There is a legendary belief that Mauritius had to fight hard to obtain its independence from Britain, as if Britain was unwilling to give up what was once the ?star and key of the Indian Ocean?. This belief can well be shattered. The principle of getting rid of colonies including Mauritius formed part of the British colonial policy if one takes an unflinching look at some facts indicated in Nigel Fisher?s biography of Harold Macmillan who was prime minister of Britain from 1957 to 1963. The march of Mauritius to independence was inevitable in the context of the decolonization programme as Anthony Greenwood would reaffirm in 1965. True, during the pre-independence days, the island was shaken between two factions ? one welcoming independence, the other peddling the theory of ?association.? It was a time when passion ran high with communal politics occupying centre-stage and pushing the island almost on the verge of blood-bath. The problem was not Britain but Mauritius itself in not getting its act together.

Barring India, the initiative for liberating the colonies came more or less from the British. The new year message of Oliver Lyttelton in 1951 that Britain would ?help colonial territories attain self-government within the Commonwealth? was an indication of Britain?s intention in the future. It was Macmillan who on assuming office as prime minister let off the distant sound of drum beat that decolonization was on its way. He toured the Far East and Africa encouraging colonies to gear their thinking towards the ultimate goal for independence. What followed was that political leaders in many of the colonized territories began jockeying for the supreme position, playing one another intensely on the issue of racism, communalism and tribalism. It was during his tour of Africa in 1960 that Macmillan created a surprise by his ?wind of change? speech, a speech which was criticized by the Conservative elements in the House of Lords.

As convincing as Macmillan was one of his favourites, the newly appointed Secretary of state for the colonies, Iain Macleod, who embarked on another African tour, landed in Mauritius in 1960, shortly after the island was recovering from two severe cyclones. Macleod held a Constitutional conference in 1961 and worked out a two-stage constitutional advance for Mauritius, positioning the island straight on the track of independence. From London, Patrick Gordon Walker, a well known Labour MP and correspondent of Advance newspaper wrote an article in September 1961 entitled ?Independence in sight? explaining how things were to move from then on in an inherently multi-racial country like Mauritius.

No additional financial support from Britain

Although Macmillan was said to be a liberal minded man in the Conservative party, several factors seemed to have influenced the British decision in doing away with its colonies. Besides the lack of interest in managing colonies after 1947 when India slipped out of the British yoke, the British economy showed sign of entering the red zone. That was to culminate in the worst crisis to affect Britain during the administration of Harold Wilson with the devaluation of the currency and severe cuts on expenditure at home and overseas including the closure of several military stations. For example, Anthony Greenwood on a visit to Mauritius in 1965 bluntly said that Mauritius could not expect receiving any additional financial support from Britain.

Another acid test for Britain?s supremacy was on the international scene when it received a blow during the Suez crisis in 1956 which showed how weak it had been reduced to. Anthony Eden, the British prime minister, could do nothing in the face of the Nasser?s defiance but resign, leaving the United States to start a proxy war through Israel against Egypt and then in the Middle East. The Rhodesian crisis when Wilson was incapable of subduing Ian Smith was another example of a once mighty power having fallen so low. All these proved Britain was no longer the colossus bestriding the world. Rather, it was relegated to a position playing second fiddle to the emerging United States. Britain?s main concern was to ward off the Soviet expansionist threat and sought shelter under US? protective wings through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). So much so that when Macmillan tried to make an issue in a big way of the Common Market after de Gaulle vetoed the British entry, Leon Brittan described the British move ?like an aged actress looking for a role.? So, how could a desperate and depressed Britain continue to look after its colonies which by the way had also started thinking that they had come of age? Furthermore, after the War, the British taxpayers fed up not only with the war but also with their war hero Churchill wanted their money to be spent on them for their welfare and not on far distant colonies.

Macmillan had thus no option than to move in the direction of decolonization. It was said that colonial matters did not interest him much as would home affairs. Yet, he was under Secretary of state for the colonies in the 1940s and on becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1955, one day complained to Harold Wilson when they were both out for a cigarette in the Smoking room of the Commons, ?after a few months learning geography, now I?ve got to learn arithmetic?? Macmillan found dealing with colonies ?an irritating distraction from more important matters.? On one occasion in 1955, he asked the Secretary of state for colonies, Alan Lennox-Boyd, to produce a profit and loss account showing what each colony cost and what Britain got out of it.

Countries not ready for independence

In Lennox-Boyd as in Iain Macleod who succeeded the former in 1959, Macmillan prided himself in having two men who were known for their ability, full of charm and very popular with political leaders in colonies so that the decolonization process was made easier. The appointment of Macleod particularly as Secretary of state for the colonies, according to Nigel Fisher was regarded as a clear directive for quickening the pace of decolonization. That was why Macleod lost no time in setting off on a tour of several colonies in April 1960.

Writing in the Spectator of January 1964, Macleod agreed that there was a ?deliberate speeding-up of the movement towards independence?. He wrote: ?Were the countries fully ready for independence? Of course not.? Nevertheless, on a philosophical note, he wrote, ?the march of men towards their freedom can be guided but not halted?, arguing that India too was not prepared for independence but Clement Atlee, the then prime minister of Britain, took a ?realistic decision? in 1947.

Macmillan?s tour of African countries in early 1960 helped him see for himself how and when the stages of constitutional development could take place.. Before going abroad, he talked to an experienced British Governor who advised him that to wait for the colonies to become ripe in order to take their destinies in their hands would take some fifteen years or more. ?If the fifteen years were to be applied in learning the job?, said Macmillan, ?I would be all for it. But that is not what will happen. All the most intelligent men capable of government will be in rebellion. I will have to put them in prison. There they will learn nothing about administration, only about hatred and revenge??

The prime minister quoted T. B. Macaulay who wrote over a hundred years ago that ?if men are to wait for liberty till they become wise men and good in slavery, they may indeed wait for ever.?

In another instance, he referred to the maxim ?worthy of the fool in the old story, who resolved not to go into the water till he had learnt to swim??

Macmillan?s conclusion was thus: ?Give them independence now!?

What Anthony Greenwood did in 1965 at Lancaster House was to apply the British policy of freeing colonies including Mauritius. In his closing statement, he said to the Mauritian delegates that ?to grant independence would be in accordance with British policy and practice, and that independence was a goal which Britain herself should encourage her dependent territories to attain.?

The award of independence to Mauritius ought to be seen in the decolonization plan of the British government.

Anand MOHEEPUTH