Blog: Militant Creole

Since the militant era of the 1960’s and 70’s, politicians like Dev Virahsawmy (who is also a linguist) have invented a type of phonetic writing which contravenes proper spellings and grammatical rules in the French language which they have unsuccessfully been trying to impose on the rest of the population through fascist propaganda in an attempt to force the Mauritian government to introduce this ‘language’ as a medium of instruction in our schools four decades later.

Mr Virahsawmy bases his model on Haitian Creole, which they spell ‘Kreol’, a language which has little to do with Mauritians so many thousands of miles away, around 70% of whom are of Indian rather than African ‘slave’ origin. First and foremost, he produces no linguistic, anthropological and sociological empirical evidence to show how the slave ancestors of a section of the Mauritian population spoke and wrote in Creole, a language which has always been regarded as imposed by White slave masters and regressive. Such a language can never be considered as a language of civilisation.

When I was at St Jean Bosco R.C.A. primary school in the 1960’s, the word ‘Creole’ was regarded as a swear word. Those who uttered the word ‘gagne coute rotin bazaar’, as we said in patois mauricien. My Headteacher, Mr Grassy, even advised us to speak French rather than patois.  Being of Indian origin, my patois obviously contained many Hindi and Bhojpuri words and terms. I never spoke creole. It is neither my mother tongue, nor that on my parents, grand parents and their ancestors. Miss Kenneth, my teacher of the Petite Bourse always spoke French with us and encouraged us to do the same, except in classes of English. The new invention of militant creole was one which excluded most Hindi, Bhojpuri, Tamil, Urdu, Mandarin, Telegu, Marathi, even English words which people would use in varying degrees depending on their communities and regions around the country. Many argue that it is a racist form of creole. In its phonetic writing format, French words are atrociously wrongly spelt and deformed; rules of grammar and exception to those rules are ignored.

Dev Virahsawmy even went to the extent of alleging that « A pidgin becomes a Creole language when it becomes the mother tongue of a group», and argued that English is in fact a ‘Creole language’, which is utter nonsense [Mauritius Times, 5 Feb 10, « Mauritian Creole, Identity and National Development »]. A pidgin is normally a mixture of two languages used, for example, in trade - Chinese Pidgin English. But in colonies of slavery, they tend to equate this with Creole because a Creole is normally a mixture of two languages, that is, the language of the slave master and that of the slave, but not necessarily the mother tongue of the slave. The English language was not born in slavery. Professor McWhorter, a linguist, tried to argue that when a pidgin is used daily, it becomes a ‘Creole’, such as « Black English », rather than English itself, although his comments were open to interpretations. Perhaps Mr Virahsawmy should explain how that ‘Kreol morisien’ (MILITA3NT CREOLE) he has invented is a mixture of which slave master’s and which slave’s languages, what pidgin slaves spoke and how it developed into a Creole and how that Creole, which he writes so badly, is the ‘mother tongue’ of 80% of Mauritians. Linguists are not expected to teach people how to write, but they are expected to know about the structure of languages, about their limitations and how to overcome those limitations through speech therapy. If Mauritius adopts Dev Virahsawmy’s ‘Kreol morisien’, it will certainly require numerous speech therapists.

The agenda of the protagonists of the imported concept of créolité in the form of militant creole, is more far-reaching since it aims at political recognition and power. People must ask themselves why the Catholic Church is backing such créolité, rather than Catholicism, with such fervour. In order to gain votes, a government may recognise anything which has nothing to do with truth and empiricism. But it is up to parents who are serious about their children’s education to refuse for their children to be taught in any form of slave language. Moreover, we, as civilised Mauritians, have the right to refuse to converse in any form of slave language both at home and in public. We have to lead by example. Our children must only speak to their school friends and colleagues in French or English or Bhojpuri, for example. This should wipe the smile off the face of slavery and militant creole, which is not the mother tongue of Mauritians.

However, in the early primary years, depending on the region, Mauritian patois is already used as an adjunct in teaching with the view to doing away with it in later primary years, and certainly not in institutionalising any form of slave language in the education system. Suttyhudeo Tengur, president of Government Hindi Teachers Union, points out that under the Education Act, pupils from Standard IV to VI of the Government and aided primary schools have to be taught in English and that teachers and pupils must converse in English. [Le Matinal, 11 Feb 10, «Suttyhudeo Tengur veut l’anglais comme medium»].