| |
Points to Ponder
Chagos: Britain cheats again
A First Point: Before Mauritius became politically independent, it comprised of the Island of Mauritius, of Rodrigues and of several islands. Among these several islands we had a group which the colonial masters, that is the British, wanted to keep for themselves or for their friends and these colonial masters used a subterfuge to divide the territory of Mauritius into two. There was Mauritius itself and out of nothing they created what they are still pleased to call “British Indian Ocean Territory”. Initially this “territory” also included some islands belonging to the Seychelles, but around independence time in 1976 the Mancham government insisted on and obtained the return of their islands. This division of Mauritius has remained but can never be supported either legally or politically.
The British did not go through their own Parliament to withdraw certain rights from people who had enjoyed those rights on Mauritian territory that they illegally seized. What the British did can never be recognized as legal even under English law. To give it a semblance of legality, they should have gone through the normal legislative process: this can be confirmed by any first year student of English law. But the British went through a devious path; they legislated by an order in Council through the means of a dubious Royal Prerogative.
This has been clearly and succinctly spelt out in the opinion of Lord Bingham of Cornhill in the case of R (on application of Bancoult) (Respondent) V Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Appellant). “As an exercise of legislative power by the executive by order in council is indeed an anachronistic survival. When the existence or effect of the royal pregorative is in question the courts must conduct an historical inquiry to ascertain whether there is any precedent for the exercise of the power in the given circumstances.”
It should be noted the Lord Bingham was one of the two Lords Justices who gave the minority opinion in the above case and against three Lords Justices. However, I am not interested with the fate of the person Bancoult who calls himself a British subject and who says that he wants to go to the BIOT. I am concerned about the illegal creation of the BIOT by the British and what can be done by Mauritius to get back that territory as soon as possible.
The opinion of most people who are legally qualified, including English people so qualified, is that the British government was completely in the wrong when it created out of a legal vacuum a territory that they have since then been calling the B.I.O.T. Before that time the territory did not exist. The British knew fully well that what they did was against international law, that they subsequently had to try to convince people that what they were doing was for the good of the western world and its civilisation and that they only had the intention to defend democracy and their ways of living. Legally, they cannot support their own contention; that is why they have used devious means to frustrate Mauritius in its endeavour to get back all its territories.
Again, legally, both Mauritius and Britain can agree that there is an international dispute between these two countries concerning a certain territory and therefore both ready to seize the International Court of Justice with the contention. As is well known, the International Court of Justice can hear a dispute only if both parties would agree that it hears the matter. I am sure that Mauritius does not have any hesitation in going to the Hague, but I am equally sure that Britain will never agree to allow the International Court of Justice judge this matter.
This for the simple reason that Britain is bound to lose its case before that jurisdiction. What can anybody do in these circumstances? Legally, Mauritius has a very good case, airtight case as they say but unfortunately, in matters of procedure we are stuck because of the non-cooperation of the other party.
There is another reason that, above all else, we are sure that the British have illegally taken part of our territory. The resolution of the United Nations that declares very clearly that a colonial power does not have the right to dismember a territory before pronouncing its independence. The colonial power was Britain, the territory concerned was Mauritius, and the Britons dismembered it by illegally creating the BIOT, keeping this bit for themselves and abandoning the rest. If this did not go against the UN Resolution, then what can ever amount to a breach of that resolution?
Legally speaking, Britain is in the wrong on all grounds. There is not one ground on which it can say that it can rely to even etch out a case. Let the British think deeply on their behaviour, on their pride of having a political system that is supposed to represent the best of democracy but that now shows how weak the system is.
Now let us see what is the political feeling concerning the action of the British. I think that all have seen it as an illustration of La Fontaine’s lesson as he taught in the story “Le loup et l’agneau”. It has a moral which says “La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure”. Should we translate it as “might is right”? The British have been mighty, but they have been wrong, we have been weak and we have not been strong enough to enforce our rights. Well, the question of strength and weakness is a matter of time. Just wait for the wheel of time to turn in the favour of the Chinese and the Indians.
Early in the days of the last century, the Republic of the Seychelles was part of Mauritius but the colonial power separated the two parts. When Britain returned back to the Seychelles its islands that it had included in the BIOT. The real reason was that Britain did not have any need for that island. And the understanding was conveyed that over time, the BIOT will be returned to Mauritius. When will that be? The answer is when the territory will not be needed for the defence of the West. This is a very loose concept. Does the West mean Britain? And the United States of America? Europe? The whole of it? Only the old European countries? Or the new European countries as well? Does the defence of the West mean against countries of the Soviet Union or of the ex-Soviet Union? The countries that are in association with that country? Or does mean India? Or China? The matters can go on ad infinitum.
As things stand Mauritius will never get back its territory, Britain is sitting pretty on a land that does not belong to it, it is proclaiming that it is the owner and daring an institution like the UN to take any measures that should be taken to enforce the rights of a country like Mauritius. It fully knows that an institution like the UN is a body that is powerless and that cannot help to enforce the right of a weak country.
But we all know that Britain itself is more or less without any power on the international scene. It is however, part of the back yard of the United States, it does some of its dirty job and it just obeys whatever the United States of America commands it to do. America is engaged in a bitter fight against Afghanistan and Iraq. It needs the territory called BIOT. Britain bends backwards to oblige because America is a very strong country. It has taken our territory without so much as asking our permission and handed it over to the Americans, as if it is nobody’s territory, just because Mauritius is weak.
We cannot blame the Americans for using our territory because the British have done everything to convince most people that the BIOT is their territory.
Now it is time to start negotiations among the three nations concerned for what is called the BIOT, namely Mauritius, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. To lead our the delegation to these negotiations, we must have somebody who knows the workings of the American system of government thoroughly; he must also know some of the American high officials and if he knows some of the politicians, so much better. He could be somebody from our embassy in Washington, but he should be have a direct link to the Prime Minister. There will then be the high officials who will interact with the British. But the essential part of the negotiations will have to be carried out in Washington.
I think that the British should be made to understand that they have to give up any right that they illegally claim to have on the supposed BIOT. America is occupying the territory in virtue of an alleged agreement. I do not think that Mauritius has any interest in asking America to vacate the territory. Let it continue occupying the territory till the end of the full term and if need be, it can be given the permission to continue occupation. But there are certain conditions for such occupation. America must give us a yearly compensation for such occupation, it must employ our workers, it must encourage its citizens to come to Mauritius for their holidays and it must give duty-free access to our products to the United States. This is not asking for a lot but at least we shall not feel that we have been cheated.
Jocelyn Gregoire & the Creole community
A Second Point: It is well known that in Mauritius Hindus give their backing generally to the Labour Party and the members of the General Population generally support the party in the opposition to the Labour Party. I know that nobody is supposed to be aware of how the electors cast their votes. But if most of the electors are Hindus, say in Rose Belle and Hindu candidates of the Labour Party are elected, then the conclusion is that most of the Hindus support the Labour Party. On the other hand, if say most of the electors belong to the members of the General Population and candidates of the General Population of the MMM are elected, then the conclusion is that most of the members of the General Population support the MMM.
It is but natural that a political party will help, first and foremost, its supporters and those who help the party to form the government. It can never do for a government to help those who have done everything to prevent the government to be where it is. Politicians will talk however much they may that they will treat everybody alike but they will normally have a soft spot for those who have always been with them.
Jocelyn Grégoire, the president of the Front Créole Mauricien has held a meeting to mark the first anniversary of his group. It seems that the gathering was a very sober affair, so much the better for everybody.
Jocelyn Grégoire has put forward a few key ideas for the benefit of the Creoles. But I have to say that so long as the term Creole is not given a proper definition, the community will not be able to make any significant progress. Why is it not possible for a group of people to sit in a committee and come up with a proper definition to give the word Creole? Sooner or later, this exercise will have to be carried out.
He says that the Creoles have suffered from a certain form of discrimination in Mauritius. Everybody agrees that this has always been so. And the persons who have discriminated against them are people who profess the same religion as themselves. Should not the Christian Churches take the lead and do away with whatever discrimination that exists both in the Church hierarchy and in the Christian public? As also in social life and in the work places?
Jocelyn Grégoire is right to emphasize on the value of education that would eventually help Creoles to get out of the miserable condition in which they find themselves. And here I can tell them that they should emulate how Indo-Mauritians have performed and under what conditions. First of all, the parents have invested everything in the education of their children. They have accompanied them throughout their educational years.
They have saved every cent for the education of their children. They have paid for their tuitions, they have given then special food, they have accompanied them to their teachers’ places and they have seen to it that they have done their lessons. The mothers have sat with their children when they learn their lesson till late night and these mothers get up early to prepare the food of the children. There is a way to progress and a way to stop any progress. It all depends on the individuals.
Jocelyn Gregoire tells the Creoles that they should not consider themselves to be the ‘dépôt fixe’ for any electoral party and they should not vote for such parties. He is right. They should vote for a party that will give them satisfaction to the extent possible. Let me just ask a simple question: how is it possible that a politician of the calibre of Burty David could not be elected when others…? And eventually, he entered Parliament as a best loser, became a minister and he has been doing very well for everyone around. The electors of the constituency did not vote for him simply because he belongs to the Labour Party.
I feel that from now on, people will keep a close watch on who follows what party and also who asks for what benefits. I will not be surprised if those who work for a particular party will be told that they will get what they deserve before others.
I still have not understood what line of reasoning Jocelyn Grégoire is following. He does not seem to be personally interested in being a politician but he says that the Creoles should take their destiny in their own hands. There must be somebody strong, in all the sense of the word, to lead the Creoles.
Whatever happened to Pradeep Jeeha?
A Third Point: I had been labouring under a under a wrong impression about a person. I am talking of Pradeep Jeeha, the supposed politician of the MMM. I do feel and I do know that most politicians are generally worthless fellows but every now and then a politician rises above the lot to give the lie to this feeling. I thought Pradeep Jeeha was such a politician.
He has shown that he is somebody who cannot be trusted by the ordinary people. He gathered quite a number of people on his side from constituency no. 6 in his fight against Madun Dulloo. All these people were sticking their necks out because they trusted a man like Pradeep Jeeha and because they were made to believe that he was fighting for a just cause. But Pradeep Jeeha has finally deserted all the people who were fighting for him; he has acted just like a snail who deserting everybody and everything withdraws into his shell without giving any consideration to people around him.
We are not concerned about such a man, but we are concerned about the poor people who were used by him. If he had to give in to Madun Dulloo and to Paul Bérenger so easily, he should never entered the fight. It would have been so easier for him to show the worm that he is rather than to join the fight. Who will ever trust a politician like Pradeep Jeeha again? I do not think that Paul Bérenger himself will ever have any consideration for such a person. And you think Madun Dulloo will trust him?
May I quote an excerpt from Shakespeare to give him a lesson? This is what it says:
“And these few precepts in thy memory
Look thou character. Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportion’d thought his act.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel;
But do not dull thy palm with entertainment
Of each new-hatch’d, unfledg’d comrade. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel but, being in,
Bear’t that th’ opposed may beware of thee.
Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice;
Take each man’s censure, but reserve thy judgement.
Costly thy habit as thy purse can buy,
But not express’d in fancy; rich, not gaudy;
For the apparel oft proclaims the man;
And they in France of the best rank and station
Are of a most select and generous chief in that.
Neither a borrower, nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
This above all: to thine own self be true…”
LEX
|
