A GENERAL feeling has been whipped up to drive home the fact that independence from Britain was so arduous a task that it was granted after a fierce and relentless struggle. One would tend to believe that Britain was all intent in not parting away with the star and key island of the Indian Ocean, in the way Winston Churchill was reluctant to give up India which he described as the jewel in the British crown. Gone were the days when Mauritius commanded strategic importance.

Two world wars, the emergence of new super powers and a declining economy gave Britain food for thought with regard to its future action. The last straw that was to break the camel?s back was the shift in the British people?s thinking in the early 1950s. The British taxpayers were in no mood to bear the burden of maintaining a cumbersome empire, more so with India having achieved its independence.

Instead, they argued that their money could well be spent in improving essential services like health, education and pensions and consolidating the Welfare State. This concept of Welfare State dominated the calculations of political parties, notably the British Labour Party, in order to score mileages towards attainment of power. So, the decolonization process took off. Britain wanted to proceed with a consensual approach and do some good housekeeping before handing over to the new masters.

Indeed, in his new year message in 1951, Oliver Lyttelton, the Secretary of State for colonies clearly reflected the intention of London when he stated that Britain ?will be helping colonial territories to attain self-government within the British Commonwealth?.

Many colonies immediately started lining up at the Colonial office in London to fix dates for independence. What an opportunity that came on the way of political leaders of those colonies to claim the status of national heroes, freedom fighters, father of the nation and what not. Even close friends and political allies did not hesitate to play dirty tricks on each other as was the case in Guyana.

In Mauritius, the news of the launching of the decolonization process was received with mixed feelings. A section of the population reacted by saying no to severing colonial link with Britain and set out to fight down the Constitutional changes that were to culminate in the award of independence. What drove them to take such a posture was nothing but the fear that political power might change hands.

The first politician to openly unleash an agitation for the independence of Mauritius was the flamboyant leader of the Labour Party, Guy Rozemont. At a public meeting at Plaine-Verte on 5 February 1950, he fired the first salvo when he stated in no uncertain terms that the objective of the Labour Party was to acquire independence ? ?notre but, c?est d?obtenir notre indépendance?? It was the betterment of the working class and the notion of ?Mauritius for the Mauritians? championed by Governor John Pope Hennessy in 1882 that was uppermost in the mind of Rozemont.

That crude statement of Rozemont caused ripples in the placid water of Mauritian life. Despite Rozemont?s strident claim for independence and his outburst against the colonial regime and the Franco-Mauritians, he was not feared as being capable of bringing changes. Governor Donald Mackenzie Kennedy in a despatch to the Colonial office described him an ?self-inflated wind bag?. Documents reaching the Colonial office also mentioned him as being a ?rabble rouser and a nuisance?. Yet, Rozemont was one who was far from being the influential voice in the Labour Party.

But as Sefton Delmer wrote in the London Daily Mail in 1952, the one to whom the influential voice belonged and indeed was most feared was the ?little Indian?, Dr Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. His joining the Labour Party in 1952 was likened to a ?loup? set in the ?bergerie ?. He brandished the threat of nationalization of some of the key economic sectors like the sugar estates, banks and docks and wanted to witness the ?political scaffolding? of the capitalist class which had been ?sucking the blood of the poor for generations ? ? a populist stunt which greatly appealed to the masses but as later events would show, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam was very good at running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.

The nationalization threat which looked like Khomeini?s fatwa was lifted in 1965 when Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam renounced it as reported in an interview given to Advance on the eve of his departure to attend the London Constitutional Conference. Those gripped with fear were put on reassurance mode that independence was not going to be harmful to anybody. Was it not too late then ? For quite a large number of the population had already climbed the imaginary bandwagon named ?Hindu Peril? driven by the Parti mauricien.

Encouraged by its electoral success in 1953, the Labour Party pressed for constitutional reforms. It proposed fully responsible government elected on universal adult suffrage with a ministerial system and the leader of the majority party in the Council to be styled as Prime Minister and Leader of the House.

Jules Koenig and Abdool Razack Mohamed, two other prominent political leaders who rubbed shoulders together at that time, objected vehemently on the ground that constitutional changes would entail swamping of the minority communities by the Hindu masses. That objection was supported by the Governor, Sir Robert Scott, who stated that although the Labour Party was the only organized political party in Mauritius, its objectives did not take into account the realities and conditions prevailing in the island. ?The scheme is derivative ?, wrote Sir Robert in a despatch to the Colonial Office, adding that the Labour Party had merely reproduced a constitutional model based on one of those countries whose demographic and economic circumstances were different from Mauritius. ?It is impossible to produce responsible government by the use of tracing paper, ? wrote Sir Robert.

The Governor was also in agreement with the views of the Ralliement mauricien to the effect that the proposed reforms would entail domination by the Indo-Mauritian community. Already, deep cleavages existed between the various communities, implying lack of a sense of citizenship and Sir Robert stated in his despatch to Oliver Lyttelton that although the Labour Party included in its rank members of the General Population, there ?is a strong tendency for Hindus to vote for Hindus regardless of the policy of the rival candidates and that signs of Hindu separateness and exclusiveness in the political field, are increasing?.

In order to safeguard the rights of minorities, Mohamed suggested keeping separate electoral rolls for each community and spared no efforts to launch a barrage of vitriolic criticism against Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. For example, in one of his public meetings, he warned his supporters that universal adult suffrage, if introduced, would ultimately lead to the independence of Mauritius and that ?l?indépendance voudrait dire être dominé par Ramgoolam et cie?.

?Nous ne voulons pas de cette indépendance-là?, Mohamed said, according to Le Cernéen. ?Les musulmans savent lutter et l?ont prouvé partout mais les musulmans de Maurice ne veulent pas lutter pour finir par tomber sous le joug de Ramgoolam??

The Labour Party argued that the introduction of separate electoral list system would break up the country into water tight communal compartments and so it should be rejected. In the Labour camp, Edgar Millien who was often at loggerheads with Rozemont raised the banner of revolt against Ramgoolam for gravitating to communal politics and for fostering ?un nationalisme hindou à Maurice?.

That spurt of dissident activity similar to the one undertaken later by Raymond Rault, Augustin Moignac, etc. had not the slightest effect on the Labour Party. Millien was severely taken to task by Guy Forget, Rozemont and Seeneevassen but was recuperated by his erstwhile opponent, Koenig, who urged all the Creole members in the Council to bury their differences and resign as a protest against what he called the Hindu hegemony that was likely to submerge the country.

But little did Koenig realize that it was no use targeting the Hindu community. That community was torn apart between two factions which were poles apart in their thinking. Although Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam was riding high on the crest of popularity, and the person who contributed most in propelling him up was no other than Noel Marrier d?Unienville (NMU), he had to face the challenge of another firebrand politician, Sookdeo Bissoondoyal. Together with his brother, Basdeo, Sookdeo Bissoondoyal played a key role in getting through the simple literacy test that was to entitle a larger number of people regardless of communities or castes to vote in elections as from 1948.

Despite the divergence of opinions and rapid communalism that reared up its ugly head to halt constitutional reforms, the new Secretary of State, Alan Lennox Boyd, in a despatch dated 10 February 1956 stated that he was unwilling to delay further the introduction of universal adult suffrage which was to become effective from 1958 and not in 1963 as recommended by the Governor. He was also setting up the ministerial system so that Mauritians could become versed in the administration of government affairs and trained to assume responsibility. In order to allay the fears of some sections of the population, he proposed (i) to increase the number of elected members from 19 to 25, (ii) introduce Proportional Representation while maintaining the number of nominated members to 12. The increase in the number of elected members was to be accompanied by a reshaping of the electoral boundaries. He hoped a Mauritian society would emerge based on understanding, tolerance and cooperation.

The Labour Party opposed the system of Proportional Representation (PR). Its President, Guy Forget in a letter dated 25 October 1956 addressed to the Colonial office stated that the plan of the Secretary of State in what concerned PR was unacceptable to the ?overwhelming majority of the people of the island?. Guy Forget added that ?proportional representation in the local context will prevent the normal political development of the country on the basis of a Mauritian entity, aggravate and perpetuate divisions among Mauritians on racial and religious lines, and this we and our fellow members of the Labour Party consider it out duty to prevent, in so far as it lies within our power to do so?.

Although the reply came stating that the objections of the Labour Party would be examined, it appeared that doubts started to creep in. Independence seemed to be a far distant dream. John Hopkinson, on behalf of the Secretary of State in reply to a question on Mauritius by James Johnson in the House of Commons stated that there was ?difficulty in devising any satisfactory Constitution for Mauritius because of the multiracial and multi-religious character of the island?.

Racial tensions

At one time, the Labour party decided not to pursue the claim for independence. Rather, it considered following the line of the Malta Labour Party led by Dominic Mintoff in seeking integration with Britain. This concept of integration was later to be picked up and pushed through by the Parti mauricien. When the Malta?s demand failed, the idea of integration with Britain was discarded by the Labour Party. But then, Britain worked out a plan proposing Dominion status to smaller territories like Mauritius, Sierra Leone, Seychelles, etc. That meant full internal self-government with foreign policy and defence under Commonwealth States control. If not, the other solution was for the smaller colonies to join in a federation of Commonwealth countries with India or Singapore, for example.

The Labour Party seemed settled with the granting of the Dominion status to Mauritius and so kicked the issue of independence into touch or shall we say ?park? it. For example, the manifesto of the party for the 1959 general elections made no reference to the claim for independence but confirmed the support for Dominion status : ?Le Parti travailliste local souscrit à la politique du Parti travailliste britannique selon laquelle l?île Maurice devrait obtenir le statut de dominion, avec autonomie complète.?

Thus the claim for independence took a back seat as resistance kept growing. In that critical moment, the Labour Party lost two of its stalwarts, Guy Rozemont and Renganaden Seeneevassen. The large creole supporters of Rozemont, left in wilderness for a time, found a new superstar in young Gaëtan Duval who successfully milked the anti independance movement, while Tangavel Narainen at the behest of the Parti mauricien founded the Tamil United Party to rally the Tamils to its cause and inflicted further damage to the Labour Party, a strategy which paid handsome dividends. The reply to this was the setting in orbit of the All Mauritian Hindu Congress.

In the midst of the racial tensions boiling in the cauldron of Mauritian society, two cyclones in quick succession hit the island with great intensity in 1960. As if Mauritius has had not enough of its plethora of problems, somewhere somebody kicked up a fresh controversy on birth control, again giving it a communal tincture. This was done when the Titmuss Report was out. But it appeared Iain Macleod, the Secretary of State, who visited Mauritius in 1960 to take stock of the ailing situation gave a ray of hope to Ramgoolam when he said he would revive discussions on constitutional reforms and convene a Constitutional Conference in 1961.

The Labour Party pressed for independence at the 1961 Constitutional Conference. Mohamed having realized he had hitched himself on the wrong wagon was now an ally of the Labour Party. Even though, he maintained his opposition to independence unless nine seats were guaranteed to the Muslims and two posts of Deputy Prime Ministers provided for in the new Constitution, one to be given to a Muslim, another to a Christian.

For his part, Sookdeo Bissoondoyal stated that the demand of the Labour Party for independence was ?purely political tactics ?, intended to satisfy the interest of some self-seeking individuals in the Labour Party. ?Independence should not be a gift to a few individuals, but a gift to the people of Mauritius ?, stated Bissoondoyal. Since rumours were afloat that the Americans intended setting up a nuclear base near Mauritius, Bissoondoyal was of the view that in such circumstances, ?independence becomes a farce if the island is used as a nuclear base and the different elements of the population are compelled to be passive spectators ?. He also wished to be assured of certain safeguards, notably the establishment of a high-powered tribunal to deal with corruption and extravagant expenditure of the government. He opposed any increase in the number of Ministers as requested by the Labour Party and was of the view that not more than nine Ministers were needed for a small country like Mauritius. The IFB had no objection to the demand of the Parti mauricien and the CAM for separate electoral list and agreed with Jules Koenig that the Labour Party?s popularity was dwindling so fast that it was no longer representing the bulk of the population. Such being the case, the IFB suggested the holding of general elections before the award of independence.

Lack of trust in government

The Parti mauricien had shifted its claim from integration to association with Britain and expressed its concern about the rights of minorities being trampled by the Hindu community. It also emphasized the necessity for ensuring adequate and proper representation of the general population, in particular the ?coloured? population, on the Public services, Police and Judiciary Commissions.

As was expected, the conference failed to show in the words of Macleod, the ?widest possible measure of agreement?. Macleod told the Mauritian delegates to go back home and start getting used to working in a team. He proposed an all party government but this could not take shape. The party leaders could not come to an agreement. The point of disagreement was the number of ministers allocated to each party. Finally, the Governor, Sir John Shaw Rennie, thought that the matter could be resolved in London. So, they all went to London and came back this time satisfied after the Secretary of State had intervened. The coalition government had a Caesarian birth and functioned amidst awe and suspicion and gave signs of breaking off sooner or later. That element of sincerity and trust was lacking.

Meanwhile in England, Harold Wilson was now Prime Minister of a Labour government and the new Secretary of State, Anthony Greenwood, wanted to pursue the Mauritius file to its conclusion. He visited Mauritius in early 1965 to find out for himself how the leaders of the different parties had progressed on issues pending since 1961 when a two stage Constitutional programme was devised and required implementation. Both the Parti mauricien and the Labour Party organized mammoth public demonstration to show their strength. Was this impressive trial of strength to be a weighty factor in the decision of the British government? Not at all but the shrewd Greenwood had something else lurking in his mind. He would exploit the prevailing tension to his own advantage. The claim for association was surprisingly so forceful that he would use it as the sword of Damocles on the head of Ramgoolam.

At Lancaster House in September 1965, between two sessions on Constitutional matters, Greenwood called the Mauritian leaders, one by one for a private meeting. The subject veered round the Chagos Archipelago. Everyone was caught unaware as the Chagos issue at no time appeared on the agenda of the Constitutional Conference. It was in the course of one of those private meetings that Greenwood reminded Ramgoolam of his visit earlier to Mauritius and the Parti mauricien?s claim for a referendum. The IFB and Cam swore by independence and so argued the British, the majority of the population was for independence. Greenwood as the officiating priest completed the formalities by declaring independence. The claim for a referendum was rejected on the ground that this would prolong the ?current uncertainty and political controversy in a way which would harden and deepen communal divisions and rivalries ?.

Anand MoHeeputh

The British argued that their money could well be spent in improving essential services like health, education and pensions and consolidating the Welfare State. So, the decolonization process took off. Britain wanted to proceed with a consensual approach and do some good housekeeping before handing over to the new masters.

HISTOIRE Notre pays fête sa seconde indépendance