Deepa BHOOKHUN
16 November 2007
opinion
Port Louis — "There is my truth, there is your truth and then there is the truth." I don't know who said this but whoever it is must have sussed out the essence of all conflicts.
Is this why we are finding it so hard to agree on the modalities of the sugar industry? The fact that the sugar barons' truth is battling with Prime minister Ramgoolam's truth? It's one way to look at things at any rate.
Ramgoolam's truth is appealing to many, if echoes from the public are anything to go by. But echoes from the public also have many truths. And one of them is that this "truth" is being ethnically coloured.
You don't agree? Then why did the prime minister choose to express himself on the matter at a function organised by the Voice of Hindu (VOH)? What has the reform of the sugar industry got to do with the omnipresent VOH, an organisation that is highly controversial, to say the least?
Admittedly I am biased. But I have no qualms saying it; I do have an issue with this group of people who claim to have a mandate to defend and speak on behalf of an assorted group of people who choose to refer to themselves as Hindus. My issue is not personal - I have the same issue with any group of people who claim to represent the interests of any group of people who have in common only one thing - the religion that their forebears practised.
My opinion, though, is immaterial in this whole blasted business. The opinion of other people however, is highly material. Those other people are people who feel threatened when a prime minister decides to speak on a matter of national importance at a sectarian gathering. They feel threatened because they do not "belong" to this sectarian group and hence feel excluded.
They then assume - wrongly so - that Navin Ramgoolam's truth is not their truth. I say wrongly so because it cannot be otherwise; Ramgoolam's arguments appear logical and rational as opposed to arguments of sectarian groups. Krit Manohur for instance felt no shame in saying at his gathering that he thought government should ask for 10,000 acres of land from the industry.
What exactly gives him the legitimacy to say what he thinks government should do is not clear. Maybe the fact that so many members of government - the people's government, not the Hindu government - dressed up in their Sunday best to attend his gathering. Well then, can he be blamed? I think not.
Food for thought methinks.
Anyhow. Let's get back to the truths. I find it interesting that when both the prime minister and the sugar industry people held their press conferences, neither of them were too keen to answer questions from the press. And this is an understatement.
Isn't it bizarre that, when you want to talk about your truth, you say no to the opportunity of explaining it better by answering honest and inquisitive questions?
Hmm.
Read comments. Write your own.
Copyright © 2007 L'Express. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
Re: Mauritius: Your Truth, My Truth... and The Truth.
Thank you Deepa for a really 'hands on' article. I would firstly like to 'voice' (no pun intented!) my concern that a Prime Minister of a parlimentary democracy; Mr. Navin Ramgoolam (amongst others), would even attend a meeting organised by the 'Voice of Hindu' (VoH). Immagine the outcry had Dr. Rashid Beebeejaun attended/accepted an invitation, for example/to a Hizbullah meeting.
Coming to the point! Is Mr. Ramgoolam 'frustrated' that Mauritius is so stable and peaceful? The urge to play communalist games is a very dangerous one. If I recall correctly, in 1999 Ramgoolam (the then PM)fled the country during the riots that followed the death of Kaya. Should (God forbid!) anything of that nature occur, will he (Ramgoolam) be on the next flight out? Mauritius is lauded internationally for its stability, economic growth and (relative) ethinic/religious harmony. I am at a loss as to why our PM is jepodising our island with such blatant communalism? Targeting any one community is a crime against Mauritus as a whole. I would like to see and hear community leaders of ALL shades denouncing communal politics.
It must be remembered (and understood!) that Mauritius, having no indigenous population belongs equally to EVERYONE living there. Having been spared the ravages of mainland Africa, Mauritius should be thankful and continue to be an example to others.
Melt.