The former chairman of Media Industry Department Authority (Ashwin Raj) justified his attack on Ratu Timoci Vesikula with reference to a Bainimarama Government Decree which is part of his justification for his 2006 coup — supposedly to eliminate the racism by Fijian ethno-nationalists against Indo- Fijians. Most Indo-Fijians are in support of this alleged Bainimarama justification for the 2006 coup.
The overt Fijian racism against Indo-Fijians
For the record, most indigenous Fijian political leaders have never appreciated the deep sense of vulnerability amongst Indo-Fijians, who have been told for a century that they are vulagi (visitors) despite a lifetime of work and service to Fiji, and which explains their support of Bainimarama.
In the coups of 1987 and 2000, Indo-Fijian houses were burnt and innocent people, including the lawfully elected governments and ministers, assaulted and terrorised. Indo-Fijians felt discrimination in civil service jobs and scholarships.
They suffered social trauma as emigration tore apart thousands of families (even if many benefited materially). Even after the 2000 coups, Indo-Fijians were hurt when no SDL leader rebuked one lady minister in their government who scoffed that Indians were ‘weeds’ (she, my former student at USP, never expressed any unhappiness when taught by this Indian ‘weed’).
It is largely for this message and their suffering in the coups of 1987 and 2000 that the majority of Indo-Fijians support Bainimarama.
It is telling that most Indo-Fijian leaders have supported Bainimarama: Fiji Labor Party (initially), heads of religious and social organisations, senior judges, university vice chancellors, senior civil servants, business and professionals, and a raft of former international bureaucrats.
Also influential on Indo-Fijians has been a whole army of Indo-Fijian writers- Satendra Nandan, Subramani, Thakur Ranjit Singh and Rajendra Prasad who keep publicising the racism against Indo-Fijians, and idolising Bainimarama.
But none of these writers ever recognized the magnanimity of the Fijian people in leasing their land to Indo-Fijian tenant farmers for more than a generation.
None of these writers ever recognised the magnanimity of Rabuka and his SVT Government in freely revising the racist 1990 Constitution which gave them total control, into the 1997 Constitution which included the Multi- Party Government provision — an incredible political gift, totally unappreciated by the political leaders (except for Jai Ram Reddy) of the ever-declining Indo-Fijian minority in Fiji.
Few, if any, of these Indo-Fijian leaders or writers have ever criticised the Indo-Fijian racism against Fijians, or the internal IndoFijian racisms, which are far more pervasive than the overt racism by Fijians against Indo- Fijians, even if they do not give rise to physical violence.
Subtle Fijian racism against Indo-Fijians
Of course, indigenous Fijians can be racist towards Indo-Fijians as well, in ways more subtle than coups, house burning or physical assaults of ordinary citizens.
Most Indo-Fijians would be shocked to discover that Fijians often insult other Fijians by calling them kaidia — implying ‘a person without respect for protocol, politeness, or vanua’, or who allegedly possesses all the undesirable traits that Fijians supposedly do not havesuch as being selfish and mamaqi (miserly).
But I note that while ‘generosity’ may seem obvious in the Fijian practice of ‘giving and sharing’, the rigid expectation of reciprocity, can also be a beautiful disguise for selfishness.
Ironically, Fiji’s historians will find it difficult to support allegations of Fijian political inferiority, when it is abundantly clear that most Fijian political leaders, including Bainimarama, have for decades run rings around Indo-Fijian politicians.
Sociologists and anthropologists would also find it difficult to argue that that the incredibly rich indigenous Fijian culture is in any way inferior to local Indo-Fijian culture or that of kaivalagi or kailoma.
The frequent blog allegations that a prominent Bainimarama supporter (Aiyaz Khaiyum) was planning to implement the ‘Sunset Clause’ on indigenous Fijians and their culture, had very little substance.
The increasingly globalised Fijian people are more likely to erode their own culture of their free will.
But I also note an interesting trend for globalised Fijians to use the Fijian language to communicate on the Internet, Facebook and various sites, to strengthen their culture and language, where previously the isolation in a far off land would have implied an inevitable erosion.
What a great topic for scholarly research.
Indo-Fijian racism against Fijians
Ignored in the political discourse today is the historical Indo-Fijian racism against indigenous Fijians. Indo-Fijians love to contrast their alleged three thousands of ‘civilisation’ in India, to the mere one hundred years for indigenous Fijians.
But Indo-Fijians conveniently forget the barbaric mutual slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Hindus and Muslims, after partition into India and Pakistan, a mere sixty years ago.
At Indo-Fijian gatherings one can still hear the terms (of the jungle) or ‘raakshas’ (demons) used to describe indigenous Fijians.
Or there is a joking reference to their ‘terda baal’ (implying ‘Fijians will never learn anything until their hair straightens out’).
While a few Indo-Fijian males are now marrying Fijian women, it is still extremely rare to find Indo-Fijian women marrying Fijian males.
What of the kailoma?
There has been more than enough written about the historical racism against both Fijians and Indo-Fijians by Fiji’s kaivalagi (whites) and kailoma (mixed white and Fijian parentage), many of whom for decades after independence in 1970, were still hankering for the ‘good old days when the natives knew their place in the world’.
One only has to read The Fiji Times in the Len Usher era when the colonial whites under the guise of ‘noble defenders of Fijian paramountcy’, used to freely rant against IndoFijians, effectively dividing and ruling both.
But the kailoma, often derogatively referred to as ‘half-castes’, also faced discrimination from kaivalagi and Indo-Fijians.
Even the Fijian term vasu, while used by kailoma as implying a complimentary ‘special’ relationship with the indigenous Fijians, can also be seen as derogatory (according to one doubtful interpretation of the word in Vesikula’s statement).
So what explains the quite widespread support of Bainimarama by prominent kaivalagi and kailoma?
I suspect that many old colonial kaivalagi and kailoma have been quite resentful of being marginalised during the Rabuka and Qarase eras by the Fijian ethnonationalists, with their services not being called upon as they were for the previous decades.
Many kaivalagi and kailoma, like many IndoFijians, support Bainimarama precisely because they feel that the Bainimarama regime willingly accepts their services which they offer Fiji, although part of his strategy may well be to have some white faces (citizens or non-citizens) fronting up to the world media.
Internal Fijian schisms?
With all the above discussions of internal Indo-Fijian racisms, it is natural to ask: what about the internal Fijian racisms?
I offer the following brief comments on a subject deserving a real expert.
We all know that there is the yawning gap between Fijian chiefs and commoners, and the strong limitations that the commoners feel in the presence of chiefs, even if they are being materially disadvantaged by chiefly decisions (the Monasavu landowners’ claims).
Fijian commoners of merit have long silently faced discrimination with the appointment of chiefs (men and women) over them, whether in the Fiji Military Forces or civil service. We are all aware of the social pressures that children of chiefs face in their marriage choices, some ending in much pain for individuals.
It is generally perceived that fairer Eastern Fijians (with their traces of Tongan blood) have looked down on the generally darker hill tribes, who were the last fiercely independent Fijians to be conquered by the British colonials with the assistance of Eastern Fijians- hence the contemptuous term ‘kai colo’ (uncivilised).
Another aspect of this ‘racism’ is that the written history of early Fiji and Fijians is largely a history written from the point of view of Eastern Fijians.
Usually ignored have been the western Fijians or the hill tribes, while historical icons of the Fijians in the interior (like the Nacule fort) are largely ignored by successive governments dominated by Eastern Fijians, while the first government headed by a western Fijian (Dr Bavadra) was quickly removed in the 1987 coup.
Read the writings of the late Dr Simione Durutalo (USP historian).
One of Fiji’s historians (Dr David Routledge) used to claim that the current history of Fijian politics is exactly the same as pre-Cession, as if the British colonial era had never been.
Some have even claimed that once the Indo-Fijians are gone, the Fijians will be ‘at each other again’ as they were in pre-Cession Fiji.
But this can be seriously challenged by solid original data from the 2007 Census, which sadly have still not been fully published and pertinent results fully discussed.
One of the very new datasets (resulting from questions not asked in previous Censuses) is not just the current location of Fijians, but their origins elsewhere in Fiji.
This will indicate the extent to which different Fijian tribes have inter-married and relocated within Fiji, I believe, significantly diluting the old tribal tensions which in my opinion, are not going to be as strong as before.
An external expression of Fijian racism can be seen in regional politics with most Fijian leaders post-Independence, having a proclivity towards the Eastern Polynesian countries, while having a clear sense of superiority to the less-developed Melanesian countries and people.
It is only recently that the Melanesian Spearhead grouping has assumed greater political importance to Fiji bringing Fijians closer to Melanesians, partly because of the MSG countries’ unqualified support for the Bainimarama Regime, but also because of the solid material incentives emanating from the new-found minerals and LNG wealth in PNG, and PNG’s central role in today’s Super Power rivalry in the Pacific.
• PROF WADAN NARSEY is one of the region’s senior economists and a regular commentator on political and economic issues in Fiji. The views expressed in this article are not necessarily the views of The Fiji Times.
PART 3: TOMORROW
