God save Mauritius !
- By Bhishmadev Seebaluck
- Published 26th September, 2008
This country must by all means be spared the scourge of being governed by quotas.
My dear Billy,
Some time back I told you that Mauritians were neither ready yet, nor indeed prepared, to become Mauritians. And this has unfortunately been most blatantly proved once again during the past fortnight, ever since the Prime Minister announced his new cabinet of ministers and reinstalled Sir Anerood Jugnauth as President of the Republic.
It all started with a Rajput association thanking the Prime Minister for having appointed yet another Rajput minister, bringing their number to two. It is not clear what advantages or favours the Rajput, as a caste or class, will derive from this appointment. If it becomes apparent that the minister in question is biased towards the Rajput and giving them undue benefits, then he will have to be sacked with immediate effect. So must any minister or other person in authority who adopts a policy of favouritism towards anybody on grounds of community, caste, religion, nepotism or others.
The joy of the Rajput brotherhood was immediately countered by the corresponding wrath of the other castes and communities and ethnic groups who started asking for more. They started complaining that justice had not been done to them since no member of their tribe had been given a ministerial sweet. They clamoured that among the four new appointees, there were three Hindus and one Creole, in replacement of another Creole.
Even among the Hindus, they started objecting to two so-called Vaishs being nominated. The so-called Raviveds gave the assurance that they could have done with one more minister; so did the so-called high castes. Some Muslims said they had been slighted and gave the Prime Minister a six-month ultimatum to appoint one more Muslim minister. A few Tamils felt the same thing, but gave no ultimatum. We have not heard from the Telugus nor from the Chinese, there being no Telugu or Chinese left unministered among the Government parliamentarians.
The “most unkindest cut of all,” as you would say, my dear Billy, came from Father Grégoire. This gentleman, for he is one, who is priest dabbling in politics, or a politician dabbling in religion, has even gone to the extent of threatening to invade the streets with his troops if he doesn't obtain satisfaction. To Father Gregoire, satisfaction
means having both Sinatambou and Chaumière as Ministers, like the kid in the fable who loses his coin and cries when a passing woman gives him another coin in replacement. “Why are you crying now?” the woman asks. “If I had not lost my coin I would have had two now,” the boy replies. Father Grégoire's expectation doesn't end there, though. He also wants the presidency of the republic to be bestowed upon a Creole. Don't you think the Reverend Father's appetite is achieving a rather gargantuan proportion?
Father Grégoire and those of his ilk talk in terms of quotas. This is a very dangerous premise where even fools will refuse to rush in, my dear Billy. This country must by all means be spared the scourge of being governed by quotas. What we need is people with qualifications, competence, ability, determination, and a few other qualities, no matter what tribe they belong to. If the most qualified, most able applicants for ten jobs all hail from the Creole community, let them all be appointed to those jobs. Why should they be employed according to a set quota? Why should mediocrities from other communities be employed when there are more able Creoles for the jobs?
Those who know will remember that decades ago in the 60s a Hindu communal movement, the Hindu Congress, had raised its ugly head and was claiming a quota of 52% of all positions for Hindus because Hindus represented 52% of the population and they were not getting their share. But the movement was soon clamped down by other Hindus who claimed that the quota system was dangerous and against the interest of the country.
One minister in a former government was known to favour members of his own community, and he was quite proud and vociferous about it too. “What do you want me to do?” he justified himself. “The Prime Minister has appointed me because I belong to this community. I must work for my community.”
Is that the type of government that we want, or deserve, for our country? That minister got his portfolio because he represented a certain community, and he worked for its members. Is that what ministers are appointed for? Is that what Father Grégoire wants?
The Prime Minister says that we have to understand and accept Mauritian reality. But this is a false reality, created by self-seeking politicians who climb the communal ladder to attain the peak of their own personal ambitions.
If everybody starts working for his own community, who will work for the country, my dear Billy?
You!?
My dear Billy,
Some time back I told you that Mauritians were neither ready yet, nor indeed prepared, to become Mauritians. And this has unfortunately been most blatantly proved once again during the past fortnight, ever since the Prime Minister announced his new cabinet of ministers and reinstalled Sir Anerood Jugnauth as President of the Republic.
It all started with a Rajput association thanking the Prime Minister for having appointed yet another Rajput minister, bringing their number to two. It is not clear what advantages or favours the Rajput, as a caste or class, will derive from this appointment. If it becomes apparent that the minister in question is biased towards the Rajput and giving them undue benefits, then he will have to be sacked with immediate effect. So must any minister or other person in authority who adopts a policy of favouritism towards anybody on grounds of community, caste, religion, nepotism or others.
The joy of the Rajput brotherhood was immediately countered by the corresponding wrath of the other castes and communities and ethnic groups who started asking for more. They started complaining that justice had not been done to them since no member of their tribe had been given a ministerial sweet. They clamoured that among the four new appointees, there were three Hindus and one Creole, in replacement of another Creole.
Even among the Hindus, they started objecting to two so-called Vaishs being nominated. The so-called Raviveds gave the assurance that they could have done with one more minister; so did the so-called high castes. Some Muslims said they had been slighted and gave the Prime Minister a six-month ultimatum to appoint one more Muslim minister. A few Tamils felt the same thing, but gave no ultimatum. We have not heard from the Telugus nor from the Chinese, there being no Telugu or Chinese left unministered among the Government parliamentarians.
The “most unkindest cut of all,” as you would say, my dear Billy, came from Father Grégoire. This gentleman, for he is one, who is priest dabbling in politics, or a politician dabbling in religion, has even gone to the extent of threatening to invade the streets with his troops if he doesn't obtain satisfaction. To Father Gregoire, satisfaction
Father Grégoire and those of his ilk talk in terms of quotas. This is a very dangerous premise where even fools will refuse to rush in, my dear Billy. This country must by all means be spared the scourge of being governed by quotas. What we need is people with qualifications, competence, ability, determination, and a few other qualities, no matter what tribe they belong to. If the most qualified, most able applicants for ten jobs all hail from the Creole community, let them all be appointed to those jobs. Why should they be employed according to a set quota? Why should mediocrities from other communities be employed when there are more able Creoles for the jobs?
Those who know will remember that decades ago in the 60s a Hindu communal movement, the Hindu Congress, had raised its ugly head and was claiming a quota of 52% of all positions for Hindus because Hindus represented 52% of the population and they were not getting their share. But the movement was soon clamped down by other Hindus who claimed that the quota system was dangerous and against the interest of the country.
One minister in a former government was known to favour members of his own community, and he was quite proud and vociferous about it too. “What do you want me to do?” he justified himself. “The Prime Minister has appointed me because I belong to this community. I must work for my community.”
Is that the type of government that we want, or deserve, for our country? That minister got his portfolio because he represented a certain community, and he worked for its members. Is that what ministers are appointed for? Is that what Father Grégoire wants?
The Prime Minister says that we have to understand and accept Mauritian reality. But this is a false reality, created by self-seeking politicians who climb the communal ladder to attain the peak of their own personal ambitions.
If everybody starts working for his own community, who will work for the country, my dear Billy?
You!?
|
Typo/Layout Correction Found a typo? Or the layout seems messed up? Please send us your correction or the article link to help us keep this website as accurate as possible. Vous avez remarqué une erreur de typo ou de mise en page ? Veuillez nous faire parvenir votre correction ou l’adresse de l’article afin de nous aider à rendre notre site encore plus fiable. |
1 Response to "God save Mauritius !" 
|
said this on 27 Sep 2008 12:26:01 PM MUT
Some food for thought and inspiration Father Grégoire.
Words of great wisdom by Fernando Lugo, the first 'different' president of Paraguay, aka 'The Good', 'The Bishop of the Poor' and 'The Red Bishop': From the church I started helping the most disadvantaged. I think that is one of the reasons why the people gave me their vote of confidence. Most of all, I think they placed their vision, their desire for change, on me. And I don't want to let them down. I believe that the credibility I have shown is what made the people reply with so much love, appreciation and affection. First, I want to tidy up the house. Here in Paraguay we have chaos. There are things that make one want to cry. For ages we have been giving the impression of not being a serious country. We have to change that. We have to show all citizens how the country really is. Transparency and honesty will be two of the fundamental characteristics of what I want to do. And the change will be to clean the face and the interior of the country. For Paraguay to recover its dignity as a nation, to be credible as a country, we have to erase the stigma of being a pirate country, a country of traffickers, a corrupt country. Bad administration and corruption have grown strong roots and are widely developed in our society. Poverty in Paraguay is another clear stigma. Paraguay has not been giving opportunities and equity to people so they can show their potential. We have to create conditions for more solidarity, more equality. I strongly believe Paraguay is a rich country with many poor. And that is simply scandalous. I strongly believe that in Paraguay we can no longer avoid starting a process of agrarian reform. Land tenancy here is scandalous. We need to start a proper development plan that will help all Paraguayans. When I was elected president, Bolivia’s president [Evo Morales] welcomed me to the "axis of evil". I always asked where that expression came from. I do believe there is no such "axis of evil" but simply countries that have been labelled like that, countries that simply want the best for their people, for the people that have been excluded for so long. So we are going to be part of those progressive governments that always go for the benefit of their people. I want a serious country. If we want a serious country we will then, regionally speaking, have to follow Uruguay and Chile closely. I want a country with big development, with equality, so then we will have to follow Brazil closely in that great search. I want a country that is respected in its sovereignty, then maybe we will be close to Venezuela or Bolivia or Ecuador. I will have to take into consideration the positive points other Latin American leaders have. But we re-affirm that we want to have our own process, and there will be elements that will differentiate me from other Latin American leaders. But I am sure I will coincide in many elements. This is our process and we will do it ourselves, from the inside but with the justice and solidarity of other countries. I became a priest in the late 1970s and served as a missionary in Ecuador and there I embraced "liberation theology" and its focus on the poor. Yet, despite Rome's suspicion of what for some was viewed as a subversive movement, I slowly moved up the hierarchy to become a bishop in 1994. In my 11 years as bishop of San Pedro [central Paraguay], I worked closely with peasant movements. Gradually, though, I came to feel that I could change more as a politician. But I was and still am a member of the Catholic church. A lot of disinformation or simply lack of information makes people think I am not part of the church any longer. I feel that, more than ever, I belong to this church. Today, with a new role, as a laic, but the pope himself recommended me never to abandon the faith in which I was formed, and less so the evangelic values. I take those words to heart. I will still be inside the church and inside the framework of a church that is a community, that speaks out the values of the kingdom of God. Before I felt there were lot of constrictions and due to various situations my decision to get into politics was a process in which the citizens themselves asked me to jump into a more political role. I do believe the church does an excellent job, an evangelical mission, but if we are pushing for change that is not enough. We have to take the unfair structures of society and push for change from there in order to start a change in the whole of society. The liberation theology is an element of my formation. But it is not all. There's also a philosophical, political, sociological formation in me. Human sciences put the human being at the centre and that has an influence on my relationship with people. And we are going to do this now from the presidency. Without doubt it is possible to resurrect a country like Paraguay. We are people of hope, of faith, and I won't be the one killing that hope of the people. I do believe we will resurrect this country, a country deeply drowned in misery, poverty and discrimination. Because I do believe Paraguay could be different. I do not lack faith in this flock. Where there is a scream coming from the poor people, where there is sweat, where people are shoeless, we will be there. Because in such people there is a resurrection; if that exists there, then there is resurrection for Paraguay. Here there is a Guaraní [indigenous person] saying: "The padre has spoken, and so be it." |
Author/Admin)








