M Rafic Soormally (guest)
Born of Hindustani parents, Idrice Soormally and Bibi Rabiah Soormally (born Chaumoo) in Curepipe, and holder of Accounting, Finance, Economics (including Politics), Marketing and Law qualifications, I have been writing since 2000. Several of my articles have been published in Mauritius, Pakistan, Iran, UK. I also write regularly for the Mauritian Abroad Magazine in the UK. Many of my articles have been posted across the web, ranging from the Washington Post to Netherlands Radio Worldwide.
Dev Virahsawmy misleads the « Truth and Justice Commission »
- By M Rafic Soormally (guest)
- Published 12th May, 2008
In his article « TO THE TRUTH AND JUSTICE COMMISSION : On the language Mauritian Creole (MC) », le Mauricien 9th April 2008, Dev Virahsawmy perverts the truth and misleads the « Truth and Justice Commission » by joining the campaign of JocelynGrégoire, a priest turned politician, into recommending the introduction of what he calls 'Mauritian Creole' as a pedagogical medium for what he terms « AfroKreols ». He bases his opinion on a totally wrong, unfounded and misleading definition of the term « Creole ».
Mr Virahsawmy says that : « A Creole language is one born out a contact/collision between two or more languages. In its initial stage it is called a pidgin, a language with limited resources, but when it becomes the L1 (first language, mother tongue) of a group it becomes a Creole language, a language which satisfies the linguistic and cultural needs of the group of native speakers ». Upon this totally wrong, unfounded and misleading definition, he carries on to make his case, which is no case at all.
Definition
The term Creole is a term
invented by Europeans in the context of colonisation and slavery. By
definition, a Creole can be a person of European descent born in a European
colony, or a language spoken by slaves. Such Creole language was based on
French, English, Spanish, Portuguese, that is, through interaction (and
definitely not through simple "contact/collision"!) with a language of the
European coloniser. Originally, the Creole language was called a baragouin.
Through this baragouin, the slaves became known as Creoles themselves.
The Creole language can be written phonetically in any alphabet. It has no syntax, no rules of grammar, and no exceptions
to the rules. It has no rules for spelling. For example, Creole can be spelt
Kreole, Kreol, Kiryol, Kraiyol, and with a C instead of a K or with an accent
on the letter e (é), etc. Although Creole is a patois, not all patois are
Creoles. Creole has a specific meaning in that it is born in slavery and not in
freedom, and the basis of the language must necessarily be a European language.
Hence, Hindustanis, Arabs, Russians, Chinese do not speak Creole. But many do
speak patois (regional dialects). Aimé Césaire rightly said that the European
colonisers threw the pejorative term "Negro" at the Black Africans, and they
(we) picked it up and made it theirs (ours). Similarly, they threw the
pejorative term Creole at the slaves; in time the slaves who by then had lost
their true roots and identities picked it up and proudly made it theirs with
political backing. Creolité is just
another form of slavery.
Pidgin
Mr Virahsawmy states that in its
initial « collision » stage the said language is called a pidgin. This is totally untrue.I would like to draw the attention of the
"Truth and Justice Commission" to the correctness of the following definitions:
- The Chambers English dictionary defines pidgin as : « Chinese corruption of business. Any combination of and distortion of two languages as a means of communication. Pidgin English : jargon, mainly English in vocabulary, used between Chinese and foreigners; any jargon consisting of English and another language. »
- The Larousse defines pidginas « un parler rudimentaire », and jargon as « 1. un langage incorrect employé par quelqu'un qui a une connaissance imparfaite d'une langue. 2. langue qu'on ne comprend pas, charabia. 3. Vocabulaire propre à une profession, une discipline; argot de métier. Le jargon médical. »
- The Cassell's English-French Dictionary translates pidgin English as : «Jargon commercial anglo-chinois, (fam.) petit nègre, m. »
There is absolutely no evidence that a pidgin born, for example, through the interaction between Hindi or Bhojpuri and the English or French languages has developed into a Creole spoken by slaves, which Mr Virahsawmy is effectively trying to argue. In Mauritius , Hindustani, French and Chinese Mauritians do not have any linguistic identity problem. Similarly, the African-Mauritians also ought not to have any kind of a problem either, because their true ancestral languages were Swahili, Bantu, and so on. But the real problem is that, in the 1960's, politicians like Mr Virahsawmy et al have imported into Mauritius the French politics of créolité destined to her French colonies, while Mauritius ceased to be a French colony since 1810.
Empirical evidence
In his article, « Créole, une
mystification », Robert Fournier refers to racism when referring to the
term Creole and he makes it very clear that Creole does not have its place in
the twenty-first century. Regarding
the Creole political ideology, he says : « il m'apparaît que revient au
petit monde de la sociolinguistique historique le soin d'amorcer le
rétablissement des faits, afin d'éviter de perpétuer une idéologie à fondement
raciste dépassée qui a pris l'allure ce dernier demi-siècle d'une véritable
mystification scientifique ».
Mauritius has no « native speakers » as Mr Virahsawmy alleges. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Creole spoken by slaves is still spoken in modern Mauritius . Professor David Lingiah states in no uncertain terms that: « There are no professional oral historians [or linguists] to collect and interpret the rich oral tradition that exists among the population of Afro-Malagasy descent » in Mauritius. Through linguistic and cultural interactions, modern day Mauritians speak a patois which is a mixture of several languages (a sabir), and not Creole even though political propaganda wants them to believe that it is or should be Creole. Examples of such patois, which differs from region to region, are : "Kai se bhai?" "Mo pas fine gagne dawat." " Mo pé alle ène sagai dimanche." " Mo Dadi bimar. " " Il était fek la." " Ma poche coule." " Hai re Bhagwan." " Ayo Allah " " Vine mehfil tantôt." " To bien béti? " " Ça very good ça. " " Mo trouve sa di lait là in pé off. " "Enan gamat la pluie dehors." "Rôde mo fichu pou mo all la messe." "Pas blier mette to hijaab avant to sorti", or terms like dhal ghontni, kaltchul, matchân, tchauki, tawa, belna, tchuri, etc. I challenge Mr Virahsawmy to prove that the Mauritian language I speak is Creole (a term born is slavery) and not Mauritian patois ? Nobody is in any position to tell others how they should speak or phonetically write their patois, that is, their non-academic and perverted language of communication (lingua franca).
Mr Virahsawmy is wrong in describing English, the official language of Mauritius, as a 'Creole' which has evolved into a language. English is not a language born in slavery. If we accept his above definition of Creole, then all languages of the world are Creoles. He needs to provide empirical proof for such a baseless allegation. He is also wrong in saying that what he terms « Mauritian Creole (MC) » is the national language of Mauritius as this is mere political propaganda. He also needs to provide empirical evidence for such an allegation. The term Creole in used in Mauritius merely in common parlance (for example, for reasons of tourism) which should not find its way either in our education system or in our Constitution. Since Mr Virahsawmy alleges that 'Mauritian Creole' is our « national language », this should make all Mauritians 'Creoles' since the Creole person is identified by the Creole language [ref. slavery].
Conclusion
A patois, derived from slavery or
otherwise, is not used to form des œuvres littéraires, and should never
be used as a teaching medium in our schools because it is a backward-looking
and divisive tool. As far as patois Creole is concerned, there is no empirical
linguistic evidence that it is still spoken in Mauritius,
173 years after the abolition of slavery and after the population went through
profound linguistic and cultural interaction, even though the term Creole is
commonly used (pushed down our throats) during the last few decades.
As a priest, Jocelyn Grégoire should be concerned with Christians of all origins, and not with Creole which is neither a biblical term nor a term which he is able to define with any accuracy.Over 50% of Mauritians of African origins are of Swahili descent whose ancestors were Muslims and they do not necessarily back Grégoire's political campaign.
If Mr Virahsawmy has any independent evidence based on comparative linguistic, phonetic, phonological, sociological and even anthropological analyses, he should send them to the "Truth and Justice Commission" for evaluation by independent national and international experts. It is wrong that he should try to do so merely by publishing in le Mauricien a propaganda piece based on mere allegations, hearsay and political bias. He should be reminded that, through this same method and logic, European slavers once believed that the Black African race (they called the Negroes) was closer to the animal kind and that, among humans, Blacks had the smallest brains, hence least intelligent [Ref. Samuel Morton, Philadelphia physician]. Such allegations are completely baseless as very many Blacks of all faiths are much more intelligent than non-Blacks. In modern Mauritius, people of African origins are well emancipated and well educated. Among them, there are lawyers, Magistrates, an ex-President, and many occupy high-placed positions in both the private and public sectors. Unfortunately, a diabolical political and ideological machine has been put in place in order not only to nourish the colonised mentality state, but also to impose it on all the inhabitants of the once slave-island of Mauritius.
M Rafic Soormally
London
Spread The Word
8 Responses to "Dev Virahsawmy misleads the « Truth and Justice Commission »" 
|
said this on 20 May 2008 3:17:55 PM MUT
Thank you, Rafic Soormally. I am impressed! Yes, all the puzzle pieces fall in place now in my mind. In the past, many PTr personalities used to refer to the Edinburg connection when referring to DEV. But reading your explanation on the Virahsawmy-Gregoire mix, I feel there is an American connection. I may be wrong.
Excuse my limitations. At first, I thought you might have missed certain issues on Kréol Morisien but the more I read of your exposé on Kréol Morisien, the more I feel that you have highly documented yourself on this pidgin (slang) or whichever to term it, this language of slavery. In 1996, in a pub in King Cross, London, I met Dr Phillip Baker for the last time, I don't think I will go to London again nor will he come to Mauritius (if he still alives). He renegated a lot of his "prise de position" on Kréole Morisien, saying that this inheritance from slavery will never be extinct in the Mauritian "paysage" and therefore does not require any form of cultural preservation. He then went on talking on the myth of using the slavery language as a pedagogical tool. His views can be summed up in what you wrote above. I quote: "The term Creole in used in Mauritius merely in common parlance which should not find its way either in our education system or in our Constitution". Then came that issue of lingua franca ghetto. |
Author)|
said this on 17 May 2008 6:12:52 AM MUT
Rafic, I do not understand the difference between Grégoire & Dev Virahsawmy. Is there any?
Chan Toofanny and Britt are right to imply that "insularité" can do harm to our kids. Where in the world will the Kréol Morisien be used? Not at NASA, nor World Bank, nor WTO, nor UN, nor even Madagascar or La Réunion or Comores or Maldives, where then? Not even at home in Dev's household! I remember, Dr Philip Baker, who had researched "la lang kréol morisien" in-depth saying once please pray God that he saves Mauritius from using kréol as a teaching vehicle at school. He was very worried that Mauritian kids would fall in lingua franca ghetto. |
|
said this on 17 May 2008 1:44:11 PM MUT
REPLY TO « JAYEN TYEKEVLINGUM »
Dear Jayen Jocelyn Grégoire is an Assistant Professor in counselling, Psychology & Special Education at Duquesne University, Pittsburg USA. In Mauritius he is a Priest affiliated with the Catholic Church, and also President of the ‘Fédération des Créoles mauriciens’ (FCM). In the US, he cannot federate ‘Creoles’, because they are African-Americans and, by and large, they reject the slave term ‘Creole’. They have chosen the appellation African-American as a people in freedom and not in bondage which creole connotes. Dev Virashsawmy is a linguist. I knew of Dev when he was a teacher and part of the newly formed Movement Militant Mauricien after Paul Bérenger hijacked the Club des Étudiants Militants. In those days, it was a great thing to have a European degree in one’s pockets. People used to admire and worship those degree holders. Anything they said was gospel. The Militants ideas were new and revolutionary. This moved the masses. Moreover, seeing a white man ‘defending’ the causes of the non-white masses was ‘du jamais vu’. Bérenger knew this, and this is how he shot to fame. As an intellectual, Jocelyn Grégoire, who is clearly well-trained in American evangelical oration, is trying to move the ‘creole’ masses in a similar way. Virahsawmy started to ‘couillonne dimoune’ with the invention of lexicons for the creation of a ‘creole language’. While forgetting that the latter was itself a language of colonisation, the militants argued it would replace English and French which they said were colonial languages. Grégoire is doing exactly the same by making Mauritians of African origins believe, not only that the ‘creole language’ is a language of the future which must be included as a teaching medium in our schools, but also that the ‘Creole person’ is also found in modernism which must be recognised in the Mauritian Constitution. However, while Grégoire has not produced a definition of the term Creole upon which he relies, Virahsawmy argues that ‘Mauritian Creol (MC)’ and English « are both Creole languages ». This should summarise Dev Virahsawmy. While Dev Virahsawmy is unable to adduce any linguistic empirical evidence that the slave creole is still spoken in Mauritius 173 years after the abolition of slavery and social interaction with Hindustani Mauritians, Jocelyn Grégoire is also unable to show how the creole person identified by the slave language is still this person in modern Mauritius. While we accept that the term Creole is in common parlance (since the 1960’s), we cannot use this common parlance term to justify both Virahsawmy’s and Grégoire’s demands, having regard to the fact that the term Creole itself is considered a racist term [Ref. Robert Fournier]. You are right in saying that the introduction of the ‘creole language’ in our schools would create a form of ghetto education and do a lot of harm to our children. It is not an academic language and its qualities are regressive. According to Douglas Taylor, Dominica, BW.I., such languages, « based upon their masters’ English, French, Dutch, French or Portuguese speech », are those « whose phonologies, grammars and lexicons they have simplified, reduced and corrupted .. ». Virahsawmy and Grégoire are both politicians doing the same thing but at different times. The difference is that, nowadays, people are far better informed and far more educated than in the 1960’s. While the militants were appealing to all Mauritians, Grégoire is appealing only to Mauritian Christians of African origins who are prepared to call themselves Creoles, and we do not know how many that is. Unless Bérenger is prepared to carry his sectarian mantle, Grégoire would need to remove his soutan at some point if he is truly serious about his claims. I wonder if Jocelyn Grégoire considers himself an African-Mauritian or a European-Mauritian in a creolised format. Regards Rafic Soormally |
|
said this on 16 May 2008 2:53:46 PM MUT
Very true Chan,the student have a certain blokkade with mauritian language,you send your child to school not to learn mauritian,how will it be teaching chemistry for e.x?
|
|
said this on 17 May 2008 3:12:19 PM MUT
Insaf, Ghyslaine, Chan & Brit
Thanks every one your your comments. The fact that I do not always reply individually does not mean that comments are not welcome. Dev believes that because he has a degree in linguistics, he can teach people how to speak even when they have no speech problems. For some very obscure reasons, he only wants to teach people how to speak 'Creole' because they could not speak or spell until he came on the scene. Regards Rafic Soormally |
|
said this on 15 May 2008 7:09:32 PM MUT
Creole ia a slang word, like Cockney is in London. therefore it should not be used as a national language.
I appeal to all intellectuals in Mauritius, look to the future where your destiny lies. Are you comfortable in your tiny world or your future lies in the wider world where your prosperity and your futures lies? To compete you need to be fluent in English, industrially and economically sound. 10 years ago 20% chinese spoke English, now more than 60% use this language and have become the World number one economy. Not becuase the speak manderine but they use English language to compete. Introducing creole as a national language is a step backards, not forwards. The future is Mauritius not Islam, Hinduism, Budihism or Christianity, therefore creole suits Mauritiuan but not your future and your prospeity. |
|
said this on 14 May 2008 6:27:22 AM MUT
Dear Mr Soormally
First of all, I would like to thank Le Défi Plus for allowing you to address this issue here. I have read many of your articles in the past in magazines, dailies, weeklies and on the Internet, and I have to admit that I never found in them any statements that were not solidly based on provable facts. I deem your requests very reasonable and absolutely legitimate. I was recently reading one of your articles “A jihad for a ‘Creole identity’, or a plot against the ruling class?” [9 January 2000] in response to Mrs Danielle Palmyre ‘Construction et stratégies identitaires chez les Créoles’ [Le Mauricien of 31/01/00 and 01/02/00], and am glad that you are still seeking the Truth regarding the agenda of “creolization” of the Mauritian nation, and are still persistently denouncing their agents and strategies. The “Encyclopaedia Mauritiana” confirms the findings of your analyses in an article “Tu dimunn pu vini kreol, The Mauritian creole and the concept of creolizationn”, and the fact that the “encyclopaedia” cannot itself come up with a clear definition of the “Kreol Morisyen”, of an intelligent way of writing it, of it as a non sectarian language, and so on proves you right in your analysis. When Bihari Mauritians are celebrating the land of their ancestors, why cannot African and Malagasy Mauritians celebrate their African-Malagasy roots? Why don’t they, like Alex Hayley, look for their roots instead of always stopping at slavery? Despite what Europeans have taught us, Africa has produced one of the world greatest civilisations, the Egyptian civilisation from which Greece ‘borrowed’ theirs. According to Dr Khalid Al Mansour, Ishmael was what Europeans called/call a Negro! Moses was Black! Jesus was not White! Do Mauritian Indians not recognize their great Indian civilization? So, what is the sickness affecting our African and Malagasy Mauritians? Mr Soormally, I sincerely hope, despite all the boycott by certain media and their agents, that your articles will open the eyes of all Mauritians who are interested in establishing the untainted Truth and eventual Justice in this matter, and will join you in this noble enterprise by sending their feedback to the “Truth and Justice Commission” if the latter means real business, of course. Yours sincerely Ghyslaine ROC 14th of May 2008 P.S. Copied to Jocelyn Grégoire who has ignored all my previous Emails. |
|
said this on 14 May 2008 4:34:37 AM MUT
Il y a une ironie dans la démarche de Dev. Tout en se voulant l’apôtre de la créolité, il n’a rien fait pour favoriser l’émergence du créole comme un medium d’enseignement lorsqu’il était dans le giron du pouvoir entre 1983 et 1987 à titre de conseiller politique. Bien au contraire. Il a soutenu les partis réactionnaires comme le Ptr et le PMSD qui ont toujours combattu l’avancement du créole. Aujourd’hui, il s’extasie devant la performance du père Grégoire et ne tarit pas d’éloges sur ce dernier. Quand l’ancien gouvernement avait aboli le « ranking » aux examens de CPE, Dev ne prêta pas son soutien à ce projet, qui pourtant avait le potentiel d’aider les enfants de la communauté créole. Alors que le Ptr tirait à boulets rouges sur le gouvernement d’alors, il aida à communaliser le débat en parlant de querelle entre la bourgeoisie créole et la bourgeoisie hindoue sur le CPE.
|
