races have been mostly peaceful, especially among the rural Fijian villagers and Indian cane farmers. “You might say the people at the bottom get along while we at the top feud about their future,” said one leader. Said a European who works closely with all races: “In Suva and the towns there is division. People manage to work together on the job. There is some playing together in sports, but very little in social life. Attitudes are still far apart”.

Fiijan attitudes have been shaped by a mixture of cultural pride and

British paternalism. Traditional Fijian society is a Polynesian-Melanesian mixture. Its elements include rule by hereditary chiefs in various rankings, elaborate ceremony, large family units in rural villages, communal ownership of land, subsistence farm ing, and a share-and-share-alike philo sophy towards work and material goods. It is an integrated, tradition bound culture, one poorly equipped to cope with influences of the West.

For most of the past 95 years, British policy has been a mixture of first trying to preserve Fijian tradition and, more of late, helping Fijians meet modern challenges—admirable goals some see as cross purposes in practical effect over the years.

A safety valve for

Fijian frustrations

To pursue them, the British, shortly after taking over, set up a separate government within a government for Fijians. At the top of this tradition based Fijian Administration is the Great Council of Chiefs which reviews any government proposals relating to Fijians and sends two members to the legislature. There is no doubt this system has preserved much of the Fijian communal social structure. It may now act as sort of a safety valve for Fijian frustrations.

But the system has also been more of a security blanket than stimulant.

Says one important chief in the government: “It was a device where we came to let the British guide and protect us. Today our people lack the initiative to co-operate in a positive way against outside forces”.

One vital fact is that because of strict no-sale laws Fijian family groups still own 84 per cent, of the land. “That’s fine,” says one young Fijian official, “But what you some times see is Fijian villagers almost surrounded by their own land they had leased to Indian cane farmers.

They can’t get it back or sometimes even get on it—except to work for the Indian cutting cane in season for 50 cents a day. And the tragedy is a lot of Fijians are content to do just that”.

Patterns are changing, of course.

It’s estimated that more than one quarter of the Fijians are living out side the strict ties of traditional society. Some have managed the important transition to success as independent farmers. A few are successful in professions, and a

number are high in government.

Others have become urbanised workers in industry.

But many are in a transition period that means social and personal problems. Statistics tell part of the story. With just over 40 per cent, of the population, Fijians make up 72 per cent, of the inmates in prison.

Some 81 per cent, of all liquor offence convictions last year involved Fijians. A college-entrance-type examination saw 246 Indian can didates and only 29 Fijians. Of these, 65 per cent, of the Indians passed while only 45 per cent, of the Fijians got through.

Behind this are the difficulties of a people bred to a communal village culture but now faced with the challenges of a materialistic society with its different concepts of money, debt, and private property. Not only do working Fijians often face demands to share their affluence with many relatives, it’s also said many have a “big spender” compulsion to impress family, friends, and outsiders.

In this, they are a people generous to a fault.

“Things have turned

out against him”

Most notable to me in 1969 was what seemed an increasing Fijian bluntness in concern about their con dition in relation to both Indians and Europeans.

Wrote a young Fijian intellectual who graduated from an overseas university “The average Fijian is taking stock of his position, and inside he is aware of how things have turned out against him. The gravity of this development process should not be underestimated . . .

The Fijian sees himself increasingly as a loser . . . With their political awakening, the Fijians are becoming increasingly aware of the adverse economic position of their community . . . They used to be poor men in a poor country; now they are poor men in a relatively rich country.

Such a build-up provides conditions conducive to the growth of Fijian nationalism”.

On a more grass-roots level, a moderate and thoughtful Fijain district officer in a rural region commented: “Fijian feelings are strong but sub merged. We smile, are polite and cheerful, and pretend all is well. But inside, underneath, is a powder keg, to put it mildly. The Fijian is be coming more aware of politics and realises he is a cornered man. He is backed up and worried. This will come out. There will be trouble in one form or another . . .”

Contributing to the new Fijian

awareness, and so to the attendant tension in 1969, was The Nation, a magazine of the ruling Alliance Party which is directed by relatively moderate and progressive Fijians (although with varying European influence). The hired editor of the new magazine in 1969 was David Seidler, a young American TV pro ducer who had lived in Fiji before.

His style was outspoken, but there was no doubt the important articles were cleared and intended almost as informal leadership statements.

"If the Fijians were

to burn Suva . .

In May, for example, there was a controversial piece advocating “Fijian Power”, which began with the follow ing statement made in 1959 by Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, Chief (Prime) Minister and head of the Alliance Party: “If the Fijians were to burn Suva to the ground they would lose nothing. They would gain by destroy ing the records of their debts.”

The article went on to spell out demands for “discrimination for Fijians”, a higher percentage of jobs, business licences, and scholarships to help close the gap. It said: ‘“Fijian Power’ is not meant to set Fijians against Indians and Europeans. The hatred and violence witnessed in other countries must be avoided at all costs. The cost is aiding the Fijian ‘have-nots’.

“There can be no stability in Fiji until the Fijian feels secure in his own nation. There can be no racial

equality until all races are indeed equal.”

Many in Fiji’s powerful European establishment, including some in the Alliance Party, were disturbed by the American Black Power overtones and various other suggestions that the Indians are hardly solely to blame for the situation of the Fijians today.

But more important is the feeling that such articles articulate a body of growing militancy among more educated Fijians.

The old rams or chiefs were not being pushed aside; if trouble really came, their power as leaders in the hierarchical system would be important. Ratu Mara added to his

high chiefly credentials with new titles last year.

Still the biggest and most positive changes, involved Fijian nationalism in the competitive area with other races. Dangers were apparent, but so was a hope to break the old cycle.

At any rate a Fijian legislator seemed to be stating a hope as much as a fact when he said “The old polite Fijian is on the way out”,

The Indians

Importing Indian labour was a con cession to European sugar planters, There was an understandable side:

Ratu Mara.

British policy was for colonies— even this colony by invitation—to be as economically self-supporting as possible. Fijians did not like sugar plantation work and did not have to do it for survival. In fact, a British aim was to protect them from being turned into what was termed “a col lection of migratory bands of hired labourers”.

So unsuccessful Fijian communal plantations were started. And, after a period when other Pacific Islanders were tried, the ambitious and im poverished Indians were imported from their homeland to work for Europeans.

These men and women from various areas of India came as indentured labourers under a system that developed abuses and hardships. Still most stayed after their contracts expired. After 1916 when the indenture system was broken up they became small tenant farmers, grow ing sugar on land leased from Fijians or the big Australian company that controls milling and marketing.

But increasing numbers have gone into the trades and service industry, dominating such fields as rural retail sales and road transportation. In addition, small but important groups came as free migrants, notably Gujerati businessmen from around Bombay.

Indians should never

have been sent?

It’s possible to argue that Indians should never have been brought to Fiji, that the seeds of potential racial tragedy are not worth the economic advantages. But the dominating fact now is that over 90 per cent, of Fiji’s quarter-million Indians were born there, and the great number see their future there.

If Fijian culture looks both very fragile and deceptively simple, Indian society in the islands presents readily apparent contradictions. This Indian community is far from homogeneous and unchanged. The original immigrants came from several areas in India. Most were Hindu, but perhaps 15 per cent, were Muslim and a small number Christians.

Although these religious differences continue, the Indian caste system was broken almost immediately by com munal conditions on immigrant ships and in the crowded, inadequate barracks on the plantations. There is a wide range of Indian attitudes among such diverse people as the “shirt tail farmer” scratching out a living on marginal land, the more prosperous cane farmers with set

leases on good land, the poor urban cab driver, and the fat cat owner of stores and other business, between the young student and his parents.

Indians themselves make the point they are a people given far more to splitting into factions than to unity.

In fact, it’s felt the key element in Indian economic success is his ability to operate as an individualist.

“Is wanting to

survive wrong?"

Still it‘s hard not to think about “the Indians” as a group. With thousands of years of tradition, the umbrella of general Indian culture remains in such things as religion, food, dress, and general togetherness; European policy and Fijian fears have reinforced it. In a basically com munal election system, it is not surprising to find evidence of Indian bloc voting. No matter what divides them, many Indians can still see a threat to them as a people in Fiji.

“I was born here,” says one young Indian. “Is wanting to survive and live as an equal in my own country so wrong?”

Some Indian statements reflect a superior view over Fijians. “Can you imagine looking as they did for somebody to give your country to?

This is the chief and culture they look up to?” “If it were not for us Indians there would be grass growing in the (British) governor’s bedroom.”

Both statements came from Indian leaders, but they are balanced by other more public remarks that Indians recognise Fijian historical rights to the land and their need for special help in catching up.

“Our people have never set out to harm the Fijians in any way; if anything, we have helped them,” says a top Indian leader. “All we want is to be equal, to be part of things here.”

“Fiji for the

Fijians!”

If oversimplified, that seems reason able enough. In fact, the present constitution guarantees citizenship rights to local born residents. Most Fijian leaders recognise the Indians are there to stay. But there are leaders —even moderate, respected leaders —who in anger and frustration at times talk of “Fiji for the Fijians”, of somehow deporting the Indians.

Thus, if the Fijian fears domination in his homeland, meaningful survival as Fiji citizens is a question for many Indians. “Balance” and “equality” have long been key and often con flicting words in a Fiji situation where Europeans set the rules; now as self

government approaches they are taking on new and added importance.

“When you talk about Europeans in Fiji,” said a leading local politician, “you’ve got to be careful to say which one”. It’s a worthy point.

Historically, the mixture includes escaped criminals, shipwrecked sailors, missionaries, blackbirding slave traders, honest and adventurous planters and businessmen, deadbeat officials and dedicated civil servants.

Today the group counts modern versions of the same types, plus fourth or fifth generation local Europeans called Kai Viti. Although the British presence is m)uch diminished—94 per cent, of the public service is now local born—there are now more Europeans in Fiji than ever before, largely Australian and New Zealand

businessmen or hired government workers.

Money, power, western skills and prestige have long given Europeans a dominant influence far beyond their relatively small numbers in Fiji. They control the top 80 per cent, of the economy (with most of the rest in the hands of Indian merchants).

Europeans also ran the government, and even now retain much influence and ultimate power. Moreover, because of the circumstances of cession and special treatment since, the Fijians have had an enormous loyalty to the British Crown as their great protector. This has usually translated into friendly feelings towards all Europeans.

The special-friendship factor may

be changing as many Fijians come to realise that not all white men have been or really are their great friends, and as some Europeans become nervous over “Fijian Power”. How ever, by and large the friendship still seems to work both ways. There are those who challenge whether the Fijian has been really understood, but Europeans generally find him most friendly, good humoured, open —and willing to follow European leadership.

Attitudes towards Indians are often something else. Some Kai Viti and other Europeans reflect acute dislike.

“Some of my

best friends . . .”

Others are more moderate. You get a lot of views that begin with, “Some of my best friends are Indians —but . . .” Part of the apprehension stems from the fact Indian advance ment can challenge European dominance. Others cite deeper factors.

Indians work hard, are individualists, enterprising and willing to sacrifice for their children, virtues high in Western Christian esteem.

Some Europeans feel they will hold on in power in an informal political alliance with Fijians. Others doubt that. Still their present economic strength and the growth of tourism and other investment indicates Euro peans will remain an important factor in a new era in Fiji. How well they both use their influence and step back from public dominance is bound to bear on hopes for a peaceful future.

There may very well be racial violence in Fiji. Some would argue it is much more likely than not, although most would bet and hope against a major conflict.

There are also some hopeful signs: progress away from racial schools is not fast enough, especially at lower, formative levels, but it is being made.

Intermarriage in the key area between Fijians and Indians is still so rare it is unimportant as an influence.

But there are social developments some find significant.

Said one European who works closely with youth: “The Fijian and Indian kids are getting out of the traditional Methodist and Hindu patterns; they are becoming more secularised. . . . That shakes up some parents, but give the kids one more generation and the things that separate them so much now will go.”

Whether Fiji can peacefully get to that next generation is now the big question. Here also there is room for hope because the situation is fluid and depends on the work of respected, moderate people on all sides.