Monday, November 19, 2012

FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER THREAT IN INDIA - Indians punish two girls for private Facebook postings




Indians talk a great deal about democracy, but kick in the teeth of freedom of speech. These are not real Indians, but real hypocrites. This sounds similar to (déjà vu of) Indian lynch mob, consisting of Indian leadership, one Indian media and an Indian Labour MP after my position in Waitakere Indian Association. I had merely  raised issue of corruption, mistreatment of women, caste and dowry and other ills which belittle us. I had similarly put it in my Facebook posting. Wonder if Indian Newslink will stand for freedom of speech or dubious laws which thwart freedom of speech and shame the biggest democracy on earth.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2235386/Right-speech-threat-Mumbai-girls-Facebook-post-Bal-Thackeray-landed-jail-hurting-religious-sentiments.html


So much for freedom of speech: Mumbai girls jailed after Facebook post about Bal Thackeray which 'hurt religious sentiments'

A seemingly harmless post on Facebook questioning Mumbai shutdown after the death of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray has landed two girls in trouble.
The Palghar police in neighbouring Thane on Sunday arrested Shaheen Dhada and her friend Renu charging them with hurting religious sentiments, apparently under pressure from Shiv Sainiks.
The police action has evoked widespread outrage. The girls were also charged under the IT Act.
Markets in Mumbai were closed to mourn the death of Shiv Sena Chief Balasaheb Thackeray in Karad, Maharashtra
Markets in Mumbai were closed to mourn the death of Shiv Sena Chief Balasaheb Thackeray in Karad, Maharashtra
'People like Thackeray are born and they die daily, and one should not observe a 'bandh' for that' is what Shaheen Dhada wrote on her Facebook
'People like Thackeray are born and they die daily, and one should not observe a 'bandh' for that' is what Shaheen Dhada wrote on her Facebook
Shaheen had reportedly written on her Facebook wall that "People like Thackeray are born and die daily, and one should not observe a 'bandh' for that".
Renu was arrested for liking the post. The two were on Monday produced before a court which sentenced them to 14-day judicial custody.
However, they were granted bail soon after they furnished personal bonds. While the police were prompt in arresting the girls, they are still dragging their feet in apprehending the men who vandalised the hospital owned by Dhada's uncle at Palghar.
IT ACT.j
A mob of suspected Shiv Sainiks had on Sunday vandalised the facility after the girl posted the comment.
Terming the police action against the girls as absurd, Press Council of India chief Markandey Katju asked Maharashtra chief minister Prithviraj Chavan to look into the issue.
PAST CASES
He also demanded immediate action against the policemen involved. Chavan, on his part, said: "I have just come to know about the details, I am looking into the matter."
Congress spokesperson Sandeep Dikshit parried questions on the issue, saying it was something to which the Maharashtra government would respond. "I have no idea. We will find out," he said.
Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy also condemned the arrests, demanding that the CM apologise for reckless disregard of the Constitution and fundamental rights by the state administration.
The police have now gone on the defensive and said they had no choice after the Sena activists complained.
"Over 500 Shiv sainiks had come to the police station. They had the printouts of the Facebook message and the addresses of the girls. Since it was a sensitive issue after the death of Bal Thackeray, we initiated the action," Ramdas Shinde, sub-divisional police officer, Palghar, said.
When asked whether the charge of hurting religious sentiments against the girls was appropriate, Shinde said: "Though the offence did not hurt the religious sentiments in the proper sense of the word, it hurt the sentiments of a particular group." 

'Don't throttle dissent'

Telecom and IT minister Kapil Sibal said he was deeply saddened by the arrest of the two girls over the Facebook post questioning Mumbai's shutdown over Shiv Sena patriarch Bal Thackeray's funeral and said the IT Act should not be used to throttle dissent. "I am deeply saddened.

Labour Leadership tussle: Worse than a lion is an injured one – what we call in Hindi “Zakhmi Sher” (An injured lion)


Labour Leadership tussle: Worse than a lion is an injured one – what we call in Hindi “Zakhmi Sher” (An injured lion)

As the sail of Labour leadership scuffle collects air, there is an anti-climax as the attacker David Cunliffe takes the air out of sails by saying he supports Labour Leader David Shearer (for time being). Hurray, Shearer wins the battle by default. However, as I mentioned, the WAR IS FAR FROM OVER. Come February, there will be similar story, and war will be over by election of a new leader- David Cunliffe.

Wellington political scientist, Ryan Malone has predicted that come 2014 election, Labour Party will have a new leader. I concur with him. We have problem today because some 18 months ago, David Cunliffe committed the error of not rolling over Phil Goff. After Goof stepped down, we saw the wrong David elected as the party leader and subsequent constitutional change which gives more power to the people and local electorate councils (LECs). This was after LECs felt that their MPs overrode their wishes in choice of a new leader.

However, some (yours truly included) feel that the right wing media, leaning towards National Party, has an agenda in this leadership conflict. Whosoever wins the leadership battle, National party will be a winner. As a process of agenda-setting, right wing media created an imminent scenario of a coup and created a news frenzy of leadership battle in Labour conference when one did not exist. TV cameras were placed in such angles that they always reported news from a leadership battle perspectives and fanned the smouldering ashes.

In fact one reader put a comment on a NZ Herald story on leadership change and said: “I wish the media would butt out and stop trying to influence the politics of this country, they are there to report the news, not to analyse it, and try to influence voters. If some reporters feel so strongly about things let them put their money where their mouth is and stand for election themselves.”  One hopes the First World media of NZ would stop muckraking and agenda-setting and stop destabilising Labour party.

I fully agree with John Armstrong, NZ Herald columnist who said: The last thing Shearer needs is to make a martyr out of Cunliffe among the wider party membership. But those sanctions always remain an option. The Shearer camp is instead seeking to crush Cunliffe as a political force by destroying what is left of his credibility.

I hope that David Shearer and his supporters in the Labour caucus heed this warning on the afternoon of 20th November, 2012, when a leadership battle will fizzle out because the ambitious leader will not put up his hand – not for now. You ask hunters who go out on Safari. It is dangerous game to kill a lion. But it is MORE DANGEROUS to injure a lion and leave it lurking in the forest. It will pounce unexpectedly when it have had its rest and mustered its energy. I hope the Labour Party does not commit this cardinal error of punishing or banishing David Cunliffe for displaying some antics of democracy which a civilised New Zealand stands for.

When Chris Carter hinted a leadership change, wrong David got elected.


When Chris Carter hinted a leadership change, wrong David got elected.

Shearer may win the battle on 20th November to clinch leadership; the war is far from over.


As Julia Gillard shafted Australian Labour Party leader Kevin Rudd when caucus there saw that Rudd could not lead Australian Labour into the next government, it was a hint to New Zealand Labour to do something because so was true for Phil Goff.

However, while Chris Carter became the fall guy, Labour caucus was too afraid for bloodbath, and a coup against Phil Goff never happened. He finally stepped down, and out of the three David’s for the leadership, the wrong one got elected. Reportedly the popular choice directed by local electorate councils (LECs) was for David Cunliffe when some members of caucus went against the wishes of their LECs and voted David Shearer. That is what prompted constitution change, giving powers back to the people and not leaving all decisions at the whim of caucus.

I know this because I helped a stalwart labour supporter prepare submission for change in Labour party constitution. Following was submitted to Labour Party when members and public were asked suggestion for change:

The Party’s organisation is at all time low. We do not currently have enough people at grass roots level working on philosophies of Labour Party and it being articulated prominently to people out there. It is important to do so because we have an extremist right wing media working for the National government. We have to get down to our grass roots membership and explain our philosophies. It is important for labour party to take control of daily news media. They have a dwindling membership. They have local newsletter drop-off but they are mere opinions of MPs or list MPs. They come up with their own opinions. They are there not because we like them but they are there to represent the views of their membership and articulate our policies.

Our problem is that we are more of centre left and become almost right-wingers. We need to be back where we belong. Labour Party is in a situation where tail is wagging the dog. In a particular electorate, members gave specific directive about leadership choice to their elected MP but the MP went against that directive of his own membership because of vested interests. Dissatisfaction is being expressed about this erosion of democracy but little appears to be done and our membership is voting with their feet, resulting in dwindling membership.

It is the last election of the leader, whereby peoples wishes were ignored by caucus, led to the constitutional change. This change has consequently led to erosion of power from the caucus, and given back to electorates.

The leadership tussle in Labour Party will not end with a roll call on 20th November, 2012. Much speculation is by media and there is much ado about nothing in this battle because there will be no opponent and David Shearer will win the battle by default. However, the war is far from over. Change is inevitable.

My prediction is that Labour Party will be led by another David come elections in 2014.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

RADIO AUSTRALIA: Commentator backs Fiji regime's role in 'coup culture' change


http://www.pmc.aut.ac.nz/pacific-media-watch/fiji-commentator-backs-fiji-regimes-role-coup-culture-change-8146

FIJI: Commentator backs Fiji regime's role in 'coup culture' change



Fiji commentator Thakur Ranjit Singh ... critical of past media role in Fiji. Image: PMC
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Item: 8146
MELBOURNE (Radio Australia / Pacific Media Watch): An outspoken Indo-Fijian commentator and former media publisher has given his support to the interim regime's efforts to change the country's 'coup culture'.
Thakur Ranjit Singh is a former Fiji Daily Post publisher and an Indo-Fijian political commentator, who now lives in New Zealand.
Since 2006 Singh's comments that Fiji's media is part of the reason the country kept having coups, and his support of the interim government, has seen him repeatedly attacked by those who oppose it, and led to him being described as a coup apologist.
Recently he published an article that looks at the island nation's coup culture since 1987 and the impact of the media there, and it is likely it will result him becoming a target once more.
Presenter: Campbell Cooney
Speaker: Thakur Ranjit Singh, Fiji media commentator

Carter's Coup:New leadership may change Labour’s fortune

This article was written in May 2011 when leadership battles were looming in Labour Party and Chris Carter had thrown in name of David Cunliffe as a suitable leader in place of Phil Goff. As a result Carter lost his seat and David Shearer g
ot elected as Labour Leader despite LEC's direction for Cunliffe as the leader. So began the woes of Labour Party. It appears my friend Chris Carter would be redeemed, or avenged, with looming coup expected. What I suggested of David Cunliffe can happen now- David Cunliffe may emulate a Gillard - on - Kevin Rudd on Labour leader David Shearer.
THE QUESTION IS NOT IF IT WILL HAPPEN, IT IS WHEN IT WILL HAPPEN.





xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

New leadership may change Labour’s fortune


By

New leadership may change Labour’s fortune
As the popularity of Labour and its Leader Phil Goff continue to slide, it is time the Party revisited what former frontbencher and Member Chris Carter had initiated last year.
Labour now has little to lose and perhaps much to gain from a younger leader who could be a match for National’s John Key.
Politics is a numbers game and numbers depend on popularity. Australia’s Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd knows it well, as he found himself displaced (as Prime Minister) overnight by his ruthless Party caucus.
When 78% of the voters say ‘you will not win’ and 55% of your own supporters discount your chances of winning the next election, warning bells should start ringing in the Labour caucus.
What happened in Australia in July 2010 appeared to have been taking shape in New Zealand, as we saw Mr Carter’s bungled efforts in being a one-man crusade to change leadership in the Party.
The Carter Principle
Was his action intended to change Labour’s misfortunes in 2011 elections? Was he really out to save the Labour Party?
Mr Carter’s action cannot be discounted as actions of an unsound mind. He has proved his worth not only as a credible, capable and visible Minister, but also as an effective MP. As a migrant and as a community worker in his Te Atatu Electorate, I vouch for his popularity, especially among the ethnic communities.
Mr Carter polled 14,620 votes in the Te Atatu Constituency in 2008 Election, while his Party collected 11,263 votes, which indicated his personal popularity.
In TV debates following the ‘Letter fiasco’ last year, there appeared consensus on one issue: how he revealed the disenchantment in the Party was questionable but what he had stated was the truth.
You need not have the crystal ball to see that Labour would not win in the 2011 Election with Mr Goff as the Leader. One commentator said he lacked the charisma while according to another, he suffers from the ‘Prince Charles Syndrome,’ of being around too long. That was in August 2010.
Missed opportunities
With Mr Key backing down on the mining of reserves, increasing economic woes and National’s assault on the rights of workers, coupled by New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters joining with (former MP and Wanganui Mayor) Michael Laws, may yet spell some positive chances for the Labour Party in Election 2011.
If the Party is prepared to go for a copy-cat gamble of Australians in ditching Mr Rudd for better election chances with Julia Gillard, then perhaps the smouldering embers set up by Mr Carter may be worth fanning by the Labour caucus.
The Cunliffe Factor
Now that the gap has widened further, they may have nothing to lose in ‘doing a Rudd,’ on Goff, but in a relatively more civil manner.
One name floated as a possible challenger for the leadership role is New Lynn MP David Cunliffe who, like Mr Carter, is popular in his electorate.
The New Zealand Herald, in its November 10, 2008 issue, named him as the possible competitor with Annette King for the role of Deputy Leader and said that he was tipped to be Labour’s next Leader.
It is perhaps a prophecy that could come true.
Mr Cunliffe had reportedly said that he would not put his hand up for leadership.
“Labour is a Collective Party. Wisdom will be shared, and I will not be surprised if people come to a pretty shared collective view.”
That was more than two years ago and the supporters are waiting to see if Labour will come to a collective view that Mr Cunliffe had hinted.
Things have gone worse for Labour now. Those with ears close to the political ground already know that the change in leadership is a foregone conclusion.
Some claim, though prematurely, that Mr Carter had either strategically planned or inadvertently put things in motion.
One scenario is that if commonsense is to prevail in the Labour caucus, then Mr Cunliffe should lead the Party, which may have a remote chance of wresting back political control.
If there is a change in leadership, fanned by the heat that he set, Mr Carter’s political life may be far from over.

[Thakur Ranjit Singh is a political commentator, a Waitakere community worker and a postgraduate student in Communication Studies at AUT University.
Email: thakurji@xtra.co.nz]

Saturday, November 17, 2012

Satyamev Jayate: Hey Ram, Indian leadership in Auckland shot the messenger this Independence Day


Satyamev Jayate: Hey Ram, Indian leadership in Auckland shot the messenger this Independence Day

 Thakur Ranjit Singh

[This article was given to Indian Newslink newspaper in Auckland, which had incorrectly quoted Thakur Ranjit Singh and led a lynch mob against Thakur for saying some home truths about India on his Facebook posting. This was Thakurs correction which Indian Newslink and its editor, Venkat Raman did not publish for obvious reasons.]

This episode opens with the Indian lynch mob after head of an Auckland journalist. He is purported to have posted comments on Facebook, deemed offensive by Indian politicians and some leaders. This makes a good script for a Bollywood movie. Here is an honest-speaking journalist, who speaks some home truths about his grandfather’s country. Indian leadership in Auckland, with a media and some political opportunism, makes a villain of him. He is chased out of his muhalla - his street, the house is burnt and emotionally-charged people, prompted by media, stone this “villain” to death. Truth should never interrupt a good script. And that is where the film ends with everybody dancing around his dead body and chanting “bharat mata ki jay, mera bharat mahaan…”

Thank God I am not in India, or by now, I would have been that dead body. That is the advantage all NRIs (Non-Resident Indians) have in this civilised democracy - where we still (supposedly) have freedom of speech. That journalist is none other than yours truly, Thakur Ranjit Singh.

What were the truths that Thakur said in his Facebook posting? [Please see link (s) under each heading to substantiate what I said]

1) India has been judged the worst country for a woman to live (by G 20 survey).


2) Indians have hoarded the largest amount of black money in Swiss Banks



3) India has one of the most corrupt politicians in the world.


4) India has done very well economically, but this wealth has failed to reach many of the needy, with very heavy unequal distribution of wealth.


5) In the Olympics India failed miserably.



Things that Thakur said you should do during Independence Day in front of Indian Flag:

1) Bow your heads and pray for a miracle to salvage the name of a once proud country, so once again we can say we are proud to be an Indian

2) Pray for a prosperous, honest conscientious and caring nation where all have equality and share in the economic cake.

What Thakur said about Fiji?

1) I am proud to be Fijian, and thank my grandfather for running away from India in 1915 for a new home in Fiji.

What Thakur did not say, but was misrepresented by media, Indian Newslink:

1) I never said I am NOT proud to be an Indian.

2) I never said ‘bow your head in shame” I said bow your heads in prayers.

3) I never said India is economically backward – I praised its economic development, but criticised its distribution.

This is what the Indian President Pranab Mukherjee said on the eve on India’s Independence Day: Anger against the bitter pandemic of corruption is legitimate, as is the protest against this plague that is eroding the capability and potential of our nation. There are times when people lose their patience...” It was one such time for me.

India’s Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh said the following in his Independence Day speech: “We will continue our efforts to bring more transparency and accountability in the work of public servants and to reduce corruption...” So I wonder what different I said that riled these distant NRIs?

Indians can say things because of blind nationalism and misplaced patriotism.  What I am perturbed by is comments by former Fijians in Indian Newslink of 1 September, 2012. In what I said above, what did Sunil Chandra, President of Waitakere Indian Association, find “unacceptable”? What were “derogatory”, Ahmed Bhamji? And Vinod Patel, who heads Mega Mitre 10 and is President of Hindu Council of New Zealand (HCNZ), surprised me most with his boorish, blinkered and vitriolic statement that borders on defamation of character. He calls me a “failed journalist?” Last year I graduated with Masters in Communication Studies with Honours from Auckland University of Technology (AUT) after doing a 300 page research thesis on media and politics in Fiji. Does he question the standard of AUT? Since when did he become a media commentator and analyst? He blames me for writing without base and research and having hatred in my writings. I had earlier worked at HCNZ and at one time had been president of Hindu Elders Foundation and Chaired media section of their Hindu Conference earlier this year. I still remain Media Officer for Waitakere Indian Association and Waitakere Ethnic Board and head Sanatan Media Watch. I can also question his suitability to head HCNZ with such non-substantiated and divisive views, but I will not, but vote with my feet. HCNZ has strenuously attracted only a handful Fijians, they will have one less now.

And Venkat Raman, editor of Indian Newslink has been using my free services, feature journalism articles and opinions for some 8 years and had occasionally praised me for this.  And he publishes this defamatory and unsubstantiated diatribe of Vinod Patel in his paper which any respected editor would question, especially against a person he knows personally. I find this strange. I appreciate that as a journalist and media commentator, I have been thorn to some people. Writing honestly about vice in society has been my trait and for that I make no apologies, and even had tussles with the way HCNZ operates. I believe that if you are a popular and likeable journalist, you are not doing your job; if you rile or annoy people, and they hate you, you must have done something right. I have been fired by two diametrically opposed Fijian Prime Ministers for speaking truth. One is Qarase (serving jail term) and another one is Mahendra Chaudhry, now in courts for abusing his position. Compared to these, my suspension as Vice President of WIA due to pressure from Indian leadership is like a Sunday picnic.

The instigator of this, Sunny Kaushal is a Labour politician who can now proudly tell his son in Labour Party youth that he should never be truthful and fearless like Thakur, team up with the right influential people and politicians, hide truths, curtail free speech that offends your mother country, befriend media-wallahs and you will become a successful Indian politician in NZ.

No Indian leader or politician can teach me the history of Girmit of my grandfather. He ran away to escape poverty and atrocities back home, seeking better life elsewhere. I grew up listening to Bhagat Singh’s revolution from my grandfathers’ 78 RPM HMV wind-up gramophone. That is why my heart bleeds when it appears the sacrifices of these revolutionaries-“saheeds” went in vain, with the current situation in India.

People are completely wrong in comparing this episode to Paul Henry saga. I am a Fijian of Indian descent and judged things from my knowledge of India and have substantiated each allegation with media link, in many cases, written by Indians themselves. All those slating me are well-off NRIs, majority from one or two particular prosperous states, very few migrants are from downtrodden states, and hence they have little overseas voice. I chose to speak bluntly on behalf of my downtrodden cousins in Karauli, Rajasthan in India where I went in 2003 to trace my roots and was shocked to see how the Maharaja still rules, Mandirs are his commercial arms and religion is for sale. Independence has yet to reach Indians almost the population size of USA.

Perhaps my only crime is to have used English idiom that perhaps many Indians do not properly understand. Calling “every Englishmen and his dog” does not mean I am calling or comparing England to a dog. It is just a way of emphasising “all’ or ‘everybody” Similarly; I have said nothing about dog and India. I hope Indian community leaders understand this.

Nobody to date can honestly say what I have said wrong or untruthful, they just merely appeared to have joined the lynch-mob started by a labour politician, seeking my scalp, hiding behind generalisations like “unacceptable”, “derogatory”, “bad attitude”, ‘deplorable,” “very disturbing” and so on. Only one person agreed with my right to free speech.  Contrary to Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings, it may now be an Indian sin to speak the truth. However, I feel it is still not a Kiwi sin to do so.

What an irony that on the Independence Day of the largest democracy on earth, Indian leadership in New Zealand shot down few of the strongest pillars of free world, democracy and principles of Independence - free speech, media freedom and - truth. Together with it, they have shot the messenger as well. Hey Ram!

Why Indo-Fijians did not join Fiji army during the wars: What Girmitiya descendants need to know


Why Indo-Fijians did not join Fiji army during the wars: What Girmitiya descendants need to know



Thakur Ranjit Singh, Auckland, New Zealand

At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, Fiji marks a memorable day. That is Remembrance Day on 11th November each year. Americans call it Veteran’s Day. Remembrance Day (also known as Poppy Day or Armistice Day) is a memorial day observed in Commonwealth countries since the end of World War I to remember the members of their armed forces who have died in the line of duty. Historically, arguments have raged since the wars on reasons why Indo-Fijians did not join the army in numbers. Since Fiji’s history fails to tell this, descendants of Girmitiyas (indentured labourers) need to be told the reasons why their forbears did not join Fiji army.
Fiji's proud son, PROFESSOR BRIJ V. LAL, (right) who filled the vacuum on Indo-Fijian and Girmit history that British and  Australian CSR Colonialists stole from History books of Fiji. This clarification on dis-information on Indians not joining the army is from him. These were lies perpetuated by British, who, together with Fijian Chiefs objected to Indians joining the army. He is pictured here with your truly, Thakur Ranjit Singh, (left) author of blog Site FIJI PUNDIT and Secretary of Fiji Girmit Foundation of New Zealand, during Fiji Girmit Remembrance Day in Auckland in May 2014 where Professor Lal ( with Dr Padma Lal) was the Chief Guest and Keynote Speaker. (see link below for the speech)
Every now and then Fijian (read I-Taukei) leaders in all sizes and shapes have levelled accusation at Indo-Fijians for being disloyal to Fiji by not joining the army during the world wars. Among others, a Fijian nationalist academic who was behind the racist 1990 constitution, late Dr Asesela Ravuvu had accused Indo-Fijians of not being interested to fight for the maintenance of democratic rule in the world and were selfish while Fijians gave their lives for this cause. He accused Indo-Fijians of demanding more pay and special protection for their families and property. It was such non-cooperation, according to him, that partly contributed to difficulties in acquiring trust and acceptance of the Fijians as good neighbours and countrymen.

Dr Brij Lal, an Indo-Fijian academic and one of the Commissioners behind the 1997 constitution wrote about the reasons and I take liberty to quote him to inform the world that deserved to know this a long time ago.

It is agreed that while to some extent, government’s refusal to grant Indo-Fijians the same conditions of service provided to European soldiers is one of the reasons for them not being in the military, there are others which need to be clarified to counteract accusations of Fijian nationalists who castigate a whole race for something they were not guilty of. The reasons why Indo-Fijians did not join in the World Wars in the Fiji army are the following, among others:


1)   Recruitment for Fijians was well-organised and even supported by chiefs, including Ratu Sukuna in his military uniform. His support and efforts perhaps was because, he was a beneficiary of the things that came from Britain, hence the need to protect them. Furthermore, by recruiting greater number of Fijians, there was an intention to display Fijian loyalty to the British to win their support for the Fijian community, as pressures were being exerted by the Indo-Fijian community for more say in the government.

      RATU SIR LALA SUKUNA:  Recruitment for Fijians was well-organised and even supported by chiefs, including Ratu Sukuna in his military uniform. INDIANS WERE DISCOURAGED FROM RECRUITMENT THROUGH OBJECTIONS FROM FIJIANS AND EUROPEANS

2)   Easier access to Fijian villagers to recruit, as they lived in stratified structure collectively and were more easily accessible than scattered Indo- Fijians.

3)   While Indo-Fijians said they would fight if Fiji was attacked, they refused to fight for the empire in the other parts of the world unless government acknowledged the principle of equality between European and non-European soldiers. What they said was that an Indo-Fijian life should be valued same as a European life.

4)   The government was reluctant to recruit Indo-Fijians because of objections from Fijians and Europeans, as they did not wish them to be equipped with this skill. There have been instances where Indo-Fijians were requesting their sons to be recruited, but were refused.  One Indo-Fijian is reported to have gone to New Zealand to enlist in the Maori regiments because the Fiji army was not taking in Indo-Fijians.

5)   Europeans were fearful of Indo-Fijians because of Gandhi’s ’Quit- India’ campaign and Subhash Chandra Bose’s collaboration with the Japanese.

6)   There was reluctance by CSR (sugar millers) to grant leave for the farmers to fight the war, as they needed to meet their contractual arrangements on the cane farms. Indo-Fijians were not unemployed and “free’ like most of the villagers who were not fully utilised and were available for military without any constraints elsewhere. Indo-Fijians had a difficult choice of selecting between enlisting for war and keeping their farms. Fijians on the other hand did not have the difficulty of such a choice, as they had no farming obligations.

7)   The government proclaimed that the most important contributions the Indo-Fijians could make were to increase the production of foodstuffs and maintenance of essential agricultural interests. This had been their contribution to the war, as soldiers do and cannot fight wars on a hungry stomach.

8)   Membership in the British Empire was no badge of honour for the Indo- Fijians. Local Europeans owed their power and prestige to British colonialism, and Fijian chiefs were grateful for the security and privilege they and their people enjoyed as a result of British policies. On the other hand, Indo-Fijians had been subjected to most inhuman racial humiliations and denigrations on a daily basis during indenture (girmit), and fighting a war for the British would have meant a fight for preservation of a system that was oppressive and humiliating.

The conclusion by Dr Brij Lal in analysis of the above reasons is that the Indo-Fijians were neither seditious nor disloyal. It was the European propaganda and the exuberance war efforts of the Fijians that made them appear so. It was concluded that there was no evidence of any opposition to war by Indo-Fijians who had displayed full loyalty for the government with a fervent hope for the victory of the Allied Nations. It is obvious that a vacuum in the true historical facts have clouded this issue.

The question that I pose here is would Fiji’s history have been different if the British had encouraged racial balance in the Fijian Military during the wars? What may be the history of Fiji if Indo-Fijians were encouraged and even forced to join the army during the two world wars?

The answer perhaps lies in the next question and answer.

Question: Why Papua New Guinea and India, despite being so divided on regional, provincial, language, cultural or ethnic lines have little chance of success of a racially-instituted military coup that Fiji saw?

Answer: This is because their military do not have the type of racial, ethnic, traditional or religious polarisation that Fiji military has. In those countries the diverse make up of the soldiers would thwart, discourage and even prevent uprising based on racial, religious or regional superiority.

For argument sake, assume if Fiji military in 1987 had, say 30 to 50 percent Indo-Fijian soldiers distributed equally in all ranks, would Rabuka still have been able to topple the then Commander (now Fiji’s President) and institute a racially-based coup?

The chances would have been slim, and may even have resulted in a mutiny as comradeship in the military transcends race and reason may have come out of such a treasonous suggestion.

The bottom-line is, to remove coup culture in Fiji, for the military to venture on racial balancing of the Fiji Military forces and encourage Indo-Fijians to join the military service. There is no shortage of such people to join, the only problem is that, like in those colonial days, they are not taken in, and in turn are blamed for lacking patriotism.

I hope Indo-Fijians will learn the reasons why they are not represented in the Fiji army, and rebut any uninformed people who accuse us of lack of patriotism towards Fiji.


(About the Author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is a political analyst and a media commentator, based in Auckland, New Zealand. He graduated with Masters in Communication Studies (MCS) from Auckland University of Technology (AUT) in 2011 and the above was an extract from a project paper he had done on coup culture in Fiji)