When it comes to grappling with the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi, one of the commonest responses is that it is a matter of interpretation. It seems to be a perfectly fair reaction, except that historical interpretation generally requires adherence to rules of evidence.

It is not a licence to make any claims whatsoever about the Treaty, and then to assert their truth by appealing to the authority of personal interpretation.

Yet since the 1970s New Zealanders have been faced with the paradoxical situation of a growing body of Treaty scholarship that has led to less consensus about its meaning and purpose.

It is therefore worthwhile to investigate some of the more common misconceptions about the Treaty that have accrued over recent decades.

This will not lead to a definitive interpretation of the Treaty. But it might remove a few obstacles currently in the way of understanding it better.

The government has been warned to “be careful” with its policies affecting Māori at the National Iwi Chairs Forum (NICF) on Friday.https://t.co/8SskRWTxGo

— RNZ Te Ao Māori (@RNZTeAoMaori) February 2, 2024

1. The Treaty or Te Tiriti?
A common view persists that the English and Māori versions of the Treaty are fundamentally at odds with each other, especially over the central issue of sovereignty.

But research over the past two decades on British colonial policy prior to 1840 has revealed that Britain wanted a treaty to enable it to extend its jurisdiction to its subjects living in New Zealand.

It had no intention to govern Māori or usurp Māori sovereignty. On this critical point, the two versions are essentially in agreement.

2. The Treaty is not a contract
The principle of contra proferentem — appropriated from contract law — refers to ambiguous provisions that can be interpreted in a way that works against the drafter of the contract.

However, there are several problems in applying this principle to the Treaty. Firstly, treaties are different legal instruments from contracts. This explains why there are correspondingly few examples of this principle being used in international law for interpreting treaties.

Secondly, as there are no major material differences between the English and Māori versions of the Treaty when it comes to Māori retaining sovereignty, there is no need to apply such a principle.

And thirdly, under international law, treaties are not to be interpreted in an adversarial manner, but in good faith (the principle of pacta sunt servanda). Thus, rather than the parties fighting over the Treaty’s meaning, the requirement is for them to work with rather than against each other.

Nearly 400 people have marched down the main street of Kaitāia in a show of support for Te Tiriti o Waitangi.https://t.co/3BGtm8BMbw

— RNZ Te Ao Māori (@RNZTeAoMaori) February 2, 2024

3. Relationships evolve over time
No rangatira (chief) ceded sovereignty over their own people through the Treaty. Nor was that Britain’s intention — hence Britain’s recognition in August 1839 of hapū (kinship group) sovereignty and the guarantee in the Treaty that rangatiratanga (the powers of the chiefs) would be protected.

Britain simply wanted jurisdiction over its own subjects in the colony. This is what is known as an “originalist” interpretation — one that follows the Treaty’s meaning as it was understood in 1840.

This has several limitations: it precludes the emergence of Treaty principles; it wrongly presumes that all involved at the time of the Treaty’s signing had an identical view on its meaning; and, crucially, it ignores all subsequent historical developments.

Treaty relationships evolve over time in numerous ways. Originalist interpretations fail to take that into account.

4. Questions of motive
British motives for the Treaty were made explicit in 1839, yet in the following 185 years false motives have entered into the historical bloodstream, where they have continued circulating.

What Britain wanted was the right to apply its laws to its people living in New Zealand. It also intended to “civilise” Māori (through creating the short-lived Office of Protector of Aborigines) and protect Māori land from unethical purchases (the pre-emption provision in Article Two of the Treaty).

And Britain wanted to afford Māori the same rights as British subjects in cases where one group’s actions impinged on the other’s (as in the 1842 Maketū case, involving the conviction for murder and execution of a young Māori man).

The Treaty was not a response to a French threat to New Zealand. And it was not an attempt to conquer Māori, nor to deceive them through subterfuge.

5. Myths of a ‘real’ Treaty and 4th article
Over the past two decades, some have alleged there is a “real” Treaty — the so-called “Littlewood Treaty” – that has been concealed because it contains a different set of provisions. Such conspiratorial claims are easily dispelled.

The text of the Littlewood Treaty is known and it is merely a handwritten copy of the actual Treaty. And, most obviously, it cannot be regarded as a treaty on the basis that no one signed it.

Another popular myth is that there is a fourth article of the Treaty, which purportedly guarantees religious freedom. This article does not appear in either the Māori or English texts of the Treaty, and there is no evidence the signatories regarded it as a provision of the agreement.

It is a suggestion that emerged in the 1990s, but lacks any evidential or legal basis.

Finally, there is the argument that the Treaty supports the democratic process. In fact, the Treaty ushered in a non-representative regime in the colony. It was the 1852 New Zealand Constitution Act that gave the country a democratic government – a statute that incidentally made no reference to the Treaty’s provisions.

This list is not exhaustive. But in dispensing with areas of poor interpretation, we can improve the chances of a more informed and productive discussion about the Treaty.

Dr Paul Moon is professor of history, Auckland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In a significant step toward preserving and commemorating Fiji’s rich history, efforts are underway to establish the country’s first living museum.

This unique institution will focus on capturing the era of the British colonial government’s indentured system in Fiji, shedding light on the arrival of Fijians of Indian descent to the Pacific Ocean.

The initiative aims to honour the contributions and struggles of the indentured labourers, known as Girmitiyas, who played a pivotal role in shaping Fiji’s economy.

Behind the vision is the Global Girmit Institute, whose board of trustees chair Dr Ganesh Chand told RNZ Pacific the museum had great significance for Fiji.

Dr Chand said that many Fijians were unaware of their country’s history and the way of life under British rule in Fiji, noting that Fiji-Indians were even unaware of their origins — the Girmitiyas.

Fijian-Indians make up about 37 percent of the country’s population.

“For Girmitiyas, there has been a total silence of material in our curriculum all the way up to now,” Dr Chand lamented.

“There is nothing in the texts, and students don’t learn their history.”

He said that if schools fail to teach local history, it could be detrimental to that nation as a whole.

“If they don’t learn in these in schools, then they grow up thinking that their house and day-to-day life is their entirety in the country.

“But that is not a very good state for nation-building. For nation-building, people need to know the history,” Dr Chand said.

The museum aims to rectify this by providing a “comprehensive and immersive experience” that educates visitors about the Girmit era.

The Global Girmit Institute living museum will be co-located within the GGI Library at its headquarters in Saweni, Lautoka, on the country’s main island.

Work has already begun, with the collection of artefacts intensifying in preparation for the anticipated opening of phase one next year.

Travellers who crossed two oceans
The gallery will feature a range of artefacts and recordings of the oral history of people from different linguistic backgrounds and cultures.

Objects relating to farming and the sugar industry, lifestyle, music, food, clothing and religious events will also be displayed, along with objects that record the impact of colonialism on the islands.

Dr Chand said visitors will have the opportunity to witness and understand first hand the living conditions and lifestyle of the Girmitiyas.

“The living museum will feature a fully furnished residence from the era, and our workers will live there and depict how life was in those days under British rule,” he said.

So, how did a group of South Asian people — the Girmitiyas — arrive in the Pacific Ocean?

It was the abolition of slave labour in the early 19th century that gave rise to the Indian indenture system.

This saw an influx of labourers transported from India to various European colonies, including Fiji, to work in plantations.

The system was established to address the labour shortage that followed, explained academic and linguist Dr Farzana Gounder, a direct Girmitiya descendant and a representative of Fiji on the UNESCO International Indentured Labour Route Project.

“The term ‘Girmit’ is derived from the word ‘agreement’ and was used to refer to the system of indentured labour that brought Indians to Fiji between 1879 and 1916,” she said.

“Under this system, Indian labourers were recruited from British India to work on sugar plantations in Fiji, which was then a British colony. During this period, more than 60,000 Indians were brought to Fiji under indenture and became known as Girmitiyas.”

The indenture was seen as an agreement between the workers and the British government, and over the next three decades Girmitiyas were shipped across two oceans to work the lands in Fiji, where a jarring reality awaited them, explained Dr Gounder.

“The Girmitiyas faced many challenges when they arrived in Fiji, including harsh working conditions, cultural and linguistic barriers, and discrimination from both European and indigenous Fijian populations.

“They worked long hours in difficult and often dangerous conditions on the sugar plantations and were paid very low wages.”

The Girmitiyas were instrumental in the development of Fiji’s sugar industry, and this museum aims to tell these stories.

Fiji’s Peace Village to host historical stories
The government of Fiji is also commissioning a living museum in the central province of Navilaca village in Rewa.

Assistant Women’s Minister Sashi Kiran announced that this gallery would pay homage to the relationship between the Girmitiyas and iTaukei people.

“Navilaca village is significant to the history of both the indigenous people and the Indo-Fijians,” she said.

Kiran recounts the heroic efforts of the indigenous people in 1884 who, in the absence of immediate assistance from the colonial authorities, led the rescue operations, saving many lives when a ship named Syria, carrying around 500 Girmitiyas, became wrecked on the Nasilai Reef.

This village thus served as an apt location for the museum, paying homage to the resilience and humanity displayed during that challenging time, she said.

“The village of Navilaca had done the rescue when the Syria was wrecked, and villages there had not only rescued the people but buried the dead in their chiefly ground. They had also looked after all the injured until they healed.

“The fisherfolk had been rescuing people, and the archives also say that there were only about 100 out of almost 500 passengers left by the time the colonials came, so most of the rescue was actually done by the indigenous people.”

The village has since been declared a place of peace with an offer extended to host teaching of each other’s rituals, ceremonies, and customs.

“It will be a space where both cultures can be taught through artefacts and storytelling,” she added.

It will also be open to tourists and the diaspora.

Both living museums promise to be vital cultural institutions, providing a platform to remember and honour Fiji’s history.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Methodist Church of Fiji is seeking forgiveness from the descendants of Indian indentured labourers, or Girmitiyas, for the transgressions of the last 36 years.

The racially motivated violent coups of 1987 and 2000 and the military coup d’état of December 2006 have left a permanent scar on race relations within the country.

The 1987 and 2000 coups were supported by the church’s then-leadership.

But in a historic move, the church is launching a 10-year campaign to heal the wounds of the past — starting with an apology to coincide with the inaugural Girmit Day celebrations next Sunday.

Reverend Ili Vunisuwai is leading the official apology at the national reconciliation service on May 14 as the head of the largest Christian denomination in Fiji.

“The time is right to launch a campaign for national reconciliation and give the people of all races a chance to confess their weaknesses,” Reverend Vunisuwai said.

“Let’s seek forgiveness from those they regard as their enemies. We strongly believe that by confession with pure hearts and humility, our transgression can be forgiven,” he said.

“As we look back, the dark days of social upheavals of coups of 1987, 2000 as well as 2006, and then, unfolding events of hatred and discrimination, which resulted in fear and uncertainties, I think there’s a lot to be done by the church to bring the two races together.”

The timing of the event has much significance as the country of under a million people marks 144 years since the arrival of the first of more than 60,000 indentured labourers or Girmitiyas as they later came to be known.

Girmitiyas were brought to Fiji between 1879 to 1916 by British colonial rulers to work in plantations across the island.

As a result of the indentured labour system, Fijians of Indian descent make up the second largest ethnic population in Fiji today — slightly over 34 percent, while the iTaukei or indigenous people comprise 62 percent.

Chair to the Girmit Celebrations, Assistant Minister for Women Sashi Kiran, is calling the apology efforts a start of a peaceful future for the nation.

‘We acknowledge the pain’
‘I’m very humbled, and I’m very, very touched at the strength of the Committee and of the leadership of the Methodist Church,” Kiran told RNZ Pacific.

“They’re willing to look at the problem in the eye and say, ‘Well, let’s talk about it. We apologise, we can’t change the past, but we are sorry for the hurt that we have caused’.”

But while Kiran accepts the apology from the church, she acknowledges that many in the Indo-Fijian community may not be ready.

“Any pain cannot be underrated,” she said. “What people went through was their pain, and it’s their journey so by no means can we judge what people are feeling or going through”

“We acknowledge the pain. We acknowledge the pain of the past,” she added.

However, she admits that events of the past cannot be undone, and the way forward is through healing.

“In the interest of healing the nation, in the interest of future generations that they born into a healed nation…we ask you to please open your hearts and open your inner feelings,” she appealed to Fijians.

“Let’s talk about it [past atrocities], and let’s work on healing and come into that space.”

She said it was also “okay” for those people who still “need time” to heal from the racial troubles, adding “at least we begin to talk about this.”

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, who has publicly apologised for his actions in 1987 repeatedly, accepts that many will still remember the dark past that made him notorious worldwide.

“The man that we did not want to know about, we shied away from his name, addressed us…and he does not bite, he’s not an angry young man,” Rabuka told the 12th World Hindi Conference in Nadi in February.

“He is just an old man who understands the feelings of the descendants of the Girmitiyas who are now his age, looking at their grandchildren and children growing up in the land they now call home.”

RNZ Pacific asked Reverend Vunisuwai why it has taken the Methodist Church of Fiji 35 years to apologise to the Indo-Fijian community?

“The current government has allowed the celebration of the Girmitiyas, and that’s probably a good time for national reconciliation regarding all the upheavals of the past 30 years or so.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz