Indo-Fijian, indigenous relations

This blog will reflect more deeply on the Cattermole reading and her argument that the imagined community of the Fijian culture is predominantly an i-taukei dominated one, despite the significant proportion of Indo-Fijians in the population (37.6%).

One interesting point that I got out of the piece was the emphasis on indigeneity in Fijian culture, and the contrast this presents in comparison with other nations. In Australia, the image of the nation is one that does not seem to focus so strongly on indigenous elements. Although trips to the Northern Territory and engagement with the indigenous people are advertised and encouraged, the element of indigeneity does not appear quite as integral to our touristic strategy. This is connected to our historical approach to the Aboriginals, such as the attempted genocide in the 18^th century, and our failure to openly celebrate their cultural heritage.

One other really important point I took away from this piece was the focus on the importance of projecting the Fijian image to the global community. The overriding presence of the i-taukei in this image presumably is more appealing to potential tourists than a portrayal of the Indian culture, given that tourists may more often than not have a desire to see the “pure” Fijian culture. Given how incredibly vital the tourism sector is to the economic development of the nation, and one can certainly see how the Fijians would make strong attempts to construct an image of nationhood focused on the images of these smiling, strong, healthy-looking indigenous men and women. Such images are evident in the We Are Fiji video clip. This focus on tourism is also reflective of the strong desire within Fiji to bring the country into modernization and development, which is something I have certainly witnessed at the grassroots level. In Kaba, the villagers seemed very focused on making as many handicrafts as possible, for as much income generation as possible, to advance their fairly basic facilities. They seemed to recognize the inherent, yet perhaps not fully exploited, potential to utilize their cultural heritage as a means of advancement. Both Hooper and Hau'ofa emphasize the importance of development occurring from the bottom-up, rather than being a policy prescribed for a people by politicians, bureaucrats, aid organizations and others from on high, and I am more and more realizing the importance of this, for it is, to quote Hau'ofa, 
'only when we focus on what ordinary people are actually doing, rather than on what they should be doing, [that] we can see the broader picture of reality'. One can present the argument that development of the overall nation state cannot be achieved through such seemingly trivial activities as workshops in small communities directed toward preserving culture. However, my thinking is that, through improving services in one village at a time, the broader societal cohesion of a nation is improved. Actions taken in one village act as a guide and motivation for other villages to do similar work. 

However, I have to admit that I found one aspect of the Cattermole piece somewhat irritating. She emphasized rugby as a strong unifying force, having the capacity to draw together those from different communities, and across racial divides. Although sport does indeed often have a unifying ability, Cattermole failed to thoroughly explore the flip side of this, which is the potential of sports, such as rugby, to be incredibly divisive. For example, in the Fiji setting, the prominence of rugby in the concept of nationhood effectively excludes non-rugby players and those who do not folllow the sport (which I imagine is a large part of the Indo-Fijian population), and also women (for although there are some women’s teams, it remains a strongly male dominated sport). In light of these considerations, rugby does not seem to me a sport which is able to bridge the deeply ingrained ethnic divisions between the two cultural groups. This division is very evident in the presence of separate i-taukei and Indo-Fijian villages (although there are some combined villages, the very small communities are from what I gather virtually completely hegemonic), and separate schools. Teaiwa actually suggests that soccer should more be considered the space that unites Indians and Fijians across ethnic lines. I don't know if this truly is the case, however I think soccer is the more likely sport to be placed up on the pedestal rather than rugby, for it at least involves both cultures. 

One thing I did not realize prior to coming to Fiji was the three-tier system that Fiji is essentially founded on; the indigenous Fijians provided the land, the Indians the labour and the Europeans the capital and the management. This of course is one of the fundamental bases of the tensions in the country. 


Furthermore, I know that the focus on education is strong within the Indian community. This emphasis on going on to receive higher degrees seems weaker within the indigenous Fijian community. I have heard that the indigenous Fijians tend to complete only one year of a formal degree, go out to work for a certain number of years, and then return to finish their degree, or in some cases, not. Although I could imagine the benefits of doing one year of a degree to get a basic understanding of a field of study, and then receive practical experience, this set-up seems odd to me, for I have been taught to belief that having as full an education as possible before entering full-time work is a more effective way of contributing to society. 


The lack of Indo-Fijians in many of the workplaces here seems therefore quite regrettable to me, for I am sure that their education could considerably enrich the ability of these workplaces to carry out their duties, and would add significant depth to the cultural make-up of the staff body. It is interesting to note that those at the Department, the Arts Council and the Museum realize the importance of preserving the Indo-Fijians’ cultural heritage, what with multicultural centres providing support and outlets for their work, and exhibitions dedicated to them, but yet they do not seem to have taken many positive steps to actively encourage the expression of that culture within the overall i-taukei framework.

I would also be interested to find out how the indigenous Fijians have taken to the introduction of Indian cuisine; I have observed some i-taukei eating roti and curries in the MHCC food court, but I am not sure how much of a common practice this is. I have also noticed the i-taukei listening to quite a lot of Indian music, such as on the bus trips to Bau and Kaba. Teaiwa uses popular culture, such as music and dance, as a key means of exploring the relationship between the indigenous Fijians and the Indo-Fijians. This seems to me to be important to focus on in order to understand how this cross-cultural consumption constructs kin relations between the two groups. We have yet to witness any Indo-Fijians performing for us, the welcome ceremony being heavily centered on the meke. However, it may be that the Indo-Fijians do not feel strong concern for this lack of opportunity to present their culture through the arts, given that their culture seems more strongly focused on academic excellence, as Teaiwa stresses.