Context: A Council by the Governor, for the Governor

In the early 1940s, Fiji was still firmly under British colonial rule. The Governor served as President of the Legislative Council and held veto power over all measures. The Council was composed largely of official members — senior colonial officers such as the Colonial Secretary, Attorney-General, and Financial Secretary — along with a handful of unofficial members nominated by the Governor. Only a small minority of seats were elected, and those were reserved for Europeans.

Representation was communal, but in a highly distorted form. Fijians were represented through chiefs nominated by the Great Council of Chiefs in consultation with the Governor. Indo-Fijians, despite their large population, were denied the vote altogether and were represented only by a token nominee. Europeans, though a tiny minority, were the only group allowed elected representation. This system entrenched racial inequality at the heart of Fiji’s politics.

Structure of the Legislative Council (1940s)

The Council typically had about 32 members. More than half were officials appointed by the Governor. The rest were a mixture Of nominated Europeans, Fijian chiefs, and a token Indo-Fijian, plus a handful of Europeans elected from restricted constituencies.

How the Council Functioned

The Legislative Council of the 1940s was less a parliament and more an advisory chamber for the Governor. Official members always outnumbered elected and nominated members combined, meaning that policy was decided by colonial officers. European settlers used their small elected bloc to protect commercial and land interests. Chiefs used their nominated positions to safeguard Fijian land
ownership and maintain traditional authority. Indo-Fijians, limited to one nominated voice, could raise issues but had no legislative power.

Debates in the Council focused on economic policy, land leases, and labour relations. The 1940s saw repeated disputes between Indo-Fijian cane farmers and the Colonial Sugar Refining Company (CSR), which spilled into strikes in 1943 and 1946. These strikes highlighted the political frustration of Indo-Fijians: they carried Fiji’s sugar economy yet lacked political rights.

Indo-Fijian Sugarcane Strikes of the 1940s

The 1940s were marked by fierce industrial conflict in Fiji’s sugar industry, dominated by the Colonial Sugar Refining Company (CSR). Indo-Fijian cane farmers, who formed the backbone of the industry, lived under conditions of insecurity and exploitation. Land leases were short-term, cane prices were unilaterally set by CSR, and farmers carried heavy risks while receiving minimal returns. With no political voice in the Legislative Council, Indo-Fijians turned to strikes to make their demands heard.

The 1943 Strike

In 1943, cane farmers launched their first large-scale strike. Led by grassroots leaders in the Western Division, the strike was a desperate attempt to force CSR to negotiate fair contracts. Colonial authorities sided with the company, declaring the strike illegal and deploying police to protect CSR operations. The strike collapsed after several weeks, but it revealed the growing frustration of Indo-Fijians with both CSR and the colonial system that protected it.

The 1946 Strike and A. D. Patel’s Rise

A larger and more organised strike erupted in 1946, this time under the leadership of A. D. Patel, a lawyer who had emerged as the chief advocate for Indo-Fijian farmers. Patel argued that cane contracts were unjust and that farmers had the right to organise collectively. Thousands of farmers joined the strike, paralysing the sugar industry in Ba, Lautoka, and Labasa. The colonial government again declared the strike illegal, bringing in police and threatening deportations. The strike eventually ended in defeat, but Patel’s role made him the undisputed leader of the Indo-Fijian community.

The strikes of 1943 and 1946 were more than labour disputes — they were political battles over dignity, rights, and representation. They showed that Indo-Fijians, though excluded from the ballot box, could wield collective power. They also made clear to Britain that political reform could no longer be delayed.

Impact on Politics

These strikes had lasting consequences. Patel’s leadership during the 1946 strike gave him a platform that he later carried into the Legislative Council as a nominated member. His insistence on common roll representation — one person, one vote — was rooted in the injustice of the cane belt struggles. For many Indo-Fijians, the memory of 1940s strikes became part of a larger struggle for equality, linking economic justice with political rights. The colonial authorities, shaken by the strikes, conceded small reforms in the late 1940s, setting the stage for the cautious opening of the franchise in 1953.

“The cane strikes of the 1940s were the crucible of Indo-Fijian politics.
Out of struggle in the fields came a demand for equality at the ballot box.” — Historian, University of the South Pacific

The 1940s exposed the limits of Fiji’s colonial system. Labour strikes revealed the frustration of Indo-Fijians. Chiefs grew uneasy about their dependence on colonial favour. Even some Europeans acknowledged that reform was inevitable. By the late 1940s, the pressure for more inclusive representation was impossible to ignore.

Britain, facing decolonisation pressures worldwide, moved cautiously. It offered only token reforms in the late 1940s, but by the early 1950s it became clear that Indo-Fijians would have to be enfranchised. The 1953 election, which introduced Indo-Fijian communal seats, was the direct result of these tensions.

“The 1940s Legislative Council was colonialism laid bare: Europeans electing, Fijians represented by chiefs, Indo-Fijians excluded.
Reform was not a gift but the result of growing pressure from those left outside.” — Political historian, University of the South Pacific