29 Issues of integration in host lands: Select case studies from Africa

Learning Objectives:

• To study the situation of Indians immigrants in the colonial and post- colonial contexts in select countries of Africa: Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda in East Africa;South Africa and the island state of Mauritius.
• To learn about the challenges of integration of Indian immigrants in the countries of their adoption and home..
• To know about the trajectory of the Indian ‘minority’ communityin the aftermath of independence and the improved relations and constitutional protection accorded to the ‘minorities’ in the recent decades.
• To understand the discrimination and racism that Indians in South Africa were subjected to under British colonialism and Apartheid government and their status in post 1994 rainbow nation.
• To comprehend the unique situation of the Indian Diaspora in Mauritius, the only country where the immigrant Indian community is not only a majority in numerical terms but also has political power.

1.    INTRODUCTION

The category ‘Asian’ in colonial taxonomy encompassed a diverse group of peoples, including the Indians from the Indian sub-continent.Indianimmigration and settlement in the countries of Africa – Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda in East Africa, South Africa and the island state of Mauritius have each undergonedistinct historical trajectories. Of these the Asian migration trail to the coast of East Africa, across the Indian Ocean is over 2000 years old.The largest number of Indian immigrants traveled to Africa from the mid-19th to the early 20thcentury as a ‘labour and imperial diaspora’ (Cohen 2008: pp 61-80).

Today the ‘Indians’ are politically integrated as citizens in their erstwhile host countries. It must be stated at the outset that ‘Indians’ in Africa are not a homogenous community. They are divided sharply, inter alia along lines of religion, language spoken, place of origin,wealth, education and class. Over the years, their attachment to India has become by and large culturally symbolic and their linkages to India are mainly for spiritual reasons or pilgrimage, “which many pilgrims find disappointing as faith has been commodified” (Maharaj 2013: cited in Patel and Uys (eds), p. 87).

Issues of integration of Indians in East and South Africa can be understood with reference to the concept of ‘minority’. The term minority is used for a group of people who are treated unequally because they are different either physically or culturally from the dominant group in the state (See UN Document: 27th December 1949: p.9). The situation of Mauritius is unique because it is the only country where Persons of Indian origin ( PIOs) constitute about 70 percent of the population of the island state and since independence of the island state from Britain in 1968, political parties led by PIOs have dominated the political landscape ( Singhvi 2002a: p 49). The answer to who constitutes a minority cannot be found in numbers but with reference to power. Therefore, all non- dominant groups, irrespective of their numerical strength can be understood within the concept of aminority. At the wake of independence, from 1957 onwards, the Africans states were faced with the difficult task of nation- building in the context of a ‘multicultural’ society wherein there were “ethnically or racially diverse segments in the population “whohad thus far been fractured along racial and communal basis (For details on concept of multiculturalism see Inglis,1996). Debates centered on integration and assimilation as the two possible ways of dealing with minorities within the nascent states took place among scholars and politicians.

Integration, though an elusive term can be understood as,“… the progressive reduction in cultural and regional tensions and discontinuities in the process of creating homogeneous communities” (Coleman and Rosberg, cited in Smok and Enchill (eds), 1975: p. 29). Integration implies a two way interaction and negotiation between a diaspora and its hostland on the unspoken terms and conditions through which the diaspora community will be accepted as an integral part of the host society.Assimilation can be understood as “based on the idea of superiority of the dominant culture. It seeks to achieve homogeneity within the state by ensuring that groups discard their own culture in favour of the dominant culture and implies at the same time that the majority community is willing to accept the new members” (Minority Rights Group No. 73 1982, p .4). However, a policy of forced assimilation cannot be justified and voluntariness for mainstreaming communities is the key to harmonious relations in multiethnic and multiracial countries. In other words the distinctiveness of theimmigrant Indiancommunities had to be acknowledged and respected by the newly independent states in Africa. By the time that countries of Africa gained independence, the Indian presence was well-established in their ‘host land’. The term ‘ host land’ can be used only for academic purpose because the Indians under study were descendants of the ‘ old colonial diaspora’, were born and raised in Africa, spoke the local language and several of them have never visited India. Today these fifth or sixth generation Africans are politically integrated and citizens in the countries of Africa where their forefathers immigrated in the nineteenth century.

2.  INDIANS IN EAST AFRICA

The relations between the port cities of western India and East Africa go back to at least 2000 years. There was a continuous process of circular migration of male members in the late nineteenth century and they began to settle in the latter half of the nineteenth century for mainly trading. Many of them were a part of the ‘colonial diaspora’, i.e., the labourers who came from India to build the Uganda- Kenya Railways in the then British Protectorate of East Africa. The second stream of Indians came on their own in search of economic opportunities and worked as clerks, accountants, craftsmen, agriculturists and traders, amongst other vocations. Those who were successful stayed on while those who did not succeed returned to India (Oonk 2013: pp. 65-66).

2.1 Economic and Social Issues:

Asian settlement in East Africa took place between 1880 and 1920 (Oonk 2013: p.175). Economically the Asians were an integrated lot within the “East African Asian business culture of that period” (Ibid: p.112).Their economic dominance far outweighed their numerical strength in the pre as well as the post-colonial period (Ibid:p. 85). In Uganda, Indians were less than one percent of the population in 1948. They were a divided lot on lines of linguistic, regional and to some extent on the basis of caste distinctions though caste as a category of social or economic category of organization dissipated over the years (Jhaveri 2014: p.19). “The immigrants brought to Africa no institutions for uniting them as ‘Indians’, ‘Hindus’ or ‘Muslims’ (Morris 1968: p.105).

The British colonialists built a stratified society wherein Europeans were at the top of the hierarchy, the Asians occupied the middle position and controlled much of the middle retail trade and the indigenous Africans were at the bottom of the pyramid. Further, the three communities lived in separate residential areas with little or no interaction at the social level and at the political level a system of separate electorate and communal representation was practiced. In South Africa, racism was overt and later institutionalized in 1948 through the official policy of Apartheid. In East Africa, the Asian’s position was undermined in the aftermath of decolonization once political power was transferred to the native Africans (Ghai and Ghai (eds) 1965: p. 130). At this critical juncture, the ‘Indian’ minority community was at crossroads.

The relations between the Asians and the native Africans were strained due to several reasons. First, the Africans were prejudiced against the Asians due to the economic prosperity of the Asian ‘Dukkawallahs’. The Asians were subject to the stereotype that they ‘overcharge and cheat and they employ their relatives to keep the wage bills low’ (Dotson and Dotson, 1968: p.367 cited in Modi R 1998: p.75). Second, the Asians were higher up in the social hierarchy and practiced social exclusiveness. The Asians failed to integrate themselves with the African/ local people due to differences between their socio- religious and cultural backgrounds between themselves. The Indians did not marry outside of their own religious, ethnic grouping and caste groups. Besides, most of the Hindus, mainlyGujaratis were strict vegetarians,non-drinkers and married within their own sub-castes or Jatis, thereby reinforcing the Hindu notion ofbpurity.Hindus took longer to integrate than Muslims immigrants to East Africa (Oonk 2013:p.114).

Besides, they had immigrated purely for economic reasons and this was one of the main reasons why they did not intermix or involve themselves in the affairs of the indigenous minorities (MRG Report No 4, 1971: p.6). Thus the insular existence of Indian communities and their perceived reluctance to integrate with the mainstream African communities needs tobe understood against the above stated backdrop. These reasons made the Asians a much hated minority because the ‘position occupied by the Asians were the immediate aspirations of the African masses. The Europeans were much more privileged but their position was too elevated and remote to cause envy among the natives’ (Ghai and Ghai 1965: p .134).

2.2 In the Aftermath of Independence: At independence, the Indians in East Africa had to prove their loyalty to the newly independent states. They were confused on the matter of opting for African citizenship and this was interpreted as a lack of trust and confidence in the African leadership. Those who applied for African citizenship were seen as‘opportunists’ while those who were indecisive were accused of holding onto their British passports like ‘leeches’ or ‘sitting on the fence’ (For details see MRG Report No 4. pp. 8-10 ) Besides, the Africans felt that many Asians became citizens inorder to avoid or sidestep discriminatory policies and practices and legislations (Modi,1998: p.77).This was perceived as ‘disloyalty’ to the post-colonial regimes in Africa and the Indians were victimized for the same. President Idi Amin of Uganda pushed the logic of ‘Indophobia’ to an extreme and expelled about 80,000 Asians (who constituted less than one percent of the population) of which 23,000 were thought to be Ugandan citizens. The rest were mainly British Asians (Mazrui, 1976, cited in Smock and Enchill (eds.)p. 80).

Uganda Asians arrive in London after being expelled by Idi Aminfrom Uganda in 1972 Photo courtesy:The London Evening Post(2013) ‘Revealed: Why Idi Amin expelled Asians from Uganda’

All non-citizen Asians were required to leave Uganda in ninety days beginning from August 8, 1972 (The London Evening Post 4 February 2013). Most of these stateless Asians fled to Britain and were resettled in Britain and other countries with the active intervention of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). The civil, political and economic rights of a minority community were clearly violated. Assets worth millions of pounds were confiscated or nationalized in the immediate aftermath of the post- independence era.

After independence, though the Africans assumed political authority, the main reason for the ill treatment and hostility against the Asian minority were the economic inequities between the Indians and the native Africans (Modi 1998: p.79).Interaction between them was limited to public spaces such as the market place (For details see Morris 1968: p.144).

Intimidation of Asian communities in East and Southern African countries continued in an overt and covert manner and in the aftermath of independence, such acts were rationalized on grounds of rectifying the economic injustice of the past (Modi 1998: p. 74). The African governments adopted the policy of nationalization and Africanization. The governments nationalized the main economic institutions of the country, including banking; wholesale trade and retail distribution were nationalized towards establishing an egalitarian society (Tandon and Raphael 1978, MRG Report No. 17, p. 12). For example, the Tanzanian government frequently attacked the Asian social and cultural institutions, stopped radio broadcasts in Indian languages and it was mandatory for Indians had to join the Tanganyika African National Union (TANU) party and participate in self-help schemes (Ghai and Ghai1971: p. 143).

The total Asian population in East and Central Africa dropped from about 360,000 in 1961-62 to 178,000 in 1972, i.e., by about 50 percent (Tandon and Raphael 1978: p. 12).At that time, there wasno legal protection offered to ‘immigrant minorities’ by international law as well. Therefore in a non- democratic state, minorities were in a precarious situation without recourse to the protection by domestic jurisdiction or international law. Subsequent to the expulsion of the Ugandan Asians, it took over a decade and a half for the United Nations to adopt the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the Country in Which They Live, which was finally adopted on 13 December 1985 (UNGeneral Assembly Resolution 40/144 of 1985: pp. 322-25).

3.  INDIANS IN SOUTH AFRICA

3.1Historical Backdrop: In the year 2010, the Indian Diaspora completed 150 years of their arrival to South Africa. British colonial powers contracted Indian labourers throughout the British Empire from 1860 – 1911 (Singhvi 2002b: p.75).The Indians were contracted to work in the British owned sugarcane plantations,as dock workers, market gardeners and other vocations, in the Natal province.A second wave of Indian immigrants known as the ‘passenger Indians’ – the Khojas, Memons, Parsis, Sunni Vohras, Gujaratis came from the 1880s onwards from the province of Gujarat( Hiralal:100). They came for trade and business, paid their own fare and were not under any contract with the British colonial rulers (For details see Kuper1960:pp.2-3). Many Indians professional such as doctors, lawyers, and accountants also came to settle in the Natal Colony. The Indian traders catered to the needs of the indentured Indian populace, the Whites as well as the African peoples and delivered their merchandise into the interior parts of the country at competitive prices

Indians settled mainly in the city of Durban, in Natal. By 1920, the Indian population reached 130,000 and surpassed the White population of around 115,000 (Bhana, n. d.).The White traders felt threatened by the prosperity of the Indian immigrants and lobbied for restrictions to be placed on the Indian trading community. In response, the Natal colonial government adopted discriminatory legislative practices and restricted trading activities of the Indians to clearly demarcated ‘Indian Areas'(For details on various discriminatory Acts please see Maharaj 1983). Racial discrimination and residential segregation in ‘Coolie Compounds’ and a lack of basic rights characterized the existence of the Indians from the late 1880s until the formation of a democratic south Africa in 1994(Bhana, n.d).

Gandhi a victim of racism when he was thrown off a first class compartment reserved for the Whites Photo Courtesy: Manibhavan,Dolls exhibition, Gandhi Sanghrayala Mumbai (1983)

The arrival of Mahatma Gandhi to South Africa in 1893 to work as a legal consultant for an Indian company and his 21 year long stay was marked by the struggle against racism and injusticeby the Natal Colonial government against non-whites, including the Indians. Gandhi started the ‘Indian Opinion’newspaper in 1903 to highlight and resist racial policies of the colonial government (Paul F Power 1969: p. 444). Due to these efforts, petty discriminatory legislation against the Indian Community were withdrawn. Further, to deal with the plight of the Indians in South Africa, Gandhi organized the Natal Indian Congress (NIC),a political organization in 1894 (Mesthrie 2006: p. 884) and later, the Transvaal Indian Congress (TIC) in 1903, along the lines of the NICmainly to support the cause of the Indian traders.

Discriminatory laws such as the Pass Laws (registration certificate) and the discriminatory taxes applied to all Indians living in the Union of South Africa that was formed in 1910.The Indians continued to be subjected to racial discrimination through Acts such as the Transvaal Asiatic Amendment Law Ordinance of 1906 that required the re-registration and finger printing of Indians residing in Transvaal (Singhvi 2002b: p.78). Gandhi experimented with his new technique- Satyagraha based on the principle of passive resistance and organised the first Satyagraha campaign in 1906 and the seven years long struggle culminated in the India Relief Act of 1914 which abolished the Natal Head Tax on non-indentured Indians and agreed to the principle of voluntary registration amongst other measures favourable to the Indians (Power 1969: p. 454).

The story of Indians and of the non- white peoples in South Africa in one of constant struggle and resistance against racism and discrimination in one form or another in the years of British colonial rule and the Apartheid government that came in being in 1948. It wasbased on “legalised racial discrimination” through its official policy of’ Apartheid (apart- ness) which means separateness in Afrikaans language of the descendants of the early Dutch settlers (UN 18 July 1994).The plight of the Indians at this juncture can be understood by the Afrikaner National Party (NP) policy election slogan of 1948 that stated ‘the kaffir in his place and the coolie out of the country’ (Kathrada 2001, cited in Maharaj: p. 98). Under Apartheid there were four distinct racial groups namely: Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians.As a consequence of discriminatory legislations such as the Asiatic Land Tenure Act of 1946 and subsequently the Group Areas Act1950 the residential areas of the four racial groups were segregated (Kuper 1960: p. 4). As a result of this new social engineering, the existing multiracial neighborhoods were cleared and Indian people were relocated to the large residential townships such as Chatsworth and Phoenix in Natal that were built exclusively for the Indians. This spatial compression in the newly set up ‘Indian’ townships probably marks the beginning of what came to be officially known as the’ Indian community’(Kuper 1960, p 4).

Alongside, a policy of divide and rule was also devised by the Apartheid regime in 1961 wherein, Indians were granted certain privileges such as benefits in the labour market, setting up of separate educational institutions. The University at Durban-Westville was established in 1971, originally to educate students classified by Apartheid as ‘Indians’ and provided them with an opportunity to attain higher education and professional skills.

In the political sphere too, in 1984, the Apartheid government excluded the Blacks and provided for representation of the Whites, Indians and Coloureds under the system of Tricameral Parliament and offered more economic concessions to the Indians as compared to Black and Coloureds and thus tried to break the united resistance of the Blacks and Indians against Apartheid. But the government managed to co-opt only a small number of Indians while the vast majority of them saw this as a ploy of the government to break the unity of the Indians with their Black brethren.

History bears testimony to the united anti-apartheid front forged by the African National Congress (ANC), the Pan African Congress (PAC) and the two Indian parties- the NIC and the TIC (ANC, 10 October 1988). Until the dismantlement of Apartheid in 1994 (see DugardJohn 1973)and the setting up of a democratic, non –racial South Africa, the question of equality of South African Indians did not arise.

3.2 Democratic South Africa: Post 1994 and Beyond

The first democratic election of 1994 ushered in a lot of hope for all disempowered non- white communities who were a numerical majority. Nelson Mandela, the first president laid the foundations of a’rainbow nation’ and the acceptance of multiracialism resonates in the provisions of the rights based new constitution of the Republic of South Africa (RSA).The constitution outlines that the country is based on the core values of“human dignity, equality,non-racialism, rule of law and universal adult suffrage” (Chapter 1(1) (a-d) 1996: p.2).Chapter two of the Bill of Rights provides “equality for everyone under the law” and prohibits discrimination on grounds such as “… race … ethnic or social origin andcolour” (Chapter 2, (9) (3), 1996: p.3). Further, the section on ‘Languages’ provides protection for all the languages commonly used by communities in South Africa, including Indian languages such as “Gujarati, Hindi, Tamil, Telegu and Urdu and Sanskrit, wherein Sanskrit is used for religious purposes” (Chapter 1 (6): 5 (b), 1996: p.3).The constitution also provides protection to “form, join and maintain cultural, religious and linguistic associations and other organs of civil society” (Chapter 2, (31) (1), 1996: p.9).The Indians consider themselves ‘South Africans: full stop’.

Despite the respect and acceptance of peoples with varied ethnic origins since 1994, there havebeentenuous relations between the Blacks and the other minority groups – the Coloureds and the Indians. The latter are aggrieved about the Blacks garnering all the benefits of affirmative action under the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) Act of 2013 of the ANC government(Southafrica.info, n. d).The Indian community objects to the policy of selective redressalof economic inequities of the past and asserts that all previously disadvantaged communities (African, Coloureds and Indians) should be treated at par by the state.

The Indian community is at crossroads. They comprise only 2.5 percent of the total population of the country (Statistics South Africa 2014).The Indian communityhas an economic presence that far outweighs their numerical strength. But they are a stratified lot in terms of class and economic status. A large majority of them are in the lower income groups and are as vulnerable as the Blacks and their concerns are the same as that of the poor African class. With little education and employment opportunities this class is left to the mercy of the neo-liberal economic policies of the government that has led to cuts in delivery of social services. Post 1994, the Indian business community has gained access to many sectors of commerce and industry they were previously barred but those directly impacted by the BEE strategy are aggrieved with the ANC government and reluctant to vote for them. Much to the chagrin of the ANC, in the past elections the Indians have voted for the opposition parties: the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and the white conservative parties.

Racial tensions have been expressed through the media and the performing arts as well as exemplified for instance, by the release on the controversial song Amandiya( Zulu word for ‘Indians’) in 2002 by musician MbongeniNgema. The song says that while Black people are living in shacks, Indians own businesses and oppress Black people. They also “keep coming from India” to South Africa. In the song Ngema criticizes Indians and says, “Whites were better than Indians”, and calls for “strong brave men to face/confront Indians”, adding that “Indians have conquered Durban — we are poor because all things have been taken by Indians (The Guardian 2002).

Post 1994, the policy of racial segregation has been banned but the Blacks and the Indian communities prefer to live inneighborhoods dominated by people from their own ethnicity. Social interaction or intermarriages between them are rare. Despite a shared history and coexistence in the same country for over 150 years, interaction between thetwo – Indiansand Blacks – is limited to the political sphere and in public spaces such as the market place, universities and offices.

4.  INDIANS IN MAURITIUS

Unlike in countries of East Africa and South Africa, the People of Indian Origin (PIO), in Mauritius, categorized as the Indo- Mauritians constitute68 % of the total population(Central Statistics Office 2009). Mauritius is the only country where the Hindu dominated political parties havecommanded political power since the country gained independence from the British in 1968. Mauritius is a plural society with 1. 25 million peoples, dividedon cultural, religious, linguistic and ethnic bases. However, politically, the country has been a stabledemocracy through its politics of accommodation through coalitions.“No single political party has ever secured a majority in the assembly, political parties have always worked together and therefore they have not been vehicles of ethnic separation” (Zafar 2011, p. 19). But politics and ethnicity have been inextricably interconnected and therefore it is essential to understand the ethnic diversity of the country.

4.1A brief historical background: A notable feature of Mauritius is that unlike other post – colonial countries, the island state did not have an indigenous population. It was colonized by four European powers. The Portuguese discovered the island in 1510 but the first settlers were the Dutch who occupied the island for a brief period between 1598- 1710. Shortly thereafter the French occupied the country for about a century and at the end of the Napoleonic wars France ceded the island to Britain that ruled the island until its independence in 1968 (See Singhvi 2000a, p. 50). The first batches of Indians, about 300 Tamil speaking artisans were recruited from the southern state of Pondicherry between 1729- 1731 (Singhvi 2000a, p. 50). But a larger number of Indians labourerswere shipped in the aftermath of the abolition of slavery by an Act of British Parliament in 1834. The ‘indentured’ labourers formed a part of the ‘ labour and imperial diaspora’. Between 1834 – 1912, 453,063 Indian immigrants were dispatchedto meet the shortage of labour in the sugarcane plantations of Mauritius ( For details see Mishra 2009, p 233). They were also recruited to assist the British in the conquest of the island (Hazeerasingh 1966: p 246). These immigrants came from a cross section of rural society and there has been a sharp differentiation between the Dravidians (Tamils, Telugus) and Aryans (Biharis, Marathis and Bengalis) (Hollop 1994: p.303).

4.2 The heterogeneity of the countryAt independence the constitution of Mauritius divided the people into four main ethnic groups, the Hindus, Muslims, Sino Mauritians and the General Population. The first two groups form the ‘Indo- Mauritian’ populace who are descendants of the indentured labourers. A small number of Hakka Chinese people (about 3 percent of the population) who immigrated for trade and commerce in the mid-19th century (Erikson 1998 cited in Cho 2002:p. 35) are known as the Sino Mauritians while the General Population is a residual category that included people of French descent, the Anglo-Mauritians as well the 50,000 peoples of African descent who are believed to have come as slaves by the end of the 18th century and are known as the ‘Creoles’ who are of African origin ( Eriksen 1998 cited in Cho 2002: p.29). In the 2009 Census the Mauritians were regrouped into Indo-Mauritians (Muslim and Hindu PIOs), Creoles (27 %), Sino Mauritians (3%) and Franco Mauritians (2%) (CIA Fact book 2014). For the first time in the elections held on November 2014, it was not mandatory for the electoral candidates to declare their ethnic group.

4.3 The religious divide: Further, the Mauritians are divided along religious lines, wherein the Hindus and Muslims stand on one end of the divide while the TamilChristians identify closely with the Creoles who are Catholics. The Hindu are the dominant ethnic community at 48.5% followed by the Roman Catholic 26.3%, Muslim 17.3%, other Christian 6.4%and other (Ibid).The Christian/ Indo Mauritians divide is yet another fault line that the country has to contend with(Cho 2002 :p.42). Religious freedom is a constitutionally guaranteed right and strategy to attain peace in a multi- religious country.

4.4 Creole: a uniting factor: The country is a complex kaleidoscope of people of varied ethnicities, religious orientation which has been further complicated by religious conversions and intermarriages. Tamils and Sino Mauritians who follow the Catholic faith for instance prefer to intermarry withthe Catholic Creole people. Indian Tamils perceived themselves as non- Indians and assimilated with other non- Indians in Mauritius (Hollop 1994: p. 203).Unlike in East Africa there were no vernacular schools in Mauritius as the indentured peoples were recruited from different regions of the country and spoke multiple Indian dialects. Despite the dominance of the Hindu political parties,‘English is the official language while French is used for all practical purposes and no Indian language is recognized as the official language’ (Cho 2002: p.49).Creole is the lingua franca and spoken by 86 % of the people, while Bhojpuri is spoken by 5.3 % and English is spoken by only 2.6 % peoples (CIA Factbook2014).

Thus the “Indian-ness has been effaced” to facilitate coexistence in the multicultural context of Mauritius (Tinker 1977:p 328).

4.5 Unity in diversity: The society is further divided on the rural/ urban axis and class or economic status. Despite the heterogeneity within and between the groups, the country has put forward a picture of a unitary nation symbolized by the national flag (Cho: 2002: p.48). Attempts were made to divide the Indian community by the British rulers towards the closure of the imperial rule and drive a wedge between the Hindus and Muslims and the Dravidian and Aryans. However, these attempts failed due to the statesmanship of SirSewoosagarRamgoolam, the first president of independent Mauritius (Singhvi 2002a: p. 51).

SeewoosagurRamgoolam-The 1st prime minister of Mauritius was a PIO

Photo courtesy: The VelKadarasen Collection (2013), Christian Le Comte, Mauritius.

After assuming power in 1968, president Ramgoolam recruited candidates from almost all communities for his Labour Party work. Though the two major political parties are dominated by Hindus, the successive governments have entered power sharing/ coalition agreements with parties formed by other ethnicities and thus ethnic divisions have dissolved considerably (Tinker (1977: p.337).

4.5 A diversified economic base:Though the Mauritians of Indian origin are dominant in the political arena by virtue of their numerical strength, the economic base is diversified. Politics and economics are somewhat delinked in Mauritius. Many of the Indo-Mauritians continue to work in the agriculture sector or as wage labourers.In the post-independence era, the country has diversified from a sugarcane based economy into inter-alia, tourism, textile, and financial services, information technology. But thelarge scale sugar cane plantation continues to be dominated by the Franco- Mauritians. Several PIOs work in bureaucracy, trade, and education sector and agriculture many of the Indo- Mauritians continue to work in the agriculture sector as wage labourers. “The island nation has transformed itself from a poor sugar economy into a country with one of the highest per capita incomes among African countries” through its politics of accommodation and growth oriented development policies ( Zafar 2011: p .4).

The political parties are forced to pursue coalition strategies by creating compromises and tactical alliances. Though the Indians are in a numerical majority and have been the dominant power politically, they have not legislated in favour of the PIOs to “change the status quo” (Singhvi 2002a: p. 56)

Of the fifty four countries in Africa, in addition to the countries discussed above, only about eight countries haveclose to 10,000 Overseas Indians (Non- Resident Indians plus People of Indian Origin) or more. These countries are: Nigeria (25,000), Mozambique (21,500), Madagascar (20,000), Zambia (12,000), Ethiopia (10,015), Ghana and Malawi (10,000 each) and the Congo Democratic of Republic ( 9,025) (MOIA2015) Of the total number of Overseas Indians, the bulk is composed of NRIs, who not a part of the ‘old diaspora’ but expatriate Indians who have moved to Africa in the past decade or so for economic opportunities..

5.  CONCLUSION

This module has attempted to study the economic, political, social, cultural interactions and intermingling of the PIOs, of the ‘old diaspora’, in their countries of adoption. The NRIs are sojourners to Africa who have relocated for economic opportunities and usually move on to other destinations in Africa or outside. A study of the ‘old diasporas’ in Africa and their relations with their host contexts shows that in all the cases under study, the PIOs have retained their distinct Indian identity in the social and the cultural realm. Interracial marriages have been the exception and their occurrences are rare. Thus, one can surmise that the PIOs have not assimilated with the native population in the countries of their immigration which has been home for the descendants of the PIOs from the early to mid-nineteenth century. But today they are integrated culturally where the distinctiveness of each community is respected.The South Asian Mosaic of Society and the Arts (SAMOSA) Festival

Source: Samosa Festival 2012, Afrileo Nairobi, Nairobi.

Economically, the Indians have been an integrated lot. In countries of East Africa and South Africa, they have had a significant economic role and an impact quite out of proportion to their numerical strength. In the wake of racism, discrimination and hostility in their host contexts, which was most severe in colonial and Apartheid South Africa and in the post-independence period in East Africa, the Indian diasporic community adopted varied survival strategies ranging from relocation to other parts of the world such as after the expulsion from Uganda or adjusting to the changed politico economic scenario. In the post 1994 South Africa, the Indians along with their Black compatriots were no longer subject toracial discrimination, through sporadic tensions on racial grounds have sparked off between the PIOs and the Blacks. Politically, the PIOs are marginalized as they are insignificant minority in numerical terms. At the official level there is no policy of ‘multiculturalism’ in South Africa but cultural, religious and linguistic rights of minority communities are adequately protected by the constitution.

The issues and contestations is Mauritius are unique because the island state did not have a native population. Further, the PIOs have been a numerical majority because 4, 53,063 people were transported as indentured labourers! Under the British colonial regime they were granted citizenship rights (though the subjugation of workers continued) and religious and cultural freedom to incentive them to continue to stay on the island (Hazeerasingh 1966: p. 246). In the post- independence period both the dominant political parties have been led by Hindu PIOs. The Hindu-dominated governments in Mauritius maintained harmony and peace in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society. Towards this endeavor, the government has followed a policy of inclusion by promoting Oriental languages, declaring major religious festivals public holidays, ensuring fair play in the broadcasting policy, state subsidies to religious associations (Hollop 1996). English rather than any vernacular Indian language has been chosen as the official language and in the recent census, ethnicity as a basis of classification has been done away with. Yet another unifying factor has been the use of a common lingua franca- Mauritian Creole and a common western educational system, the capitalist economy, and a shared political culture (Hollop 1996).The country has a reputation for a stable and peaceful democracy because it has adhered to a policy of accommodation and power sharing. Though there have been a few instances of inter- ethnic violence between Indo- Mauritians and the Creoles, the divide has been on communal basis and not on ethnic lines, i.e.,the Indo-Mauritian were pitted against a Christian-Mauritian community (Cho 2002:p.41). At the official level there is no policy of multiculturalism, but there is a shared discourse through which cultural variation and political disagreements may be articulated.