Relief, but no rejoicing

Relief, but no rejoicing

The release of deposed Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and other political hostages in Fiji is cause indeed for great relief, but certainly not for rejoicing. Relief is amply warranted by the fact that till the very last moment their fate remained gravely uncertain ever since their capture and confinement eight agonising weeks ago. Rejoicing should be ruled out because this has come as no serious setback but as a signal victory, in fact, for George Speight and his goons who have held the fledgling democracy of Fiji at gunpoint. Not only have they got away, but the coup appears to have paved the way for their legitimised participation in power. Sitiveni Rabuka, speaking for the Great Council of Tribal Chiefs, has called Speight's a "self-perceived" victory, but facts make only the claim of any constitutional restoration appear highly fanciful. The deal that has, by all accounts, brought the prolonged hostages drama to an end, is nothing short of a disgrace. In flagrant violation of all internationallyaccepted norms, Speight has demanded and won an amnesty not merely for himself and his accomplices but for all `political offences' that continue to be committed against the country's hapless minority by looters and bullies claiming an immunity in the name of the `indigenous'. He has asked for an abrogation of the multi-ethnic constitution, and has not been denied. He has had a crony, Ratu Josefa Iloila, installed as the new President (in the place of Sir Kamisese Mara frightened into fleeing capital Suva), and indicated he would be "honoured" to be offered premiership. The military, which started by insisting on the release as a condition for talks with the thugs but has given in all along the line since its takeover on May 19, is hardly in a position to ignore the hint.

All this, of course, is no tribute to the advance of democracy in the South Pacific island-state whose constitution of 1997 made the election of an ethnic Indian Prime Minister possible. Equally, it needs to be stressed, the developments have not exactly done the international community proud, either. Neither the UN nor the Commonwealth has made itself heard to Speight and the military kowtowing to him. Australia and New Zealand have kept issuing threats of sanctions, but the usurpers of Fiji, dependent on its sugar exports, would hardly seem to be feeling the heat. And India, which has no reason to conceal its concern over the entire sorry affair, is called upon to act with urgency in pursuit of its declared objective of a resolution of the issue within the framework of Fiji's constitution of 1997.

There need be no quarrel with any Fijian programme for the protection of theinterests of the indigenous, not even with any affirmative action in thisregard. But this cannot be at the expense of the civil liberties and human rights of the minority of Indian origin. Once `coolies', whose sufferings and struggles in the sugarcane plantations anguished Indians back home, theyhave played a major role in the building of modern Fiji. India and the world cannot mutely watch a minority that makes up 44 per cent of Fiji's population being reduced to second-class citizens.