Just as parents in the West used to warn their children, "The bogeyman will get you" to enforce compliance, extreme ethnic Fijian nationalists use "The Indians will get your land" bogeyman to justify the 1987 and 2000 coups, condemn democracy as a "foreign flower," demand the President and Prime Minister must always be Fijians, and oppose all of Bainimarama's intended reforms*. Their real purpose, of course, is not the protection of Fijian land and custom, but the protection of power and privilege for the sections of the Fijian elite of which they approve.
The fears, of course, are quite unfounded, as the nationalists know full well. Eight Acts of Parliament protected Fijian, Rotuman and Banaban customary rights, and the 1997 Constitution ensured there was no way of amending these acts unless the overwhelming majority of Fijian leaders wanted change.
The Acts in question are the Fijian Affairs Act, Fijian Development Fund Act, Native Lands Act, Native Land Trust Act, Rotuma Act, Rotuman Lands Act, Banaban Lands Act, and the Banaban Settlement Act. The Constitution's Chapter 13 on Group Rights states any change to any one of these acts requires a (a) parliamentary bill, to be read three times and passed by the majority of members on the second and third reading, and (b) approval by at least 9 of the 14 Senate members nominated by the Bose Levu Vakaturaga, the Great Council of Chiefs who were then appointed by the President. So even if the other 18 members of Senate (9 nominated by the PM, 8 by the Leader of the Opposition, 1 by the Council of Rotuma) voted for change, which was extremely unlikely, the GCC-nominees could prevent it.
With a Lower and Upper House overwhelmingly Fijian (as they are likely to remain whatever the outcome of the present political situation), even the most minor change not wanted by Fijians was just as probable as seeing a real bogeyman. Is it any wonder the Constitution was not translated into Fijian!
* The Interim Government has no intention of removing these laws, although changes may be made to the operation of the Native Land Trust Act to permit a fairer distribution of land rent moneys, and the powers of the GCC are likely to be removed.
4 comments:
Speaking about violence of Girmit, some writers, notably Victor Lal wrote that such violence was repeated in 2000 by Fijians some 125 years after it ended. Indo Fijians were still being hunted and terrorised. “Their history, however, will record that their own displacement from British India in 1879 prevented the dispossession of the Fijian in colonial Fiji following the Deed of cession in 1874. Indeed, ironically, the indentured Indian was uprooted specifically to prevent the disintegration of the Fijian way of life.”
Victor Lal quoted Satendra Nandan, who was sized by Rabuka in 1987, had said in 1978, about displacement of Indians:” Thus the displacement of the Indian prevented the dispossession of the Fijian. This may be the lasting and most significant contribution of the peasants from India. Without this the Fijian might have lost much of his land, and more tragically, his self-respect”
Majority of us Taukei do not worry about Land ownership or Land security any more. In spite of the old Alliance/SDL rhetoric to deceive taukei votes, now echoed by Mr. Walsh, we have chosen to accept Fiji Native Land realities.
That's the Funniest paradox on earth, really, Taukeis DO own land, but…eh…we DON”T!!
Majority Taukeis have been Land beggars, Land slaves and “Landless” pre- Independence up to now.
Hence, majority do not bother wasting brain space on an asset many can Not individually call their own!!
To grace the pages of the VKB does not necessarily guarantee Land ownership. Names on Title Deeds DO guarantee autonomous ownership. Plase check Land Register at the Titles Office and you will not be surprised that with ½ million Taukeis on earth, less than 10,000 have Land Titles to their names. Very few Mataqali, Yavusa or Koro have Title deeds that could be taken to the Bank to fund major economic returns or at least commercial farming for the benefit of communal consumption.
Thank God for the village Vuni Uto and noddles from the village store.
We say, change the Land Laws so we have equality, forget about the so-called bogeyman. Better still, nationalise all land as earlier suggested by a former Fiji Taukei PM.
Why should a few Taukei Chiefs keep all the NLTB lollies when the village faithfulls send their kids with no shoes and torn school uniform to school on an empty stock and a slimy “tavioka bulagi” for lunch!!..why?
Shame on us!!
Yes - of course this sort of spooking the electorate went on. And of course it was scurrilous.
But it is not qualitatively different from the underlying political process anywhere. Politicians "scare" the electorate about current trends and future developments, and then present themselves as the answer to those problems. In Fiji it is land, in Europe it was "green" issues, in the US it was terror, in Venezuela it was imperialism, in the Arab world it was Zionism, etc., etc., etc.
Even in Fiji this kind of electoral mischief is unremarkable. The Indo-Fijian side of politics also regularly spooked its electorate with bogeys of a "2nd Girmit" and other such devices. That went on even during Ratu Mara's time, and few people today would accuse him of the kind of bad faith implied there.
So it just goes to underline the political, rather than racial, nature of this process. Your posting is therefore newsworthy in letting us know this sort of thing is still going on. But it is rather disingenuous and patronizing to bemoan the fact that people play politics with it, or to deny that there are still genuine concerns underneath it all.
For example, George W Bush may have been economical with the truth in his "War on Terror" (and knowingly so on many occasions). But don't EVER doubt that the security of the US was his primary concern and motive - not some facade for lower motives of imperialism, oil price manipulation, or realpolitik. He may have been ignorant, but he was not malevolent. Same with Fiji politicians. If you insist on painting straw-man caricatures of them, you will forfeit your chance of ever properly understanding what they are on about, and thus of what any truly sustainable solution for Fiji might finally look like.
Yes, we want your land for the good of the country, ie to develop it and put it to usefulness for the benefit of Fiji. We dont want to own it, a reasonable lease agreement is good enough.
Post a Comment