Non-Violence Independence

Mauritius Times, 71 Years Ago

By Peter Ibbotson

On October 2, 1960, Nigeria, the Land of the negro, of the slave, became free and independent.

On August 15, 1947, when at the hour of midnight India became free, many people made a pledge and took a vow consecrating themselves to liberate as many countries as possible.

Today once more we are redeeming our word to free, from the shackles of colonialism, the land of our friends the Hausa, the Igbo, the Yoruba, and the Fulani. Nigeria has attained independence by peaceful means; through non-violence, her people have become free.

Once more Mahatma Gandhi and his principles score a victory, a bloodless victory. Soon Mauritius also will get her independence, and it too will be an independence attained by peaceful means (as Mr James Johnson once said in the House of Commons, quoting the Mauritius Times, “Mauritius has always come to the Colonial Office in carpet-slippers”). The way of non-violence may be slow, but it is sure.

* * *

Socialist Mauritius

Through its leader, Mr Koenig, the Parti Mauricien has rejected the idea of independence for Mauritius. The Labour Party, on the other hand, has consistently asked for independence. What would independence bring to the people by way of benefits? That is a reasonable question.

British Guiana is not independent, any more than is Mauritius. Recently the Government of British Guiana was seeking capital from abroad to carry out various development plans. Loans and grants from the UK were insufficient in total for all the plans which the Government wished to carry out. Accordingly, sources other than the UK were sought; and the Government of Cuba was willing to make a loan to the Government of British Guiana. However, since British Guiana is not independent, permission had to be obtained from Whitehall before the Cuban loan could be accepted. Whitehall refused its permission — with the result that the development hoped to be undertaken with the aid of the Cuban loan cannot now be undertaken.

But an independent British Guiana could have accepted the loan and thus gone ahead with an extra installment of its development program. Similarly with Mauritius. If the funds available from the UK, say under the Colonial Development and Welfare (CD & W)  allocations, are insufficient for all the projects vital to the development of Mauritius, the Government must seek funds elsewhere; but unless it is the Government of an independent Mauritius, permission to accept loans from another country must be obtained from Whitehall. If such permission is refused, as in the case of British Guiana, a part of the development programme has to be postponed, whereas an independent Mauritius would not have to jeopardise the full operation of the development plan by having to seek permission for foreign loans.

That is only one instance of how Independence would benefit Mauritius, by cutting the shackles of Whitehall. Five years ago, I wrote in Advance. “It is the capitalist system which denies to workers in Mauritius who are eking out a miserable existence the full fruits of their labour; it is only a Socialist Government, with powers to govern without having to defer to Whitehall, which will ensure full fruits to everyone,” and I followed this by analysing the inequalities of income under a capitalist economy by reference to the income tax department’s report for the year 1953-54. Let me now bring that analysis more up to date, by reference to the income tax department’s annual report for 1957-58 (the latest I have by me).

In 1957-58, only 7,039 individuals were liable for income tax; yet the number of ‘economically active’ persons in March 1958 — when the island’s total population very slightly exceeded 600,000 — was 205,281. (Thus every “economically active” person had, on average, to support two others, in addition to himself, on his income).

But only 7,039 of these were liable to pay any income tax; 7,039 out of 205,281, or roughly 3.5%! This low number of persons liable to income tax is scarcely to be wondered at when we read about the low wages paid and tabulated in the Luce Report. This handful of individual taxpayers paid, or were liable to pay, a total of Rs 17,140,335 among them. Yet in the same income tax year, 239 companies liable to tax paid, or were liable to pay, as much as Rs 45,778,277 altogether! Average out these liabilities, and what do we get? In round figures, about Rs 2500 per individual taxpayer; but nearly Rs 200,000 per tax-paying company! Indeed, 22 companies had to pay tax on over a million rupees of chargeable income; I do not think one would be far wrong in saying that the majority of these 22 millionaire companies were sugar estates; though of course, until the sugar barons make public the full financial details of their operations, we cannot say with accuracy how much tax the estates do contribute to the exchequer.

What we can say, however, is what I continued my five-year-old article with: ” It is right and just that they (i.e., the companies) pay this tax; it is only by underpaying their employees that the companies—I refer especially to the sugar companies—make such high profits to have to pay tax on! Income tax is a method of redistributing for the common good wealth which has been accumulated by means antipathetic to the common good.” That is what I wrote in August 1955, and it is what I still stand by in October 1960.

Incidentally it may be instructive to look at some more figures from the report of the income tax department for 1957-58. There is a comprehensive statistical table in paragraph 20 of that report which lists the total net income of individuals and companies whose liabilities to tax had been determined at 30th June 1958; and the statistics relate to the five tax years from 1953-54 to 1957-58. The following table is derived from the statistics given:

GROSS INCOME                              1953-54           1957-58           Increase        Increase %

Sugar plantation companies       46.8                  75.3                      28.5                     61

From Professions                            3.25                    4.1                          .85                    26

From Employments                       40.8                 52.5                         11.7                    28

(The figures in columns 1, 2 and 3 are millions of rupees)

In other words, in the five years from 1953-58 to 1957-58, the gross income of the sugar plantation companies went up by 61%, or nearly two-thirds; but the total gross incomes earned by employed persons went up by only 28%, or far less than one-third. For every three rupees earned by the sugar plantations in 1953-54, they earned nearly five in 1957-58; but for every three rupees earned by an employed person in 1953-54, he earned only just under four five years later! Is this fair? Is this just? No, but it’s the result of capitalism! (If we compare the total gross incomes of individuals over the five years, we find that they went up by 17%; but the total gross income of all companies went up, during the same five years, by 49 per cent!).

And only a Socialist Mauritius, with full powers to govern, without reference or deference to Whitehall, can get rid of the incubus of capitalism with all its ramifications.

7th Year – No 320
Friday 14th October 1960

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 31 October 2025