Talk:Indians in Fiji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes; merge Thanks Hmains 03:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No; Merging one into another would amount to taking sides in a very controvesial issue in Fiji i.e. What should Fiji citizens of Indian origin be known as?

No; I am a Fiji Indian

Nothing to merge - it's a brand new article, and it doesn't appear to have anything much that isn't here. Guettarda 05:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] definitions

The article defines "Indo-Fijian" by The constitution of Fiji defines "Indian" as anybody who can trace, through either the male or the female line, their ancestry back to anywhere on the Indian subcontinent. The rest of the article has a tone that suggests it would be in the interests of an individual to choose not to be identified as Indo-Fijian, but as Fijian if possible. I'm not sure id this is a subtle bias in the text of the article that needs ot be removed, or if there needs to be a new section discussing the benefits of being an Indo-Fijian in Fiji. As it stands, the article suggests that someone should try to "forget" their Indian heritage when enrolling to vote, for example, and self-identify as Fijian rather than Indo-Fijian. --Scott Davis Talk 07:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME WHEN AND HOW THE SANATAN DHRAM COMMUNITY AND RELIGION SUPPORTED CHILD MARRIGES????? THIS IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!i AM OF THAT RELIGION MYSELF, AND CHILD MARRIGES ARE FORBIDDEN, DUE TO THE LACK OF A CHILD UNDERSTANDING THE SACRAMENT!!!!!!!!

Disagree with this term, soley because it is an incorrect reference to ethnicity. If you know anything about Fiji and the term 'Fijian' in Fiji, you will know that not even part Fijians (ethnic) who have Fijian mothers and White (or other) fathers can call themselves Fijian. The term 'Fijian' is used in reference to an ethnic Fijian only, all other nationalities in Fiji are know as Fiji Islanders. So really, the correct term is Fiji Indian.

[edit] redunant wikifications

i removed the redundant wikifications becuase there were so many. tell me why i shouldn't revert.--Tainter 01:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add more than history

This article has a good amount of history on Indo-Fijians, however it has little about the culture or notable individuals or the ethnic info-box which usually characterize articles about ethnicities. Jztinfinity 04:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging, NPOV etc.

I've merged the Indo-Fijian and Fiji Indian articles, as it is against Wikipedia policy to "mirror" articles. I noted that one contributor to the talk page pointed out that merging one into the other would be tantamount to taking sides on a controversial issue, so I did neither, opting instead for a new title: Indians in Fiji, to which both of the old articles now redirect. I've merged the entire edit history of both articles into this one.

To change the subject: I've deleted a POV paragraph that claims that Fiji "officially" imposes disabilities on Indians. It does not - officially. Unofficially, it may well do, but the disabilities imposed by the 1990 constitution were repealed by the 1997 constitution. I know you sourced the paragraph - the sources are good, but were written during the 2000-2001 period of upheaval when the constitution was in limbo. It was a court order in favour of an Indian farmer (Chandrika Prasad) that reinstated the constitution. I know the Qarase government was widely accused of discriminating against Indians, but they did not do so legally or constitutionally. David Cannon 12:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in your attempt not to take sides, you have come come up with a title that makes Fiji citizens of Indian origin seem like foreigners to Fiji. Most of these have continued association with Fiji for five or six generations and have a unique culture. The discussions have been about how to refer to these people while recognising their unique culture and history. After 125 years the citizens of Fiji have not been able to agree to a common name for all its citizens, hence the constitution still makes use of Indian and Fijian to refer to specific groups of people. I believe that it is not the role of Wikipedia to pass judgement on this issue but to recognise that there are differences of opinion. Girmitya 02:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I hadn't thought of the title as one that makes Indians seem like foreigners. That will have to be reconsidered. What's needed though is one article that covers the Indian community in Fiji, as Wikipedia doesn't have multiple articles about different names for the same thing. I thought the paragraph on the "name debate" (which I alphabetized in order not to favour one name over another) recognized the differences of opinion, but it appears that we'll have to find a way to make it clearer. Ethnic identity is an emotional issue, I know (among New Zealanders of British descent there is a similar debate over labels like European, Caucasian, and Pakeha, for example). We'll have to come up with something that all sides can be happy with. David Cannon 03:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiji's Constitution Still Discriminates

Fiji's 1997 constitution is a vast improvement on the 1990 constitution but it still discriminates in favour of ethnic Fijians. The Great Council of Chiefs, an entirely ethnic Fijian body selects the President who then appoints the Prime Minister and the Commander of the Military.

One might say that the constitution does not say that the President can't be of Indian origin, but the fact is that Fiji Indians (Indo-Fijians) have no say in the selection of the President of their country. (Just imagine a situation where the Governor-General of New Zealand was selected by Moaris only)

It should also be noted that that approximately half the members of the Senate are appointed by the Great Council of Chiefs and the Senate does have powers to block constitutional changes and other legislation indirectly affecting Fiji's citizens of Indian origin e.g. land tenure

Ironically reserving seats in the House of Representatives, originally designed to placate ethnic Fijian fears may soon start to discriminate in favour of the Indian community as their numbers decrease due to migration and very low birth rate. Girmitya 02:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. Okay then, we may have to put the paragraph back in, but with qualifications. Let's see how we can reword it. David Cannon 03:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
From somebody living in Fiji and of an Indo-Fijian Background I believe whatever happens infiji would only benefit the Natives thus leading to Mass Exodus of Indo-Fijians Leaving Fiji Becoz of Discrimination an Racism.(Iam one of those :-( )--Cometstyles 12:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] RaCIAL BaRRIER

I dont get it the natives of Australia are not Australians but Aborigines and the natives of New Zealand arent New zealanders but Maori and even the USA the natives arent American but Native American or Red Indians so why Discriminate the Indo-Fijian by giving them a name which means nothing.The term Fijian should be reserved for all people who are Citizen of this Country regardless of the race .They should Ban the term 'Indo-Fijian' because in the future that word would create a lot of problems.ø~Cometstyles~ø(talk)

I understand your sentiments. In fact, the word "Fiji" came into existence after the arrival of Europeans, who derived the name what the Tongans used to refer to Fiji by. The Fijians themselves referred to the islands as Viti, hence the name used in the Fijian language for the the natives of Viti is Kaiviti. The name debate has been going on for a long time. In the late 1960s, A.D. Patel suggested that Taukei be used to describe the native Fijians and the word Fijian be used to describe all citizens. After some initial support this idea was shelved for a number of reasons but all ensuring that an avenue to discrimminate remained within Fiji constitution and Fiji Government policies. The Americans have found a way to allow people to refer to their heritage with names like African American, native American, Polish American etc and the Canadians use French Canadian. All these use their nationality as part of their name. So why cannot people of Indian origin who have been in Fiji for 5 or 6 generations be referred to as Indian Fijians? I know that I am adding more spice to the name debate but I believe that it is not the role of Wikipedia to resolve this issue but for the citizens of Fiji themselves. Wikipedians should be free to use whatever they prefer as long as we acknowledge that this is still an issue to be resolved. Girmitya 05:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Search results

I believe there is little value to the search statistic that is provided in the "Name debate" section. It cannot be directly used to help or oppose the argument of the popularity of a name (and hence is useless). I think that statement should be removed. Opinions welcome. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ 19:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)