Emergenceof an Indian peasantry

The establishment of a settled population made of imported workers was ini­tially not an aim actively pursued by the local authorities. As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the main concern in the 1830s, when the first inden­tured labourers began arriving in larger numbers, had been to ensure that their return was provided for.

As noted in the discussion above, attempts to influence the labour market were not limited to local regulation, but were also to be found in the immigration rules.

State-VegulateA immigration and, emergence of a peasantry 163 health before embarkation,^[779] due notice given to the Protector of Immigrants^[780] and penalties for ship masters conveying immigrants from Mauritius in breach of the conditions set out in the ordinance.^[781]

Ordinance No. 2 was passed in February 1845 and gives no indication that the right to a free return passage would be curtailed. In May of the same year how­ever, Governor Gomm made the suggestion to Lord Stanley that

the claim to the free return passage... should be considered as cancelled with regard to individuals not continuing in the service of cultivation, and that the local government should be empowered to notify to each individual departing from the service for which he was specially introduced at so heavy an expense, that in so doing he forfeits his claim to the prospective advan­tage. Such notices might, in various instances, have the effect of retaining the fickle labourer in agricultural employ.

Despite such concerns, the governor reports to be “highly satisfied” with the general progress of the labourers, and in closing makes the brief observation that the workers were increasingly placing their earnings in a local savings bank, a development which he deemed “evidence of increased confidence”.^[782] As will be discussed in the next section, the slow accumulation of savings by Indian workers would prove crucial several decades later.

Governor Gomm’s suggestion at providing an incentive to agricultural work by restricting the entitlement to a free return passage was not immediately given effect.

The completed withdrawal of the right to a free return passage in 1853 can be viewed as a clear attempt to encourage the labourers to settle on the island, particularly if viewed with another legal advance occurring the same year.^[786] Ordinance No. 22 of 1853 made simplified provisions for the solemnization of marriages of immigrants, no longer requiring them to comply with the requirements of the local French Civil Code, but simply having to produce certificates from the Protector of Immigrants confirming that to the best knowledge of the protector, the persons in question were not married, obtainable at one shilling per certificate.^[787] Further, in 1856, provisions were finally made to recognize marriages entered into in India. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3 of that year, any Indian immigrant “having been legally married in India accord­ing to the Forms and Ceremonies of his Religion” accompanied by his wife became able to make a declaration, under formalities as prescribed that they were lawfully married,^[788] and such a declaration “shall be deemed for all purposes sufficient prima facie evidence of the Marriage of the Parties and of the Legitimacy of the Issue of the Chil­dren (ifany) named therein.”^[789] [790] Thus, in the 1850s, with a free return passage no longer offered, but stability to family life through legislation being introduced, indentured labourers from India were encouraged to remain and settle in Mauritius.

Table 6.4 Countries of birth of resident population in Mauritius, 1861¹⁶²

As the numbers show, out of a resident population of 310,050, only 116,889 were actually born in Mauritius. By far the greatest number of residents were born in India, with 172,425 from Bengal, Madras and Bombay combined, and just over 3,000 had arrived from various parts of Europe, America and Australia.

Despite its diverse outlook and evident attraction, as noted above, the 1860s proved a challenging period for the island, creating a crisis in the local sugar economy through a mixture of natural catastrophes affecting the agricultural sec­tor, and a reduced demand for cane sugar with the ascent of beet in Europe. This hit the Indian population particularly hard. As an employment return for 1861 shows, 90,621 residents were occupied in agriculture on the sugar estates alone,^[791] and 84,548 of these belonged to the Indian population (84,380 male and 168 female).^[792] In other words, just over 93 per cent of workers in the sugar industry were of Indian extraction. A further 89,851 Indians (89,492 male and 359 female) were employed in general agriculture (as gardeners, woodcutters, cowherds and the like),^[793] with another 12,229 (11,808 male and 421 female) working as general labourers (such as workmen, stonecutters, etc.).^[794]

The way in which the planters sought to address the crisis in Mauritius has been described as “a process of economic retrenchment”.^[795] Planters began to subdivide their sugar estates, a period commonly referred to as the Grand Morcellement, which involved selling off parts of their land. While this development is often stated to have begun in earnest in the 1880s, Richard Allen dates the beginning of the process as early as 1862 on the basis of his research into contemporary notarial acts.^[796]

William Storey, in his assessment of the period, states that by the 1860s, “the sugar industry was chronically starved of finance capital”, which he accounts to decline in the price of cane sugar and the “remoteness” of metropolitan inves­tors.^[797] Whether the “remoteness” refers to the geographical distance between the island and London, or is more indicative of a disinterest in an industry that began to show definite signs of decline is not evident from Storey's observation, though an argument can be made for the latter.

To fully appreciate the development, a general understanding of the sugar pro­duction process may be helpful. In Mauritius, sugar estates traditionally carried out both the agricultural cultivation of cane as well as the mechanical produc­tion of sugar. At the turn of the decade in 1850, it had been assessed that the agricultural phase involved two-thirds of the total cost of sugar production, since the rocky, volcanic soil of the island precluded extensive use of machinery and remained heavily reliant on manual labour. The manufacturing process itself only represented one-fifth of the total cost of production.^[798]

The morcellement was an experience not limited to Mauritius, but also occurred on its neighbouring island Reunion. On both islands, the process gave rise to

State-VegulateA immigration and, emergence of a peasantry 167 a growing class of cane farmers.^[799] Another, similar development was that of metayage., which after the end of indentured labour was particularly pervasive in Reunion. Metayage involved agreements whereby a tenant consented to cultivate cane on agreed portions of land held by the owner. Described by J. Galloway as “usually verbal, informal” contracts, the arrangement benefitted landowners by guaranteeing the supply of cane for their sugar mill while allowing the tenant to receive the advantage of owning part of the crop and thus profiting from his personal labour.^[800]

The morcellement process in Mauritius was complex and could involve further on-selling of increasingly smaller plots. While there is the argument that only low- yielding plots were sold by the planters, Storey states that the land acquired by the emerging class of smallholders was not always necessarily inferior.^[801]

Irrespective of the quality of the land acquired, Indians had made an enor­mous leap by becoming owners of the same. This contributed to the growth of settlements, which while in the vicinity of sugar estates, were nevertheless outside of them, marking “a form of liberation” for the former labourers.^[802] Yet, while it signified an important transition for the labourers, they contin­ued to rely on the estate owners for the processing of their cane. With the mills remaining a crucial part of the sugar production process, the economic power of the white planter class remained unchallenged. As Tijo Salverda observes, while the Franco-Mauritian elite had had to lessen their grip on the very resource that had guaranteed their superior position, namely land, their standing was barely challenged as a consequence of retaining ownership of the mills.^[803]

Economic power was thus embedded in the manufacture of sugar, not in the cultivation of it. By divesting themselves of the agricultural part, the plantation owners were able to consolidate their operations to their advantage. In spite of this fundamental retention of control by the Franco-Mauritian oligarchy, land­ownership was an important milestone for the Indian segment of Mauritian soci­ety. Richard Allen calculates that by the end of the 19th century, nearly one-half of independent proprietors were of Indian origin. That group would come to cultivate about a third of all cane land within the first decade of the 20th century, reaching 45 per cent by the 1920s.^[804]

6.6