Recently, I was looking at a contemporary development of Chagos Archipelago, a group of seven atolls in the Indian ocean. It’s a story of a forgotten paradise, filled with betrayal, exploitation and heartbreak.

If we tred our steps back to the 1960’s, the inhabitants, ‘Chagossians’ were torn from their homeland and have been fighting for decades to reclaim their identity and dignity. Their struggles echoes the pain of other such communities around the world who have been victims of forced deportation and unjust colonial policies.

Recent calls for reparations stir up the age-old questions of accountability and justice.

But the question is, Can any amount of compensation right the egregious wrongs committed here? Or is this “treaty” that has been recently signed on October 3, 2024 is just another cleverly disguised diplomatic sleight of hand?

Let’s not mince words: the UK forcibly removed thousands of Chagossians from their homeland between 1968 and 1973, not for the Chagossians’ benefit, but to accommodate a U.S. military base on Diego Garcia, which is the largest and the southernmost island of the Archipelago. This was done in exchange of $14 m discount on the Polaris nuclear missile.

Well, the agreement was clear, “Keep Chagos “clean and sanitised” of indigenous life” . More than 1,500 Chagossians were displaced to Mauritius, the Seychelles, and the UK, left to discover nothing but a hostile world with no resources and no support, while their homeland became an exclusive military zone, a place they would only dream of returning to.

In there own Creole language, Chagossians categorised themselves as “Sagren”, which means torn from their homeland.

These words hang heavy with betrayal, telling us how an entire community was robbed of its identity, family, and heritage. The islanders’ enforced exile and the military occupation of their homeland reflect the kind of callous imperialism most nations pretend to have outgrown.

But why now, after decades of denial and neglect, can UK make for all this lose time?

Now, as Mauritius and the UK sit down to negotiate the fate of the Chagos Archipelago, we must ask ourselves if this is really a genuine attempt at justice. What real guarantees does the UK offer that it will adhere to these commitments, let alone apologies to the Chagossians for their unimaginable suffering?

Imagine generations growing up in exile, watching their elders talk about a home they’ve never seen but still fiercely call their own.

The Chagossians who live in Crawley, Sussex in the UK still face severe socio-economic challenges, racism and are often treated as second-class citizens. Many Chagossian families in Crawley, where there is a significant population, live in poverty, struggling to access healthcare and education, still dreaming of the life they could have had in their paradise.

The irony is almost poetic, the UK, which prides itself as a promoter of democracy and human rights, has held on to its last colony in Africa, refusing to let go of its imperial past.

Well, the latest UK-Mauritius treaty negotiations over the Chagos Archipelago represent a significant development in the decades-long dispute.

These talks could lead to a historic transfer, and the UK has reportedly included provisions for reparations, which would cover compensation for the harm inflicted upon the Chagossians during their forced displacement. However, despite these promising steps, Chagossians feel deeply sidelined, voiceless and powerless in the negotiations.

Chagossian leaders and activists argue that they remain largely excluded from direct involvement in these talks, which are predominantly between British and Mauritian officials. For Chagossians, whose forced displacement and exile have left them scattered, the sense of being ignored persists.

As Olivier Bancoult, a prominent Chagossian leader, stated, “We are the ones who were displaced. Why are we not the ones negotiating our future?”

There are two main reasons Chagossians feel neglected. First, the discussions primarily focus on state-to-state interests and the logistics of transferring sovereignty from the UK to Mauritius, rather than on the Chagossian community’s right to return or reparations.

The potential return of the islands to Mauritius does not necessarily guarantee that Chagossians will be allowed to resettle, nor does it outline a specific framework for addressing their long-term social and economic needs, both of which are crucial for any meaningful reparations.

Second, while Mauritius has repeatedly expressed support for Chagossians’ rights to return, Chagossian leaders fear their community’s interests may become secondary to broader geopolitical goals.

Although Mauritius has pledged to protect their rights, Chagossians question whether the government would prioritise their needs once the islands are under its control.

For many, the ultimate hope is not just to reclaim land but to rebuild a self-sustaining community on their ancestral homeland, something that current negotiations still fall short of ensuring.

In essence, the UK-Mauritius treaty may seem like progress on paper, but for the Chagossian community, it remains a symbolic gesture unless their rightful place at the table is respected.

The treaty does mark a step forward but the road to real justice remains a long one.