Veiled Apostles of Communism

Mauritius Times – 61 Years

From Our Archives – A Glimpse into 1961

In the eyes of some people, we, at the Mauritius Times, are supposed to be guilty of a serious charge, namely, that we often openly attack decisions of the Government to which our Labour colleagues have subscribed. We wish to answer that charge today and at the same time we shall try to draw a line of demarcation where, we think, it must be drawn. We have come to learn that it is not easy to be militant newspapermen and politicians at the same time. Our job becomes still more difficult when one considers the fact that we belong to the Party which is in power. A clash is bound to occur between our function of newspapermen and our duties as partymen. This is not a new thing: it has happened in many parts of the world. And it is still happening. It will always happen.

We have also come to realise that in such delicate and difficult circumstances — where party loyalty and freedom of speech have to co-exist — the way of expressing one’s dissatisfaction is as important as the necessity of expressing the dissatisfaction itself. We have had to face such difficult decisions on very many occasions and each time we have taken our decisions in all honesty and sincerity. We are greatly comforted to think that so far the leadership of the Party — although not in complete agreement with our views — have manifested towards us a sympathetic attitude: they have always attempted to look into the points we have raised.

This is indeed a healthy sign of good party organisation which, if encouraged, is bound to reduce the frequency of conflicts between the different segments of the party. Another important point to be considered is the usefulness of having free exchanges of views and latitude that must necessarily be given to a certain number of criticisms. But it is here that a line must be drawn: a balance struck.

To come to our friends, it would appear that we should be the last ones to preach unity and to plead for discipline because we have dared to make some criticisms. Nothing could be more absurd and dangerous. The motives behind the action of anyone must always be scrutinized. Some dissidents of the Party are today very vocal and at times abusive for the simple reason that they think they have been frustrated by certain favours and honours to which they thought they were entitled. This sense of frustration is today the root of certain tendencies which cannot be explained. Such tendencies — always emotional — are blind and therefore do not stand to reason. Consequently, it is not surprising that some contemplate allying with erstwhile opponents and there are others who feel like being “converted” to the Opposition. It is in such circumstances that the sincerity of some Party members can be assessed.

We once expressed the feeling that the Labour Party should take a clear stand and deny once and for all the charge that the Party is communist because the opposition was — and still is — making capital of it. And once the President of the Party did make a categorical statement at a public meeting saying that the Mauritius Labour Party has never been, is not and never will be communist. That was more than enough. The country has had the required statement from the horse’s mouth as it were. But to find some people today trying to accuse the Party of connivance with communists is a sure sign of some diseased minds. It is nothing short of a vendetta against one or two men who were useful at a time, but who are not so considered now. Or it may also be part of the campaign now in full swing because some important elections are now ahead. It is as shameful a situation as it is despicable.

Some newly-born spineless leaders are so dangerous that to them any means are good for the achievement of their aims whatever these may be. If they need your strength to go ahead, they will serve you with the best diet but if, on another occasion, they want your corpse to succeed they will have no qualms about plunging a dagger in your heart. What wisdom of the past do we talk about if we have no past at all? Is there any wisdom in buying a ticket for a trip to a communist country? Is there any wisdom in manoeuvering for a free ticket for one’s kith to a communist country and when the manoeuvre fails to start off on an anti-communist campaign? And we talk of integrity?

As far as we can see, communism will never have any strength in Mauritius. Whether we like it or not, Mauritius is a profoundly religious place, and communism has no place here. The best way of keeping communism away is to feed, clothe and shelter our people properly.

*  *  *

Absurd? When?

Last week we wrote: “The whole country must have been appalled to learn from Mr Koenig himself that he did not depone before the Meade Commission because he did not want to influence them! It is a thousand pities to hear a seasoned politician like Mr Koenig with so much experience dishing out such absurdities in Council.”

We have misreported Mr Koenig and we apologize to him. If he did not say the words we have put in his mouth, he could not have been absurd. But this is what he is supposed to have said: he did not depone before the Meade Commission because, in the light of the commission’s recommendation, his opponents could have retorted saying that it was he who had influenced the commission to make the recommendation they have made.

This is Mr Koenig at his best. He has been quite absurd.

8th Year – No 342
Friday 24th March, 1961

Sugar — Jamaica and Barbados

By Peter Ibbotson

Mauritius is not the only sugar-producing island where the actual production of sugar varies according to whose land it is grown on. It might be of interest to small growers in Mauritius to learn about conditions in at least two other sugar-producing islands in the West Indies — Barbados and Jamaica.

In Barbados, where 80 per cent of exports consist of sugar or sugar products (especially fancy molasses), about 46,000 acres are planted with sugar cane, representing slightly more than 40 per cent of the island’s total area and well over half of its total arable land. Most cultivation is carried out on estates of over 10 acres, which are mainly owned by private families that settled in Barbados more than 200 years ago. There are about 240 such plantations, covering just under 37,000 acres, or more than three-quarters of the total cane acreage.

About 30,000 peasant smallholdings account for the remaining 10,000 acres under sugar cane — an average of three peasant growers to each acre. The 37,000 plantation acres produce about 1,350,000 tons of cane annually, while the 10,000 peasant acres produce about 270,000 tons. This represents an average yield of 37 tons per acre on the plantations, compared with 27 tons per acre on the smallholdings. Seventeen sugar and fancy molasses factories process the crop.

Sugar is Jamaica’s principal crop. Fifty-eight per cent of it is grown on estates with their own factories (there are 18 factories in all). Last year, the estates had 73,000 acres under sugar cane and produced more than 2,500,000 tons of cane. (Just under 10 tons of cane were required to produce one ton of sugar.) The average yield was about 35 tons of cane per acre, having risen from 26 tons per acre in 1939 as a result of improved cultivation methods.

There are about 22,000 small farmers who, last year, harvested approximately 80,000 acres of sugar cane. From this larger acreage, they produced only 1,800,000 tons of cane — more land than the estates cultivated, but a substantially lower total output. The small farmers’ average yield was about 22 tons of cane per acre, a figure that could be improved through more efficient cultivation and more adequate use of fertilisers. A yield of 22 tons per acre provided the small farmers with a gross return of about £50 (Rs 660) per acre.

Published in the 17th March 1961 edition of MT

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 7 August 2026