GD writes: CommonMan’s explanation last week of the true concept of vulagi and the way a bastardised version has been weaponised for political purposes to divide the nation has attracted a great deal of impassioned debate, as evidenced from the comments on Grubsheet.
In essence, he described the original meaning of vulagi as being honoured guests of the original inhabitants of Fiji more than foreigners or visitors – a notion that upsets many non-iTaukei because it carries the connotation of them being outsiders and not genuinely belonging in their country of birth.
At the end of Part One of his two-part series on vulagi – CommonMan posed the following questions:
In the long run, with regard to the larger context of race relations in Fiji, when does a vulagi cease being a vulagi in the land of his or her birth and becomes a ‘kai Viti?’ Is being vulagi a permanent condition? What are the parameters and requirements to belonging and true nationhood?
So what are the answers? In Part Two this week, CommonMan suggests a startling course of action rooted in his experience in the vanua that will inevitably upset some non-iTaukei who regard belonging as a birthright but which he believes is the best way to break the impasse.
It is that the Prime Minister should formally ask the Great Council of Chiefs on behalf of all non-Taukei to bestow the title of kai viti on all vulagi and with it, full recognition of belonging. And if the request is made in the traditional manner, CommonMan believes it would be granted.
Wow. Certainly both food for thought and doubtless further controversy. But that is why CommonMan is here at Grubsheet’s invitation- to provoke national debate from a different perspective – the perspective of a village dweller and farmer giving voice to grassroots opinion in the vanua.
If CommonMan and presumably those around him are happy to make us all kai viti so long as traditional protocols are observed, that’s an important start. Let’s hope the Prime Minister and the chiefs agree. Because the alternative is further disunity and distrust. And one thing we can surely all agree on is that the national interest must come first.
Read on…
—————
Identity politics has been the fundamental defining characteristic of the Fijian political landscape since independence and the establishment of democracy. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as a political position based on particular elements of identity, such as race, ethnicity, culture, gender, etc. In Fiji, that identity was and continues to be largely racial, especially in terms of the two major racial groupings.
If anything, the first general elections of 1972 exposed just how deeply identity politics was embedded in the psyche of the nation. The composition of the two biggest political parties, the Alliance party under Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara was majority iTaukei-based, and the National Federation Party composed largely of Indo-Fijians.
Academics have rightly posited that this division was a direct consequence of the colonial administration’s partitional governance strategy. One where the two races were not just locationally divided, but were also subjected to two different and opposing governance policies. The indigenous were confined to their villages to maintain their traditional way of life and social structures. While the Indian girmitya worked the cane fields like ‘slaves’ under the camouflage of indentured labour.
In much the same way, their governance system differed; their paths to active national political participation, too, were particularly dissimilar. The girmitya Indians and their Indo-Fijian descendants had gotten the right to vote by the general elections of 1929, 9 years after the end of indenture; while the iTaukei were only enfranchised with women in the general elections of 1963, nearly 80 years after Cession.
The Indo-Fijians were able to get suffrage through several well-educated Indians sent and funded by the government of India through luminaries like the University of Bombay-educated barrister, Manilal Shah, who was sent by Mahatma Gandhi himself in 1912. Mr Shah set up a law office, started a monthly newspaper which exposed the abuses of Indenture, and founded the Indian Imperial Association to push for political reform. Such was the level of his activism that he was deported just 8 years later. His work, however, inspired locals like the Rewan, Pandit Durga Prasad and Navua-born, Vishnu Deo.
The iTaukei leaders, on the other hand, specifically the chiefs and their handpicked technocrats, were generally content with British rule. The colonial system of governance was one where only chiefs were appointed to the Legislative Council and other statutory entities. The leading iTaukei at that time, Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna himself, believed in the preservation of the chiefly system. Moreover, he re-established Queen Victoria School in Matavatucou for this intended purpose. It is perhaps not a coincidence that it was after he died in 1958 that the iTaukei were accorded the right to vote.
In perusing election reports pre-independence (1962, 1966, 1968) and post-independence (1972, 1977, 1982, 1987), it is interesting to note that they were all “characterised by the lack of rancour between racial groups”, that were typical of elections post-87.
However, the shock win in 1977 by the Indo-Fijian dominated National Federation Party had also stirred anxiety among iTaukei ethno-nationalists. So much so that by the 1982 and 1987 General Elections, two extreme nationalist parties – the Fijian Nationalist Party (FNP) led by Sakeasi Butadroka and the Western United Front (WUF) led by Apisai Tora and Ratu Osea Gavidi – were also in the mix. In my opinion, the emergence of FNP and WUF signalled growing ethnic fractures, and perhaps even discontent with the multi-ethnic approach of the Alliance party.
The coup of 1987 was a watershed moment in the larger context of racial relations in the country. And while the treasonous Lt. Col Sitiveni Rabuka tried his best at restitution via his Soqosoqo Vakavulewa ni Taukei party (SVT) – instituting the new 1997 Constitution, forming a Coalition with the National Federation Party, creating a Ministry of Indian & Multi-Ethnic Affairs, etc. – the ethno-nationalists who had supported his coup felt he had betrayed their cause. They abandoned him at the 1999 polls, and SVT lost. The Indo-Fijian-dominated Labour Party under Mahendra Chaudry won. And as if to further prove their point, military elements supported by those same ethno-nationalists led by one George Speight, staged Fiji’s 3rd coup.
In total, three coups in a little over a dozen years. On average, a coup every four years. All were contrived to protect iTaukei interests. All were inflicted and supported by iTaukei ethno-nationalists. All perpetrated against Indo-Fijian-dominated parties. All racially motivated.
Which is why the coup of 2006 was an anomaly. It went against the grain the previous coups had established. Like the other coups, it was perpetrated by another treasonous iTaukei, but unlike the others, it removed an iTaukei-dominated and supported government. And ran counter to the pro-iTaukei rights ideology that was the foundation of the first three. While not specifically stating that it was a pro-Indo-Fijian coup, the narrative was that it was a coup conducted to remove racism, amongst other connived justifications.
In my opinion, one of the main things the Bainimarama government evoked was that it forced the iTaukei to take a hard, honest look at themselves with respect to others. The three coups before 2006 were based on the traditionalist iTaukei ideological worldview that Fiji ought to be governed by the iTaukei because of their status as its indigenous people. This was the crux of the matter, hiding beneath the façade of protecting indigenous rights and interests. That the country belonged to the iTaukei and the iTaukei alone should lead. In other words, the iTaukei alone truly belonged to Fiji; others were ‘kaitani’ or foreigners.
The coup of 2006 forced us as a nation, especially the iTaukei, to look at the place of the non-iTaukei within the wider context of belonging and nationhood.
It is why the redefinition of the term ‘Fijian’ (and later ‘vulagi’) to connote a common national identity or citizenship caused such a sudden avalanche of iTaukei emotion, reaction and outrage. It found the majority of the iTaukei completely unready for such a conversation, so deeply ingrained was this nationalist worldview. Even to this day, the topic is still a powder keg. Before 2013, no politician in their right mind would have dared broach the topic, as it would have cost them political mileage and provoked the ire of irrational ethno-nationalists.
Around the campaign trail, prepping for the 2018 General Elections, Mr Rabuka recounted that he had once proposed to his cabinet in the 90s the use of the term Fijian to denote citizenship; the idea was vehemently shut down, and he did not dare bring up the issue again.
This year, the committee tasked with reviewing the iTaukei Lands and Fisheries Act 1905 presented their findings to the GCC. They held consultations in 33 venues across all 14 provinces engaging 182,000 people. One of its many recommendations was a return to the original meaning of the term Fijian. At the consultations for my province, which I attended, one of the consultants revealed to a packed audience that the Vunivalu Tui Kaba himself. Fiji’s foremost chief, had requested a return to ‘norm’ with regards to the usage of the term Fijian.
How do we achieve the virtue of belonging and nationhood when we have not even settled the matter of a common national identity?
In order to solve a problem, one must be able to define and clearly articulate what it is and why it exists. In my opinion, we have conflated two different and distinct matters and rolled them into one. One is the redefinition itself; two, how the redefinition was implemented.
I believe the iTaukei’s issue has more to do with the way in which the change was derived, rather than with the change itself. Especially in the context of how the Bainimarama government had forced change on them, no consultation, debate or dialogue. But forcefully coerced through lawfare, via a Constitution and Decrees imposed at gunpoint. One of the main features of the Bainimarama regime was that it forced change without informed consultation, much less consent or the offer of recourse. But at least it had opened a door that would have otherwise remained shut.
So how does one cease being a vulagi and become a kaiViti? The answer is shocking in its simplicity. You ask. Politely. Respectfully. In accordance with the customs and traditions of the iTaukei. Despite their flaws, at heart, the iTaukei are a compassionate, loving, giving, sharing people. They will share their name.
Who do you ask? Their Great Council of Chiefs. In iTaukei belief, the chief is the personification of all the virtues and principles of the vanua, of veivakaturagataki, of veivakaitaukeitaki, of veirokorokovi, veidokai, veilomani. If asked in the right way, with the right intention and the right attitude, no chief can refuse.
Who does the asking? The Prime Minister, if he has the vision, the humility, the courage and the political will.
I leave you with a poem I read on Facebook that tugged at my heartstrings. It was penned by Timoci Gaunavinaka.
They Came as Girmit — and Built a Nation
They came on false promises, seeking a better life abroad.
They were brought like slaves — through storms, shipwreck, hunger, and death.
They cleared the land and planted the cane,
and from their sweat, Fiji’s economy was born.
They were whipped and scourged in the sugar cane fields,
their cries lost in the wind, their pain turned into strength.
Yet they rose each dawn to toil again,
dreaming that their children would one day be free.
They built schools so their children could learn,
when doors were closed and hope was thin.
They started businesses when no one else believed,
and ran buses so others could travel and trade.
They turned pain into progress, hardship into strength.
They faced discrimination, yet chose education.
They faced rejection, yet built connection.
They carried dreams, hard work, and perseverance — and built a nation.
Then the coups came
they were beaten, tortured, and victimised.
Their loyalty questioned, their dignity denied.
Yet they stayed, rebuilt, and still called Fiji home.
No one else, in all countries across the world,
has helped Fiji like the descendants of Girmit.
They gave their labour, their skill, their hearts
to make this nation what it is today.
While we build bridges with other countries,
with embassies and high commissions abroad
can we look within, and appreciate what we already have?
Can we show gratitude, not fear
and find again the love of God we claim to live by?
Let us remember:
One nation. One people. One Fiji.
CommonMan
The idea of the PM obtaining the GCC approval for the use of the word ‘Fijian’ as a common identity for all Fiji citizens was a recommendation put to Cabinet by the National Security & Defence Review (NSDR) in October 2024 ( see para `158 of the NSDR Report titled ‘A Common Name for All’)
The NSDR recommendations reflected the views of the public that the NSDR team gathered through its public consultation process.
So Common Man is echoing the views of many on the ground.
I have a great deal of respect for CommonMan as he shares his insight from the educated villager perspective, and I sense he longs for a peaceful way forward for everyone to achieve unity, like many do. This is indeed a valid perspective, but its validity comes from looking at a situation within one country.
If we fly higher and take an eagle eye view across the world, all countries refer to their citizens as being of that country’s nationality. Australian, New Zealander, Italian, English, etc. Then within each country there are different sub-cultures (marked by cultural heritage, being first nations, of a particular religious group etc.) that make up the rich tapestry of that country. In democracies, all of these differences are celebrated culturally, but politically all of the people are considered equal in their citizenship and rights.
The iTaukei that resist the term Fijian being applied to all citizens seem to mix up citizenship with cultural heritage. They are two distinct concepts and drawing a boundary between them (like we do between familial ties and professionalism in politics and work life) is how we build democratic processes that promote respect and inclusion of all in that system.
So long as permission of one group is required for others to be considered equal in belonging, we are not aspiring towards a true democracy. Even if what CommonMan suggests were to happen, from then onwards, new citizens are having to keep seeking permission to belong, having already met all of the other requirements. If Fiji wants to be recognised as a true democracy, they have to separate Citizenship from Cultural Heritage, just as they have to separate Church and State.
To summarise, we need to work hard on developing true Democratic principals at the political level, and separately work even harder on preserving iTaukei (and other) culture in ways that future generations can still connect to.
True.
Why should the i’taukei resist the use of the English descriptor ‘Fijian ‘to describe the non i’taukei?
Is the label “i.taukei” to distinguish the indigenous population from ‘others’ insufficient?
Can the “Common Man” explain that?
There have been five coups in Fiji.
Military coups – 1987 (x2 under Rabuka) & 2006 under Franky = 3
Civilian coup – 2000 under George Speight + 1 + 3 c/f = 4
Palace Coup – May 2006 by Bainimarama, Rabuka, Savua, Ganilau et al to remove Ratu Mara + 1 = 4 c/f = 5
Let’s get the record straight.
Note: In all five coups, Rabuka featured prominently
6 actually. George Cakobau couped NFP in 1977. and then, the rot set in
Wish there were more Timoci Gaunavinakas and he was compulsory reading in all schools
What is there to fear?
The post by Viliame Gaunivaka is great – comes from a FFP man through and through.
Loads of likes on FB from vulagis.
The likes dried up from the taukei and there are rubbish comments from us aplenty.
No wonder the coconut republic is broken.
The idea of asking permission from a vulagi established GCC for all Fijians to be given a common name is simply ridiculous. The GCC is not a traditional body. It is the invention of the British colonialists to divide and rule. They are still a symbol of division and have no place in Fiji.
Indo Fijians do not need ‘permission’ to do anything in their own land. Those who think that way have flawed views. We do not need to get permission for exactly nothing. You want us to get permission from a bunch of useless wankers in the GCC who are responsible for coups and taking the country backwards and are racists and bigots? Abolish the GCC and abolish racism. Who missed the GCC when they were banned for 16 years. What have they done in the last 3 years except promote more racism?
Indo Fijians do not need permission for anything from anybody. Your assumption that Indo Fijians are outsiders, visitors, guests, Vulagi is flawed. Indo Fijians are no longer any of that. Indo Fijians are equal in every sense. So I say, get lost with your bullshit because your thinking is fundamentally flawed.
It is like those who voted for a dogshit, fully knowing that he was dogshit, but they voted for him hoping that he had changed into gold. How can dogshit ever turn into gold?? People are oblivious and lack basic judgement and assume rather than looking at reality.
The reality is Indo Fijians do not need permission to do anything, so get lost with your assumptions. And all those who are a fan of you were fans of dogshit as well not long ago. And here we are now. And if the common iTaukei think like you, they all can go get f**ked. Indo Fijians do not need permission for anything. F**k off. And may I add, f**k your tradition, f**k your culture, f**k your language, f**k you dialect. You are free to practice whatever bullshit you want. I don’t want to know about it and don’t ever tell me to get permission, f**k off.
Charming. Why race relations in Fiji have never been better.
Anti-iTaukei, anti-British, anti-social, anti-reason. “Everyone an idiot” except the biggest idiot of all.
Voting for an idiot and encouraging others to vote for an idiot from 40 years ago in the hope things will change. Now that is being a complete idiot.
Not saying anything when a well known pedo was made Speaker in the hope that that would ensure the previous mob was gotten rid of. That is being an idiot.
All the awards, the experience, the age counts for nothing.
It must feel bad that you and people like you are responsible for where Fiji is today. So who is the idiot?
Here’s a mirror. Take a look.
CommonMan advocates a course of action to try to break a deadlock and you tell him to f**k off. Result? Deadlock remains.
To most reasonable people, that is idiocy of the first order.
I too believe that everyone born in Fiji is a Fijian. But it does not get us anywhere if each encampment is stuck in its own immovable ideological position. The only way to bridge the gap and open dialogue is via request. The majority of the iTaukei too feel like it’s their birthright and theirs alone. I was at an NLFC Review and the clear majority held the same view as the Vunivalu. Which means we now have two sides that will not move from their positions.
But at least the proposition is out there, and its something everyone can talk about. I also feel that blogs like Grusheet are a great place to vent for a lot of people.
If anything, what everyone can expect for me is honesty and sincerity. I am not that well educated to be able to offer sophisticated discourse on the nuances of an issue. But I can feel the pulse and heartbeat of the common man and am in sync with what he believes and feels.
Don’t ask Indo Fijians to get permission for anything please. we do not need to get permission from any f**kwit or any group made up of f**kwits. Simple.
We are not second class, we are not servants, we are not coolies, we are not foreigners or vulagi. We are equals. We do not need to get permission for anything. You and people who think like you, you have all the problems. So go and fix your problems, acha?
And Indo-Fijians don’t have any problems? Sectarianism, the highest suicide rates, a business elite that uses corruption to curry favour with whoever is in power, cultural exclusivity, snobbishness in their own ranks, a chronic inability to integrate, a chronic blame game against the iTaukei and the British.
Some Hindus and Muslims hate each other more than any iTaukei and you know it.
In any event, all this finger pointing is getting us nowhere. No-one has a monopoly on righteousness. And someone like CommonMan who tries to come up with a possible solution based on his knowledge of grassroots opinion doesn’t deserve to be vilified in such intemperate terms.
He is trying to bring people together and at least deserves a fair hearing.
Irrespective of the etymology of the term vulagi, we need to concentrate on the current context in which the word is used today.
Today the term is used to alienate a group of people from others. Whether they be descendants of Girmitiyas, Solomon Islander slaves, Rotumans or “qalo mai” from another part of Fiji.
When the term is frequently used by our leaders to refer to non I taukeis, it creates further division when they should be promoting inclusiveness. It is cementing this racial politics that we need to get away from.
If this trend continues, we are going down the slope of the Nazi racial ideology of the master race and everyone else is inferior.
One just needs to look at comments on social media to see how racist we have become. And we have become so polarised. Even Itaukeis supporting Ketan Lals latest comments on facebook in relation to the PAP AGM were abused and called kaidia or FF supporters. And the Indo Fijian are called boci, theatened with violence and told to go back to India.
This is how toxic we have become in a very short time period.
This is a direct result of the poor leadership we have today and their policy of only promoting iTaukei interests at the expense of others.
We dont need a lesson in etymology of the term vulagi.
We need good leadership that doesnt discriminate, ensures cohesion and nation building.
And when you don’t have it, what then?