Two Great Documents

From Our Archives – A Glimpse into 1961

Editorial

At long last the Reports of Prof Meade and Prof Titmuss which the public of Mauritius has been eagerly awaiting for over a year now have been published. It must be observed at the very outset that the two reports have been admirably well-done and that they are going to influence the life of this country considerably.

If all their recommendations are not implemented — for whatever reasons – these two reports will have to be consulted by any individual or any Government of Mauritius, if it at all wishes to help this country’s progress.

We think that it is the first time in the history of Mauritius that two teams of such eminent experts have come over here and it is the first time that all our problems have been studied in such a scientific and objective way. Meade and Titmuss have provided us with a mirror which does reflect all our problems.

It is difficult to comment or to opine about all the recommendations of these two reports. What we can say at this stage is that the main recommendations fall into three categories: (a) recommendations which are easily implementable and which might be soon implemented, (b) recommendations which are sound but whose implementation may have to be delayed because they are either too controversial or too costly, and (c) recommendations which rest upon incorrect or inaccurate premises.

Considering the third category of recommendations, we are of opinion that the Government has completely mishandled the publication of these reports. No one in the Government can ignore the importance of these two documents and the far-reaching consequences they are bound to have and the controversial recommendations — family planning for example — have now become propaganda material for the Opposition. Every recommendation of these Reports is being identified with the Government i.e., the Labour Party. All this could have been avoided if only a press conference were held and the public told that the documents are being released and that the Government was not in any way bound to accept every recommendation of these commissions. For, the support of the people and their proper understanding of these recommendations are essential to the progress of the country as a whole.

We shall analyse these two reports as from next week in our subsequent issues and we do invite all our readers to send us their views and comments. It is imperative that everyone who can should study these documents and find out for themselves what is the exact position. But we do say at this stage that the Meade Report is a bit conservative. It has not gone deep enough into the economics of the sugar industry. We cannot talk of freezing of wages if we are not very clear about the margin of profits. This is an important factor which must exercise our minds.

* * *

Who are the Murderers?

When on the 13th of January we asked in these columns, ‘Has Mauritianisation been murdered?’ we had a feeling that the stage was meticulously and carefully prepared for the murder of Mauritian rights. But we are in two minds about who the murderers could be. Even now we do not know who the murderers are: Mauritian ministers sitting on the Executive Council or the officials?

The public has the right to know, but will Mr Vickers set our minds at rest? Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that Mauritianisation has been murdered under our eyes — and apparently, we can only sit back and look on.

Mr Hollingworth has been appointed, and the announcement was made on Saturday last. We hasten to observe that the announcement has been tactfully made and it has been made with an eye to the political situation of Mauritius.

One of the main arguments we used against the appointment of Mr Hollingworth was that by acquiescing in such a decision we were directly playing into the hands of the Parti Mauricien. But the Government, which believes and proclaims that politics has nothing to do with administration, has deliberately arranged to release together the promotion of Mr Viader to the post of Chief Education Officer and the promotion of Messrs D. Hollingworth and D. Burrenchobay to the two posts of Senior Education Officer.

Feelings must not be hurt, and every palliative must be used to appease and to placate. At least the impression must be created that everything is fine. We have now moved from the era of prayers and petitions: we are now apparently in the era of appeasement. But there will be no appeasement.

With the appointment of Mr Hollingworth, another Englishman has secured, “on the recommendation of H.E. the Governor with the advice of the Public Service Commission”, the opportunity of acquiring the responsibility, experience and proficiency which we Mauritians supposedly need, and which, during the 150 years of British rule, we have been told again and again and again we lack.

The British Government has declared its intention of leading its colonies towards self-government and independence. A condition to healthy self-government is acknowledged to be the availability of local technical, professional and administrative cadres. There can be no honesty of purpose in these avowed intentions unless a vigorous policy of increasing Mauritian proficiency is adopted. We know that such a policy would upset the security of a few of the 21,000 gentlemen belonging to Her Majesty’s Overseas Civil Service, but this is not our headache. If their security is to prevail over our just aspirations, then the whole show is a hypocritical farce.

The elected representatives of the people and their Minister of Education were against the appointment of Mr Hollingworth. Colonialism, in its last-ditch blindness got him through, illustrating in glaring fashion, one of the numerous scabs of the present phase of transition with its unholy system of responsibility for Mauritian ministers without authority. Perhaps the civil service and Mauritians at large will now open their eyes.

The whole incident points to the necessity of policy decisions to govern such problems. Policy decisions taken well beforehand, because when particular cases arise, we are told that we are mixing up administration with politics. Of course this is not politics. It is policy. And we will know our friends by their recognition of it. The time is ripe, almost belated, for a policy decision and a clear enunciation of its principles, so that the Public Service Commission at crucial times (represented by Englishmen only) may best serve the national interest.

A Policy of Mauritianisation and Mauritian advancement should rest on the following principles: (a) no non-Mauritian should be taken into government service otherwise than on contract, (b) contracts should be renewable only by the Governor in Council, (c) whenever it is found or has been found necessary to secure the service of a non-Mauritian on contract for a permanent post due to unavailability of a qualified Mauritian, scholarships should be granted immediately to Mauritians so that the required knowledge be acquired and made available as soon as possible, (d) no contract should be agreed upon, no scholarship created, no candidate selected without full and proper advertisement, (e) the qualification for each post in Government Service, whether supernumerary or permanent, should be published and made readily available to all Mauritians, and (f) no contract should be entered into with the non-Mauritians unless the candidate-elect’s qualifications have been published.

Meanwhile the Establishment Division can take it from us: the appointment of Mr Hollingworth is not the best jewel in the crown of colonialism. The sooner the present constitution is jettisoned the better for this country.

8th Year – No 339
Friday 3^rd March, 1961

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 26 June 2026