● <B>A definition of genocide

The Genocide Convention of 1948 defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, namely:

Killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group and /or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The critical element here is the presence of?intent to destroy». Thus, the imposition of restrictions in China about single-child families does not constitute genocidal policies, as the intent is to restrict the size of groups, not to destroy anyone. Policies implemented during the German Third Reich with respect to Jews and gypsies on the other hand, were quite clearly genocidal (the aim being to physically eliminate these groups by extermination in camps). So were the mass killing of Tutsis by their Hutu ?brothers? in Rwanda, when Radio Mille Collines urged on the killers with one of the worst human sentences ever pronounced ?n?oubiez pas les femmes et les enfants!?

● <B>Another form : social genocide. </B>

Many experts consider the above definition as deficient. For instance, it excludes the physical destruction of sub-groups that have been the victims of extensive programmed killing, such as the bourgeoisie during the French revolution, the intelligentsia in Cambodia under Pol-Pot and all opponents (real or perceived) during Stalin?s reign in the USSR. Also, the definition focuses on physical destruction only, leaving out social and economic exclusion and eradication. There have been instances in which groups have physically survived but their cultural distinctiveness and way of life have been eradicated. Examples are the destruction of Tibetan culture by the Chinese, or that of indigenous peoples such the Red Indians in USA and Canada, the Aborigines of Australia, the various Amerindian tribes in Paraguay and Brazil, that of the Ituri people (pygmies) in Congo etc. The term proposed by several authors to describe the latter cases is that of ?Social Genocide?. The term covers ALL MEANS OF REMOVAL of means of livelihood, of land and other economic assets, of employment and educational opportunities, of representation and freedom of expression, of a group?s cultural identity and freedom of religious belief and practice. Thus, would the uprooting of inhabitants of the Bikini Atolls* in the Pacific by the USA in the 1950?s (in order to test the first Hydrogen bombs) be an example of SG? What about the uprooting of the Chagossians by the British, again for American military purposes? And what about a very improbable scenario of selling off Agalega (with a real danger of social genocide of its inhabitants) to a foreign power, as reported by the highly reputable ?Times of India? on 25 November 2006 and also by Associated Press?

(A parenthesis about India: the world?s largest true democracy has been since the time of Nehru a leader of non-alignment and also, in the field of decolonisation, a strong defender of the case for the return of Diego to Mauritius; today, under the enlightened leadership of AbdulKallam/Sonia Gandhi/ Manmohan Singh, it is MOST UNLIKELY that the Republic of India would even consider depriving a sister Republic (ours) of yet another chunk of its territory. To even propose a take-over of Agalega, as the ?Times? article mentions, for military and strategic reasons, would unleash fury, nationally and internationally!)

Film director Fernando Solanas was not prepared to accept that the outrage to humanity perpetrated in Argentina be forgotten and hence made a fantastic documentary film which he called ?A Social Genocide (Memoria Del Saqueo)?, covering the destruction suffered by Argentinians during the reign of the Colonels. He even creates a new word (?Mafiocracy?) to describe their leaders who were ?little more than thieves with the aim of making profit while nothing else mattered?. Take the fact that Argentina and its common people had to cover the debt of the subsidiary companies of multinationals that had been lent billions by their OWN parent companies (hoping that this mention does not give the wrong ideas to some!)

The film ruthlessly documents how 9 million Argentinians lived in abject poverty, as thousands of jobs had been destroyed to satisfy, amongst others, the World Bank and the IMF?s austerity measures and how people lost all savings as the banking system collapsed.

● <B>In conclusion</B>: Mauritius, a peace-loving country, a mini-United Nations par excellence, will never practice or even think of physical genocide.

But discrimination against a given group (through systematic exclusion if not downright removal from the mainstream, from the service and from services, from equality of opprtunity in employment and education, from land ownership etc) by its insidious nature can creep in slowly and if not counteracted can become «social genocide» in no time.

Take for example the absence up to now of land title deeds for the inhabitants of Rodrigues and of Agalega. (Had the Chagossians held title deeds en bonne et du forme in 1967, it would not have been possible for the British Government at the time to declare that they were a transient population and make them ?leve pake alle?. Between the previous government and the present one, between the IBL plan and the Indian plan, the people of Agalega are the losers without title deeds to THEIR land. Any development must necessarily be discussed with the 200 or so Agalegans (whose ancestors have lived there since the 19th century or even earlier) and their full agreement obtained. Unless somebody bad is planning to get rid of them!

All the above discriminations may be termed ?social genocide? only if master-planned, not if they occur by neglect or apathy. But given the clear philosophy with which this Government has been elected (a due place for every one), Mauritius is today an unlikely candidate for the label of ?social genocide?. Furthermore, an urgent task of Government, in this area of EQUITY, in the 2nd and 3rd years of its mandate, is to make this aim a reality by taking corrective (including positive discrimination) measures where necessary.

P.S.: After being forcibly moved in 1946, the 167 Bikinians received a first meagre compensation of US $ 325,000(25,000 in cash and 300,000 in trust, which yielded interest equal to US$ 15 per inhabitant per year!).Then they were left to starve for years on Kili and later on Rongerik Islands.In 1968(at about the time of the forcible removal of Chagossians from Diego) the United States declared theBikini Atolls habitable and started bringing the Bikinians back to their homes , at last. In 1978, however, the islanders were removed again(this time forever!) when deadly radio-active strontium-90 in their bodies, in crabs, coconut and breadfruit reached dangerous levels. They sued the United States and were awarded, it appears, US$100 million in compensation(Rs 3,300 million at today?s exchange rate).What, in comparison, did the Chagossians get?

<B>Dr Michael ATCHIA</B> [email protected]