Why Indo-Fijians did not join Fiji Army
During the Wars: The Untold History all need to know
Last month, in
November, we marked Remembrance Day.
At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, Fiji marks a memorable day. That is Remembrance Day on 11th
November each year. Americans call it Veteran’s Day. Remembrance Day (also known as Poppy Day or Armistice Day) is a memorial day observed in Commonwealth countries since the end of World War
I to remember the members of
their armed forces who have died in the line of duty.
Historically, arguments have raged since the wars
on the reasons why Indo-Fijians (Fiji Indians, descendants of Girmitiyas) did
not join the army in numbers. Since Fiji’s history fails to tell this,
descendants of Girmitiyas (indentured labourers) need to reclaim the stolen
history and restore facts that need to be told as to why their forbears
did not join Fiji Army for World War I and II.
Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna is a celebrated Itaukei Chief who had been a beneficiary of British favours. Hence, as a payback, he helped in recruitment of mostly unemployed Itaukei in villages in Military for the wars. He, together with the British and other Chiefs had shown resistance to recruitment of Fiji Indians in the Army. Like Mahatma Gandhi, while some celebrated Chiefs may have high standing overseas amongst academics and Europeans, back home they may not be that favourably regarded when judged in the light of equality, fairness, honesty and compassion for all the people.
Every now and then Itaukei
(Native Fijian) leaders, commentators, ethnonationalists, politicians and even ignorant
Fiji Indians in all sizes and shapes have levelled accusation at Indo-Fijians
for being disloyal to Fiji by not joining the army during the world wars.
Among others, a Fijian (this term refers to Itaukei, Natives) nationalist academic who was behind the racist 1990 constitution, late Dr Asesela Ravuvu had accused Indo-Fijians of not being interested to fight for the maintenance of democratic rule in the world and were selfish while Itaukei gave their lives for this cause. He accused Indo-Fijians of demanding more pay and special protection for their families and property. It was such non-cooperation, according to him, that partly contributed to difficulties in acquiring trust and acceptance of the Itaukei Fijians as good neighbours and countrymen.
Professor Brij Lal, Fiji’s greatest celebrated Historian, an Indo-Fijian academic and one of the Commissioners behind the 1997 constitution gave clarifications and wrote about the reasons why this happened. I take liberty to borrow his thoughts and quote him to inform the world who deserved to know this untold story - an untold history, a long time ago.
It is agreed that, to some extent, government’s refusal to grant Indo-Fijians the same conditions of service provided to European soldiers is one of the reasons for them not being in the military. However, there are others which need to be clarified to counteract accusations of Fijian nationalists who castigate a whole race for something they were not guilty of.
The reasons why Indo-Fijians
did not join in the World Wars in the Fiji army are the following, among
others:
1) Recruitment for Fijians was well-organised and even supported by chiefs, including Ratu Sukuna in his military uniform. His support and efforts perhaps was because, he was a beneficiary of the things that came from Britain, hence the need to protect them. Furthermore, by recruiting greater number of Fijians, there was an intention to display Fijian loyalty to the British to win their support for the Fijian community, as pressures were being exerted by the Indo-Fijian community for more say in the government.
RATU SIR LALA SUKUNA: Recruitment for Fijians was well-organised and even supported by chiefs, including Ratu Sukuna in his military uniform. INDIANS WERE DISCOURAGED FROM RECRUITMENT THROUGH OBJECTIONS FROM FIJIANS AND EUROPEANS
2) Easier access to Fijian villagers to recruit, as they lived in stratified structure collectively and were more easily accessible than scattered Indo- Fijians in cane farms.
3) While Indo-Fijians
said they would fight if Fiji was attacked, they refused to fight for the
empire in the other parts of the world unless government acknowledged the principle
of equality between European and non-European soldiers. What they said was
that an Indo-Fijian life should be valued same as a European life. What they
effectively asked for was that Brown/Black lives also matter - not only the
White ones.
Prior to Military's involvement in interfering with democracy in Fiji in 1987, Fiji Military Forces worldwide was best known for its very colourful and melodious Band and peacekeeping duties in the Middle East.
4) The government was
reluctant to recruit Indo-Fijians because of objections from Fijians and
Europeans, as they did not wish them to be equipped with this skill. There
have been instances where Indo-Fijians were requesting their sons to be recruited
but were refused. One Indo-Fijian is reported to have gone to New Zealand to
enlist in the Maori regiments because the Fiji army was not taking in
Indo-Fijians.
5) Europeans were
fearful of Indo-Fijians because of Gandhi’s ’Quit- India’ campaign and
Subhash Chandra Bose’s collaboration with the Japanese.
6) There was
reluctance by CSR (sugar millers) to grant leave for the farmers to fight the war,
as they needed to meet their contractual arrangements on the cane farms.
Indo-Fijians were not unemployed and “free” like most of the Itaukei villagers
who were not fully utilised and were available for military services without
any constraints elsewhere. Indo-Fijians had a difficult choice of selecting
between enlisting for the war and keeping their farms. Fijians on the other
hand did not have the difficulty of such a choice, as they had no farming
obligations.
7) The government
proclaimed that the most important contributions the Indo-Fijians could make
were to increase the production of foodstuffs and maintenance of essential
agricultural interests. This had been their contribution to the war as
soldiers on the farm, as soldiers in war cannot fight on hungry stomachs. In other words,
Indo-Fijians were effectively fighting an economic war for Fiji.
8) Membership in the
British Empire was no badge of honour for the Indo- Fijians. Local Europeans
owed their power and prestige to British colonialism, and Fijian chiefs were
grateful for the security, handouts and privilege they and their people enjoyed
as a result of British policies. On the other hand, the Indo-Fijians had been
subjected to most inhuman racial humiliations and denigrations on a daily basis
during indenture (Girmit). Therefore, fighting a war for the British would have
meant a fight for the preservation of a system that was oppressive and humiliating.
And for Indo-Fijians, a British war medal was not considered a badge of
honour, but a sign of exploitation and oppression.
The conclusion by Professor Brij Lal in analysis of the above is
that the Indo-Fijians were neither seditious nor disloyal. It was the
European propaganda and the exuberance, liveliness, and excitement of war efforts of the Fijians that made them
appear so. It was concluded that there was no evidence of any opposition to
the war by Indo-Fijians who had displayed full loyalty for the government with
a fervent hope for the victory of the Allied Nations. It is obvious that a
vacuum in the true historical facts have clouded this issue.
Therefore, it is hoped these historical facts give information why Fiji
Indians were hardly present in Fiji Army during the two World Wars.
The question that I pose here is, would Fiji’s history have been
different if the British had encouraged racial balance in the Fijian Military
during the wars? What may be the history of Fiji if Indo-Fijians were
encouraged and even forced to join the army during the two world wars?
The answer perhaps lies in the next question and answer.
Question: Why developing Third World Countries like Papua New Guinea and India,
despite being so divided on regional, provincial, language, cultural or ethnic
lines have little chance of success of a racially instituted military coup that
Fiji saw?
Answer: This is because their military do not have the type of racial, ethnic, traditional,
or religious polarisation that Fiji military has. In those countries the
diverse makeup of the soldiers would thwart, discourage and even prevent
uprising based on racial, religious, Chiefly status or regional superiority.
For argument sake, assume if Fiji military in 1987 had, say 30 to 50
percent Indo-Fijian soldiers distributed equally in all ranks, would Rabuka still
have been able to topple the then Commander and institute a racially and
religious-based coup?
The chances would have been slim and may even have resulted in a mutiny
as comradeship in the military transcends race and religion, and rational
reasoning may have come out against such a treasonous suggestion.
Fiji Military is a racially based institution made up of over 95 %
of Itaukei and have been the instrument of political instability since 1987. Before that, Fiji Military was best known for its celebrated Fiji
Military Forces Band. Unfortunately, despite his rhetoric for equality for all Fijians, Frank Bainimarama did nothing to bring any semblance of racial balance in the last 15 years he had control over Fiji.
The bottom-line, to remove coup culture in Fiji is for the military to venture on racial balancing of the Fiji Military forces and encourage Indo-Fijians to join the military services. There is no shortage of such people to join, the only problem is that, like in those colonial days, they still are not taken in, and in turn are blamed for lacking patriotism, and being of lower stature (built). As if Japanese and Gurkha need the size and physique of Fijians to be successful soldiers, who need brains as well as brawn.
Sadly, even Frank Bainimarama, despite his rhetoric on all of us being
Fijians has been a shocking disappointment. In his control subsequent to
removal of Qarase in 2006, he has not been able to make a dent in his 15 years
control of Fiji, while Khaiyum on the other hand has been able to populate top
positions in Fiji government institution with his “own people”. Indeed, some
see it as a hypocritical stance on singing the songs of equality for all while
still remaining racist or a religious crusader.
I hope Fiji Indian Diaspora around the world will learn the reasons why
they were not represented in the Fiji army during the wars, and still so. They
now have information to rebut any ignorant, uninformed and racists people who
accuse Fiji Indians of any lack of patriotism towards Fiji.
E-mail: thakurjifj@gmail.com.
[About the author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is a
journalist and media commentator and runs his blog site, FIJI PUNDIT, that
tells what others fail to tell. He is a former publisher of Fiji's Daily
Post newspaper, and is based in Auckland, New Zealand. This article
was originally written and published in FIJI PUNDIT blog in 2012 and
is being republished to inform Fiji Indians of the stolen history of Fiji. He
is a Postgraduate of Auckland
University of Technology (AUT) and the above is an extract from a project paper
he had done on coup culture in Fiji and was largely from the eminent Fiji
historian, Professor Brij Lal’s work and writings]
