Franklin D. Roosevelt once observed: ?In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.? In a scenario cleverly crafted by the Colonial office, the British Secretary of State, Anthony Greenwood, paid a visit to Mauritius in April 1965. The purpose of his visit, Greenwood said, was to meet with ?old friends? and exchange views with leaders of political parties.

But the people of Mauritius were led to believe that Greenwood?s visit was decisive. He would be pronouncing his verdict ? independence or association. The political parties, the Labour party and the Parti mauricien social-democrate (PMSD) mobilized all their resources in organizing mass rallies in a bid to impress Greenwood with their shows of strength. Passions ran high; the atmosphere was vitiated with feelings of hate and vengeance and the country was pushed in the throes of communal tension.

Before flying back to London, Greenwood told the press that he had not made up his mind yet and that both options ? independence and association ? were still open. He said he would convene a Constitutional conference in London to thrash out the issue. Mauritius was thus set reeling under another period of agony and uncertainties.

But for Greenwood, the mission was a successful one. In the show of strength, the PMSD seemed to be running neck and neck with the Labour party. This was indeed what the Secretary of State wanted to see and to make Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam understand that the cleavage was so wide that the granting of independence needed some thought.

His postponement of a decision all formed part of the planned strategy, which he would use later for ?blackmailing? Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam by brandishing the spectre of association. Sir Seewoosagur resented the word ?blackmailing? as he said he was never blackmailed. But then should we say the British did some arm-twisting in one of the meeting rooms at Lancaster House forcing him into accepting what Sir Satcam Boolell described as a ?package? which consisted of independence for Mauritius and the detachment of Diego Garcia.

The Constitutional conference held in September 1965 in London turned out to be a farce if it is to be considered that Diego Garcia was at no time marked on the agenda of the conference and so was linked to the granting of independence. Greenwood chose to discuss it privately with Ramgoolam during one of those sessions, reminding him that independence was in balance and the vociferous claim for association with a large part of the population for it was not ruled out.

The excision of the Chagos was linked as a condition for the granting of independence. Harold Wilson and Ramgoolam met at 10 Downing street a little earlier to share views on the issue. This led to a wild protest by the PMSD which staged a walk out and boycotted the rest of the meetings. In Mauritius, everybody was taken aback by the swiftness with which the Secretary of state broke the news. L?express, then close to the Labour party, ran a front page headline: ?Coup de théâtre, l?independence accordée.?

That the British government made it a point to keep sensitive issues as a closely guarded secret until the eleventh hour became a way of life with every Labour government since Clement Atlee in 1945. Harold Wilson did the same. So much so, that Brian Lapping, a former journalist of the Guardian newspaper and author of the book, The Labour Government 1964-70 wrote that the Wilson?s government went ?almost to the point of dishonesty in its public statements about foreign policy?.

The British government was no longer interested in its colonies. The British economy was in the doldrums as never before. Britain was much more preoccupied with its own security and survival. Communist expansionism was overrunning the world, striking terror and giving sleepless nights to many European countries, notably Britain.

This act of dishonesty and also of abstaining from telling all decisions even to cabinet colleagues and breaking them out at the last moment was due to the British Labour party having within its rank a strong anti-militarist wing, a strong anti-American wing and a passionate anti-colonial wing which when provoked could give a hell of a time to the prime minister. This could explain the reason why Greenwood refrained from bringing Diego Garcia in public focus, preferring a secret negotiation; more so as it was going to be used as a US military base. That seemed to have worked very well and left the anti wings? elements with no time to react.

Sir Seewoosagur who had made independence a catchword in his political crusade since the 1960s and had roped in the pro-independence movement, Bissoondoyal and Mohamed, could not but seize this golden opportunity. It was the end result that mattered to SSR, not so much the process.

But SSR was adamant and even in 1982 maintained that he took the right decision. ?I had to make up my mind between choosing independence and the excision of the archipelago and I chose independence?, stated Sir Seewoosagur when deponing before the Select Committee chaired by Jean- Claude de l?Estrac on 6 December 1982. SSR added that the choice was a ?judicious? one given the context of the time and the grounds for detachment given by the British. The Labour government of Harold Wilson used a coercive approach knowing how passionate Ramgoolam was for independence. This can be grasped from the statement of Sir Gaëtan Duval. ?The choice was between excision and a referendum on independence?, said Sir Gaëtan. Sir Gaëtan said SSR took fright and let slip Diego Garcia out of hands.

Yet, the PMSD watched it going while keeping a dead silence. That independence was linked to Diego Garcia transpired also from Sir Harold Walter?s statement when he said that ?Diego Garcia was certainly an important tooth in the whole cogwheel leading to independence.? Sir Satcam Boolell, another senior minister in the government then pointed out recently in a press article that independence and Diego Garcia were all rolled in a ?package? and offered to Mauritius.

Whether one wanted it or not, independence was to come sooner or later without any struggle with Britain. The PMSD made association its warhorse but sooner or later it would have faced the stark realities. The British government was no longer interested in its colonies. The British economy was in the doldrums as never before. Britain was much more preoccupied with its own security and survival. Communist expansionism was overrunning the world, striking terror and giving sleepless nights to many European countries, notably Britain.

On the other hand, the Suez crisis had exposed how vulnerable Britain was and the humiliation it suffered in the hands of Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt prompted the intervention of the US in the big brother?s role. The success of Nasser gave rise to the emergence of a new pan-Arab nationalism which Britain and other countries would be made to grapple with. To dampen any recalcitrant country trying to raise its head, the US decided with Britain?s blessings to set up a military base in the Indian Ocean and the preferred choice was the island of Diego Garcia.

The US wanted this territory to be requisitioned at all cost. Who could resist and say no to the world policeman? Britain which was playing second fiddle to the US and had cast itself under its protective umbrella could not but abide by the demand of so powerful an ally. How then could Britain trail between its legs a far away colony that had lost all its importance, was a communal melting pot or as James Johnson put it in the House of Commons in 1955, ?one of the most difficult of our colonial territories and a Tower of Babel??

So, Sir Seewoosagur must have drawn a realistic assessment of the new world order which was taking shape. Independence was inevitable. By accepting the proposed ?package? he was quick to steal a march on the PMSD which was flogging a dead horse known by the name of association and which Ramgoolam himself had already discovered was a lame one in the 1955s with the Malta failure. Ramgoolam with Bissoondoyal and Mohamed for having ridden the chariot of the independence movement thus got for themselves a pride of place fixed in the history of Mauritius.