The future of Mauritius was born 26 World Football Cups ago, today. Perhaps that?s a tad too opaque. Let?s give it another shot. On 18th September 1900, a baby boy was born to a couple of indentured Indian labourers in Belle-Rive. He was to overcome tremendous odds, including dastardly poverty and the loss of an eye, to eventually become the Father of the Nation. One could wager that he is identified more with the latter name than the one that was bequest to him at birth, Seewoosagur.

After 14 years of medical studies in London, which illustrate certain affinities with the «master culture», such as Fabianism, the young man was to return to his birthplace to fulfill a calling that only people of his ilk can comprehend. Indeed, men and women of this visionary mettle often have to walk alone as even their most ardent supporters are too shortsighted to share their load. His return, in 1935, which «coincided» with the Indian Immigrant Arrival Centenary, was to be a watermark and probably went a long way to nurturing his longing for a mass movement.

Over the next three decades, he would steer the independence movement with a motley crew of coalition partners to the ultimate consecration. The fact that Independence Day is celebrated on 12th March is no coincidence. It was on that date that Mahatma Gandhi led his first act of pacifist defiance against the British, the Salt March.

It is crucial, though, that we treat all our idols with circumspection and Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam should be no exception. To ignore his shortcomings would be a great disservice to the man and, ultimately, to ourselves. Scratch the surface a little and one can feel the veneer slipping off quite easily. His opportunism was reflected in his political manoeuvrings amongst his brethren in the Labour although castigating a politician for his cunning is akin to scorning a prize-winning racehorse for running too fast, a fallacy.

It is also too easily forgotten that his first public speeches were anti-independence. Many also believed that he had been installed by the British, who, having realized that the momentum for independence had become too powerful, decided to have their own man lead the movement for self-determination. One can also mention that his policy on import substitution was inappropriate. The greatest sticking point, one that is too gratuitously omitted from this great man?s portrait, is his concession of the Chagos archipelago to the British. Does a person deserve the title of Father of the Nation if he sells a part of that very nation to the colonial power? That huge mistake is one that coming generations of Mauritians will continue to pay for. The Chagossians have already suffered untold misery as a result of this «tactical error».

All in all, it was his ability to unite the country at a time when many African neighbours were sinking into the mire of civil war that made SSR great. Just like his idol, Gandhi, he was able to forget past injustices and grudges. It is sad that the proverbial fruit has rolled a fair way from the tree in that respect.

The average quota for a country is one great Leader per century. For now, great Patience is the best we can hope for. Until we are delivered, let?s raise our glasses to SSR and all have a long slow sip of Think for Yourself.