Last week, we covered the raising of the British Flag (Union Jack) in Rotuma in defiance of the coup regime in Fiji in 1988. Behind that secessionist campaign was martial arts Grand Master, Gagaj Sau Lakfatmaro or Henry Gibson, who had strategically shifted base to New Zealand. That move was backed by only one of the seven tribes in Rotuma, the Molmahao. What I raised as points of intrigue were that all of the Rotuman chiefs were let off after being seen as traitors; the 21 gunrunners involved with the Guns of Lautoka were let off after being detained as enemies of the state; and Sitiveni Rabuka kept back flipping in his public pronouncements. All these appeared to point to unseen shifts in political support. Now, in order to understand the nature and undercurrents of what was happening in 1987 and also what is playing out in contemporary politics in Fiji, we need to go back prior to independence in October 1970. We need to follow how the different political frameworks took shape and what was expected of them. Thus, the next few articles in this series will trace political players, political aspirations, political frameworks, political intrigue and the emergence of power systems and players. This will be traced until they lead to the Guns of Lautoka when we return to that topic and follow what happened after Rafik Khan beat Fiji’s attempts to have him extradited from London to face trial in Fiji.
Pre-Colonial Fiji
PRIOR to 1874 when the British annexed Fiji and made it a Crown Colony, we existed as a group of islands ruled by tribal chiefs. There was trade in sandalwood, guns, beads, etc. There was also internecine warfare with the power balance constantly shifting among tribes as new bonds were forged between and among tribes to increase their strength and influence. Beachcombers (travellers looking for opportunities) made a huge difference in this regard as they had the guns, knew how to use them and, most importantly, knew how to organise systematically for battles. Tales of these battles, conquests and alliances are all well captured in oral history, rituals, songs, traditional dances, etc.
Interestingly, the close alliances between beachcombers and local chiefs strategically changed to kinship relationships through marriage of the outsider to some close female member of the chiefly family. Many of the surnames among our part-Europeans trace their roots to those beginnings. They have close links with chiefly families and are viewed as their “vasu”. Those links still prevail and there are important political implications of this. We will return to this later. Let’s get back to the power structures that existed in Fiji prior to Cession in 1874.
In his landmark study on power in pre-colonial Fiji, Routledge (1985, p.5) writes, “the traditional socio-political order consisted of small, kinship-structured and locality-oriented entities fighting and intriguing for advantage over one another”. Political power play, intrigue and internecine rivalry had no small part to play in these socio-political adjustments. Toward the end of the 18th century circumstances pushed these vanua further into combining to form still larger units called matanitu (confederacy) (Lal, 1992, pp.4-5; Lasaqa, 1984, pp.18-19; Routledge, 1985, pp.27-30). Thus, these social units emerged “within the context of political processes”, and therefore, were “power constructs articulated by the continual exercise of force” (Routledge, 1985, p.29).
In the 19th century, as contact with beachcombers, missionaries, traders, planters, and labourers began to impact further on internal social and economic relationships, strategic alliances and kinship bonds began to take on a new significance. It was this social and political organisation of Fijian society that the colonial administration encountered and subsequently entrenched through its administrative strategy of “indirect rule”. Before we go to Governor Gordon and his contributions to Fiji, let me elaborate a little about the beachcombers, missionaries, traders and planters here.
The beachcombers included, among others, “deserters, marooned sailors, … derelict scourings of the ports of the Old World, among them some of the worst and lowest of their kind” (Derrick, 1950, p.37). Missionaries David Cargill and William Cross brought to Fiji the Methodist version of Christianity via Tonga in 1835. Sandalwood trade flourished in Bua Bay between 1800-1814, beche-de-mer trade between 1820s-1850s (Ward, 1972, pp.91-123). Planters arrived from 1860 onwards after recognising the possibility of filling in the global shortfall in supply of cotton emanating from the American Civil War. This led to the importation of labourers from other Pacific Islands (Legge, 1958, pp.44-45).
One of the most savvy and wily among the local chiefs was Ratu Seru Cakobau of Bau. His home base on the island of Bau was virtually impenetrable because of its location. The Tongan marauder, Enele Ma’afu did land on Bau as an enemy, but was greeted by women ready to garland his force of battle-ready warriors. They had been instructed to welcome Ma’afu because Bau was not in a position to defend itself. Making love, not war, worked in this instance. This story and many others highlight Bauan politics or the vere va’Bau as it is better understood. I will share more of this later. Let’s move back to how we became a colony.
As Ratu Seru Cakobau manoeuvred to increase his power and hold over ever-increasing territories, he wrecked up artificially created debts with the Americans in 1851 after their agent, John Williams — who had arrived five years earlier from New Zealand and had bought vast amounts of land — caught fire and was looted by local Fijians. The damage was estimated by Williams as $5000. This was later increased to over $45,000 and, Cakobau was held responsible for the debt. He was also intimidated into signing an acknowledgement to this effect. The noose was thus set by the Americans who backed it up with threats from its Navy.
Cakobau was backed into a corner, but he still had territorial and power ambitions. His first offer to hand over the whole of Fiji to Britain was made in 1858. This was declined for a number of reasons, but one stood out among them: he insisted that he be allowed to retain his Tui Viti (King of Fiji) title. He had bestowed this upon himself and saw cession as a powerful way to legitimise it both nationally and internationally. Britain clearly realised that although Cakobau was the most influential chief in the group, he had no claims to the title of Tui Viti, or King of Fiji, nor would the other chiefs submit to his authority except through foreign compulsion.
In the face of mounting debts (interest was being added onto the $45,000) and increasing threats from the US Navy, Cakobau approached the Australian Polynesia Company to pay his debts. He then attempted to set up a constitutional monarchy at Levuka in 1871 with a government dominated by European settlers. When that regime collapsed through coup-like manoeuvres, Cakobau made another offer to Britain in 1872. This was accepted with recorded reluctance in London. Thus, on October 10, 1874 Fiji was ceded to Britain by thirteen chiefs who signed the Deed of Cession at Nasova in Levuka. These chiefs were considered to be the dominant rulers of their domains at the time and among them was Enele Ma’afu.
Sir Hercules Robinson, who had arrived from Australia on September 23, 1874, was immediately appointed as interim Governor. A few months later in June 1875, he was replaced by Sir Arthur Gordon. The newly-installed Governor chose to set up an administrative system that followed the concept of indirect rule. He granted autonomy over local affairs to Fiji’s chiefs, though they were now forbidden to engage in tribal warfare. Wikipedia says, “the colony was divided into four regions, each under the control of a Roko”. These four regions were later administered by Divisional Commissioners.
“These regions were further subdivided into twelve districts, each ruled by a traditional chief”. These are what we know as provinces.
Governor Gordon’s “indirect rule” was designed to “seize the spirit in which native institutions had been framed and develop to the utmost extent the capacities of the people for the management of their own affairs, without exciting their suspicion or destroying their self-respect” (quoted in Legge, 1958, p.204). When Gordon established the Great Chiefly Council (later GCC and then Bose Levu Vakaturaqa or BLV) in 1875, he was enshrining the chief within the national government machinery. In those days, the Great Chiefly Council was supplemented by a Native Regulation Board (we now know this as the Fijian Affairs Board); these two bodies together made laws for the Fijians.
Government in Fiji was thus predicated on the back of a traditional system that was shaped, fossilised and maintained by the colonial administration. The laws made for Fijians through the GCC did not apply to non-Fijian subjects of the country. This created a hybrid structure that would create huge misunderstandings and confusions later. We’ll develop this further next week.
DR. SUBHASH APPANNA is a senior USP academic who has been writing regularly on issues of historical and national significance. The views expressed here are his alone and not necessarily shared by this newspaper or his employers. subhash.appana@usp.ac.fj
