Modern Mauritius

The system of labour migration under indenture largely ended with the begin­ning of the 20th century, reducing to negligible numbers during the first decade before completely drying up by 1920.⁹5 At the end of this era, the descendants of slaves found themselves in the minority.

The data contained in Table 2.2 raises an immediate question. What is the significance of the designation “General Population”? The term was introduced with the first official census to take place in Mauritius in 1846, and covered “Europeans, descendants of Europeans, and the population of mixed origin.” “Indian” or “Indo-Mauritian” referred to “persons who came originally from India, Burma, Ceylon and other parts” as well as “native born Indians of unmixed extraction”. “Chinese” signified simply “immigrants from China and the descendants, born in the island, of Chinese settlers”.^[191] [192] These definitions, provided in a 1956 report by the Mauritius Central Statistical Office, appear puzzling, for one population group appears left out, namely former slaves, of primary Afro-Malagasy origin. An actual copy of the first 1846 census has not survived, but according to Monique Dinan, who has studied Mauritian censuses extensively, the group of “ex-apprentices” was listed only for the first two censuses, 1846 and 1851, following which former slaves were subsumed in the category of “General Population”.^[193] [194] A population count published in a Mauritian newspaper in 1848 gives a clearer breakdown and is reproduced as Table 6.2 and discussed in Chapter 6 of this study. For present purposes, it should be noted that from the mid-19th century, former slaves were no longer separately identified.

The three-fold distinction (General Population, Indo-Mauritian, Chinese) remained in place until 1962, when for the first time the Indian population

Table 2.2 1921 census, by population group and gender⁹⁸

Historical background 45 was further divided into Hindu and Muslim groupings.^[195] The concept of four “communities” (Hindu, Muslim, Sino-Mauritian and General Population) sub­sequently became the basis for political organization following the 1972 census, which included the discredited “Best Loser” electoral system that allowed for the allocation of additional seats in parliament for underrepresented ethnicities.^[196] In 2012 the UN Human Rights Committee ruled that the requirement for a dec­laration of ethnic and religious status by candidates running for election violated Article 25(b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.^[197]

The Mauritian census which took place in 2011 obscures the original demar­cations significantly.

It can thus be noted that the issue of ethnicity and identity in Mauritius con­tinues to be a contentious one, which, it is submitted, is deeply rooted in its history. The demographic is truly unique, in that unlike other colonies (such as the West Indies or Fiji) Mauritius did not only lack an indigenous population, it maintained a significant diversity in contrast to other islands, which possess a much more homogenous population (such as the Seychelles).

The years following the end of indentured labour, 85 years after the abolition of slavery, are not very well documented, with writings on the period being very sparse indeed.^[199] The epoch is however an important one, since it represents a time when all segments of Mauritian society were finally free from bondage and

a rough Mauritian identity began to form. The years of 1947-1948 saw impor­tant constitutional changes take place, which included a widening of the elective principle that led to the number of eligible voters increase more than six-fold.^[200] Dayachand Napal has outlined the main developments during that time, which include population growth, improvements to infrastructure and an amelioration of the education system.^[201] It is also a period of politicization, marked by unrest, labour riots and the birth of the party system. Party politics in their inception ran along racial lines. Notably, Indo-Mauritians came to dominate politics on the island, and an important aspect of this period is the ascent of former Indian indentured labourers in society. As pointed out by Jean Houbert, this appears to have been achieved chiefly through the acquisition of land,^[202] though historian Vijaya Teelock is circumspect in regarding this as the main determinant for Indian progress and stresses that censuses of the period indicate land ownership among ex-slaves as well.^[203]

During negotiations leading up to independence, an agreement was reached in 1965 between the two sides that the Chagos Archipelago, a group of small islands just south of the Maldives but territorially part of Mauritius, would be detached from the same and retained by Britain. The area since then had the des­ignation of “British Indian Ocean Territory” (BIOT).

With respect to the Chagos Archipelago, Mauritius notably received £3 million in exchange, though the cession of the islands was widely understood to have been a condition for obtaining independence. Today, they are probably most well-known for accommodating a military base of the United States, situated on Diego Garcia, the biggest island of the archipelago, subject to a lease agreed by the UK. The base is reportedly comprised of “the most secretive and powerful US military facilities in the world”, and has played a pivotal role in launching the invasions into Afghanistan and Iraq, and was used to threaten other nations in the region, such as Iran.^[204] It is also said to host a CIA detention centre for high- profile terrorist suspects, and represents a multi-billion dollar investment in terms of logistics and personnel.^[205] While the Diego Garcia military base may be of crucial

Historical background 47 strategic importance to the United States, its creation followed the uprooting of an entire people: the Chagossians, an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 inhabitants, who were exiled to make place for the project. Their battle to have their rights recog­nized had been one of ongoing litigation. In 2012, while expressing sympathy to their plight, the European Court of Human Rights ruled their application inadmissible.^[206]

On 1 April 2010, the UK declared most of the archipelago a marine protected area (“MPA”), ostensibly for conservationist reasons.^[207] However revelations through WikiLeaks suggested that contrary to professed environmental con­cerns, the aim of declaring the MPA had been to effectively prevent the Chagos- sians from returning to the islands, which prompted Mauritius to commence arbitral proceedings against the UK under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”) on 20 December 2010.^[208]

Mauritius has consistently claimed sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, which as reiterated by its former prime minister “was excised from Mauritius prior to independence, in disregard of United Nations Resolutions 1514 and 2066 and the principles of international law”.^[209] The 1968 constitution of Mau­ritius does refer to the Chagos Islands as being part of its territory.^[210] In a telling reaction to Mauritius’ announcement in 2004, that it would refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice and leave the Commonwealth to do so if neces­sary, the UK amended its declaration under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute.

2.6.1 Mauritius today

On 18 March 2015, the Tribunal set up to adjudicate the Chagos Marine Pro­tected Area Arbitration rendered its award.^[212] With respect to Mauritius’ four submissions, the Tribunal found by a majority of three to two that it had no jurisdiction in the first and second, and regarded unanimously the third as

non-contentious. But crucially, it ruled unanimously in favour of Mauritius regarding its fourth submission. It found that Britain's undertakings from 1965 (as repeated several times over the next decades) regarding certain rights as retained by Mauritius over the Chagos Archipelago were legally binding, and accordingly, Britain had breached its obligations under UNCLOS. Notably how­ever, the Tribunal did not find improper purpose in the declaration of the MPA based on the evidence before it and declined to comment on the issue further.^[213]

It should be noted that despite the muted outcome, it is a victory that cannot be underestimated. The ruling has been widely celebrated in the Mauritian media, not at least due to the powerful opinions issued by the two dissenting Judges James Kateka and Rudiger Wolfrum, who lament the indeed missed opportunity by the Tribunal to address the fundamental issue of sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago. Having been achieved by a previous island colony against its former colonizers, the challenge presented a power imbalance likened to David and Goli­ath, validating Mauritius now as an equal member in the international commu­nity. The true and full import of the decision is as yet unclear. In February 2022, as part of an expedition to the archipelago, the Mauritian Ambassador to the UN raised the Mauritian flag on the Peros Banhos atoll, in what was reported to be a formal challenge to Britain's ownership claims. A spokesperson for the UK Foreign Office is quoted to have said that “Mauritius has never held sovereignty over the territory and the UK does not recognise its claim.”^[214]

2.7