The co-founder of Auckland’s Fiji Centre is concerned that Indo-Fijians are not classified as Pacific Islanders in Aotearoa.

This week marks the 146th anniversary of the arrival of the first indentured labourers from British India to Fiji, who departed from Calcutta.

On 14 May 1879, the first group of 522 labourers arrived in Fiji aboard the Leonidas, a labour transportation ship.

That date in 1987 is also the date of the first military coup in Fiji.

More than 60,000 men, women and children were brought to Fiji under an oppressive system of bonded labour between 1879 and 1916.

Today, Indo-Fijians make up 33 percent of the population.

While Fiji is part of the Pacific, Indo-Fijians are not classified as Pacific peoples in New Zealand; instead, they are listed under “Indian” and “Asian” on the Stats NZ website.

Lasting impact on Fiji
The Fiji Centre’s Nik Naidu, who is also a co-founder of the Whānau Community Centre and Hub, said that he understood Fiji was the only country in the Pacific where the British implemented the indentured system.

“It is also a sad legacy and a sad story because it was basically slavery,” he said.

“The positive was that the Fiji Indian community made a lasting impact on Fiji.

“They continue to be around 30 percent of the population in Fiji, and I think significantly in Aotearoa, through the migration, the numbers are, according to the community, over 100,000 in New Zealand.”

However, he said the discussions on ethnic classification “reached a stalemate” with the previous Pacific Peoples Minister.

“His basic argument was, well, ethnographically, Fijian Indians do not fit the profile of Pacific Islanders,” he said.

Then-minister Aupito William Sio said in 2021 that, while he understood the group’s concerns, the classification for Fijian Indians was in line with an ethnographic profile which included people with a common language, customs and traditions.

Aupito said that profile was different from indigenous Pacific peoples.

StatsNZ and ethnicity
“StatsNZ recognises ethnicity as the ethnic group or groups a person self-identifies with or has a sense of belonging to,” Aupito said in a letter at the time.

It is not the same as race, ancestry, nationality, citizenship or even place of birth, he said.

“They have identified themselves now that the system of government has not acknowledged them.

“Those conversations have to be ongoing to figure out how do we capture the data of who they are as Fijian Indians or to develop policies around that to support their aspirations.”

Naidu believes the ethnographic argument was a misunderstanding of the request.

“The request is not to say, like Chinese in Samoa, they are not indigenous to Samoa, but they are Samoans, and they are Pacific Chinese.

“So there is the same thing with Fijian Indians. They are not wanting to be indigenous.

Different from mainland Indians
“They do want to be recognised as separate Indians in the Pacific because they are very different from the mainland Indians.

“In fact, most probably 99 percent of Fijian Indians have never been to India and have no affiliations to India because during the Girmit they lost all connections with their families.”

However, Naidu told Pacific Waves the community was not giving up.

“There was a human rights complaint made — again that did not progress in the favour of the Fijian Indians.

“Currently from . . . Fiji Centre’s perspective, we are still pursuing that.

“We have also had a discussion with Stats NZ about the numbers and trying to ascertain just why they have not managed to put a separate category, so that we can look at the number of Fijian Indians and also relative to Pacific Islanders.”

Fijian Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka told RNZ Pacific that as far as Fiji is concerned, Fijians of Indian descent are Fijian.

Question to minister
Last year, RNZ Pacific asked the current Minister for Pacific Peoples, Dr Shane Reti, on whether Indo-Fijians were included in Ministry of Pacific Peoples as Pacific people.

In a statement, his office said: “The Ministry for Pacific Peoples is undertaking ongoing policy work to better understand this issue.”

Meanwhile, the University of Fiji’s vice-chancellor is asking the Australian and British governments to consider paying reparation for the exploitation of the indentured labourers more than a century ago.

Professor Shaista Shameem told the ABC that they endured harsh conditions, with long hours, social restrictions and low wages.

She said the Australian government and the Colonial Sugar Refinery of Australia benefitted the most financially and it was time the descendants were compensated.

While some community leaders have been calling for reparation, Naidu said there were other issues that needed attention.

He said it had been an ongoing discussion for many decades.

“It is a very challenging one, because where do you draw the line? And it is a global problem, the indenture system. It is not just unique to Fiji.

“Personally, yes, I think that is a great idea. Practically, I am not sure if it is feasible and possible.”

Focus on what unites, says Rabuka
Fiji is on a path for reconciliation, with leaders from across the political spectrum signing a Forward Fiji Declaration in 2023, hoping to usher in a new era of understanding between indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians.

Rabuka announced a public holiday to commemorate Girmit Day in 2023.

In his Girmit Day message this year, Rabuka said his government was dedicated to bringing unity and reconciliation between all races living in Fiji.

“We all know that Fiji has had a troubled past, as it was natural that conflicts would arise when a new group of people would come into another’s space,” he said.

“This is precisely what transpired when the Indians began to live or decided to live as permanent citizens.

“There was distrust as the two groups were not used to living together during the colonial days. Indigenous Fijians did not have a say in why, and how many should come and how they should be settled here. Fiji was not given a time to transit.

“The policy of indenture labour system was dumped on us. Naturally this led to tensions and misunderstandings, reasons that fuelled conflicts that followed after Fiji gained independence.”

He said 146 years later, Fijians should focus on what unites rather than what divides them.

“We have together long enough to know that unity and peace will lead us to a good future.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Sitiveni Rabuka is infamous for making Fiji a republic after carrying out a military coup 35 years ago by overthrowing an Indo-Fijian dominated government to help maintain indigenous supremacy.

Rabuka has been a central figure in Fijian politics since 1987 — as the nation’s first coup maker, a former prime minister, most recently the leader of opposition, and now a reformed Christian and politician, and the leader of the People’s Alliance Party.

The former military strongman has positioned himself as the chief rival of the country’s incumbent Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama — a former military commander and coup leader himself — as Fijians prepare to head to the polls at some stage later this year.

Rabuka, now 73, is on a campaign trail in Aotearoa New Zealand on a mission — to share with the Fijian diaspora how “politics will affect their relatives” back at home and raise funds for his campaign to topple Bainimarama’s FijiFirst government.

In an exclusive interview with RNZ Pacific’s senior journalist Koroi Hawkins, he spoke about his vision for a better Fiji, raising the living standards of the Fijian people, and why he is the man to return the country back to “the way the world should be.”

“I’m here to talk to the supporters who are here,” Rabuka said.

“We do not have a branch in New Zealand so most of our supporters here have not formed themselves into a branch or into a chapter and I’m just out here to talk to them. They’ve been very supportive on this journey and that’s why I’m here.”

Koroi Hawkins: Why is it important to be talking to people outside of Fiji for the elections?

Rabuka: It is very important to speak to the diaspora. Some of them are now [New Zealand] citizens and may not vote. But they have relatives in Fiji and politics will affect their relatives. It is good for them to know how things are, and how things could turn out if we do not have the change that we advocate.

KH: Is there a fundraising aspect to this overseas election campaigning as well?

Rabuka: That is also the case. Fiji is feeling the impacts of covid-19 and also the rising food prices and the reduction of employment opportunities, hours at work and things like that, has reduced our income earning capacities and so many of us have been relying on government handouts, which is not healthy for a nation. We would like to encourage people to find out their own alternative methods of coping with the crisis that we are now facing, health and economic, and also to communicate those back to those at home.

We are also here to thank the people for the remittances of $1.5 billion [that] came into Fiji over the last two years, and a lot of that came from New Zealand, Australia and America. We were grateful to the three governments of the United States of Australia and New Zealand for hosting the diaspora.

KH: One of your strongest campaign messages has been about poverty with estimates around almost 50 percent of Fijians are now living in hardship. How do you propose to deliver on this promise?

Rabuka: Those are universal metres that I applied and for Fiji it can be effectively much lower if we were to revert to our own traditional and customary ways of living. Unfortunately, many of the formerly rural dwellers have moved to the urban centres where you must be earning to be able to maintain a respectable and acceptable way of life and living standards and so on.

Those surveys and the questions were put out to mostly those in the informal settlement areas where the figures are very high. It is true that according to universal metres and measures, yes, we are going through very difficult times. And the only way to do that is to give them opportunities to earn more. Those that are living in the villages now can earn a lot more. Somebody sent out a message this morning, calculating the income per tonne of cassava and dalo; it is way more than what we get from sugar in the international market.

KH: This pandemic, it’s really exposed how dependent Fiji is on tourism. This really hit Fiji hard. What is your economic vision for Fiji?

Rabuka: We just don’t want to be relying totally on one cow providing the milk. We will need to be looking at other areas. We have to diversify our economy to be able to weather these economic storms when they come because we cannot foresee them. But what we can do is have something that can weather whatever happens. Whether it is straightforward health or effects of wars and crises in other parts of the world. Agriculture and fisheries and forestry, when you talk about these things it also reminds us of our responsibilities towards climate change. We have to have sustainable policies to make sure these areas we want to diversify into do not unfairly hurt the areas that we are trying to save and sustainably used when we consider climate change.

KH: Talking about agriculture, the goal seems to be always import substitution and attempts to do that so far have been mild. Even downstream processing also seems problematic. Are there any specific ways you see food for agriculture other than the things that have been tried not just in Fiji, but around the region that are not really taking a hold in a lot of Pacific countries?

Rabuka: I think it is the choices we have made. There is a big opportunity for us to go into downstream processing of our agricultural produce and use those to substitute for the imports we get. If you look at the impact on the grain market in the world as a result of the Ukrainian war. What else can we have in Fiji now or in other countries that can substitute the grain input into the diet. So those are the things that we need really need to be doing now.

There has been a lot of research done at the Koronivia Research Station and they are laying there in files stored away in the libraries and the archives. We need to go back to those and see what has been done. Very interesting story about the former the late president Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau when he went to Indonesia and he found a very big coconut. He wanted to bring that back to go and plant in Fiji and the people were so embarrassed to tell him that this thing was a result of research carried out in Fiji.

KH: Another big issue is education. We have heard a lot about student loans. You have talked about converting student loans to scholarships and forgiving student debt. Can you maybe speak a little bit more about that that promise? What exactly is that?

Rabuka: We would like to go back to the scholarships concept, enhance the education opportunities for those that are that are capable of furthering the education and also branching out or branching back into what has been dormant for some time now that TVET, technical and vocational education and training. Those are the things that we really need to be doing. Lately, there have been labour movement from Fiji to Australia, New Zealand, for basic agricultural processes of just picking up nuts and fruit and routes.

Those people who are coming out are capable of moving on in education to being engineers and carpenters and block layers and if they had the opportunity to further to go along those streams in in the education system. There is no need for them to be paying. The government really should be taking over those things that we did in the past. We cannot all be lawyers and accountants and auditors and doctors and pilots and so on. But there is so many, the bigger portion of the workforce goes into the practical work that is done daily.

KH: Just going back to the current student debt that is there. Would your policy be to forgive that debt? Or would you still be working out a way to recover it?

Rabuka: That would be part of our manifesto and we are not allowed to announce those areas of our manifesto without giving the financial and budgetary impacts of those.

KH: If you did become prime minister, you would be inheriting a country with the highest debt to GDP ratio that Fiji has ever seen is what the experts are saying. What would be your thoughts coming into that kind of a problematic situation?

Rabuka: We would have to find out how much is owed at the moment and if we were to forgive that, what does forgiving that mean? It means you forego your revenue that you are going to get from these students who are already qualified to do work and for them it means getting reduced salaries when they start working so that they can pay off loans. We have to look at all the combinations and find out which is the most, or the least painful way, of doing it.

It is not their fault. It is what the new government will inherit from the predecessors. Everybody will have to be called upon to tighten their belt, understand the situation, everybody getting a very high per capita burden of the national debt and tell them just how it is. [This is] where we are, this is how we have to get out of it and everybody needs to work together. That is why we need a very popular government. And that is why all the political parties are working very hard to get that support from the people.

KH: Turning to the politics. In 2018, you came within a millimetre of that finish line. Since then, a lot has changed. You ran with the Social Democratic Liberal Party (Sodelpa) at the time. You have now formed your own party, the People’s Alliance. How confident are you about this election race given all those changes?

Rabuka: I think I am confident because there is a universal cry in Fiji for change. The people are looking for their best options on who is to bring the change, what sort of combinations, who are the people behind the brand, people with records in the private sector, also in politics and in the public sector, people who are who are determined to stay on Fiji and do what needs to be done.

There are so many overseas now who love Fiji so much. So many other people who could have been there in Fiji with us running the campaign in order to create a better Fiji, who are overseas. They have not been able to come freely back and with those in mind, we are determined to be the change and bring the change.

KH: One of the things you have talked about is reforming the Fiji Police Force. There has been documented history of problems within the police force. How would you plan to achieve that?

Rabuka: Just bring back the police in Fiji to be the professional body of law enforcement agencies that they had been in the past. We have the capacity, we have the people, we have the natural attributes to be good policemen and women. Get them back to that and avoid the influence of policing in non-democratic societies or the baton charge in every situation, putting it in an extreme term. But that is the sort of thing that we are beginning to see.

We have to reconsider where we send our police officers for training. They must be trained in regimes, in cities, and in countries and governments where we share the same values about law and order, about respecting the rights of citizens, having freedoms. Nobody is punished until they have been through the whole judicial system. You cannot punish somebody when you are arresting them.

KH: There has been a lot of work to try and improve things in policing in the Pacific. But there is a culture that persists, that this history of sort of brutality and “us and them” kind of mentality. How would we get past that in our policing?

Rabuka: We are still coming out of that culture. That was our native culture. We still have to get away from it into modern policing. You look at the way the tribal rules were carried out from that. Somebody’s offended the tribal laws, tribal chiefs, one solution: club them. We have to get away from that. And when we don’t concentrate on moving forward, we very easily fall back.

KH: What [would] a coalition with the National Federation Party look like?

Rabuka: We are going to form a coalition. It will be a two-party government. The Prime Minister is free to pick his ministers from both parties and the best qualified will be picked.

KH: Looking at your own political journey. It started very strongly pro-indigenous Fijian focus. Even with your evolution to your current standing, there are some non-indigenous Fijian voters who are unsure what the future would look like with you as prime minister. What is your message to these people about what Fiji will be like for them and under your prime ministership?

Rabuka: Well, it is like you see the cover of the book and now you are reading the book. I have a dream of what the Pope [John Paul II] saw when he came to Fiji; the way the world should be, a multiracial, vibrant society, where everybody is welcome, where everybody is contributing, everybody is going by their own thing and even unknowingly contributing to a very vibrant economy that will grow and grow and grow so that we are equal partners in the region with Australia, New Zealand, and a very significant part of the global economy.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Opposition National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad has questioned the motive of the FijiFirst government to continuously highlight the 1987 coup during the girmit celebrations while refusing to mention the devastation brought about by the 2000 and 2006 coups on Fijians.

He highlighted this issue during a rally in Tadevo, Navua, on Saturday.

“They are talking about 1987 coup which happened 35 years ago, but they never mention anything about the 2000 and 2006 coup,” Professor Prasad said.

“They are talking about the 1987 coup because they want to stoke fear in the minds of people, especially on the Fijians of Indian descent voters.

Professor Prasad said the government should also apologise to the family of the late Professor Brij Lal for banning him from the country of his birth and who died at his home in Brisbane, Australia, last year.

“Every government minister and every government member in the FijiFirst party, if they have any shame left in every girmit function that they organise, they should apologise to the family of late Professor Lal and to all the descendants of the girmitya in this country on how they brutally banned him from Fiji.”

He said it was hypocritical for the Minister for Education, Heritage and Arts Premila Kumar and other senior government officials to be parading and giving speeches about the struggles of Fijians of India descent, yet forget the extremely shameful act of banning the historian who had written everything on girmit about Fijians of Indian descent.

“It’s obvious they are using the situation to campaign for the next general elections by highlighting what happened in 1987 and forgetting what happened in 2000 how people were terrorised, forgetting who was a RFMF commander at that time, forgetting the 2006 coup, how many people including women were brutally treated by those were in power at that time,” he said.

Professor Prasad said the girmitya would be “turning in their graves looking at how the shameless government used this occasion for a political gimmick”.

Questions sent to Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama remained unanswered when this edition went to press.

Arieta Vakasukawaqa is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand was said to have been sidelined when the trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States was announced a week ago. But very quickly the “Aukus” pact has taken on an unpopularity in this country, with a consensus forming that New Zealand is best out of the defence arrangement. This is especially due to its centrepiece nuclear submarine plans, which will have huge ramifications for the Asia Pacific region.

The New Zealand Government has been noticeably muted in their response to the arrival of Aukus. Officially the Anglophone initiative is being welcomed, with Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pointing out that although legally the new submarines won’t be able to enter New Zealand waters, nonetheless “we welcome the increased engagement of the UK and the US in our region”.

I’ve criticised this stance in an analysis column in which I argue that the New Zealand Government should actually be condemning this dangerous warmongering, as such a nuclear and military escalation is not in the interests of New Zealand nor the Asia-Pacific region – see: What happened to the dream of a peaceful nuclear-free Pacific?.

Why is Ardern so soft on the Anglo-militarisation of the Pacific? I argue that “Ardern doesn’t want to get offside and suffer diplomatic consequences. In this regard, she is no David Lange or Norman Kirk. These former Labour prime ministers were at the forefront of the fight against militarism and nuclear technology in the Pacific, and were willing to pay a price to uphold their country’s independent foreign policy.”

I’m not the only one to notice Ardern’s soft approach to the escalation of nuclear and military tensions. Richard Harman says “New Zealand has been absent from any international discussion on the agreement”, and points out that Ardern’s statement was “to partly defend the thinking behind Aukus” – see: Ardern lays it on the line (paywalled).

According to Harman, it’s one thing to say that the subs won’t be able to come here due to the law, but Ardern hasn’t extended this statement to say New Zealand is also “not welcoming them because they represent an international alignment which we do not share.”

Progressive condemnation of Aukus

There’s been very little debate and comment from politicians and political parties. Even the Greens have gone quiet on this. Political activists – even from the peace movement – have been silent or unbothered by the landmark military announcement.

However, one strong voice against it is former Green MP Keith Locke, who penned a scathing analysis of the deal, saying Ardern has welcomed engagement in the Pacific to curry favour with US and allies, but that New Zealanders should be upset by the nuclearisation of our neighbour, pointing out that it’s a slipperly slope towards Australia getting nuclear weapons – see: Many anti-nuclear reasons to oppose Aukus.

Locke says that “New Zealand has long championed nuclear disarmament” and pushed for treaties in the region that prevent nuclear arms and pollution, which he believes are about to be violated by the three Anglophone countries.

Chris Trotter has written two columns warning against New Zealand becoming ensnared in the Anglo alliance of countries that have been illegally waging wars in other parts of the world to ill-effect – see: A coalition of the waning. He says: “Surely, it is time for New Zealand to break free of the imperial project in which it has been enmeshed for the past 181 years?”

But he warns that those in the MFAT and Defence Establishment will be alarmed that this country has been left out of the pact of our traditional allies, and they’ll now be pressuring the Labour Government to get closer to Washington – see: Keep New Zealand Nuclear-Free – stay out of Aukus!.

Similarly, today leftwing political commentator Gordon Campbell says New Zealand is lucky to be outside of the Aukus deal, and will be increasingly seen by other countries as saner in its orientation to China – see: On Canada’s election, and the Aukus defence pact. Campbell believes that the new nuclear subs won’t even be of much use in defending Australasia – they are more of a forward attack mechanism to point against China.

Newspaper editorials united against Aukus

The major newspapers have also published editorials that are negative about Aukus. The New Zealand Herald editorial is the strongest – painting a picture of an agreement that threatens to make a volatile situation in the region even worse – see: Aukus security pact has rocky start; could make China, Asia tensions worse (paywalled).

The Herald argues that the motivations behind the defence announcement are more about the three Anglo countries’ domestic politics – it’s about political reputations rather than the public interest. And the paper warns that it pushes Australia and the region closer to war, “and other countries may seek nuclear-powered subs”.

The Otago Daily Times is also unimpressed, suggesting that New Zealand is fortunate not to be involved – see: Scotty’s submarines steaming ahead. The paper also says “it is upsetting to think of nuclear subs operating off our coastline”, and therefore “Former Labour prime ministers Norman Kirk and David Lange, and generations of peace and nuclear-free advocates, will be spinning in their graves at the thought of nuclear subs just across the Tasman Sea.”

Today’s Stuff editorial is also highly negative about the deal, labelling it “a major development with unsettling implications”, and rebutting those that suggest New Zealand needs to now get closer to these Anglo allies – see: Hawkish Aukus not for us.

The prospect of US nuclear-armed subs being hosted nearby is also pointed out by the editorial: “Australia is getting a leg up to receive nuclear-propelled submarines, and is also expected to offer a base for its allies’ own submarines, some of them potentially nuclear-armed, to receive deep maintenance, thereby maintaining a sustained presence in the Indo-Pacific region.”

Aukus presents opportunities for New Zealand

The above Stuff newspaper editorial argues that instead of following the Anglophone’s hawkish approach, New Zealand should be less black and white towards China, “which is to co-operate with China where we can and team up with like-minded democracies to push back where there are disagreements that require it.” Such an approach might well see New Zealand rewarded in trade terms with both China and the European Union.

This is also an argument made by international analyst Geoffrey Miller, who says that countries like New Zealand that are deliberately not part of the aggressive Aukus-style orientation towards China will be rewarded, not just in the Asia Pacific, but also in Europe where Australia’s reputation has been sunk at the crucial time that trade deals are being negotiated with this part of the world – see: New Zealand could be the big winner of Aukus fallout.

Miller argues that the creation of Aukus heralds the establishment of “a new hierarchy when it comes to countries’ views of China” – with the “premier league” of defence hawks including the US, UK and Australia (perhaps also with India and Japan), whereas a “second division includes the EU, Canada and New Zealand, as well as potentially some Southeast Asian countries”. He predicts that New Zealand will sit well within that group of like-minded countries, who will prosper by taking a less confrontational approach to China.

Similarly, Pete McKenzie believes that this like-minded grouping of countries is an opportunity for New Zealand to break away from its current pivot towards the US-led confrontation with China – see: Aukus pact could push New Zealand to deepen relations with Europe and Pacific.

Aukus puts pressure on New Zealand

The arrival of the Aukus pact will ratchet up pressure on New Zealand to contribute to traditional defence agreements according to some commentators. This is best seen in Thomas Manch’s article: Why doesn’t New Zealand have submarines? Aukus highlights pressing military question for Government.

In this, former defence minister Wayne Mapp is quoted saying that Australia will now be applying the pressure: “It’s certain that Australia, at least, will be saying, ‘Well you’re a military ally of ours, what are you gonna do?'”… When you are in a military alliance, it has obligations as well as advantages. There’s no bucking that fact, and we can’t hide behind the nuclear-free thing and say, ‘Oh that answers everything’. It doesn’t.”

Pressure to spend much more on defence equipment will be one specific outcome. Mapp points to the need for new frigates to match those of Australia: “This particular [Aukus] announcement will put quite a bit of pressure on the New Zealand Government to make it clear how they’re going to replace the Anzac frigates, because they can’t wish that decision away.”

There’s a growing consensus that the arrival of Aukus means that an Anglo-Chinese military confrontation is much more likely than before. And the Herald’s Audrey Young has looked at what this escalation might mean for New Zealand, and in particular whether this country would be expected to contribute militarily to the US-led side – see: Preparing for war between US and China – what it means for NZ and Australia (paywalled).

In this, Young makes it clear that if New Zealand chose to stand aside from the US, failing to endorse its military and diplomatic strategies, there would be trouble: “What New Zealand says matters in terms of allegiances, because as a small country with relatively little economic or military strength, its voice is often its biggest contribution. Hence the pile-on when it takes a different position to its larger friends.”

For an example of the heat that New Zealand experiences due to perceptions amongst allies that it is not pulling its weight see Scott Palmer’s Aukus: New Zealand labelled ‘a joke’ after nuclear-free stance blocks Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines.

Although this article contains the expected condemnation of New Zealand from Australia, it does raise legitimate concerns about New Zealand no longer having defence interoperability with Australia. In particular, the question is asked: how can New Zealand rely on its biggest defence ally, Australia, coming to its defence in the future when its nuclear-propelled vessels won’t be allowed into local waters?

Finally, some are arguing that Aukus means that it’s now time for New Zealand to ditch its laws banning nuclear propulsion. For more on this, see Stuff political editor Luke Malpass’ column, Why Aukus should make us reconsider parts of our nuclear-free stance.

“No matter how we come to be in Fiji, or how long we have been here …we all part of the land. It is the land of our birth or land of our adoption, the land to which we belong” – The late archbishop Petero Mataca.

When a New Zealand youth, an eighth generation Indo-Fijian, recently spoke out against education policies that exclude some Pacific Island people from Pasifika programmes and scholarships as unfair, he did not realise he was opening a thorny debate that goes back to 1879.

That was the year Indian indentured labourers were introduced to the Pacific with the first forebearers being brought aboard the Leonidas and their descendants have become part of the diaspora, or in the case of Aotearoa New Zealand become part of the double diaspora.

Between 1879 and 1916, 87 voyages were made by 40 ships by the British bringing in the Girmityas or the people of the ”Agreement”.

As the venerable Professor Vijay Naidu of the University of the South Pacific in Suva attests to that: “Indo-Fijians or Fiji Indians or Fijians of Indian descent are descendants of the 60,500 British Indian indentured labourers who were transported between 1879 and 1916 to establish and work on the plantations of sugar, coconut, banana, tea, and rubber and sugar mills owned the Australian Colonial Sugar Refining Company”.

As he says these Girmityas lived in “lines” comprising of single rooms and worked in atrocious conditions in which has been called a new system of slavery, and “narak” or hell.

“In Fiji their roots lay in cultivating the land as small holder tenant farmers in mainly indigenous Fijian owned land. There has been more than a century of this relationship with i’Taukei, mostly cooperative and beneficial, and occasionally conflictual,” as Professor Naidu points out.

Reinforcing their culture
Through the 100 years and more they managed to reinforce their culture and religions while doing away with the caste system and gone too were dhowry for marriages.

Indo-Fijians have migrated to other countries such as Aotearoa NZ, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and the United States all for a better life.

However, so too have the indigenous i’Taukei, all in search of new opportunities using both military service and rugby as a means to settle abroad.

But it is the better of two pursuits that makes for a good Fijian – i’Taukei or Indo-Fijian.

As children’s book author Ryan Gounder believes, all young people need role models to look up to.

Gounder, who was born and raised in Fiji and now lives in Aotearoa NZ, is writing a new series, starting with Rugby Superheroes Volume One, published in Fijian with English translations this year.

In Fiji, rugby players are like superheroes for many children and the lessons they teach us can strongly impact children in the community, Gounder says.

Developing ‘tangible resources’
“We need to develop more tangible resources for our young Pacific people that resonates with their identity as Pasifika people, and which will empower them and help develop resilience to be the ‘best versions of themselves’ – a famous phrase often using within the Rugby Sevens circles in Fiji,” says Gounder, whose first name resonates with Ben Ryan, the coach of the winning Rugby sevens team in Brazil in 2016.

The irony of Ryan Gounder is that he is a recipient aof the Languages Innovation Fund set up by the Ministry of Pacific People, despite being an Indo-Fijian. I will come back to that later in this article.

However, the i’Taukei, in the process of seeking better opportunities for their children and themselves too have lost their identity as they pursue the dollar.

While language remains one of the strongest senses of identity, so to are culture and religion that makes a person know where his or her Turangewaewae (standing place) is.

“In the Fijian community, it is often discussed at our annual gatherings how language is being lost,” Gounder says of the more serious discussion around the kava bowl.

It is not just the loss of language but traditional culture that displaces the I’Taukei and the Indo-Fijian, who has had to adopt new ways to cope with being in a new environment.

While the proponent of the coups in Fiji in 1987, which caused thousands of Indo-Fijians to emigrate, making them a minority in Fiji once more, Sitiveni Rabuka tried to reconcile with a democratic constitution review with joint sponsorship of the bill with Opposition Leader Jai Ram Reddy in 1997.

Constitution ‘unfortunately unilaterally revoked’
“It was unfortunate that the 1997 constitution was unilaterally revoked in July 2009 by the [Voreqe] Bainimarama-led military regime,” Rabuka wrote in a column in The Fiji Times in the lead up to the 2018 election.

“For me personally I have three reservations about the adoption of the 2013 constitution of “Fijian” as our common name.

“Firstly, the people were never consulted. It was imposed just like the Bainimarama regime’s repudiation of the 1997 constitution and the abolition of the Great Council Chiefs (GGC) – the Bose Levu Vakaturaga – in 2012.”

His second reservation was the allowing of dual nationality which he said diluted patriotism even if it paved the way for the reversing of the brain drain which took place after his 1987 coups.

The third reservation was most concerning for him was that which ignored the group rights of the indigenous I’Taukei and Rotuman people.

To him it was unacceptable that the 2013 constitution presumed there was no differentiation between the people.

“For an indigenous i’Taukei to be called a Fijian means more than being a Fijian citizen. It means being registered in the i’Taukei Vola ni Kawa Bula (VKB) as a member of a customary landowning Mataqali. (Traditionally, each Fijian villager is born into a certain role in the family unit or Tokatoka. Various heads of the family will administer and lead the family unit within the village community. Each chief of the village will in turn lead the people to fulfill their role to the Vanua.)

Mataqali and land rights
Each village will have several family units/Tokatoka  which are part of one clan or Mataqali. Several Mataqali will make up the larger tribe or Yavusa. Several Yavusa will belong to a certain land mass and comprise thereby the Vanua (confederation of Yavusa)..

Fiji social scientist Dr Asesela Ravuvu described the Vanua as:”The living soul or human manifestation of the physical environment which the members have since claimed to belong to them and to which they also belong. The land is the physical or geographical entity of the people, upon which their survival…as a group depends. Land is thus an extension of the self. Likewise, the people are an extension of the land. Land becomes lifeless and useless without the people, and likewise the people are helpless and insecure without land to thrive upon.”

Therein lies the dilemma for the I’Taukei who no longer recognises the Mataqali he or she belongs to in Aotearoa NZ, having been away from the family clan.

With that comes the loss of identity and a reversion and accession to the Western World and hence that brings its own problems.

As Niuean Dr Collin Tukuitonga, who left Fiji after the 1987 coup, assesses: “People feel disconnected from their social norms and traditional values, family connections are disturbed and of course that is almost an inevitable consequence that young people in particular would turn to drugs and crime. That is why I see languages as a protective element for our people.”

The impacts of the loss identity can be devastating, but HOPE party leader Roko Tupou Draunidalo, stepdaughter of the 1987 Prime Minister Timoci Bavadra, has a different take on the subject.

“I am otherwise of the view that every Fijian born in Fiji or anywhere in the Pacific or with Fijian ancestry that lived in the Pacific with Pacific cultures and interactions is Fijian and therefore a Pacific Islander,” she says with conviction.

Culture alive and well
“I’Taukei have not lost their culture, it is alive and well and you need to go any village or I’Taukei home to realise that.”

However, that is not case in Aotearoa NZ. That Ryan Gounder was recognised for his work by the Ministry of Pacific Peoples despite being Indo-Fijian is a rarity rather than the norm.

The Search for the Indo-Fijian identity will require an act of Parliament so that they are differentiated from Southeast Asian Indians.

Currently they have to tick the Indian box in the census and are not recognised by some universities as Pasifika Peoples.

As Professor Vijay Naidu explains: “In response to a letter from Lorraine Pillay in early 2000 which inquired whether Indo-Fijians were ‘Pasifika’, the then PM Helen Clark’s office responded strongly in the affirmative.”

Pillay raised this identity question when she was told in a Wellington workshop for senior teachers and principals of secondary schools that Indo-Fijians were not eligible for scholarships as they were not considered to be “Pasifika”.

In sharp contrast to this standpoint, when I joined Victoria University of Wellington, Pasifika staff and students, and the wider community welcomed me as a “Pasifika” person.

As Professor Brij Lal has stated, generations of living in Fiji have changed our identity and outlook. We are indeed children of the ‘Pacific’!”

This article was first published in Fiji Dynamics, the new magazine for the Fiji diaspora in Aotearoa New Zealand, and has been republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A New Zealand youth MP Shaneel Lal is speaking out against education policies that exclude some Pacific Island people from Pasifika programmes and scholarships as unfair.

Lal, who is eighth generation Indo-Fijian, applied for a Pasifika scholarship at the University of Otago only to be told he had to prove he had “indigenous” Pacific Island ancestry because Indo-Fijians did not qualify.

He is not the only one to be rejected on the basis of race – even though he was born in Fiji – but he aims to take the matter up with the Education Minister Chris Hipkins.

Lal told Stuff: “I know I’m Fijian. I’m eighth generation Fijian. I have indigenous [ancestry] along the lines I just cannot draw a family tree and say, ‘this person is an indigenous person’.”

Lal said the policies were unfair as Indo-Fijian people experienced many of the same challenges as other Pacific Island groups.

He said that some universities that did not recognise Indo-Fijians as Pacific people “kind of highlights the subtle racism that’s going on in our Pacific community”.

The Auckland-based student said he struck the same problem when applying for Pasifika leadership opportunities while at secondary school and his cousin had a similar experience when she tried to apply for a place in the Māori and Pacific Admission Scheme (MAPAS) at the University of Auckland.

‘Not enough evidence’
He was told his passport and birth certificate were not enough evidence of him being of Pacific descent and he would need to get a Pacific community leader to vouch for him.

He said that would be difficult having come from Fiji to New Zealand in 2014.

The irony in his circumstance was that he was chosen as youth MP for Minister for Building and Construction, Minister for Customs and Minister for Ethnic Communities Jenny Salesa, who was not responding on the issue.

When asked for a response, a spokesperson from her office said: “Yes, but probably not from the minister. It will be around definitions and criteria.”

Meanwhile, Professor Vijay Naidu from the University of the South Pacific based in Suva – where all Fiji citizens are recognised as Fijian and the indigenous people are recognised as I-Taukei – had a historical perspective on the issue.

“Some years ago, Loraine Pillai who migrated to New Zealand many years ago and retired as a senior high school teacher over there wrote to then Prime Minister Helen Clark about Pasifika identity and Indo-Fijians,” he said.

“Her response was that Indo-Fijians were Pasifika. Apparently, Aotearoa had arrived at this decision when [founding Fiji prime minister] Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara had expressed his disaffection with the absence of Fijians of Indian descent at an official reception hosted for him.

“Back to Loraine’s letter. She wrote her letter because, at a workshop for school administrators in Wellington, she had been told by a woman by the surname of Wendt that Indo-Fijians were not regarded as Pasifika people.”

Education Minister Chris Hipkins has said universities set the criteria for Pasifika scholarships, not the government.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz