Dr IBRAHIM ALLADIN
Frantz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth (1961) notes: “For a colonized people the most essential value, because the most concrete, is first and foremost the land: the land which will bring them bread and, above all, dignity.” He adds, “The native must realize that colonialism never gives anything away for nothing.” For the Chagossians, the British have taken everything, except their dignity. They want back their land, that was robbed from them. The post-colonial experience is that the coloniser is not likely to just walk away. Fanon reminds us that imperialism leaves behind germs of rot which we must clinically detect and remove from our land and from our minds as well. A freedom fighter’s strength is his mind, thoughts, and ideas, that the coloniser is unable to take away. The essence of postcolonial thought, argue Fanon, Edward Said among others, is that the psychological and cultural impacts of colonialism can last for generations, but as long as the victims of colonisation resist the impact is lessened. The Chagossians are fighting for their freedom, their land, and identity. Their history is that of a human tragedy caught in superpower politics and geo-political dominance, the Chagossians became a pawn. The British merely carried on their colonial legacy. History has to be corrected and their tragic trajectory understood in its full context. As Chagos enters into a post-colonial relationship, Chagossians must take the lead.
The beginning of a tragic saga
The saga began in the early 1960s, as the United States planned its military expansion in the Indian Ocean. With no potential “colony” in the region, it looked to the United Kingdom, one of its staunchest allies, to search the location for a military base that would be used against aggressors in the Gulf and the Far East. Furthermore, the Americans were looking for an appropriate place from where they could launch missiles with a nuclear warhead. What followed was a sequence of events shrouded in superpower politics, blackmail, denials, and dehumanization. Diego Garcia was eventually ceded by the British to the Americans, who got what they had desired. Mauritius became independent and the Ilois lost their homeland. What followed was a human tragedy caught in a web of lies, deceits and betrayals as noted by Philippe Sands in The Last Colony. A Tale of Exile, Justice and Britain’s Colonial Legacy. (2023).
On November 8, 1965, the Chagos Archipelago became the British Indian Ocean Territories (BIOT). The Chagos calamity had begun. The BIOT stripped off the rights of the Chagossians. From 1965 to 1973 the US government along with the British, put the Ilois on the overcrowded boats and shipped them off to Mauritius. The island of Diego Garcia was completely emptied of all the local people. A US senior Foreign Office member noted: “We must surely be very tough about this. The object of the exercise is to get some rocks which will remain ours…There will be no indigenous population except seagulls.” (www.culturalsurvival.org)
The intention of the British was very clear. As Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister reiterated to the Mauritian Prime Minister, Sir Anerood Jugnauth, what her predecessors in office had already stated: “Diego Garcia will only revert to Mauritius when it will no longer be needed as a base. It can take fifty years or more. There is no time limit fixed. For the time being, Diego Garcia forms part of the British Indian Ocean Territory created by an Order in Council in 1965”. (See Boolell, Satcam, Untold Stories. A Collection of Socio-Political Essays 1950-1995, Editions de l’Océan Indien, Mauritius, 1996).
A Painful Beginning in Mauritius
The first deportation took place in 1776 by the French. The Ilois never thought that they would be displaced again forever. When the second deportation took place by the British and the Americans between 1967 and 1973, their worst nightmare came true. Indian Ocean, a zone of peace was turned into a military area with nuclear missiles. No consideration was given to the inhabitants of the region. The Indian Ocean was militarised to expand the ambitions of the superpowers at the expense of the peace-loving people of the region. It is a shame that the very countries that try to be the champions for peace and human rights are the worst perpetrators. Their racist policies have sent a population into exile.
There was no plan to greet them when they arrived in Mauritius. When the ship arrived in Port Louis, the Chagossians were stuck in the harbour for three days. Later they were taken to the docker’s flats. Many were housed in Bois Marchand, in what Olivier Bancoult of the Chagos Refugees Group calls “lekiri kabri” (goat sheds).
The plight of the Chagossians in Mauritius was pitiful. They were mostly unemployed and without a permanent home, they became paupers. They were stuck in Port Louis. To earn a living, men carried heavy bags on their shoulders. They were porters working in the streets. They could not integrate; Mauritian society was alien to them. The Chagossians had their own culture, language, and social network, and lived as one big family. With little education, not enough money to support their families, they were neglected.
A group of brave Chagossian women like Liseby Elysé took up the fight and marched to seek justice. They were deeply wounded by the way they were treated and were determined to fight. The women seemed more engaged and politicized. They challenged the might of the colonial powers and went all the way to the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. The rulings went in their favour. Perhaps a glimmer of hope.
Denying the Right to Return — an Act of Racism
The Chagossians have the right to return to their homeland; a right that cannot be denied. David Vine in Island of Shame (2011) writes: “In exile, most of the Chagossians quickly found themselves impoverished. Most to this day have remained impoverished as marginal outsiders in Mauritius and the Seychelles. First and foremost, we cannot mince words. The expulsion was an act of racism. Because the Chagossians were considered “black”, because Chagossians were small in number and lacked any political or economic clout, they were an easy target for removal. Because they were considered black, planners could easily regard them as insignificant, as a “nitty gritty” detail. “The fact is that nobody cared very much about these populations”, said former Defense Department official Gary Sick, who testified to Congress about the removals in 1975.
This racist behaviour was at the forefront of colonial policies. Vine (2011) adds: “In this way, the Chagossians’ expulsion and the pattern of forcibly displacing numerically small, non-“white”, non-European colonized peoples to build bases resemble many forms of violence that tend to afflict the poor, the dark, and the powerless, those who so often get treated as “rubbish people. Mark Curtis has called the Chagossians “unpeople”.
The Chagossians were forcibly removed and were never to return. The British knew it and the Americans left it to the former to finish the paperwork. The right to return was taken away when the British and Americans made their secret deal to establish a military base in Diego Garcia. When the approval came from Congress to set up the base, the Americans ordered the British Government to complete the removal of the islanders, refusing requests from the US Embassy in London and British officials to allow the people to remain on Diego Garcia as base employees”. (See David Vine, 2011).
Clive Baldwin explains the inhumane treatment of the Chagossians: “Perhaps one of the most disturbing accounts was about the callousness of the removal of the Chagossians from their homes. British officials ordered the killing of the dogs on Diego Garcia, including the Chagossians’ pets. One Chagossian remembered her family pet being taken away and killed. Her family thought it was being done to make them leave. On one trip, they were kept below in the hold, while horses from Chagos were kept on deck. British officials used racist terms to refer to Chagossians, according to secret official documents that have now been released. These included describing them as “Men Fridays,” a term originating from the character “Friday” described as a Black servant in Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. They also used the term “Tarzans,” a reference to the fictional feral child who was raised by apes in Africa. Both descriptions are undoubtedly racist.” (https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/15/interview-uk-us-treatment-chagossians-continuing-colonial-crime)
Freedom and Justice
« It is better to die for an idea that will live, than to live for an idea that will die. »
(Steve Biko)
Steve Bantu Biko, the prominent anti-apartheid activist and leader in South Africa during the 1960s and 1970s, who dedicated his life to fighting against racial discrimination and oppression, noted that « if one is free at heart, no man-made chains can bind one to servitude. Liberation is of the oppressed but also of the oppressor. His powerful words continue to inspire and resonate with people around the world.
The Chagossians like indigenous people around the world have suffered injustices at the hands of the coloniser, which are beyond reparation. The loss of identity and language, cultural repression, and psychological trauma, last for generations. But why do the oppressed continue to fight and resist post-colonial treaties? Edward Said, Albert Memmi, Fanon, and others argue that as long as their thoughts are free, they will resist. The desire to regain a lost identity is a strong motivation.
To be free of the coloniser may take generations, but as Steve Biko once said: “In the end victory will be ours”. The waters of Peros Banhos are waiting for its residents.