BY ANAND MOHEEPUTH
The local newspaper Le Radical carried a report on 14 December 1907 about a curious “incident” that took place the day before at the Port Louis District Court. The incident related to the refusal by some Indian witnesses to remove their shoes when entering the courtroom to appear before the magistrate.
“Nous ne pouvons accepter cela”, Le Radical wrote insisting that if the Indians were to live in the company of “civilized”
people, “ils auront à ôter leur turban ou leur bonnet lorsqu’ils paraîtront devant un tribunal, à moins qu’ils ne préfèrent laisser à la porte leurs souliers ou leurs sandales”. The paper warned that social stability in the island would be at stake if disciplne was flouted. “Il faut”, wrote Le Radical, “que messieurs les indiens donnent comme les civilisés chez qui ils vivent, aux magistrats et aux juges des signes de respect et de déférence….”
That demonstration of defying courts’ rules grabbed attention because it was something unheard before in Mauritius. The rule of footwear and headgear removal targeted members of the Indian population attending a court of justice and who usually were dressed in the traditional Indian fashion. The rule of shoe removal did not apply to those wearing European or what was known as “Creole” dress.
Appearing in courtroom wearing shoes or slippers was tantamount to a contempt of court and was punishable by either a fine or a term of imprisonment.
The defiance to court authority reported by Le Radical was instigated by the Indian lawyer, Mr Manilal Doctor who had come to Mauritius to champion the cause of the struggling Indian community.
The removal of shoes before entering a Court of Justice was a common practice borrowed from India during colonial times when Indians were required “as a sign of respect” to take off their footwear when they had to appear before rulers of fiefdoms in the same manner as they would do when entering sacred places.
But British rulers in the East India Company era extended the practice to all government institutions so that Indians before entering those places showed their reverential respect to their British superiors. At the turn of the 19th century, the Governor General of India, William Pitt Amherst and later, Lord Dalhousie made shoe removal mandatory for all Indians entering government buildings.
So much so that a move undertaken by an Indian lawyer, Mocksjee Cowasjee Entee, to do away with that practice was set aside by the Bombay High Court.
But a changing attitude followed when India came under direct control of the British Crown after the East India Company was disbanded in the wake of the Sepoy Revolt in 1857. The British adopted a more flexible posture, rather than exacerbating Indian sentiments by fiddling around with local cultures and traditions.
However, in Mauritius, protests were raised as far back as 1868 when the “aggrieved” members of the Indian community wrote to the Governor, Sir Henry Barkly, complaining about the “mark of degradation” Indians were made to suffer by the discriminating practice. The petitioners prayed the Governor to issue directives in order to ensure “uniformity of practice in courts’ rules” so as to enable Indians appearing in courts to do so without having their “feelings outraged”.
Following the petition, a circular dated 20 May 1868 was sent to the judiciary by the Colonial Secretary giving fresh directives, namely that “1. The headgear may in all cases be retained upon the head, unless it be a hat or cap of European fashion in which case it must be removed upon entering the Court; 2, shoes of European fashion worn with stockings need not be removed; 3. with the above exceptions, shoes and slippers shall invariably be removed upon entering the Court”.
But the Indians used to wearing dress in the Oriental fashion, as in India, still continued to bear the brunt of discrimination. In 1909, for example, magistrate Hewetson of the Port Louis District Court, came hard on one C.M Atchia who refused to reply to the magistrate’s question about whether he wanted to be treated as a Creole or an Indian. Atchia appeared in the witness box dressed in Oriental fashion wearing shoes without “socks or stockings” which was regarded as a punishable offence. Atchia was sentenced to a fine of Rs 40 or three days imprisonment for his “most arrogant manner” and for appearing without wearing “socks or stockings”. He was defended by Manilal Doctor who urged his countrymen “not to be denaturalized in certain ways for want of courage”. He pointed out that king Edward VII was not fussy about Indians appearing before him in traditional Indian dress. As such, the king did not allow an Indian to be presented to him without his turban.
The retort of Le Radical was simply, “Les Indiens sont maîtres dans leur pays, comme nous le sommes chez nous……”