ETHNIC RELATIONS IN FIJI:
PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE AND THE RECENT SHIFT
IN THE ETHNIC BALANCE
by Stephanie Sienkiewicz

Conclusion

Conclusion
Works Cited

The Fijian and Indian communities in Fiji have remained socially separated for over a century. Most citizens of Fiji are not well informed of the opposing ethnic group's cultural practices. In addition, members of each community express hostile views about the other group. Despite the ill will between ethnic groups, however, Fiji has lacked the ethnic violence which is common throughout much of the world where two cultural communities live in close proximity to one another. I have suggested that this peaceful coexistence is the result of a balance which the ethnic groups in Fiji have achieved. Fijians and Indians have been able to keep separate because they have different national occupations.

British colonialism, in effect, created Fiji's ethnic balance. The ethnic separation did not occur arbitrarily. British colonialists initiated the model of ethnic separation, called a plural society, also referred to as communalism. The first governor of Fiji under British rule wanted to preserve Fijian "traditionalism." He felt that Fijian culture would become extinct if Fijians were allowed very much contact with Westerners and Indians. The British, therefore, set up regulations to ensure Fijians would stay in their villages and have minimal contact with Europeans or Indians. Also, the British brought Indians to Fiji as indentured servants. They thought of the Indian community as that which could provide labor for the colony. These British notions of the Fijian and Indian communities slotted them into "niches." Britain claimed for itself the administrative "niche," the Fijians belonged in the "cultural" "niche," and Indians were in the labor "niche." As a result of colonialism, citizens of Fiji came to view their country as composed of separate groups with different roles and which dealt with each other as groups rather than as collections of autonomous individuals.

The British system succeeded since Fijian ethnic identity transformed with the colonialist encounter. Pacific scholars have explored the formation of ethnic identity in the Pacific, and especially, the formation of identity during the colonial encounter. Since culture and identity are continually constructed and reinvented in any society, colonialism can make a great impact upon societies. Firstly, prior to Western contact, the group of people who now consider themselves Fijians did not think of themselves as part of one united group. These people were drawn into a political boundary by British colonialists. As a result, they began to concentrate on cultural practices and icons which became symbolic of "Fijian culture" in opposition to the West. Also, as scholars have pointed out, colonial subjects unconsciously form their identity in correlation with the views of the dominant power. In Fiji, Fijians have come to view themselves as highly "cultural" people and Indians view themselves as hard-working and efficient laborers. These groups have clearly adopted colonialist assumptions of themselves.

The stereotypes which remain from colonial times are very often untrue to reality however. And, where a stereotype has been used to explain a certain situation, there is usually an alternative explanation. For example, there are many successful Fijian cane farmers in Fiji, contrary to the stereotype that Fijians are too lazy to work. An alternative to this viewpoint is that because most of the land has been leased out to Indian tenants for so long, Fijians have been unable to dominate the farming industry and Indians have, therefore, done so. Also, through interviews with Indians, I have concluded that they are not unconcerned with community or rules of respect as accords their stereotype. The ethnic groups have not, however, just adopted these viewpoints because the colonial belief system was so firmly entrenched in government officials and intellectuals that people were incapable of seeing things in other ways. The conceptions, although untrue, have been accepted because they lead Fijians and Indians to a positive sense of self.

The ethnic stereotypes, about one's own ethnic group and about the opposing ethnic group were acceptable because they worked well in a particular situation — which is that Fijian land had been leased out to Indian tenants for almost an entire century. Indians have had more opportunities to economically prosper in the country. With their leases on land they could farm and make more money than the Fijian land owners who receive the lease payments. The colonial government also restricted Fijians in many ways, mandating a quota of traditionally grown crops, requiring Fijians to receive permission to leave their villages, and so on. Fijians adopted the colonialist notion of themselves in this situation; they could think of themselves as people too enmeshed in their culture, its restrictions, and the human relationships it fostered, to care about money. Indians, in contrast, could feel good about themselves for their economic achievements and could accept a national celebration of Fijian culture, thinking themselves more civilized for not having such backward customs. The colonialist-induced stereotypes were accepted by Fijians and Indians, therefore, not because they were so strictly applied by the British, but because they provided the two groups with positive self-images.

These stereotypes, implemented by the British, enforced the model of ethnic separation. Again, this is a colonialist idea that was enforced on the citizens of Fiji, but they have not accepted it just because it was so stringently executed. This model was accepted by Fijians and Indians because the idea of communalism also has roots in both Fijian and Indian culture. Fijians always view interaction between two people as interaction between members of two larger communities. Likewise, Indian culture immerses an individual in social ties such that the individual is always a point within the larger Indian community. Since both Fijians and Indians considered it acceptable for distinct ethnic groups to remain separate and to perform different functions in the greater society, the British model of a plural society was well received in Fiji.

The situation in which the stereotypes and communalist ideas worked so well is changing however. Many of the land leases between Fijian landowners and Indian tenants are currently expiring. Fijians have had to decide if they want to continue leasing out their land or if they want to reclaim their land to farm themselves. Fijians have been expressing the desire to keep their land such that they may economically prosper as much as the Indians on their land have. This admittance to a wish for material wealth contradicts the well-known stereotype that Fijians are not concerned with money. The land lease issue, therefore, has the potential to disturb well-kept stereotypes. This, in turn, could possibly throw off the balance which has been achieved by ethnic separation in Fiji.

Interviews with both Fijians and Indians indicated that citizens of Fiji have begun to envision a multicultural rather than communal nation. Intermarriages are increasing, the younger generations have declared their desire that Fiji's ethnic divide be demolished, and an Indian Prime Minister was elected in 1999. Self-images are changing and the notion of a plural society is breaking down in Fiji, because both communities have an interest in new land and political occurrences. Fijians desire their "cultural" role less now that they have a chance at economic prosperity. Indians accept Fiji as a multicultural nation because they do not want an Indian Prime Minister to represent Indian political dominance in the country.

In Fiji, ethnic hostility and ethnic harmony have peacefully coexisted for longer than a century. The stereotypes about Fijians and Indians and the notion of a plural society have provided a curious balance of the two groups within the nation. The recent disruption of the circumstances which allowed the balance to exist may put ethnic relations in danger. They may ignite in conflict. But, ethnic hostility might also dissipate in a new era of Fijian multiculturalism. Fiji will likely become a nation wherein individuals of varying ethnicity will interact without regard to ethnic orientation. Feasibly, individuals will choose professions and companions with no consideration to ethnicity or ethnic roles. Fiji is becoming a nation of shared rather than disdained cultures.

Works Cited

Ali, A. (1976). Society in transition: aspects of Fiji-Indian history, 1879 — 1939. Suva: University of the South Pacific.

Bole, T. (1987, July 31). The Fijian case. Fiji Times.

Fijian senator warns of Indian domination of politics, economy. [radio program] (1999, July 15). British Broadcasting Corporation.

Fiji: government survey shows most land leases likely to be renewed. [radio program] (1999, August 2). British Broadcasting Corporation.

Furnivall, J. S. (1956). Colonial policy and practice: a comparative study of Burma and Netherlands India. New York: New York University Press.

Becker, A. E. (1995). Body, self, and society: the view from Fiji. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Fiji's 1st Indian Fijian Prime Minister sworn in. (1999, May 19). Bernama, The Malaysian National News Agency

Cheng, C. H. (1999, May 14). Fiji election enshrines multi-racialism. The Straits Times, Singapore, pp. 50.

Cheng, C. H. (1999, June 11). Fiji's new PM faces prickly issues. The Straits Times, Singapore, pp.58.

Derrick, R. A. (1950). A history of Fiji, revised edition. Suva: Government Printer.

Fiji Sun, pp. 4. (1986, September 20).

Hansard, pp. 1203-1204. (1975, October 9).

Keesing, R.M. (1989). Creating the past: culture and identity in the contemporary Pacific. The Contemporary Pacific, Vol.1, Nos.2 & 3, pp. 19-39.

Lal, B. V. (1992). Broken Waves: A history of the Fiji Islands in the Twentieth Century. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Lawson, S. (1996). Tradition versus democracy in the South Pacific: Fiji, Tonga and Western Samoa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Linnekin, J. (1992). On the theory and politics of cultural construction in the Pacific. Oceania, 62.

Linnekin, J. & Poyer, L. (1990). Cultural identity and ethnicity in the Pacific. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Meleisea, M. (1987). Ideology in Pacific Studies: a personal view. Class and Culture in the South Pacific, pp. 140-152. Suva: University of the South Pacific.

Morrell, W. P. (1960). Britain in the Pacific Islands. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Nakarobi, B. (1983). The Melanesian way. Boroko: University of Papua New Guinea.

Nandan, S. (1999, May 26). Another momentous May in Fiji; Satendra Nandan finds great inspiration in the small Pacific nation's recent election. The Canberra Times, Part A; pp.9. The Federal Capital Press of Australia.

Nayacakalou, R.R. (1978). Tradition and change in the Fijian village. Suva: South Pacific Social Sciences Association.

Fiji: two high chiefs not to renew agricultural leases for 1,000 tenants. [radio program] (1999, June 10). Wellington: Radio New Zealand International.

Ravuvu, A. (1987). Contradictory ideologies and development. Class and Culture in the South Pacific, pp. 230-241. Suva: University of the South Pacific.

Ravuvu, A. (1983). Vaka i taukei: the Fijian way of life. Suva: University of the South Pacific.

Reid, R. K. (1999, May 19). Fiji swears in as first Prime Minister from Indian minority. The Associated Press.

Rika, N. (1975). Is kinship costly? The Pacific Way: Social Issues in National Development, pp. 27-31. Suva: South Pacific Social Science Association.

Robertson, R. T. (1998). Multiculturalism & reconciliation in an indulgent republic: Fiji after the coups: 1987 — 1998. Suva: Fiji Institute of Applied Studies.

Sahlins, M. (1962). Moala: culture and nature on a Fijian island. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Stanley, D. (1999). Fiji handbook. Chico, CA: Moon Publications.

Fiji Faces Tough Test. (1999, May 22). The Straits Times, pp. 72. Singapore: The Straits Times Press.

Thomas, N. (1992a). The inversion of tradition. American Ethnologist, 19, pp. 213-232.

Thomas, N. (1992b). Substantivization and anthropological discourse: the transformation of practices into institutions in neotraditional Pacific societies. History and Tradition in Melanesian Anthropology, pp. 64-85. Berkeley: University of California Press.

White, C. (1991). The chiefs of the 'Fijian Way': the traditional elite and nationalism in Fiji. Research Proposal for the Department of Anthropology. St. Louis: Washington University.