Every so often where there are a good number of iTaukei people, you will, sooner or later hear: Tovata, bula vinaka. Or the shortened form of Tovata, To, will be used, and the greeting will be: To, bula vinaka.
Or something similar to it. Over time, at least for me and for some unknown reason, this term has come to acquire a pleasant ring. As pleasant as it was, it also strongly suggested that those who are to vata, or who have united, formed an alliance, or have banded together, must have been for a common purpose.
Now what was that purpose? According to whoever you ask, or whatever other source you consult, it is entirely possible that you will get several answers. These may have commonalities, and also points from which they diverge.
While reading up for last week’s article, a good deal of time was spent on a chapter in France’s book titled Rural Parlements. He says that prior to cession, there were several consuls to Fiji. One of them, France named as Jones.
The Fiji Museum’s Virtual Museum (FMVM) has him as Captain HM Jones. Other archival sources have him as Captain Henry M Jones. Given the diversity that then existed, and still does, in Fiji, Jones wanted to form a platform from which he could enter into, negotiate and conclude treaties etc.
With that, and other intentions in mind – principal among them the need for some form of central government, Jones sent out a circular on January 1, 1865. In this circular, he invited chiefs from seven matanitu; Bau, Rewa, Lakeba, Bua, Cakaudrove, Macuata and Naduri.
Those chiefs met at Levuka in May of the same year. When the meeting ended, the chiefs had come up with a confederation of chiefs or the Fiji confederacy. Seru Cakobau was named as the president of this grouping of allied, but independent chiefs.
Given the chiefs were independent and had diverse interests, France opined the confederation was never really effective. In terms of attempts at national government, he said the confederation lacked any representation of chiefs from Fiji’s West.
Even in the East, France said the authority of this group was “insecure”. He also, very bluntly said: “The first attempt by an external influence to create a political unity out of the social and cultural diversity existing within the group came to nothing.”
However, Fijian differences were not the only factors at play. The FMVM says another factor which led to the eventual collapse of that confederacy was a prince from the Kingdom of Tonga who was in Fiji to look after Tongans and their interests.
His name was Ma`afu`otu`itonga. Many today simply refer to him as Ma’afu. A little more about Ma’afu and his influence on Fijian affairs later. With the Fiji confederacy in place, the planters/settlers expected a stable environment in which they could peacefully go about conducting their affairs.
Given the diversity and independence already mentioned, it just could not be. Archival sources show among the various issues the confederacy had to contend with included: native disputes and battles; trouble between settlers and Fijians – theft and destruction of property, and sometimes the loss of settlers’ lives; and chiefs supposedly wanting to leave the confederation.
In a letter dated September 6, 1865, consul Henry M Jones wrote to Tui Macuata saying the latter’s intention of wanting to withdraw from the “assembly of chiefs”.
Jones goes on to say: “I do not know if the idea is your own or if some foolish person has persuaded you, but rest assured, that whenever you leave the assembly of chiefs, your power leaves you.”
In a very strongly worded letter to Cakobau, Jones reminded the former of his duties as president of the confederation. Apparently, there had been some trouble along the Rewa River.
In a letter addressed to the vunivalu on June 7, 1865, Jones writes: “As you of your own free will accepted the post of president, the white settlers now look to you for redress of grievances committed by your people. You must not think your situation is simply one where you can enjoy your ease and be supported by the other chiefs in lazy idleness, but you must exert yourself and do something to show that your authority is really supreme.”
Jones goes on to say that if the vunivalu could not carry out what was expected of his offices, then he should step down.
There were other letters from Jones to the Tui Cakau, a Ratu Emosi of Beqa, the vunivalu of Serua who was engaged in a battle with Koroduadua, Tui Nasavusavu and Buli Solevu.
One letter was addressed to Koya mai Viria. All the letters had one thing in common – problems in certain areas of which those leaders were supposed to be accountable for. It was against this backdrop that a meeting was held at Wairiki.
Those in attendance, according to France, were “the most powerful chiefs in Vanua Levu and Lau, Ma’afu, Tui Cakau and Tui Bua”. That meeting in February of 1867 resulted in a confederation “for the protection of their mutual interests”.
Those chiefs felt that the confederation formed at Levuka in 1865 could not adequately support nor protect their interests. As a result, they formed their own confederacy and named it the Tovata ko Natokalau kei Viti. This body even had constitution which was dated February 13, 1867.
This grouping too had difficulty on its own, at the centre of which was Ma’afu and the hoisting of the Tongan flag at Lakeba. This led to the collapse of the Tovata ko Natokalau kei Viti, but it was resurrected in May of 1869.
This is not to say that prior to the arrival of white settlers and Ma’afu, alliances between Fijian chiefs did not exist. As France has already pointed out, they were allied but also independent chiefs.
It could be that those who came later, and with their own interests, used whatever pre-existing dynamics, as Jones attempted to. The results of their efforts have either died out or still exists in some form.
Nor must we think that Fijians were passive participants in what was happening then. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As Robert Nicole quite vividly illustrates in Disturbing History: Resistance in Early Colonial Fiji, there were many factors and actors at play.
Some of these actors and factors have been recorded while others were passed down through word of mouth. This is one of the reasons why we must have an active interest in the past for our future.
• SAILOSI BATIRATU is a senior sub-editor with this newspaper. The views expressed in this article are his and do not reflect the views of this newspaper.