FIJI'S DARK HISTORY - FAILED MILITARY MUTINY : THE DAY FRANK BAINIMARAMA WAS SUPPOSED TO DIE

A Dark History of Modern Fiji: When the failed military mutiny changed Fiji’s fate

Thakur Ranjit Singh

This is a reprint of article first published in 2014

Second November 2000 was the day when Frank Bainimarama was supposed to have died, and Fiji taken over by ethno-nationalists through a military mutiny instigated by some Chiefs and greedy individuals. Thank God it did not eventuate.

Can you for a moment imagine what Fiji would be like now,  had the devils, supported by some chiefs, succeeded in assassinating Frank Bainimarama on that fateful day? 

What would have been the fate of Fiji-Indians? Another Girmit or slavery, or massacre, something like Luanda or Syria?

Thank God for the 2 November, 2000, which gave back a stronger Bainimarama and a new pleasant history to Fiji. We are so thankful to the failed mutiny on this fateful day when victory, light and life respectively defeated loss, darkness and death.

Indeed, 2nd of November should be declared local Diwali for Fiji – when life won over death, and that dash through a cassava patch saved the life of an army commander who changed the fate of Fiji.

The mirage of people on different sides, but they were the birds of the same feather: Tarakinikini and Speight. Tarakinikini was also implicated in the mutiny and was saved because he had absconded to USA and was not extradited to stand trial. Speight is serving his time in jail. Fiji is so thankful for the failed coup and the failed mutiny.

Thursday 2 November 2000 started as an uneventful day, for me, a normal clear day in Suva, nothing untoward. I was at Vatuwaqa Cemetery at around 1pm to attend a friend’s funeral from Carpenters Shipping.

I had planned to travel to Ba later that afternoon to attend the funeral my cousin, Jai Karan Singh (Prem) who had suddenly passed away the previous morning at Rarawai, Ba, Fiji.

As we were completing viewing, after 1pm, we heard what sounded like cracking of gunfire. It was echoing from Nabua Military barracks which is some 2-3km away from Vatuwaqa Cemetery. We immediately sensed something was wrong, and news filtered through that something unpleasant was happening at RFMF Barracks. 

After the funeral, I quickly rushed home in Raiwai, and shot–off to Ba via Queens Road with my family to attend the funeral. Later we heard in the news that there was mayhem at Nabua Barracks where attempts were made to assassinate Commodore Frank Bainimarama. He was able to escape with help of some soldiers through cassava fields.

This was the second mutiny at a military camp. On 7 July 2000, rebel soldiers supporting George Speight overran the Sukunaivalu Barracks in Labasa, the largest town on the northern island of Vanua Levu. Besides seizing the barracks, these soldiers harassed ordinary citizens of Labasa, kidnapping bus commuters, ransacking homes, and seizing crops, and bullying, assaulting, and harassing mostly Fiji Indians.

The police was powerless and humiliated, and yours truly, Thakur made a mockery of the police force to a "badhia bail"-a castrated bullock. I coined the caption of a cartoon which read, where one farmer in Labasa is telling another farmer, pointing to a bull: “My castrated bullock has more balls than the police force.” 

The police was really impotent under the then Commissioner Isikia Savua, who was having a jaunt in Vanuatu when anarchy was taking place in Labasa. [Read full four-part account of Savua Enquiry in my FIJI PUNDIT blogsite]

Commodore Frank Bainimarama (now Fiji's Prime Minister) with his officers, when he was leading the Army. After attempts on his life by his own people, he had been very cautious of whom to trust. Hence, he removed all thorns and disloyal  soldiers from the ranks and had loyal people who could be trusted.

Reports later emerged that the situation at Nabua Barracks on this fateful day was bloody and unheard of where Fijians were prepared to shoot their fellow soldiers in cold blood, while the milk of human kindness in some rebels stopped them from killing in cold blood. 

Fijian army officers were executed in cold blood by the rebel soldiers from Counter Revolutionary Warfare (CRW, which was equivalent to elite force of SAS) during this rebel uprising, with one soldier shot at point blank range while he was asleep.

Reports in local newspapers gave graphic details of how renegade Special Forces soldiers killed three loyal officers during the failed military mutiny at the Queen Elizabeth Barracks in Suva on this fateful day of 2 November, 2000. One was shot while seated at his computer. His blood was cleaned from the keyboard, according to the Fiji Sun.

One rebel from the Counter Revolutionary Warfare (CRW) Unit refused to execute two officers at the height of the gun battle. Major Niko Bukarau, who escaped execution, told Fiji's Daily Post: "I should be in the mortuary if everything went as planned." 

While the CRW rebels had taken over the Nabua Barracks, it was perhaps their bad luck, as little did they realize that the most powerful and feared unit of RFMF, the Third Infantry Regiment was at Sigatoka Sand dunes, undertaking military exercises. 

As I passed Sigatoka on my way to Ba on the day, I passed these soldiers waiting just below Matanipusi Hills, some 100km away from Suva, in Dee Cee Buses, as if readying themselves to pounce on the enemy. Somehow, I had a hunch that Fiji still had hope.

And the powerful Third Regiment was headed by a Bainimarama loyalist and career soldier, COLONEL VILIAME SERUVAKULA, who joined the Army in the early 1980s. He opposed the 2000 coup. And he stood out as Fiji’s saviour on that fateful day. 

They gallantly marched into Nabua camp, mounted a brief offensive, and led the all-powerful Third Regiment in a counter-offensive to retake the barracks from the rebels and maintain normalcy and security. They succeeded.

Sitiveni Rabuka-the original coup-maker. He was also implicated in the mutiny, and as a result lost his opportunity of a diplomatic posting.

Following the mutiny, Seruvakula made some controversial statements in the media. He alleged that he had been offered F$250,000 to support George Speight's attempted coup in May, and that former Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka (who led two coups in 1987) had incited the mutiny and attempted to overthrow the military commander, Commodore Frank Bainimarama.

It later emerged that this mutiny was led by Captain Shane Stevens. It left some casualties and fatalities, and we can say there was some collateral damage.  A total of 42 soldiers from the Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit were subsequently convicted of involvement in the mutiny.

Bainimarama also accused Rabuka of having "politicized" the Counter Revolutionary Warfare (CRW).

The name of Lieutenant Colonel Filipo Tarakinikini has also been mentioned as the person who wanted to depose Bainimarama.

Ratu Inoke Takiveikata, Qaranivalu (right) from Naitasiri, who was convicted for inciting and supporting the mutiny.  He is seen here with his wife, who is sister of another soldier who has been cleansed from RFMF, ex Landforce Commander Ratu Jone Baleldrokadroka. Some feel he is merely the fall guy.

Stevens later testified that Ratu Inoke Takiveikata, the Qaranivalu, a senior chief of Naitasiri Province and a Senator and former Cabinet Minister, had visited the barracks during the mutiny to offer moral and practical support, which included supplying the mutineers with cellphones. Later, Takiveikata was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in the mutiny.

That was a flashback of events that unfolded over two decades ago. Can you for a moment imagine what Fiji would be like now, had the devils, supported by some chiefs, succeeded in assassinating Bainimarama on that fateful day? 

What would have been the fate of Fiji Indians? Another Girmit or slavery, or massacre, something like Luanda or Syria? What would have the so-called leaders, masquerading as Chiefs done to Fiji, after they had looted National Bank of Fiji(NBF) and other institutions of Fiji under Rabuka regime?

Can you appreciate and perhaps now understand Bainimarama for taking the actions he took? How would you feel if your own people, in military, who were there to protect the leader, had become your killers? How about Chiefs? Instead of being mentors and respectable advisers, they abused their position for greed of power?

The events that unfolded subsequent to this attempt on his life is reflected in the tough stance Bainimarama took. He had warned Qarase to inculcate better governance, bereft of nationalism and racism, which Qarase ignored at his peril.

Bainimarama purged military and removed all the thorns and opposition, and strengthened it with loyal officers who believed in multiracialism, good governance and loyalty.

The thieves…oops, I mean Chiefs, some of them abused their positions and power, and politicized the august body of GCC for personal and political gains. 

The biggest disappointment was Naitasiri's powerful and respected Qaranivalu, Ratu Inoke Takiveikata, who was implicated and sentenced. As a result the sham of Great Council of Chiefs had to go.

Fiji's Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama-thank God the mutiny failed in 2000 - we have a stronger person leading the nation. We cannot imagine what Fiji would have been with those ethno-nationalists

With the election of Fiji’s First government as the now democratically elected government of Fiji and recognition by Australia, New Zealand and USA, followed by the whole world, Fiji has come a long way since that fateful day on 2 November, 2000. 

Yes, this is the significant and historic day when Fiji’s current Prime Minister, Commodore Bainimarama played hide and seek with death in a cassava patch in Nabua. And like Diwali which heralds victory of life over death, life won on that crucial day, which we now realize made him into an ironman for the rascals and a friend of the weak.

Thank God for the 2 November, 2000, which gave back a stronger Bainimarama and a new pleasant history to Fiji. We are so thankful to the failed mutiny on this fateful day when victory, light and life respectively defeated loss, darkness and death.

Indeed, second of November should be declared local Diwali for Fiji – every year.

[E-mail: thakurjifj@gmail.com]

[About the author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is a media commentator and runs 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 in 2014 and is intended as a historical reminder of our dark past.]

Fiji Elections: We need home-grown solution as Western media still jaundiced to Fiji

Fiji Elections: We need home-grown solution as Western media still jaundiced to Fiji

Thakur Ranjit Singh

As Fiji approaches the historical 2014 election on 17 September, 2014, one thing is evidently clear: there has been no indigenous, i-Taukei Fijian leader in Fiji’s history, who could ever win the hearts of the migrant Indo-Fijian community in Fiji, as much as Bainimarama has done. Despite all the venom of western media and his opponents, Vorege Bainimarama has been the most visionary leader that a multi-racial and multi-ethnic Fiji has seen. Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna, Ratu Sir Kamiseses Mara, Sitiveni Rabuka, Mahendra Chaudhry and Laisenia Qarase have been left behind in the scrapheap of history, as Bainimarama looks for a home grown solution in a multi-racial fledgling democracy, plagued with ethno-nationalism and divisive politics.

He may not be perfect-but he is the best Fiji has seen so far. And in the process, expect some collateral damage, as any history-in-making produces.

FRANK BAINIMARAMA-the most popular ever Indigenous Fijian leader to the migrant Indo-Fijian community. The most visionary I-Taukei leader ever that Fiji has seen for a multi-racial country which is struggling with its democracy.

Every man and his dog, with their Western concept of failed democracy in Fiji had painted Frank Bainimarama as a villain and a selfish, self-centred man. The latest one is Nick Naidu, who represents an almost defunct organisation, the Coalition for Democracy in Fiji in Auckland.

Naidu’s claims on TV 3 interview on 15 September 2014 substantiates the reason why Frank Bainimarama is sceptical and suspicious of a free press in general and Western concept of press freedom in developing Fiji, in particular.

Naidu claims that Bainimarama is a person who only thinks of himself and nobody else. If Naidu and TV 3 had bothered to read that morning’s NZ Herald’’s article by its ethnic reporter, Lincoln Tan, they may think twice about airing such blinkered and jaundiced interview.

According to Tan, Nadi (Fiji) taxi driver Vinod Kumar said he "cannot wait" to have his say on who will form the next Fijian government.

The 55-year-old grandfather, whose son Shanil lives and works in Auckland, is "90 per cent sure" he will be voting for Frank Bainimarama and his Fiji First Party when the polls open on Wednesday.

"The West just don't understand, they think just because we had a military coup that makes Frank a bad person," Mr Kumar said.

"But life for us ordinary folks has improved so much under him. The roads no longer have potholes, crime is down and more children are going to school because schooling is now free."

He said small things, such as free school buses for students, go a long way because most in Fiji were "generally quite poor".

Mr Kumar said many Fijians were excited at the prospect of voting and election rallies were attracting crowds of thousands.

FRANK BAINIMARAMA-  a man for all people, seen here when he visited the Golden Temple in Amritsar, India. Lord Krishna in Bhagavat Gita said "when there is atrocity, and good and saintly are mistreated by demons, then I take a form of human and come to take away your pains and give justice" Your truly thinks, Bainimarama is one such form, who is seen as a savour of Indo-Fijians in Fiji.

That shows the diametrically inconsistent White mainstream media in New Zealand which is still somewhat jaundiced and unsure on Fiji issues. My journalism studies at Auckland University of Technology (AUT) in 2009 and 2010 revealed in my research papers that some of NZ media, who hardly employ ethnic reporters, were very opposed to happenings in Fiji just because Fiji had kicked away an unsuitable concept of Western Democracy, has kicked out some NZ reporters and did not at all miss the step-brotherly treatment given by NZ and Australia. Fiji marched along oblivion of Ostrich syndrome and snub by these neighbours. Fiji got other friends and ignored these two countries which now appear to be mending the bridges they burnt.

TV 3 failed to ask and Naidu failed to volunteer the information that democracy has become a dirty word in Fiji, especially among the Indo-Fijians who were starkly mistreated by previous ethno-nationalist and blatantly racist governments, masquerading as a democracy.  NZ and Australia, as supposedly civilised First World neighbours failed to keep a tab on the wrongdoings of Qarase regime which virtually had rendered Indo-Fijians to a third-class status. It was only the blessings of 2006 takeover of Qarase regime that gave back Fiji some hope.

If today I could call myself a Fijian and enjoy dual citizenship of NZ and Fiji, and still have that dignity as a Fiji citizen, it is because of the same Frank Bainimarama that the Western World takes all opportunity to project as some villain, because he rejected western imported failed system against a home-grown solution. What Fiji needed was an understanding of the world and a local solution to its fundamental problems. Fiji cannot be blamed for befriending China, Russia, Cuba and Korea when its neighbours, founded on bible and Christianity never showed much love for their neighbour.

FRANK BAINIMARAMA visited Auckland on 9 August, 2014, and huge crowd flocked to see him. He was mobbed by people, as if he was a Bollywood star. But all the White New Zealand mainstream media saw and reported on was a handful of protesters. NZ media has always been seen as too white, and too prejudiced to Fiji. With changing demography and population make-up of New Zealand, its media still does not reflect the colour of the nation in its newsrooms.

So many good things have taken place in Fiji, and consequently the credibility, authenticity and mandate of Coalition for Democracy comes into question for not knowing their Fiji. The leaders of other parties’ visited Auckland, nobody heard or saw. When Bainimarama visited Auckland on 9 August, 2014 at Vodafone Event Centre the place was overcrowded with people and Frank Bainimarama was mobbed like a Bollywood star. The blinkered Mainstream media in Auckland were blind to some 2,000 supporters but only saw a handful of protesters.

So many people know what perhaps Nick Naidu and TV 3 need to know about this popular Fijian leader. Frank Bainimarama rescued Fiji from chasm of racism and divisive politics, camouflaged as democracy. Fiji needs a home-grown solution, no more of imported failed western concepts. The elections in 2014 is a step in that direction. And when history is in making, as was USA’s 200 years ago, we are bound to have some collateral damage.

E-mail: thakurji@xtra.co.nz

[About the Author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is a post graduate scholar in honours in Communication Studies from Auckland University of Technology. From a system which could give him a relevant job, he has started his blog sites, FIJI PUNDIT (www.fijipundit.blogspot.co.nz) and KIWI PUNDIT (www.kiwipundit.blogspot.co.nz) and publishes what the other media does not tell] 

Ganesh Utsav at Ram Mandir in Auckland marks His birthday

Ganesh Utsav at Ram Mandir in Auckland marks His birthday

Thakur Ranjit Singh

Shri Ram Mandir Charitable Trust introduces Indo-Fijian Hindus to Ganesh Chaturthi, and celebration of birth of Lord Ganesh. All are invited to the festivities at Ram Mandir in Henderson on Saturday and Sunday 6^th and 7^th September, 2014.

Ganesh is widely worshiped as the god of wisdom, prosperity and good fortune and traditionally invoked at the beginning of any new venture or at the start of travel

For Indo-Fijian Hindus, celebration of birthdays of deities come naturally, especially the elaborate ways of over a week celebration of Ram and Krishn. However, birthday of Lord Ganesh, which is marked during Ganesh Chaturthi has not been celebrated as elaborately as birth of Ram and Krishn. This may be because Ganesh Chaturthi is mostly widely celebrated in  Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Goa, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Kerala and Chhattisgarh. In Fiji, the majority of Girmitiyas came from Indo- Gangetic plains, from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and nearby areas, hence it did not get that much prominence in Fiji. But things are changing with a globalised world and all are now getting an insight into birthday of Ganesh.

Ganesh Chaturthi is the Hindu festival celebrated on the birthday (rebirth) of Lord Ganesh, the son of Shiv and Parvati. It is believed that Lord Ganesh bestows his presence on earth for all his devotees during this festival. It is the day when Ganesh was born. Ganesh is widely worshiped as the god of wisdom, prosperity and good fortune and traditionally invoked at the beginning of any new venture or at the start of travel. The festival, also known as Vinayak Chaturthi ("festival of Ganesh") is observed in the Hindu calendar month of Bhaadrapad, starting on the shukla chaturthi (fourth day of the waxing moon period). The date usually falls between 19 August and 20 September.

Baby Ganesh

During the festivity, there are traditions and rituals that people perform during the Ganesh Chaturthi Hindu festival. People begin preparing months in advance by making check lists, selecting eco-friendly idols, reading up yummy recipes and thinking of innovating decoration ideas to celebrate the festival on a grand scale. Hindus also follow the rituals in Bringing Home the Ganesh Idol, many of whom choose to perform the Ganesh Staphna (Installation of the Idol) by themselves including performing the Ganesh Visarjan (Immersion)

For the first time for Hindus in Henderson, Auckland, Shri Ram Mandir Charitable Trust (SRMCT) is organizing Ganesh Utsav at its (partly completed) Ram Mandir complex at 11 Brick Street, Henderson, Auckland. For the convenience of people, arrangements are made for a Samohik (combined) Pooja of 2 days.

This will be held on Saturday 6 and Sunday 7 September, 2014. The programme begins on Saturday 6 at 7pm with Bhajans, Sthapna at 8pm, followed by cultural items at 8.45, rounding off with mahaprashad (dinner) at 9.30 pm.

Ram Mandir and Community Centre, as it will look after completion.

On Sunday 7^th September, pooja is from 9-11am, with Sampuram Yagn at 11am, prasad and mahaprashad at 12pm and Visarjan at 1pm. This will be through a bus trip for devotees to take Ganesh murti for visarjan at sea. Devotees need to register for the bus trip.

For the first time, SRMCT is organizing this Samohik Pooja of multiple families, sitting in rows of 10, performing pooja collectively. For a contribution of $201, each family gets a reserved numbered pooja space, a 5 inch Ganesh Moorti, all pooja samagri for 2 days, singhasan and pooja vedi for families to take home.

Singhasan, Ganesh Murti and Pooja Vedi will belong to the devotees after Pooja

Each day, devotees will have to bring 21 laddoos, flowers, prashad, dubh grass and individual or combination of 108 items, comprising of almonds, cashew nuts, sultanas, mishri (candy), flowers or dubh grass.

Pradhan Acharya is Pundit Nand Lal Shastri and his assistant is Pundit Vishal Joshi. Booking is necessary and can be through Umesh (mobile 022 681 1763) or any Trustee.

Devotee families are urged to be part of this historic occasion where we all get together for a collective celebration and prayers. Do not be disappointed, register quickly as we have only hundred numbered and reserves spaces. For further information visit SRMCT’s website at www.shrirammandir.org.nz or contact the Executive Trustee Pravin Kumar at pravin_lotus@hotmail.com.

E-mail: thakurji@xtra.co

[About the author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is blogger at KIWI PUNDIT and FIJI PUNDIT, is a media commentator and Volunteer Media Liaison Officer for Ram Mandir Charitable Trust]

Government by Greed - PART 6: Key Support for the 1987 Coup

Government by Greed - PART 6: Key Support for the 1987 Coup

By Guest Writer, Subhash Appana

A political coup-de-tat is no small undertaking by any standards. It involves treason as by its very definition it attempts to overthrow a “legitimate” government by extra-legal means. In fact, force and violence are necessary complements of any coup-de-tat. And in order to “build” the scenario to justify a coup, an orchestrated process is activated. The aim is to create a situation that allows a treasonous, yet quietly-supported, coup-maker to say “there was no other way”.

SITIVENI RABUKA - The Father of All Coups on 14 May, 1987

This is exactly what happened in Fiji, and that is exactly what Rabuka said after he executed the Father of All Coups on 14^th May 1987. The common thread that bound all who supported that coup, whether overtly or covertly, was the perceived need to protect the Fijian heritage and save the Fijian race from the hegemonic designs of a foreign race, the Indo-Fijians. There were mainly 2 reasons for this perception: one, a sustained policy of divide and rule based on ethnicity; and two, a lack of understanding and appreciation of the mechanics of democracy.

Within this framework of politics, the obvious Indian “threat” acted as a diversion that temporarily covered ominously developing undercurrents that were to plague ethnic-Fijian politics and the country in later years. The Taukei Marches of 1987 allowed many of these undercurrents to surface and join the general wave of dissatisfaction, resentment and rage that swept the main centres of the country. Even in these marches, individual grievances and aspirations remained quietly submerged as the convenient rhetoric of “Indian threat” was enough to rally key support.

Many have pointed fingers at the chiefs, and especially Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara and Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau who was Governor General at that time. Many have rubbished Ratu Mara’s explanation when he said, “How could I stand by and watch my house on fire?” This statement has generally escaped objective scrutiny as the tendency had been to expect Mara to stop the 1987 coup or take an openly opposed stance after the fact. He did neither because he was a thinking man who could probably “see” things that couldn’t be openly articulated at the time.

The point is that as a chief, Ratu Mara could not stand back and watch his country and his people get destroyed. It was the same for Ratu Penaia who was not only Ratu Mara’s close political ally, but also Ratu Mara’s brother-in-law through the marriage of his son, Ratu Epeli Ganilau to Ratu Mara’s daughter, Adi Ateca Ganilau. More interestingly, Ratu Penaia was also Ratu Mara’s superior as Tui Cakau and head of the Tovata confederacy, within which Ratu Mara’s Lau province fell.

RATU SIR KAMISESES MARA: Perfect marriage connection in Fiji meant that he had relatives in top hierarchy in all three Confederacies in Fiji 

And as mentioned earlier, the second confederacy of Burebasaga fell in line because its paramount chief, the Roko Tui Dreketi, was Ratu Mara’s wife. This left Kubuna, which was headed by Ratu Sir George Cakobau at the time. Ratu George’s first cousin, Ratu Edward Cakobau’s 2^nd son, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau is married to Ratu Mara’s daughter Adi Koila Mara. This completed the family link at the apex of the 3 confederacies. Moreover, Kubuna also had among its inter-linked chiefs the Toganivalu clan from Tailevu who were heavily represented in the Mara cabinet through Ratu David, Ratu Josua and Ratu William Toganivalu.

In addition to the above chiefly links, any analysis on chiefly support for the 1987 coup cannot ignore the fact that the first rationale for that coup involved removal of the Indian threat from the political equation of Fiji. From this perspective the chiefs were duty-bound to support that coup because it was seen as a necessity. Opposition could not have been justified in any way and once the rebellion gained momentum, there was simply no room for diplomatic chiefly intervention.

The second important point of support for that coup had to come from the Fiji military. In 1987, the RFMF was a largely foreign peace keeping-focused entity. Since 1978 when troops were deployed to UNIFIL in Lebanon, the size and skills of the RFMF had expanded significantly. And the bulk of troop recruitment involved rural Fijian youths who had virtually no real exposure to the “Indian threat” that they had always heard of – they had no opportunity to see Indians in any other way.

Rural Fijian youths who were recruited in the Military had never met and encountered Indo-Fijians, and were gullible to believe that Indians were trying to take over Fiji. They were seen as Bati- traditional warriors who were there to defend Fijian  heritage.

In fact when they did come to Suva, they were faced with a barrage of things Indian – taxis, businesses, shops, houses, and Indian people all over the place. This left them with little doubt that there was indeed an “Indian threat” to Fiji. Little has been made of the fact that these young soldiers literally saw themselves as modern-day bati (traditional defenders) when they donned the colours of the RFMF. And as bati they were defenders of the Fijian heritage. Nobody epitomized this better than Sitiveni Rabuka, his decision to execute the 1987 coup had largely to do with this – in fact this was very likely the sole compelling reason at the outset. Military support therefore, was virtually guaranteed once the decision was made.

The final card had to do with foreign reaction to an unthinkable act of treason in the Pacific. There was little arguing that this variable had to be factored in because Fiji would not have accepted a reduced international status at that juncture – unlike the stance taken now by Commodore Bainimarama. When David Lange tested the ANZUS alliance by closing NZ ports to US nuclear vessels in 1985, Fiji’s strategic importance had reached a new high.

Thus US geopolitical concerns within the framework of the ever-heating Cold War provided the foreign lifeline that the coup plotters needed. And even though foreign complicity was a little more subtle and complicated to pinpoint, noted CIA operative Vernon Walters was in Fiji and did meet Rabuka 2 weeks before the coup. He was later providentially posted as US Ambassador to the UN and played a pivotal role in minimizing subsequent international condemnation of the Rabuka Coups. And US involvement did continue sporadically until the 1997 constitution brought back normality to the country – was this a case of belated conscience and regret?

The 1987 coup thus had key support from the chiefs, military, sections of the Fijian community and the US. It was supposed to provide a transitory point to a new model of governance for Fiji. Why then did Fiji have to wait 10 years before the 1997 constitution was finally enacted?

Stay tuned for Future articles: Government by Greed - Coup at Last -: A Coup Gone Wrong -: An Intense Power Struggle -: Spawn of the 1987 Coup -: The Personal Tug-of-War. To come later.

[E-Mail: appanas@hotmail.com  / thakurji@xtra.co.nz

SUBHASH APPANA- the author of these series of articles: GOVERNMENT BY GREED 

[About the Author: Subhash Appana is an Indo-Fijian academic with Fijian family links. He was brought up in the chiefly village of Vuna in Taveuni and is particularly fond of the Fijian language and culture. Subhash has written extensively on the link between the politics of the vanua, Indo-Fijian aspirations and the continued search for a functioning democracy in Fiji. This series attempts to be both informative and provocative keeping in mind the delicate, distractive and often destructive sensitivities involved in cross-cultural discourses of this type.]

Government by Greed - PART 5: 1987 - The Impossible Coup

Government by Greed - PART 5: 1987 - The Impossible Coup

Guest Writer-Subhash Appana

A political coup-de-tat has few civilian parallels in terms of rationale, planning, logistics, back-up support, follow-up and consequences. In Fiji, the unthinkable had happened at the April 1987 elections – the carefully camouflaged and internally inconsistent myth of democratic power in perpetuity was finally blown. First there was disbelief, then consternation, then confusion followed by complaining and anger. It is at this point that the coup-makers stepped in to provide guidance to a relatively small portion of the country that appeared to be reeling like a plane without a pilot.

The message that these saviours brought was not about democracy and the inevitability of changes in government, but on how the Fijian people were under threat from the greedy, dishonest and covetous designs of the “kai Idia” or the Indians. This was an old message that had potent political traction and it became the mantra that rallied the masses. Local reggae band Rootstrata, came up with a stirring number about Fijian self-determination, the Fijian way – ‘o cei o ira (who are they), they sang. There was thus no other way for Fiji at that juncture.

 

 Two former Prime Ministers of Fiji-Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara and Brigadier General Sitiveni Rabuka. The latter came to power through barrel of a gun after he was dubbed the Father of coup in Fiji. Many feel that the Eastern Chiefs and Ratu Mara were behind 1987 coup, and they used Rabuka as an instrument to wrest back power from Bavadras' democratic government.

Rabuka clearly stated this in his (now oft-questioned) book, “No Other Way”. Of course if the Fijian leaders, especially the traditional ones had spoken up and stemmed the tide, coup might have been avoided because the rationale for it would have been nipped – no disturbance, no need for coup! The problem was, this was very difficult and it did not leave (or create) room for a re-look at Fiji politics in order to change it and make it more appropriate to the changing times. Bavadra & Co were hardly likely to re-think a model that had just brought them to power.

There was a more significant development within those orchestrated disturbances that has so far been given scant notice by analysts of the 1987 coup and Fiji politics. The framework within which the disturbances were unleashed involved a cadre of fiery, reactionary, peripheral leaders, who had been agitating for public recognition, as front men. Behind this frontline was a group of shady “controllers” who, in turn, were following directives from a high command. The public only got to see the “faces” and has continued to speculate about the “non-faces”.

More importantly, at some stage the rebellion acquired a momentum and direction of its own. The front-men, who were supposed to follow directives and exit centre stage when required, suddenly had too much power, energy and ambition. Taniela Veitata, Manasa Lasaro, Jona Qio, etc. began to plan and make independent pronouncements. Those who were supposed to be under control were suddenly out of control. That’s where the 1987 coup went wrong, and that’s what Fiji is still reeling from today.

Coming back to the planning of that coup, the plotters needed backing from a number of quarters. Firstly, they needed a smattering of lower-level traditional leaders – there was no shortage of these. Then they needed leaders in an urban setting. And of necessity, this included peripheral unionists, churchmen and thugs. All those whose political (and therefore, economic) ambitions had somehow been kept in check by the Mara government suddenly sprang to centre stage.

This was the opportunity they had been waiting for and they made the most of it while chanting the potent mantra of “down with the kai Idia”. Defenders of the Fijian heritage suddenly sprang up all over the place as the fever took hold and rebellion gained momentum. Many supporters joined simply for want of nothing better to do, many were drawn by the power of the preachers and the occasion that was created. Many thought they were really defending the Fijian heritage. Many expected fallouts and were already fingering Indian houses that they’d move into.

That was the nature of the rebellion that preceded Rabuka’s coup.

A second, more important concern that troubled the plotters of that coup was what would happen afterwards. For an orderly transition from the brink of created chaos, they needed to fall back on Fiji’s main leaders who commanded traditional Fijian backing – they needed leaders who could control both the masses as well as the keepers of the law (police and military). This meant they had to have the support of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau and Ratu Sir George Cakobau. These three leaders stood at the pinnacle of the Fijian chiefly system ie. the traditional power structure at that point in time.

 

The original Coup-maker-Sitiveni Rabuka, who has now gone into oblivion, and the coup culture he opened up in 1987 still affects Fiji.

The Fijian traditional administrative system that was shaped and fossilized by Governor Arthur Gordon after cession in 1874 has the country divided into 14 provinces which are in turn grouped into 3 confederacies – Kubuna, Tovata and Burebasaga. Each of these confederacies is headed by a paramount chief. In 1987, Kubuna was headed by ex-Governor General Ratu Sir George Cakobau. Tovata was headed by the then GG Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau. And Burebasaga was headed by Lady Ro Lala Mara, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara’s wife.

Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara was thus not a paramount chief in his own right, but he was the husband of one. On top of that, he had been groomed for and headed the modern structure of government that was essentially juxtaposed on the traditional structure. Moreover, Ratu Mara had been earmarked to lead Fiji by Fiji’s most prominent colonial-era chief, Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna. In fact it was Ratu Sukuna who played cupid in helping hitch Mara with the young lass from Burebasaga who would later become the Roko Tui Dreketi, the paramount chief of Burebasaga.

Former Roko Tui Dreketi, Adi Lady Lala Mara with husband Ratu Sir Kamiseses Mara. It is said that it was Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna who was instrumental in helping Ratu Mara wed Adi Laldy Lala Mara.

The coup plotters of 1987 had to prepare to contend with the expected fallout after Rabuka executed his Treason at 10. Fiji would be rudderless and leaderless amid the vacuum that would be created by removing the Bavadra government. The trouble-makers were mainly urban Fijians who had been harnessed for the disturbances. They could be controlled by their newly-created leaders up to a certain extent only. The main source of stability had to come from traditional sources – the paramount chiefs.

And the 1987 coup did have either explicit or implicit support from this all-important source as without military and chiefly support a political coup-de-tat was not possible in Fiji at that point in time. 

Next, how could this be true? Keep tuned, coming in Part 6:

“…….. force and violence are necessary complements of any coup-de-tat. And in order to “build” the scenario to justify a coup, an orchestrated process is activated. The aim is to create a situation that allows a treasonous, yet quietly-supported, coup-maker to say “there was no other way”. This is exactly what happened in Fiji, and that is exactly what Rabuka said after he executed the Father of All Coups on 14^th May 1987. The common thread that bound all who supported that coup was the perceived need to protect the Fijian heritage and save the Fijian race from Indo-Fijians.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

Subhash Appana- the author of this series of articles on "Government by Greed"

[About the Author: Subhash Appana is an Indo-Fijian academic with Fijian family links. He was brought up in the chiefly village of Vuna in Taveuni and is particularly fond of the Fijian language and culture. Subhash has written extensively on the link between the politics of the vanua, Indo-Fijian aspirations and the continued search for a functioning democracy in Fiji. This series attempts to be both informative and provocative keeping in mind the delicate, distractive and often destructive sensitivities involved in cross-cultural discourses of this type.]