1. On Innovation
In the ‘Government programme 2015 to 2019 it is stated that: ‘Innovation will be the key driver of growth. In that context, a techno-park will be set up to create the right environment for carrying out new research, clinical and innovation activities”.
When you look at that and analyse it, you realise it makes little sense. Every politician in every country now talks about innovation and how important it is for every country’s future development. But they never take into account whether or not that country has the needed human capital, or the infrastructure (hard and soft), or the industrial ability, the financial depth (in terms of the ability to finance start-ups and provide angel/venture capital) and the intricate, deep intellectual ecosystems needed to innovate successfully. You don’t need a techno-park to innovate. You need all these other attributes much more.
The assertion that “innovation will be the key driver of growth” would not be credible in most developing countries. The BRICS and possibly a handful of others might have the depth and width of scientific, engineering, technological, design and entrepreneurial/business capabilities, as well as the kind of sophisticated financial system, and intellectual eco-system combining academics and business brains, to innovate successfully.
Does Mauritius have all those ingredients? If so, in what particular industries and service sectors or in what particular disciplines of science and technology can it apply them? When you have answers to those questions then you can say whether the statement makes any sense. At present the answer is clearly NO, it does not.
Let me give you an example with a question. Previous governments set up Cyber-City in Ebene with grandiose aspirations and expectations. Has Cyber-City achieved what was expected? Has Mauritius now got the kind of IT industry in terms of width, depth, and capability that it really needs, to take care of the IT requirements of both the domestic economy and generate higher revenues from IT service exports? Or has Ebene simply become another commercial real estate development opportunity in which extant landowners and developers have got even richer than they already were with only a marginal impact on IT?
Do you mean that the development of the property sector in itself not economically worthwhile?
Let me make it clear at the outset that I am not against any kind of sensible, properly planned property development. It’s all to the good. But let’s not kid ourselves about the reasons for developing it. Just providing swanky real estate for something does not mean that the something you want, will happen automatically. I feel that way about the techno-park idea. You might well develop a nice techno-park with lovely buildings, laboratories, and great parking facilities. But you won’t innovate just because of that. It might be another great real estate development opportunity with the usual opportunities for some landowners to get rich, or even richer than they already are. It might provide an attractive physical environment for every kind of firm not just innovators to migrate to, from less salubrious premises elsewhere. But will you get the kind of innovation being talked about so dreamily to drive growth? I doubt that.
We are still talking about innovation as a potential key factor of economic growth. Your argument seems to suggest rightly or wrongly that, at this stage of its development process, Mauritius should not even think about embarking on an innovation programme.
Not at all. I don’t think that ‘betting on innovation’ to drive growth in Mauritius, at this stage of its development, given its extant economic structure, institutions, characteristics and attributes, is a particularly sound idea or strategy. But that does not mean Mauritius should not begin building up the capacity to innovate in a number of services, industries and activities, starting now, in universities, enterprises and, most importantly, in government. Building up that capacity, and actually innovating as a result of having it, will take time.
So, contrary to the views of the government, I do not see innovation per se as a driver of economic growth in Mauritius till around 2025-30, if then! If you do innovate successfully, it will be primarily through the intelligent application of available new technology to do the things you are doing now, but differently, more efficiently, and more economically, in tourism, finance, transport, utilities, logistics, etc. That kind of incremental, but useful and profitable, technology-driven innovation does not need a techno-park.
When you look at that and analyse it, you realise it makes little sense. Every politician in every country now talks about innovation and how important it is for every country’s future development. But they never take into account whether or not that country has the needed human capital, or the infrastructure (hard and soft), or the industrial ability, the financial depth (in terms of the ability to finance start-ups and provide angel/venture capital) and the intricate, deep intellectual ecosystems needed to innovate successfully. You don’t need a techno-park to innovate. You need all these other attributes much more.
The assertion that “innovation will be the key driver of growth” would not be credible in most developing countries. The BRICS and possibly a handful of others might have the depth and width of scientific, engineering, technological, design and entrepreneurial/business capabilities, as well as the kind of sophisticated financial system, and intellectual eco-system combining academics and business brains, to innovate successfully.
Does Mauritius have all those ingredients? If so, in what particular industries and service sectors or in what particular disciplines of science and technology can it apply them? When you have answers to those questions then you can say whether the statement makes any sense. At present the answer is clearly NO, it does not.
Let me give you an example with a question. Previous governments set up Cyber-City in Ebene with grandiose aspirations and expectations. Has Cyber-City achieved what was expected? Has Mauritius now got the kind of IT industry in terms of width, depth, and capability that it really needs, to take care of the IT requirements of both the domestic economy and generate higher revenues from IT service exports? Or has Ebene simply become another commercial real estate development opportunity in which extant landowners and developers have got even richer than they already were with only a marginal impact on IT?
Do you mean that the development of the property sector in itself not economically worthwhile?
Let me make it clear at the outset that I am not against any kind of sensible, properly planned property development. It’s all to the good. But let’s not kid ourselves about the reasons for developing it. Just providing swanky real estate for something does not mean that the something you want, will happen automatically. I feel that way about the techno-park idea. You might well develop a nice techno-park with lovely buildings, laboratories, and great parking facilities. But you won’t innovate just because of that. It might be another great real estate development opportunity with the usual opportunities for some landowners to get rich, or even richer than they already are. It might provide an attractive physical environment for every kind of firm not just innovators to migrate to, from less salubrious premises elsewhere. But will you get the kind of innovation being talked about so dreamily to drive growth? I doubt that.
We are still talking about innovation as a potential key factor of economic growth. Your argument seems to suggest rightly or wrongly that, at this stage of its development process, Mauritius should not even think about embarking on an innovation programme.
Not at all. I don’t think that ‘betting on innovation’ to drive growth in Mauritius, at this stage of its development, given its extant economic structure, institutions, characteristics and attributes, is a particularly sound idea or strategy. But that does not mean Mauritius should not begin building up the capacity to innovate in a number of services, industries and activities, starting now, in universities, enterprises and, most importantly, in government. Building up that capacity, and actually innovating as a result of having it, will take time.
So, contrary to the views of the government, I do not see innovation per se as a driver of economic growth in Mauritius till around 2025-30, if then! If you do innovate successfully, it will be primarily through the intelligent application of available new technology to do the things you are doing now, but differently, more efficiently, and more economically, in tourism, finance, transport, utilities, logistics, etc. That kind of incremental, but useful and profitable, technology-driven innovation does not need a techno-park.
2. On Windfall Gains from the drop in the price of oil
One would think that the obvious benefits to Mauritius of an oil price windfall would already be transparent and visible in at least four ways. First, it would have had a significant impact on improving the fiscal situation. Second, an improvement should have shown up almost immediately in its current account balance where, with the large oil price drop that has occurred over the last 15 months, Mauritius should now be running a surplus. Third, the benefits from this windfall gain should have led to a full or a partial reduction in consumer energy and fuel prices which should, like a tax cut, result in increased aggregate domestic demand and therefore greater consumer expenditure on other essential and discretionary consumption items. I understand that a small price cut in fuel prices was effected recently though it seems too little and too late. Last, there should have been substantially improved profitability of energy intensive companies like the Central Electricity Board as well as Air Mauritius, and the oil account of the State Trading Corporation offset, to an extent by reduced profitability of domestic oil retailing companies. These benefits should all be visible by now. However, I don’t see them as having materialised as yet. Does the average Mauritian feel much better off as a result of increased spending capability because of lower oil and pump prices? I don’t see that either.You seem preoccupied by a lack of transparency on the oil account. What are the questions about transparency that remain unanswered?
They concern the extent to which Mauritius has realised in full the financial gain that it should have from the oil price drop. Has Mauritius captured only a part of that gain, because of the amount of oil that was contracted on a long-term, fixed, or slowly-adjusted, price basis? If that was the case, which is not unreasonable, the question that can be raised thereafter is: How much money has the State Trading Corporation lost in that hedging process over the last two years?
Another issue that concerns me is the transmission mechanism explaining how oil prices run through the real economy. Has the government used the oil price windfall gains to build up the oil price stabilisation fund/facility that Mauritius is supposed to have? Does it make sense, in the current set of circumstances, to build up that facility? Or, does it make more sense - to transfer the benefits immediately to consumers instead, in order to kick-start growth in the economy?
The aftermath of the lack of transparency on these issues is another area of concern. Has it resulted in those people directly involved in making oil trading decisions for the country, making a lot of money for themselves that has been conveniently diverted elsewhere? These questions are critically important to ask and for the government to be held accountable for answering truthfully and transparently in full. Otherwise, what should have been a very large windfall gain for Mauritius and all its inhabitants, and one that should have driven growth up by 1-2%this year, will have been wasted. If that is the case then all Mauritians should know why and how that happened, because it reflects very poor economic and public financial management for a windfall of that size to have simply gone into thin air. Answers please!
They concern the extent to which Mauritius has realised in full the financial gain that it should have from the oil price drop. Has Mauritius captured only a part of that gain, because of the amount of oil that was contracted on a long-term, fixed, or slowly-adjusted, price basis? If that was the case, which is not unreasonable, the question that can be raised thereafter is: How much money has the State Trading Corporation lost in that hedging process over the last two years?
Another issue that concerns me is the transmission mechanism explaining how oil prices run through the real economy. Has the government used the oil price windfall gains to build up the oil price stabilisation fund/facility that Mauritius is supposed to have? Does it make sense, in the current set of circumstances, to build up that facility? Or, does it make more sense - to transfer the benefits immediately to consumers instead, in order to kick-start growth in the economy?
The aftermath of the lack of transparency on these issues is another area of concern. Has it resulted in those people directly involved in making oil trading decisions for the country, making a lot of money for themselves that has been conveniently diverted elsewhere? These questions are critically important to ask and for the government to be held accountable for answering truthfully and transparently in full. Otherwise, what should have been a very large windfall gain for Mauritius and all its inhabitants, and one that should have driven growth up by 1-2%this year, will have been wasted. If that is the case then all Mauritians should know why and how that happened, because it reflects very poor economic and public financial management for a windfall of that size to have simply gone into thin air. Answers please!
3. Smart Cities
The whole discussion of 8-9 smart cities in Mauritius that is being pushed by the government makes no sense to me. To make that an ‘economic strategy’ for future sustainable success is simply daft. Can you have a smart city or several of them without a smart government?
Mauritius is such a tiny place that one would think it would be easier to have a single smart island city-state, than to have disparate, fragmented ‘pockets of smartness’ scattered all over the island, disconnected from the integral whole. Mauritius’ population is about the size of 10-20 apartment block developments in any major city in any large or medium sized country. What is being called a ‘smart city’ in Mauritius would not amount to even a fraction of a ‘small village’ anywhere else.
Mauritius is so small that it is quite easy to imagine every household, every commercial establishment, no matter how micro or informal, every government office, road, traffic light, police station, village hall, being wired and fitted with the necessary sensors and monitoring-cum-measuring devices such as smart meters for electricity, gas and water use that all go into trying to make any habitation smart. All these would be interconnected to optimise efficiency gains and ensure cost-effective use of utilities and road infrastructure.
Add to that other dimensions of ‘smartness’ such as efficiency of energy use, the right renewable-to-fossil fuel energy mix to be determined, minimising domestic and global communication costs and the environmental and ecological damage through air/water pollution, maximising the efficiency of transportation to minimise pollution and fuel waste, providing instant communications among and between every economic unit……. and then you get a composite picture of what real smartness involves. I don’t think all that being done on a fragmented basis throughout the island is smart at all.
Mauritius is such a tiny place that one would think it would be easier to have a single smart island city-state, than to have disparate, fragmented ‘pockets of smartness’ scattered all over the island, disconnected from the integral whole. Mauritius’ population is about the size of 10-20 apartment block developments in any major city in any large or medium sized country. What is being called a ‘smart city’ in Mauritius would not amount to even a fraction of a ‘small village’ anywhere else.
Mauritius is so small that it is quite easy to imagine every household, every commercial establishment, no matter how micro or informal, every government office, road, traffic light, police station, village hall, being wired and fitted with the necessary sensors and monitoring-cum-measuring devices such as smart meters for electricity, gas and water use that all go into trying to make any habitation smart. All these would be interconnected to optimise efficiency gains and ensure cost-effective use of utilities and road infrastructure.
Add to that other dimensions of ‘smartness’ such as efficiency of energy use, the right renewable-to-fossil fuel energy mix to be determined, minimising domestic and global communication costs and the environmental and ecological damage through air/water pollution, maximising the efficiency of transportation to minimise pollution and fuel waste, providing instant communications among and between every economic unit……. and then you get a composite picture of what real smartness involves. I don’t think all that being done on a fragmented basis throughout the island is smart at all.
4. What prevents Mauritius from becoming a ‘smart nation’?
This is a difficult and loaded question. I have written about it and answered it several times before in speeches, articles in L’Express, The Mauritius Times, Ion News as well as in academic journals and books on Mauritius written with Nikhil Treebhoohun. It is a difficult question not because it is hard to answer, but because it is politically contentious. The answers, if they are truthful, risk offending everybody, as I have discovered to my cost on many occasions. It is loaded because the answers are based on personal opinion, bolstered by as many facts, empirical observations and research as I have been able to muster over the last 15-20 years. That involves making value judgements. But, since I have a reputation, in Mauritius and elsewhere, as a fool who rushes in where angels fear to tread, let me take the risk of answering this question again.There are, in my mind, several constraints that act as a serious drag on the ability of Mauritius to develop and diversify much more rapidly and become a ‘real smart nation’. Each of them could command a treatise on its own. But since that would be inappropriate, if not impossible, to attempt in a dialogue such as this, I shall simply adumbrate a few of these constraints.
First, I think that the future of Mauritius is being compromised by its dysfunctional, anachronistic politics and political system, which has contaminated and disabled the established institutional system of good governance. Instead of Mauritius being governed by a ‘merit-based technocracy’ it is governed by a self-serving, counterproductive ‘politocracy’. The Westminster model of parliamentary democracy in Mauritius has been twisted out of shape, abused and deliberately made to malfunction by an entrenched, professional political class. This comprises about 200-300 individuals who have been engaged in power politics for far too long. Their role is based on direct or indirect allegiance to one of two opposing political families which, between them, now risk destroying the future of young Mauritians. That political class is more intent on looking after its own interests through endemic, institutionalised corruption, than in performing any public service while in office. In the process, they have tainted and demoralised what once used to be a reasonably professional and competent civil service and corrupted it as well. They have also turned Mauritius into a non-credible and incompetent jurisdiction for offering international financial services or attracting productive foreign investment.
Second, despite the promise of every government for the last 50 years to deliver on ‘economic democratisation’, no government to date has actually accomplished that objective. Every government has been bought off by those with ‘real’ -- that is economic -- power who have been willing to agree to the kind of taxation that could support a minimal welfare state. Consequently, the concentration of wealth and economic capacity in Mauritius is as it was before – still extremely unequal. It continues to be based on inherited land ownership by a handful of Euro-Mauritian families. They have now extended their tentacles into every cash-generating business there is on the island. Since the key to new wealth generation in Mauritius still lies in property development in one way or another, whether for hotels, resorts, Integrated Resorts Schemes, residential developments, offices, shopping malls, techno-parks, cyber cities or heritage cities that is not surprising. These families, while not conspiring to, have effectively operated as an informal oligopoly, erecting all the usual subtle barriers to entry to other parties wishing to compete in domestic economic space. Sadly, they still have a ‘plantation’ mentality towards business and enterprise, rather than the kind of entrepreneurial, risk-taking, innovative mentality that Mauritius needs to spawn a wider array of diversified businesses, especially to exploit its maritime resources more fully. That is an arena in which no domestic group has any domain knowledge or expertise.
Third, because of the way in which it is mal-governed, Mauritius is not generating and retaining the kind of high level human capital it needs in all its rich variety. The environment created by government now provides a powerful incentive for every qualified young professional with backbone and integrity to emigrate and work elsewhere, rather than risk his chances of career development in a system that has become a swamp. In that sense, Mauritius has emulated India almost too perfectly. As a result, Mauritius is faced with a Catch-22 in having to depend too much on imported high level human capital of the right kind, which it finds difficult to attract because of the unattractive working environment it provides.
Fourth, the Mauritian economy is severely constrained by the overweening presence of parastatal corporations which dominate the commanding heights of its economy. That imposes a major financial cost to the exchequer which Mauritius can ill afford. It also compromises good management and the retards the development of a culture of excellence in corporate governance. The leadership of these parastatals changes every time the government changes. The last two governments have not been keen on hiring the best, most competent professionals available to lead these public companies. Instead they have chosen cronies and loyalists on whom they can depend, to influence hiring and firing policies, procurement policies, opaque financial transactions, and the like. These crucial jobs have now become prize rewards for political loyalty. Domain knowledge and capability do not even feature in the selection criteria for these leaders in most instances. As a result of the dominance of these public monopolies, the market and pricing mechanism in Mauritius is never allowed to function as it should. And these monopoly parastatals rip the Mauritian consumer off, by charging much higher prices for the goods and services they produce and provide than is justifiable. They operate opaquely (i.e. non-transparently), inefficiently, and cost-ineffectively. In my estimate, the dominance of parastatals, in sectors which really should be run by private corporations, costs Mauritius about 1-2% in growth every year through the egregious misallocation and wastage of scarce public resources.
Fifth, because of a long-standing commitment to maintain a welfare state that is far more generous and comprehensive than Mauritius’ economic capability and per capita income-level can support, too large a proportion of public finance is diverted to supporting consumption through income and price subsidies. That leaves insufficient financing for essential public capital investment needed to upgrade and modernise the creaky and rapidly deteriorating public infrastructure that Mauritius now has for transport, power, water and communications. The absence of essential infrastructure also inhibits the ability of Mauritius to grow at 6-7% annually by costing it at least 2% of GDP in annual growth. It also adds to significant air and water pollution and damages the fragile ecology and natural environment of the island.
There are many more factors I could mention that inhibit the capacity of Mauritius to become a really smart, developed nation; but I think I’ve said enough for now.
First, I think that the future of Mauritius is being compromised by its dysfunctional, anachronistic politics and political system, which has contaminated and disabled the established institutional system of good governance. Instead of Mauritius being governed by a ‘merit-based technocracy’ it is governed by a self-serving, counterproductive ‘politocracy’. The Westminster model of parliamentary democracy in Mauritius has been twisted out of shape, abused and deliberately made to malfunction by an entrenched, professional political class. This comprises about 200-300 individuals who have been engaged in power politics for far too long. Their role is based on direct or indirect allegiance to one of two opposing political families which, between them, now risk destroying the future of young Mauritians. That political class is more intent on looking after its own interests through endemic, institutionalised corruption, than in performing any public service while in office. In the process, they have tainted and demoralised what once used to be a reasonably professional and competent civil service and corrupted it as well. They have also turned Mauritius into a non-credible and incompetent jurisdiction for offering international financial services or attracting productive foreign investment.
Second, despite the promise of every government for the last 50 years to deliver on ‘economic democratisation’, no government to date has actually accomplished that objective. Every government has been bought off by those with ‘real’ -- that is economic -- power who have been willing to agree to the kind of taxation that could support a minimal welfare state. Consequently, the concentration of wealth and economic capacity in Mauritius is as it was before – still extremely unequal. It continues to be based on inherited land ownership by a handful of Euro-Mauritian families. They have now extended their tentacles into every cash-generating business there is on the island. Since the key to new wealth generation in Mauritius still lies in property development in one way or another, whether for hotels, resorts, Integrated Resorts Schemes, residential developments, offices, shopping malls, techno-parks, cyber cities or heritage cities that is not surprising. These families, while not conspiring to, have effectively operated as an informal oligopoly, erecting all the usual subtle barriers to entry to other parties wishing to compete in domestic economic space. Sadly, they still have a ‘plantation’ mentality towards business and enterprise, rather than the kind of entrepreneurial, risk-taking, innovative mentality that Mauritius needs to spawn a wider array of diversified businesses, especially to exploit its maritime resources more fully. That is an arena in which no domestic group has any domain knowledge or expertise.
Third, because of the way in which it is mal-governed, Mauritius is not generating and retaining the kind of high level human capital it needs in all its rich variety. The environment created by government now provides a powerful incentive for every qualified young professional with backbone and integrity to emigrate and work elsewhere, rather than risk his chances of career development in a system that has become a swamp. In that sense, Mauritius has emulated India almost too perfectly. As a result, Mauritius is faced with a Catch-22 in having to depend too much on imported high level human capital of the right kind, which it finds difficult to attract because of the unattractive working environment it provides.
Fourth, the Mauritian economy is severely constrained by the overweening presence of parastatal corporations which dominate the commanding heights of its economy. That imposes a major financial cost to the exchequer which Mauritius can ill afford. It also compromises good management and the retards the development of a culture of excellence in corporate governance. The leadership of these parastatals changes every time the government changes. The last two governments have not been keen on hiring the best, most competent professionals available to lead these public companies. Instead they have chosen cronies and loyalists on whom they can depend, to influence hiring and firing policies, procurement policies, opaque financial transactions, and the like. These crucial jobs have now become prize rewards for political loyalty. Domain knowledge and capability do not even feature in the selection criteria for these leaders in most instances. As a result of the dominance of these public monopolies, the market and pricing mechanism in Mauritius is never allowed to function as it should. And these monopoly parastatals rip the Mauritian consumer off, by charging much higher prices for the goods and services they produce and provide than is justifiable. They operate opaquely (i.e. non-transparently), inefficiently, and cost-ineffectively. In my estimate, the dominance of parastatals, in sectors which really should be run by private corporations, costs Mauritius about 1-2% in growth every year through the egregious misallocation and wastage of scarce public resources.
Fifth, because of a long-standing commitment to maintain a welfare state that is far more generous and comprehensive than Mauritius’ economic capability and per capita income-level can support, too large a proportion of public finance is diverted to supporting consumption through income and price subsidies. That leaves insufficient financing for essential public capital investment needed to upgrade and modernise the creaky and rapidly deteriorating public infrastructure that Mauritius now has for transport, power, water and communications. The absence of essential infrastructure also inhibits the ability of Mauritius to grow at 6-7% annually by costing it at least 2% of GDP in annual growth. It also adds to significant air and water pollution and damages the fragile ecology and natural environment of the island.
There are many more factors I could mention that inhibit the capacity of Mauritius to become a really smart, developed nation; but I think I’ve said enough for now.
5. On the ‘Bihari Mentality’
I have been roundly castigated for using this expression too often in my writings and public utterances. But I do not apologize for the correctness of that characterisation. What I mean by the ‘Bihari mentality’ especially in politics is the inclination of Mauritian politicians to woo voters -- and of the electorate to respond to such divisive politics -- on the basis of ethnicity and caste. That is how most people still vote in Bihar and many other Indian states. But, Bihar is where the majority of Indian Mauritians originate from; hence the term ‘Bihari mentality’. Even today, most Indo-Mauritian voters will vote for a Bihari ‘vaish’. Chinese voters will tend to vote for a Chinese candidate, Creole voters for a Creole candidate, Euro-Mauritians for one of their own; though there are not that many Euro-Mauritians in politics because they have much better things to do making money the more honest (if privileged by inheritance) way.
Why can only a Bihari ‘vaish’ -- that is a member of the Vysya caste in proper Hindi -- aspire to become the top political leader on the island? Why can’t a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Sudra, Dalit whether Bihari Tamil or Maharashtrian, or an Ismaili, or Chinese, or Creole, or Euro-Mauritian, aspire to and compete for the same job on the basis of charisma, competence, programme, ideology and policy?
In fact, given their performance so far, I think (only half in jest) that it might be high time for the Bihari ‘vaish’ to be disqualified from running for political office for the next few decades so that other more competent, less venal, politicians and non-politicians entering politics may have a decent shot at the top job. But the problem goes beyond that. The Bihari mentality has infected the whole island. For example, M. Paul Berenger exploits it shamelessly and incessantly. As a rational, thoughtful person -- who is colour and ethnic blind -- that tendency to divide and rule offends me grievously; though no Mauritian seems to mind, which I find very odd.
As a consequence, after 48 years of independence, Mauritius shamefully remains a ‘salad bowl’ rather than a ‘melting pot’. One is always an Indo-Mauritian (and within that category a Bihari, Brahmin, Maharashtrian, Tamil or Bohri), or a Euro-Mauritian, or a Creole-Mauritian, or a Chinese-Mauritian. One is never simply a ‘Mauritian’ without any prefix. Different races, castes, creeds, religions do co-exist peacefully on this beautiful island. But, they inter-mingle at arms-length. They rarely miscegenate or inter-marry as they would in a genuine melting pot like the US, Canada or Australia. Who knows what might emerge from that? It may be a superior, more attractive, more intelligent breed of human, and a much nicer society where people do not distinguish themselves by, or vote on the basis of, ethnic origin, colour, race or caste? All Mauritians would then simply regard themselves as all being the same, regardless of ethnic origin or caste. They would intermingle, intermarry, miscegenate much more intensively than they do now ---- and they would vote for the most suitable, capable person regardless.
I suppose what I am saying is that I wish sometimes – though perhaps most Mauritians do not -- that Mauritius was more like the US, Canada or Australia -- and less like Europe or India -- in integrating its society, multi-racially and multi-ethnically. Of course, the US is hardly perfect when it comes to African Americans, or Hispanic Americans. But it did elect an African American President in 2008! I wish Mauritius was more like that and less like Bihar.
In a geographic space as small as this island, where all these different ethnicities and castes live so closely together, it makes no sense in the 21st century to maintain ossified, antediluvian and counterproductive ethnic/caste divisions and distinctions in the national mentality and thought-processes – i.e. as they still do in Bihar. That imported Bihari caste system has remained intact through several generations. It pervades almost every aspect of social life on the island. It dominates completely its political life. That is so inappropriate for an island as small, confined and middle-income, and as relatively sophisticated, civilised and cultured as Mauritius.
I do not think that this segregationist Bihari mentality -- which forces an undue degree of social and political compartmentalisation and fragmentation, thus inhibiting genuine economic democratisation -- can ever be turned into a positive force. It is a mentality that needs to be rejected and abandoned completely for Mauritius to prosper and for Mauritian politics to become more acceptable and productive again.
Mauritian children need to be socialised differently so that they do not feel these barriers of birth, caste, ethnicity coming between them. Mauritius can only ever be a ‘whole’ nation if all Mauritians do not feel the burden and distinction of their ethnic prefixes but see one another as exactly the same, with no one having any attributes that gives them privileges, reservations, attributes or aspirations that others cannot have, simply because of an accident of birth.
Why can only a Bihari ‘vaish’ -- that is a member of the Vysya caste in proper Hindi -- aspire to become the top political leader on the island? Why can’t a Brahmin, Kshatriya, Sudra, Dalit whether Bihari Tamil or Maharashtrian, or an Ismaili, or Chinese, or Creole, or Euro-Mauritian, aspire to and compete for the same job on the basis of charisma, competence, programme, ideology and policy?
In fact, given their performance so far, I think (only half in jest) that it might be high time for the Bihari ‘vaish’ to be disqualified from running for political office for the next few decades so that other more competent, less venal, politicians and non-politicians entering politics may have a decent shot at the top job. But the problem goes beyond that. The Bihari mentality has infected the whole island. For example, M. Paul Berenger exploits it shamelessly and incessantly. As a rational, thoughtful person -- who is colour and ethnic blind -- that tendency to divide and rule offends me grievously; though no Mauritian seems to mind, which I find very odd.
As a consequence, after 48 years of independence, Mauritius shamefully remains a ‘salad bowl’ rather than a ‘melting pot’. One is always an Indo-Mauritian (and within that category a Bihari, Brahmin, Maharashtrian, Tamil or Bohri), or a Euro-Mauritian, or a Creole-Mauritian, or a Chinese-Mauritian. One is never simply a ‘Mauritian’ without any prefix. Different races, castes, creeds, religions do co-exist peacefully on this beautiful island. But, they inter-mingle at arms-length. They rarely miscegenate or inter-marry as they would in a genuine melting pot like the US, Canada or Australia. Who knows what might emerge from that? It may be a superior, more attractive, more intelligent breed of human, and a much nicer society where people do not distinguish themselves by, or vote on the basis of, ethnic origin, colour, race or caste? All Mauritians would then simply regard themselves as all being the same, regardless of ethnic origin or caste. They would intermingle, intermarry, miscegenate much more intensively than they do now ---- and they would vote for the most suitable, capable person regardless.
I suppose what I am saying is that I wish sometimes – though perhaps most Mauritians do not -- that Mauritius was more like the US, Canada or Australia -- and less like Europe or India -- in integrating its society, multi-racially and multi-ethnically. Of course, the US is hardly perfect when it comes to African Americans, or Hispanic Americans. But it did elect an African American President in 2008! I wish Mauritius was more like that and less like Bihar.
In a geographic space as small as this island, where all these different ethnicities and castes live so closely together, it makes no sense in the 21st century to maintain ossified, antediluvian and counterproductive ethnic/caste divisions and distinctions in the national mentality and thought-processes – i.e. as they still do in Bihar. That imported Bihari caste system has remained intact through several generations. It pervades almost every aspect of social life on the island. It dominates completely its political life. That is so inappropriate for an island as small, confined and middle-income, and as relatively sophisticated, civilised and cultured as Mauritius.
I do not think that this segregationist Bihari mentality -- which forces an undue degree of social and political compartmentalisation and fragmentation, thus inhibiting genuine economic democratisation -- can ever be turned into a positive force. It is a mentality that needs to be rejected and abandoned completely for Mauritius to prosper and for Mauritian politics to become more acceptable and productive again.
Mauritian children need to be socialised differently so that they do not feel these barriers of birth, caste, ethnicity coming between them. Mauritius can only ever be a ‘whole’ nation if all Mauritians do not feel the burden and distinction of their ethnic prefixes but see one another as exactly the same, with no one having any attributes that gives them privileges, reservations, attributes or aspirations that others cannot have, simply because of an accident of birth.
6. On the DTAA with India
It is high time for Mauritius to forget about negotiating the right kind of Double Taxation Agreement Avoidance Agreement with India any more. We are already in a post-DTAA world. Double tax avoidance agreements and treaties do not offer any real competitive advantage any longer to small island international financial centres, or IFCs as they like to call themselves, or tax havens as they are openly referred to elsewhere.
In reality, though Indian officials would never admit it openly, India could not care less any more about the DTAA with Mauritius. It would probably like to shut that channel of resource flow down, given the number of headaches it has created for Indian politicians -- many of whom, ironically and paradoxically, might actually own most of the Indian ‘black money’ that routes its way through Mauritius, Singapore and other offshore havens back into India. They wrongly think that Mauritius actually costs India a large loss of tax revenue when the opposite is probably true. Without Mauritius, most of the capital inflows into India during 1990-2010 might not have materialised in the very large amounts they actually did. But Indian officials are (necessarily) too diplomatic to confess all this openly, as I am willing to do. So the Indian government will let negotiations drag on and on, without any positive outcome for Mauritius. It suits India to let his drag on. It increases unnecessary and damaging uncertainty for global investors wishing to invest in India through Mauritius. India now seems to want to route them through Singapore instead.
What the Mauritian government and the public must realise is that the future of the financial services sector in Mauritius does not lie in renegotiating the DTAA with India or any other country. Its future lies more in implementing the recommendations provided in the Roadmap for the Financial Services Industry that was done at the behest of Clairette Ah-hen at the Financial Services Commission and published in late 2014.
This government (and the players in the financial sector, especially management service companies) has been extremely irresponsible and dilatory in not following through upon that Roadmap although it has been presented to and discussed with all of them.
In reality, though Indian officials would never admit it openly, India could not care less any more about the DTAA with Mauritius. It would probably like to shut that channel of resource flow down, given the number of headaches it has created for Indian politicians -- many of whom, ironically and paradoxically, might actually own most of the Indian ‘black money’ that routes its way through Mauritius, Singapore and other offshore havens back into India. They wrongly think that Mauritius actually costs India a large loss of tax revenue when the opposite is probably true. Without Mauritius, most of the capital inflows into India during 1990-2010 might not have materialised in the very large amounts they actually did. But Indian officials are (necessarily) too diplomatic to confess all this openly, as I am willing to do. So the Indian government will let negotiations drag on and on, without any positive outcome for Mauritius. It suits India to let his drag on. It increases unnecessary and damaging uncertainty for global investors wishing to invest in India through Mauritius. India now seems to want to route them through Singapore instead.
What the Mauritian government and the public must realise is that the future of the financial services sector in Mauritius does not lie in renegotiating the DTAA with India or any other country. Its future lies more in implementing the recommendations provided in the Roadmap for the Financial Services Industry that was done at the behest of Clairette Ah-hen at the Financial Services Commission and published in late 2014.
This government (and the players in the financial sector, especially management service companies) has been extremely irresponsible and dilatory in not following through upon that Roadmap although it has been presented to and discussed with all of them.
RSS Feed
