FIJI TIMES PART 3 : HOW IT CONTRIBUTED TO FALL OF CHAUDHRY GOVERNMENT IN MAY 2000

 

THE FIJI TIMES 152^nd ANNIVERSARY – PART 3 of 4

HOW FT CONTRIBUTED TO FALL CHAUDHRY GOVERNMENT IN 2000 “SPEIGHT COUP”.

Thakur Ranjit Singh

PROLOGUE - PART 3

This is the THIRD PART continuation of the four-part series  on the history of the Fiji Times (FT). This is from already published articles and my research of Master’s Thesis – a historical notoriety of a Fiji newspaper never told in this manner and language. [See link to research at the end of this article]

DISCLAIMER: All reference to FT is to the foreign-owned paper before localisation in 2010. Hence I do not have any concerns with the locally - owned FT of 2021.

 

INTRODUCTION

In Part 2, we further showed how “skirt-journalism”, racist and biased reporting created ethnic issues and negativity against an “Indian” government of Chaudhry. 

 

Mahendra Chaudhry (centre top) with three Itaukei people who were behind his removal-directly or indirectly: (L-R) Laisenia Qarase, Sakiasi Butadroka and George Speight.

Part 3 enumerates extracts of conclusion from my research thesis as part of my Masters in Communisation Studies (Journalism) at Auckland University of Technology (AUT). It reveals that the leopard did not change spots even after a century. Subsequent to departure of the white men, they continued being towel boys and lapdogs of Eastern Chiefs, elite Itaukei, ethnonationalist  politicians and  Gujarati businesses (has it changed ever?), and how they contributed to the disturbances by George Speight and the fall of Fiji’s democracy in 2000. This was mostly done through unbridled and racially skewed newsroom management with conflicting viewpoint on boundary between good and fair journalism and racism, favouring your own types. The partisan stance of FT, with poor internal management shamed journalism - the Fourth Estate. Please read that here…………..

 

THE FIJI TIMES - PART 3 (OF 4)

 

The Concluding Remarks of my Research

 

I had conducted an analysis of the Fiji Times for one year, May 1999 to May 2000, leading to attempted coup by George Speight.

 

Mahendra Chaudhry (L) with his captor, George Speight after his release from 56 days captivity in Fiji Parliament building in May-June, 2000.

Almost two thirds (62.8%) of the analysis reported negatively against People’s Coalition government while less than 10% showed any warmth towards the government. Only just over a quarter (27.4%) of the items were of neutral in nature. In fact a reputable and credible media should have 100% balanced, fair, neutral, and impartial reporting. Of the 19 sections covered, thirteen (68.4%) reported 50% or more negative items while three of these were above 90%. So, you can see how partisan and unfair FT was.

The sections of media analysis , among others, covered major issues of interest under Chaudhry government as reported over one year of  People’s Coalition government rule. The following topics were covered for analysis in my research:

Election Victory & Politics , Media Issues, Racial Agitation/Protests, Land, Rajen Chaudhry, Tea Lady Affair, Baba & Chaudhry Tensions, Clark-Hunter Work Permits, Constitutional Amendments, Fiji Hardwood and Speight, Industrial Issues, Ganesh and Chaudhry Houses, Housing Authority, Margaret Wise, Daily Post and Radio Fiji Ban, Socialism and Sharing Wealth, Punja and Companies, Political Personalities and Zimbabwe Land Problems.

Some Fiji Times headline that Chaudhry government had to endure in its short one-year term.

The trend of reporting showed that for the largest selling paper in the country, such a large percentage of negative items would end up affecting people’s perception of the government. However a poll conducted seven months after election victory revealed that despite so much negative reporting, Chaudhry government, reported very advanced positive poll results, higher than ever gained by Rabuka government before him.

Therefore it would appear that those plotting to overthrow the government had to act fast before the government became too popular with the common people. And then began FT’s questionable reporting, that has been summarised here. If you read my thesis, (link given below) it also shows photo-shoot of relevant offending articles, photos and headlines that resulted in assault of democracy in Fiji.

My conclusion makes interesting reading, especially Fiji Indians will be able to relate to them from a racism perspectives. In the Newsroom of FT,  almost 96% of stories and control were by Itaukei editors, journalists, and controllers of news when the Fiji Indians comprised some 40% of Fiji population. Read, be shocked, and clap your hands for 152^nd anniversary celebrations of the Fiji Times for its contributions to the country:

Some of the notable concluding observations from the content analysis in my research were:

1) There was obvious discord between what FT said and advocated in its editorials, and what appeared in the papers - it failed to walk its talk. There appeared to be  clash, disagreements and conflict between editorials and news content. It was like one part of you is  trying to make peace between two persons fighting, while the other part is secretly winking at one of them to keep on fighting. Or like a proverbial rat in some African traditions, which bites, and at the same time blows to soothe the pain of its biting. This description aptly fitted FT on occasions where it appeared to have one view of the editorial writer while completely opposite stance was seen in the stories appearing in the news pages. In Hindi, the saying of ..” bagal mein choori, mukh mein Ram.. which means praising God, while hiding a knife on the side to stab at an opportune time. This reflected a disagreement between the editorial opinion and the newsroom. FT failed to practice what it preached. What it advocated and pontificated in its editorials, it failed to reflect them in its news pages. What this means is, in its editorial by White men, it was preaching all the goodness of a fair journalism, while the stories by Itaukei Editor and senior Itaukei journalists spewed racial venom against a “Fiji Indian” Chaudhry government.

Some Fiji Times headline that Chaudhry government had to endure in its short one-year term.

2)  The lack of coordination between the newspaper management and the newspaper operations. Elaborating what was said above, the ‘management’, comprised of expatriate policy and editorial formulators, notably the expatriate publisher and the editor in chief, Alan Robinson, and Russell Hunter (for part of the time) respectively. The ‘operations’ or the  Fijian(Itaukei) ‘gatekeepers’ comprised of the editor Samisoni Kakaivalu, his Deputy Netani Rika and the senior Fijian newsroom team including Margaret Wise, about whom you read in Part 2. Lack of coordination appears to have stemmed from unbridled newsroom control on the local staff who coined up the headlines that chose and manufactured stories and headlines, as had been cited by a researcher  where a Fiji Indian journalist at FT admitted that the article she wrote was completely twisted and the headline was given by a member of the senior staff. The ‘management’ expatriate executives have to be accountable for what we found as an environment which gave unbridled ‘gate keeping’ duties to unqualified, insensitive, and partisan newsroom (Itaukei) staff.

 

Tin-Pot ethnonationalist politicians with questionable following and character sprung up overnight and were given more prominence in FT than the ruling government and politicians who had to resort to letters -to-editor to make their point. Sakiasi Butadroka (top) and Taniela Tabu.

3)   New groups of militant and nationalist makeshifts (tin-pot) organisations sprung up overnight to oppose government’s initiatives. Their little-known leaders with suspect following were given undeserved and unbridled exposure by FT under the guise of media freedom, despite such utterances bordering on sedition and hate-speeches, and in clear breach of Media Code of Conduct and Ethics. Every now and then you would have a tin-pot Itaukei nationalist and questionable leader, with little credibility and following, rising up and vomiting anti-Fiji Indian poison, and FT had no hesitation in highlighting verbal diarrhoea and racists diatribes of such leaders while ignoring clarifications and statements from the government and officials of the day.

 

4)  Open disrespect to President and PM - FT provided ample opportunity to any man and his dog who wished to take a pot shot at the highest seat of the country- the President and the Prime Minister. A responsible, civilised media, especially in a developing country divided on racial lines would be expected to exercise caution and sensitivity. FT committed dereliction of ethics and duties by permitting and sanctioning such show of disrespect to the leaders of a developing nation under the guise of media freedom. One is free to be critical of the politicians of any shades or colour. But when it comes to the SEAT OF THE COUNTRY, such as the Prime Minister or President, the POSITIONS command respect, and no credible newspapers would ever allow any dogs of racism to piss on the highest poles and seats of the nation. Unfortunately, over a century-old FT allowed this to happen without blinking an eye lid.

 

Protest by Indians in Haryana, India, Chaudhry's ancestral land by those raising their voice against his removal in Fiji. 

5)  Lack of Balance - The number of important issues where government had to resort to letters to editor column to tell its side of the story was evident that there was something grossly amiss in media’s balance and adherence to Code of Conduct that called for equal opportunity of response. In the analysis, instances were quoted where the government as well as the members of the general public wrote in to clarify and inform on issues which was seen as the media’s role. It appears either FT failed to grasp and inform on issues, or it deliberately failed in its duty of keeping Fiji well informed to safeguard democracy. Sadly, FT failed to balance their stories with all sides of views - a strong pillar of respected journalism. FT clearly displayed its neglect and recklessness of duties and failed to protect and defend democracy – another strong pillar of any respectable Fourth Estate (media). It failed to allow the same space and opportunity to the Government of the day to clarify lies and unsubstantiated claims by the opposition, ethnonationalist officials of statutory organisations (read NLTB) and tin-pot nationalist leaders.

 

Mahendra Chaudhry commanded huge respect, especially in cane belt of rural Fiji. He was more popular than any PM before him, hence had to be removed by the ethnonationalist Itaukei agitators before he became too popular. Here Chaudhry (R) is seen, having a word with his ardent supporter and friend from Rarawai, Ba, Fiji, Late Krishna Nand Maharaj.

6)  Failure of FT to recognise lopsided racial mix: In Fiji, it is a Constitutional requirement and direction (in 1977 Constitution) to grant equitable distribution of civil service positions at all levels to reflect the country’s demographic makeup. It seems this escaped the knowledge of FT. That is why it allowed misinformed viewpoints without trying to point out the anomaly, with extremely high percentage in Military and civil service with information on land ownership and other standard statistics. It not only ignored the lopsided racial mix elsewhere in government, but itself failed to abide by the general principle that the newsroom should be the mirror of the country. There was marked favour of Itaukei , not only at all (especially senior) levels  of its news team, but also in news content reporting  where some 95 % of the stories with by lines were from Itaukei reporters in a racially divided nation with Fiji Indians comprising some 40% of the population at that time. Over two-thirds of FT newsroom was populated by Itaukei, and they filed almost all stories, with a few “balanced” stories coming from Fiji Indian reporters, and they were few and far in between.

 

Mahendra Chaudhry, when PM( L-R) with President of Fiji Labour Party, Jokepeci Koroi, Fiji's President, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara and his wife, Vir Mati.

Sounds shocking? The balance of conclusion and the concluding remarks leading to fall of People’s Coalition Government will be revealed in PART 4 and the final part of this four - part article.

 

[About the Author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is former publisher of now closed, partly government-owned Daily Post newspaper, a journalist,  a media commentator,  a community worker in Auckland and runs his blog FIJI PUNDIT. He did a research on the role of the Fiji Times in contributing to destabilising of democracy by a partisan  newspaper that culminated in Speight’s attempted coup in 2000. Details in the articles are largely from his Masters in Communication (MCS) thesis at Auckland University of Technology (AUT) in 2011, and already published material. All reference to Fiji Times is to the foreign owned entity prior to localisation in 2010.

E-mail: thakurjifj@gmail.com

Link to thesis: https://openrepository.aut.ac.nz/handle/10292/2554

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

FIJI TIMES PART 2: IT CONTRIBUTED TO FALL OF DEMOCRACY IN FIJI AS A BIASED MEDIA, SUPPORTING UNELECTED CHIEFS

 

THE FIJI TIMES 152^nd ANNIVERSARY – PART 2 of 4

HOW FT, WITH THE CHIEFS, CONTRIBUTED TO FALL OF DEMOCRACY IN FIJI AS A BIASED MEDIA.

Thakur Ranjit Singh

PROLOGUE - PART 2

This is SECOND PART of continuation of the four-part series  on the history of the Fiji Times (FT). This is from already published articles and my research of Master’s Thesis – a historical notoriety of a Fiji newspaper never told in this manner and language.

DISCLAIMER: All reference to FT is to the foreign-owned paper before localisation in 2010. Hence I do not have any concerns with the locally - owned FT of 2021.

 

INTRODUCTION

In Part 1, we mentioned that The Fiji Times (FT) just marked  152^nd anniversary and were in Fiji prior to arrival of first Girmitiyas but remained blind to their plight and inhumane treatment. In fact they despised and hated them as smelly, dark-skinned invaders to Fiji and became cheerleaders and  mouthpiece of the British and Australian colonists and degraded these helpless and defenceless people.

Part 2 here will show that the leopard did not change spots, and after departure of the white men, they became towel boys and lapdogs of Eastern Chiefs, elite Itaukei and European and Gujarati businesses, and how they became a threat to Fiji’s democracy. As I have openly stated before, the greatest threat to democracy in Fiji came from the Great Council of Chiefs, followed by a partisan media. Please read that here…………..

 

Sitiveni Rabuka, the coup-maker of 1987, was soundly defeated by Chaudhry in 1999 election. He was having an affair with a key senior reporter of FT, Margaret Wise who was agitating a war with Chaudhry, unethically using FT, while management of FT allowed this rot to continue.

THE FIJI TIMES - PART 2 (OF 4)

 

Russell Hunter was refused an extension of his work permit by Chaudhry government which had a bitter running battle with the media in general and FT in particular. One notable incident was during the launch of the Fiji Media Council’s Code of Conduct where the Prime Minister Chaudhry was very critical of reporting standards and the attitude of FT towards his government and accused it of “fanning the fires of sedition and racism.” In his speech, Chaudhry had singled out one particular reporter, Margaret Wise – that, later.

In speaking about unnecessary and unwarranted coverage given to nationalist union leader Taniela Tabu, Chaudhry accused The Fiji Times of harbouring an agenda:

There have been a number of articles on Taniela Tabu breathing fire and brimstone along racial lines, making all kinds of threats and allegations not backed by facts. Yet The Fiji Times continues to pose this man whose own credibility is questionable, having frittered away $4 million of union membership funds that he can’t explain, as the saviour of the Fijian civil servants… none of the other media reported anything on his unwarranted ourbursts... It makes me wonder whether there is not a conspiracy at work here between that particular reporter and these anti-government elements?

 

Russell Hunter, Editor-in Chief of Fiji Times, during late 1990, and was denied visa and deported during the Peoples Coalition rule, but joined FT once Chaudhry was displaced as a result of political instability that, as my research shows, was partly contributed by the stance of a biased FT.

Media commentators Field, Baba and Nabobo-Baba shed additional light on the Wise story:

 

The Rupert Murdoch-owned Fiji Times decided, almost by default and as a result of one particular reporter that they were going to get rid of Chaudhry. Reporter Margaret Wise tore into Chaudhry with many an unsourced story which the paper had no qualms about publishing. What was known to the newspaper, but not shared with readers and now a matter of court record, was that she was also Rabuka’s lover and had a child by him.

It was Mahendra Chaudhry and his People’s Coalition Government that soundly walloped Rabuka and his SVT into oblivion. The unethical sexual relationship between FT’s political star reporter Margaret Wise and the person who was soundly beaten by Chaudhry, Sitiveni Rabuka was reported in FT. Michael Field (2010), in his Swimming with Sharks mentioned this:

Rabuka fathered a boy with [Margaret] Wise and then denied it was his. I was often in Fiji at the time, covering treason and mutiny trials. More than once I would run into Rabuka after Wise took him to court. ‘ A DNA test revealed Mr Rabuka  was 99.999 percent [certain] to be the likely father of the 18-month-old boy,’ the Fiji Times said.

The court found he was the father, and he was ordered to pay F$30 a week. (p.179)

Tin-Pot racist trade unionists and political party leaders, with questionable support and ethics were allowed space by certain reporters of FT to spew racial venom on Chaudhry's Peoples Coalition Government of the day, and management of FT allowed this partisan approach to flourish.

The ethical issue that arises here is that when she was reporting against the Chaudhry government, she was also having an affair with Rabuka. How would a multinational, Rupert Murdoch’s media allow such a conflict of interest to exist without any control, and with apparent knowledge, encouragement, and the blessings from FT management. Why did Alan Robinson and Russel Hunter allow this unethical media practice to flourish?

It is incidents and situations like this that gave rise to the term “skirt journalism” that raises ethical and conflict of interest issues.

Another researcher at USP was also critical of the newspaper which portrayed Speight as a crusader for the Fijian race, wresting back the power for the Fijian race for preservation of their future. She also named Margaret Wise, as one of FT reporters who wrote stories that were aimed at consolidating the myth that the takeover was an ethnic conflict and not provincial rivalry between the confederacies. Wise continued to run stories which kept on emphasising inter-ethnic conflict as the reason.

Sakiasi Butadroka, who helped displace Ratu Mara's Alliance Government was also used by ethno-nationalist politicians to destabilise Chaudry's Government, and FT allowed them enough space and publicity to do this.

Another researcher in her hypothesis proposed that:

The Fiji Times represented and reinforced the ruling class ideology in Fiji, a ruling class who were determined to consolidate political power by promoting the role of chiefly elite and thereby disguising the tension caused by class relations in society.

It also declared that the Speight crisis happened because Fijians did not trust an Indo Fijian Prime Minister to deliver security of Fijian rights and guarantee of Fijian leadership. She added that the editor of FT during the crisis was a Fijian (referred to as indigenous race). The view of the Fijian editor appeared to have been filtering in the newspapers. FT took it for granted that the Fijian chiefs had legitimacy to provide leadership role in a crisis situation, ignoring the Indo-Fijians in the process.

This concept of legitimising the role of non-elected and politically aligned chiefs over all the people of Fiji matches Herman and Chomsky’s (2008) Propaganda Model theory which stipulates that media is dependent on the elites and participates in propaganda campaigns helpful to elite interests. Research analysis showed the newspaper tended to support not only the business functions but also the ruling chiefly elite over that of the survival of democracy.

The racial slant of FT  supported democracy, as long as the Fijians and the GCC dominated leadership  and ruled Fiji. FT, while supporting democracy tended to favour Fijian self-interest over the political system and mandate of the people. The papers failed to support the huge mandate of the people for return of Chaudhry to power. This was a clear reflection of the racial skew of the papers’ editor and senior and influential journalists and their links to the ruling elite who supported Fijian leadership for Fiji.

A free and neutral media in a fledgling democracy, in a developing nation, with racial issues, need to exercise extra care to project itself as a neutral, impartial and balanced Fourth Estate. Unfortunately, as my research substantiates, the foreign-owned FT failed to live up to this expectation, while beating hollowed drums of success in Fiji for 152 years.
.

Criticism by Chaudhry and other researchers and authors concluded that:

……the FT editor failed to provide any in-depth analysis of the causes of the political crisis nor related it back to historical events. .… reinforced the colonial legacy that Fijian chiefs are the rightful rulers of Fiji, emphasising that Fiji, and this presumably means Fijians, was not ready for a multiracial constitution. 

The researcher was critical of the standard of the editorials and the paper’s understanding of the Constitution and their lack of understanding of the special protection accorded in the 1997 Constitution, the process of Constitutional change and the inability of any Prime Minister to be able to change things at their whim, hence the fact that an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister was not a situation that should agitate the Fijian public.

My continuing Part 3 will brief you on my research for AUT Thesis, which substantiated that a partisan, a biased FT contributed to fall of democracy in Fiji - an irony for a supposedly Fourth Estate to do so.

 

[About the Author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is former publisher of now closed, partly government-owned Daily Post newspaper, a journalist,  a media commentator,  a community worker in Auckland and runs his blog FIJI PUNDIT. He did a research on the role of the Fiji Times in contributing to destabilising of democracy by a partisan  newspaper that culminated in Speight’s attempted coup in 2000. Details in the articles are largely from his Masters in Communication (MCS) thesis at Auckland University of Technology (AUT) in 2011, and from already published materials. E-mail:thakurjifj@gmail.com.]

FIJI TIMES PART 1: IT DESPISED INDIANS AND SHAMED MEDIA AS A LAPDOG OF THE ELITES

 

THE FIJI TIMES 152nd ANNIVERSARY – PART 1

WHEN FT DESPISED INDIANS AND SHAMED MEDIA AS  A LAP DOG OF WHITE COLONISTS & ELITES

Thakur Ranjit Singh

PROLOGUE - PART 1

This is a four-part series of articles on the history of the Fiji Times, from already published articles and my research as Master’s Thesis, and never told in this manner and language.

The Fiji Times (hereafter referred to as “FT”) just made a big noise and celebrations about its 152 years in Fiji and praised and commended itself for its achievements. 

Many, especially Fiji-Indians in Fiji and around the world (Diaspora) may have also clapped but failed to know what FT failed to tell and do as the oldest Fourth Estate in Fiji, which for the most part, despised Indians.

Those who studied journalism and seen research on FT would know how it shamed journalism, the Fourth Estate, as the media is referred to. The Government comprises three arms: executive, legislative and judiciary . These three arms of government do everything necessary to maintain law and order in the state. 

And media is an additional important and responsible arm to keep a check on these three and therefore referred to as THE FOURTH STATE.

DISCLAIMER: All reference to FT is to the foreign-owned paper before localisation in 2010. Hence I do not have any concerns with the 2021 FT. If anything, the Fiji Times of today may be one of the media which stands tall as a respectable Fourth Estate and pride to journalism in Fiji in very trying times in 2021 where the three arms of the government appear to be all muddled up and muddied together.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The Fiji Times just marked  152^nd anniversary as they came to Fiji in 1869, 10 years before arrival of first indentured Indian labourers (Girmitiyas) from India. Many atrocities, violence, injustice, breach of human rights and inhumane activities were imposed on these vulnerable illiterate people from India. Yet, the paper never exercised it role of the Fourth Estate or its responsibility of journalism to report facts neutrally, impartially, diligently, and fairly. If anything, they became mouthpiece of the British and Australian colonists and degraded these helpless and defenceless people.

What appears to be missing is for any children of Girmit to stand up and reveal all the ills of a White foreign media  that rarely stood up for their forebear Girmitiyas, and neither for them nor their children till early  21^st century. Hence FIJI PUNDIT chose to fill the vacuum, as a duty to my voiceless Girmitiyas who were never able to defend themselves.

It started for Girmitiyas in 1879, but the Fiji Times was in Fiji 10 years before, boasting to be there in 1869. Yet, they failed to exercise its role as a responsible media in most of its life in Fiji. And as my 4 part article series will show, their hatred for Indians culminated in contributing to removal of Chaudhry's "Indian Government" in 2000. Keep on reading the series.

Most of what I say are from already published materials and thesis, and largely come from my Master’s Thesis at Auckland University of Technology (AUT) in 2011 , titled: “THE 2000 SPEIGHT COUP IN FIJI: THE ROLE OF “THE FIJI TIMES” LEADING TO POLITICAL INSTABILITY”. I will have link to this research at end of this article,  and you may access and have a look at it, and read one year’s FT news that have been photographed and used in the thesis, and be shocked to see how FT became a mouthpiece of ethno-nationalists, anti-Chaudhry and anti-Indian brigade .

THE FIJI TIMES - PART 1 (OF 4)

So, let’s begin. We begin by a research by  Padmini Gaunder at Auckland University in 2006. Through historical perspectives, she revealed how FT generated animosity and tension between the major ethnic groups, leading to ethnic conflict. She rightfully stated that FT was the only paper for over a century, and it used its position early to shove  a wedge between the races and appeared to represent the ruling class and the elites. She said:

This newspaper represented the views and interests of a small group of vested European commercial interests in the country and deliberately caused ethnic divisions by influencing the perceptions of indigenous Fijians towards the immigrant Indians. The newspaper helped to implant fear in the minds of the indigenous population of domination of the country by the immigrant community. This fear led to suspicions and slowly it caused tensions and finally ethnic conflict.

Gaunder states that the racial divisiveness of the newspaper appeared to have been founded in the history of FT:

The Fiji Times had started its anti-Indian propaganda in its very early days itself, during the indenture period in the colony (1879-1920).Throughout the indenture period, there was often violence in the cane fields, resulting sometimes in murders of the overseer by the labourers. The Fiji Times invariably described these incidents as cold-blooded murder and depicted the Indians as a mysterious race of criminals to whom violence came naturally.

The voiceless vulnerable Girmitiyas who never had anyone to protect them from ruthlessness of the White men, and even the White Media, Fiji Times. Instead of being a neutral and impartial reporter, it became a bosom-buddy and mouthpiece of the colonists and the elite white settlers.

In fact what FT failed to mention and conveniently omitted was that in most cases, the violence was provoked by the overseers, and this may be verified by anecdotal oral (verbal) literature from our Girmitiyas who told us tales of such injustices, brutalities, and violence. This is well documented in Rajendra Prasad’s TEARS IN PARADISE.

Tears in Paradise – Suffering and Struggles of Indians in Fiji 1879-2004 reveals the horrific treatment of Indian indentured workers (Girmitiyas) in Fiji by the British from 1879-1919. Indenture system (Girmit) under which they were recruited was slavery by another name. Working and living conditions were so atrocious that Fiji had the highest rate of suicide in the world and highest rate of infanticide among the colonies that deployed indentured labour. Yet none of these made it to the pages of FT because of their selective and racist journalism, which tarnished Fiji Indians as smelly, dark-skinned invaders.

Until 1920, the white settlers regarded Indian and Fijians (Fijians refer to Itaukei) as dark-skinned people who were inferior to white settlers. It was only after 1920 and 1921 strikes by Indians that they befriended the Itaukei and started turning them against the Indians.

The Fiji Times became their main tool for conveying this pro-Fijian/anti-Indian stand. It deliberately disseminated, through headlines, news stories, letters to the editor and editorials news about Indians that would cause unease in the minds of the Fijians.

Pundit Tej Ram Prem of Sydney enacting a suicide scene at a Girmit play. Fiji had the highest rate of suicide in the world and highest rate of infanticide among the colonies that deployed indentured labour. Yet none of these made it to the pages of FT because of their selective and racist journalism, which tarnished Fiji Indians as smelly, dark-skinned invaders.

A historian and acknowledged author on early Indian history in Fiji, Dr. K. L Gillion noted similar racial slurs in FT of those early years against Fiji Indians. Citing an incident in 1922 when an Indian deputation was visiting Fiji, the following letter appeared in the then Fiji Times and Herald of 1 March 1922:

I would say that 99 per cent of the Europeans in Fiji and the Fijians are loyalists and the handing over of Fiji to evil-smelling, treacherous, non-educated, garlic-eating Indians would be one of the greatest crimes in the history of the British Empire and an event which would possibly meet with some opposition.

Gillion (1977) also recorded instances when the newspaper called for deportation of Indian leaders to India, used derogatory words against Indians, was accused of reinforcing “apprehension about Asian penetration of the South Pacific”  and expressed contempt on celebrating jubilee, in 1929, of the arrival of the first Indian settlers and declaring of 15 May as a public holiday. (Even Frank Bainimarama and Fiji First Government is struggling with request of Fiji Girmit Foundation NZ of 2015 to declare Girmit Public Holiday, almost a century after when FT initially opposed it. It seems we have progressed very little, and still waiting for that to become a reality.)

In the issue of January 29, 1929, The Fiji Times and Herald wrote:

Fiji does not require permanent settlers of the Indian type. Her lands, her climate are for Europeans who can employ what labour they require. 

Poor helpless Indian Girmitiyas (indentured labourers) in Fiji were despised by FT through their selective and racist journalism, which tarnished Fiji Indians as smelly, dark-skinned, garlic-eating invaders.

These set tones of racial slant of FT. Things do not appear to have changed in some fourteen decades of its presence in Fiji. The newspaper was established in Fiji in 1869 – exactly ten years before the arrival of the first Indian indentured labourers from India.  These helpless labourers went through grave brutalities and violence at the hands of British and Australian overseers, including the breach of basic human rights, and flouting of international laws that took place under the nose of a supposedly free press. 

However, FT never appeared to have taken a stand on the injustices meted out to these labourers. There have been unreported cases about bullying, filthy plantation lines (accommodation) where labourers were penned like animals, people broken by diseases, the beatings, and the use of law to subjugate these people:

..…the rough young Australian overseers… used the Indian women…the system of European dominance… the law courts unconsciously favoured the articulate employer against the bewildered or ignorant labourer…the Indians remembered the deceit, the slave-driving drudgery, and the degradation and vice; the CSR, the planters, and Europeans generally saw the Indians as coloured labour force to be kept under.

All this happened under the watch of FT which not only remained silent and uncritical of the elite, but in fact, became their mouthpiece. 

As media theory of propaganda Model of Media suggests, the media depends on the elite, remains uncritical of them and in fact participates in propaganda campaigns helpful to elite interests, who in the old Fiji represented  the Colonial Sugar Refining Company (CSR), the Europeans and the British government. 

Things did not seem to have changed as studies suggests the elites subsequent to Fiji independence in 1970 changed to the Eastern (Lauan) Chiefs, the elite Itaukei, and the rich business (mostly Gujarati) community.

Read in the other three parts how Fiji Times  since Independence in 1970 became mouthpiece of the Chiefs,(read Ratu Mara) elite Itaukei, Lauan Chiefs and rich businesses. My second part, together with Parts 3 and 4, will reveal the truth in the adage that leopards do not change colour and tells of the FT post-independence and how it contributed to destabilising of democracy in Fiji , culminating in removal of Chaudhry’s Peoples Coalition government in May 2000.

[About the Author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is former publisher of now closed, partly government-owned Daily Post newspaper, a journalist, a media commentator, a community worker in Auckland and runs his blog FIJI PUNDIT. He did a research as part of Masters in Communication (MCS) thesis at Auckland University of Technology (AUT) in 2011. This was on the role of the Fiji Times in contributing to destabilising of democracy by a partisan  media that culminated in Speight’s attempted coup in 2000. Details in the articles are largely from his thesis titled: THE 2000 SPEIGHT COUP IN FIJI: THE ROLE OF THE FIJI TIMES LEADING TO POLITICAL INSTABILITY.

E-mail:thakurjifj@gmail.com.]

Link to thesis: https://openrepository.aut.ac.nz/handle/10292/2554

 

 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

MASSEY UNIVERSITY BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE, SEEKING TERRORISTS AMONGS HINDUS

 

 

MASSEY UNIVERSITY CHALLENGED FOR SPREADING HINDU-

HATE UNDER COVER OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Thakur Ranjit Singh

 

In my earlier article, you read about my letter of concerns about Hinduphobia at Massey University. In this article you will get a synopsis of their reply and my retort to their spin.

Perhaps what confuses us is that Massey University is seeking terrorist and those  spreading hate in the wrong places. They wold have found them if they had looked at solving mystery of who brought down twin towers in New York, who caused massacre at the Taj Hotel in Mumbai, India, and who are causing human tragedy in Afghanistan.

 

In fact they are seeking terrorist at wrong places. If the academics supporting conference of dismantling Hindutva looked at the real hideout of international terrorist, many of the mysteries intriguing world leaders on terrorism would have been solved by now. 

Unfortunately CARE and Massey University are barking up the wrong tree in search for terrorists.

 

Please read on………….

 

CARE and Massey University have not tried to seek terrorists in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are seeking them in the wrong place and wrong ideology of a peaceful India, Hinduism and Hindutva which treats the whole world as one big family.

 

CARE and Massey University have not tried to seek terrorists in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are seeking them in the wrong place and wrong ideology of a peaceful India, Hinduism and Hindutva which treats the whole world as one big family.

As I write this second blog, I wish to bring this anti-Hindu CARE arm of Massey University under into spotlight.

 

 I wish to ask Massey University through this public forum:

 

1.   The total annual budget of CARE for the last 5 years

 

2.   Names of Foreign Donors for last 5 years

 

3.   Amount of Foreign donations above ten thousand dollar ($10,000)

 

4.   Remuneration paid to Mr Mohan Dutta for work related to CARE

 

5.   Names of Countries visited by Mr Dutta to carry out his CARE work since his appointment.

 

6.   Number of papers prepared and presented by Professor Dutta related to Hindus, Hindutva, Hinduism and Islamophobia

 

 

Mystery still surrounds the real brains behind 9/11 terrorism that resulted in the fall of the twin towers. Massey University needs to start looking for hate and terrorism at the right places - and that is not in India, Hinduism or Hindutva.

I had written to Massey University, expressing concerns at the stance of Massey University in allowing Hindumisia/Hinduphobia or Hindu hate, disguised as academic freedom under Massey University’s CARE (Centre for Cultural -centered Approach to Research and Evaluation).

 

This article provides further development in this fight for our religion.

 

In their reply, among others they said the following in a standard letter they wrote to other critics as well:

 

1)    CARE was taking care of Islamophobia by Hindu organisations in NZ to measure hate.

 

2)   Seventy universities supported Massey to measure Muslim hate by Hindu organisations, and they supported a conference.

 

3)   More 700 academics around the world wrote in support of conference to dismantle Hindutva, which they claim is different from Hinduism.

 

4)   This conference was supposed to reveal to the world terrorism and hate spread by Hindus

 

5)   Massey supports academic freedom, advancement of knowledge, discussion of diverse viewpoints and encourages independent thinking.

 

Terrorism and bombing of the Taj Hotel in Mumbai was from a terrorist cell based in Pakistan. Wonder why Massey University are seeking them in India and Hinduism.

I wrote to Massey University on 16 September 2021, retorting to their claims contained in their letter, summarised above.

 

Dear Professor Stephen Kelly,

 

Thanks for your reply of the 13^th instant. I will not accuse you of being ignorant or not knowing how to respond to diverse individual concerns.

 

This is because your office dishes out your communications school’s standard marketing manual and spin to all those who have written to you raising different issues on CARE in general, and Professor Dutta in particular.

 

Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde faces of CARE at Massey University. They are advertised as a communication research that uses culture to promote communication. But in actual fact they have become hub of Hinduphobia,  spreading hate. India has never invaded any country and it embraces all as equal in a secular India. Yet, Massey University has targeted India and Hinduism as a place promoting hate and terrorism.

However, as an Alumnus, I wish to raise grave concerns about degeneration of my former institution, where now the safety and fair treatment of Hindu students become debatable with Massey University openly supporting and encouraging Hindu-hate sentiments. 

In addition, you seem to be populated with so many of your academics carrying Hindumisia /Hinduphobia mindsets, and hence their academic impartiality, neutrality and fairness become questionable and dubious. It therefore raises doubts about credibility of your institution continuing to remain a trusted international institution.

 

I am saddened that standards at Massey appear to have deteriorated since I was there some four decades ago, and it appears to have become a mercenary institution, supporting those who pay you the highest price.

If this was not so, why some 700 leading academics, as you claim, especially from USA and many with Indian origin, are only concerned about issues with Hindu, Hindutva, anti-Modi, and anti-Indian sentiments, while there are bigger human rights issue affecting mankind in the world now?

Please explain, since when has Massey University usurped and hijacked the objectives and roles of Oxfam and Amnesty International?

 

For your information, the letter I wrote was developed into an article for FIJI PUNDIT blog which I run , and widely circulated, even to NZ government Ministers. In the illustrations used, I specifically asked for each Kiwi Hindu activity, where are there any signs of promoting divisions, terrorism, or religious violence we are accused of undertaking.

These , sadly, have been maliciously, falsely, and sacrilegiously claimed by your Dutta, who you are providing unqualified support under garb of academic freedom to create divisions within Hindus and Muslims in NZ. Sadly, and unfortunately, it already seems to have started working, seeing at least one Kiwi Muslim signatory from Waikato, supporting Dutta and CARE.

 

Here is that link to my article of concerns:

https://fijipundit.blogspot.com/2021/09/former-student-writes-to-massey.html

 

Your spin-doctors failed to answer issues that I have raised as a Kiwi Fiji Indian Hindu, who has been tarnished by Professor Dutta who compares Hindus from Fiji and Kiwi born Hindus to a political system in India and says Hindu rituals lead to violence, and therefore, funding agencies need not support us here.

 

Mohan J Dutta - the person in charge of CARE, spreading hate. Massey University is requested to provide his remuneration in CARE, overseas funding for CARE, names of large foreign donors supporting CARE, countries he visited in last five years for CARE activities and papers he presented on Hinduism, Hindutva and Islamophobia. 

Instead of emergence of any rethink or consciousness , you merely dish out the standard circular and spins to all your critics, supporting CARE, most probably authored by Dutta and like-minded academics in CARE - who do not seem to really care.

 

Perhaps you will care (pun intended) to answer why your 700 academic supporters did not raise other grave human rights abuses and concerns around the world, which among others, include:

1)   Rise of Islamic terrorism around the world and use of Madrassas as teaching ground of hatred and fundamentalism.

 

2)   What happened to the missing Hindus in Pakistan, who during partition were 10% but now are only 2% of the population?

3)   Why have no issues on human rights abuses been raised, among others, in Philippines shooting criminals, Muslim persecution in China, Rohingya Muslim treatment in Myanmar, human rights abuse of indigenous people of West Papua, and treatment of Muslim women in Afghanistan? If Massey University wishes to be measuring barometer, judge and police for such abuses, why ONLY INDIA AND HINDUS?

 

4)   Repeating - why particular interest only in India and Hindus? Are university’s overseas funding specifically targeted for degrading us?

 

While Massey University has its radar on Hindus in India, it completely and selectively neglected to seek violence, terror and hate in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and other countries known as hub of international terrorism.

5)   Should not Massey University develop a fairer conscience to raise voices against greater human atrocities than reportedly  done in India, where Muslims have a choice to freely go to Islamic nations of Pakistan and Bangladesh (formerly West Pakistan ), which were specially separated from India for religious segregation, but they chose to stay back? Don’t they still have a choice?

I am not sure what your spin-machine will produce now, but I am not sitting idle in this case and copying this to relevant politicians and Ministers, and will also report Massey University to Human Rights Commission, for breaching our human rights, belittling us and our beliefs by targeting India and Hindus but ignoring greater concerns elsewhere. My bewilderment still remains - WHY ONLY INDIA AND HINDUS? 

Terrorism at Taj Hotel in Mumbai - should not Dutta, a Professor  from India, use CARE to probe the real source of terrorism in India rather than having a sham at Massey University to blame Hinduism and Hindutva for violence and hate? The terrorism at Taj was from Pakistan.

Perhaps you may pass this to Professor Dutta for a more relevant response to particular individual issues raised, than going through your public relation (PR) and spin machine.

Awaiting targeted and relevant responsive answers to issues raised in this letter written with a heavy heart by a humiliated and shamed Alumnus of Massey University.

Regards and best wishes,

 

Thakur Ranjit Singh

 

Blogger-FIJI PUNDIT

Ranjit Singh - Massey Alumnus -1984

Kiwi Fiji Indian Hindu

 

[About the Author: Thakur Ranjit is a Third Generation Fiji Indian Hindu, now settled in NZ. He is an Alumni of Massey University from Class of 1984, a journalist, a media commentator, and runs his blog FIJI PUNDIT. E-mail:thakurjifj@gmail.com]