FROM THE ARCHIVES: Understanding the Origins of Fijian/iTaukei Land-Tenure Insecurity – Three Case S
Despite owning and controlling 90% of the land that makes up Fiji’s islands, it is a truism that indigenous Fijians are anxious about retaining that sovereignty. This anxiety is said to be the underlying cause of the nation’s coup-culture in the context and reality of Indo-Fijian/Fiji-Indian political rivalry at the ballot box. The following case-studies suggest that iTaukei-Fijian insecurity should not, at base, be seen as racially sourced and motivated, but more deeply, historically and structurally rooted in three other factors: Euro-colonial attitudes to land as theirs to acquire at will; chiefly attitudes to land/vanua as theirs to dispose of at will; and, institutional/political management of land as a purely government/bureaucratic matter. The three case-studies – one in Lau, one from Lomaiviti and one from Ra - highlight that conclusion. The hidden long-term impact of these factors on the indigenous collective psyche makes it easy for opportunist coupsters to explicitly blame “the Indians” – i.e. they are a visible and convenient ‘other/them’ over against ‘we/us’. Francis Sokonibogi rejects this simplistic scapegoating, asserting, in a 1995 interview with Wolfgramm which is at the conclusion of this piece that “the base of our problem is not between Fijian and Indian, but between Fijian and Fijian”. The history of Fiji’s coups would seem to bear that insight out.
CASE ONE: The case of Mavana
RW
The ancestors of the Mavana people originate from four nearby vanua: from Moala island to their south-west, from Cakaudrove to the north-west, from Samoa to the far northeast, and from the Kingdom of Tonga to their south.
The Mavana dreaming or genesis legend tells of the warrior, Ravuravu, who took on the form of a bird among the Moala people. Under Ravuravu’s instructions, the ancient people left Moala and journeyed to Vanua Balavu, entering the island through the Qilaqila passage. After an overland expedition of discovery and following the death of their leader, Turagalevu, the ancient people settled at Bucalevu (now Tota).
As often happens when a great leader dies, disagreements arise, and the people soon split up to take different courses across the island. After a brief stay at other sites on Vanua Balavu, the ancient kai Mavana settled back in Bucalevu under the kingship of Tui Kubuca. He formed them into four mataqali: Tota; Vatulami; Valeka; and Valevono.
They were to stay that way uninterrupted for thousands of years until a Tongan warlord, Ma’afu, European missionaries, and adventure-traders, arrived in Fiji at the beginning of the 19th century. Arriving in Lau not long after Christian missionaries, and in support of their aims, Ma’afu set about making his own mark on behalf of his Tongan regent, King George. Though his charter in Fiji was always unclear and rendered more so by its implementation, Ma’afu nevertheless subdued Vanua Balavu and Lakeba by the mid-1860s. His forts were to be found in other parts of Fiji as well. Contingents of his fighting force of some 3000 Tongan warriors were placed in Macuata, Bua, Ra and along the southern coast of Viti Levu.
The Tongan warrior-chief, Ma’afu, began his campaign to conquer Vanua Balavu, as one might expect, at the southern (Tongan) end of the island. The island had, since ancient time, been split between the Lomaloma dynasty in the south, and the Mualevu dynasty [originally called Yaro] to the north.
In order of rank, the villages comprising Mualevu/Yaro were: Mualevu, Mavana, Daliconi/Daku, Avea, Muamua, Cikobia, and Boitaci. It is not unlikely, according to one source, that Mavana was originally the centre of power, but lost out to an alliance between Daku and Mualevu.
Evidence for this (i.e. for seeing Mavana as the once-ascendant power), can be seen in the original boundaries of their territory (i.e. right up to Mualevu), their monopoly of ritual life and sacred sites (eg. the uli drano), and their role as king-makers in the polity of Mualevu – it is the kai Mavana who install the ‘Tui Mavana’ of Mualevu.
The strength of Mualevu during Ma’afu’s ascendancy over Lau had been relatively untested. Having accomplished a sovereign alliance with Lomaloma, Ma’fu understood his reign could not be secure until he successfully challenged the Mualevu empire.
This he did in late 1854. During a voyage from Lakeba to Somosomo that year, Ma’afu claimed that Tui Cakau, Tui Kilakila, had given him ‘all the islands between Lakeba and Taveuni’. Vanua Balavu was therefore a prize and only Pulewai, a dissident Tongan warlord, stood in the way.
Pulewai was champion of the Mualevu dynasty. Ma’afu’s domination of Mualevu would be better achieved if Pulewai were persuaded to give up his support. To this end, Ma’afu sent his lieutenant, Kofe, to burn the southern-most villages of Mualevu, while he sent a messenger to tell Pulewai of his intentions to place Mualevu under siege.
Pulewai refused to concede his loyalty and concentrated the Mualevu forces at Navatuvula. Ma’afu’s strategy, in turn, was to amass his forces at the other end of Navatuvula and thereby provoke Pulewai to come to its defense.
It worked. Once out into the open, Pulewai was shot and killed by one of Kofe’s marksman. Mualevu capitulated: the people of Mavana became subject to Ma’afu.
Ma’afu’s Lauan rule was at once comprehensive, but was often precarious. For example, in 1863 the chief of the Daku people, Koli, declared he was subject to Cakaudrove, not Ma’afu. To underline his point, he rallied the forces of Daliconi, Malaka, Mualevu and Muamua to Nabavatu. Ma’afu immediately laid siege to the uprising. Conflict was avoided when Tui Cakau intervened on Ma’afu’s behalf. Koli submitted obligingly to Ma’afu.
In retrospect, this episode could be seen as orchestrated by Tui Cakau, his purpose simply being to impress on Ma’afu that Cakaudrove would not be an easy picking for him and would be a constant threat to his territorial presumptions.
Ma’afu seems to have gotten the message. One year later (1864), he lodged a declaration at Levuka claiming only Vanua Balavu and Moala for Tonga, and that they had been Tongan for ‘a long time past’ – there was no mention of any part of Cakaudrove being included.
Ma’afu’s declaration further expressed the view that ‘we, the people of Vanua Balavu and Moala, desire Tongan laws to be promulgated in our country to which said laws we shall render obedience’.
Astute diplomacy with the British also worked to legitimate this claim. On 3 February 1865, the Levuka declaration was reinforced when the British consul adjudicating on Vanua Balavu’s future, gave his decision to the Tongan making Ma’afu ‘the lawful owner’.
Just ten days later, Ma’afu scored another diplomatic coup by concluding a treaty with Tui Nayau. This agreement gave Ma’afu political and usufructory sovereignty over Lau (but not actual ownership of the soil and seas per se).
Ma’afu’s sovereignty lasted until the white man came. Few European names are as associated with Lau and Vanua Balavu in particular, as that of William Hennings. Hennings arrived in Fiji from the Australian goldfields in 1859. He was persuaded to come to Fiji by his brother Frederick, and Mr Caesar Godeffroy - Frederick’s employer in Samoa.
William Hennings acquired a lease in Lomaloma from which he set up a trading post. Coconut-oil, beche-de-mer, tortoise-shell and cotton were typical industries of trade. By 1864, Hennings was one of twenty Europeans on Vanua Balavu and one of a dozen lessees of Ma’afu’s island empire. Records show that by Cession in 1874, Hennings had acquired significant leases such as Bavatu, Buono, Katafaga, Raradamu, Navauvau, Nayanuyanu, Vagariki, Naruarua, and all of Mago island.
As a Vanua Balavu resident, Hennings also acted as trustee and agent for many other Europeans at the time.
One European who had dealings with him was ‘Captain’ George Matthew Henry of Melbourne. Henry gained notoriety when he petitioned the first Fiji colonial government in 1875 with a claim that all of Vanua Balavu was his – given to him, he claimed, by Ratu Golea, Tui Cakau, in 1860 for a mere $400. A supporting statement from other white settlers, Macomber, Conner and Taylor, declared that ‘in virtue of being Chief of Cakaudrove [Golea] hath in himself, the full power, authority and right to make this sale, conveyance and transfer’.
Henry further produced a supporting claim from Cakobau who as ‘Vuni Valu, Tui Viti, sovereign chief of Fiji do acknowledge the right and title of Tui Cakau to be head and sovereign chief of Vanua Balavu’. The Cakobau statement further claimed that the island had indeed been legitimately sold by the Tui Cakau to ‘Henry of Lomaloma’.
But Henry’s 1875 claim to Vanua Balavu was not without rivals. Another petition for the island was lodged by one, Mr George Winter. In his submission, Winter said that he bought Vanua Balavu from Henry in November 1863 and that local chieftains had given him their blessing. The island had cost him one thousand pounds - Munia, Avea and five acres of Lomaloma were not included in the terms of his acquisition.
Along with these claims by Henry and Winter, a further claim for Vanua Balavu island was lodged by a Mr W.P. Morgan for a child named Herbert Innes. Morgan claimed he was executor of the will of Ms Rebecca Innes (the child Herbert’s mother). According to Morgan’s brief, Rebecca had bought Vanua Balavu in 1867 from a Mr Pitzker, who had acquired it from George Matthew Henry some years earlier. Morgan was there to ensure the island was passed along to Rebecca’s son.
Upon checking Morgan’s story with Henry, Henry claimed he had given a copy of the Vanua Balavu deed of sale to Pitzker, who was leaving Fiji for overseas. He had done so ‘for the purpose of [Pitzker] doing something with Vanua Balavu’, and doing something, he did – he sold the title to Rebecca Innes, it was claimed.
While the Hennings land claims on Vanua Balavu were accepted by the 1875-1882 Lands Commission instituted by Sir Arthur Gordon, Fiji’s first governor-in-residence, the colonial inquiry rightly rejected the claims of Henry, Winter and Innes.
Thos portions of Vanua Balavu which were specifically owned (i.e. held in trust for future generations) by the kai Mavana were not excluded from European claims made before the 1875-1882 inquiry. In November 1880, the estate of Mr James Arden Gwynne petitioned the court with a claim to Masomo. James Gwynne and his brother, Ferdinand, had arrived on Vanua Balavu in 1870 and acquired the lease to Masomo from Ma’afu a couple of years later.
In his supporting statement, William Hennings declared that Ma’afu had given the Gwynne’s the Masomo land out of pity for the many losses they had incurred in their business venture on the island. They had apparently put six to seven thousand dollars into their estate acquisitions which included Navadugu, Nasigani, and Naveitau. None of these properties – some 1500 acres in all – had proved fruitful and profitable. Their cotton crop on 200 acres at Masomo had also failed badly.
Inexperience, poor soil, and mounting debt all conspired to undermine the Gwynnes. In 1875, Ferdinand Gwynne died; just two years later, his brother, James Gwynne, committed suicide. Masomo was therefore being claimed by the executors of their estate.
In his submission to the inquiry on the Gwynne claim, Ma’afu simply made his oft-repeated statement: ‘Do not know [to] what mataqali the land [Masomo] belongs’. Given the state of disrepair of the Masomo estate, and unpaid rents, the Gwynne claim was rejected. As the report concluded: ‘The melancholy history of this estate still attaches to it and a feeling of hopelessness appears to deter anyone from taking it in hand again the land should revert to the taukeis’. As it did.
Another claim for Mavana land was received in 1881 when the Lands Commission heard from a Mr Gideon Vecsey for 500 acres of Bucalevu (now Tota). Vecsey declared that his lease extended from the stream at Koromakawa to the ‘old town of Mavana’. He claimed that Ma’afu had granted him a fifty-year lease from 7 March 1871 at the rate of one shilling per acre per annum (a standard rate which was often recorded as ‘the usual condition’ in colonial documents).
To support his 500 acre claim, Vecsey argued that he had resided at Bucalevu since 1871 and that after trying his hand at cotton, he had turned to coconuts with 250 acres under cultivation as a result. He claimed to the inquiry that his rent was up-to-date and that he had improved the property with the erection of buildings. Moreover, he asserted, ‘there is no native town on the land when I leased it’. Ma’afu typically responded: ‘I have nothing to say about it. I do not know what mataqali the land belonged to, but it belonged to the people of Mavana’.
Vecsey’s robust claim was contested before the inquiry by the Bucalevu indigenous landowners who were represented by one, Saimone, the ‘turaga ni koro of Mavana’. Standing before the commission, he declared: ‘It is my land. There was an occupied town upon it before the lease. The Tui Lau [then] told us to move after the war of Bavatu and shortly afterwards the land was leased. Neither I nor any of my people have received any share of rent from Mr Vecsey. I should like to get my land back again. My ‘mataqali’ is the kai Tota and the land is theirs’.
Despite Saimone’s impassioned appeal, the Bucalevu lease was granted to Vecsey as originally negotiated through Ma’afu. Another fifty year lease on the property was granted in 1921 and it was not until 1971 that the kai Mavana were able to re-acquire it.
CASE TWO: Sold for a Shilling – Wakaya
FWS
It is clear from the foregoing case-study of the Mavana people that there exists two interpretations of land tenure in Fiji: namely, the inalienable indigene/autochthonic concept on one hand; and the Western real-estate property commercialised system on the other.
With the former system, the land provides life and is there for all to share, provided the spirit with which land was given is reciprocated. There were and are no racial or human rights conditions attached to the bargain. The host gives the vulagi (guest) land, and the vulagi, in turn, obliges the host to pay social rent. Rental methodology is therefore determined by the host. The host has the land ‘ownership’ privilege, but for only one lifetime. Thus, the tenant, by customary law, has to renew terms and conditions of tenancy after the original host has ceased to exist. Any rent thus determined must be beneficial for each member the host community to retain their goodwill and the source of their civil order - respect. This system is based on the genesis of ecological rule ‘to subdue the earth and replenish it’.
Emerging out of this spiritual base we have the evolution of the traditional land usage method namely the:
Koro/Village - Town
Teitei - Plantation
Veikau - Forest
Qoliqoli - Reefs and rivers
Wacawaca/ Lagi - Sky/atmosphere/environment,
The forest is the indigenous peoples’ supermarket while the reefs and rivers provides them with marine life for food and sustenance. The sky provides them with their birds and air to breathe with rain and sun for the sustenance of LIFE. The ocean provides them with food and trans-insular means of transportation. Each people are allotted land that over time became a part of them. They know that different fish survive at different levels and space. Different species of mammals and animals survive along the coast with accompanying biodiversity and similarly when moving inland different vegetation and pristine environment which influence the socio-cultural customs and mores of the indigenous inhabitants. Within this confine, the indigenous peoples become one with the land.
The land in the imported Westernised meaning means solely the dry land. To the indigenous people of Fiji, the land concept however, means the sky and its birds, the ocean, rivers and the reefs and diverse types of marine life, the dry land and its biodiversity the people and the heads of the households or chiefs. Each Fijian knows his links to each of these cosmic parts. The whole is dependent on the part and the parts are similarly dependent on the whole.
Their linkages such as type of trees, fish, birds etc. are, in the Western sense, a tribe’s ‘totem’. The term ‘totem’/ to tuuhm is a noun that originated from a North American Indian language meaning a natural object or animal believed by a particular society to have spiritual meaning and adopted by it as an emblem. The interpretation is the nearest we can get to the real essence of the meaning which cannot be completely described in our words, but can only be felt. The interpretation is the nearest we can get to the real essence of the meaning which can only be felt by autochthones. It is a consciousness legacy passed on to the colonially collective administered indigenous Fijian people.
1874 Deed of Cession
Further, on the difference between Western and indigenous land systems and values, there is no such thing as “wasteland” in our indigenous society. The idea of waste lands was introduced by Wilkinson, an adviser of Tui Bua. The idea was later incorporated into the 4th Clause of the 1874 instrument of Cession by Sir Robert Innes.
The 4th clause reads:
"That the absolute proprietorship of all lands not shown to be alienated so as to have become bona fide the property of Europeans or other foreigners or not now in actual use or occupation of some Chief or tribe shall be and is hereby declared to be vested in Her said Majesty her heirs and successors".
This application contradicts the pre-Cession agreement with the Fijian Chiefs on the 20th March 1874 in Fijian where Commodore Goodenough and Thurston represented Queen Victoria. The relevant part of the report reads:
“Sa qai tu cake ko na Komadoa ka vakamacalataka mai ni sa yalataki walega na Lewa ni Matanitu kivei Peritania ka sa sega ni soli vata kaya edua na tamata se dua na tiki ni vanua se dua na co ka sa tubu kina...Sa qai uliva nai tukutuku ko Rokotuiviwa ka ra sa vaka-mana-edina ko ira kece na turaga” .
In English, this reads:
“The Commodore stood up to explain that only the administration of governance pertaining to the Fiji Islands was being ceded to the British Government and the cession does not include any Fijian nor does it included any land or piece of the vanua nor any grass that might be growing on it…) This understanding was sealed by the ‘so be it’ ritual by all chiefs present". (AI VOLA NI LAWA I TAUKEI—VAKATOTOMI, 1877-1901).
Sir Arthur Gordon who was subsequently raised in status and given the title of Lord Stanmore in 1908 had by then become better acquainted with the Fijian land system. Earlier, as Sir Arthur Gordon, he became a de-facto Fijian chief through customary law. He was bequeathed two islands by the chiefs and people as a reward and token for his contribution to the Fijian people especially in a vulnerable time of European colonial expansionism. When the said 4th Clause of the Cession instrument was being exploited by one of his successors, namely Sir Everard imThurn (1905-1908 Native Grant Schedule B—Ordinance No. Xl of 1905), Lord Stanmore, as a Fijian chief, submitted in the UK House of Lords in 1908 that:
The Chiefs who signed the Deed of Cession may have had the right to surrender the group to the Queen, though even this is doubtful, so far as, to say the least, the tribes of Colo of Viti Levu and of the Lekutu of Vanua Levu are concerned. But the high Chiefs who signed the Deed of Cession had neither the right nor the power to surrender the property of different mataqalis, who had never been consulted, and who are in profound ignorant of the fact that their interests were being thus disposed of. That they had no such right the chiefs themselves unanimously and persistently declared. They at first absolutely refused to sign any deed containing the fourth clause, and it was only under pressure that they at last did so...The ex-King Cakobau in one of his short and pithy (to the point) sentences for which he was famous for summed up the matter thus: “ The land and the people are one. We rule both—we own neither” (House of Lords--The Red House, Ascot, 29th August 1908).
Wakaya
Wakaya is a titled native freehold. The island was awarded to the Kai Wakaya. The unnamed Tui Levuka who signed with an “X” in the Wakaya sale as the vendor could have been anybody devised by the white land-speculators. The paramount chief is always identified by his or her name and the domain that comes under him. For instance, Kubuna, Ratu Seru Cakobau na Turaga na Vunivalu na Tui Kaba, or Ratu Sir Lala Joseva Lalabalvu Vanayaliyali Sukuna na Turaga na Tui Lau. The normal form of identification of chiefs is accompanied by their domain and sphere of sovereignty.
We reiterate in this regard that the Tui Levuka or “X” had no title to the island of Wakaya.
So which of the following Tui Levuka is "X"?
Tui Levuka Succession
1. Ratu Bukalidi—Vagadaciicolo—installed as an initial autochthonous chief of Ovalau
2. Ratu Rokotuinaceva—assumed the title(Tui Levuka) and was sanctioned by Ratu Bukalidi, but was not traditionally installed. In fact, he was a descendant of the foreigner warrior chief, Salusaluivalu, who some believed came first to Ovalau and proceeded to Namosi - hence the Nabukebuke identity which was the name of Salusaluivalu’s burekalou or temple at Namosi. Apart from this, not much was known about this chief or the next Tui Levuka:
3. Ratu Daveta
4. Ratu Vosakotoira (Tamani Kai Vavalagi)--installed
5. Ratu Samuela Macedru (was title-holder during Cession)— he was not installed according to history, and was supposed to be installed by the Ratu of Verata. Ratu Cakobau refused to install him as Tui Levuka during the competitive years to paramountcy among the three major powers namely those of Verata, Rewa and Bau. The latter, with outside assistance, finally overshadowed the two former polities.
The question to ponder for now is: why was the vendor’s name not on the Wakaya documents of sale? Next, we will be dealing with the subject of the Kai Wakaya possessing a freehold native title of the island of the Wakaya which cannot be erased by Queen Victoria nor through the imported Torrens system strait-jacket.
CASE THREE: Drauniivi's Vatukaloko
Robert Wolfgramm with Francis Waqa Sokonibogi
In 1991 and 1992, Francis took me with Fijian friends to Drauniivi village on the Tavua-Ra coast where the descendants of the Vatukaloko people were lobbying for the return of their original vanua.
The background to their claim is this: At the end of the 19th century, a traditional Fijian religion (called the Tuka movement by colonial authorities) was founded and led by a Vatukaloko ancestor called Mosese Dugumoi. He was a bete who preferred the title, Navosavakadua [He who speaks but once]. His following was based in the original mountain site of Drauniivi village in Ra in the 1890s.
The central doctrine in his religion was said to be that the ancestral god of all of Fiji, and particularly the chiefly yavusa of all Fiji, was not Degei (as commonly believed) but Rasare Levu, the grandfather of Degei. Degei, in turn, had two sons, Nakalasabaria and Namakaumoli who, Navosavakadua taught, were ‘Jesus’ and ‘Jehovah’ respectively. According to him, these ancestor-gods would one day return to Fiji to institute a millennium of peaceful reign.
For these rather innocuous and somewhat creative syncretic ideas, Navosavakadua was labelled a ‘dangerous’ and ‘disaffected native’ by the colonial powers of the time and was removed from his western Viti Levu power base to exile on the island of Rotuma.
The colonial government consequently razed the entire village of Drauniivi which was regarded as the ‘seat of authority’ for Navosavakadua’s teaching. The villagers were deported to the island of Kadavu. There, it was hoped, through intermarriage and education, the Vatukaloko of Kadavu would eventually dismiss and outgrow Navosavakadua’s faith. Their yavutu in Drauniivi village was destroyed by colonial powers in order that it should have ‘no past’ - according to the colonial Minute Papers of 1897.
By a policy of ‘population transfer’ the colonial government thereby hoped to biologically as well as socially defuse the potential threat of the Vatukaloko and their prophet. It didn’t work and since 1918, the remnants of the Vatukaloko have been lobbying to get back their original vanua - approximately 20,000 acres - which has been held as Crown land, but leased and administered by government-owned enterprises.
Remnants of the scattered Drauniivi people were eventually allowed to return from their Kadavu exile in the early decades of the 20th century and permitted to lease a 37 acre lot of their ancestral vanua from its new owners. This was the site of Drauniivi village which we were now visiting.
In more recent years, the Drauniivi were requesting that all of their vanua, or at least the portions of it which were under crown control, be returned to them. Hence they had contacted and commissioned Francis to lobby of their behalf.
In 1986, the Mara government returned 60 acres to them. Following the coups of 1987, the Vatukaloko were promised another 100-plus acres. That promise was revoked.
It was on this matter of revocaton that the Drauniivi people had asked Francis and his friends for assistance on - a summary of their case appeared as full page feature in the Fiji Daily Post in 1991.
INTERVIEW: Robert Wolfgramm with Francis Waqa Sokonibogi, July 1995
Twenty years ago I was teaching at Monash University and Francis called in to Melbourne on his way back from Geneva and London. He had set out from Fiji a few weeks earlier to see the Queen on behalf of supporting indigenous organisations. Francis took a petition to her from these indigenous Fijian “grassroots” [people] organisations with the outrageous proposition that she intervene to solve Fiji’s land problems. This was, in Francis’s view, to fulfil the 1879 agreement between Fiji’s chiefs and the British government. The Queen declined to see him, but her private secretary did convey her reasons in a letter given to Francis at Buckingham Palace. I took the opportunity to interview him on the lawn in front of my home:
If you were in a position to change Fiji politically, what would you change?
First, I would not abolish institutions such as the Fijian Affairs Board [FAB], the Native Land Trust Board [NLTB], the Native Land Commission [NLC] and others. I would just make them accountable. I would open the doors by which they bar Fijians from knowing certain things.
For example in the NLC one cannot gain access to certain documents which would help the Fijian people. I would also like to set up a commission of inquiry in to the books of land tenure to see if there are recent erasures and changes which some people suspect are there. I would like to put the books right; to resolve the contradictions between the versions of mataqali ownership and legitimate chiefly officeholders found in the books and that which is found in the villages.
As it is, these books are Bible and like the Bible, have the potential to be the cause of the disintegration of Fijians as a people - our customs, values and mores. That is why it is imperative that before the next generation comes up to adulthood we should put these things straight.
Second, we need to determine the status of all freehold land before the government usurps a right to dispose of them. If there are any boundary or ownership disputes, they need to be resolved to prevent any government claiming the land.
What motive does the government have for manipulating the books of land tenure?
The government wants to get all the land back under its control in order to peddle it to overseas investors. This is evidenced by their selling Wakaya island when it was about to be returned to its rightful Fijian owners in the early 1960s. And they have been doing so secretly since until the Kudru Na Vanua came along. But we were not the first. There were dribs and drabs of criticism before us. But the Wakaya case is still a problem and that is why there must be an inquiry to settle who the real owner is - between a group of Ra people, the Tui Levuka and some Batiki people. But these things can be cleared because every island and piece of land in Fiji has a natural owner.
Are you saying that the government wants to convert all of Fiji into freehold land?
They have already done this through the NLTB and ALTA (The Agricultural Landlord & Tenant (Amendment) Act of 1976) and things like this. We are into a third phase of alienation - the government builds million dollar investments on leased land and then says if we want it back we’ll have to buy it back or pay compensation for it - well, there are no Fijians rich enough to do this, let alone the people in the village.
You see, the first alienation of land took place before colonisation and Lord Stanmore [i.e. Governor Gordon] put a stop to that in 1875. The second phase was when Governor im Thurn opened up the land for sale again in 1905 and again Lord Stanmore stopped it. This third phase was begun by the setting up of ALTA and we are still in that phase.
One thing we can do to correct this phase is for government to insist that the permanent buildings - housing - be erected on leased land by the lessees be given over for the owners use once the lease is over. I know these conditions will put some people off, but this is how we will know if people really want to invest in the indigenous Fijian people, and not just their land.
You see the most interested lessors are the hotel owners and the richest and most profitable hotel lessors are in Nadi. Like the Indian farmers and the ALTA arrangement they are under the wrong impression - they think we are happy with the present system. This error in their judgement needs to be cleared up by a new education and realisation programme to show them who they are, who committed the mistakes in the past, and who gave them the false ideas about it all. Then we can come to a new understanding.
What is your relationship to the land personally?
I am a traditional priest. Without the land there is no life in me. There would be no meaning to my life. It is the land which urges me on somehow. I want all lands to belong to all owners, the original settlers of the land. It is my dream to get all freehold lands back into the hands of the Fijian people, the original owners. Then they can be leased out. At the moment they can be sold out completely. This is the mission given me.
Can you do the job without outside help, without international pressure or support for your cause?
What I need from outside of Fiji is a type of UN Declaration of Human Rights legislation which is ratified by our government and which will commit it to our cause - like ILO Convention 169. If some of those UN styled articles - like the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights that they are drafting at the moment - are passed, the power and credibility of indigenous groups will strengthen. People will see we are for the chiefs and not against them; we are not against anyone but for the indigenous people of the world and especially Fiji.
The government of Fiji is run by indigenous Fijians like yourself but they seem to have a very different view of things - How do you explain that?
We can say at this point in time, that what the Australian government has negotiated for the Aborigines is better than what we have in Fiji. In Fiji we have a new form of cannibalism. This is not only particular to Fijians and their leaders but true of all Fourth World countries where the indigenous people have problems with their own indigenous leaders in regard to land, land rights and all of those things which affect them. It is easier to argue with leaders of other ethnic groups than your own. This is the situation in Fiji.
Second, a national government is a national government whether in Fiji or anywhere else which means they must be for all ethnic groups not just their own. The world now is smaller; in Rabuka’s words, Fiji is no more an island - it must follow an international agenda. To cater for the indigenous needs is now diametrically opposite to national needs. The indigenous people will want the natural resources; the national government will want to bolster its coffers. The Fijian people will want their land back; the national government will want to alienate it, individualise it, cut it up and sell it in order to get more revenue out of it. So the two policies oppose each other. That is why a national government even if it is led by indigenous people cannot be beneficial to indigenous land rights specifically.
Which indigenous Fijians are wanting their land back? And who do you include or exclude in your understanding of ‘indigenous Fijians’ who are wanting their land back?
The Vatukaloko people of Drauniivi village want their land back. They have no land whatsoever. Their land was sold by others. The government had a chance to get it back in 1970 but chose to re-alienate it. Today it remains a political and commercial football. Again the government has re-alienated the land. There many people especially from the inland who want their land back but do not know how to go about it. But spiritually speaking, as traditional priests we do not have to gain the permission of the people to get the land back because the land is the base which makes the Fijian people and without that ownership it is like part of them being alienated. The people will not be truly Fijian until they get all their land, their possession back. This is because their possession is them; they are possessed by their possession.
Would you ban all land sales?
What I am saying is, that which is already freehold is freehold - we have nothing against this. I do not want to stop anything that already is. But we would stop any new lands being classified as freehold in order to be sold.
What if the Fijian people of Rewa, for example, wanted to sell their land as freehold - would you prevent it?
I would certainly want to forbid it but without resorting to the law if possible. Through an indigenous education programme starting in the schools and so on, I would try to educate people to not want to do that. I am pretty sure that because nothing like this has been tried, that people will want to sell their land if the present law preventing them was taken away. But that is the job of the Kudru Na Vanua - to educate the people, the land owners as to who and what they are, to change their psyche, to tell them they are not just anybodies, but somebody with a unique culture and set of customs.
Is it possible that a national government might be the only way of preventing land which is given back to local owners from being disposed of by those same owners?
I emphasise again that the institutions which are in place now must not be changed, they just need to be improved. Changing those institutions now would only wreck things. The Fijian people will become like Aborigines - take the laws away and they will sell their land again.
Would control of Fiji’s natural resources be left with the national government or be given to the land-owners?
It would be left like it is now, with the national government, but with the income being distributed back to the land-owners through a distributing forum which we have been calling the Commoners’ Council. This type of council will oversee the distribution of royalties through the already existing institutions. We are the luckiest people on earth, we already have our institutions, but we just need a forum like the council to be a watchdog for the people, to hold these institutions accountable.
Take, for example, the case which we have brought up on behalf of the Seaqaqa people where, as owners of the land, they are regarded as nothing by government. They are caught in a legal situation where, according to ALTA, the real owner of the land is the NLTB and others are just lessees. When the Seaqaqa people wanted a piece of land for the site of a new village, the present Indian lessees said, ‘we don’t recognise you as our landlord, we only deal with the NLTB’. When we inquired at the NLTB they told us that the land had been leased to the Indians. So we have come to the point where the government has to decide whether the needs of the traditional owners are paramount or whether they are secondary.
When the Alliance government first sermonised about leasing lands through the ALTA programme, the traditional owners were told that their interests would be paramount, their priorities would come first. But now we have a case here with the Seaqaqa trying to establish their prior claim on behalf of their descendants and have being doing so since 1982. And the NLTB refuses to consider their case not even bothering to attend a meeting we held between the traditional owners and the present Indian tenants.
So where is the respect for Fijians, for our traditions and customs, which the government talks about? Our customary way of life is being taken away from us by both the NLTB and the Indian people who build massive concrete buildings on leased land and then tell us if we want our land back we have compensate them for these structures they have erected. But as I said before, how can the Fijian people afford that? This is impossible for us to buy back.
So what is the place of the Indian in the KNV vision?
The thing that the Indian must understand first and foremost is that Fiji is ours in the way that Tonga belongs to the Tongans. We agree that the Indians are useful to us and in time they will be part of us. But if we have waited for hundreds of years to finally be in a position to regain our belongings, then they can wait for a few more years until we are settled first. There will be no peace until we have first found and satisfied ourselves. If we wait for the Indian to first find satisfaction we will wait a long time because it is widely known that the Indian is not satisfied with anything or with many things. But Fijians can be easily satisfied - we just want back what is ours. When that happens Indians can be included in our plan.
They will also have to relax their hold on their women. When they let them marry our boys their next generation will be natives of this place. From the Kudru Na Vanua point of view they are part of us - we do not have a narrow ethnic view, we have a universal view. But in the meantime respect must come in to our relationship, into our quest for the unification of the people of Fiji. We must be unified in diversity but we must also be unified in unification.
You see, the base of our problem is not between Fijian and Indian, but between Fijian and Fijian. The NLTB brought this problem about, they - not the Indians - made the regulations about the land which is the base of all our problems with the Indian people. The Indians never participated in the formulation of the policy that brought this situation about. Fijian legislation is created by our chiefs and politicians, not by Indians - they will never be able to have a say in these matters of native land laws. Those who transferred land away from the Fijians are Fijians themselves. So the solution is to put in place a forum of representation for the grassroots Fijians – something like the Commoners’ Council - to sit with the Great Council of Chiefs, the NLTB and Indians and all the other groups. This is democracy.
Thank you, Francis.
FDP welcomes FEEDBACK and SUBMISSIONS - email: fijidailyposter@gmail.com
A REGIONAL 9/11 (2015) REFLECTION FOR JUSTICE
It is a good thing for any polity, large or small, ancient or modern, to have a government in which its Parliament is elected at the Ballot box. It is a good thing for any polity to elect members who will then, according to constitutional requirements, form a Government with its cabinet of ministers and Prime Minister, along with an Opposition that, to the extent of its ability, contributes to public policy by trenchant critique of Government policies and by offering alternative legislative options. But as we know, and sometimes we have had to learn from bitter experience, it is another thing altogether for a Government to gain respect for its unflinching commitment to just public governance. Having a democratically elected Parliament is only one part of a much wider task for all citizens, elected representatives, ministers, public officials and political parties in the complex task of State-crafting.
One of the worst features of the modern nation state is the way in which political life is malformed by those who use political parties for their own ends. “Vote for us and we will bring in a new day!” “Don’t vote for them; they are useless and are simply the remnants of the old elitism that brought us all the disasters we have had to face!” We don’t have to go on; if we are even half-awake, politically speaking, we’ll know the problems. The same goes for Fiji.
In Fiji all citizens know just how delicate the system of public governance is. All Fijians are keenly aware of just how fragile their system of public governance is. All Fijians who have looked carefully at their Parliamentary system since independence in 1970 know only too well the sad story that has continued to unfold since 1987.
Fiji is a vital and prominent member state of the South West Pacific international political community. It is now known by its neighbours and the world further afield by its title “Republic of Fiji”. This is actually a new name that was promulgated under the illegal regime in 2011. Prior to that, according to the 1997 Constitution, which the illegal regime abrogated, it was “The Republic of Fiji Islands”. That former name bore witness to the complex federative process that has been an ongoing part of the political life of Fijians even before it became a British Crown colony and then later as a Dominion (as was Canada) within the British Commonwealth. Fiji consists of over 300 islands of which 106 are occupied. So its character as a federation of islands is something it simply cannot avoid no matter what official name it may take on.
The above paragraphs are penned here to introduce the following three case studies. What is being affirmed by the publication of these case studies? Firstly, there is important material here that needs to be discussed in a fresh and open way by all sections of Fijian society. It is not put forward simply for scholars, nor is it purely for a special elite of policy-makers. These studies are published here to encourage all Fijians (I Taukei and Indo-Fijian and all others) to contribute to the ongoing work of state-crafting within their polity. They are Fiji’s citizens and these are matters that are integral to their political responsibilities. These studies bring back onto the agenda some very important historical issues because they need to be “re-visited”. These issues cannot be wished away. Elections may set a general political direction but those forming a Government, as much as the Parliamentary Opposition and all citizens, cannot evade the political responsibility of seeking to justly deal with unresolved issues.
If a just basis is to be maintained for the governance of Fiji’s vulnerable polity, it is of vital importance that all Fijian citizens understand their responsibility to do justice to the issues raised by these studies. Of course it will obvious by now that these case studies are about land and land tenure. They are about economics and development. They are about public justice. They are not just about ascribing due respect in love for the neighbour; they are about Fijians develop a true respect, a love for themselves as a people blessed of God residing in these Pacific islands. These studies are also of vital significance for all within the South West Pacific region because whether those of us in the region like it or not – whether we are Australians, New Zealanders, Fijians, Tongans, Samoans and many more - the state-crafting that is part of our regional political responsibility is a responsibility of our inter-dependence, not only for Governments but for citizens working together within and across the region for justice at home and abroad.
Of course each of us have political responsibilities initially nested, and given legitimacy, by our citizenship within our own (national) polities. And that means that if there is need for restorative state-crafting in one part of the region, that part has to take the necessary steps it needs to get its act together. Fiji is not going to be strengthened without Fijians taking their Fijian political responsibilities seriously. But, as we know, they can’t do this on their own, any more than citizens in the rest of region can do so.
There is a problem about raising the issues that these case studies discuss. They are likely to provoke some to get very agitated indeed because they want to believe that since the issues are about what happened in the past they are now irrelevant. For these agitators, whether they are in Government, in business or anywhere else, it seems that their contribution depends upon these issues being kept off the national (and regional) political agenda. Otherwise their hold on power might be at risk. So they are too quick to jump to conclusions, broadcast their opposition, before they have actually listened and in so doing take many others with them.
Yet if we read these case studies carefully we will discover that in fact that is part of the problem that these three case studies are deep-down trying to address. As we know, within Fiji’s “modern history” there has been a lot of political sweat by powerful people wanting to jump to conclusions without carefully examining exactly what is at stake. These studies are being published as part of an attempt to promote careful historicval understanding in order to then avoid needless political agitation. If these studies are read carefully in terms of their underlying intentions, and if the interview in the 3rd case study with the traditional priest and leader of the Kudra nu Vanua is taken to heart, a path of reconciliatory justice may well open up and Fijians will be able to reconsider Fiji’s history and background for their own true well-being. It will still require courage; but courage in to face the truth is sometimes in short supply. So then these studies should indeed be read as part of a political search for courage along with the search for historical truth!
These studies raise questions about the ambiguous manner in which the British Crown was initially ceded sovereignty that actually put it (i.e. the Monarch and her administration) at odds with the customary law the cession deeds claim to have respected. Thus these studies claim to throw a light upon the persistent "clash of world-views" that, to this day, is still a recurrent and potentially destructive and debilitating feature of Fiji’s political horizon. The clash has never disappeared, notwithstanding the recurrence of pompous statements by successive self-appointed coupsters about ridding Fiji of racism. Predictably, racism is held up as the cause of all of Fiji’s woes and it is usual for racism to be defined in terms of persons rather than in terms of principles, conveniently located deep in the sentiments of political opponents.
So, in this context readers are strongly encouraged to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the refreshing peaceable trajectory that can be found in the interview with Francis Waqa Sokonibogi. Take time to mull that 20 year old interview over. Maybe you will need a good six months to think it through as it needs to be considered. Talk about it with your family and friends and neighbours, whatever their background. Make it something alive within your political thinking.
As I read this document – remember I am a regional citizen from Australia, not from Fiji – Francis is saying that subsequent legal rulings that confirm the 4th clause of the 1874 Deed of Cession not only ignore the prior agreement that was made, they misinterpret it egregiously so that the interpretation of those making the agreement and authorising the Cession Deed is effectively expunged from Fiji’s political consciousness. The way in which the people saw themselves as part of the process is no longer part of the system of public governance. That’s the challenging nettle that these case studies present. And so Fijians (i Taukei) have subsequently been interpreted in law to have held a position that they did not in fact have. i.e. they are ascribed with the status of those having a proto-western view of land tenure.
Now when we begin to reflect upon the way in which land tenure has been understood in Fiji since the 19th century we are immediately reminded of the ongoing efforts to properly understand the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand. That is ongoing to this day. We might also reflect upon the fact that the 1992 High Court Decision in the Mabo case, acknowledging the right of the Torres Strait Islanders to their lands, that Australia and the region is indeed involved in something that significantly alters our political understanding of all of us in the South West Pacific. The Mabo decision makes Australia a lawful part of Melanesia! It is not only Australians who are still surprised when this is pointed out to them.
Such renewed understanding of land tenure and land rights as an unavoidable dimension of our political responsibilities can also have a significant impact upon the promotion of justice across this region.
These three case studies are commended to all citizens of the region and beyond. But they are especially published for Fijian citizens - those at home in their Pacific islands, those living elsewhere in the region and those beyond – so that they might lift up their heads and reconsider their positive political task in relation to their island lands. The aim is to encourage Fijians to throw off the political attitudes of cynicism, scepticism and quietism and get busy encouraging political reconciliation and peaceful state-crafting.
"Rerevaka na Kalou ka Doka na Tui"
Bruce Wearne
Point Lonsdale AUSTRALIA
Friday, September 11, 2015
FDP welcomes FEEDBACK and SUBMISSIONS - email: fijidailyposter@gmail.com
