Sir Abdool Razack Mohamed, it is said by those who knew him, was a honest man. He never hesitated to speak his mind freely. He cherished his own principles and remained true to his words.

Born and brought up in India, Sir Abdool pegged his political career to the Muslim cause in Mauritius. At first, he charioted himself to the cause of the Indo-Mauritians. Issues like communal representations, minority rights or reservation of seats hardly crossed his mind. At the Consultative committee for the revision of the Constitution set up by governor Donald Mackenzie Kennedy in 1945, he suggested that a new electoral system should cater for at least 50 % of the seats in the Council of Government going to the Indian elements. The Constitution of 1882, still in force, then made it almost impossible for any Indo-Mauritian to get elected by votes.

?Though CAM was regarded as a close ally of the Labour party, its support for independence was not unconditional.?

In the early 1950s, however, it seems there was a shift in the political thinking of Mohamed. He joined the bandwagon of the Parti mauricien. The fate of the minorities in the light of the future constitutional development attracted him, he said later in one of his public meetings. The minority communities needed protection from the emergence of the so called Hindu hegemony and since the Parti mauricien was standing as a roadblock to prevent the minorities being swamped away, Mohamed gave himself heart and soul to the cause of the Parti mauricien. From the Parti mauricien platform, he kept firing salvos at the Labour Party and, in particular, at the new avatar in the political firmament, Dr Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. Mohamed openly accused Ramgoolam of trumpeting the ?Hindu nationalists?? cause. He said that the ?dangerous? posture taken by Ramgoolam in promoting ? nationalism? had to be given a hard fight. In one of his public meetings in 1955, Mohamed sounded a note of warning: the Muslims would not be used as a stepping stone to help others attain their objectives. Making reference to the issue of independence claimed by the Labour Party, Mohamed said as reported by the press: ?l?indépendance veut dire être dominé par Ramgoolam. Nous ne voulons pas de cette indépendance-là. Les musulmans de Maurice ne veulent pas lutter pour finir par tomber sous le joug de Ramgoolam?..?

Mohamed soon discovered that he had hitched himself to the wrong bandwagon. His account of disenchantment with the Parti mauricien opened with the incident when the Parti mauricien endorsed Alex Bhujoharry?s protest for a recount of votes after Mohamed was elected in front of Bhujoharry, a party colleague, by one vote in Port-Louis. Then came the decision forced by subterranean elements not only to oust him from the Executive committee of the Parti mauricien but also to deny him a nomineeship in the Executive Council. The white coterie chose Osman and sacrificed Mohamed. Finally, the refusal of the party to support his claim for separate electoral roll and reserved seats for Muslims reached a boiling point.

When Mohamed made up his mind to quit, a spate of letters from groups of Muslims appeared in the press urging him to be ?courageous to join the Labour party?. But Mohamed said he could not join the Labour Party. One, because some of its members were ?dishonest?, and two, because of Edgar Millien, his arch opponent whom he described as an ?opportunist?. On this account, Mohamed said that the co-habitation in the Labour Party would be difficult. He preferred floating his own party, the Comité d?action musulman (CAM).

After a period of disillusionment with the Parti mauricien, Mohamed made a conciliatory move towards his ?friend?, Dr Ramgoolam. The latter got the green light from his party colleagues to tie up an alliance with the CAM. That alliance indeed took concrete shape, without any moment of faltering, until the eclipse of the CAM. It was an exemplary partnership built on a sincerity of purpose, holding firm in good and bad times. Ramgoolam blessed the first meeting of the CAM held in February 1959 by his presence at Plaine-Verte. At the level of the Labour party, that alliance faced no hurdles. The virulent critics of Mohamed were not there. Edgar Millien kept his distance from Labour after a spurt of dissidence. Renganaden Seeneevassen and Guy Rozemont were no more. It was Seeneevassen who gave Mohamed some irritants, for example, when in 1956 he succeeded in getting the government to appoint the Keith-Lucas commission to investigate into allegations of fraud during the mayorship of Mohamed in 1953. The municipal election of 1953 in Port-Louis gave rise to grave doubts and suspicions.

But Mohamed kept clinging to his plank: separate electoral roll and reserved seats for the Muslims, despite the alliance with the Labour Party. Was he inspired by the All India Muslim League in chalking out his political strategy right from the 1950s? Why this re-thinking after having championed the Indo-Mauritian cause in general? The Muslim League started occupying grounds in India from 1906 when the viceroy, Lord Minto, instigated the Nawab of Dacca, Salimullah, to claim a separate platform for the Muslims. The call for separatism was peppered with a demand for the protection of Muslim rights and the principle of separate electorates.

That was done in a bid to weaken growing Indian nationalism. The idea of partitioning shot up there and then with a failed attempt at tearing apart Bengal from India and making it a Muslim dominated territory. At the most, what Mohamed might have thought of here was to whip up a frenzy to secure a Muslim vote bank and increase his bargaining power. What was wrong in this when all other politicians were doing the same- stirring communal passion for a safe ride?

The London Agreement signed in 1957 came as a turning point. It split the Indo- Mauritians into two distinct communities- ?Indo-Mauritian Hindus? and ?Indo-Mauritian Muslims?. The ?Indo-Mauritian Muslim? community was now recognized as one of the ?main? sections of the population. With this in mind, the Trustram Eve?s electoral Boundary Commission introduced a new electoral system and a re-zoning of constituencies in 1959. The Electoral Boundary Commission facilitated amongst other things the election of Muslims in some constituencies so that, as Mohamed said, Muslims could ?stand on their own legs and not beg for charities from others.?

Trustam Eve gave winds to Mohamed?s sail to position himself in the garb of the leader of the Muslim community. The 1959 general election saw the election of no less than five Muslims, an event happening for the first time in Mauritius and the man who fought hard for this to occur was none other than Mohamed. He knew how difficult it was for a Muslim to get elected even in Port-Louis. He himself was first elected in 1953 in the Port-Louis constituency, coming out in the fourth place with ?miraculous luck? as he would say.

Popular belief

But Mohamed, a seasoned politician and very pragmatic, knew that independence was inevitable as he would usually make reference to the hints given by Ian Macleod, the Secretary of State who visited Mauritius in 1960. With independence, changes in the Constitution and electoral system were bound to occur and would affect Muslims? election anew. Again, it was the future of the Muslim community that was uppermost in his mind. Indeed, though the CAM was regarded as a close and sincere ally of the Labour Party, its support for independence was not unconditional. Before going to Lancaster House in 1965, Mohamed stated in no uncertain terms that he was not committed to independence nor was he opposed to it. He said his commitment was to the Muslims whose interest had to be safeguarded by all means.

In the foggy weather of London, he stayed firmly saddled to his agenda. The Constitutional Conference report (1965) outlining the positions of the parties present at Lancaster House, stated that the only two parties advocating ?immediate? independence were the Labour Party led by Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam and the Independent Forward Bloc (IFB) led by Sookdeo Bissoondoyal. The bombshell came from the Secretary of State, Anthony Greenwood, himself when he declared that Mauritius had reached the ultimate status for independence and this was therefore granted. The report added that if any weight was to be given to determine the strength of the support for independence on an election basis, that was to be based on the 1963 general elections when the Labour Party and the IFB together pulled 61.5 % of the votes. The Muslim Committee of Action, the report says, was ?prepared? to support independence but that support was ?conditional.?

As Mohamed stated in his press conference back from London and also that which transpired in interviews given by Haroun Aubdool, Secretary of the CAM, the primary objective of the CAM at Lancaster House was to push for adequate representation and safeguards for the minorities when a reformed electoral system would be in place.

Contrary to the popular belief, it is not that the British government worked out an arithmetical calculation as to the percentage of votes drawn up by the political parties to arrive at a decision whether or not to grant independence. Nor was independence decided by a division of votes or a show of hands. The general elections of 1963, if anything at all, the acute political and social tension that had gripped Mauritius accelerated by ?deepening communal divisions and rivalries? were weighty factors in the decision to award immediate independence. Greenwood said it was time to cut short the period of uncertainty which was doing more harm to Mauritius. The general elections of 1967 merely completed the constitutional process with a motion tabled in the Legislative Assembly requesting independence. Whatever would have been the outcome of the 1967 general elections and whoever would have formed the government, the decision was announced on 24 September 1965: the newly formed government after the forthcoming general elections ?should lead the country into independence?.

Sir Abdool never claimed in his lifetime that the fate of independence was hanging in balance at Lancaster House. Nor did he say that the CAM was a decisive factor in the award of independence in 1965. He knew very well that independence was at the doorsteps. That?s why he focused more on the issue of representations and safeguards for the minorities. The CAM along with Mr J. Ah Chuen succeeded with the support of the Labour party and the IFB in extracting from the Secretary of State a formula for safeguarding the interest of the under-represented in the Legislative Assembly. The formula that came out in the form of the best loser system is still surviving today and serving its purpose.

Every politician must be judged on a balance sheet at the end of his political career. The best loser system appears on Sir Abdool Razack?s balance sheet.

Anand MOHEEPUTH