Honolulu
February 13, 1970
One of my most vivid memories after months of travel in the Pacific Islands is of arriving in Fiji for the first time. When the plane had left the little Polynesian kingdom of Tonga, sunshine sparkled on blue sea and low coral atolls. If Tonga had problems, they seemed manageable and not of Pacific-wide importance. But Fiji obviously was something else. The scene shadowed as we flew into Suva’s Nausori Airport in late afternoon. Rain had fallen and heavy clouds still hung-over rich flatlands, a brown river, and dark mountains that stretched off to the horizon. You could sense a difference: this did not look like any simple Pacific “paradise.”
In retrospect, it’s possible to assign some impending sense of tragedy, especially since it was only a short time afterwards that my leg was smashed in a near-fatal auto accident. However, jottings made then in an old notebook reflect other concerns: “Bright Fijian smiles, gay Indian saris, British order. Yet the shadows. This is no easy place … Like Singapore-Malaya?” T asked myself, thinking then as now of a former home where, as here, promise and potential racial tragedy coexist in awesome complexity.
Fiji is not like other Pacific places for several reasons besides the fact of its immigrant Indian majority. Though linked with neighboring Polynesia, it is really the beginning of Melanesia, the big, dark islands of the Southwest Pacific that contain most of Oceania’s people and natural wealth. And, as the saying goes, Fiji is a political colony of Britain and an economic colony of Australia — as well as a partial cultural colony of New Zealand, which has strongly influenced the educational system.
Perhaps the two most common judgments about Fiji in recent years are these: 1) violence is almost inevitable between the native Fijians and the Indians — a South Sea Cyprus situation, and 2) Fiji is in tourism going to be “the new Hawaii,” with the prosperity, pressures, and social dangers that implies. Although the two points don’t seem compatible, both could happen; certainly, the ingredients for both are there as independence approaches and big tourism gains momentum.
Yet the ingredients are also there for other, better things as well. For Fiji has the size, location, and talents not just to prosper but to be a leader in the emergent if uncertain politics and economies of a changing Pacific. In all of this, for good or bad, what happens to Fiji in the early 1970s will be critical.
Where It Is
Covering as it does more than a third of the world, the Pacific is big enough for several island groups to legitimately style themselves “crossroads However, none is better located or suited for the role in the South Pacific than the British crown colony of Fiji. It lies both on the border between Polynesia and Melanesia by the International Dateline and between Hawaii 3,000 miles to the north and Australia and New Zealand closer to the south.
Fiji has some 800 islands and islets spread over an ocean area twice the size of New York State or bigger than West Germany. The total land area of 7,095 square miles is slightly larger than the Hawaiian chain.
Most of Fiji’s islands are low coral atolls or limestone dots, often suited only for the growing of palms. Only 100 are inhabited. But Fiji also has “high” islands, built not just by gushing volcanoes as in Tahiti or Hawaii but also by great up thrusts from the ocean floor. These mineral-rich “continental” structures are another mark of Melanesia. Two of these islands, Viti Levu and Vanua Levu, dominate the area in size and economic importance; they have about 90 per cent of the total land area. Some three-quarters of the colony’s population lives on Viti Levu (“Great Fiji”). The capital and only major city of Suva, with 55,000 people and a fine harbor, lies some 70 miles across this circular, mountainous island from the international airport at Nadi and other larger towns of the coastal cane-growing area.
Fiji’s size, location and potential have long influenced its unique racial makeup and so its history. When the Dutch navigator Abel Tasman discovered Fiji for the European world in 1643, he found a native racial mixture. Then as now, the Fijian was mostly Melanesian with kinky hair and dark skin, but also with the impressive height and sometimes fairer skin that reflects Polynesian overtones from the islands to the east. Polynesian influence was also strong in the social organization, which saw much of the area divided into a half dozen small chiefdoms. There was cannibalism and frequent warfare, although the elaborate rituals and noise often far exceeded the small death toll.
Explorers such as Cook and Bligh visited and charted the islands in the late 1700s. Still it wasn’t until the early 19th Century that Fiji’s modern history began. Shipwrecked sailors and runaway convicts from Australia attached themselves to local chiefs as advisers in modern warfare. Traders came, offering guns, alcohol, and other goods in exchange for sandalwood and beche-de-mer. The result was an escalation in warfare, death, and debauchery. Missionaries and more legitimate European planters and traders arrived over the years. Still tribal warfare continued and the western impact made for a bloody, confused period in the early 1800s. Fiji became a fearful classic in “cannibal isles.”
Amid native warfare and European intrigue, a Christianized chief named Cakobau emerged at mid-century as the paramount but not unchallenged local leader. At various times from 1858 Cakobau offered Fiji to England, when rejected made the same offer to the U.S. (which was so busy with the Civil War it didn’t even reply), was named “king” of Fiji by local Europeans, asked Germany for protection which was refused. Finally, in 1874 Queen Victoria was impressed enough with the chaotic state of Fiji’s internal affairs to accept Cakobau’s second offer of cession. Fiji became a Crown Colony.
Disease decimated the Fijian population in the next few years. But even more significant was the early decision to import Indians to satisfy the need for sugar plantation labor. Between 1879 and 1916, some 63,000 came to Fiji; more than two-thirds settled for good.
Besides the economically and politically commanding Europeans, other small minorities have become part of Fiji’s racial scene. These include Chinese shop keepers and traders, part Europeans who over several generations have become a local sub-culture, Polynesian natives of nearby Rotuma which is a dependency of Fiji, and a variety of other Pacific islanders.
Ruling Alliance Party’s magazine frankly discusses Fijian plight
Latest population estimates a 513,000 total broken down this way: Fijians 215,000, Indians 257,000, Europeans 12,000, Part Europeans 10, 000, Rotumans 6,000, Chinese 5,400, other Pacific Islanders 6,600.
It is important to note that the immigrant Indians now make up just about half the total population while the native Fijians are a 42 per cent minority. But more important is to understand that this is a multiracial society not really integrating yet. It is not a Hawaii situation where Hawaiians have become a colorful but depressed and relatively uninfluential minority. Fijians may eat Indian curry; Indians may sometimes take to the Fijian drink of kava or yaqona; all may like British tea and Australian beer. But the hard goals here now still involve setting up means for a peaceful coexistence that can lead to a more hopeful future.
The Racial Scene
So it is that race is the touchstone of almost everything else in Fiji today. It is possible to sensationalize the situation, to cite parallels with other multiracial situations where Britain has been influential — Malaysia, Guyana, the Bahamas, etc, not to mention Nigeria, Cyprus, or the Holy Land. That record is not always encouraging. One can exaggerate Fiji’s tensions when in fact it may be the lack of them is more notable considering the situation; the average visitor is hardly disturbed.
Still, it would be both perilous and impossible not to underscore the deep concern about Fiji’s racial situation. There is plenty of public lip service to the idea of togetherness, but privately there are also plenty of statements such as these:
“We have been pushed back enough. The time is coming when we will have to take care of them with this, “says a Fijian worker holding up a fist and indicating towards a couple of Indians drinking down the public bar.
That Fijian worker may have been drunk and poor but he was not alone in his opinions. Two days later in an air-conditioned office a respected Fijian chief and leader said very soberly: “It looks like we may have to get tougher. The Indians must see that one alternative they face is getting booted out … There could quite easily be trouble. “
A top Indian leader expressed concern that so many of his people were leaving Fiji out of uncertainty, concern for the future and a shortage of opportunities. Yet he and others stressed that the big majority of Indians saw their future as people of Fiji, and, contrary to what some others might say, were not afraid to fight for their rights if necessary.
One of my more memorable meetings was with an American with much experience in the islands. For an hour he told me about Fiji’s great economic prospects and the part he hoped to play. Then as we parted, he added: “There is going to be trouble here some day. I only hope it will be over quickly and will teach them a lesson that will last for thirty years”.
Another dimension was added by the wife of a prominent local European politician, who with her husband nodding assent said: “Most of the Fijians still show the old respect. But there is a rise of anti-Europeanism here that I find disturbing. “
On a more fundamental level, there is the remark of an anthropologist who has lived in Fiji and studied the various Pacific peoples: “I don’t think you will find two less compatible races in any one place than the Fijians and Indians. They really aren’t attracted to each other”.
These differences run through race, type of culture, language, economic specialization, school systems, and religion. (“It may be that religion rather than race is the big barrier, “says one social worker. “Virtually all Fijians are Christians, mostly Methodists. But only two per cent of the Indians are Christians. The rest are Hindus or Muslims.”)
Everything considered, relations between people of two races have been mostly peaceful, especially among the rural Fijian villagers and Indian cane farmers. “You might say the people at the bottom get along while we at the top feud about their future,” said one leader. Said a European who works closely with all races: “In Suva and the towns there is division. People manage to work together on the job. There is some playing together in sports, but very little in social life. Attitudes are still far apart. “
A Fijian village
The Fijians
Fijian attitudes have been shaped by a mixture of cultural pride and British paternalism. Traditional Fijian society is a Polynesian-Melanesian mixture. Its elements include rule by hereditary chiefs in’ various rankings, elaborate ceremony, large family units in rural villages, communal ownership of land, subsistence farming, and a share-and-share-alike philosophy towards work and material goods. It is an integrated, tradition-bound culture, one poorly equipped to cope with influences of the West.
For most of the past 95 years, British policy has been a mixture of first trying to preserve Fijian tradition and more of late helping Fijians meet modern challenges — admirable goals some see as cross purposes in practical effect over the years. To pursue them, the British shortly after taking over set up a separate government within a government for Fijians. At the top of this tradition-based Fijian Administration is the Great Council of Chiefs, which reviews any government proposals relating to Fijians, and sends two members to the legislature. There is no doubt this system has preserved much of the Fijian communal social structure. It may now act as sort of a safety valve for Fijian frustrations. But the system has also been more of a security blanket than stimulant. Says one important chief in the government: “It was a device where we came to let the British guide and protect us. Today our people lack the initiative to cooperate in a positive way against outside forces.”
One vital fact is that because of strict no-sale laws Fijian family groups still own 84 per cent of the land. “That’s fine,” says one young Fijian official. “But what you sometimes see is Fijian villagers almost surrounded by their own land they had leased to Indian cane farmers. They can’t get it back or sometimes even get on it — except to work for the Indian cutting cane in season for fifty cents a day. And the tragedy is a lot of Fijians are content to do just that.”
Patterns are changing, of course. It’s estimated that more than one quarter of the Fijians are living outside the strict ties of traditional society. Some have managed the important transition to success as independent farmers. A few are successful in professions, and a number are high in government. Others have become urbanized workers in industry.
But many are in a transition period that means social and personal problems. Statistics tell part of the story. With just over 40 per cent of the population, Fijians make up 72 per cent of the inmates in prison. Some 81 per cent of all liquor offence convictions last year involved Fijians. A college-entrance-type examination saw 246 Indian candidates and only 29 Fijians. Of these, 65 per cent of the Indians passed while only 45 per cent of the Fijians got through.
Behind this are the difficulties of a people bred to a communal village culture but now faced with the challenges of a materialistic society with its different concepts of money, debt, and private property. Not only do working Fijians often face demands to share their affluence with many relatives, it’s also said many have a “big spender” compulsion to impress family, friends, and outsiders. In this, they are a people generous to a fault.
Most notable to me in 1969 was what seemed an increasing Fijian bluntness in concern about their condition in relation to both Indians and Europeans.
Wrote a young Fijian intellectual who graduated from an overseas university: “The average Fijian is taking stock of his position, and inside he is aware of how things have turned out against him. The gravity of this development process should not be underestimated … The Fijian sees himself increasingly as a loser … With their political awakening, the Fijians are becoming increasingly aware of the adverse economic position of their community … They used to be poor men in a poor country; now they are poor men in a relatively rich country. Such a build-up provides conditions conducive to the growth of Fijian nationalism.”
On a more grass-roots level, a moderate and thoughtful Fijian district officer in a rural region commented: “Fijian feelings are strong but submerged. We smile, are polite and cheerful, and pretend all is well. But inside, underneath, is a powder keg, to put it mildly. The Fijian is becoming more aware of politics and realizes he is a cornered man. He is backed up and worried. This will come out. There will be trouble in one form or another
Contributing to the new Fijian awareness, and so to the attendant tension in 1969, was The Nation, a magazine of the ruling Alliance Party which is directed by relatively moderate and progressive Fijians (although with varying European influence). The hired editor of the new magazine in 1969 was David Seidler, a young American TV producer who had lived in Fiji before. His style was outspoken, but there was no doubt the important articles were cleared and intended almost as informal leadership statements.
In May, for example, there was a controversial piece advocating “Fijian Power,” which began with the following statement made in 1959 by Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, Chief (prime) Minister and head of the Alliance Party:
“If the Fijians were to burn Suva to the ground, they would lose nothing. They would gain by destroying the records of their debts. “
The article went on to spell out demands for “discrimination for Fijians,” a higher percentage of jobs, business licenses, and scholarships to help close the gap. It said:
“’Fijian Power’ is not meant to set Fijians against Indians and Europeans. The hatred and violence witnessed in other countries must be avoided at all costs. The cost is aiding the Fijian ‘have-nots’. There can be no stability in Fiji until the Fijian feels secure in his own nation. There can be no racial equality until all races are indeed equal. “
Many in Fiji’s powerful European establishment, including some in the Alliance Party, were disturbed by the American Black Power overtones and various other suggestions that the Indians are hardly solely to blame for the situation of the Fijians today. But more important is the feeling that such articles articulate a body of growing militancy among more educated Fijians. The old ratus or chiefs were not being pushed aside; if trouble really came their power as leaders in the hierarchical system would be important. Ratu Mara added to his high chiefly credentials with new titles last year. Still the biggest and most positive changes involved Fijian nationalism in the competitive area with other races. Dangers were apparent, but so was a hope to break the old cycle. At any rate a Fijian legislator seemed to be stating a hope as much as a fact when he said: “The old polite Fijian is on the way out. “
Indian cane farmers
The Indians
Importing Indian labor was a concession to European sugar planters. There was an understandable side: British policy was for colonies — even this colony by invitation — to be as economically self-supporting as possible. Fijians did not like sugar plantation work and did not have to do it for survival. In fact, a British aim was to protect them from being turned into what was termed “a collection of migratory bands of hired laborers.” So unsuccessful Fijian communal plantations were started. And, after a period when other Pacific islanders were tried, the ambitious and impoverished Indians were imported from their homeland to work for Europeans.
These men and women from various areas of India came as indentured laborers under a system that developed abuses and hardships. Still most stayed after their contracts expired. After 1916 when the indenture system was broken up, they became small tenant farmers, growing sugar on land leased from Fijians or the big Australian company that controls milling and marketing. But increasing numbers have gone into the trades and service industry, dominating such fields as rural retail sales and road transportation. In addition, small but important groups came as free migrants, notably Gujerati businessmen from around Bombay.
It’s possible to argue that Indians should never have been brought to Fiji, that the seeds of potential racial tragedy are not worth the economic advantages. But the dominating fact now is that over 90 per cent of Fiji’s quarter-million Indians were born there, and the great number see their future there.
If Fijian culture looks both very fragile and deceptively simple, Indian society in the islands presents readily apparent contradictions. This Indian community is far from homogeneous and unchanged. The original immigrants came from several areas in India. Most were Hindu, but perhaps 15 per cent were Muslim and a small number Christians. Although these religious differences continue, the Indian caste system was broken almost immediately by communal conditions on immigrant ships and in the crowded, inadequate barracks on the plantations. There is a wide range of Indian attitudes among such diverse people as the “shirttail farmer” scratching out a living on marginal land, the more prosperous cane farmers with set leases on good land, the poor urban cab driver, and the fat cat owner of stores and other business, between the young student and his parents. Indians themselves make the point they are a people given far more to splitting into factions than to unity. In fact, it’s felt the key element in Indian economic success is his ability to operate as an individualist.
Still, it’s hard not to think about “the Indians” as a group. With thousands of years of tradition, the umbrella of general Indian culture remains in such things as religion, food, dress, and general togetherness; European policy and Fijian fears have reinforced it. In a basically communal election system, it is not surprising to find evidence of Indian bloc voting. No matter what divides them, many Indians can still see a threat to them as a people in Fiji. “I was born here,” says one young Indian. “Is wanting to survive and live as an equal in my own country so wrong?”
Some Indian statements reflect a superior view over Fijians. “Can you imagine looking as they did for somebody to give your country to? This is the chief and culture they look up to?” “If it were not for us Indians there would be grass growing in the (British) governor’s bedroom.”
Both statements came from Indian leaders, but they are balanced by other more public remarks that Indians recognize Fijian historical rights to the land and their need for special help in catching up.
“Our people have never set out to harm the Fijians in any way; if anything, we have helped them”, says a top Indian leader. “All we want is to be equal, to be part of things here.”
If oversimplified, that seems reasonable enough. In fact, the present constitution guarantees citizenship rights to local born residents. Most Fijian leaders recognize the Indians are there to stay. But there are leaders — even moderate, respected leaders — who in anger and frustration at times talk of “Fiji for the Fijians”, of somehow deporting the Indians.
Thus, if the Fijian fears domination in his homeland, meaningful survival as Fiji citizens is a question for many Indians. “Balance” and “equality” have long been key and often-conflicting words in a Fiji situation where Europeans set the rules; now as self-government approaches, they are taking on new and added importance.
The Europeans
“When you talk about Europeans in Fiji”, said a leading local politician, you’ve got to be careful to say which one. “It is a worthy point. Historically, the mixture includes escaped criminals, shipwrecked sailors, missionaries, black-birding slave traders, honest and adventurous planters and businessmen, deadbeat officials and dedicated civil servants. Today the group counts modern versions of the same types, plus fourth or fifth generation local Europeans called “Kai Viti”. Although the British presence is much diminished — 94 per cent of the public service is now local born — there are now more Europeans in Fiji than ever before, largely Australian and New Zealand businessmen or hired government workers.
Money, power, western skills and prestige have long given Europeans a dominant influence far beyond their relatively small numbers in Fiji. They control the top 80 per cent of the economy (with most of the rest in the hands of Indian merchants). Europeans also ran the government, and even now retain much influence and ultimate power. Moreover, because of the circumstances of cession and special treatment since, the Fijians have had an enormous loyalty to the British Crown as their great protector. This has usually translated into friendly feelings towards all Europeans.
The special-friendship factor may be changing as many Fijians come to realize that not all white men have been or really are their great friends, and as some Europeans become nervous over “Fijian Power.” However, by and large the friendship still seems to work both ways. There are those who challenge whether the Fijian has been really understood, but Europeans generally find him most friendly, good humored, open — and willing to follow European leadership.
Downtown Suva
Attitudes towards Indians are often something else. Some Kai Viti and other Europeans reflect acute dislike. Said one: “Indian society puts a premium on craftiness and deceit. I’ve dealt with them for 45 years, and you can’t trust any of them.” Others are more moderate. You get a lot of views that begin with, “Some of my best friends are Indians — but . . . “ Part of the apprehension stems from the fact Indian advancement can challenge European dominance. Others cite deeper factors. Indians work hard, are individualists, enterprising and willing to sacrifice for their children, virtues high in Western Christian esteem. In a related sense they are like other successful expatriate groups, notably Chinese and Jews. “Maybe it’s that they are rugged pioneers who threaten to beat us at our own game”, said one European. “But they are also a mixture we find disturbing — outspoken, sanctimonious and from a culture we don’t understand. “
Some Europeans feel they will hold on in power in an informal political alliance with Fijians. Others doubt that. Still their present economic strength and the growth of tourism and other investment indicates Europeans will remain an important factor in a new era in Fiji. How well they both use their influence and step back from public dominance is bound to bear on hopes for a peaceful future.
The Racial Future
There may very well be racial violence in Fiji. Some would argue it is much more likely than not, although most would bet and hope against a major conflict.
There are also some hopeful signs: progress away from racial schools is not fast enough, especially at lower, formative levels, but it is being made. Intermarriage in the key area between Fijians and Indians is still so rare it is unimportant as an influence. But there are social developments some find significant. Said one European who works closely with youth: “The Fijian and Indian kids are getting out of the traditional Methodist and Hindu patterns; they are becoming more secularized … That shakes up some parents, but give the kids one more generation and the things that separate them so much now will be gone.”
Whether Fiji can peacefully get to that next generation is now the big question. Here also there is room for hope because the situation is fluid and depends on the work of respected, moderate people on all sides. It might be noted that most of the Fijian quotes in this piece were made before the October death of A.D. Patel, the distinguished but often difficult leader of the basically Indian opposition party. The new leader, S.M. Koya, considered more moderate, has taken over and there has been a mellowing in Fiji’s racial-political climate. One important Fijian leader who was tough and gloomy on Fijian-Indian relations has been far more optimistic in later talks. The 1960s ended on a hopeful note.
Still the statements quoted seem to represent basic attitudes on the depth of the problem. The new honeymoon may sour but it comes at the vital time when Fiji prepares to draw up the form of government and terms for self-government and virtual independence within two years. That situation is discussed in the next newsletter.
Received in New York on March 9, 1970.
Mr. John Griffin is an Alicia Patterson Fund award winner on leave from the Honolulu Advertiser, Honolulu, Hawaii. This article may be published with credit to Mr. Griffin, the Honolulu Advertiser, and the Alicia Patterson Fund.
