Muslims in Crossfire

And the row is far from over!

MUSLIMS in Fiji, who make up eight per cent of Fiji’s population of 700,000, or 17 per cent of the 350,000 Indian population, have become embroiled in Fiji’s political crisis.

The Muslims, who now number some 60,000, came to Fiji as Indians in the 1800 s and early this century as indentured la bourers from India.

At present there are no separate seats for Muslims in Fiji and 22 seats in parlia ment are for Indians, be they Hindus, Muslims, Punjabis or Sikhs. There is no distinction on religious grounds or allo cation on seats according to anyone’s faith.

But the submission by the Great Coun cil of Chiefs to the Constitutional Review Committee calls specifically for four of the 22 seats allocated to Indians to be kept separate for Muslims.

This has been seen in Fiji, by political observers and especially Indian leaders, as a device by the Fijians, and in partic ular the Taukei movement, to split the In dians along religious lines.

But no one was aware that the Fiji Mus lim League, the largest organisation in Fiji which represents Muslims in its submis sion to the Constitutional Review Com mittee, had supported the Council of Chiefs proposal for Fijian dominance in Parliament and if the declaration of a re public was the only solution to the coun try’s political crisis it would also support such a move.

The submission was signed only by its president, Mr Sherani, its secretary and treasurer. There was no official discussion or a referendum held among the Muslims on the issue. Mr Sherani said the submis sion was for “all those who believed in the prophet Mohammed”.

Political pundits see the Muslims sup port for increased Fijian representation in parliament as a trade-off for reserved seats for themselves in parliament. But this view is not popular. A sizeable proportion of Muslims are against the stand taken by the League president and the other two oflfi

dais. Similarly, other smaller organisa tions which represent Muslims have disociated themselves from the League’s submission.

A row has now developed within the ranks of the League members who have formed a movement to protest against the submission.

The Muslims in Fiji have been press ing for separate representation since 1929.

At the 1970 Constitutional Conference a strong plea was made for reserved Muslim seats in parliament but Mr Siddiq Koya who led the delegation on behalf of the Na tional Federation Party, which repre sented the Indians, was totally opposed to the idea. Mr Koya, himself a Muslim, said such a move would undoubtedly divide the Indians.

Not having separate seats in parlia ment has not meant that there have been no Muslims in parliament. Mr Koya was Leader of the Opposition for a long time and there were at least three Muslim members on the opposition bench. Simi larly, the government side was not short of Muslims either and in the defeated Mara Government the only Indian cabinet min isters were Muslims, Dr Ahmed Ali and Mr Mohammed Ramzan. In the deposed Bavandra government, of the 18 Indian members three were Muslims.

The Fiji Muslim League held its an nual general meeting at the end of the week, its submissions to the Constitutional Re view Committee were exposed and the president’s post was up for election.

Delegates converged from all over the country and were all geared to take Mr Sherani (who was re-elected President) to task on the issue of their support for sep arate seats and support for Fijian dominance.

But, ironically, it was Mr Koya who chaired the meeting and he blocked any discussion because the issue was not on the agenda.

The row is obviously far from over as far as the Muslims are concerned! □