Dialogue Fiji’s website presents a vision of unity: “inclusive dialogue,” “social cohesion,” and a nation where people “share a common will to build a free, just, peaceful, and inclusive nation.” Yet the recent words of its Executive Director, Nilesh Lal, reveal a chasm that no amount of donor-funded programming can bridge. His outrage over George Speight’s appearance before the Constitutional Review Commission starkly illustrates the separate thinking that plagues this nation and why the term “Fijian” can never be legislated—it must be felt in the heart.
The Spectre of May 19th
To understand Mr. Lal’s reaction, one must grasp the trauma of May 19, 2000. On that day, Fiji experienced a political crisis that tore at society’s fabric. A retired senior journalist who witnessed the events described “senseless violence,” shops burning, and a terrified populace. George Speight led armed gunmen into Parliament and took the democratically elected government hostage. For many, he symbolises Fiji’s darkest chapter, driven by ethnic nationalism.
A Donor-Funded Gatekeeper?
Mr. Lal frames his position as that of a “right thinking Fijian who loves his country,” implying that dissenters are unpatriotic. He has the right to his opinion, but the platform he speaks from is not his own. Dialogue Fiji is largely expat-donor funded, financed by foreign entities. When the leader of a donor-dependent NGO speaks, is he speaking for some Fijians or his western funders?
An organisation that professes to “strengthen democracy” and “citizen participation” is actively working to delegitimise a citizen’s participation in a national constitutional review. Mr. Lal’s statement is not a call for dialogue; it is gatekeeping, an attempt to silence a voice he deems unworthy—the antithesis of the “meaningful dialogue” that Mr. Speight himself called for and that Dialogue Fiji claims to champion.
A Tale of Two Experiences
Mr. Lal’s outrage stems from a fundamentally different lived experience than that of many iTaukei. For many iTaukei, the events of May 2000, are not a black-and-white story of good versus evil. It was a complicated affair involving a civilian coup against an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister. While the methods were condemned, the underlying grievances were real and resonated with a significant portion of the population.
The senior journalist who recounted that day, an iTaukei himself, made a powerful choice. In the face of mob violence, he and his iTaukei staff stood shoulder to shoulder to protect their Indo-Fijian colleagues. Yet he also reported the truth.
This is the nuance Mr. Lal’s statement lacks. He views the issue from the perspective of a victim of the coup’s violence—a perspective entirely valid. However, he fails to acknowledge that for many iTaukei, the coup was also a tragic, misguided expression of deep-seated frustration and a perceived threat to their identity and place in their own land.
Why the Term Cannot Be Legislated
The BLV has called for the term “Fijian” to be reserved exclusively for the iTaukei. This reflects “longstanding historical usage.” The 2010 decree that replaced “Fijian” with “iTaukei” went against the general wish of indigenous peoples—an attempt to legislate identity that failed to resolve our underlying tension.
Mr. Lal’s position demonstrates why this term cannot be defined by law. He is a Fiji citizen but not iTaukei. He has a right to call himself a Fijian in the civic sense. However, to legislate that “Fijian” applies to all citizens equally is to erase a profound and painful history. It ignores that for iTaukei, the name “Fijian” represents our “history, culture, traditions and heritage”—a marker of our indigenous identity, our Vanua, our connection to land and ancestors.
You cannot force a person to feel a connection to a term that has been, for centuries, our exclusive identity. You cannot legislate away the trauma of a coup or the fear of cultural erasure. The division Mr. Lal’s statement exposes is not a political problem to be solved by a constitutional commission or a foreign-funded NGO. It is a spiritual and emotional wound that can only be healed through genuine, heartfelt reconciliation.
A Nation Divided by Heart, Not by Law
Mr. Lal’s outrage testifies to the failure of the very “dialogue” model his organisation promotes. True dialogue requires listening, not just speaking. It requires acknowledging the pain of the other, even when expressed in uncomfortable ways. It requires understanding that the events of May 2000 are not just history but a living memory shaping how different communities view each other and the nation.
By denouncing Mr. Speight’s right to speak, Mr. Lal shows that for him, dialogue is only open to those who share his worldview. This is not dialogue; it is a monologue that reinforces the very divisions, Dialogue Fiji claims to heal.
Our challenge is not to find a legal definition for “Fijian” that satisfies everyone—that is impossible. The challenge is to find a way for all of us, to live together with dignity and mutual respect. This requires recognising that “Fijian” carries different meanings: for some, a civic identity; for others, a sacred inheritance.
Mr. Lal’s position, ironically proves the point of those who argue the term must be reserved. It shows the wound is still fresh, and unity cannot be decreed. It must be earned through a long, painful process of listening, understanding, and above all, feeling. It must be heartfelt. And as long as voices like Mr. Lal’s are used to shut down other voices, that heartfelt unity will remain a distant dream.
Pasifika Talanoa by a traveled ITaukei Fijian 