• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Fiji drama: The inside story

B. Raman

INDIAN analyses of the Fiji crisis have been over-simplistic, without any focus on the ethnic, regional, religious, economic and political dimensions.

In 1995, Fiji's (18,270 sq km in area) population was estimated at 7,72,891, with natives constituting 49 per cent and those of Indian descent (Indo-Fijian) 46 per cent. The rest were descendants of migrants from Australia, New Zealand and other Pacific islands, China and Europe.

Fijians themselves are not a culturally homogeneous community. Those from the country's western areas, who are under the influence of Melanesian culture, feel alienated from those of the east. Fijians from the east have their roots in Polynesian culture. Like Indo-Fijians, the economically better-off natives of the west feel their counterparts from the east trying to exercise political influence that is not commensurate with their limited contribution to the economy. This grievance facilitates greater p olitical accommodation between Indo-Fijians and natives of the west. Those from the east often dominate the Great Council of the Chiefs.

As part of their divide-and-rule policy, the British colonial rulers excluded Fijian natives from industries (sugar), trade and commerce (largely reserved for the Indian migrants), and the Indo-Fijians from the military and the police.

When Fiji became independent, in 1970, the economic power lay in the hands of Indo-Fijians, while the power of the gun vested with the natives. Whenever there has been a clash of political and economic interests between Indo-Fijians and the natives, the military (4,100 on active duty and 10,000 reservists plus 2,000 police) has always sought to intervene on behalf of the latter.

Even today, the natives constitute 98 per cent of the military. Are Indo-Fijians reluctant to join the military, or are they being deliberately excluded by the military to safeguard the interest of the natives? No convincing answer is available.

In Mauritius, Indian migrants have been able to safeguard their political and economic rights because of their substantial presence in the military, the police and the security bureaucracy. But in Fiji, their near-total absence from these fields and thei r consequent inability to enforce political control over the military make it difficult for them to ensure that the military always acts only in the interests of the nation, and not just the natives.

The initial troubles of the deposed Prime Minister, Mr. Mahendra Chaudhry, with the military started with his decision last year to wind up the military-controlled Fiji Intelligence Service (FIS) and entrust intelligence collection to Indo-Fijian officer s of the Police Special Branch, directly accountable to him. However, he could not implement the step as the Bill for the abolition of the FIS was rejected by the Senate, which is dominated by nominees of the Chiefs. The judiciary also separately stayed the implementation.

Fijians and Indo-Fijians have to equally share the blame for failing to promote ethnic assimilation through joint schooling for the children. In 1970, less than 10 per cent of the schools had a large mixed composition and there has been no substantial im provement since,in breaking the consequent ethnic mindset.

Ethnic separatism is now being aggravated by a newly-emerging consciousness of religious separatism. In the Indo-Fijian community, Hindus constitute 80 per cent, Muslims 15 per cent and the remaining are Sikhs and Christians. In the country's population as a whole, the Christians are in a majority (52 per cent), with Hindus (38 per cent) far behind. Eight per cent is Muslim and the rest Sikhs and others.

Almost all Fijian natives and migrants from Australia, New Zealand and other Pacific islands, China and Europe are Christians, with 78 per cent of them Methodists, 8.5 per cent Catholics and the rest belonging to other denominations. Though the British r uled Fiji, their Anglican Church took little interest in proselytisation, leaving the field open for Methodist missionaries from the US.

Till today, religion has not come in the way of societal fusion, but there are disturbing indications that it might in future. A small section of Fijians is calling for the proclamation of Fiji as a Christian state and some Indo-Fijians have complained o f alleged attempts by Methodist missionaries to convert impoverished Hindus. If the emerging feelings of religious separatism are not checked in time, ethnic tensions could be compounded by religious friction.

The Constitution and the laws protect the natives' land rights. Indo-Fijian sugarcane farmers cannot buy land, but can only take them on lease _ initially for 10 years that can be extended twice for 30 years. All the lease agreements signed at the time o f independence in 1970 would, thus, be due for renewal this year.

There has been a demand from Indo-Fijians to extend the lease to 30 years, that could be renewed twice. This will come to 90 years, encouraging large agricultural investments. This has been misprojected by anti-Indo-Fijian sections as a bid to deprive na tives of their land rights.

In 1987, the newly-formed Taukei (Owners of the Land) movement projected the inclusion of Indo-Fijians in the Cabinet of Dr. Timoci Bavadra, himself a Fijian native, as marking the beginning of the end of natives' land rights. This triggered events which led to the coup by Col. Sitiveni Rabuka, now the Head of the Great Council of Chiefs.

Movements like Taukei tend to be anti-Indo-Fijian as well as anti-Chiefs. They challenge the traditional political influence of the Chiefs. Whenever they become active, the military, on its own or on a nod from the Chiefs, tends to act against Indo-Fijia n political leaders.

The Fijian economic contours have changed since 1970. Tourism has replaced sugar as the main foreign exchange earner, bringing prosperity to the western areas of the country, which attract more tourists than the east. A new class of native Fijian entrepr eneurs is coming up in the services sector and in fields such as garments manufacture, gold mining and timber. Fijian natives now have greater share of the economic cake than in the past. At the same time, those just above or below the poverty line have not benefited from the new Fijian economy. On the contrary, their problems have worsened due to a continuing high inflation (10-15 per cent), and unemployment. Twenty-five per cent of the labour force of 2,64,000 is unemployed. The percentage is higher ( 40) in the case of those in the 18-25 age group.

Mr. Mahendra Chaudhry's Labour Party won an absolute majority (37 out of the 71 seats) in the elections to the House of Representatives last May because of the support he enjoyed not only from Indo-Fijian farmers and workers, but also from sections of na tive Fijian workers due to his long association with the trade union movement. Irrespective of ethnic and religious differences, the proletariat, of all communities, saw him as their man.

Despite the absolute majority of his party, his Cabinet was not homogeneous because under the 1998 Constitution, every party, which wins at least 10 per cent of the seats, has a right to be represented in the Cabinet. As a result, ministers belonging to different parties hurled charges at one another as they felt Mr. Chaudhry could not sack them so long as they enjoyed the confidence of their party.

Within a year, the public support for him melted away because of his failure to deal with the economy effectively. There were also allegations of misuse of government funds not only by Cabinet members, but by Mr. Chaudhry himself. People were also angry because he raised POL prices.

Thus, he not only lost support of farmers, the proletariat, the bazari class and government servants, who constitute the traditional votebank of his party, but also failed to allay the fear of the newly-emerging native Fijian entrepreneur-class that beca use of his trade union background, he would be anti-business.

It is not without reason that the first shots in the current drama were fired by Mr. George Speight, an US-educated businessman of mixed parentage. He felt his business suffered due to the policies of Mr. Chaudhry and some of his (Mr. Speight's) associat es, who had similarly suffered.

India has a strong interest in the restoration of a duly-elected government. It also wants to work in the Indo-Fijians. At the same time, any temptation for spectacular diplomatic action to isolate the Fijian military, with an eye on possible political b enefits in India as a defender of the rights of the Indian Diaspora, should be resisted due to the following reasons:

Fiji is a very small country, with a small population and very limited needs. Economic sanctions may not, therefore, be effective. As it happened with the post-1987 sanctions, the other Pacific islanders may express solidarity with Fijians, thereby further reducing their effectiveness.

AApart from Fijians, even Indo-Fijians would suffer from the economic hardships.

AInstead of promoting ethnic fusion, which should be India's aim, any unwise action by New Delhi in leading the charge against the military regime, might further aggravate the ethnic and religious divide, causing ethnic fission.

AAustralia and New Zealand have traditionally been the economic benefactors of Fiji. Japan is now replacing Australia as its main trading partner. The Fijian military has been the beneficiary of training and other assistance from the Australian and New Z ealand armed forces. Suva would, most probably, be more amenable to their pressure and nudging than to New Delhi's. India should, therefore, discreetly act through these countries, instead of directly.

(The author is former Additional Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India).