?He was gentle and had the elements so mixed in him That nature might stand up and say to all the world This was a Man!? William Shakespeare.

Twenty years ago, this date (15 December 1985), peacefully passed away at the State House, Le Réduit, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, Governor General of Mauritius. He was just over 85 and had served in that capacity for only two years from September 2003 fulfilling, as goes the legend, a childhood dream of being one day the Governor of the country. (...) He was a man never to enjoy retirement and was in office until he breathed his last (...). I am pleased today, as one of the successors to SSR at Le Réduit, albeit after the important constitutional change that made of our country a Republic, to have been offered the opportunity by my friend Chit Dookhira and his organization, the SELEX, to address this distinguished audience (...) When later, I was to dissociate myself from his party?s new political agenda, it did in no way affect our relations and my respect for the man and the statesman never dwindled.

In the ball-room of the Château du Réduit, converted, for the occasion, into a funeral parlour decked with multicoloured flowers, where his body lay in state, thousands of people from every nook and corner of Mauritius, and from all walks of life, filed silently and solemnly to pay their last homage to him whom history had already acclaimed as the greatest Mauritian ever.(...)

For some he was the elegant, soft-spoken, charming, good-natured and full of human kindness persona. For others, he was the cunning, sly, opportunist and at times ruthless politician, best kept at arms? length. (...) I shall, in my present address, depart from the traditional memorial lecture pattern (...) Instead, I propose to adopt a personal and perforce subjective approach to SSR, the man as I have known him, his political philosophy as I have interpreted it and his work, as I have appreciated it - an approach, which I hope, will not shock any one of you and with which you won?t find fault. (...)

Let me start by sharing with you the circumstances that led to my first brief encounter with SSR. (...) In the Desforges Street of my childhood and my youthful days, three medical practitioners? surgeries used to be attended by patients coming from far and wide: those of Dr Ibrahim Atchia, Dr Edgar Laurent and Dr Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. (...) I used to live at Calcutta Street, in the same Plaine Verte area, at walking distance from Dr Ramgoolam?s residence. And my first face to face meeting with him was for professional reasons, in his capacity as a medical practitioner. (...) He immediately struck me as a soft-spoken and very personable elderly man. I do not recollect engaging into a conversation with him nor do I remember seeing a lot of patients in his waiting room on that early morning when I called on him, but I know for sure that he received the visits of far more people than the two other doctors, put together.

I understood later, that while the other doctors were receiving patients with health and medical problems, Dr Ramgoolam was receiving ?patients? with economic and social problems; (...) he was doing political consultation, often giving away money. By then, he was already well saddled as the undisputed leader of the Labour Party, respected and looked up to, by many, as their saviour. (...)

When, in the mid-sixties, one was in one?s early twenties, imbued with socialist ideas and ideals and a pro-independence Mauritian of Muslim faith, wanting to contribute politically to the epic struggle for independence, one could only do so by joining the Comité d?action musulman of Sir Abdul Razack Mohamed. An agreement had been signed and sealed, so was I reliably informed, between SSR and Sir ARM that no Muslim would stand on a Labour ticket, in the 1967 elections. The Labour Party of SSR was, for that matter, officially closed, for a long time afterwards, to Muslim adherents. Was it a political blunder? Probably not, given the importance ethnic politics had by then come to play. Was it the price to pay in return for the support of Sir ARM and his party for independence? Probably yes.

?To me, SSR had both the weaknesses and the qualities, the shortcomings and the virtues of ordinary mortals and the far-sightedness, wisdom and vision of great leaders.?

What I, however, consider as a political fault, a real disaster, which had far-reaching and tragic consequences, was the proposal and acceptance, during the fateful Lancaster Round of Negotiations in London, to split the Indo-Mauritian Community into a majority Hindu Community and a minority Muslim Community, thus playing into the hands of the traditional divisive colonial forces . It was the first time in the history of Indians ? not only in Mauritius but also in all sugar-producing islands where Indian indentured labour existed ? that their political leaders themselves, through shortsightedness, proposed and agreed to such self-inflicting amputation and mutilation. (...) The political history of the country would have been written differently if SSR were then to stick to his guns and replied to the Colonial Office as he did, in January 1941, to thwart Raoul Rivet?s attempt at dividing the Indo-Mauritians into two separate groups: ?We would caution him (Mr Rivet) to be more careful in future, and not to bring in this country the Hindu-Muslim question. (...) We ourselves look upon all such fanaticism or creed as a clog in the wheel of Mauritian progress and development.?

Be that as it may, together with a number of young Muslims of my generation I was to join the CAM ? and I hasten to add that I have absolutely no regrets for doing so ? and although not a candidate myself in the 1967 elections, campaigned in favour of the Independence Party?s candidates and served later, on the invitation of Prime Minister SSR, on the committee he set up for choosing our national flag and our national anthem. Two years later, in 1969, I was elected Municipal Councilor of Port Louis on a Labour-CAM ticket. Although one can justifiably argue that the merit for Mauritius achieving independence goes to the leaders of the Independence Party, made up of the Labour Party, the CAM of Sir ARM & the IFB. of Sookdeo Bissoondoyal, yet SSR is the one unanimously hailed as the founding father of Independent Mauritius and rightly so, I believe. (...)

The parting of ways came when the Independence Party invited the PMSD of Sir Gaëtan Duval to join in to form a coalition government. I resigned both as member of the CAM and as Municipal Councilor of Port Louis and went back to my books. I later joined the MMM and faced the leader of the CAM in his own constituency, in the 1976 general elections, the outcome of which is common knowledge.

With hindsight, it is today my considered view that SSR?s decision to invite the PMSD to join in a grand coalition, which at the time was totally unacceptable to me, was one based on wise counsels, made in the interest of the unity and integrity of our still fragile social fabric. It is clear than an important segment not to say a whole component of the Mauritian population had voted against independence and either excluded themselves or felt excluded from the new government. It would have been suicidal for the country if this feeling of exclusion were allowed to prevail as the risk of a social explosion would have been quite real. This (...) must have been the determining factor which led to the 1969 coalition government ? ?le gouvernement d?unité nationale.? The overwhelming majority which the government thus enjoyed and the absence of a strong parliamentary opposition created a political vacuum, very quickly filled by the nascent Club des étudiants militants soon to be transformed into a powerful political machine, the Mouvement militant mauricien (MMM).

In the wake of the social unrest and industrial action and the ideological and political confrontation culminating in the 1971 general strike, a state of emergency was declared and SSR, willingly or unwillingly, became party to a number of highly objectionable decisions and repressive measures against his political foes. (...)

From 1976 up until 1982, as an MP, I was given to observe SSR and the way he operated, at close range. He was prime minister and Leader of the House. (...) We were then a young and fiery brand of unorthodox parliamentarians who gave him and his party a very tough time in the House. He was generally calm and always polite in replying to parliamentary questions and I do not recall he ever used a non-parliamentary word or was called to order even once by Mr Speaker. (...)

It was well-known that SSR had the art of using his charm to throw discord among his adversaries, in a bid to win some of them over. (...) During the beginning of the 1976-1982 legislature, (...) SSR was going through a period when it was becoming very difficult for him to maintain his government on course with only a slim majority of 2 members in Parliament. (...) Finally, he was to achieve the feat of leading his government to the end of its normal 5-year mandate. In the process, he had no qualms in provoking and encouraging crossing of the floor to his advantage. For him, surprisingly enough, there was nothing immoral in being a turncoat. It was simply amoral.

Yet, he was a man who profoundly believed in democracy. (...) Political horse-trading should never exist in the democratic landscape since it is a perversion of democracy ? at least, so I believe. (...)There is no délit d?opinion in a democracy. SSR knew it and that is probably why he always had the highest regards for both the Leader of the Opposition and the opposition party members. He would, whenever necessary, include them in official delegations to represent the country. This did not prevent him at other times to hit hard at them (...). He could never be party to the policy of arrache mauvais herbe et protege montagne.(...) His is an example which present-day political leaders would be well inspired to follow.

?It was well-known that SSR had the art of using his charm to throw discord among his adversaries, in a bid to win some of them over.?

(...)To me, SSR had both the weaknesses and the qualities, the shortcomings and the virtues of ordinary mortals and the far-sightedness, wisdom and vision of great leaders. (...) SSR also knew our complex Mauritian society inside out, for having walked and lived with people of all classes, creeds and colour, understood them and loved them. He talked their language and could communicate with them in the languages he shared with them: bhojpuri or creole. That constituted his strength. (...) The philosophy of his political action, which has been defined as humanist socialism, although I prefer to call it simply humanism, finds its origin in his own upbringing and the living conditions of the people around him, which he witnessed with his own eyes. He says it very clearly in one of his speeches delivered on Independence Day, in 1978: ?The human imperative was born of the misery, the exploitation and the inhuman conditions of living I have seen around me in my early childhood. To improve the lot of the common man, give him back his dignity, teach him to lift up his head and stare his problems in the face, motivate him to fight for his rights, educate him into believing that all men really belong to one race ? the human race - became the driving force behind my political action.? (...)

Although branded as a Marxist, especially during the pre-independence period, yet it is known that SSR, early in his political career, was viewed as a moderate Indo-Mauritian leader by the Colonial office and the Governors of the island. Actually too moderate in the eyes of his opponents, who included for a very long time Sookdeo Bissondoyal (...). In a fierce press polemic between him and Dr Curé, in December 1938, he made it crystal clear that he was not advocating class struggle or class conflict. ?Dr Curé,? he writes in an open letter dated 19th December of that year, ?seems to think that the ?intellectuals? of my community are a class apart from the Indian proletariat, and that their interests are opposed to those of the working section of the community. (...) Let me remind Dr Curé that these ?Intellectuals? take root in the ranks of the working class(...)? SSR was soon to be nominated member of the then Legislative Council.

How come then that the moderate leader which SSR was reckoned to be could have been so fiercely attacked by the oligarchy, with at their head the notorious NMU (Noël Marrier d?Unienville) ? (...) When it became clear, after the 1948 general elections and in the early 1950?s, that the introduction of universal suffrage in Mauritius would eventually lead to a shift in political power, (...) a desperate and smear campaign of vilification was launched, with the help of Le Cerneen newspaper(...).

I share the view of those who denounce NMU as being the one who first introduced, in local politics, what since has come to be known as Communalism. (...) He publicly advocated, in an article entitled The Indian Threat, the creation of a Christian political party, a Muslim political party and a Chinese political party, associated through a common interest, which was to prevent the ?Hindu hegemony?. He laid the germs of communalism which poisoned our daily life and ultimately found its way to our Constitution, the highest law of the land.

Coming back to the negotiations of September 1965 at Lancaster House, the last before the independence of Mauritius. In his understandable haste, being given the deep and continuing inroads made by the anti-independence forces, led by the populist Gaëtan Duval, SSR was to make yet another concession to the British. To me, it was a monumental political mistake of the gravest consequences, when SSR and his delegation agreed to the excision of Diego Garcia, and the whole of the Chagos Archipelago, from the State of Mauritius. (...)

Before I conclude, I should like to briefly comment on what has remained a sore point in SSR?s political career. (...) The denial to his legitimate right of being the first President of the Republic of Mauritius. There is admittedly some justification to this feeling of bitterness. (...) We are in the year 1983 and a new government headed by SAJ has just taken over the reign of power. (...) One of its first tasks is to table a motion in the National Assembly to make of Mauritius a Republic, on the understanding that SSR would be its first President. The government does not, however, command the required majority of votes in the Assembly for the constitutional amendment. The votes of the opposition made up of MMM parliamentarians are obviously necessary and even crucial. Yet, on such a vital issue, (...) Government does not find it expedient to consult the opposition. No (...) consensus is reached on the type of Republic best suited for Mauritius. The MMM opposition, out of demagogy or out of conviction ? I leave it to your best judgment - submits a whole range of minor and major amendments to the original motion, all aiming at giving more powers to the future President of the Republic, ie to SSR. They will be rejected "in toto", the government unwilling to make any concession whatsoever. The opposition will abstain from voting the motion (...). Mauritius will therefore fail to end its colonial links with Britain and Her Majesty the Queen will continue to be our Queen, represented by a Governor General in the person of SSR.

No ideological difference existed between Government and Opposition on this issue of the Republic. Both sides even tacitly recognized that SSR would be the natural and obvious choice to fill the new Office of the President of the Republic. Yet they deliberately refused to come to an understanding on the type of Republic which would be more suitable for our country. (...)

I may now conclude but not before conceding my inadequacy in doing justice, within the time allotted, to that great statesman and towering personality that SSR was and his outstanding life-long achievement. (...)

Cassam UTEEM

Bibliography:

Sydney Selvon: A Comprehensive History of Mauritius ? MDS Publications 2001

Moonindra Nath Varma: The Struggle of Dr Ramgoolam ? M.N.Varma 1975