In 1909, the District Magistrate of Port Louis, Hewetson, pronounced a sentence against one C.M. Atchia and gave him a choice: either he was to pay a fine Rs 40 or undergo three days’ imprisonment. What was Atchia’s offence? The magistrate ruled out that there was contempt of court because Atchia appeared in the witness box “wearing shoes without socks or stockings.”

The magistrate kept reminding Atchia that he should remove his shoes and also his head-gear. Wearing shoes with socks or stockings was regarded as being of the “European” or “Creole” style. That was the style permitted in courts. If one had to appear in court wearing shoes without socks, the regulations stated that the shoes had to be removed altogether and the person appearing before the magistrate had to walk in barefoot. He had also to leave aside his turban or head-gear which formed part of the oriental dress. Defiance of the magistrate’s ruling was a contempt of court and punishable.

Atchia would not budge an inch despite the warning administered by the magistrate. He was to be punished for his “most arrogant manner.” His lawyer was none other than Manilall Doctor who came here from Baroda, it was said, and with the mission to give a wake up call to the Indian community.

Ever since his arrival in Mauritius, Manilall Doctor had been championing the cause of the Indian community which was the target of some of the most repressive and vexatious laws starting right from 1867 when the Labour Law introduced by the Governor, Sir Henry Barkly, rendered it obligatory for every Indian walking on a public road to carry a pass and to show it on demand to a policeman, if he chose not to be arrested and treated as a vagrant. The Labour Law of 1867 unleashed a reign of terror forcing many to commit suicide out of despair as life in this paradise island with repressive measures became a hell.

The large-scale abuses culminated in the appointment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry in 1872 to investigate into the treatment meted out to Indian labourers on sugar plantations. But the plight of the Indians hardly improved.

As the Atchia case showed, a two-gear approach was practised even in the court of justice. The turban, head-gear and Indian shoes, worn by the Indians attending court were not acceptable to magistrates. Whereas, Europeans wearing the traditional dress of the country of their origin, for example, the Scots, were not affected. Indians wearing shoes were checked to ascertain also the wearing of socks or stockings.

If these were not worn, they were required to remove the shoes at the entrance of the court room. This led to a sharp outburst from Manilall Doctor. Already in 1907, Manilall Doctor while appearing in a civil case advised the witnesses who belonged to the Muslim community not to remove their shoes and head-gear in the Court. This advice was followed and took everybody by surprise.

The newspaper, Le Radical, ran a report on what it described as “un incident” which took place in the court presided by magistrate Le Mière and squarely put the blame on “Me Manilall l’avocat indien” for having been the instigator of that incident.

But Manilall Doctor replied in a letter to the press. “I advised my countrymen”, he wrote, “to bear in mind that the oriental custom and etiquette has as much right to be respected as the occidental or the European, if through sheer ignorance, obstinacy or prejudice any of the latter refuses to respect us or our customs, we have a right to vindicate them by all lawful means.”

Manilall Doctor added that King Edward V11 held Indian custom in high respect and insisted upon its observance. As such, the king would not allow an Indian to be presented to him without the Indian turban and traditional dress.

Manilall Doctor concluded his letter with an appeal to the Indians in Mauritius “not to be denaturalized in certain ways for want of courage” and “exact a just respect from their neighbours of non-indian origin.”

The editor of Le Radical, F.L Morel, retorted that if the “anarchical propaganda” of Manilall Doctor was allowed to go unchecked, there was nothing left but to proclaim “la fin de la civilisation à Maurice”.

“Nous ne pouvons accepter cela”, continued the editor, insisting that the Indians “auront a ôté leur turban ou leur bonnet lorsqu’ils paraîtront devant un tribunal, à moins qu’ils préférent laisser à la porte leurs souliers. Il faut que messieurs les Indiens donnent comme les civilisés chez qui ils vivent, aux magistrats et aux juges des signes de respect…”

The removal of turban and shoes by members of the Indian community when appearing in court had already engaged the attention of the Colonial government as far back as 1868 when a petition was sent to Sir Henry Barkly complaining about the discriminatory treatment they were subjected to.

The Governor responded by issuing instructions to the district and stipendiary magistrates that until further orders were given, the following rules were to be observed with regard to Indians attending a court of justice:

“1. The head-gear may in all cases be retained on the head;

2. Shoes of European fashion worn with stockings need not be removed;

3. With the above exception, shoes and slippers shall invariably be removed upon entering the court.”

In other words, it became compulsory for shoes, only of European fashion, to be worn and that too with socks or stockings if one was not to be charged for contempt of court.

What Manilall Doctor did was to stir a hornet’s nest and to make the Indians realise that there was no fairness even in the court of justice and they had to fight back to uphold their dignity.