Other details: Particulars of any other business connections, directorships, transactions or gifts in Fiji or Abroad |  |
  "Sudh" Hindustani Responding to Opposition MP Faiyaz Koya's insistence on promoting Fiji Hindi, Prof Prasad said this is not only insulting but a clear attempt to degrade the formal language of Indo-Fijians. Source: Fijilive |  |
| There are moments in public life when a national debate collapses under the weight of its own irony. This is one of them. At a time when Biman Chand Prasad is urging that sudh Hindi and iTaukei (Vosa Vakaviti) be made compulsory in schools, one document sits quietly in the background - unchanged, unambiguous, and inconvenient. The statutory declaration he signed in July 2014, and entered Parliament. It was not written in Fiji Hindi. It was not written in sudh Hindi. It was not written in Vosa Vakaviti. It was written in English. And it required something quite simple to declare: “any other business connections, directorships, transactions or gifts in Fiji or abroad”. |   |
The declaration went further: “the declaration was read over in the English language…and appeared fully to understand the meaning thereof.” Read over. Understood. Certified. Not mistranslated. Not misunderstood, at least on paper. And yet, given where matters now stand, one is tempted to ask: Would things have been different if the form had been:
The Missing Declarations
On the material now before the public, roles linked to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, and Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd were not declared. The consequences are no longer theoretical. They are before the courts.
Enter the Regulator Barbara Malimali
The matter might have ended there. It did not. In April 2025, the then FICAC Commissioner, Barbara Malimali, closed the entire file. Not on the basis that the declarations were complete. Not on the basis that no disclosure was required. But on the narrow ground that the candidate was not required to declare his superannuation.
Another Language Problem in English?
Which invites a further question, one that no curriculum reform can answer: Would the outcome have been different if the law had been read, not in English but in Vosa Vakaviti? Because the issue before Barbara Maralimali was not pension funds. It was disclosure of business interests: iTukutuku tale eso: Na ivakamacala matailalai ni veiwekani vakabisinisi, itutu ni dairekita, veivoli (transactions) se isolisoli e Viti se mai vei vanua tani
The Wrong Debate
Today, the country is invited to debate formal Hindi vs Fiji Hindi, linguistic dignity. and cultural hierarchy. All of which may be worthy. But none of which addresses the central issue now before the courts: whether the statutory obligation to declare was complied with.
Final Irony.
If the form had been in sudh Hindi, it might have been respected. If it had been in Fiji Hindi, it might have been understood. If it had been in Vosa Vakaviti, it might have been taken seriously.
But it was in English. And according to the declaration itself, it was read and understood by the former Professor at the USP. The problem was never the language of the form. The problem lies in what was left off it, and how it was later explained away.
- in sudh Hindi, for linguistic purity?
- in Fiji Hindi, for everyday understanding?
- or even in Vosa Vakaviti, for national inclusion?
The Missing Declarations
On the material now before the public, roles linked to Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, and Platinum Hotels & Resorts Ltd were not declared. The consequences are no longer theoretical. They are before the courts.
Enter the Regulator Barbara Malimali
The matter might have ended there. It did not. In April 2025, the then FICAC Commissioner, Barbara Malimali, closed the entire file. Not on the basis that the declarations were complete. Not on the basis that no disclosure was required. But on the narrow ground that the candidate was not required to declare his superannuation.
Another Language Problem in English?
Which invites a further question, one that no curriculum reform can answer: Would the outcome have been different if the law had been read, not in English but in Vosa Vakaviti? Because the issue before Barbara Maralimali was not pension funds. It was disclosure of business interests: iTukutuku tale eso: Na ivakamacala matailalai ni veiwekani vakabisinisi, itutu ni dairekita, veivoli (transactions) se isolisoli e Viti se mai vei vanua tani
The Wrong Debate
Today, the country is invited to debate formal Hindi vs Fiji Hindi, linguistic dignity. and cultural hierarchy. All of which may be worthy. But none of which addresses the central issue now before the courts: whether the statutory obligation to declare was complied with.
Final Irony.
If the form had been in sudh Hindi, it might have been respected. If it had been in Fiji Hindi, it might have been understood. If it had been in Vosa Vakaviti, it might have been taken seriously.
But it was in English. And according to the declaration itself, it was read and understood by the former Professor at the USP. The problem was never the language of the form. The problem lies in what was left off it, and how it was later explained away.
'Show Us the Auditor-General's Report,' Demanded Politician Who Forgot to Show His Own DIRECTORSHIP in Lotus (Fiji) in 2014 Declaration
7 August 2014, NFP leader and Election Candidate Biman Prasad to Aiyaz Khaiyum: "Why isn't the government showing the Auditor-General's report to the public?"
Fijileaks: In his 28 July 2014 statutory declaration, Biman Prasad did not disclose that he was a 5% shareholder, co-founder, and co-director with his cousin Sunil Chand in Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, and the company was constructing 28 villas in Legalega, Nadi for over $4million, and that he had guaranteed a $1.5million loan from ANZ Bank for the project.
The 2014 Lesson Still Unlearned
This is not the first time language and substance have parted ways. As Fijileaks previously observed in the 2014 election debate with Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum, Biman Prasad's rhetorical fluency in sudh Hindi ran ahead of factual clarity. The performance was polished. The substance was less so. Eight years later, the pattern appears stubbornly intact.
From Fijileaks archive, 7 August 2014:
A QUESTION FROM 2006 IS STILL RELEVANT IN 2026
Back in 2006, I wrote, perhaps too bluntly for polite society, that those who insist on speaking only in “sudh Hindi”, rather than the living language of Fiji Hindi, might consider packing their bags and contesting elections in Mother India. It was a provocation, yes. But also a point. Because Fiji Hindi is not a corruption of language. It is the language of lived reality, a lingua franca forged across communities and generations.
FROM THE ARCHIVES: VICTOR LAL writing in the Fiji Sun during the 2006 general election campaign:
Fiji Hindi baat bolo, Indo-Fijian politicians!
You are not contesting election to Indian Parliament
By VICTOR LAL
ONE of the most ridiculous and nauseating features of the election campaign is the language usage of Indo-Fijian candidates on the election trail: a pseudo pompous and counterfeit Hindi, as if they are contesting for power in India and not in Fiji.
Several potential voters wrote to me complaining that instead of speaking in the everyday Fiji Hindi to them, the candidates have been making speeches in Shudh (Standard/Correct) Hindi, a language a vast majority of the Indo-Fijian voters hardly understand.
A similar spectacle has been displayed during Question Time and Talk Back programmes on Fiji TV. I decided to watch the appearance of Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi of the Fiji Labour Party, Bimal Prasad of the National Federation Party, Shiu Ram of COIN Party and Dildar Shah of the National Alliance Party on these two programmes.
Again, a pathetic reoccurring pattern, as if Vayeshnoi, who is contesting the Nadroga Indian Communal seat, was reading a script out of the Hindu holy book, the Bhagavad Gita. When, all he was trying to do, was to explain his party’s manifesto (for which there is no Fiji Hindi word).
The other three were equally guilty, and at times I felt sorry for Shiu Ram, who even resorted to English to make his point, instead of opting to speak the language of the Indo-Fijian masses, and over 30 per cent of taukei Fijians – Fiji Hindi.
What is wrong with speaking Fiji Hindi? Are they ashamed of the language of their coolie forefathers? Why are these Indo-Fijian candidates contesting the Indian communal seats when they are by commission or omission, speaking to the voters in the language of ‘Mother India’.
For God’s sake, even Indian candidates, despite belonging to different political parties, speak in the 700 different dialects and languages to their prospective voters in India. A regional aspiring candidate in Madras will be speaking in Madrassi, and even the Communist candidate in Bengal will be pouting his Maoist and Stalinist propaganda in Bengali. The Italian-born Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the Congress Party, also speaks in a Hindi language which is understood by the vast majority of the voters.
More importantly, the candidates in Bihar would be speaking in Bhojpuri or Awadhi, from which the corrupt version of Fiji Hindi has originated in our country. So why can not our own aspiring Indo-Fijian politicians speak the language of their people?.
As Nemani Bainivalu, a University of the South Pacific Hindi graduate, and later a cultural assistant with the National Reconciliation Unit, had once pointed out, only 20 percent of Indo-Fijians can read and write their formal language.
Many Indo-Fijians cannot even read their holy books written in the Khadee Bolee dialect, and pass on religious teachings by word. I am not suggesting that Sudh Hindi be replaced in our education system, or that everyone should be writing novels like Dauka Puran by Professor Subramani of the Department of Literature and Language at the USP.
What I am protesting against is the gibberish Shudh Hindi that is being shoved down the throats of Indo-Fijian voters who are struggling to ‘swallow’ the words. The election message and manifestoes of the political parties would be better understood if the Indo-Fijian candidates resorted to the conversational Fiji Hindi at the hustings. It will also help bring the taukei Fijians into the campaign, especially the 30 per cent who speak the language, and many others who have a smattering command of it.
It must be made very clear to Indo-Fijian candidates that despite the teaching of Shudh Hindi and Urdu in schools, Fiji Hindi is an integral part of the identity and culture of the Indo-Fijian population. It is unique to Indo-Fijians in the world. The day Indo-Fijian politicians kill Fiji Hindi, they will be killing a part of their history and heritage in Fiji.
For no matter where one goes in the world, the moment one hears an Indo-Fijian open his mouth, one immediately asks him: ‘What part of Fiji are you from?’ In a similar vein, India Indians are able to separate us from them solely on the basis of our Fiji Hindi.
If the Indo-Fijian politicians and aspiring candidates are too ashamed to speak to us in the language of our coolie forefathers, they should pack their bags and their manifestoes and take the next Air India flight to India, and wait there for the next general election in that country to practice their Shudh Hindi. We don’t need Indian political impostors in Fiji.
Such candidates and Indo-Fijian leaders do not deserve our sympathy or votes.
Long live FIJI HINDI.
You are not contesting election to Indian Parliament
By VICTOR LAL
ONE of the most ridiculous and nauseating features of the election campaign is the language usage of Indo-Fijian candidates on the election trail: a pseudo pompous and counterfeit Hindi, as if they are contesting for power in India and not in Fiji.
Several potential voters wrote to me complaining that instead of speaking in the everyday Fiji Hindi to them, the candidates have been making speeches in Shudh (Standard/Correct) Hindi, a language a vast majority of the Indo-Fijian voters hardly understand.
A similar spectacle has been displayed during Question Time and Talk Back programmes on Fiji TV. I decided to watch the appearance of Lekh Ram Vayeshnoi of the Fiji Labour Party, Bimal Prasad of the National Federation Party, Shiu Ram of COIN Party and Dildar Shah of the National Alliance Party on these two programmes.
Again, a pathetic reoccurring pattern, as if Vayeshnoi, who is contesting the Nadroga Indian Communal seat, was reading a script out of the Hindu holy book, the Bhagavad Gita. When, all he was trying to do, was to explain his party’s manifesto (for which there is no Fiji Hindi word).
The other three were equally guilty, and at times I felt sorry for Shiu Ram, who even resorted to English to make his point, instead of opting to speak the language of the Indo-Fijian masses, and over 30 per cent of taukei Fijians – Fiji Hindi.
What is wrong with speaking Fiji Hindi? Are they ashamed of the language of their coolie forefathers? Why are these Indo-Fijian candidates contesting the Indian communal seats when they are by commission or omission, speaking to the voters in the language of ‘Mother India’.
For God’s sake, even Indian candidates, despite belonging to different political parties, speak in the 700 different dialects and languages to their prospective voters in India. A regional aspiring candidate in Madras will be speaking in Madrassi, and even the Communist candidate in Bengal will be pouting his Maoist and Stalinist propaganda in Bengali. The Italian-born Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the Congress Party, also speaks in a Hindi language which is understood by the vast majority of the voters.
More importantly, the candidates in Bihar would be speaking in Bhojpuri or Awadhi, from which the corrupt version of Fiji Hindi has originated in our country. So why can not our own aspiring Indo-Fijian politicians speak the language of their people?.
As Nemani Bainivalu, a University of the South Pacific Hindi graduate, and later a cultural assistant with the National Reconciliation Unit, had once pointed out, only 20 percent of Indo-Fijians can read and write their formal language.
Many Indo-Fijians cannot even read their holy books written in the Khadee Bolee dialect, and pass on religious teachings by word. I am not suggesting that Sudh Hindi be replaced in our education system, or that everyone should be writing novels like Dauka Puran by Professor Subramani of the Department of Literature and Language at the USP.
What I am protesting against is the gibberish Shudh Hindi that is being shoved down the throats of Indo-Fijian voters who are struggling to ‘swallow’ the words. The election message and manifestoes of the political parties would be better understood if the Indo-Fijian candidates resorted to the conversational Fiji Hindi at the hustings. It will also help bring the taukei Fijians into the campaign, especially the 30 per cent who speak the language, and many others who have a smattering command of it.
It must be made very clear to Indo-Fijian candidates that despite the teaching of Shudh Hindi and Urdu in schools, Fiji Hindi is an integral part of the identity and culture of the Indo-Fijian population. It is unique to Indo-Fijians in the world. The day Indo-Fijian politicians kill Fiji Hindi, they will be killing a part of their history and heritage in Fiji.
For no matter where one goes in the world, the moment one hears an Indo-Fijian open his mouth, one immediately asks him: ‘What part of Fiji are you from?’ In a similar vein, India Indians are able to separate us from them solely on the basis of our Fiji Hindi.
If the Indo-Fijian politicians and aspiring candidates are too ashamed to speak to us in the language of our coolie forefathers, they should pack their bags and their manifestoes and take the next Air India flight to India, and wait there for the next general election in that country to practice their Shudh Hindi. We don’t need Indian political impostors in Fiji.
Such candidates and Indo-Fijian leaders do not deserve our sympathy or votes.
Long live FIJI HINDI.
THE REAL IRONY: The irony now is difficult to ignore. A man who dismisses Fiji Hindi as inadequate finds himself entangled not in linguistic confusion, but in legal omission. The statutory forms did not fail him. The language did not fail him. The law was clear.
The question is not whether formal Hindi should be taught. It is whether those who seek to elevate language should first demonstrate clarity, honesty, and completeness in the language of law. Perhaps the problem was never Fiji Hindi. Perhaps the problem was never the language at all.
LOST IN TRANSLATION OR LOST IN JUDGMENT? |  |
 |  |
There is something faintly comic, if it were not so constitutionally troubling, about the latest linguistic crusade of Biman Chand Prasad. The NFP leader and former Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, now better known for his legal troubles than his economic stewardship, has declared that formal Hindi and iTaukei should be made compulsory in schools, dismissing Fiji Hindi as somehow inferior, even “insulting” to Indo-Fijian heritage.
One is tempted to agree, though perhaps not in the way he intends. Because if the statutory declaration forms had indeed been written in his preferred “sudh Hindi”, it might have spared the nation its current predicament, and the charges he is trying to halt against him.
 |  |
