?Princes and lords may flourish, or may fade; but a bold peasantry, their country?s pride, when once destroyed can never be supplied?, so wrote Oliver Goldsmith in his famous poem, the ?Deserted Village?. Goldsmith was all praise for the contribution of peasants in the life of a country. The success or progress of a nation, it is said, depends also on its labourers, their health and economic conditions. More so, in a country like Mauritius which depended largely on agriculture for its survival, the labourers were a pillar for its economic strength. But this contribution was hardly recognized by the sugar industry, still less by the colonial government. The Labour Law introduced in 1867 by Sir Henry Barkly and hailed as ?the commencement of a new era of social improvement? was nothing more than a crass attempt at curtailing the freedom and activities of the Indian workers. The slavery system emerged in a more sophisticated form as Hugh Tinker pointed out. Adolphe de Plevitz put his life at stake to champion the causes of the Indians in the 1870s. It was indeed Maurice Curé?s campaign with the Labour party that opened the way for modern reforms but when the party ran out of steam shortly after, Hurrypersad Ramnarain wearing the cap of a trade unionist (1940s) took the lead to launch some significant offensives on behalf of the labourers.

The cumulative effect of Maurice Curé?s campaign in 1936 clamouring for improvement in living conditions led to workers? agitations and to the shooting at Flacq in 1937. The gun shots fired at Flacq jolted the government from its slumber and made it face the ground realities. Using the Hooper commission as a face saving device, it set afoot a Labour department staffed mostly with Indian officers to deal with labour problems in the sugar industry. Despite the promulgation of new legislations regulating working conditions, estate owners continued setting the authorities and trade unions at defiance. This gave grounds for persistent complaints. The situation was further exacerbated during the wartime when the government embarked on a severe rationing of food supply forcing the people to go on ?diet? and use locally grown foodstuffs instead of imported ones. Clothing materials like grey shirting worn by labourers were rationed too. In the hard times, shopkeepers and black marketeers had a field day as never before skinning the consumers.

● Unions grew like mushrooms

The simmering discontent of agricultural workers who had been complaining of low wages and rising living cost from the 1940s hardly drew any reaction from members of the Council of Government. It seemed also as if the government was again plunged in lethargy and Ken Baker, a trade union adviser, would write in his report in 1945 that if all the recommendations of the Hooper commission (1937) were adopted the pent up frustration of labourers in 1943 could have been avoided.

Leave alone the government, the trade unions as well were not able to mount a common front. They were operating more on a regional level, each union leader reigning as a petty chief in his zone. Yet, as soon as the Industrial Association Ordinance in 1938 made it lawful to form trade unions or associations as they were then called, trade unions sprang up like mushroom. According to the Colonial Annual Report (1946), ?over forty associations were registered in the first few months after the law was passed?. Many of these associations disappeared as fast as they came for want of experience, education or proper structure. The Labour Party which propelled a major social revolution with Curé could not be relied on either. Under Emmanuel Anquetil, the party had shed its militant posture and gone into hibernation after the rude shock administered by Sir Bede Clifford. So, labourers hardly turned to the Labour Party to air their grievances. The window of opportunity was seized by Hurrypersad Ramnarain. Labourers felt much at ease dealing with Ramnarain who spoke their language and shared their hardships. Even when Anquetil made an attempt to launch an agricultural workers? union to compete with Ramnarain, that project was scuttled as it was widely held that Anquetil was fielded by the colonial government to drive a wedge in the unity of the labourers of the north and weaken the association of Ramnarain. This move generated a friction between Anquetil and Ramnarain and the cold-shouldered relationship was to last for quite some time. Ramnarain would also scare off Dr S. Ramgoolam who wanted to try his hand in trade unionism with the hope of keeping an electoral clientele. Ramgoolam?s plan to float the Agricultural Workers Union (AWU) in the 1950s together with Beejadhur and Vaghjee could not make much headway. How could they when they were ?not labourers or sons of labourers? would write R. Baboolall in a letter dated 2 September 1950 to the Governor demanding the rejection of recognition of the AWU which was ?designed but for political ends.?

Ramnarain would also scare off Dr S. Ramgoolam who wanted to try his hand in trade unionism with the hope of keeping an electoral clientele. Ramgoolam?s plan to float the Agricultural Workers? Union (AGU) in the 1950s together with Beejadhur and Vaghjee could not make much headway.

Yet, signs of unrest had started looming large in the north of the island. Workers threatened to go on strikes as estate owners continued to turn a deaf ear to their demands for increase in wages and amelioration of their conditions. The North and Central Rivière du Rempart Labourers? Association was a force to reckon with. According to the British officials, Ramnarain was the ?moving spirit?(Wilkinson) and an ?energetic and a clever secretary with strong personality? (Moody) who could keep alive the North and Central Rivière du Rempart Labourers? Association when others had failed. He supported Curé during the thick of the struggles in the 36s. To him goes the credit of bringing Emmanuel Anquetil to the attention of Curé and getting him in the Labour Party. But now Ramnarain whom the British earlier believed was a ?Hindu priest? was militating as trade unionist for improving the conditions of estates? labourers. These labourers would listen to nobody except Ramnarain. He wielded such a strong influence that by merely showing his hand up, he could paralyse a factory for days on end. The director of the Labour department, Edward Twining and his successor Wilkinson said they often had recourse to Ramnarain to order resumption of works where stoppages had occurred.

Ramnarain would also scare off Dr S. Ramgoolam who wanted to try his hand in trade unionism with the hope of keeping an electoral clientele. Ramgoolam?s plan to float the AWU in the 1950s together with Beejadhur and Vaghjee could not make much headway. The name of Ramnarain is associated with the disturbances at Belle Vue Harel (1943). But the shooting there was far from being an organized confrontation between the labourers and the police. It was much more the result of police overzealousness and blunder after one of their agents was roughed up for having entered a temple wearing boots in search of a man. The police were ill inspired, made the wrong assessment of the situation and misunderstood the intention of the camp dwellers. Shots rang up in the camp. Fifteen rounds of rifle ammunition were fired. Even the Deputy Commissioner of Police could not resist firing a shot from his revolver. The police thought of placing the responsibility of the tragic event squarely on the head of Ramnarain but the Moody commission was ?not impressed by the manner in which this situation was handled by the police?.

But the Moody Commission, on the other hand, could not heap the entire blame on the police. It had to find some other ?causes? for the shooting. It therefore linked them to the role of Ramnarain?s union and the frustration that had been building up for months because wages remained stagnant. These served to justify the shooting by the police. So everybody in one way or other had to share the responsibility, not just the police. In the council of Government, a motion tabled by Dr S. Ramgoolam requesting the setting up of a Royal Commission by the British government to enquire into the incident and working conditions prevailing across the island since 1937 was defeated by 18/2, the Governor opting for a locally appointed commission headed by Sydney Moody, the Colonial Secretary...

The unfolding of events at Belle Vue Harel hardly dampened the ardour of the North and Central Rivière du Rempart Labourers Association, in particular of Ramnarain. When the labourers complained they could not make both ends meet with the cost of living having skyrocketed, the government retaliated by stating that the labourers were adequately paid but they were spending too much money in rum consumption. To this, Ramnarain started an anti alcohol campaign in early 1944 with the intention of depriving the government of excise duties levied on rum. That campaign was in full swing when the police arrested him and all those labourers who were actively participating in the boycott campaign. In the Council of Government, the Governor stated that Ramnarain was ?concerned in acts prejudicial to the public safety of the colony and that it was necessary to exercise control over him?. Ramnarain was held under strict surveillance in the military prison and to protest against what he called the ?indescribable inhumane treatment? went on a hunger strike forcing the authorities to transfer him to the ordinary prison. He walked out of prison after ten months.

● Protest march with their cattle

While shortage of food supply persisted, black marketing flourished and living conditions kept rising, the government and estate owners tried to resist increase in wages. In order to supplement their household budgets in those difficult times, the labourers were told to grow vegetables and undertake animal rearing. Where to obtain fodder when access to the fields was denied to them? On some estates, estates? owners agreed to allow fodder collectors in their fields provided that for each bundle of fodder, a bundle of sugar cane had also to be cut free for the owner and placed on the roadside for sending to the factory.

The union viewed this arrangement as abusive and illegal. The authorities failed to react to the protest of the union in the face of this domineering attitude. Ramnarain did not cow down. He led a protest march from Palma temple, Quatre Bornes, with almost five thousand labourers who marched with their cows and oxen on the way to Le Réduit to see the Governor. The cowkeepers were stopped at La Louise by a large detachment of the police headed by the Commissioner of Police and the military forces placed army trucks on the road to cut the advancement of the marchers. It was only after magistrate R. Neerunjun had a conversation with Ramnarain at Quatre Bornes Police station that a compromise was reached and the march called off. That was in 1947.

The fodder campaign was a success. Those field owners who made illegal arrangements with labourers were prosecuted. Estate owners also began to allow free access to whoever wishing to collect fodders and water supply which was denied to recalcitrant labourers on some sugar estates was restored. Thus, a measure of relief came to alleviate the hardship of the labourers.

A passionate trade unionist, Ramnarain?s bold actions against all odds produced positive end results towards improving the lots of the down-trodden labourers. This shows that one needs not necessarily be a politician sitting at Government House to bring changes in the life of a country. Trade unionists can bring revolutionary changes in the social and economic fabrics of a country and help improve the life of their countrymen.

Anand MOHEEPUTH