Background on ethnic conflict in Fiji

I have spent a fair amount of time over the past week or so trying to unearth Marxist or radical scholarship on Fiji. Among the scanty contributions that fall in this category, there are few that I consider truly sympathetic to the Fijian point of view. Most accounts, especially the articles contained in Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, tend to view all expressions of Fijian nationalism as deeply retrograde.

In order to legitimize this position, it becomes necessary to soften the impact of British colonialism. By making the role of the British less cruel than it was in, for example, China or India, the militancy of the Fiji people seems more unreasonable by comparison.

If you look at the 1988 article in the Bulletin by Stephanie Hagan titled "Race, Politics, and the Coup in Fiji", you will discover that Sir Arthur Gordon had different motives than other colonial administrators. She quotes Gordon as coming to the islands with the idea that he had "a divine mission to make the islands an exception to the dismal history of colonialism." His interpretation of the Deed of Cession, which established the Crown ownership of the island and all who lived on it, led to "the paramountcy of Fijian interests." In an act of generosity and postcolonial wisdom, Gordon reserved most of the land for the Fijians. This, more or less, is the standard left interpretation of British relationship to the indigenous population.

Turning to Deryck Scarr's "Fiji: A Short History," we learn about some of the more pecuniary considerations underpinning Gordon's colonial administration. Basically, the 'natives' were seen as a supplier of food to the rest of the population and of export goods like copra. In order to expedite their role as agricultural petty producers, the British kept the traditional villages intact. With these structures in place, the chiefs began to function as middlemen. Not only were the small peasants producers for the town, they also paid taxes to keep the colonial administration going. Although some tax revenue was allocated for native benefits like churches (which would assure their happiness in heaven), most went into general revenue, about 100,000 pounds a year by 1900.

Despite their insertion into commodity production, the Fijians were never completely integrated as a true bourgeoisie. Traditional relationships, based on the feudal chieftans, undermined the ability to extract profit. A chieftan sought only to extract enough value off the top to maintain a life-style. The notion of revolutionizing the means of production was the last thing in his mind. As Scarr puts it:

The level of production was the basic issue. As with most peasant cultures, the Fijian household functioned below capacity, its labour intensity varying inversely with labour capacity; the chiefly function, often validating the decisions of household heads, was to galvanise additional production for surplus. The colonial government had come in at the chiefly level; the Governor was formally installed as supreme chief, was accorded the 'tama' and received first fruits. Although the colonial regime had the option of endorsing the mere household subsistence level with its ready corollary, plantation labour for cash needs, to oblige the white community, it made a value judgement in favour of the more politically dangerous alternative. Native Regulation No. 5 of 1877, for instance, was always being attacked as extremely paternalistic; it prescribed the exact minimum each head of household must plant for his dependants’ subsistence; it was intended to provide a surplus, and was an idea borrowed from Tonga."

The other question worth considering is the degree to which the modern Labour movement in Fiji is an outgrowth of Gandhism. Reading Scarr leaves one with the impression that Gandhi had much more of an impact on Indian radicalism on the island than Marx or the Soviet Union.

What Gandhi offered his brethren was an uncompromising struggle against second class citizenship. The fight was basically between the British and the Indian, whose sense of 'Izzat' (honour) was being violated on a daily basis. To redeem his humanity and to have full rights as a citizen was the main goal, not to transform property relations or unite Indian and non-Indian in a fight for socialism.

In a speech to the Legislative Council on September 1, 1929 Indian leader Vishnu Deo said, "We ask for that equality and brotherhood and loving cooperation which is meet that the sons of men should extend to each other all over the globe wherever they are thrown together." That phrase "thrown together" was a poignant reminder of how most Indians in Fiji must have viewed their situation.