Has Mauritianisation Been Murdered?

From Our Archives: A Glimpse into 1961

Editorial

It is widely believed that since the Government has openly declared that steps will be taken to Mauritianise the Public Service, a greater number of British officials are pouring into the country, each being assigned to a keypost. This statement is not wholly true, because it is impossible to deny that we need the advice of experts and technicians whom we have been unable, so far, to produce. So far, so good; in this article, we are concerned with the part of that statement which we consider to be absolutely true.

The experts who come to us cost a great deal. We pay them high salaries; we pay for their passage and that of their families to and from Mauritius; we provide them with furnished quarters (including refrigerators and carpets), and we show ourselves hospitable in many other ways. All this is done because we feel their services are so indispensable that they must be kept in the best of humours. In spite of this, we sometimes find that Mauritius is a dumping ground for “congenital duds” who ignore why they were sent here and, consequently, cannot understand what they have to do. The irony is that, more often than not, these duds remain while intelligent, selfless, and hardworking Britishers leave. Nevertheless, we at the Mauritius Times still think the game is worth the candle; in fact, we have no choice, as for some years to come we shall remain in need of experts. However, certain things currently taking place are simply revolting. They are dangerous to the welfare of the Mauritius Public Service and will jeopardize the position and prestige of the Labour Party.

Before we examine the cases we have in mind, we would like to warn the Labour Ministers who sit on the Executive Council. If they are unable to resist the tendency of foisting Britishers upon us; if they do not have the guts to stop the regular flow of “experts” who are no experts at all, it is in their interest and that of the party to start considering an elegant walk-out. Let us now examine some cases.

We are informed that two Mauritians currently acting as Principal Assistant Secretaries are to be reverted and replaced by Britishers. It is also said that a Britisher, presently a Civil Commissioner, is shortly to be seconded to the Central Administration as acting PAS. Are there no Mauritians qualified to act in these roles? If one Mauritian is found incompetent, does it follow that he should be replaced by a foreigner? Why not select another Mauritian? Are there not enough English people at the Secretariat? They say that in London, foreigners outnumber the actual Londoners, but at the Secretariat of Mauritius — which is supposed to be preparing for Independence! — you are sure to run across an Englishman every minute you spend there.

Next is the question of filling the recently created Senior Education Officer posts. When these were discussed in Council, Mr. Robert Newton, the then Colonial Secretary, gave the assurance that the posts were not being created for British officers. Mr. Newton even besought the Members of the Legislative Council to accept his assurances as he was sincere and that he meant what he said. But what do we hear now? One of these posts will be given to a British officer, and the other will possibly — even this is not certain — go to a Mauritian. Where are the assurances of Mr. Newton and where is the faith of the Government? Honourable Ministers, if you do not stop such scandals, you are playing directly into the hands of the Parti Mauricien! If you are not determined to obliterate the originators of such nonsense, it is preferable to pack up.

Now consider this “shining jewel” in the crown of Mauritianisation placed upon our heads: last year, Mauritius was asked to send someone to Washington for training at the International Monetary Fund — incidentally, where our late Financial Secretary, MrW. G. Wilson, was trained. The Government selected a Mauritian, and today, MrR. Allier, Principal Assistant Secretary, is under training. We have now been offered another similar scholarship, and we hear a British gentleman has already been selected.

The gentleman concerned is one of the Deputy Financial Secretaries brought here to advise us, and today we are sending him abroad for training. This is our situation: we brought an expert, and now we want to make him a greater expert, only for him to leave us in a few years!

We say we do not want that gentleman to leave on that scholarship. We want a Mauritian to go; why should a Britisher be given a scholarship offered to Mauritius for Mauritians? It is said in knowledgeable circles, “Well, we should not discriminate against British officers; they must have the same opportunities.” This is nonsense. Discrimination cannot arise because British officers are employed on completely different conditions. If any discrimination is to be abolished, it is that Mauritian officers should be treated like British officers. If there has been discrimination, it is that this scholarship was offered to a British gentleman on a silver platter: no one in the Public Service was consulted and there was not even a Selection Board.

We cannot understand how we can accept such a preposterous proposal. We are on the threshold of independence and short of trained officers — so much so that we spend millions on experts’ salaries and mansions — yet when we have an opportunity to train our own, we squander it? It is the policy of colonial peoples to prepare for independence by training their own to take over, but here we apparently want to stand on our heads. The time has come to show our strength.

Let no one assume we are anti-British or pleading for a friend. We are thankful to the British for all we owe them — and we owe a lot. We can never afford to forget that. But we cannot afford to see Mauritianisation murdered before our eyes. We want a Mauritian to go to Washington this year on the scholarship offered to Mauritius.

8th Year – No 332
Friday 13th January, 1961

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 10 April 2026