The way the MBC had to back-pedal on the changes it brought in its programmes is just very sad. The MBC had to step back because of the pressure exerted by some ?socio-cultural groups?. And the pressure was exerted through no less than the Prime Minister himself! In a recent interview, the director of MBC explained the logic behind the changes and explained how it was planned to have a survey (sondage) in order to evaluate the reaction and preference of the public (the viewers). The result of this survey would have guided the MBC whether to maintain the changes or to rectify them. This seems to be a logical and commonsense approach. The MBC exists to serve the public. Only public opinion obtained and analyzed in a scientific and professional manner, and public interest, should dictate the set-up of its programmes. This is not what happened. The opinion of a few people dictated the MBC. And what did they really ask the MBC? They just wanted more hours of Oriental programs. They have not said anything on the quality or contents of the programs. Very interesting indeed!

While this time the pressure and influence exerted by these groups surfaced into the open, in fact such things happen quite often and most of the time the public remains unaware of them. And this makes us question the sense of judgement and discernment of our elected politicians.

Who are the ?socio-cultural groups? ?

Some of the ?socio-cultural groups? have fanciful names and give the impression to be interested in social and cultural matters, but what they actually do and say prove the contrary. It seems that there is a big confusion about what their priorities should be and that they are confused about religion and culture. Consequently, they are neglecting important issues and causing great harm. They give the impression that for them religion means religious rites & rituals only! How far they are from the truth! Indeed, if they wanted to do something in the field of religion, they should have organized and offered education in religions and vulgarized the principles, philosophies and human values that religions contain. In fact all religions exist to teach us a set of universal values (such as sincerity, honesty, justice, the reward of work and good actions?etc). How many persons have they encouraged and helped to study the sacred texts? How many persons have held one of these books in their hands? Indeed, in this 21st century, instead of being a source of enlightenment, for most people the sacred books remain mystic objects full of mysteries. If that goes on like that we will soon be in the same situation that prevailed in India before Tulsidas: when people just heard about the sacred texts but were incapable of understanding, appreciating and even approaching them. How many persons who attend a religious ceremony understand the symbolism of rites, rituals and the real purpose of prayers (it is not to obtain any favour, help or fast solution to worries from God)? You could count them on the fingers of your hands! If these groups wanted to do something in the field of religion they should also have helped dissipate certain religious misconceptions and fallacies that are sources of socio-cultural perversions and injustices. Our society is strife with superstition and so many persons organize their lives according to predictions of fortunetellers, witchcraft and ?Panchan?. Worst, there is no proper training for the priests who officiate the religious ceremonies and who give the ?Panchan?. That is why it is common to discover new ?systems and rites? depending on the priest who is officiating the ceremonies, or to receive totally contradictory versions of ?Panchan? on a single and the same subject! These are the areas that need attention. But who cares?

A prayer is a means of communicating with God. And if one wants to pray sincerely one cannot pray in a rushing and boisterous crowd or through television. That is why the big crowds that the ?socio-cultural groups? are fond of organizing are in fact a disservice to the devotees! At the same time, TV broadcasts of religious rituals, rites and prayers have distorted their true meanings and transformed them into fads and shows. Moreover, when people of one community unintentionally view rites, rituals and prayers that belong to another community on TV, since they cannot understand what they see, they misinterpret it. Far from appreciating what they see, they recoil mentally, the stereotypes are reinforced and the misunderstanding increases. This is how TV broadcasts of religious rituals, rites and prayers are denaturing our religions and breeding inter-communal contempt. Talk of national unity! Some ?socio-cultural groups? are not really interested by that. They treat religions like competing commercial products that need to compete for popularity and airtime. How unholy!

The way our cultures are treated is no less pathetic. Today for most people it means more and more Bollywood Massala! Have you ever attended any ?Cultural Program/festival (fête culturelle)? that ?socio-cultural groups? often organize? Apart from speeches, there are only songs and dances. The oriental programs on which the ?socio-cultural groups? insist on contain mainly Bollywood items like movies, and song-clips like ?Gaana Masti?. And the whole family (from the 2-year-old kid to the teenage girl) usually watches these programs. And what do children and youths see and learn through them? They see girls and boys in fashionable clothes falling in love stupidly and learn about erotic dancing and singing. And this is exactly what youths put into practice these days. If the ?socio-cultural groups? wanted to something in the field of culture they should have used the subsidies they receive to focus on or finance activities and TV programs centered around education, philosophy, history, science, literature, and understanding of different cultures. This is exactly what the MBC was attempting to do (at its level) but it was forced to stop. Congratulations gentlemen! So it is obvious that the wise politicians have been ill advised to listen to these groups and committed a big blunder by doing so. The question that arises is how to avoid such blunders? The government should not take advice on religion and culture from groups that are confused on these matters. In fact the term ?socio-cultural group? is a great misnomer for these groups and source of great confusion and ?socio-cultural? damage.

Why do politicians listen to some ?socio-cultural groups? and what could be done?

But why do the politicians give so much importance and attention to these groups, to the extent that they refuse to take into account the views of their own voters? Governments often listen to these groups because they think that the ?socio-cultural groups? represent voters and could influence the voters. If such groups spread the word to vote for a particular party, would people (they claim to represent) really listen to them? Everything hinges on the intelligence of their public or audience and on what people think about these groups. And we should make a difference between the ?active members? of these groups who participate in the elections of their executive members and the public that these groups pretend to represent! Most of these groups have at most a membership of a few hundreds or a few thousands but they pretend to represent hundreds of thousands! How does this arise? Hence it is important to understand the mechanism of this multiplication factor. As we have seen above, people have become ignorant, superstitious and dependent on all kinds of rites, rituals, and beliefs. And such people are easily mobilized to attend ceremonies, prayers and ?socio-cultural programs?. The more such gatherings these groups can organize, the more influential they appear to the politicians. Through their capacity to gather people, the ?socio-cultural groups? are able to multiply their representativeness by 100. Another way they do that is by dividing the population into tribes, castes and other cleavages so that they can claim to represent specific segments of the population. And these groups compete with each other for specific segments and to impress members of the Government and the Opposition too. This competition is carried over to many places and even to the MBC. Last but not least, it is important to realise that some great politicians come from these groups. That is why the term ?socio-political group? would be more fitting for them.

We have seen above why politicians think that the socio-cultural groups could influence votes and how they are misled to listen to them and instead of listening to professionals and the voters. There is only one way to eliminate all confusion: a scientific survey on the real representativeness, influence and credibility of these groups with respect to the audience they claim to represent. Some private organization (or the University of Mauritius or the Mauritius Research Council) should carry out such a survey and make the result public. Such a survey would re-assure the politicians and save the country from a lot of trouble ahead!

While such a survey will solve part of the problem, how are we going to save our cultures and religions from being denatured as was described in Part 1? There are only 2 options. Option 1: the government should stop the subsidies to ?socio-cultural groups?. Without these subsidies, these groups will no longer feel obliged to mobilize crowds to justify the money they receive. And without the money, they would not be able to treat religions like commercial products. They will be forced to go back to the fundamentals and people will return to the prayer room of their house. Option 2: the government should develop a Charter for the ?socio-cultural groups? and each year there should be an audit (by Mauritius Audit Bureau) into the activities and expenditure of these groups. The subsidy would then be renewed only if all the clauses of the Charter have been respected and the money well spent. It is as simple as that. But of course it will be difficult to make some people understand. However with the right leadership and some determination we have been able to start quite a few revolutions, for example, in the fields of Education, Environment, Local Government and Information Technology recently. Religion and Culture are at the core of human civilizations. We cannot afford to have confusion about them. What we are experiencing in the fields of Culture and Religion since many years is no less than a devolution that will destroy us. The signs of decay are already visible. To save our country we need a revolution in the fields of Culture and Religion.

Kailash Mani Nunkoo

[email protected]

Only public opinion obtained and analyzed in a scientific and professional manner, and public interest, should dictate the set-up of MBC programmes. This is not what happened. The opinion of a few people dictated the corporation.

Why do the politicians give so much importance and attention to these socio-cultural groups, to the extent that they refuse to take into account the views of their own voters?