Against communalism of the best-loser system - Lalit Mauritius

Nomination Papers in 1976 (413 candidates), 1982 (260 candidates), 1983 (297 candidates),
1987 (350 candidates), 1991, 1995 and 2000 (535 candidates). This is presumably why people
blame “politicians” for communalism.
The number of people individually classified in this country is thus around 3000, at a guess, of
whom a certain number have died or emigrated, out of some 1,000,000 - 1,200,000 inhabitants.
These candidates in General Elections have declared on their Nomination Papers that they are
members of the “x” community, and this has been published in newspapers and stuck up on the
special notice-boards put up at the Schools that are used for each constituency. But no-one else
has been classified. And in any case, there is no authentication (thank goodness) that this
“membership” of a community is correct, by “leaders”, “war-lords” or anyone else.
The reason for all this difficulty brings us back, of course, to “community” not being a “fact”,
but at best an ideological construct.
Of course, at worst “community” is a “fiction”, and a bad one at that, representing no more than
the shared prejudices of an immediately post-colonial society. “Community” can only be made
into the imitation of a “fact” by the act of classification by the state in a Census or by oneself
under duress in order to be a candidate. Even this is not a real fact, but a kind of “bureaucratic”
fact; “it is a fact that Mr. A. is classified as being a member of x community.”
This kind of bureaucratic fact is, of course, the hallmark of a regime like the Nazi regime, where
Jewish people were obliged to classify themselves publicly by wearing a yellow star on their
clothing, or of the South African apartheid system with its “pass system”. The apartheid regime
attempted over the course of some 46 years, from 1948 to 1994 to get a-hold of every individual
and classify him or her. It may be added, for the record, that this task was never ever completed,
and could never be. And curiously, when cases came up before the Courts for what was termed
“reclassification” when there were objections lodged as to someone’s classification, the law
dictated that the Judges use the “way of life” of the person as the main criterion.
Big Brother
The Court Room for the hearing became rather bizarre at one point, and took on the allures of
an Inquisition. Yousouf Mohammed questioned Lalit candidates on their private lives and they
refused to answer, refused again and again to answer.
Most Lalit and Nuvo Lizur candidates refused to answer questions about their religious beliefs
or practices on the grounds that this was a private concern (lavi prive); one said his religious
beliefs were “sacred” to him (Sa enn zafer sakre pu mwa) and he would not disclose them; one
agreed to answer, only to say that he attended no temple, church or mosque, because he did not
believe in any god or gods. One candidate when asked what he saw when he looked in the
mirror, he said “Mo truv enn imen”. Another when asked what he “felt” (“Ki manyer u santi
u?”), answered “Normal”.
In his judgment, Justice Seetulsingh warned in strong words against this type of intrusion. I
quote: “The issue further arises as to how the judge can determine the way of life of a citizen
unless he becomes like a Big Brother in H.G. Wells’ (sic) novel 1984 and watches how a citizen
leads his private life.”
One of the “own goals” (to use a football metaphor) that Yousouf Mohamed scored in his case
for the “re-classification” of the 15 Lalit and 5 Nuvo Lizur members, was when his star witness,
Maulana Haroon, said that a person’s faith is “dan so leker”. This privacy of one’s “conscience”
is an important part of the debate, and Mr. Mohammed put a lot of emphasis on “religion” in his
cross-questioning, often implying that it was synonymous with “community”. Religion is most
certainly not the same thing as “community” for a start. As Judge Seetulsingh pointed out that
the so-called “Sino-Mauritian community” is not a “religion”. Nor is the so-called “general
population community” a religion. That’s already two communities that are not linked with any
specfic religion. And, in any case, the Constitution specifically says that community must be
judged by “way of life”. The Constitution also says that freedom of conscience makes one’s
religion what one says it is, so a “religion” cannot be imposed upon one by force as a
“community” obviously can.
But deeper than this, even if religion is one of the many pointers to the “way of life” of those
people who are in or not in two of the “communities” specified (i.e. so-called “Hindu
community” and so-called “Muslim community”), religious practice is just not the same thing as
religious faith. And conscience or religious faith is in the heart, as the Maulana pointed out. The
state cannot get into peoples’ hearts.