MICROCOSMIC MAURITIUS The Mascarenes Archipelago, in the South-Western part of the Indian Ocean, comprises three main islands: Reunion, a French Overseas Department, Mauritius, independent since 1968, and Rodrigues, which forms part of the Mauritian territory. All three are indisputably creole-speaking. Everyone will also agree that Reunion and Rodrigues - like the Seychelles, some two thousand kilometres away to the north of the Mascarenes - are 'Creole lands'. However, Mauritius is far from being obviously 'Creole', though it is called Reunion's 'sister island'. By Claude Cziffra In Mauritius, the term 'Creole' seems to have been problematic at least since 1886, when the British colonial authorities set up a Legislative Council where coloured 'Democrats' struggled against white 'Oligarchs'. Since that time, unlike in the other Caribbean and Indian Ocean islands -- apart from the Seychelles -- the term Creole can no longer include Whites. But the contemporary reason why many Mauritians are reluctant to consider their society a creole one lies elsewhere. In fact, this island is markedly different from its Indian Ocean 'sisters' as well as its Caribbean 'cousins' as regards the ethnic composition of its population. On this score, a rapid comparison between Mauritius and Rodrigues, which is clearly a Creole island, shows an ethnic plurality with a major Indian component on the former, as opposed to the homogeneity of a population from non-Asian origin on the latter. COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNALISM The British-inspired Constitution, which has been in force since 1968, states that "the population of Mauritius shall be regarded as including a Hindu community, a Muslim community, and a Sino- Mauritian community; and every person who does not appear, from his way of life, to belong to one or another of those three communities shall be regarded as belonging to the General Population, which shall itself be regarded as a fourth community". Accordingly, the 1972 census showed the following distribution among the Mauritian population: Hindus: 428,167 51.8% General Population: 236,867 28.7% Muslims: 137,081 16.6% Sino-Mauritians: 24,084 2.9% Total: 826,199 100.0% So, Hindus constitute an absolute majority and Indo-Mauritians, i.e. Mauritians of Indian origin, whether Hindus or Muslims, make up more than two-thirds of the total population. The rest, a little less than one-third, comprises mainly Creoles (Christian Coloureds) conventionally forming the General Population together with Franco-Mauritians (Whites). Sino-Mauritians are a small minority. The Mauritian concept of community comes from the Indian experience, characterized by the cleavage between Hindus and Muslims. But the contexts are basically different. The singularity of Mauritius rests so far on achieving a peaceful coexistence between its various population groups. As the island was uninhabited until it was colonized, nobody can arguably claim an absolute right of ownership to the land. All Mauritians are fundamentally descendants of immigrants, whether early settlers or comparative newcomers. This first fact can still moderate any potential hegemonic ambitions. Moreover, the smallness of the land (1,865 km2 for 1.1 million inhabitants) makes any attempt at separatism hardly viable. Besides, a relative isolation and a lack of mineral riches help protect Mauritius from the possible greed of more powerful neighbours. And, last but not least, everyone senses that prosperity is forever vulnerable, in particular to tropical cyclones. In a move towards 'decommunalizing',the Mauritian society, the Parliament unanimously voted an amendment to the Constitution in 1982, to the effect that the 1972 census would set once and for all the population percentage - hence the maximum number of parliamentary seats - that each community could claim. Therefore, the item 'Community' would no longer appear in subsequent census questionnaires. The idea was to discourage 'communalism', which can be defined as a "play of communal identification, opposition and rivalry" [J.C. Lau Thi Keng]. However, a striking phenomenon could be observed when the next censuses were carried out, in 1983 and 1990. In the days preceding the set date, various socio-religious organizations published notices in the press, urging their members and sympathizers to give standardized answers to the census questions relating to religious group, language of forefathers, and language usually spoken at home. It was a way of making up for the present impossibility to assert one's identity by claiming global membership of a community. This resulted in abundant particularism, with 45 religious groups in 1990 (against 15 or so in 1972 and 140 in 1983) and 15 usual languages (as compared to 10 in 1972 and 22 in 1990). SOCIOLINGUISTIC SITUATION The following table shows the evolution of languages claimed as being usually spoken at home by Mauritians over the last forty years: 1952 1962 1972 1983 1990 Creole: 44.2% 42.4% 51.9% 54.0% 60.5% Bhojpuri: - - - 20.4% 19.7% Hindi: 39.0% 30.4% 31.7% 11.5% 1.3% Urdu: 2.6% 6.0% 2.8% 2.4% 0.7% O.I.S.L.: 3.2% 4.7% 7.1% 6.6% 2.1% Chinese: 2.5% 2.0% 1.1% 0.6% 0.4% French: 8.1% 7.8% 4.7% 3.8% 3.4% English: 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% Other: 0.2% 6.4% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% Bilingualism: - - - - 11.1% Total: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100% 100% O.I.S.L.: Other Indian Standard Languages NB: Due to a common sociolinguistic phenomenon, Bhojpuri was not taken into account until 1983. Besides, the option of bilingualism appeared only in the 1990 census. Actually, the most widespread languages in Mauritius have always been Creole and Bhojpuri. The former has often been considered as a low prestige variety of French, and the latter has been in the same position vis-…-vis Hindi. Further, these diglossic couples are linked by the existence of a mixed diglossia where Creole plays the part of an acrolect and Bhojpuri plays the part of a basilect. Such a complex sociolinguistic situation, where the use of Creole is prevalent but not exclusive, can be called polyglossia. IDENTITY HANDLING Like the linguistic one, many other aspects of the Mauritian culture -- in the anthropological sense -- are pluralistic. Identities are difficult to define. They could be compared to atoms, each one with its central nucleus and its cloud of peripheral electrons whose trajectories are partly random, some of them being able at times to cross over to the next atom. And the complex molecule formed by these atoms could symbolize the Mauritian culture. A polar metaphor could also be used, each identity pole comprising a distinct central area characterized by precise norms, but also a marginal area with a fuzzier outline and more flexible norms. Three such identity poles may be seen as prevailing, in that they account for more than 95 % of the Mauritian population. The Hindu identity pole is the most significant, demographically and politically. It implies originating from India, practising a form of Hinduism, claiming an Indian linguistic heritage and displaying an Indianized lifestyle. The Muslim identity pole entails a strong tendency to overlay the Indian substratum (quite similar origins and linguistic heritage) on which it has developed with the constant assertion of a world-view and observances minutely prescribed by Islam. The Creole identity pole evokes the image of a nebula. It is characterized by miscegenation - to any degree - between at least two of the human groups brought together on the island, Christianization, the loss African ancestral languages and a linguistic repertoire based on the French-Creole diglossia, as well as a globally westernized habitus. Such are, briefly sketched, the salient features that distinguish each identity pole from the others. The distances separating them may increase or decrease depending on individual and collective situations or issues. For example, Mauritians of Asian descent, that is Indo- and Sino- Mauritians, hold compatible views about kinship ant tend to be in favour of an extended family pattern - although they may put it less and less into practice, whereas Creoles and Whites generally form western-type nuclear families. Another kinship practice, polygyny, is claimed as a right by Muslims, but is quite rare in actual fact. At a higher level of integration, the hypothesis has been put forward that a "pan-Mauritian identity would be contained within the code of conduct which all Mauritians subscribe to and which forms part of their socialization process. This code internalizes and governs ethnic relations in such a way as to weaken the possibilities of open hostility and conflicts in most contexts" [A. Nirsimloo-Ananden]. Now that Mauritius has been put on the world map thanks to its recent economic success, it is about time that its social dynamics become an object of study for anthropologists. A first appeal in this sense made by J. Jensen in 1985, following a research project initiated by A. Kuper, has not had sufficient impact. Yet, the pragmatic strategy evolved in this microcosmic society to handle diverse and potentially conflicting group identities definitely deserves scientific attention and theorization, especially at a time of renewed ethnic hostilities in more and more parts of our planet. Claude Cziffra is a PhD scholar at INALCO, Paris