The Nature and Causes of Ethnic Rivalry in Fiji

• Author: John E. Davies
• Pages: 93-116

John E. Davies 9393

9393

93

The Nature and Causes of Ethnic

Rivalry in Fiji

Introduction

After Suriname, Fiji is the world’s most

ethnically polarized country.1 The conflict

normally associated with such ethnic division

is present but has been thankfully modest

compared to many similar countries, including

Guyana. Since independence in 1970, the

intensity of that conflict has nonetheless been

creeping upwards, with attitudes hardening

and ethnic competition for political power

increasing, as attested most tellingly in the

coups of 1987 and 2000.2 This paper explores

whether the roots of this conflict are

intrinsically racial (or cultural)3 in nature or

are attributable to other causes. To this end

the historical background to the conflict is

detailed along with the interpretations of this

history given by Fijian and Indian4 observers.

The interpretation of ethnic Fijians is accorded

particular attention because they have been

the perpetrators of physical conflict, because

their motivations are often misunderstood,

and because it is the author’s opinion that

stability will never be achieved without a full

and recognized appreciation of Fijian

motivations. That said the reality of the position

of both groups is critically appraised so that

the prime conflictual fault lines can be

exposed, the non-negotiable issues discerned.

The paper concludes by assessing whether the

common communal needs of belonging and

J O H N E. D A V I E S

Acadia University

7

acceptance can serve as a basis for de-

escalating tensions without unduly deviating

from these ‘non-negotiable’ positions.

The Historical Background

The Early Years

The ethnic group we today refer to as

‘Fijian’ first discovered and settled their island

home some 3,500 years ago. They arrived

equipped for colonization, bringing with them

pigs, diverse root crops and also coconuts.

Over more than three millennia, then, the

prevailing marine and terrestrial environment

moulded and was moulded by these settlers.5

The Fijian people, accordingly, entered

modern times as the reciprocal creation and

creator of the island state, with a philosophy

that saw the land and themselves as

inseparable.6

The first European to set eyes on Fiji was

the Dutch explorer Abel Tasman, though the

first precise recording of its location belongs

to William Bligh, made in 1789 as he

famously rowed to Timor from the Mutiny on

the Bounty.7 European settlement, casual at

first, began in the nineteenth century as

shipwrecked sailors, runaway convicts from

Australian penal settlements, sandalwood

traders, and missionaries, disparately arrived,

united only in seeing the country as either

The Nature and Causes of Ethnic Rivalry in Fiji

9494

9494

94

refuge or opportunity. The strategic

importance of Fiji to Europeans increased

dramatically as the century progressed,

propelled largely by the US Civil War (1861–

65) which produced steep increases in the

world price of cotton and therefore induced

the search for substitute locations for

production. Fuelled by this possibility,

European settlement accelerated in the 1860s,

and with it came the associated need to alienate

Fijian land and to co-opt or placate the

populace to the extent needed to permit that

alienation. Though in all likelihood unrelated,

the twin agents of placation were Christianity

and debt enslavement. Christianity ended

cannibalism, elevated the stature of

Europeans, and, through the Ten

Commandments, placed additional controls on

customary taboos and common law,

containing thereby the most overt of immoral

or unethical conduct. Debt enslavement, a sin

not directly covered by the Ten Commandments,

involved negotiating a commercial contract or

invoking some legal principle, which the native

party, willing or unwitting, would eventually

find impossible to keep. The European party

to whom the debt was ostensibly owed,

assisted by the invocation of compound interest,

was then in a position to claim from the native

debtor such assets as he judged would fairly

compensate for the debt. The most dramatic

example of this started in 1849 when a

celebratory Fourth of July cannon display, let

off by a US trader on Nukulau Island, caused

a fire that led to damage and looting.8 The

latter, and some other acts of violence

allegedly perpetrated on US citizens, set in

train US demands of the paramount chief of

Fiji (King) Cakobau $45,000 in compensation.

As Leo Tolstoy described it,

To collect this sum the Americans sent

a squadron, which suddenly seized

some of the best islands as security

and even threatened to bombard and

destroy the settlements unless the

contribution was paid to the American

representatives by a given date.…

Meanwhile the American government

… having observed the prosperity of

the people, raised its demand from

$45,000 to $90,000, and

threatened to raise it still further if

Cakobau did not pay promptly.9

Recognizing that the revenue potential of

both customary tribute and a poll tax he

introduced on all adults under his jurisdiction10

were wholly insufficient to meet US demands,

and facing similar threats from the French,

Germans, and Tongans, Cakobau turned to

the British for assistance and eventually and

reluctantly11 ceded his country to the UK in

return for the payment of outstanding debts

and the protection of Fijian interests. And so,

in 1874, Fiji became a colony of Britain.

In many ways British rule was benevolent.

It was effected indirectly through local chiefs

who were educated and taught to speak

English (at a special school in Nasinu, on the

outskirts of Suva12) so as to carry out the

colonial power’s wishes. The cultural

vulnerability of the native populace was

recognized as was their ownership of land,

save that ‘legally’ acquired by Europeans prior

to 1874. Further Cakobau’s poll tax became

transformed into an in-kind tax, payable in

the form of designated amounts of agricultural

produce, under which any production remitted

in excess of tax obligations was purchased by

the colonial government (which acted as

wholesaler) at prices typically better than those

paid by European traders.13

The colony, of course, was obliged to

contribute to the colonial coffers and large

scale plantation agriculture was the chosen

vehicle. Sugar cane, rather than cotton,

became the target crop, the plant being

indigenous, unlike cotton, and therefore

evolved to grow under Fijian conditions.14

Capital, know-how, transportation and milling