Introduction

Fault lines appear between the state and the civil society when the public becomes dissatisfied

with state structures, imposing policies or authoritative imposition of power upon the masses.

Where the political structure permits, existing mechanisms can limit or allow dissatisfaction

towards the state to be addressed. Hence throughout the 96 years of colonial rule in Fiji,

resistance to colonial rule was expressed by different forms and originated from distinct

circumstances. The colonial state since its inception in 1874 had not been able to fully satisfy,

address and accommodate the interest and demands of the country’s growing ethnic groups, and

the emerging diverse issues.1Although the colonial administration was dominated by British

officials, the European settlers were apprehensive to the policies of the government in that they

believed that there interests were of utmost importance.2 The subsequent institutionalization of

the Fijian people and its culture and resources protected the people from exploitations

encountered by indigenous populations in South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and India by its

British colonizers. While the Europeans in Fiji viewed this as a setback, the hope of the colonial

administration to maintain and preserve the Fijian way of life was met with mixed reactions from

within Fijian society. Fijians especially those of the western regions felt considerably constrained

by the bureaucratic structuring of their socio-political units which limited their freedoms.3

Furthermore the harsh conditions of the indentured labor system mobilized Indo-Fijian

1
Ali, A. 1986. “Political Change, 1874-1960” in Politics in Fiji, Lal, B. V. (Ed). Allen & Unwin, Sydney: p.
9.
2
Ali, A. 1977. Fiji: From Colony to Independence 1874-1970. University of the South Pacific, Suva.
3
Durutalo, A.L. 1997. “The Dilemmas of Indigenous Fijian Political Disunity in Provincialism and the Crisis
of Indigenous Fijian Political Unity. M.A. Thesis. Centre for Development Studies, University of the South
Pacific, Suva: pp. 157-158.
consciousness of their situation into dissent against the colonial state.4 Thus while the British

maintained power over the masses; their authority was challenged throughout the colonial period

by the different groups that aggrieved state policies. Where various forms of dissent emerged

against the colonial state, this paper is primarily concerned with two considerably important

events that characterize the nature of the relationship between the society and the state. Thus in

terms of the gold mining strike by Fijian workers in 1938, and the socio-political movements of

the indentured laborers that culminated in a strike in 1920, the paper will discuss in that order;

firstly, the origins of the dissent; secondly, how their dissent was expressed; and thirdly, the

outcome of the dissent. Hence, it may be noted that while Fiji fared well in comparison to other

British colonies, colonial rule had it its opposition thus it is important that a brief insight into the

theories of colonialism and the modern state be discussed as a basis for the discussion.

Theory of State and Colonialism

Colonialism is the establishment by the more developed countries of formal political authority

over the areas of Asia, Africa, Australasia, and Latin America.5 While it does not necessarily

entail the accompaniment of settling white populations it leans towards the exploitation of local

economic resources for metropolitan use.6 It involves the transformation of traditional societies

into capitalist based societies by manner of forced or indirect socialization of colonial socio-

cultural and eco-political ideologies.

4
Gillion, K.L. (1977). The Fiji Indians: Challenge to European Dominance 1920-1946, Australian National
University Press, Canberra.
5
Scott, J. and Marshall, G. (2005). Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press, Oxford: p. 88.
6
Ibid, 2005: p. 88.
Post colonial studies illuminate the ideologies and strategies exercised as one expressing the

superiority in race of the, in this case, the British Empire.7 These societies felt that it was their

duty to civilize traditional societies into the norms and values they practiced. Fiji nevertheless

was an exception in that it had sought protection from the British Crown against an impending

American invasion. Nevertheless, elements such as subordination, exploitation, violence,

irrationality, and despotism characterized the British perception of its colonies.8 With the

establishment of the modern state in Fiji, came bureaucratic agents of imperialism and the

struggle to contain a balance of socio-economic interests.9 This paper theorizes the state from the

Marxist perspective and asserts that the colonial state sought to maximize its interests by

separating itself from the population. Hence where the objective of state can be wholly fulfilled

through development of the economy, the construction of the native administration portrayed the

colonial state as genuinely concerned of indigenous Fijians interests.10 Thus, by procuring Indian

laborers through the indenture system the state would be able develop the colonial economy, by

controlling the modes and factors of production. Framed upon the ideology of civilization and

modernity, the colonial state established itself as the determinant of the social, economic, and

political change in Fiji. However, enlightenment and consciousness of the oppressed statuses of

the people soon emerged against the forms of persuasion and enforcement of conformity

expressed for social control.

7
Seidman, S. 2008. “Chapter 17: Colonial Discourse Studies in Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today.
Blackwell Publishing, Massachusetts: p. 257.
8
Ibid, 2008: p. 288.
9
Durutalo, A.L. 1997. “The Colonial State and Indirect Rule in Fiji” in Provincialism and the Crisis of
Indigenous Fijian Political Unity, M.A. Thesis. Centre for Development Studies, The University of the South
Pacific, Suva: p. 65.

10
Ibid, 1997: p. 66.
Indigenous Fijians in the Colonial Economy

The strike by discontented Fijian miners in November 1938 under the employ of the Emperor

Gold Mining Company in Vatukoula illuminated the changing perceptions and growing

consciousness of the Fijian persons at the state level. The separatist policies and the ethnic

disparities that existed within the colonial state were gradually being noticed by the Fijian

people. While ethnic compartmentalization characterized facets of the wider society, the colonial

states’ economic policy of organizing labor along the lines of ethnicity had greater implications

for the Fijian people.11 The indigenous Fijian community had been governed through the Fijian

Administration under the colonial state as a state within a state as means of preserving their

culture and traditional way of living.12 This involved the restriction of Fijians from being

involved in the national economic sector, but they still contributed through farm produce levies

to the state.13 Fijians under the separate administration had been confined to the communal labor

activity because of native policies. Nevertheless, the development of the economy warranted

increasing amounts of labor which led to the recruitment of Fijians into the colonial economy.

However the supply and price of Fijian labor was determined through the context of the colonial

states agricultural taxation policies. Because the state procured capital through the supply of

village produce, it determined the price of Fijian labor.14 Thus, it would become a factor in the
11
Bain, Atu Emberson. 1994. “Mobilising Mine Labour 1934 – 1950: Who, Why and How?” in Labour and
Gold in Fiji. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom: pp. 137.

12
Knapman, B. Fiji’s Economic History, 1874 – 1939: Studies of Capitalist Colonial Development. National
Center for Development Studies, Australian National University, Canberra: p. 5.

13
Sutherland, W. 1992. Beyond the Politics of Race: An Alternative History of Fiji. Australian National
University, Canberra: p. 31.

14
Ibid, 1992: p. 31.
determining of wage relations when Fijians became employed at the gold mines in Vatukoula

and Mount Kasi. Race, moreover was an important factor in the organization of labor, therefore

and wages within the industry was determined along ethnic lines.15 Europeans were at the top of

the wage structure, while Fijians were paid the lowest rates. Rotuman’s, nevertheless were

waged comparably better than Fijians, because the company preferred the work ethics of the

Rotuman workers.16 Fijians tended to be laid back and were thus classified as inferior to the

Rotuman. Thus, “in addition to poor wages, Fijian workers labored under a harsh work routine

and inferior conditions, lived in congested accommodation and had to bear the ignominy of a

system of racial segregation and discrimination which governed relations both inside and outside

the workplace.”17 Growing discontent with the discriminatory wage structure and poor working

conditions offered to the Fijians, became the basis of their dissention towards the colonial state.

Organized Indigenous Fijian Dissent towards the Colonial State

With the walkout by 600 Fijian mine workers it became evident that the people had now

developed the knowledge and courage to express their dissatisfaction. Where Fijians are

culturally passive towards elements of authority, the strike marked a shift in the attitudes of

Fijians in terms of consciousness about their position within the socio-economic hierarchy.18

15
Bain, 1994: p. 137
16
Ibid, 1994: p. 146
17
Sutherland, 1992: p. 31.

18
Plange, N. K. “Coming in From the Cold: Gold mining and the Proletarization of Fijians 1920-1985: Capital
and Society, Journal of Pacific Studies, Vol 1 (2). July – December, 1994. University of the South Pacific,
Suva, Fiji.
“The ideology and practice of racialism perpetrated by the ruling class made a large section of

the Fijian masses see themselves primarily as Fijians rather than as exploited people”.19

Nevertheless, displaying no signs of intra-Fijian political cleavages, the dissenting group of

workers sought redress from the company regarding the working conditions. Additionally, it

exemplified the ability of Fijians to unite through organized forms of resistance and protest.20

Furthermore, it was act of opposition towards the colonial state and with the strike came a

number of demands. The workers grievances included the determinants of the wage structure, the

occupational conditions and compensation provisions, and resentment of the high intake of

Rotuman workers.21 Hence they argued that their wages should be increased to be able to afford

the basic necessities against the preconceived idea that Fijians were well off under the

subsistence lifestyle. Additionally, where health benefits were concerned, the workers were not

entitled to accident compensation which was another reason for expressing their discontent with

the existing conditions. The strikers also expressed their discontent with the inferior quality of

rations that were supplied to them. Under these conditions the mining company failed to

recognize the skills and experience to justify the wage structure and Fijians were especially

penalized for attending to social obligations.22 In that sense, the strike provided the Fijian

labourers’ with an avenue to address the various issues that inhibited their development.

In that sense, the strike provided the Fijian labourers’ with an avenue to address the various

issues that inhibited their development.

19
Sutherland, 1992: p. 31.
20
Plange, 1994: p.
21
Bain, 1994: p.146
22
Ibid, 1994: p. 146
Outcome of the Indigenous Fijians Mining Strike

However, the strike did not influence the company into wholly accepting the workers demands.

From a certain perspective it can be viewed as the legitimization of state ideology and policies by

the company. Hence, the company rejected outright any changes to the wage structure or any

increase in wages instead arguing that Fijians were unreliable workers who did not take work

seriously.23 And as earlier stated, Europeans regarded themselves as socio-culturally superior to

all other races, but placed Rotuman’s above Fijians which justified the wage differentiation

structure. The only major change to the existing system was the repatriation of Rotuman workers

and the temporary ceasing of Rotuman recruitment.24 The rigidness of colonialism and the power

of the state in utilizing its agencies and institutions to effect consensus or conformity were seen

in the quelling of the strike through the intervention of the Fijian Administration, state actors,

and civil society.25 Moreover, Marxists notions of the capitalist state and the bourgeoisie’

paradigm is exemplified in the outcome of the miners strike. The strike conveyed to the colonial

state that the common Fijian had become aware of his situation, thus the involvement of chiefly

figures within the Fijian Administration was utilized to return the strikers to work. Thus while

the strike was initiated to highlight the disparities in working condition for the Fijian it

nevertheless imparted on the colonial state the need to strengthen its various institutions to avoid

further expressions of dissent. The need to confine the common Fijian to a system of

subservience, reiterated the need to limit their participation in the colonial economy.

23
Ibid, 1994: p. 146
24
Ibid, 1994: p. 146
25
Durutalo, A.L. 1997. “Chapter 5: Provincialism in Fiji: Latent Functions and Consequences” in
Provincialism and the Crisis of Indigenous Fijian Political Unity, M.A. Thesis. Centre for Development
Studies, The University of the South Pacific, Suva: p. 65.
Nevertheless, where the working class was concerned, the strike was the source of identity for

those exploited in the colonial economy. Industrial strikes for that matter became the basis of

dissent towards the colonial state.26 On a broader note, it later led to the institutionalization of

industrial relations regulations and policies that would govern and facilitate workers interests and

demands.27

Exploitation of the Indentured Community

Thus the indigenous Fijian consciousness had been tapped by the over glaringly exploitative

practices of the mining company under the influences of the states ideology. Yet, while it marked

a change in the manner of how Fijians were mobilized, Indo-Fijians had since their inception into

the colony, expressed dissent towards the colonial state. They had been indentured to allow

Fijians to remain living within their communal social system, but nevertheless the terms of

contract by the Colonial Sugar Refinery were never really adhered to as they became a source of

cheap labour. The laborers were misconceived into accepting vague contracts which later turned

out to be “relentless clockwork pace of plantation work under harsh discipline, the inability to

change their employer, the beatings, and the penal sanctions used to enforce their compliance

and even to prolong their indentures”.28 The colonial state in the same manner as the Fijian

Administration, governed Indo-Fijians indirectly but in this instance through the management of

the sugar company. The purpose of the CSR company, nevertheless was the generation of profits

and it did not to a large extent include the general welfare of the laborer. It would become an

important factor in terms of the relationship between Europeans and Indo-Fijians. Politically,

Indo-Fijians were excluded from any voice in the central or local government; economically,
26
Hempenstall, P. and Rutherford, N. 1984. Protest and Dissent in the Colonial Pacific, Institute of Pacific Studies,
The Univeristy of the South Pacific: p. 67.
27
Ibid, 1984.
28
Gillion, 1977: p. 5.
especially in terms of the CSR, they were excluded from many non-manual posts and were

subject to differential wage structures, and were provided inadequate education; and in terms of

social conditions, they were discriminated against in terms of association, public places and

ideology.29 The colonial state and the sugar company therefore stipulated and administered all

aspects of Indo-Fijian life, which included the social, economic and political spheres.

Additionally, the system deliberately created an imbalance ratio of women to men in terms of

recruitment strategy and it did little to improve the domestic lifestyles but increased many social

problems such as poverty and disease. Housing conditions for that matter were characterized by

cramped and poor quality facilities that sought to keep the laborer subservient to the sugar

company. In the words of K.L Gillion, “overall the system was a degrading one and it left behind

it an unhappy legacy in Fiji”.30 Thus the difficult conditions that the indentured laborers had been

enduring were the origins for the ensuing forms of dissent towards the colonial state.

Indo-Fijian Protest and Civil Disobedience

The abolishment of the indenture system in 1916 was within the period of the global Indian

movement towards establishing their statuses and human rights. Hence, throughout the early

years of Indian struggle worldwide, the Indo-Fijian mobilized around removing the barriers that

constrained their lives and they expressed their dissent towards the harsh working conditions and

poor welfare of their situation. Thus the early years of the indenture system saw the dissent

towards the colonial state become expressed through a series of organized and sometimes sudden

acts of protests, riots, and strikes. Some notable examples of these events include the February

1886 walk out by about 300 laborers from the CSR owned Navuso Estate. Later that year and

29
Ibid, 1977: p. 9.
30
Ibid, 1977: p. 7.
again in 1888 Rewa Sugar Company workers protested and walked off jobs because of the

strenuous workload and hours. In the 1886 event, they marched to Suva armed with axes and

hoes. In 1907, Indo-Fijian laborers from Labasa staged a strike in which a few were wounded by

the police who were sent to quell the strikers.31 These noted examples of dissent towards the

colonial state were the early forms of resistance that characterized the nature of Indo-Fijian

relations within the colony. The major strike that occurred in 1920 would reiterate the

manifesting dissatisfactions of the Indo-Fijian community. The state had clamped down on the

dissenting actions of the laborers after the early strikes by imposing strict laws, but by 1920 the

small scale protests and individual dissentions erupted into a major strike seeking a number of

demands from the state. 32 The strike in Suva by Indian laborers of the Public Works Department

on January 15th sparked further instances of striking throughout the eastern parts of the country.

Indian laborers in Rewa, Navua, and Levuka would join the strike to seek general increases in

their wages.33 Groups of indo-Fijians mobilized during the strike period as means of intimidation.

Indo-Fijians began to mobilize under shared experiences and identity, and throughout the month

long strike, as the state confronted the situation with force where necessary.34 Nevertheless where

the grievances were to address the rising costs of living, the outcome of the strike raised a

number of major issues for the future of the Indo-Fijian population.

Outcome of 1920 Strike

31
Hempenstall, P. and Rutherford, N. 1984: p. 68.
32
Gillion, 1977: p. 5.
33
Hempenstall, P. and Rutherford, N. 1984: p. 68.
34
Hempenstall, P. and Rutherford, N. 1984: p. 69.
Thus the issues that emerged as a result of the strike in 1920 were mainly to do with the raising

of the wage rates of the Indo-Fijian laborers. The Indo-Fijian farmer “was faced with high store

prices, heavy debts, and low returns from the cultivation of cane and other crops”.35 Nevertheless

in the early part of the strike in 1920, the state made concessions on the cost of living but

restricted the movements of Indo-Fijians in terms of association and meetings.36 Later in March,

the state issued regulations that prohibited and limited freedoms of the Indo-Fijian leaders, as it

was hoped that it would contain the outbreak of other strikes and quell the challenge to European

dominance in the colony. Nevertheless, the strike advanced the need to have an intermediary

between the state and the Indo-Fijian community. Although the process was not immediate, it

had created a development of consciousness among others and it led to the establishment of a

post of Advisor on Indian Affairs in 1926. The events of 1920 moreover have been the turning

point in the history of relations between the Indo-Fijian population and the other ethnic groups

and become the basis of further expressions of dissent towards the colonial state.

Conclusion

The entity that was the colonial state, had throughout the 96 years in Fiji, managed to maintain and

control the social, economic and political aspects of the country. While it can be accredited with the

foresight to develop and advance the development of the Fijian economy, it had nevertheless

lessened in favor by the competing ethnic groups that existed. Hence, within the first few decades of

rule, many forms of dissent appeared. The gold mine strike in 1938 was an awakening call for the

colonial state, and was the first notable organized Fijian exercise of mobilized interests. The

35
Gillion, 1977: p. 37.
36
Ibid, 1977: p. 7.
exploitation of the Fijian workers spurned the need for collective action to bring about change and

recognition of their grievances and demands. However, the mining company justified the existing

situation based on preconceived notions of themselves as being the dominant class. The more

important of demands which included an increase in wages were subsequently denied and they

returned to work without achieving much for themselves. It nevertheless laid the foundation for

future acts of dissent towards the colonial state, and would result in the introduction of labour laws

which although acted in the favor of the state, it was a an avenue to channel the working class

interest, grievances and demands. In the same sense, the harsh conditions that Indo-Fijian laborers

endured in the early years of the indenture system became the basis for the later acts of dissent

towards the state. They labored under difficult social, economical, and political conditions as result

of the company’s interest of maximizing profits through confinement and subservience of the

indentured community. Dissent nevertheless appeared in the form of disobedience tactics and served

to influence changes in the existing status quo. The strikes nevertheless achieved a sense of

recognition by the state of their demands and were thus accorded the processes of addressing these

grievances. Thus where there were conflicts of interest, society responded in a manner that alerted

the colonial state to action the calls for change.

REFERENCES

Ali, A. 1986. “Political Change, 1874-1960” in Politics in Fiji, Lal, B. V. (Ed). Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

Ali, A. 1977. Fiji: From Colony to Independence 1874-1970. University of the South Pacific, Suva.

Bain, Atu Emberson. 1994. “Mobilising Mine Labour 1934 – 1950: Who, Why and How?” in Labour and
Gold in Fiji. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.

Hempenstall, P. and Rutherford, N. 1984. Protest and Dissent in the Colonial Pacific, Institute of Pacific Studies,
The Univeristy of the South Pacific.

Knapman, B. Fiji’s Economic History, 1874 – 1939: Studies of Capitalist Colonial Development. National
Center for Development Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.
Durutalo, A.L. 1997. “The Dilemmas of Indigenous Fijian Political Disunity in Provincialism and the Crisis
of Indigenous Fijian Political Unity. M.A. Thesis. Centre for Development Studies, University of the South
Pacific, Suva.

Gillion, K.L. (1977). The Fiji Indians: Challenge to European Dominance 1920-1946, Australian National
University Press, Canberra.

Plange, N. K. “Coming in From the Cold: Gold mining and the Proletarization of Fijians 1920-1985: Capital
and Society, Journal of Pacific Studies, Vol 1 (2). July – December, 1994. University of the South Pacific,
Suva, Fiji.

Scott, J. and Marshall, G. (2005). Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Seidman, S. 2008. “Chapter 17: Colonial Discourse Studies in Contested Knowledge: Social Theory Today.
Blackwell Publishing, Massachusetts.

Sutherland, W. 1992. Beyond the Politics of Race: An Alternative History of Fiji. Australian National
University, Canberra.