Narratives of Division

Colonial Prevention of Solidarity Between Indian and Indigenous Fijians, 1910-1970

Introduction

Though they were both colonial subjects, the treatment of Indigenous and Indo-Fijians by colonial authorities in Fiji was vastly different in both rhetoric and practice. Between 1879 and 1919, Indians were brought to Fiji for labour purposes, many of them under contracts of indenture. Even after the end of the indentured system in 1919, Indo-Fijians were kept separate from Indigenous Fijians due to deliberate policies created by colonial powers. Nominally, this was for the sake of preserving Indigenous land and culture, but I argue that many of these strategies were employed to ensure power remained in colonial hands and prevent the strengthening of bonds or feelings of independence amongst the colonized groups. By creating and perpetuating narratives which pigeon-holed both groups into their respective stereotypes, and extending different treatment to them, colonial authorities ensured that it was difficult for them to build a cohesive sense of community together as they were continuously pitted against each other.

Early Days of Colonialism in Fiji

Colonial ideas of Fiji and the native inhabitants were mired in notions of romantic, exoticized primitivism that coloured European views of the South Pacific. A report from The Daily Mail in 1924 on Fiji entitled “Transformation of the Cannibal Islands” opens with the lines: “One has always loved to hear of the fairy-land beauty of the coral islands of the far Pacific, and to know that the inhabitants of some of them were once cannibals, though it makes us shudder, does not lessen our interest.” The article goes on to claim that “they seem prosperous and contented under British rule” and suggests that the “civilizing” influence of Christian missionaries is responsible for this transformation [1]. The use of this tone when referring to Indigenous Fijians remained consistent from the early days of British possession. In 1875, an article in The Illustrated London News described Fijians as “utterly savage,” though commends the percentage of the population for turning to Christianity [2]. For decades after the cessation of Fiji, the colonial view of the original inhabitants of the land ranged from patronizing to derogatory. Even C.F Andrews, the Anglican priest and missionary who was relatively progressive in his views of non-European people, was not immune to casting the Fijian people in this light. He states, “For even after the magnificent moral start which they have made, under the impulse of their Christian religion, the Fijian race may still relapse if ever circumstances go against them. In the course of a little more than half a century, they have risen out of a state of cannibalism and savagery to their present position as an educated community, bent upon higher things…” He goes on to reflect that concentrated hard work is less natural to the Fijian than the Indian, “Nevertheless, with the example of the Indian always before him and often with his friendly help and encouragement, one Fijian here and there has made a start.” [3]

Early on in British controlled Fiji, there were rules put in place to preserve Indigenous Fijian land. This meant that Indian labourers, even after their period of indenture was over, could only rent, not buy land, from Indigenous Fijians. This rule survived past the end of the indenture system and was cited in 1955 as part of the cause of Indo-Fijian and Indigenous tensions [4]. 1940 saw the enactment of the Native Lands Trust Ordinance which put control of Indigenous land in Fiji into the hands of a Board of Trustees who would administer the land ‘for the benefit of the native owners.’ [5] Acts such as these suggest that nominally the British were making a show of preserving and respecting Indigenous lands, but their policies and many personal attitudes concerning the treatment of the Indigenous peoples themselves were far less benevolent. The Governor of Fiji in 1964 remarked: “There is an element of racial arrogance in the Fijian makeup which must be reckoned with. He really does regard this country as belonging to him.” [6] The irony and hypocrisy of this comment coming from a British colonial administrator does not go unnoticed and sums up the prevailing colonial attitude towards the Fijians.

Coronation ceremonies at Suva, the capital of Fiji, delivering King Edward’s message, 1905. Photo taken from the Library of Congress.

Additionally, there were rules in place which, far from offering Indigenous Fijians the dignity and protection the land laws might suggest, served to limit their movement and economic activity. Indigenous Fijians were not allowed to migrate from their villages during the colonial period (this restriction lasted until 1968) [7], and in 1876 a stipulation was created that said while Indigenous Fijians were allowed to sell produce, they were barred from making significant contracts or forming companies. In 1917 an Indigenous chief called Apolosi Nawai sought to control a Fijian run company which would export Fijian produce and was intended to be an alternative to the colonial exploitation of Fijians. This violated the 1876 ruling and Nawai was deported in 1921 [8]. Rules such as these exemplify colonial attitudes towards the Fijians; they were treated in patronizing, demeaning ways, and assumed to be of less intelligence and ability. The British maintained a thin veneer of protectionism while actually working to keep Indigenous individuals in a subservient position.

The Treatment of Indo-Fijians

Indo-Fijians, even if they had been born and raised in Fiji, were still treated and viewed as immigrants. The colonial authorities worked in both blatant and covert ways to turn the two groups against each other; they depicted the Indo-Fijians as an immigrant race threatening the Indigenous paramountcy which the Crown was trying to protect [9]. Martha Kaplan, cited in Mukesh Kumar (2012), argues that the colonial context encouraged Indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians to create constructs of each other in terms of their own distinct cultural systems, and British colonial rules deliberately divided the communities along ethnic and cultural lines, intervening constantly to prevent the two communities engaging in cross-cultural collaboration [10]. The maintenance and creation of culture was a constant source of anxiety for the British in Fiji as it had the potential to undermine British hegemony and, combined with the constant alienation of the Indo-Fijians, was a key tool for the continued subjugation of non-European groups.

Indians had been brought over by the British for the purpose of labour, and though they had the option of staying in Fiji after their period of indenture was finished, the colonial policies relating to the presence and activities of Indo-Fijians worked to isolate them so they were constantly made to feel as if they did not belong on the island. European authorities within Fiji had concerns about the development of Indian culture. One way this fear manifested itself was through resistance to the introduction of Indian marriage forms and customs into Fiji law, despite the fact that these marriage forms and customs had no immediate political or economic effects [11]. The Indian marriage question in Fiji was essentially an attempt to monitor and control the religious and cultural customs surrounding Indian marriages. Two key players in these efforts were J.R Pearson who served as the Secretary for Indian Affairs in Fiji between 1927 until 1932, when he was forced out of the country, and the General Attorney of Fiji, P.A. McElwaine. Pearson proposed a number of legal reforms—he was successful only in the establishment of a few of them—including the setting up of a network of panchayats or a ‘council of elders’ for Indian settlements. These would be elected organizations who had some amount of judicial jurisdiction over petty disputes and issues of Indian customs, ie. marriage. Additionally, he wanted to give official and legal authority to select Indians and certain forms of Indian customs, recognizing that the Indian population was there to stay and new rules were needed to ease their post-indenture existence [12].

McElwaine on the other hand, pushed repeatedly for the standardization of the marriage code in Fiji, concerned that the current law gave room for incestuous and polygamous marriages. He also refused to intervene in the various scandals and concerns that arose around Indian marriages, including, disturbingly, girls being sold against their wills to prospective husbands. He stated that so long as Indian ‘personal law’ governed marriages, he was unable to do anything and none of these cases saw any formal persecution. Pearson informally intervened in many of these cases and wrote in frustration about McElwaine and others’ tendency to attribute all social ills to ‘Indian custom’ when the majority of issues were clearly linked to the conditions leftover from indenture and the continued poor treatment of Indo-Fijians [13].

The Effect of Colonialism on Indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians Relationship

After Pearson was sent away from Fiji, there were confidential debates amongst the advisors of the Fiji governor to not ask for another secretary for Indian affairs from India. Chief amongst their concerns was the fact that India might choose to send an ethnically Indian civil servant; they were scared by the success that Indian nationalists had in India and the concessions the colonial administration had made to the nationalists [14]. The colonial powers realized that they held a potentially perilous position with regards to both the Indo-Fijian and the Indigenous Fijian populations; Europeans were outnumbered so they created an exaggerated cultural and ethnic divide amongst the other groups to prevent them from forming too strong of a sense of identity, which could transcend ethnic heritage. They had to avert them from joining forces and forging a stronger sense of community with each other as that would pose a serious threat to the artificial boundaries which propped up colonial capitalism and control [15]. In 1937, Freer remarked that some of the interactions he had with Indigenous Fijians about their relationship to Indians made him feel that “there is an increasing sense of revolt from the convention to being obliged what to do and say exactly what the Government tells him. He is growing up and does not like either to be patronized or protected.” [16] Though his use of the phrase “growing up” retains some of the paternalistic lingo so prevalent in European discussions of Indigenous groups, his tone is not altogether displeased with observing this attitude in Fiji.

Anthropologist A.C Cato’s 1955 inquiry into the state of relations between Indo-Fijians and Indigenous Fijians further perpetuates this sense of division. His survey of groups of Indigenous Fijians reveals that the majority of them harboured feelings of antipathy towards the Indo-Fijian population. He noted that a large proportion of respondents expressed their worries about preserving Indigenous Fijian culture, a concern which outweighed the commercial and economic advantages that the Indian community contributed to the country. Many also cited the cultural differences between the groups as a key factor inhibiting a totally peaceful coexistence [17]. Without disregarding the genuine concerns of the Indigenous Fijians, it is important, while reading Cato’s article, to consider that many of these anxieties were created or stoked by the colonial administration; not only were the Indians brought over by the British, but the British also deliberately kept the groups apart which did not allow for much opportunity to form positive relations between the groups. Cato argues that the issue of land tenure was a significant source of tension between the groups as  it “neither satisfies the Indian nor develops Fijian initiative.” [18] This system was, of course, the creation of the British administration and was another way of drawing lines between the two groups.

Conclusion

It is important to consider, when reading accounts of relations between Indigenous and Indo-Fijians, that a colonial goal was to isolate these groups and prevent them from forming relationships which were too cordial in order to maintain their control over Fiji. Personal accounts from non-European Fijians from this period are rare, and considering that the British had a very particular agenda to push, their sources must be looked at critically. Their policies of creating division and antagonisms between the groups were employed long after the end of indenture and, despite the population sizes being in favour of the colonized, helped ensure the supremacy of the British.

Endnotes

[1] "Fiji's Jubilee." Daily Mail Atlantic Edition, December 19, 1924, 11. Daily Mail Historical Archive, accessed Mar 13 2025.

[2] "The Fiji Islands." Illustrated London News, February 20, 1875, 171. The Illustrated London News Historical Archive, 1842-2003 (accessed April 17, 2025).

[3] C.F Andrews. India and the Pacific. (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1937), 58.

[4] A.C Cato. “Fijians and Fiji-Indians: A Culture-Contact Problem in the South Pacific.” Oceania 26, no. 1 (1955): 14–34: 24.

[5] HC Deb 17 July 1940 vol 363 cols 196-7.

[6] Robert Norton. “Accommodating Indigenous Privilege: Britain’s Dilemma in Decolonising Fiji.” The Journal of Pacific History 37, no. 2 (2002): 133–56, 133.

[7] Rolando Cocom. “Exploring Mixedness in Fiji: Navigating Mixed-Race Identities for Individuals of Indo-Fijian and Indigenous Fijian Descent.” Journal of Critical Mixed Race Studies 2, no. 1 (2023): 46–70. 51.

[8] Martha Kaplan and John D. Kelly. “Rethinking Resistance: Dialogics of ‘Disaffection’ in Colonial Fiji.” American Ethnologist 21, no. 1 (1994): 123–51: 136.

[9] Mukesh Kumar. “A Quest For Identity/Equality: Indians In Fiji, 1879-1970.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 73 (2012): 1053–64: 1058.

[10] Kumar, 1055.

[11] John D. Kelly. “Fear of Culture: British Regulation of Indian Marriage in Post-Indenture Fiji.” Ethnohistory 36, no. 4 (1989): 372–91: 374.

[12] Kelly, ‘Fear of Culture’, 277-8.

[13] Kelly,  ‘Fear of Culture’  382.

[14] Kelly,  ‘Fear of Culture’  382.

[15] John D. Kelly. “Threats to Difference in Colonial Fiji.” Cultural Anthropology 10, no. 1 (1995): 64–84: 78.

[16] Andrews, 69

[17] Cato, 18-19.

[18] Cato, 24.

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Andrews, C.F. India and the Pacific. (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1937)

Cato, A.C. “Fijians and Fiji-Indians: A Culture-Contact Problem in the South Pacific.” 

Oceania 26, no. 1 (1955): 14–34: 17-18.

"Fiji's Jubilee." Daily Mail Atlantic Edition, December 19, 1924, 11. Daily Mail Historical 

Archive (accessed April 11, 2025). https://link-gale-com.libproxy.york.ac.uk/apps/doc/EE1861580461/DMHA?u=uniyork&sid=bookmark-DMHA&xid=6d5ab5d0. 

"The Fiji Islands." Illustrated London News, February 20, 1875, 171. The Illustrated London 

News Historical Archive, 1842-2003 (accessed April 17, 2025).  https://link-gale-com.libproxy.york.ac.uk/apps/doc/HN3100094411/ILN?u=uniyork&sid=bookmark-ILN&xid=947ff983. 

HC Deb 17 July 1940 vol 363 cols 196-7.

Secondary Sources:

Cocom, Rolando. “Exploring Mixedness in Fiji: Navigating Mixed-Race Identities for 

Individuals of Indo-Fijian and Indigenous Fijian Descent.” Journal of Critical Mixed Race Studies 2, no. 1 (2023): 46–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48738152. 

Kaplan, Martha and John D. Kelly. “Rethinking Resistance: Dialogics of ‘Disaffection’ in 

Colonial Fiji.” American Ethnologist 21, no. 1 (1994): 123–51.

Kelly, John D. “Fear of Culture: British Regulation of Indian Marriage in Post-Indenture 

Fiji.” Ethnohistory 36, no. 4 (1989): 372–91. https://doi.org/10.2307/482653.

Kelly, John D. “Threats to Difference in Colonial Fiji.” Cultural Anthropology 10, no. 

Kumar Mukesh. “A Quest For Identity/Equality: Indians In Fiji, 1879-1970.” Proceedings of 

the Indian History Congress 73 (2012): 1053–64.

Norton, Robert. “Accommodating Indigenous Privilege: Britain’s Dilemma in Decolonising 

Fiji.” The Journal of Pacific History 37, no. 2 (2002): 133–56