THIS past Tuesday, we celebrated our 47th year of independence. Three years shy from Fiji’s golden independence anniversary, genuine freedom, hope and glory continues to evade us since the start of the coup culture more than 30 years ago.
Amid the white noise that can cloud the spirit of why we acknowledge our independence, it is always a good idea to take a step back and examine the footsteps of our founding fathers from pre-independence until October 10, 1970.
Lest we forget
Celebrations on Fiji Day, October 10 every year have become an occasion of speeches, with scarce attention to the founding fathers of an Independent Fiji who toiled hard and long to get us there.
This year was no exception. There was no mention of how we arrived here and the bold and forward thinking strides and sacrifices taken by the founding fathers of our great nation.
Is the intentional move to rewrite history as per the Year Zero revolution statements of 2013 and 2016 still in effect? Why has Fiji Day become a monologue about the present, instead of bold truth-telling to our next generation of leaders who sadly have sparse knowledge about why they enjoy independence today?
Independence was achieved by the National Federation Party and Opposition leader’s Ambalal Dahyabhai (AD) Patel, Patel’s able lieutenant and successor after his death Siddiq Moidin Koya, and the then chief minister Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, and the intrepid members of the Legislative Council who rallied as one to the cause.
Independence was achieved through goodwill, sincere dialogue, genuine negotiation and consensus. In the book A Vision for Change — AD Patel and the Politics of Fiji by Professor Brij Lal, Patel in his 1969 New Year’s message to the nation said: “Let us bend to the task and direct our energies in the channels which will make Fiji a prosperous, strong and peaceful nation of free, happy and prosperous men and women.”
Consensus and
monumental achievement
Patel’s vision of an independent vision came to fruition one year and nine days after his death. It was a huge achievement with negotiations led by Patel’s successor Koya and Ratu Mara.
Eminent historian Prof Lal, and indeed Hansard from the Legislative Council debates have extensively documented the NFP’s role in pressing relentlessly on for independence through the visionary foresight of Patel and Koya.
Our documented history details the struggles of our people that brought the idea of independence to the forefront of the public’s consciousness, as foreign as it was to the thinking of that time and place. But press on they did, convincing other leaders of that time of the idea that independence was central to freedom, autonomy and self-determination as a people.
In the debate on the Report of the Fiji Constitutional Conference of the Legislative Council of June 17, 1970 we get a glimpse of the challenges facing the then Alliance government and NFP opposition, which they overcame through unity, forging ahead to negotiate independence with our colonial rulers. The adoption of the report by the council paved the way for our independence.
What Ratu Mara said
Legislative Council debates (page 179) of that day records the then chief minister Ratu Mara as saying in the debate: “We have provided here, and I sincerely acknowledge my gratitude for the support of the Leader of Opposition and his colleagues, for the special position they have given the Fijian people in this new constitution.
“This is an important part of the constitution because there has been agitated complaint from some of our people, ‘Why have independence because the Fijians are not ready for it?’, you see that in the press now and again.
“But, for the first time, our constitution has provided a special position for the Fijians and, as I said, I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition and his party for the support they have given us in this matter. We have done this through the special representation they have in the Upper House, and the veto that they have for what they consider is of vital interest to the Fijian people, and that is land ownership.
“I would say that the strongest and most lasting assurance the Fijian people and all the people of Fiji can have is a happy and united Fiji, and we hope that we have the framework in our constitution to implement this.
“As long as we hold this there is no problem that we cannot resolve by discussion and finding possible ways and means of arriving at a mutual agreement; this I think is one of the significant features of our conference in London. We went there determined to explore all possibilities of finding agreement.”
What SM Koya said
Then leader of the opposition SM Koya, the opposition also included prominent chiefs Ratu Julian Toganivalu (NFP organising secretary), and Ratu Mosese Tuisawau as consultants to the nine NFP members of the Legislative Council entourage attending the April 1970 talks in London responded to the debate, seconding government’s motion in the true spirit of bipartisanship and said: “When the proposal came from the Opposition party that our Fijian people should have special positions in the Upper House, it was accepted and indeed it was reciprocated in a firm and tangible way by our Fijian people through its leaders and chiefs.
“It happened this way.
“After this proposal when the question of citizenship arose, the Fijian delegates were quite happy to say that we must take the most humane and liberal attitude in conferring citizenship on the people of Fiji as a whole.
“They did not pursue a narrow path and they considered it right and proper that the people who lived in Fiji and acquired the ‘belonger’ status under the existing Immigration Ordinance should automatically become citizens of Fiji; those who were born here, regardless of race, colour and religion should become citizens of Fiji.
“They did not raise any sort of objection about people who came from other countries, who were not born here and who made Fiji their home. They felt that these people should also be given an opportunity to register themselves as Fiji citizens within a certain period of time after independence and that the Government should facilitate their registration in every possible way.
The other way the Fijian leaders reciprocated the Opposition and the country generally for that matter, sir, was to simply drop their claim for the extra seat in the Lower House and that came from the honourable chief minister. ….
“Now, sir, I have said before and I will say it again that we will indeed have associated problems after independence and some of the problems are already emerging, that is to say they are emerging before independence. And the only way I can see how we can solve these problems is to approach them as if they were national matters.
“Mr Speaker, independence is not a subject matter to be treated as if it were part of a political party’s program. It is not a party matter, it is not a racial matter, it is not simply a matter for one leader or leaders.
“It was a national matter and it is still a national matter, so if problems arise as a result of what we are asking, sir, then the Opposition is duty bound — as long as I occupy my chair I shall do my best to see that they are — to solve them by joint consultation and we will give our fullest support to the Government.”
What now?
It was clear to NFP then, as it does to this day, that the journey of independence did not end on October 10, 1970. The challenge to continue the journey and follow through on the spirit and sacrifices by our forefathers of those painstaking negotiations for our freedom, hope and glory falls on us now as ever before.
We must seek to build bridges where there are obstacles; to start national conversations for solutions where there is apathy; and to inspire change. We must chart a new way forward.
* Seni Nabou is a vice-president of the National Federation Party. The views expressed here are her own and not of this newspaper.
