The recent Apartés guest (l?express 7th May 2004) made a revealing statement towards the end of his interview: ?Entre être bien avec la majorité hindoue et être le défenseur de celui qui souffre, je n?hésite pas une seule seconde!? A Martian reading this would think that there is an absolute dichotomy between ?la majorité hindoue? and ?celui qui souffre?. And she would of course, be dead wrong because a dichotomy must strictly speaking exhaust all other possibilities. Mr Souchon continues with a righteous ?Je préfère cela que prendre le risque qu?un jour, on vienne me dire qu?il y avait des gens qui souffraient et que j?ai fait semblant de ne pas le voir?.

There is no need for Mr Souchon to wait for ?un jour?. He is already turning a blind eye to the fact that poverty is as painful to the ?ptit créole? as it is to anyone else in this society. I may be wrong but as far as I can see, God does not seem to have a product differentiation strategy as far as poverty is concerned. Poverty does not strike with a hierarchy of suffering based on one?s religious identity. Perhaps Mr Souchon should take a long, wide-open-eyes walk through some of our villages one of these days.

Coming from someone who is supposedly a societal light-bearer, Mr Souchon?s statements depict a disappointingly reductionist view of our society. There are two immediate observations to be made about such narrow-mindedness. The first is that if Mr Souchon really wants to get to the root of the woes of the ?ptit créole?, he may well have to make the extra effort to take a few additional steps down history lane. Slavery, which denied the ?ptit créole? his basic human rights, stripped him of any iota of human dignity, and decimated any concept of self-belief, was hardly invented or practised by the ?majorité hindoue?. Harnessing religious hatred between the ?ptit créole? and the ?majorité hindoue? may be clever in terms of wiggling out of the responsibility for deeper historical grievances but it is also sheer dishonesty.

The second observation is that while Mr Souchon is absolutely right in saying ?just too bad? about his tarnished reputation ?auprès de la communauté hindoue?, it is to be hoped that he would be a little less nonchalant if a ?ptit créole? were to ask him to comment about the status of the ?ptit créole? within the hierarchy of the Catholic church in Mauritius 2004.

Mr Souchon?s above-mentioned statements are no less detestable and deplorable than those uttered by the fanatics at the Voice of Hindu or Hizbullah. More importantly, when we consider the kind of mindset needed to construct our future, Mr Souchon?s attitudes are as misguided as the politicians who keep harping on the ?bef travay souval manzé? slogan.

In this small island to which the world owes nothing, our destinies are inextricably linked. Before the cake can be shared, it must be produced. People of all creeds must be challenged to look for their share in the production process before asking for a slice to consume. To suggest that the future can only be envisaged through the nurture of prejudice towards any section of the population is sadly primeval. And to construct a pluralist society resolutely tuned to a common future with such backward attitudes, ?alors là, on est vraiment mal barré?.

Nita Deerpalsing