Below is a paper my wife, Maelin Pickering-Bhagwan wrote as part of her Postgraduate Diploma in History in 2011. Uploading it for posterity... and because its interesting from historical perspective...
oh.. by the way... the J.S. Bhagwan mentioned in this paper is not me... but my grandfather and namesake James Shri Bhagwan I.... I be JSBII... we share similar girth and views on ethnic, social and cultural integration as essential for unity in Fiji.
READ ON....
Introduction
The Methodist Church in
Fiji, the second largest Protestant Church in the Pacific, became independent
under its own conference and constitution in 1964. The church is predominantly a church of
indigenous Fijians. However, a portion
of the second largest ethnicity in Fiji is Indo-Fijian Christians. The number of
Indo-Fijian Christians in Fiji is minute in comparison to the indigenous
Fijians and also to Indo-Fijians[1] in
general. The Methodist Indo-Fijians totals only 5,432 members out of 280,268
(overall number of Methodists) and 313,798 (overall total of Indo-Fijians)
respectively. [2]
Indo-Fijian Methodists only comprise 2% of the Methodist Church and Christians
make up only 6% of the Indo-Fijian population.
The writing of the 1964 document was warmly endorsed
by the indigenous Fijian members of the Conference, ministerial and lay. The initial drafters included white
missionaries, leading Fijian and Indo-Fijian ministers and laity. The document met the requirements of the Australasian
Conference of the Methodist Church and the standard in other parts of the
world. [3]
This paper seeks to examine the reasons for the
formation of the Conference of the Methodist Church in Fiji and Rotuma. It will discuss in detail the reasons for
merging of the Indian Synod[4] and
Fijian Synod, the reactions to this amalgamation, with particular attention to
the members of the Indian Synod and illustrate how the decisions of the leaders
of the Indian Synod in the build up to the formation of Conference in the 1960s
have impacted the leaders of the Indian Division of the present.
Early Methodist Mission to Indians in Fiji and the Origins of the Indian Synod
According
to Wood (1978), the whole of Fiji was technically Christian when the indentured
labourers from India arrived in Fiji in 1879 onwards, five years after the
cession of Fiji to Great Britain and fifty-four years after the first Christian
Mission to Fiji had begun. [5] By the end of the indenture system in 1916
over 60,000 Indian labourers had been brought to Fiji.[6]
A mission to Fiji’s Indians was not seen as a priority by the Methodist Church.
Perhaps this is because of experiences in India. For missionaries from Europe
or from Australia, a mission among Indians was difficult. Indians were culturally different in their ways of
doing things. Coming from the East where
old religions (faiths) were in existence long even before Christianity, Indians regarded Christianity as
inferior to their own religions which surpassed it, they believed, in
intellectual strength.
Initially Australian and New Zealand based missionaries were
not very interested in ministering to the Indians. Mission work in India had little success and
the missionaries were concentrating on their Fijian converts to ensure that
they were not influenced by the non-Christians who were arriving in Fiji after
1879 in large numbers. Indigenous Fijians did not argue with the missionaries as
Indians did. The arguments of educated Hindus were much more subtle and
difficult to refute. Motivation for the early evangelism reflects attitudes of European
missionaries towards indentured Indians. Wood documents reports of “coolies”
being described as dregs of Indian society and a danger to Fijian society
because of their “ill morals” and age and attractiveness of their “pagan” religions.[7]
While it is understandable that missionaries were primarily
concerned with the protection of their Fijian converts, some of their comments
about Indians betray their own bigotry as reports in The Missionary Review state:
Some people say that there are only two classes of Indian
coolies, viz. those in gaol and those who ought to be there. However, we hope and pray for the
evangelisation of these people…A large percentage of them are men of the lowest
morality, the very dregs in fact of the Indian people…All the evidence we can
get points to the terrible menace these people are to the well-being of our
Church and the people of Fiji
At the beginning of the indenture
period only 0.1% of Indians considered themselves as Christians despite their
low numbers. In 1884 the Fiji District Meeting of Methodist Missionaries
resolved to give attention to the numerous Polynesians and Coolies (as the
Indians were referred to) now in Fiji.[9] They proposed to hold services for these
newcomers whenever they were found and asked the Mission Board in Sydney for an
Indian Evangelist to be sent to minister to Indians. On the 10th of July, 1892, Pastor John Williams of
Faizabad, India arrived in Suva.
Williams worked under the direction of
Reverend Henry Worrall, an outspoken missionary, visiting Indians in their
houses and in the “lines”, the squalid barracks where the Indian labourers
lived. Despite his devotion and early successes, Pastor Williams faced a number
of serious obstacles. The Colonial
Sugar Refinery, for which the indentured labourers worked on 5 year contracts
of 1 shilling per day for men and 9 pence per day for women, was against the
whole idea of Christian mission among the Indians as they felt that the
“coolies,” as Indian labourers were called, might be spoilt for labour if
taught by the missionaries. Pastor
Williams was not a very good English speaker and this meant that he had
difficulty in communicating with the European missionaries (who could speak or
understand Fijian but not Hindi or Urdu) and they in turn, neglected him. He
was given shoddy accommodation in the Rewa Delta, albeit better than the “lines” where the indentured labourers
lived. He asked for
a boat to travel up and down the Rewa River for visitations, but this request
was denied.[10] He requested for schools to be set up
to teach the children of the Indian labourers. This request was also denied and
he was told to remain a travelling preacher. Eventually these difficulties, compounded by the neglect of
his fellow missionaries took its toll.
Mrs Williams, who as lonely and homesick in their isolated cottage in
the Rewa Delta, fell sick as did their son and returned to India in 1893. Left alone, Pastor William’s devotion and
drive to evangelise were replaced with loneliness and frustration and in May
1894, disappointed with not being able to complete his term, he returned to
India.
Following the failure of Pastor Williams’ mission, a new
policy emerged:
…the 1897 General Conference meeting in Auckland directed the
Mission Board to undertake work on “a more aggressive scale” – and the outcome
was to appoint one mission sister to work among 10,000 Indians!”[11]
The mission to the Indians officially
began in 1897 with the arrival of Hannah Dudley and her work marked the beginning of mission as part of evangelism,
establishing a school and an orphanage (the precursor of Dilkusha Girls Home
was her own home in Toorak). The
method of approaching the non-Christian Indians in evangelisation and mission
worked proved very expensive and time-consuming especially when the results
were poor. “The Indian section felt they
had to fight hard for its claims for staff and for finance for its schools,
orphanages, dispensaries and hospital, all these being peculiar to the Indian
needs only.” [12]
The differences in approaches to mission work among
the two different ethnic groups, as well as in Colonial policy and racial
prejudice among some missionaries, along with anti-colonial sentiment in India
which was communicated to Indians in Fiji, led to issues of equity within the
Methodist Church being raised. Reverend
Ramsey Deoki, the first Fiji-born Indian to be ordained in the ministry challenged
the Church to pay equal salary to both European and Indian and Fijian
ministers. At the same time missionaries in the Indian section
wanted recognition of their special needs and were enthusiastically backed by
the young Indian Christians, who were not afraid to voice these needs and
propose a policy for their own church.
Their voice, needs and concerns they felt would not be met effectively
in one synod, serving both Indians and Fijians.
Hence a demand for a separate synod that grew steadily.
The Indian Mission was established in 1901 as a separate administrative
section under the direction of the District Chairman, the Reverend A.J. Small.[13] Its membership continued to grow. By 1909, the Indian Mission Staff consisted
of 11 members under the leadership Reverend J.W. Burton who resided Davuilevu[14].
Mission-based evangelism through Welfare (Dilkusha
Girls Home, Ba Boys Home), Health (Ba Mission Hospital) and Education (Dudley
House School) remained the core of the mission to the Indians. Currently, the Indian Division is the
Methodist Church’s only nationwide Division with 11 circuits (parishes) spread
over Viti Levu, Vanua Levu and Taveuni.
It is currently in the process
of re-envisioning its name and relevance within the Methodist church.
The Long Road Towards Amalgamation
By 1960, the Methodist
Mission in Fiji was 125 years old. The Overseas Mission of the Methodist Church
in Australasia began to explore what the future of Methodism in Fiji would look
like. By this stage, the Australasian
Mission had been through years of meetings about the future of the Fiji
Mission. The process to self autonomy or
Conference seemed prolonged, but steps were gradually being taken,
nevertheless.
Although European
missionaries Joseph Waterhouse and Lorimer Fison envisaged Conference status
for the Church in Fiji well before (about 90 years) it was achieved, very
little notice was given to this foreshadow as the missionaries at that time,
both Europeans and Fijians alike had more pressing matters that took up their
attention:
In 1888, the
Fiji Synod responded with no enthusiasm whatsoever to a suggestion from the
Mission Board about creating Fiji a Conference.
“It is impossible to this”, the Synod declared. It seems that the Board was thinking of its
financial difficulties through the expenses of New Britain and the preparations
for beginning for beginning another Mission in Papua (British New Guinea) in
1981 and wanted to reduce its commitments to Fiji.[15]
In 1909, the Board called
for an investigation of Fiji becoming a self-supporting District and also the
possibility of separating the Indian work from the Fijian work in Synod. Already it was clear that the responsibilities
of the two diverse spheres of missionary work would complicate the question of
self –government and eventual Conference status. However, Lelean[16] expressed
his misgivings about Fiji’s inability to pay its own way as an “, independent
District”, highlighting that the Indian section would not be able to meet
expenses for many years to come.
The discussions and debates
for Conference continued over the many years that followed. The hindrance to the developments laid in the
incapacity of Fiji to fully maintain its European staff, especially because of
heavy expenses for the Indian section.
In May, 1917, the General Conference was held where it expressed the
hope of Fiji becoming a financially independent District in future. General Conference recognised that wartime
economies were delaying self-support and that funds from Australia would still
be needed in Fiji.
In 1923, the General
Conference gave its approval for the Fiji Synod to be separated into two
sections, Fiji and Indian – this meant that the Indian community would have
more responsibility than in the past. At
the 1926 General Conference, the amended constitution provided for a United
European session, a Fijian Session, and Indian Session, the Fijians and Indian
Sessions to have both Pastoral and Fiji and Financial Sessions.[17] Over the years, there was growing desire for
autonomy from the Australasian Church but the fear of the power of the chiefs
who might intimidate the Fijian ministers by pressuring them to gets loans for
themselves from local church funds and or interfering with discipline and order
in the affairs of the church. These
fears, together with the dwindling finances during the First World War, delayed
the realization of Fiji becoming an autonomous Church, or even a
self-supporting District.
Moreover complications arose
from the Fiji Synod members to a separate Indian Synod and also the resentment
to what was regarded as interference by the Mission Board – such as the removal
of European missionaries during the Depression, delaying the building of Ballantine
Memorial Girls’ School, and the construction of the Centenary Church.[18]
By 1936, Fijian Ministers
outnumbered the European missionaries.
In the same year, a group of farmers, with its name “Toko Farmers” vowed
to collect 500 British pounds and 100 tabua[19] by
June 1941 to send representatives from Fiji to Australia appealing for more
money to establish Conference. Also, Tonga, which was only 9 years ahead of
Fiji in the establishment of Methodist missions, had already achieved
Conference status in 1924. In 1940, Rev.
Burton, who was then General Secretary for Overseas
Missions[20], proposed the elimination of the separate European
Synod to ease the problem of finance. However,
the Chairman of the Missions Board, Reverend William Green was opposed to this
idea. He claimed that the pressure was
coming from the Indians mission workers who wanted equality with Europeans in
status and salary. Green also doubted that the Fijians were ready for a United
Synod and he did not think that there were enough Fijians ready to take on the
responsibility of circuit stewards. [21]
Despite Green’s doubts and
opinions opposing a United Synod, the step towards Conference status came a
little closer to reality with the formation of the United Synod in 1943. This United Synod dealt only with specific
matters. The numbers continued to grow
in favour of complete union between the Fijian and Indian sections. Alongside a United Synod, would be two other
Synods, Fijian and Indian headed by a Chairman for each, where these Synods
would be able to send its own recommendation to the Board. On the 9th October, 1943, the
Board decided that it was not the right time to set up a Conference, but
approved Fiji’s suggestions for the United Synod with two separate racial
Synods. [22]
After much perseverance from
the Toko Farmer’s Group and Fijian Synod for a Fiji Conference, the General
Conference in Australia expressed satisfaction with the movements towards
it. The Fijian ministers were taking more
initiative in their ministries and this accelerated more while European
missionaries went on leave. The local
Indian and Fiji ministers had by now developed a new found courage to challenge
European missionaries on matters that concerned their people’s welfare. These matters dealt particularly with
education, social welfare and alterations in the laws of the Church:
Even in those
matters Fijian and Indian representatives sat together with Europeans in the
United Synod and could outvote them. (In
1950, there were twenty-one Fijians and fourteen Indians in the United Synod).[23]
Undoubtedly, the establishment of the United Synod was an all-important
step in keeping the door open for Conference status. However it must be noted that the purpose
behind the tabua and money from the Toko farmers was not for an integrated
church but for the Fijian Church to stand on its own feet.[24]
The European Synod was
eliminated in the 1945 Fiji Constitution; this action was a clear indication
that Conference status would follow.
However, not all the conservative Fijian members jumped at this change
and so were slow to accept them.
It was not until the era of
1960 to 1964 did significant or the mains discussions take place about merging
the two Synods into one Conference. The
Indian Synod, still minority within the Methodist Church was given the
opportunity to agree to the merger or not.
Long and detailed deliberations were held when meetings for the
formation of Conference were called.
One of the early meetings in
1960, some options or possibilities were of what organisation structure would
look like were discussed. The first option
proposed a complete integration of the Fijian and Indian work – a completely
integrated conference, where all business is decided by the complete conference. This proposal was favoured by the chairman of
the Fijian District. Although there were
a number of aspects were appealing, the separation of an Indian District with
seven Fijian districts would not really achieve what was being aimed at. Another possibility was that there be a Fijian
Conference and an Independent Indian District, such as which existed in Samoa
for many years. The implementation of
this could completely separate the two races.
These two options were not received with much enthusiasm from some of
the members of both ethnicities.
The only other alternative
seemed to be an arrangement which would give effective co-operation and a sense
of unity without complete unity. This
was hoped to be achieved sooner to give a greater sense of togetherness between
the two Churches and which would be a basis for conference status. This arrangement might involve one conference
for both sections of the Church together, but with sectional meeting of the
groups, each responsible for its own domestic affairs. Decisions of both groups might be reported to
the Conference. Some matters should be
the responsibility of the whole conference.
This system would provide “community, if not full unity”.[25]
In this meeting, Rev. Deoki
said that it appeared that all circuits favoured a Fiji Conference. Deoki added that the Indian Synod was a
minority and would perhaps not be fair for it to be too vocal in trying to
influence Fijian thinking. While Deoki
felt it would not be possible to come to a decision by 1963, work could still
be carried out to approve a standing committee of each synod, with the United
Synod collecting data. He recommended
that Districts be divided regionally rather than racially. He would rather see four districts corresponding
to four political divisions. He favoured
whole-heartedly a Fiji Conference satisfactory to all people. This motion was seconded by only some members
present at that meeting.
Reverend Mastapha, an
emerging leader in the Methodist Church, said that this matter could not be
discussed without discussing the position of the Indian District within the
Conference also adding that the challenge was to unite the members within the
Indian Circuit. He elaborated that it
was no use to integrate church government and impose it on people. To make his point Mastapha also reminded the
Synod of the incident in his home town of Levuka, the first capital of Fiji, where
the Indian congregation had been handed over to the Fijian District and had
been ignored.
Reverend Caleb, a young, dedicated
and enthusiastic Minister in the Methodist Church agreed with Mastapha on
integration and on educating the members of the Indian Synod. He added that the two important aims that
were to be achieved through conference would be togetherness and realizing the
responsibility. Caleb said that the
Indian people needed first to proceed from the known to the unknown as they did
not sufficiently understand the present set-up.
He agreed that conference would help the Indian Church to carry out its
responsibility towards the 190,000 Indian people in mission work.
Reverend Masih, the
representative of Lautoka, said that the feeling in the Lautoka Church was that
there must be either complete unity or none. There was no half-way. A Conference must have jurisdiction over all
Methodist Church Affairs. Otherwise it
would be a farce. For this reason,
Lautoka could not understand the suggestion of different scale of
representation for the Indian Church.
Rev. Cecil Gribble, who as
General Secretary of Overseas Missions
represented the Australasian Methodist Church during discussions in 1960[26],
warned against setting out on a perfectionist journey and saying wait until
there was complete integration at lower level.
The great work in missionary today was “flexibility” so a uniform
pattern over the whole church should not be imposed.
Mr. Sultan Ali and Mr. J.S. Bhagwan,
two active lay leaders in the Indian Synod, surged that the delay should not be
too long. They believed that this merger
would also be good for acknowledgement on the Fijians part that some Indians
are Christians living in Fiji.
Christians of both races must have a chance of knowing one another.
However, the issue of
disunity within the Indian Synod was an ongoing one. Some leaders were sceptical about a
conference because they felt that unity should first be achieved within their
Synod before thinking about unity with the Fijian Synod. They first needed to examine what the
barriers were that kept them divided. Some
difficulties suggested by Bhagwan were that there were not enough chances for
the two sections of the Church to mix as each had no confidence with the
other. Another reason was that combined
services did not provide the opportunity for the members to get to know one
another, and that a Conference would provide that platform.
Rev. Masih stated that the
thing that kept the races apart was the way they were governed in this country–
separately. Caleb supported Masih on
this observation and added that one of the barriers was psychological, a sense
of inferiority of the Fijian people.
Removing the barrier meant that each member of the Indian Synod take the
initiative to do this. Mrs. Deoki agreed
that three years should be allowed to allow for discussion down to the lowest
levels, even to the children in Sunday school.
As for the mixing of races, experience in Levuka showed it could be done
where Fijian and Indian Church leaders could come together for prayer meetings
and there could be more combined services and youth meetings.[27]
The meeting in 1960
reassured the United Synod that they agreed in principle to a Conference for
Fiji but should be suitable for the needs of all its members. This motion was moved by Deoki and seconded
by Bhagwan. Deoki also suggested a
standing or constitutional committee.
Mastapha said that he would like to hear the point of view of the Fijian
ministers, and suggested that the United Synod be asked to elect a standing
committee and state its terms of reference.
Deoki’s motion was passed unanimously.
Mastapha urged that the
constitutional committee be a committee of United Synod, as this would help the
two districts come together and would enable each to make contributions. Representatives of the two districts should
come together face to face in prayerful meetings. The focus should be on the similarities and
not the differences.
Names for this proposed
committee that could be chosen by the United Synod included: The Chairman (ex-officio)
Rev. Roy. Salway, Mr. Hari Charan, Mr. Sultan. Ali, Mr. J.S. Bhagwan, Revs
Deoki, Caleb and Mastapha, Miss Mavis Prasad, Miss Pauline Campbell, and Dr.
David Lancaster.
The final resolution was
passed which recommended to United Synod for a conference constitution
committee to submit recommendations to the quarterly meetings and annual
meetings and 1961 synods that will make possible for recommendations regarding
constitutional change necessary to attain conference status to be submitted to
General Conference 1963.
Over a period of 3 years, a series of discussions were held as to what type
of amalgamation was to be adopted. There
were three proposals put forward for consideration by the Conference Constitution
Committee which would outline the structure of the new constitution that was to
govern the new Conference of the Methodist Church in Fiji. Proposal A was dropped fairly early, but
Proposal B and C continued to be discussed and were sent to the Fijian and
Indian District.
One of the
recommendations for integration to Synods was that the two present synods be
abolished. Proposal B recommended that
the there be 8 Divisions, 7 of these to the Fijian Districts and 1 to the
Indian District). These Districts are to
be known as Divisions. [28]
However,
Proposal C included the establishment of six integrated Annual Meetings. Some Fijians favoured Proposal C with fairly
full integration of Fijian and Indian Churches at divisional level, but with an
Advisory Committee on Indian Affairs (A.C.I.A).
In fact the Constitution Committee recommended this at one stage.
Reverend Setareki Tuilovoni,
who was Chairperson of the United Synod in 1962, but was in New York
undertaking further studies, wrote letters to the Chairman of the Fiji-Fijian District,
J.B.H. Robson for Constitution Committee in favour Proposal C but was against
the idea of the formation of the Advisory Council on Indian Affairs (A.C.I.A)
(which was included in Proposal C) as it undermined the role of the Committee
for Evangelism. Tuilovoni was adamant
that integration of the ethnicities was dependent on the dismissal of the
A.C.I.A. He based this justification on
the issue of equality for all – why should only the Indians have an Advisory
Committee? How is that fair to the other
ethnicities?
As we consider
ourselves to become Conference, we should understand that we are not thinking
of two people only, Fijians and Indians, but of many others whom we call
members of Christ’s family such as the part-Europeans, Rotumans, Samoans,
Tongans, Europeans, Chinese and many others.
These also should be considered and provisions made for them…….When the
Church is integrated, it will depend on our being one in mind if we are to
build up our work on the one fountain Jesus Christ.[29]
Tuilovoni’s solution to
dealing with the Indian Affairs was the Committee for Evangelism. The only challenge he saw with the Indian
people was to Christianise them. He did not look beyond the duty of mission to
the non-Christian Indians. He did not
touch on any of the ethnic or cultural differences in any of his correspondence
to the Constitution Committee as Chairperson of the United Synod:
It
is clear that one of the duties of the Christian Church in Fiji is to
christianise the Indian people. A person
who wrote the Annual Church Report in 1961, finished his report about Fiji in
this manner, “The Christian Fijians in Fiji refuse to Christianise the Indians
because of their hatred for them.” To me this has been a thing of great
shame. Perhaps it is true that this
report is not absolutely correct but it is clear that in the eyes of the world
the thinking is. Are we concerned with
making our Indian population Christian or not?
There was a time when we used to boast that Fiji was almost 100%
Christian. Today the picture has greatly
changed and there are only 50% of the population that is Christian …..if we do
not set about evangelizing the Indian people then we will be judged by God for
having hidden the light of the Gospel under a bushel…..In resolution B
(proposal B), we are not going to be united on this evangelical work as we are
divided into two divisions one Indian and one Fijian. It is not possible to for the members of the
Indian District to say to us to help them to evangelise the non-christian if
they will not approve of us being one family together. If we remain divided from one another, then
we are not able to bring them into our spiritual family and we will not be
bound together in our work of Evangelising the Indians of Fiji.[30]
On the 28th of
April, 1962, yet another conference committee meeting was held. In this meeting, Deoki raised his concern
that many people were not informed of the proposals put forward by the
committee – this was coming from the feedback he received when recently visiting
the other side of Viti Levu. He felt
that more time was needed to carry on with this work before implementing a
Conference. “Rushing it would deal a death blow to the Indian Church.”[31] The ‘death blow’ here meant the
implementation of Proposal C where the Indian Church was to integrate with the
six proposed divisions which was Fijian dominated. The Indian Church would be intimidated and
eventually be swallowed up by the Fijian Church:
If Fijian Church
is unanimously for “C”…..should Fijian Church ‘go it alone’? Pleaded for retention of Indian Synod…… Do
the Fijian brethren think of Proposal “C” as the only way to achieve
‘integration’? We are forcing the issue
– quite a number of the Indian people are unhappy about it. Let the Fijian Church go ahead, but don’t
drag the Indian people into it. The
Fijian people would lose a lot by losing their Synod…….. How can we Indian
people appreciate Fijian tradition unless we know their minds? Cultures are so different – but perhaps could
be united under English pattern.[32]
However, J.S Bhagwan, head teacher of Suva Methodist Boys School and a senior
Indian lay leader, was determined to see the establishment of Conference as
soon as possible and continued to remind the committee members that waiting and
delaying conference would create suspicion among the members: Why the stop?With anything new there is
fear, but fear stops when it works. If
we can’t come together today, no guarantee we can come together in 5 years
time.[33]
Like Bhagwan, the Australian missionaries present at that meeting felt that
there was a need to move the process along a little faster and as Reverend
Fullerton puts it, “tide is coming in,
unless we use it, we could be stranded and these problems could be better
solved by coming together and accepting each other.”[34]
The realism for
Conference continued to progress. The
stage was now being set for the merger of the two Synods to take place to form
Conference of the Methodist Church in Fiji.
Although most Fijian members favoured Proposal C, which was to have six
integrated meetings – the most influential person being Tuilovoni himself –
some member s of the Indian Synod expressed hesitations and concerns that the
Indian members would be swallowed up by the large number of Fijian members at
each Division and would therefore make the Indian members feel insignificant. A consequence of this could lead to the
decline in the Indian membership altogether which defeated the purpose of the
mission to the Indians.
In 1962, the Acting Chairperson’s report to the
Annual Meeting of the Board of Missions on Proposal for a Fiji Conference
stated that United Synod of the Methodist Church in Fiji passed the resolution
that Proposal B be adopted.
ii. Resolved (a)
that the degree of integration be outlined as in Proposal B, i.e. the abolition
of the two present synods, their replacement by Seven (7) Annual Meetings – the
six Fijian Annual Meeting similar to the present structure, plus an Annual
Meeting for the Indian Church to replace the Indian Synod. (This was an amendment to a resolution and
the amendment was carried 28-2, and the substantive motion was passed
unanimously, with all present casting a vote.)[35]
The task now was to choose a
language which was to be used during conference meetings. The question of language in a Conference of
Fiji and English-speaking Indians had been a contentious issue but it was
decided that Fijian would be the language of the Conference, with English as
the “associate language”.
Fears
of the Indian Division
Four
key issues seemed to be the sticking point for the Indian Synod:
1. Land - The Indian
Synod had purchased all their land for their mission work. The total number circuits under the Indian
Division encompasses freehold land in their physical locations. The amalgamation to form Conference meant
entrusting the presiding of the land to the President and 2 other executives as
the sole trustees. On the other hand,
the Fijian Districts did not purchase any of their land but either leased it
from or was given land from their respective chiefs. The amalgamation meant that any decision
concerning land would rest solely on the trustees and thus out of the control
of Indian circuits.
2. Racism
- The Indian members, for whom the memory of the oppressive Girmit indenture system was only a
generation back, were concerned about being discriminated against when it came
to important issues or would be brushed aside if they voice their concerns. One of the reasons for discrimination in Fiji
could be a consequence from the British Colonial administrative principle of
“divide and rule”. The Indian minority
could easily be outvoted or silenced by the Fijian majority.
3. Finance
- The Indian Synod feared the mismanagement of funds if everything was handed
over to Conference. Past experience
suggested that Fijian people did not have the best record for keeping a credit
balance in the bank and so worried about the regular payment of minister’s
wages.[36]
4. Autonomy
– Because of their small number in comparison to the Fijian members, the Indian
Synod felt that they could easily be ignored.
This concern was raised repeatedly by Deoki in the Constitution
Committee Meetings in 1962 as mentioned previously in this essay.
In optimism, Tuilovoni wrote “As we consider ourselves one Conference,
there will be many things to unite, such as land, the funds of the Church and
other things that previously divided.”[37]
In regards to Ministers’ stipends, Tuilovoni
proposed that all ministers’ stipends be pooled together, and all then paid
from this fund. He suggested that there
be a Common Money Pool. In that way
Ministers’ stipends would be paid on time.
Some ministers suffered when they were not on good terms with committee,
so their stipends were withheld.
Tuilovoni proposed that all ministers be paid the same wages and there
should not be any race barrier or class distinctions and that there should be
no grades in stipends. This meant that
the Indians would be able to help in the work of evangelism. According to Tuilovoni, the arrangement at
that time in the Indian District with regards to minister’s stipends made it
possible for the Indian people to support many ministers. If there was to be one system suitable to
all, it would be possible for a fund to be created by which many more Indian
ministers can be supported:
The Church in Fiji belongs to them all, and it is
fitting that there should be one rule for all.
It would be very good if the Missions Board could find a way to whereby
missionaries and local ministers could be together in this: perhaps the Board
could keep something for missionaries when they returned to their own
land. While missionaries are in Fiji,
let there be an allowance from the Missions Board that is to be put into the
common pool from which all of us ministers.[38]
The
Amalgamation
The
Australasian Missions Board supported the idea of the amalgamation of the two
synods and used their representatives in Fiji to subtly lobby for it. On a
political note, atmosphere in Fiji was changing as the locals enthusiastically
started taking charge. While Fiji was
preparing herself for independence from the British, the feeling of
self-government and independence gave hope and a sign of a new beginning. As this was made to be seen as good for the
people of Fiji, in reality, the burden to financing and looking after Fiji
(along with other Pacific Islands nations) was becoming on heavy on the
British. The same experiences can be understood
about the Australasian Missions Board hence the support for Conference.
From 1951 to 1961 all of the six Fijian Divisions including the 7th
Division, which came under the Indian Synod, had European missionaries as
Superintendents. In 1964, when the
Conference status eventuated, only two out of the seven Divisions had European
missionaries as Head, the rest had Fijian and an Indian (for the Indian
Division) as Superintendents. [39] While this was proving true for
self-governing and self-supporting, some chiefs objected to having Fijian
ministers as it was thought that these chiefs had lost some of their prestige. These difficulties were noted. Only one minister was seen fit to lead this
Uniting Synod and that was Tuilovoni.
Tuilovoni was a well educated man and was well recognised and respected
by everyone. He was appointed President
of the Fiji Conference in 1964.
The Conference was officially inaugurated by the Australian
President-General, the Reverend Dr. Frank Hambly on the 11th of July
1964. It consisted of 123 Fijian
ministers, 3 Indian ministers and nine European ministers. The Indian Division (which it was now called)
was headed by Deoki. [40]
Proposal
B was adopted as the outline of the new official constitution. The worry of land misuse was subsided to
allow for trust to find its way into members of the Indian Division – the
Conference Constitution stated that the decision of Methodist properties would
solely lie in the hand of the Executives who became their trustees. The same can be said with the issues of
finance and autonomy. They needed to let
go and trust in God that all would be well.
The
Indian Division Since Conference
Crises of Political Influence
Despite
being given permanent membership of all church department committees -
including the Standing Committee, which governed the church in between annual
conferences - as a way for Indian participation in the management and affairs
of the church; the fears of the Indian Methodists, highlighted above,
manifested in the aftermath of the military coups of 1987.
The General Secretary of the Methodist Church Rev. Manasa Lasaro and his advisers within the church had
very close connections with the ethno-nationalist “Taukei Movement”, which was
the driving force in organizing street demonstrations and looting Indian
properties during and after the military coups.[41]
As a result, more fire
was added into a simple protest that became more of a political issue and at
the same time victimised the Indo-Fijian population.[42]
Suspended for these actions Lasaro retaliated and on 2nd February 1989, mirroring the military coup just two years
earlier Lasaro and a number of his supporters
stormed the office and ousted the then -President
Rev. Koroi, and acting General Secretary Rev. Paula Nuikula. The dissident
faction installed Rev. Isireli Caucau as president who promptly reinstated
Lasaro as General Secretary. Eventually, by traditional succession, Lasaro
eventually became president of the Methodist Church.
The racist sentiments of the Takuei Movement permeated the Methodist
Church hierarchy. Rev. Ragho Prasad, who was at the time the Superintendent of
the Indian Division was silenced and verbally abused during meetings and
conference when he tried to raise issues. Overseas funding aid for the Indian Division and
channelled through the church office was withheld or redirected without
consultation with the Indian Division. Between 1989-1990 stipends for ordained
ministers and deaconesses in the Indian Division were withheld by the church
office. While this gave the Division a “mandate” to manage their own funds, it
came with a heavy price. Prasad was initially forced to pay withdraw his own
pension so that ministers could be paid and later the mental and emotional
stress resulted in him suffering from a stroke.[43]
Today
only half the Indian Division’s members are of Indian ethnicity, with
indigenous Fijians, Rotumans, Europeans, Part Europeans and other minorities
making up the other half. As a result it is the most multi-racial Division in
the Methodist Church. It is currently in the process of discussing change of
the name of the Division, to reflect its inclusive nature with membership of
other races.
However
as a result of the coups of 1987 and 2000, the ethnocentric nature that the
Methodist Church has displayed has led to insecurity and frustration among the
leaders and members of the Indian Division. As a minority Division, while it
enjoys representation in almost all facets of the management of the church, it
is still outnumbered and often its voice or presence goes unrecognised. This
has been the case in the instances of land, where property originally belonging
to the Indian Synod and until recently managed and used by the Indian Division
has been transferred to the church’s Holding Trust, without consultation with
the Division. Other recent cases include the rescinding of management of Suva
Methodist Primary School (formerly Suva Methodist Boys School), Ba Veilomani
Boys’ Home and Dilkusha Girls’ Home by the church. While accusations of
mismanagement, corruption and financial abuse have been made by the Division
about the current management, no investigations have been undertaken by the
church nor have they taken the resolutions and requests to return management to
the Division which has offered to undertake investigations and a cleanup of the
institutions on behalf of the church.
Because
it does not stand for some of the causes that church leadership have involved in
the Methodist Church in, it is often brought into conflict with the church
leadership and discriminated against. This has lead the Division to re-examine
its position within the structure of the Methodist Church Conference and seek
equity and if necessary, legal autonomy.[44]
However the insecurity has breed disunity among ministers. Out of fear of
discrimination and with personal agendas, some ministers are not loyal to their
current Divisional Superintendent, hence the inability to unite and fight for a
common cause in the search for equity and, if necessary, for independence from
the Conference. According to current Divisional Superintendent can it be a
cultural thing /an Indian thing to look out only for themselves – “mahabarat” is in their blood.”[45]
Conclusion: An Analysis of
Perceived fears
Based on the above section, it is possible that the
fears perceived by the leaders of the Indian Synod in the lead up to
amalgamation may have been realised. This is certainly the case in terms of
racism and discrimination, finance, land and autonomy. However the factors and
catalysts of the realisation of these fears were very different to what these
leaders would have envisaged. Perhaps it is possible to suggest that the events
of 1987, 1989 and 2000 brought these simmering issues to the boil. On the other hand it is also possible that
these events provided a morally corrupt leadership the means to extend their
control of the church to the financially secure Indian Division.
Beyond the recognition and analysis of the perceived
fears of the Indian Synod, further questions arise that will need to be
answered if these fears and the underlying issues are to be addressed. The
question of unity for the sake of peace among races is a battle that the
Methodist Church of Fiji and Rotuma will continue to struggle with. There are a lot of “what ifs” that needs to
be re-examined closely if there is a genuine want for unity and
togetherness. The current situation the
Methodist Church in Fiji is in speaks a lot about their disunity – disunity
within the two major ethnicities.
The Indian
Division leadership currently is being undermined to cater for the grievances
lodged with disgruntled ministers of the Indian Division itself. Could it really be “Indian nature” or in the
words of Reverend Lucas, “conflicts and
drama – it’s in our blood”? [46]
If Proposal C would have gone ahead, the integration
of ethnicities in the 6 Divisions may very well have been what the Church
needed for genuine integration and real unity.
The proposal may have been done without any political agendas. Take the Catholic Churches in Fiji for example;
their members irrespective of ethnicity belong to a sector or area where they
are given the freedom to worship in or to choose another parish. The division is along geographical
boundaries, not ethnic. The language
maybe a barrier at first but given time, the Indian members could have been
well-versed in both languages down the years – perhaps practiced by the
generation after. This move would allow
for assimilation, where the different ethnicities learn from each other’s
culture and adopted the best of both for a true integration. The real move was not only for tolerance of
each ethnicity, but for acceptance as well.
This is already evident in the makeup of the Indian
Division today. The membership Division is in reality a microcosm of Fiji and
offers to be model for the Methodist Church as a whole. The discussion around a
name for the Division may give rise to the similar fears about legacy and
existence. On the other hand, it may well prove to be the key to putting the
fears to rest once and for all. Perhaps the solution to these fears lies in the
motto of the flagship school of the Indian Division, that bears tribute to the
legacy of Indian Mission, Dudley High School: “From Within Out”.
Bibliography
References
Bureau of
Statistics, 2007. www.fiji.gov.fj 28th
September 2011.
Clark,
J. Aborigines & Activism: Race,
Aborigines & the coming of the sixties to Australia, (Crawley:
University of Western Australia Press, 2008)
Ernst,
M. Winds of Change, (Suva: Pacific
Conference of Churches, 1994)
Meo,
J. Religious Freedom in Fiji, (Speech
at FDFM Australia Conference 19th November, 2011)
Mustapha, D.
“The Indian Christian Church in Fiji,” in Mai
Kea Ki Vei: Stories of Methodism in Fiji
and Rotuma, ed. Andrew Thornley and Tauga Vulaono (Suva: Methodist Church,
1996)
Weir, C. “An Accidental Biographer? On Encountering, Yet Again, the Ideas and
Actions of J.W. Burton” in Telling
Pacific Lives: Prisms of Process, http://epress.anu.edu.au/tpl/mobile_devices/ch16.html
(Accessed 30th October, 2011)
Wood, A. Harold,
Overseas Missions of the Australian
Methodist Church, Volume II: Fiji, (Melbourne, Aldersgate, 1978)
Wood A. Harold, Overseas Missions of the Australian
Methodist Church, Volume III: Fiji-Indian and Rotuma, (Melbourne,
Aldersgate, 1978)
Personal
Interviews
Mastapha,
Daniel. Interview with author.
29th
August, 2011. 11am
Lucas, William. Interview
with author. 23rd
September, 2011. 5:15 p.m.
Prasad, Mere and
Traill, Doras. Interview with author.
30th
October, 2011. 5:45 p.m.
Unpublished Notes:
Campbell, P. Notes
Taken on the discussion on Conference Question.
Synod, 1960.
Correspondence:
Tuilovoni, S. Correspondence to Rev. C. A Hatcher (Acting Chairman) 27th
January, 1962
Minutes of
Meetings:
-Minutes
of the Conference Constitution Committee held at Dudley House School on Friday,
15th June, 1962 at 8:15 p.m.
- Minutes of the Conference Constitution
Committee held at Dudley House School on Saturday, 28th April, 1962 at 9:00 a.m.
[1]
The term “Indo-Fijian” is used to describe Fijians who are descendants of
indentured labourers brought from India by the British to Fiji and made to work
in extremely oppressive conditions on sugarcane plantations in the late 19th
century. Because the bulk of this paper focuses on the era of the 1900s-1964,
the term “Indian” instead of Indo-Fijian will be used as it were during that
period.
[2]
Bureau of Statistics, 2007. www.fiji.gov.fj
27th September, 2011
[3]
John Garrett. “Methodism in Fiji since 1964” in Kea Ki Vei: Stories of Methodism
in Fiji and Rotuma, ed. Andrew Thornley and Tauga Vulaono (Suva: Methodist
Church, 1996), 193
[4]
The word ‘District’ was replaced by “Synod” in 1902. Ref: A. Harold Wood, Overseas Missions of the Australian Methodist Church, Volume II:
Fiji (Melbourne, Aldersgate, 1978)
pg 9
[5]
A. Harold Wood, Overseas Missions of the
Australian Methodist Church, Volume III: Fiji-Indian and Rotuma, (Melbourne,
Aldersgate, 1978) pg 9
[6]
Wood 1978, cited in Daniel Mustapha, “The Indian Christian Church in Fiji,” in Mai Kea Ki Vei: Stories of Methodism in Fiji and Rotuma, ed. Andrew
Thornley and Tauga Vulaono (Suva: Methodist Church, 1996), 130
[7]
A. Harold Wood, Overseas Missions of the
Australian Methodist Church, Volume III: Fiji-Indian and Rotuma, (Melbourne,
Aldersgate, 1978), 9
[8]
Ibid pg. 9
[9]
A. Harold Wood, “Overseas Missions of the Australian Methodist Church Volume
III: Fiji Indian and Rotuma,” (Victoria: Dominion Press, 1978), 9.
[10]
ibid, 11
[11]
. Harold Wood, “Overseas Missions of the Australian Methodist Church Volume
III: Fiji Indian and Rotuma,” (Victoria: Dominion Press, 1978), 12
[12]
Ibid, 46
[13]
Daniel Mustapha, “The Indian Christian Church in Fiji,” in Mai Kea Ki Vei: Stories of Methodism
in Fiji and Rotuma, ed. Andrew Thornley and Tauga Vulaono (Suva: Methodist
Church, 1996), 136
[14]
Purchased in 1908, Davuilevu was a large piece of land across the Rewa River
from Nausori. The land was the site for the Teacher Training Institute, Technical/Vocational
Training centre, the Methodist Theological College, a medical mission and
mission school. The area in which the residence of District Superintendent of
the Indian Mission was located became known as Dilkusha when the Dilkusha Orphanage was established there.
[15]
Daniel Mustapha, “The Indian Christian Church in Fiji,” 341
[16]
Rev. Charles Oswald Lelean was an Australian missionary who served in Fiji for
36 years. He spent twenty years of this
as Senior Superintendent and Principal of t he Davuilevu Theological College,
1914-1934.
[17]
Daniel Mustapha, “The Indian Christian Church in Fiji,” in Mai Kea Ki Vei: Stories of
Methodism in Fiji and Rotuma, ed. Andrew Thornley and Tauga Vulaono
(Suva: Methodist Church, 1996), 343
[18]
Ibid, 343
[19]
Tabua – whale’s tooth. This item is of
great value in the Fijian custom.
[20] Christine Weir, “An Accidental Biographer? On
Encountering, Yet Again, the Ideas and Actions of J.W. Burton” in Telling Pacific Lives: Prisms of Process, http://epress.anu.edu.au/tpl/mobile_devices/ch16.html (Accessed 30th
October, 2011)
[21]
A. Harold Wood, “Overseas Missions of the Australian Methodist Church Volume
II: Fiji” (Victoria: Dominion Press, 1978), 344
[22]
ibid, 344
[23]
ibid, 345
[24]
Point raised by I.B. Vatucicila in Minutes
of Meeting of Conference Constitution Committee held at Dudley House School on
Friday, 15th June 1962 at 8:15 p.m.
[25]
Pauline Campbell. Notes Taken on the
discussion on Conference Question.
Synod, 1960.
[26] Jennifer Clark, Aborigines &
Activism: Race, Aborigines & the coming of the sixties to Australia, (Crawley: University of Western
Australia Press, 2008), 98
[27]
Pauline Campbell. Notes Taken on the
discussion on Conference Question.
Synod, 1960.
[28]
Minutes of A Conference Constitution Committee Meeting held at the Dudley House
School, Suva, on Friday 29th June, 1962 at 2pm; pg 1
[29] Rev.
Setareki Tuilovoni, Correspondence to ….
[30] ibid
[31]
Point raised by Rev. R. Deoki in the Minutes
of the Conference Constitution Committee held at Dudley House School on Friday,
15th June, 1962 at 8:15 p.m.
[32]
ibid
[33]
Point raised by Mr. J.S. Bhagwan in the Minutes
of the Conference Constitution Committee held at Dudley House School on Friday,
15th June, 1962 at 8:15 p.m.
[34]
Point raised by Rev. L. D. Fullerton, in the Minutes of the Conference Constitution Committee held at Dudley House
School on Friday, 15th June, 1962 at 8:15 p.m.
[35]
Acting Chairman’s Report to the Annual
Meeting of the Board of Missions, 1962, on the Proposals for a Fiji Conference.
[36] See
pages 8-9 above.
[37]
Setareki Tuilovoni, Correspondence to
J.B.H. Robson of the Fiji-Fijian District. 9th April, 1962.
[38]
ibid
[39]
Ibid, 345.
[40]
A. Harold Wood, “Overseas Missions of the Australian Methodist Church Volume
II: Fiji” (Victoria: Dominion Press, 1978), 347.
[41] Manfred Ernst, Winds of Change, (Suva: Pacific Conference of Churches, 1994), 208.
[42] Jovili
Meo, Religious Freedom in Fiji, (Speech at
FDFM Australia Conference 19th November, 2011)
[43] Personal Interview with Mere Prasad
(Rev. Prasad’s widow) and Doras Traill (Rev. Prasad’s daughter), September,
2011. Suva
[44] Personal Interview with Reverend William
Lucas, September, 2011, Suva
[45] Lucas, Interview
[46]
Lucas, Interview
No comments:
Post a Comment