The Annual General Meeting of the Then India Sanmarga Ikya Sangam (TISI Sangam) scheduled for 10am today at the Sangam Sadhu Kuppuswamy Memorial College in Nadi was cancelled late Saturday afternoon after police issued an Order NOT to hold the AGM following serious threats at the Then India Valibar Sangam (TIV) meeting yesterday.

Despite the cancellation of the meeting by the official TISI National Board, a very few limited disgruntled members of Sangam who incited tension and hooliganism through threats of harm at the TIV meeting called their supporters for a unsanctioned meeting around 11.30 am at the Nadi Special Education School today.

We make it abundantly clear these disgruntled members led by the Past President Dorsami Naidu, (who lost the election in year 2011), Area Vice President North Western (TISI) Parveen Kumar Bala,  and Area Vice President Southern (TISI) Raja Kumaran, have no locus standi or legal basis and status to call their meeting an Annual General Meeting of TISI Sangam.

These individuals through their servants and agents and support[er]s attempted to break into the Nadi Sangam College through bolt cutters & grinder and attempted to break in only to be foiled by the police.

Hooliganism and abuse of the rule of law has no place in a civilized society. And TISI Sangam, which has always strictly adhered to the rule of law, is no exception.

If they can condone illegality, hooliganism and abuse of the rule of law, then how can they be trusted to run Sangam? 
 
Today’s so-called unsanctioned meeting is in defiance of Sangam’s constitution and has no legal basis. It is being conducted without the presence of the current official office bearers who preside over such a meeting. Its attendance is also questionable as the membership status of those in the meeting cannot be determined by the Sangam’s Head Office and the Returning Officer.

We wish to advice our members that all current office bearers continue in office. A National Council of Management meeting will be called on later date for a redress of what has transpired.  

Any election of office bearers by today’s bogus purported AGM/Meeting is unlawful illegal and boarders [borders] on criminality.
 
Sadasivan Naicker
National President TISI Sangam Fiji

Fijileaks: We apologise for the delay in publishing the above press release

It was nothing sinister, just sorting of relief items - Seruiratu
 
Minister for National Disaster Management Inia SeruiratuMinister for National Disaster Management Inia Seruiratu has today confirmed that they have verified information from video footage posted on social media and carried out an investigation on whether some personnel are tampering with Cyclone Winston relief items sent from abroad.

Seruiratu says the video posted on Facebook was taken at the old Government Supplies site in Lautoka where the sorting out of relief items is taking place.

The video posted on Facebook shows a private truck loaded with boxes and a SUV parked next to the truck.
Some officials are seen opening the boxes, and then taking out clothes.

A person in civilian clothes is also seen trying out some clothes from the boxes while another person is seen taking some items to the front. 

Seruiratu says he contacted the divisional commissioners and the Commissioner Western has confirmed the video was taken at the Lautoka site.

He says the Commissioner Western has carried out an investigation and confirmed that the sorting out process was done openly and some of the officials were wearing some of the clothes as a joke.

Seruiratu says he has been told by the Commissioner Western that none of the items were stolen by the officers.

When questioned by Fijivillage, Seruiratu confirms that they have a repackaging process if it is necessary.

This is being done at Walu Bay and other official delivery centres.

Seruiratu says repacking of items takes place when the cartons are damaged.

It is also done if they cannot ascertain what is in the sealed boxes.

Police spokesperson Ana Naisoro says no official complaint has been lodged and since it is a post on social media that would need to be verified.

Naisoro says those who know something that could assist police are requested to call the nearest police station.

FICAC also says that they are looking into the matter. Source: Fijivillage News

ANZ charged under Financial Transactions Reporting Act 2004

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Christopher Pryde, has approved charges against a financial institution under the Financial Transactions Reporting Act 2004.

The Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) is charged with two counts of failure to verify customer identities contrary to section 4(1) and 39 of the Financial Transactions Reporting Act 2004.

It is alleged that the ANZ failed to verify and properly identify two customers of the bank and established two bank accounts without proper verification of the customer’s identities.

The matter will be called on 7 July 2016 for First Call at the Suva Magistrates’ Court.

Agreement formalises registration system
Fiji Times
Saturday, July 04, 2015

GOVERNMENT has signed an agreement with ANZ Bank Fiji to streamline processes that will make business registration easy. Attorney-General and Minister for Finance Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said this was all part of improving the ease of doing business. The bank forged a relationship with Government in Suva yesterday after its application was approved through a tender process.

"We need to capitalise on the huge amount of interest in Fiji. If we don't capitalise on it now we can actually miss the boat and this is very critical for everyone within the different sectors including banks, employees and employer organisations and so on to take advantage of this opportunity and Government is very keen to do this," Mr Sayed-Khaiyum said at the Grand Pacific Hotel.

He said Government was looking forward to further its relationships with the bank. Government is also perusing through Investment Fiji's application with a view to launching it next week. He said this was a one-window application for foreign investors that will allow for approval by the Companies Office, Reserve Bank of Fiji, Investment Fiji, Immigration and Fiji Revenue and Customs Authority.

"Through that one-window application you will have all those approval in place. You can make your payment online, whichever country you're sitting in," he said. Government is also working on software that will be able to make the Registrar of Titles Office processes come online by the end of the third quarter of this year. ANZ Fiji CEO Vishnu Mohan said the signing would make applications and processes simple.

Prosecution witness says rape victim was not of good character

The third witness in the rape trial of Nitendra Bilash said in court that the rape victim was not a person of good character as she used to wear short skirts and tight jeans.

Arun Lata is a tenant at Bilash’s house in Nabua.

During the cross examination, Lata told the court that it does not look good when the girl wears short skirts and tight jeans.

She was then asked again if she was making up stories to cover for Bilash.

Lata told the court that she is not making up any stories for Bilash as she pays rent and her landlord is not keeping her there for free.

It is alleged that Bilash raped a 16-year-old girl at his residence in Nabua on 22nd July, 2013. Source: Fijivillage News, 26 May 2016

FWCC welcomes PM's statement on violence against women 

The Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre has welcomed the statement on violence against women by Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama in Turkey.

Coordinator Shamima Ali said the Prime Minister must be congratulated for the speech which recognises that there is no excuse for violence against women.

Ali said they welcome Bainimarama’s statement on this global platform because it sends a strong message that violence against women will not be condoned.

She said violence against women and children in recent years has prompted national soul-searching and it is vital that our leaders speak out against the problem and also debunk the myths surrounding the dynamics of gender-based violence.

Ali said Bainimarama’s comments come at a time when two national leaders in the Speaker of Parliament Dr Jiko Luveni and a senior official of the Methodist Church Reverend Iliesa Naivalu, have made statements that effectively put the blame on women for provoking their partners’ violence and for arousing men to rape because of how they dress and questioning whether women can go and drink alcohol with men in the bushes.

She said these archaic ideas surrounding violence against women have been shown to be false by global research, including the Crisis Centre’s own major study titled ‘Somebody’s Life, Everybody’s Business”, which puts the spotlight on how prevalent, varied and widespread violence against women is across Fiji. Source: Fijivillage News

No justification for a man to inflict violence on a woman

There is no justification, no excuse, for any man to inflict violence on a woman or abuse her in any way. Those who do so are cowards and criminals. Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama has made this clear at the World Humanitarian Summit roundtable discussion on women and girls in Istanbul, Turkey.

Bainimarama says he wants to make it perfectly clear what his own attitude is and that of the government he leads, as debate continues at home about whether women are in any way to blame for this, by provoking their men into acts of violence or inviting rape by wearing provocative clothing. Bainimarama stresses that he simply does not accept the argument that the onus is on a woman not to provoke her partner’s temper, and that if she does so, that somehow justifies or excuses the treatment that is meted out to her.

The Prime Minister says it is a way of thinking that provides men with an excuse to justify the unjustifiable and women to accept the unacceptable. He says it is a way of thinking that perpetuates a cycle of violence and must be eradicated with the full force of the law. Bainimarama says there should be zero tolerance for those who abuse women and girls.

He went on to say that real men don’t mistreat women. The Prime Minister says they should treat them with the respect they deserve as our wives, partners, mothers, sisters and daughters are the bedrock of our families and of our nation. Bainimarama says the Fijian government has made it a priority to improve the position of women and girls in Fiji and finally put an end to a long history in which women have been treated very poorly. He says he is sad to report that we all still have a terrible problem with male attitudes to women.

Bainimarama says we have an unacceptable level of rape and child abuse in the country. He says far too many men regard women as subservient and as possessions for their sexual gratification. The Prime Minister says far too many men routinely resort to violence in a domestic setting. He says the government has established unprecedented equality for all Fijians in our Constitution, including the right to be free from any form of violence. Bainimarama says they are empowering women by improving their access to education through free schooling, scholarships and tertiary loans.He adds that the government is empowering women by encouraging them to start their own businesses with the small and micro business grants. Source: Fijivillage News

FROM THE ARCHIVES

STANDING UP FOR 'IMMIGRANT RIGHTS'

In search of ancestral heritage in Fiji - Who is an 'Indigenous' Fijian?


By VICTOR LAL
Fiji's Daily Post, 2000; during George Speight's failed coup:

The present crisis [George Speight putsch] in Fiji has once again raised the ugly spectre of a civil war in Fiji between native Fijians and Indo-Fijians. It is, therefore legitimate to ask: who is an indigenous Fijian? How many centuries will it take for the so-called 'immigrant' races in Fiji (the Indo-Fijians, Chinese, and Europeans) to become natives?

Fiji -Three-Legged Stool

The great Fijian leader Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna described Fiji as a Three-Legged Stool comprising Fijians, Europeans and Indo-Fijians (not to forget the Chinese and Rotumans). According to official Fiji government publication (Fiji Today, 1998), the Fijians are descendants of the great chief Lutunasobasoba, who led his people across the seas to the new land of Fiji. They landed in a great canoe, the Kaunitoni, on the west coast of Viti Levu, at a place which is now called Vuda, and they travelled inland in search of lands to settle until they reached the mountains of Nakauvadra. There they built a house for the old chief, who died shortly afterwards entreating his children from his dying couch to go forth and populate the land. This they did and many of the tribes of Fiji today trace their descent from the children of Lutunasobasoba. Most authorities agree that people came into the Pacific from Southeast Asia via Indonesia. Here the Melanesians and the Polynesians mixed to create a highly developed society long before the arrival of the Europeans.

The European discoveries of the Fiji group were accidental. The first Europeans to land and live among the Fijians were shipwrecked sailors and runaway convicts from the Australian penal settlements. Sandalwood traders and missionaries came by the mid 19th Century.

From 1879 to 1916 Indo-Fijians were introduced as indentured labourers to work on the sugar plantations. Their history, however, will record that their own displacement from British India prevented the dispossession of the Fijians in colonial Fiji.

Indeed, by a happy irony, the indentured Indian was uprooted specifically to prevent the Fijian way of life from disintegrating. The above official history of the Fiji Islanders (as everyone is known now) thus shows that we are all former migrants to the Fiji islands. It is in this context that we can ask the question: who is indigenous?

Definition of Indigenous Peoples and Related Terms

According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 107 (1957);  Article 1 provides that the Convention applies to:

(a) members of tribal or semi-tribal populations in independent countries whose social and economic conditions are at a less advanced stage than the stage reached by the other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations;

(b) members of tribal or semi-tribal populations in independent countries which are registered as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or consolation and which, irrespective of their legal status, live more in conformity with the social, economic and cultural institutions of that time than with the institutions of the nation to which they belong. Furthermore, ILO's Convention 169 (1989);

Article 1(1) stipulates that the Convention applies to

(a) tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community, and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations;

(b) peoples in independent countries who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonisation or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.

The World Bank policy on indigenous peoples are as follows: 'Tribal peoples are ethnic groups typically with stable, low-energy, sustained yield economic systems, as exemplified by hunter gatherers, shifting or semi-permanent farmers, herders, or fishermen.' They exhibit in varying degree many of the following characteristics:

(a) geographically isolated or semi-isolated;

(b) unacculturated or only partly acculturated into norms of the dominant society

(c) non-monetized, or only partly monetized; production largely for subsistence, and independent of the national economic system;

(d) ethnically distinct from the national society;

(e) non-literate and without a written language;

(f) linguistically distinct from the wider society;

(g) identifying closely with one particular territory;

(h) having an economic lifestyle largely dependent on the specific natural environment;

(i) possessing indigenous political leadership, but little or no national representation, and few, if any, political rights as individuals or collectively, partly because they do not participate in the political process; and

(j) having loose tenure over their traditional lands, which for the most part is not accepted by the dominant society nor accommodated by its courts; and having weak enforcement capabilities against encroachers, even when tribal areas have been delineated.

It is thus clear that the Fijians do not, by any stretch of the imagination, fall into such categories. Although a minority for several decades, the Fijians never suffered the effects of dispossession, discrimination and political marginalization. In fact, it was the Fijian chiefly leaders who enjoyed sustained political control of the country since independence, and still communally own 83% of the land (now a weapon of political blackmail), dominate the Fiji army, and the Great Council of Chiefs' nominees in the Senate have a veto over any Bill affecting Fijian land, custom or tradition.

The entrenched land rights makes it impossible for any dispossession to take place without the consent of the chiefs. It is, therefore, absurd to liken the position of Fijians today to that of the Aztecs, the Incas, the Mayans and the Aborigines.

Minorities in International Law

The 1990 post-coup Constitution-makers had invoked the doctrine of indigenous supremacy to enable Fijians to enjoy more rights than other races and to institute a new system of domination and inequality.

The central idea of the ILO conventions however was to institute an order that guaranteed equally fundamental rights including equality of franchise. In fact, if any group(s) which might have a legal claim in international law are the minority communities (Indo-Fijians, Chinese, Europeans and Others in Fiji).

It is they, the international lawyers could claim, who need constitutional and political safeguards for the possible violation of their rights under various international legal conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that all persons are 'equal in dignity and rights' and that this should not be abridged on the basis of 'race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status (article 2).

These prohibitions are repeated in several other conventions including Articles 2, 3 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 3 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 5 of the International Convention for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Fiji is a signatory to these various conventions. As a matter of fact, whenever the question of constitutional reform had been considered during British rule, the Fijian leaders based their claim not as indigenous peoples but as a minority fighting to maintain a separate identity. In the process, the Indo-Fijian bourgeoise leaders went along with their Fijian counterparts, totally oblivious to future population trends which led to Indo-Fijians becoming a minority in Fiji.

In short, if there were any losers in the long, tortuous, and complex struggle for political power in the 1970s, it was not the pettit-bourgeois Indo-Fijian leaders but the ordinary descendants of indentured Indo-Fijians. The so-called 'Passenger Indians' remained unscathed in economic terms Thereafter, what Fiji witnessed for the next two decades, was the politics of race until the rise, demise, and rise of the multi-racial Fiji Labour Party in 1987 and 1999.

What Fiji is witnessing in the formation of the Foundation of the Fijian Indigenous Peoples, threats of repatriation of Indo-Fijians and 'blood will flow' in the wake of ALTA debates, and the exclusion of the Prime Minister from the Great Council of Chiefs, is an attempt by a mindless minority to revert back to the era of racial bigotry and racial politics in Fiji.

Moreover, what some Fijians believe to be their ancient heritage is a colonial legacy. Like the deep cleavages existing within the Indo-Fijian community, pre-colonial Fijian society consisted of a series of tribes and tribal confederacies that were frequently in conflict with each other. Tribes in eastern Fiji were heavily influenced by Polynesians from Tonga, and developed a very hierarchical Polynesian-style social structure with great power in the hands of hereditary chiefs.

The social structure of western Fijian tribes was more egalitarian, as is the Melanesian custom. In 1874 Britain accepted the cession of authority in Fiji to the British Crown by the eastern chiefs. The new colonial authorities succeeded in bringing all Fijians under the control of a single government for the first time. The British largely ruled through the existing chiefs, greatly enhancing chiefly authority over Fijian commoners. They also established the dialect and traditions of one eastern tribe as the norm for the entire country.

A rather romantic view of traditional Fijian society prevailed, and laws were passed to reinforce communal land ownership.

The Indigenous/Immigrant Debate

In 1976 the current president Ratu Mara, then prime minister, while rejecting a suggestion in the Senate by Senator Inoke Tabua, later a leading Taukei member, that 100,000 Indo-Fijians should be deported, made a pertinent statement: 'It is now being suggested that there are sections of citizens of Fiji, particularly the Indians, who have not the same rights as any others. I do not see that. If I made a mistake at the Conference (1970), please do not support me at this forthcoming election (1977). I would rather square my conscience with God then to be voted back into Parliament under false pretences. If you start removing Indians, the next ones will be the Chinese, the third ones will be the Europeans, and the fourth will be the Lauans.'

The Lauans, who are descendants of Tongans, settled in Fiji in the 19th century with their chief Ma'afu, a relative of the King of Tonga. Ma'afu, who settled in Fiji in 1848, thirty-one years before the arrival of the first batch of Indo-Fijians to Fiji, established himself at Lakeba as the leader of the Tongan community in Fiji. According to the historian Peter France, the Tui Nayau, who controlled the Lau islands from Cicia in the north to Ono in the south, was at this time an old man, corpulent, and severely afflicted by elephantiasis. With his company of Tongan fighting men, Ma'afu became military representative of Tui Nayau and extended his authority by conquering, in the name of Christianity, the islands of the Moala group; these were thenceforth accepted as being part of Lau.

The islands north of Cicia owed allegiance to Tui Cakau but, when this chief visited Lakeba in 1850, he accepted a canoe as a gift from Ma'afu and gave him, in return, rights of levy over them. In 1855 Ma'afu put down a religious war in Vanuabalavu and assumed control over the island, taking up residence at Lomaloma. His position in Fiji at this time was that of representative of King George of Tonga, the head of the Tongan community in Fiji, and the owner of the island of Vanuabalavu. He extended his influence throughout Vanua Levu by alliance with Tui Cakau and Tui Bua. He then defeated Ritova, Tui Macuata, and installed a chief more susceptible to his influence as head of the chiefdom.

Ma'afu was the most powerful influence in north-eastern Fiji when, in 1859, the first cession proposal was made. Consul Pritchard reminded Ma'afu that, as the country had been ceded to England, future attempts to extend his authority would bring him into conflict, not with mere Fijian chiefs, but with the British Government. Ma'afu signed a document to the effect that he was in Fiji solely to manage and control Tongans and had no claim to chiefly authority over Fijians.

After the first offer of cession was rejected, however, he resumed his attempts to secure a position of leadership and, in 1867, he appeared to have succeeded in uniting the provinces of Vanua Levu and Lau by creating the Tovata. On the collapse of this confederation he declared that he would have no further dealings with Fijian chiefs and retired to his estates on Vanuabalavu. Tui Nayau raised the Tongan flag at Lakeba and Ma'afu began to assume control over the Lau group, under the excuse that its chief had declared it to be Tongan, and not Fijian, territory.

In June 1868, however, the Tongan Parliament ordered the flag to be hauled down and instructed Ma'afu to cease from involving the Tongan Government in Fijian affairs. This meant that he could not continue to exercise control by virtue of his authority as a Tongan chief, but had to be accepted as a chief in Fiji. A meeting of the chiefs of Lau was held at Lakeba, in February 1869, at which he was installed as a Fijian chief, taking the title of Tui Lau (now held by Ratu Mara); his connection with the Tongan government was severed; a vessel was sent to Fiji from Tonga, proclaiming that Tongans who remained in Fiji would no longer be under the protection of the Tongan Government and offering passages to those who wished to return. Tongan lands in Fiji were made over to Ma'afu and he was accepted by the chiefs of Bua and Cakaudrove, in May 1869, as a chief of Fiji, having authority over Fijians. He played a leading part in the offer of Cession in 1874.

Some radical Fijians therefore assert that because of his family background, Ratu Mara does not have the automatic right to champion Fijian rights.. As a matter of fact, the case of Lauans is instructive to our indigenous/immigrant debate. In 1987 Ratu Mara, unlike a decade ago, began to assert paramountcy rights on behalf of the Fijians in the new post-coup Constitution, saying that 'special rights for indigenous peoples are not something new and are provided for under international law'.

He reminded his critics of the fate of other indigenous peoples saying that 'the Fijian people are all too aware of the destiny of the indigenous Aztecs of Mexico, the Incas of Peru, the Mayas of Central America, the Caribs of Trinidad, the Amerindians of Guyana, the Maoris of New Zealand, and the Aborigines of Australia'. From these arguments, Ratu Mara concluded that Fijians must be awarded majority representation in Parliament and control of the government as 'an affirmative action to guarantee and protect the rights and aspirations of the Fijian people against other communities'.

He argued that Fijians had settled in the islands over 3,500 years ago, and this fact entitled them to paramount control of Fiji. He, however, did not explain or justify why his predecessor, Ma'afu as Tui Lau, could lay claim to Fijian paramountcy and Indo-Fijians not for equality, when he (Ma'afu) had been in Fiji for 26 years only before the Deed of Cession of 1874, and not 3,500 years.

The Tui Bua, Vakawaletabua, also had personal links with Tonga: his mother was Tongan and he had been placed in peaceful occupation of his chiefdom of Bua by Tongan force of arms. In 1862, he visited Tonga, with Ma'afu. A Treaty of Friendship between King George of Tonga and Tui Bua was signed on 3 January 1865. This provided for perpetual peace between Tonga and Bua and for reciprocal rights of settlement. It also provided that the Civil Service of each state would make available its employment opportunities to the nationals of the other: any Tongan settling in Bua was declared to be eligible 'for appointment to any Government situation that may be vacant', with the same privilege applying to a Buan settling in Tonga.

It is therefore not surprising that Jone Dakuvula, a cousin and former press secretary to Sitiveni Rabuka, had also asked during the two coups in 1987: 'What is so special about us descendants of the many waves of early settler groups in Fiji that our political rights to be the government must be greater and secured unaccountably, compared to the descendants of later settlers?' Dakuvula further argued that the people did not want an apartheid-type regime because the Indo-Fijians were no longer foreigners, but part of the Fijian polity. Why should they accept diminution of their political rights in their own country; the country of their birth?.

The current prime minister Chaudhry had also stated his position: 'We have a fight on our hands and I believe in dealing with it until the matter is resolved one way or the other. I was born here. I am not a foreigner here. I have every right to fight for this country. We are not going to subjugate ourselves to a constitution of this kind (the 1990 Constitution), signing away all our rights and agreeing to be slaves.' In a cruel twist of fate, he went on to become the first prime minister of Indo-Fijian origin.

Perhaps the speech of Ratu Sukuna to the Great Council of Chiefs in 1936 is worth repeating: 'Let us not ignore the fact that there is another community settled here in our midst. I refer to the Indians. They have increased more rapidly than we. They have become producers on our soil. They are continuously striving to better themselves. Although they are a different race, yet we are each a unit in the British Empire. They have shouldered many burdens that have helped Fiji onward. We have derived much money from them by way of rents. A large proportion of our prosperity is derived from their labour.'

A central figure in the 1987 Fiji coups has defended the island nation's Indo-Fijian population as fully fledged Pacific Islanders. More recently, Ratu Mara criticised an international Pacific Island conference held in Auckland for excluding Indo-Fijians. Ratu Mara, the keynote speaker at Pacific Vision, a four-day conference, said that, "This is a conference of the Pacific communities in New Zealand, yet the Pacific Vision literature I have read appears to have an omission. There is no reference that I could see to the Indians from Fiji. Fiji Indians are full citizens. They are officially designated as Fiji islanders and one, the Honourable Mahendra Chaudhry, is now prime minister. They may have a distinct and different appearance and characteristics and been late arrivals, but islanders they are."

The Fijians and Non-Fijians: 'Marooned at Home'

On 14 May 1987, the Indo-Fijians awoke to mark the 108th anniversary of the arrival, aboard the sailing ship Leonidas, of the first Indo-Fijian 'coolies' in Fijian waters. In fact, that day was to see the arrest of all their progress- from plantation to parliament- when Sitiveni Rabuka and his henchmen overthrew the multi-racial Labour government. The Fijian coup d'etat also raised the fundamental question: how many generation should the Indo-Fijian community (and other non-Fijian races) wait to become 'natives'?.

We have already recalled the Tongan Parliament's reaction to Ma'afu's status in Fiji. The following declaration of the late Prime Minister of India, Jawarharlal Nehru, has a similar echo. He raised the issue of citizenship, including that of the Indo-Fijians, in the Indian Parliament on 8 March 1948: 'Now these Indians abroad? Are they Indian citizens or not? If not, then our interest in them becomes cultural and humanitarian, not political. Take the Indians of Fiji and Mauritius: are they going to retain their nationality, or will they become Fiji nationals or Mauritians? Of course, the two things do not go together. Either they get the franchise as nationals of other country, or treat them as Indians minus the franchise and ask for them the most favourable treatment.'

As a matter of fact, the majority of the descendants of Indo-Fijian labourers had lost contact with 'Mother India' long ago.

The following declaration of an ex-indentured woman labourer Rangamma, in 1979, who arrived in Fiji with her parents a century ago, in 1899, still applies to the Indo-Fijians today: 'Fiji is my place. There is nobody in India for me.'

It is equally true of the descendants of the great chief Lutunasobsoba, who cannot be expected to return 'home' from the coast of Vuda and the mountains of Nakauvadra, to a land far to the west in the great canoe, the Kaunitoni. Or the small but significant Fiji-born Chinese community to mainland China. As we gear up to greet the dawn of a new century, we have reached that tide in the affairs of men

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

It is to be sincerely hoped that we will collectively judge each other not on the basis of our colour or ancestry but by the content of our character.

The coup leader George Speight has certainly failed the test of character and some have even expressed doubt about his "indigenous" colour. He alone has the chance to redeem himself from his mindless act.

Fiji, says the tourist poster, is 'the way the rest of the world should be'.

Let us keep it that way in the 21st Century.

Fijileaks Editor: That was in 2000, now listen to Niko Nawaikula who explains the anti-indigenous decrees passed since the 2006 coup.