The essential prerequisite for Fiji’s success as a nation is to forge a consensus on the importance of respecting the underlying principle that we are a multi-cultural, multi-faith nation and the only possible way forward is to uphold that principle. All the upheavals of the past 50 years flow from this principle being challenged. They include all four coups that have scarred our national life since Independence – the two led by Sitiveni Rabuka in 1987, the George Speight-led rebellion in 2000 and Frank Bainimarama‘s takeover in 2006.
The attempt to assert the dominance of one ethnic group and one religion over others, or even a denomination of one religion, underpinned all of these upheavals. And in our second half century, Fiji’s greatest challenge is undoubtedly to consign all of this to the past and assert the principle of each ethnic group and the adherents of each religion working together as one nation.
However much this was asserted in law in the 2013 Constitution – with its declaration of equal rights, religious freedom and a common identity – that constitution was imposed on the people by the Bainimarama government. It doesn’t change what’s in their hearts and minds. And until they embrace these principles as an act of personal conviction and faith, all the fancy words on a page count for little. Indeed, the success of the entire “Bainimarama Revolution” hinges on whether hearts and minds can be convinced to follow. And that is the challenge of the next half century.
It’s an astonishing fact that before Independence in 1970, there may have been ethnic division in Fiji but I cannot recall the same level of religious division. The divisions between Christians and other religions emerged only in the lead-up to the first coup in 1987, when Sitiveni Rabuka and those around him – including Ratu Inoke Kubuabola and certain leaders of the Methodist Church – pursued not only an indigenous supremacist agenda but tried to establish a Christian state, essentially in the form of a Methodist theocracy.
I think a strong argument can be made that religious divisions in Fiji can be traced almost exclusively to the rise of fundamentalism in the various religious – whether it be Christian fundamentalism, Hindu fundamentalism or Muslim fundamentalism. And that this poses one of the greatest potential threats to the unity of the nation.
I grew up as a Methodist luveni talatala – the child of a minister – and cannot recall a single instance in my childhood of my late father, the Reverend Peter Davis, expressing the view that the Methodists, let alone Christians generally, had a monopoly on belief and deserved to be pre-eminent. The Methodists at that stage commanded the allegiance of around 80 per cent of the ITaukei. But just as my father was committed to the notion of a multiracial Fiji – including when he unsuccessfully stood as an independent for the Legislative Council in the elections of 1966 – he was equally committed to the principle of the right of every Fijian to practice their own faith. This respect for other faiths was, in my experience, accepted by all other religions and denominations at the time and expressed itself on the Independence Day weekend precisely 50 years ago.
One of the great events was the National Day of Thanksgiving the day after Independence Day, at which the Prince of Wales joined the Prime Minister, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, at a religious commemoration in Suva’s Albert Park. Representatives of all the major religions were present and each handed copies of their respective holy books to the Prime Minister. It was a powerful symbol of Fijians of all religious faiths dedicating themselves to the principle of one nation. And looking back, this service is certainly in stark contrast to later years after the fundamentalist surge, in which Christians refused to worship together at the same event with Hindus and Muslims.
There is a record of this Service of Thanksgiving in Part 4 of the Independence videos I posted yesterday, eight minutes into the clip when Prince Charles arrives in Albert Park for the service. Then the camera pans across the front row and at 8.34, there is my father, “PK Davis” who was by then President of the Methodist Church in Fiji (in glasses, wearing a “dog collar” and the single sash of his office).
Further on as the camera pan continues is the Reverend Setareki Tuilovoni, the first President of the Methodist Church in Fiji after it achieved its own independence from the Australian church in 1964. And two other “princes” of the Methodist Church who many older Fijians will remember – in the front row at the end, the Reverend Joeli Kalou, and behind him, someone who would lead the Methodists with great distinction in later years – the Reverend Paula Niukula. All surrounded by Hindus, Muslims and the heads of other Christian denominations in an act of collective worship and solidarity in dedication to a united Fiji.
This great ecumenical gathering is what should be routine at our national events – an example from 50 years ago of “Fiji, the way the world should be” and another instance in which we have since lost our way. May one of the blessings the God of Nations grants on our isles of Fiji – as our National Anthem puts it – be to rediscover the religious tolerance of our forebears symbolised by this great event precisely 50 years ago today.
You mention Rabuka, aided and abetted by Inoke Kubuabola and fundamendalist elements within the Methodist Church, as being responsible for the 1987 coup.
According to Rabuka (see link below) he was ‘coerced’ into committing treason. So all the fancy words about democracy and multi-culturalism etc mean nothing if national leaders (especially the i’taukei) are not willing to defend it.
https://junctionjournalism.com/2018/11/16/i-was-coerced-into-the-1987-coup-admits-sitiveni-rabuka/
Exactly, if only the iTaukei were more appreciative of multiculturalism and not caught up in their own egos and selfish tribalistic agendas at that time.
Money, power and ego and in Frank’s case, cowardice coupled with a Psychopathic personality propped up by Indigenous Soldiers hell bent on making a quick buck at everyone else’s expense. It’s the young people who have lived their lives missing out on opportunities thanks to a handful of players. Your
children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are paying for your selfish acts.
Blah blah blah! And this is coming from the same man who used his expertise in Media to promote Frank Bainimarama on his own youtube interviews, trolled and attacked and denigrated so many people within and without Fiji!! And up to date, I haven’t read anywhere of an apology from you Graham Davis. But on this particular topic, the bottom line is, the 4 coups since 1987 were done by men who abused their authority by tricking the majority of Soldiers while lining their own pockets. And Frank implemented the 3rd coup, then ran away leaving George to carry the can. These coups are about the same thing every time, greed, power, ego, narcissism, and money! The people who implement them are petty criminals, cowards and in Frank’s case, murderers. Aiyaz is a whole nother thing! The puppeteer and Franky the puppet. I am glad however Graham that you seem to have stopped promoting them, let’s hope you are for real.
Mark, since 2012, you have been trolling me at every opportunity for supporting the Bainimarama government as part of your own campaign of support, first for the SDL and then SODELPA. Some of what you said about me on Coup 4.5 was partisan and bigoted in the extreme.
You forget that it took Frank Bainimarama to genuinely level the playing field in Fiji by introducing the principle of equal votes of equal value, which was absent from any previous Fijian constitution. So I make no apology for supporting that agenda and resile from it not one iota.
You need to read what I have written in these columns to fully understand my position. I am calling for the reform of FijiFirst – including the removal of the AG – to strengthen its electoral position, not weaken it. SODELPA still hasn’t embraced a multi-ethnic, multi-religious agenda and until it does, it does not deserve to govern. And much as I like some of the individuals in the NFP, they haven’t got the traction needed to win the next election.
So I will not take any lessons from you about “trolling, attacks and denigration”. That has been your own stock in trade under any dispassionate evaluation and you continue this today with your “blah, blah,blah” jibe when I am reminding everyone of a day of religious commemoration 50 years ago and a set of principles which your preferred party betrayed.
So to use a biblical analogy, you can be the guy with the plank in your eye pointing out the speck in mine. But don’t complain when I call you out for it.
Unfortunately Graham you still don’t get it! Frank Bainimarama is a nobody, he has no authority, except in his own head. I keep trying to work out why you support a man who worked his way to Naval Commodore, Military Commander and Prime Minister. The man has no allegiance, not to his Soldiers, Country nor the Citizens of Fiji. The mind boggles that you are so intoxicated by him.
“You forget that it took Frank Bainimarama to genuinely level the playing field in Fiji by introducing the principle of equal votes of equal value…..”
Graham, respectively I disagree with you , the current system of voting while on paper looks like equal vote in fact it is not and as a very educated person I am disappointed that you still espouse this view, you should know better.
Read the excellent analysis by Warden Narsey on this subject few years ago.
Come inman, it’s not equal vote equal value and you know that
Rajiv, the make-up of the parliament is not decided on racial lines with a component weighted in favour of the iTaukei , as was the case before. That is demonstrable fact.
Agreed but you are arguing the fact that it is equal vote but you know it is not.
You are arguing that it is now non racial ,yes it is now non racial and I agree but that is not my argument when you say it’s equal one man one vote you you know it’s not what it looks like to be on paper
Again read the analysis by Warden Narsey on this subject
Again how can the voting system be fair when we have ministers in cabinet with 400 votes yet we have others who received 2,000 votes did not make it to parliament
What is truly “astonishing” is that Graham is only able to recall the religious division of the partition, which by 1970 was already 23 years old and India had moved well past it and towards becoming the largest (and needless to say vibrant) democracy in the world, a distinction that it arguably can still claim today. Perhaps I am alone in detecting another dog whistle (OED provides a definition for those unfamiliar with the concept). There is no need to invoke the bloody religious divisions between Catholics and Protestants in bygone centuries in Europe to make my point. No, other ready examples of that could be found even in Australia and within the very state of New South Wales. Well into the 80s, people in Australia would without prompting, readily and disarmingly confess to not having a Catholic in their family. New South Wales did not (and it was said, would not) have a non-Protestant Chief Justice until November 1988 when Sir Laurence Street retired. There were dark mutterings about which civil service jobs Catholics could not do or which law firms would not employ Catholics. Perhaps all of this was kept well-hidden from Australian journalists. Perhaps there was no bloodshed, nevermind the thwarting of the ordinary ambitions of many in a nation that claimed (and acted very much like a country with) a moral superiority over many others.
I can attest to being confronted on a regular basis by Christians during those times with advice that I would never make it into heaven because I had not accepted Jesus Christ as my saviour, no matter how well I lived my life, starkly reminding me (as if they were not other reasons in existence for thinking that) that I was an “other”. Despite my tender age, thanks to the robust Arya Samaj tradition of my family, I was not just able to parry with those God-botherers, but survived without any permanent damage to my self-worth (although I suspect that would be hotly debated amongst those who know me). So no need to invoke partition, I suggest, Graham.
Of course there is no shortage of people ready to speak in generalisations (seldom straying beyond religion and girmit) about the Indians in Fiji, including (it saddens me to say) some self-appointed leaders of the Indian community themselves. The latter category, dominated by academics of questionable distinction, seems to not be able to move beyond the girmit, ignoring the diversity within the Indian community and the significant achievements of Indians in Fiji since then, seemingly unaffected by the tales of horror and woe of girmit peddled by that lot. Do they really want an apology about the overreach of some lower-middle-class colonial wallahs in the canefarming belt? Even if all of that were true, why can’t some of these girmit types follow the example of these colonial wallahs (many of whom were descendants of convicts who had even less of a choice of the country they were taken to or for whom they could work – for free – whilst in the new country chosen for them by others) and embrace the many and storied achievements of the descendants since? Well to each his own I suppose, so long as they speak for themselves. But until everyone moves into the present, discussion about Indians in Fiji will forever be caught in the time-warp of the girmit and the Hindus/Muslim divide, providing the perfect dog whistle. In case people needed reminding, Hindus and Muslims are all Indians and in their daily business are unaffected by this religious difference.
Whilst on the topic of religion, perhaps not in the forefront of a number of commentators on Indians, Hinduism unlike the dominant Judaeo-Christian faiths found in Fiji, is not a monolithic construct. The man in saffron wields none of the authority of the fancily-garbed leader of the other faiths. Rather he (as he often is) invites other more lowly observations that does not require repeating on this forum. He does not speak for the vast sea of humanity that is Hinduism. Indeed, dare I say it, it is somewhat…. er… more democratic.
Avendra, you skip over the wars between India and Pakistan in 1947-49 (7000 dead on both sides) and 1965 (almost 9000 dead on both sides) as if they never happened.
The point I was making is that pre-1970, I cannot recall inter-religious animosity beyond the continuing scars of Partition, which manifested themselves again in all-out war between India and Pakistan five years before Fiji’s independence. To suggest that there was no fallout from this in Fiji is turning a blind eye to reality.
The point that I was also making is that the religious fundamentalism and proselytising that you complain of in relation to your experience was not a widespread feature of religious practice at the time of independence. That came largely towards and after 1987.
What happened in Australia in terms of Protestant-Roman Catholic rivalry and ill feeling is irrelevant in the Fijian context so I don’t quite understand why you raise it. Or perhaps it is a case of whistling in dogs that have nothing to do with the subject at hand to try to make a diversionary point.
The overall premise of this story wasn’t an in-depth examination of inter-religious relations in Fiji but to make the point that all the major religions in Fiji were able to come together at the time of Independence for a National Service of Thanksgiving in a way that certain members of the Methodist Church have refused to do in recent years. And that we should take an example from that.
The internal machinations of the individual churches and the relationship between Hindus and Muslims wasn’t the main event. You seem to be objecting to me mentioning the obvious divisions between Hindus and Muslims arising from Partition as if they weren’t a factor in Fiji. India and Pakistan fought two wars after Partition. So of course those allegiances manifested themselves in Fiji to a greater or lesser extent.
To suggest as you do that they had no impact and that me mentioning them in a throwaway line amounts to a dog whistle against Indians is something that I just don’t accept. If anything, it was a dog whistle against fundamentalist Methodists and their tub-thumping ilk.
Silly me. It was always about the fundamentalist Methodists, then?! Well this dog didn’t pick up on that whistle and is still not able to.
And it was only to illustrate that point that you felt compelled to refer to religious division amongst Indians stemming from Partition and now the Indo Pakistan wars? A more direct route was available to you, if that was what you were aiming to achieve, without dragging Indians into it.
No I didn’t skip over anything. I still cannot see how Indo-Pakistan wars can have any bearing on any analysis, as a main event (note), of race and religious relations in Fiji. If you had wanted to draw a very long bow to illustrate the main event, I’m baffled why you limited yourself in that way. Why, if all you were looking for was a factor, did you not also reach into the religious division amongst the citizens of Australia, many of whom were also knocking about in Fiji at the time. Are you seriously suggesting they didn’t bring it with them? Why also, for instance, you could not reach into the way in which the Methodist Church itself and many of its charismatic offshoots were segregated along ethnic lines and remained so for quite a while; and the unpleasantness between those ethnic groupings. The seeds for what we saw post-1987 in the Methodist Church were sowed well before 1987, I suggest.
My experience of what you called proselytising, and I might call religious intolerance, was from the 70s. I experienced it in the 80s and 90s as well, but not in Fiji.
I don’t doubt that you were not seeking any in-depth examination of inter-religious relations which is why I am baffled, nay astonished, that you felt compelled to apply this smear of Hindu/Muslims relations in the context of what occurred decades ago, in another continent, to highlight the sickness within the Methodist Church.
Whilst I might have a soft spot somewhere for kumbayah style of virtue signalling that may have occurred on Independence Day in 1970, I tend not to put too much stock in such displays as a basis for nation-building and internal peace and harmony.
Look where all that left Fiji. It is questionable what value there is in giving people the 50th medals. Who wants to sign-up to 50 years of that? If I were to see my name on that list, I would sue for defamation.
But, frankly, I doubt that modern day Fijians are too obsessed with my or your experience of the 70s to figure out what works best for them today in the context of a multi-cultural and multi-faith nation, if some of the comments on your blog is anything to go by. I am sure they can do without gratuitous commentary from Mesdames Defarges. I am content to leave it to them. They have to live it.
Normally this would have been exchanged over at least 3 bottles plus GST.
Anonymous, this is a very long and winding dissertation over one line in my piece. Can you please explain where the religious division in Fiji occurred before 1970 in any other context? As in open hostility between religious groups?
Because there’s a lot of stuff in your last posting about kubaya virtue signalling, 50th anniversary medals, French ladies and wine bottles that is clearly extraneous. And I really wonder what point you are trying to make.
Is is that there was no division between Hindus and Muslims in Fiji and I am making it all up as part of some kind of anti-Indian dog whistle? Or that there were other religious divisions that I am deliberately ignoring?
That your segue into hindu/muslim divisions (real, percieved or unduly exaggerated) was uneccesary for the illustration of the main event (your attack on Medthodists) so well hidden in your piece that it is the dog whislte of all dog whistles. Should we call that attack a damp squib? Anyway, all of this is quite tedious without having first ingested copious amounts of your (allegedly) avant-sodomy (mmmm!French and Greek! – those Europhiles would love this) cheap n nasty tipple (allegedly) of choice (allegedly) Pacific Passion (or some such) and copious amounts of swearing. And I am truly fed-up of negotiating the maths below.
Avendra, it was not my intention to cause offence but I am obviously whistling Dixie trying to persuade you that no offence was intended.
In deference to your strong feelings about dog whistling and the relative unimportance of the disputed part of the narrative in relation to the main point I was making, I have excised it.
Well said Graham. No religion has a monopoly on belief and deserves to be pre-eminent. All, including ancestral worshipping, are worthy of studying and reflection. Despite some early successes, ecumenism remains an ideal and a worthy pursuit. Your interesting family history and connections provides important background and perspective. The maths quiz keeps the mind active.
Yes, religious tolerance is very important in Fiji. Within a square kilometre of home there are mosques, temples and churches. People seem get on well and I often reflect how this is a great aspect of life in Fiji. One unfortunate development though is the rise of some very loud gatherings, disturbing the peace of others with their booming loudspeakers. The police are reluctant to intervene, and everyone else is forced to endure. My message to them is: tone it down, your maker can hear you… and so can we! But it’s fundamentally intolerant and there needs to be some reasonable limits.
Hi Graham,
‘Religious fundamentalism’ is a very confused subject. When you start to grapple with case studies in Islam and Hinduism, the terminology does not travel well outside of its Christian biblical roots, despite its continued and heavy use by the media as the dark, irrational underbelly of all contemporary religion.
A discourse about ‘fundamentalism’ (or in other words ‘bad religion’) also places a tremendous emphasis on the need for people to have the ‘correct [liberal]’ religious beliefs as the primary remedy for social conflict, which can itself undermine any inter-religious modus vivendi.
If you take religious freedom seriously, Pentecostals, SDAs – or sometimes the Methodist Church – should not have to apologise for not wanting to engage in inter-faith worship [which is quite a different activity to, say, cooperating across religious lines on social justice issues – which they often do]. Why should opting out of such services make them any less Fijian, any less tolerant, law-abiding, peace-loving, or civically responsible?
Indeed, what riled many Fijians about the so-called ‘secular state’ is that it was perceived more as the imposition of a new ideology of moral and spiritual relativism rather than continuing the legal status quo of inter-religious accommodation and common respect [this is why you won’t find the words ‘secular state’ in the Ghai draft, even though the draft included all its core principles].
I spent four years pouring through the 7,000 submissions to the Ghai commission, and despite the dominant racism framing of the ‘Christian state’ in the press, by 2012 at least, a great many of these submission were not premised on religious intolerance (though there were some occasional nasty entries), but on the expectation that ‘secularism’ would mean the denial of Christian difference. You saw this fear come out in its milder forms in SODELPA’s 2014 manifesto (they particularly didn’t like Bainimarama speaking of an ‘anonymous Supreme Being’ to Christian school children, and in its most hysterical forms in the Uluda Declaration of the Ra and Nadroga/Navosa Christian state secessionists). The way FF education ministers have appealed to ‘secularism’ to push their own schoolheads of different faiths on religious run schools is an example of the above. When the churches pushed back, you get the likes of Ashwin Raj cry ‘racism’, which is frankly ridiculous.
You may say ‘we are all Fijians’, and all religions are equal before the law – and rightly so – but taking religious freedom seriously also requires accepting that people’s sense of religious difference is meaningful and legitimate, even when they may make more ecumenically-minded liberals uncomfortable.
None of the above does not neglect the way that Fijian Christianity has been integral to the rallying cries of ethnonationalist politicians for coup-making and entrenching ethnic division. Though this is less a feature of ‘fundamentalist religion’ (whatever that is!) and more a quality of the distinct history of Christianity in Fiji: the ‘light out of cannibal darkness’ narrative of conversion, the chiefly-led nature of this conversion and the subsequent institutional alliance between chiefs and the lotu.
The role of all of this in the early coups is not about ‘religious fundamentalism’, but the long build-up of a colonially entrenched way of life that would not accept a cut hard in the opposite direction because of a shock election result and a constitution written in London.
Graham
Any news on the emergency meeting at USP today?
Cheers