Fiji miscellany

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have spent a fair amount of time over the past week or so trying to
unearth Marxist or radical scholarship on Fiji. Among the handful of
contributions that fall in this category, there are even fewer that I
consider truly sympathetic to the Fijian point of view. Most accounts,
especially the articles contained in Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars,
tend to view all expressions of Fijian nationalism as if they were
confronting Caliban.

PROSPERO:
Abhorred slave,
Which any print of goodness wilt not take,
Being capable of all ill! I pitied thee,
Took pains to make thee speak, taught thee each hour
One thing or other: when thou didst not, savage,
Know thine own meaning, but wouldst gabble like
A thing most brutish, I endow'd thy purposes
With words that made them known.

In order to legitimize this position, it becomes necessary to soften the
impact of British colonialism. By making the role of the British less cruel
than it was in, for example, China or India, the militancy of the Fiji
people seems more unreasonable by comparison.

If you look at the 1988 article in the Bulletin by Stephanie Hagan titled
"Race, Politics, and the Coup in Fiji", you will discover that Sir Arthur
Gordon had different motives than other colonial administrators. She quotes
Gordon as coming to the islands with the idea that he had "a divine mission
to make the islands an exception to the dismal history of colonialism." His
interpretation of the Deed of Cession, which established the Crown
ownership of the island and all who lived on it, led to "the paramountcy of
Fijian interests." In an act of generosity and postcolonial wisdom, Gordon
reserved most of the land for the Fijians. This, more or less, is the
standard left-wing interpretation of British relationship to the indigenous
population.

Turning to Deryck Scarr's "Fiji: A Short History," we learn about some of
the more pecuniary considerations underpinning Gordon's colonial
administration. Basically, the 'natives' were seen as a supplier of food to
the rest of the population and of export goods like copra. In order to
expedite their role as agricultural petty producers, the British kept the
traditional villages intact. With these structures in place, the chiefs
began to function as middlemen. Not only were the small peasants producers
for the town, they also paid taxes to keep the colonial administration
going. Although some tax revenue was allocated for native benefits like
churches (which would assure their happiness in heaven), most went into
general revenue, about 100,000 pounds a year by 1900.

Despite their insertion into commodity production, the Fijians were never
completely integrated as a true bourgeoisie. Traditional relationships,
based on the feudal chieftans, undermined the ability to extract profit. A
chieftan sought only to extract enough value off the top to maintain a
life-style. The notion of revolutionizing the means of production was the
last thing in his mind. As Scarr puts it:

"The level of production was the basic issue. As with most peasant
cultures, the Fijian household functioned below capacity, its labour
intensity varying inversely with labour capacity; the chiefly function,
often validating the decisions of household heads, was to galvanise
additional production for surplus. The colonial government had come in at
the chiefly level; the Governor was formally installed as supreme chief,
was accorded the 'tama' and received first fruits. Although the colonial
regime had the option of endorsing the mere household subsistence level
with its ready corollary, plantation labour for cash needs, to oblige the
white community, it made a value judgement in favour of the more
politically dangerous alternative. Native Regulation No. 5 of 1877, for
instance, was always being attacked as extremely paternalistic; it
prescribed the exact minimum each head of household must plant for his
dependants? subsistence; it was intended to provide a surplus, and was an
idea borrowed from Tonga."

The other question worth considering is the degree to which the modern
Labour movement in Fiji is an outgrowth of Gandhism. Reading Scarr leaves
one with the impression that Gandhi had much more of an impact on Indian
radicalism on the island than Marx or the Soviet Union.

What Gandhi offered his brethren was an uncompromising struggle against
second class citizenship. The fight was basically between the British and
the Indian, whose sense of 'Izzat' (honour) was being violated on a daily
basis. To redeem his humanity and to have full rights as a citizen was the
main goal, not to transform property relations or unite Indian and
non-Indian in a fight for socialism.

In a speech to the Legislative Council on September 1, 1929 Indian leader
Vishnu Deo said, "We ask for that equality and brotherhood and loving
cooperation which is meet that the sons of men should extend to each other
all over the globe wherever they are thrown together." That phrase "thrown
together" was a poignant reminder of how most Indians in Fiji must have
viewed their situation.

It's useful to consider Fiji in relationship to South Africa, where Gandhi
led a struggle for equal rights. The legacy of the fight to defend equal
rights for Indians in that country has also found itself in a complex and
difficult relationship to another indigenous people:

The Houston Chronicle, June 16, 1995, Friday, 2 STAR Edition

DURBAN, South Africa -- Each time Ali Syed strolls around his
neighborhood, it's like walking down memory lane. Bitter memories,  that is.

The South African of Indian descent cannot forget Nov.1,  1993. On that
day, he helplessly watched as hundreds of blacks from  a nearby,
overcrowded township marched into Cato Manor, his  neighborhood, chalked
their names on doors and occupied empty homes  allocated to Indians.

The new "tenants'' said it was a protest against racial  engineering that
favored Indians over blacks. The Indian community  here angrily demanded
their eviction.

But it was election time. No one wanted to fan tensions --  and risk losing
black votes. The one organization that could have  gotten the squatters
out, the African National Congress, denounced  the occupation but did not
press the issue.

This made Syed and other Indians question their longstanding  allegiance to
the ANC and even their future in the new South Africa.

"I don't know what the future holds for me in this country,''  Syed said.

A poll commissioned by the Institute for Multiparty Democracy  here found
that 71 percent of the nation's 1 million Indians voted  for F.W. de
Klerk's National Party in last year's elections.

The margin confounded many ANC supporters who felt certain  that the Indian
community's own suffering under white rule would  galvanize support for the
ANC.

"During the campaign for the elections, the National Party  used blatantly
racist propaganda,'' President Nelson Mandela said  during a trip to India
this year. "They convinced the Indians that  they would lose whatever they
had once blacks came to power.''

Today, many South African Indians say they worry about  getting shoved to
the end of the affirmative-action line, losing  jobs and university seats
to black candidates. Some view the  absence of any Indian languages among
South Africa's official list  of 11 as a sign of the community's increasing
marginality.

Others fear becoming victims of racial violence and losing  their homes.
Some Indian business people have even postponed new  projects and are
searching overseas for investment opportunities. . .


Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/