Mauritian independence

7/30/2019 Mauritian independence

1/4

MAURITIUS INDEPENDENCE: Marginalism and

political control (part 2)

Article paru dansLe Mauricien| 4 mars, 2012 - 15:00

Mauritius and its dependencies were, as a whole, a genesis of colonialism, a purely novel French and

predominantly British creation. In theory, a return of power to a non-existent indigenous society

(decolonization) does not arise. There would simply be a transfer of power in 1968.

Despite the terms of the Capitulation Treaty of 1810, which allowed the conquered inhabitants to preserve their

property (Article 7) and allowed them to conserve their religion, laws and customs (Article 8), there was a

lingering mutual distrust between them and the British. The Franco-Mauritians and elite Creoles, staunch

Catholics, regarded the British as foreigners, and disliked Anglicanism, English language and British culture.

Most British Governors, in their despatches, suspected the loyalty of Franco-Mauritians and elite Creoles to the

British Crown. But a symbiotic relationship developed between them arising out of economic needs. The

Franco-Mauritians needed to maintain their established plantation economy with a constant supply of coerced

labour. The British needed money-tax derive from the plantation economy which would provide revenue toadminister the island and maintain law and order. A diarchy evolved : the Franco-Mauritians controlled the

economy, and the British controlled the policy and the administration.

However, the Mauritius sugar-based economy created institutional structures and a socio-economic hierarchy.

At the top were the Franco-Mauritians and elite Creoles, quite happy with their sugar estates, factories and
http://www.lemauricien.com/topics/Le%20Mauricienhttp://www.lemauricien.com/topics/Le%20Mauricienhttp://www.lemauricien.com/topics/Le%20Mauricienhttp://www.lemauricien.com/topics/Le%20Mauricien


2/4

lucrative commercial concerns. They were culturally content as long as Britain did not interfere with their

sentimental attachment with France. In the middle were the coloured Creoles and christianised Indians, who

had interest tied to their jobs in the Civil Service, in the plantation and mercantile hierarchy, and in liberal

professions. However Francophile they could pretend to claim, they could not afford to be too anti-British as

well. At the bottom were the black Creoles, descendants of slaves, and the Indian coolies, descendants of

indentured labourers, all busy struggling to earn a meagre living and understandably apathetic on question of

political participation. Among these three clearly identifiable socio-economic groups, there were no common

grievances or any common cause or ideal. And in such conditions, a nationalist movement could not rise. It can

be argued that for well over a century (1810 to 1930), Mauritian politics remained essentially and crudely adebate over questions of colour, race and ethnicity, and voting rights.

The reform movementThere were five identifiable movements in the island from 1810 to 1930. We have to briefly look at them to

have a feel of the flow of our History. In the 1830's, the following representation made to the Colonial Office

by Franco-Mauritians led by the advocate of Slavery, Adrien d'Epinay, the British Government agreed to

modify the 1825 Constitution of the Council of Government by Royal Instructions dated 20 July 1831, to

include token representation of "seven persons elected (nominated by the Governor) from out of the Chief

landed proprietors and principal merchants of the island in the Council of Government". Though content with

only advisory role in the decision-making process, the Franco-Mauritians also secured from Whitehall press

freedom. In the early 1880's, again a tight circle of Franco-Mauritians, but now joined by some elite coloured

Creoles, unified by their opposition to social and political emancipation of black Creoles and Indians, andhelped by Irish catholic rebel Governor Sir John Pope Henessy, demanded political changes (the Reform

Movement). By Letters Patent, dated 16 September 1885, from Queen Victoria, elective elements were first

introduced. Port-Louis elected two members, and the rest of eight districts one each. Elections were held in

January 1886 and regularly every five years until 1936. Then, in 1910, an attempt was made by professional

middle class led by Eugene Laurent and Indians, joined by Manilall Doctor, Gandhi's envoy, to check the

power of Franco-Mauritians by the formation of a political party, the "Action Librale". But that party

disappeared in around 1914, when World War I put an end to political activism.

In 1920, the Retrocession Movement (return of Mauritius to France) was a middle-class Creole movement led

by Maurice Cur. The Franco-Mauritians and intellectual Indians looked down upon the retrocessionists as

disloyal British subjects. Colonial Office and the French-educated Governor Sir Heskett Bell threatened them.

The retrocessionists were heavily defeated in the General Elections of January 1921. Between 1922 and 1928 a"Revision Movement" became very active. Led by Gaston Gbert, this was yet another middle-class Creole

political aspiration. Gbert and his handful of supporters claimed for Mauritius a form of responsible

government or, failing that, a Constitution similar to that prevailing in Barbados, Bermuda and the Bahamas.

They believed that under such a system, Creoles would return several members to the Legislative, thereby

increasing their political influence. Again, Franco-Mauritians and educated influential Indians viewed the

movement with apathy and suspicion. It must be said here that there were attempts twice by two of our political

stalwarts, Nairac and Roger Pezanni, to amend, by way of motion, our Constitution for a more representative

government. Sir Edouard Nairac, Senior elected member of Port-Louis, brought a motion on 28 April 1925 and

Roger Pezanni, elected member of Plaines Wilhems, brought another motion on 22 March 1927. Sir Nairac's

motion was defeated and Pezanni's motion was not put to the vote (had it been, it would have met with a

crushing defeat).

The Mauritian revolution of the peasantryThe socio-economic hierarchy of the sugar-based economic structure had to adapt to the international capitalist

economy on which it was dependent for its exports (and imports). Moreover the Mauritian economy suffered

from a chronic lack of local and foreign investments. The Franco-Mauritian landowners, more often also mill-

owners, devised an ingenious plan to raise capital. They resorted to selling marginal, less productive land to the

thrifty, tight-fisted, hard-working Indians who could afford to buy. The "Grand Morcellement" of the 1860-

1885 was followed by waves of smaller morcellements. The rise of small planters and self-employed petty

contractors engaged in haulage, transport and trade, was an economic revolution. Indians (Hindus and Muslims)

moved to villages from estate camps, which they looked down as structures of exploitation by the plantocracy.

The knelling of the bell for political demands came with the riots of 1937 and 1943. The inauspicious day,Friday 13 August 1937, is a turning point in the socio-economic and political history of Mauritius. On that day,

three casual labourers were shot dead and several others were severely injured at the, ironically, Gujadhur's

Union Flacq Sugar Estate, in a confrontation between, on the one side, labourers and small planters and, on the

other side, police and sugar estate personnel. This was the Mauritian revolution of the peasantry at the grass


3/4

root level. The meek and docile Indian now became a political activist.

At the elite level, the former retrocessionist, Dr Maurice Cur, who was defeated by Pierre Hugnin in the

January 1936 General Elections in Plaines Wilhems, would launch the Mauritius Labour Party (MLP) in

February 1936, during the administration of Governor Sir Wilfrid Jackson (August 1930June 1937) with the

help of Emmanuel Anquetil, an unemployed trade union activist deported from England. The catholic and

aristocratic Governor Bede Clifford ruthlessly clamped down on the activities of Cure's MLP which, despite its

original popularity, began to decline and by 1942, was virtually non-existent. Clifford deported Anquetil to

Rodrigues a while and put Cur under house arrest. However, soon after World War II, Anquetil, joined by

popular Guy Rozemont, president of the powerful Engineering and Technical Workers Union (ETWU)grouping nearly all the artisans of the island, revitalised the MLP into a party mainly dominated by Creole

artisans and dockers.

Exiling Basdeo Bissoondoyal to Diego GarciaDuring the same period, Harryparsad Ramnarain organised Indian labourers and small planters under the

Mauritius Agricultural Labourers' Association (MALA). Soon after the 1943 riots, Basdeo Bissoondoyal

conducted vigorous campaigns of teaching illiterate Indians, both men and women, the Hindi language. Helped

by his paramilitary styled disciplined group, the Swayam Sevak Samithi, he also gave regular sermons on

Indian culture often punctuated by clashes with colonial authorities. Governor Sir Donald Mackenzie-Kennedy,

in a secret despatch also enclosing intelligence reports, dated 2 December 1948, to Arthur Creech-Jones,

expressed his intention of exiling Basdeo Bissoondoyal to Diego Garcia and Ramnarain to East Africa. But

almost on the eve of his departure, he refrained from doing so because of possible backlash. In deep contrast tothe Bissoondoyals, Ramnarain and even Anquetil and Rozemont, all called "agitators" by the colonial

authorities, emerging western-educatedmainly anglophile urban Indian elitewill collaborate with the

British for a neo-colonial Mauritius. Seewoosagur Ramgoolam will be nominated in November 1940 by

Governor Clifford to the Legislative Council and, by mid 1950's, will take the command of the Mauritius

Labour Party. Cur's MLP, Anquetil and Rozemont's MLP and, later, SSR's MLP have one thing in common :

the name of the party. The leaders were very different personalities with different visions, under rapidly

changing circumstances and, most importantly, catering for different clientle with vastly different communal

support. Again, we cannot find a common cause, among these diverse groups, that would give rise to a genuine,

well-heeled nationalism.

Hindu control of the electoral process

Of all the two most important issues, (a) constitutional reforms and (b) economic viability of Mauritius, thatGovernor Sir Bede Clifford faced during his administration (October 1937April 1942), he chose to

concentrate on strengthening the economy. Clifford went on to leave to England from January to September

1940 and Sydney Moody acted as Officer administering the Government (AOG). It had been known in

Mauritius that he has been considering proposals for a new Constitution, which would give the mass of the

people, mostly Indians, a greater voice in government. He was expected to bring back in Mauritius definite

proposals. But he knew that such a move would be strenuously opposed by the Franco-Mauritians and coloured

Creoles. Governor Clifford instead brought back with him a despatch that in effect amounted to a declaration of

truce to serious political controversy under war conditions. Because of the 1937 riots and ensuing World War II

situation, and partly because of political controversies, no elections (next election was due in 1941) were to be

held from 1941 to 1948. Clifford's successor, Donald Mackenzie-Kennedy, better known by his initial, DMK,

(July 1942December 1948) was a man of deep sense of justice, commitment and perseverance. It is largely

thanks to him that Mauritius got what was then a new and radically different Constitution, after two well-

represented Constitutional Consultative Committees failed to reach an agreement. But politics in Mauritius,

with no well-organised political parties, was moving fast towards community-based appeal. The December

1947 Constitution inevitably entrenched communalism in Mauritian politics.

General elections were held on 9 and 10 August 1948 to elect, on a district basis, 19 candidates for Legislative

Council. Port-Louis was to elect four, Plaines Wilhems and Black River six, and the remaining six districts,

paired, three each, i.e. Pamplemousses/Rivire du Rempart three, Moka/Flacq three and Grand-Port/Savanne

three. Political parties that were later to dominate politics were not a factor in the 1948 elections. Only the

MLP, led by Guy Rozemont, presented candidates. But the party did not show an openly acknowledged team

effort. In fact, the MLP of Rozemont distinguished itself more by bickering and dissension than a disciplinedparty with a constructive programme. However, ten of the candidates it supported were elected : five Hindus

(Dr Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, Sookdeo Bissoondoyal, S. Balgobin, R. Balgobin and Renganaden

Seeneevassen) and five members of the General Population (Guy Rozemont, Edgar Millien, Raymond Rault,

Guy Forget and Mrs Emilienne Rochecouste). Seven independents also won a seat, namely : S.B. Emile


4/4

(General Population) and six Hindus (Annauth Beejadhur, Harilall Vaghjee, Jaynarain Roy, Beedasee,

Luckeenarain and Gujadhur). Two conservatives who belonged to the outgoing council were also elected in

Plaines Wilhems : Jules Knig coming first and Raoul Rivet coming last. No Muslim was elected. And it is

understandable why the Muslim community has not recovered from this nightmarish scenario, and has

constantly demanded guaranteed representation through the electoral process. Governor Mackenzie-Kennedy

proceeded to 12 nominations : one Muslim (A.M. Osman), one Sino-Mauritian (Jean Ah-Chuen) and ten

conservatives from the General Population including the enigmatic Dr Cur (who, after an official advice, did

not stand as a candidate). The Hindus now controlled the electoral process electing eleven of the nineteen

legislative members.(To be continued)

Documents

Mauritian independence