Language, pluralism and development: The case of Mauritius Vinesh Y Hookoomsing (in R. Trewby & S. Fitchat (eds.

), Language and Development in Southern Africa, Macmillan, Namibia (2001). Introduction Pluralism with its accepted components of language, culture and religion has com monly been associated with Asia and Africa, that is, with the South. Then, with the migration of people from the developing world to the North, more precisely t o the former colonial countries of Europe, pluralism became a political and raci al issue. Now it has become a more or less accepted feature of their major citie s. It has inspired a new intellectual and artistic trend which bears the label o f post-modernism and thrives on the paradox of globalisation, namely that the mo re the world is becoming one, the more it is going plural. Europe is probably the best example of the current globalisation paradox . European community construction was already on the move when globalisation cau ght the world and created a new context for regional grouping. With its long, in timately connected history of political, cultural and economic links, Europe sho wed the way by progressively getting rid of national obstacles and barriers to t he free movement of people and goods. When it came to language, however, member states fought for their national symbols, with the result that the European Unio n has eleven official languages. Strubell (1996) writes as follows: This laudable multilingual policy has, amazingly, developed over the years witho ut a formal decision-making process, and has reached a stage where the cost of t ranslation and interpretation is by far the largest single item in the administr ative budget of the Union. ... The European Union is now faced with a crying nee d to reduce its own internal multilingualism, but the task is extremely tricky: how will member state governments ... in Portugal, Finland, Holland or Greece, f or example, explain to their citizenry why they have supported the relegation of their language in the Union hierarchy? The European Unions language dilemma clearly demonstrates that the laws which gov ern economic and political integration do not apply to linguistic and cultural i ntegration. This brings one to the link between economics and language. Within t he field of language planning, some thinking has been devoted to the economic di mension of language policy-making and implementation. For example, should we con sider language as a type of asset, and language policy as a means of controlling , reallocating or capitalising on such language assets? Grin (1996) discusses th e analogy drawn by economists between a common language and a common currency: a lingua franca for international exchange generates savings for all partners, an d if the language established as a lingua franca is that of the largest trading partner, the savings will be greatest. Such an argument, he writes (ibid.), woul d be convincing if language were, indeed, nothing but what this category of mode ls takes it to be: a (costly) medium in the process of exchange. However, language is not just a means of communication and exchange of i nformation; and language policies cannot be based solely on a cost-benefit analy sis. To illustrate this familiar statement, one could quote a recent case of suc cessful language mobilisation in Mauritius. It concerns Tamil, a language with l ow communicative and functional value, but high religious and symbolic significa nce. Following an established former colonial practice, Mauritian banknotes carr y inscriptions in three languages in the following order: English, Tamil and Hin di. In 1998, the Bank of Mauritius issued a series of new banknotes which, apart from the illustrations, were identical to the old ones in all respects except o ne: the order in which the Tamil and the Hindi inscriptions had appeared until t hen was now reversed. This was considered as a deliberate attempt to downgrade t he Tamil language and heritage. The Tamil linguistic group staged several highly

successful mass gatherings which forced the government to sack the Director and Deputy Director of the Bank of Mauritius, remove the new notes from circulation and print fresh ones, in which the original order was re-established. The cost of withdrawing and reissuing banknotes amounted to a wastage of more than fifty million Mauritian rupees. That was the price paid for peace and harmony in a sm all island committed to unity in diversity. Mauritius: A case of no choice being the right choice? As a creation of the economic, political and cultural processes that have shaped the modern world since the days of colonial expansion, Mauritius represents an interesting example of compromise and adjustment between preserving linguistic a nd cultural assets and achieving economic development and modernisation. From th e time it became independent in 1968, Mauritius has successfully moved away from a typical colonial, monoculture-based economy to one which is modern and divers ified, with textile and tourism taking the lead over sugar. Its population, a bl end of Africa, Asia and Europe, totals slightly more than one million and belong s to the three major religions of the world. Table 1: Religion, 1990 RELIGION URBAN RURAL TOTAL % Hinduism 147 709 387 223 534 932 52,3 Islam 89 999 81 864 171 863 16,8 Christianity 169 111 139 533 308 644 30,2 Buddhism 2 818 793 3 611 0,35 Not specified 2 027 1 379 3 406 0,34 Total 411 664 610 792 1 022 456 100,0 Source: Population census of Mauritius (Central Statistical Office/CSO 1990) There is, in Mauritiuss brief history, an important episode of protecting the lin guistic and cultural rights of one ethnic group which may be quoted as a referen ce here, because it set the example for similar claims made later by other ethni c groups. In 1810, when the British took possession of the island, the French co lonists who had settled there since 1721 accepted defeat and obtained a guarante e in return that their property claims, laws, customs and religion would be uphe ld. The dominant French-based sociocultural matrix was maintained, therefore, bu t English was superimposed on this structure as the language of the administrati ve and legal set-up, and later as the language of education. The Indian immigrants who came later as indentured labourers, i.e. after the abo lition of slavery in 1835, settled on the island and progressively adopted Creol e a French-based composite language that had evolved within the 18th century sla ve society as part of the process of adjustment to their new social environment. With time, they progressively acquired land, created villages and set up socioc ultural and religious organisations. Soon they felt the time was ripe for them t o stand up for their language and cultural rights. They had numerical strength t hey represented two-thirds of the islands population and they had developed in th e 1930s, i.e. within one century, a strong political, intellectual and cultural leadership. Democracy gave them political power and they used it to achieve the recognition and maintenance of their languages, cultures and religions. Taking a dvantage of the context, the small Chinese community of traders who had settled on the island as from the middle of the 19th century succeeded in having their l inguistic and cultural assets incorporated into the broader concept of Oriental languages and cultures. However, the established sociocultural matrix with Frenc h and English as the dominant languages, and Creole as the common linking langua ge, was not questioned. With independence, which came at a period when Marxist socialism was a p owerful alternative model for newly-decolonised nations, a strong nationalist wi nd blew over the multicultural island. Mauritian Creole, the only native languag e, in the sense that it was born here and not brought from elsewhere, overnight

became a rallying symbol of unity and national consciousness. Looked down upon a s a broken variety of French, Creole used to be associated with the old slave so ciety and had ever since been the object of prejudice and contempt. The post-ind ependence nationalist movement of the 1970s contributed greatly to the acceptanc e of the Creole language and to a reassessment of its status and significance at the symbolic level. It failed, however, in its attempt to create a new sociocul tural matrix in which the production of fresh, locally-inspired national symbols and values would have superseded the old attachment to group-inherited linguist ic and cultural systems. One significant by-product of the post-independence nationalist feeling that des erves mention has been the emergence of the Mauritian Bhojpuri language and cult ure. The high value attributed to the standard Indian languages considered more appropriate as symbols of group reference and identity had for long relegated Bh ojpuri to the rank of a coarse idiom: motya bhasa or broken Hindi. The acknowledgeme nt of Mauritian Bhojpuri benefited from the nationalist movement in favour of Ma uritian Creole, but contrary to the latter, it did not question the existing soc iolinguistic framework and was, therefore, limited in scope. To sum up, from 1810 onward various languages starting with English were added t o the French-cum-Creole core: these were the Oriental languages closely associat ed with the waves of Asian immigrants who had settled on the island during the 1 9th century, the bulk of whom had come from India. The Oriental languages remain ed group languages, while Creole developed into a common linking language adopte d by all the various ethnic groups; English (the language of administration, law , education, business and industry), and French (the language of the dominant so cial group and of the printed media) were progressively acquired at school by an ever-increasing proportion of the population. To illustrate the extent to which the sociolinguistic evolution that has just be en summarised reflects the current language landscape of Mauritius, language dat a available from the latest population census report (Central Statistical Office /CSO 1990) will be examined in the next section. The Mauritian language landscape, as seen through the 1990 census Before presenting the actual language data, some explanatory comments are necess ary. It is worthwhile mentioning, for example, that since the 1983 census (CSO 1 983) Creole and Bhojpuri are explicitly recognised by the census as languages. P rior to that, only Creole was grudgingly acknowledged as a language, an acknowle dgement valid for the purpose of the Census only (ibid.). Traditionally, the censu s contained two questions related to language: first, the respondent was asked t o state the language of his/her forebears, i.e. his/her Ancestral Language (AL); a nd second, the language currently spoken at home, or Current Language (CL). In the 1990 census (CSO 1990), an additional language question was reintroduced it had originally been present in the 1952 census (Colony of Mauritius 1952) but was d ropped thereafter and it referred to Languages read and written, or Literacy Langu ages (LL). Furthermore, the respondent was no longer restricted to one language per category as had previously been the case, and was allowed to include two lan guages under AL and CL. As for LL, responses were grouped under European and Ori ental languages, with Creole and Bhojpuri being treated separately. One final remark: for the first time since language data began to be collected ( Colony of Mauritius 1944), the figures released in 1990 (CSO 1990) were not rest ricted to the national level. They provided detailed language information for ea ch town, village and smaller local residential areas as well. In the presentation that follows, for the sake of brevity only two of the langua ge categories will be discussed, namely CLs and LLs. Current languages: The predominance of Creole and Bhojpuri Numerically, Creole and Bhojpuri together represent 80,1% of the CL category (se e Table 2a). Furthermore, both of them combine with other languages to form bili ngual pairs (see Table 2b). Creole, however, is clearly the dominant CL. Its geo

graphical distribution is numerically well balanced between town and countryside . Proportionally, however, it is the CL of three-quarters of the urban populatio n and of slightly more than half of its rural speakers. Among the individual CLs, apart from the 80,1% share taken by Creole and Bhojpur i, French (3,3%) and Hindi (1,2%) are the only other languages to obtain a perce ntage figure higher than 1. The score of the other CLs in Table 2a shows clearly that their importance in terms of number of speakers is negligible. English is one of these, in spite of its status which equals that of an official language. This is not surprising since it has never been the mother tongue of a sizeable g roup within the ethnic set-up of the island, as is the case with the Chinese and Indian languages. Table 2a: Current languages (CL), 1990 POPULATION URBAN RURAL TOTAL Number % Number % Number % Creole 305 025 74,5 312 605 51,2 617 630 60,4 Bhojpuri 18 104 4,4 183 512 30,0 201 616 19,7 French 26 198 6,4 8 145 1,3 34 343 3,3 English 1 519 0,4 713 0,1 2 232 0,2 Hindi 2 728 0,7 10 117 1,6 12 845 1,2 Marathi 1 633 0,4 5 902 1,0 7 535 0,7 Tamil 2 387 0,6 5 615 0,9 8 002 0,8 Telegu 1 206 0,3 5 231 0,8 6 437 0,6 Gujrathi 290 0,03 Urdu 1 145 0,3 5 659 0,9 6 804 0,7 Arabic 208 0,02 Chinese 3 009 0,7 641 0,1 3 650 0,3 TOTAL 362 954 88,7 538 140 87,9 901 592 87,95 Source: Population census of Mauritius (CSO 1990) Creole is the only CL that combines with all the other CLs (see Table 2b). Some expected trends are also confirmed: for example, Creole+Chinese, Creole+Urdu and especially Creole+French are mostly urban combinations, while the numerically s ignificant Creole+Bhojpuri pair is predominantly rural. The urban/rural distinct ion thus clearly demarcates Creole, French, English and Chinese as urban languag es and the Indian languages as part of the rural set-up. To a large extent, this reflects the old ethnic patterns of residence.

Table 2b: Current bilingualism, 1990 LANGUAGE URBAN RURAL Creole + Bhojpuri + French + Hindi + Marathi + Tamil + Telegu + Urdu + Other Indian languages + Chinese 12 668 16 109 TOTAL

1 607 496 2 514 368 4 136 1 5 1 1 2 1 2 261 48 574 21 326 3 426 1 779 5 312 1 797 6 478 1 701 2 055 TOTAL 39 692 51 055 92 448 Bhojpuri + Creole + Hindi + Urdu + Other Indian languages 12 668 3 106 51 35 906 17 870 552 48 574 20 976 603 374 TOTAL 15 825 54 328 70 527 One quite unexpected finding revealed by Table 2b shows that the combinations of Creole and an Indian language (other than Bhojpuri) total 20 493, while the the oretically more natural Bhojpuri+Indian language combinations are only slightly higher at 21 953, a figure which is almost totally made up of the Bhojpuri+Hindi pair (20 976). In other words, the Bhojpuri+Indian language (other than Hindi) combinations are numerically negligible (977), compared with the Creole+Indian l anguage (other than Bhojpuri and Hindi) combinations (17 067). This could mean t hat the role traditionally attributed to Bhojpuri as the linking language among the various Indo-Mauritian linguistic groups was probably valid in the past, but with the growing shift to Creole, Bhojpuri has gradually lost that function. Up to the 1990 census (CSO 1990), the relation between language and identity was based on a one-to-one equation. Acknowledging the existence of linguistic plura lism in effect means questioning the validity of a single language as one of the determining criteria for defining ethnicity. By accepting Creole and Bhojpuri, the average individual respondent may be considered to have come progressively c loser to his real language context and, in the same process, to have moved away fr om a construed, prescribed language context. The movement away from language norms and values established by the grou p, or rather by the guardians of the groups tradition and value system, may be fu rther illustrated by the growing influence of a school and education system base d on English and French. These two marginalised CLs, inherited from the West and 794 35 906 217 819 283 798 429 342

acquired in the classroom, have quite naturally become the main if not, in many cases, sole languages of literacy (LLs). Languages read and written: The new school-based multilingualism The last time literacy data were included in the national census was in 1952. So me forty years later, the literacy question was reintroduced and the instruction s given in the census guide (CSO 1990) read as follows: State the language(s) in which the person can, with understanding, both read and write a simple statement in his or her everyday life. Do not include a language in which the person can read and write only his (her) name, figures and memoris ed phrases. Consider Creole and Bhojpuri as languages. Write none for persons (including children) who cannot read and write any language . [original emphasis] Table 3: Languages read and written, 1990 POPULATION (12+ YEARS) RURAL No. Creole 13 519 15 113 28 632 Bhojpuri 562 2 376 Creole and Bhojpuri 859 Oriental languages (OLs) European languages (ELs) ELs & OLs 48 956 120 767 None 39 293 105 469 144 762 TOTAL 322 436 461 410 783 846 URBAN TOTAL % 3,6 2 938 3 279 7 810 211 437 169 723 18,4 100,0

0,4 4 138 0,5 16 447 24 257 3,1 197 959 409 396 52,1 21,6

As could be expected, Creole and Bhojpuri are almost non-existent as LLs. Exclud ed from the classroom, sometimes the only place where literacy is acquired, thes e two languages are considered and used primarily as spoken media. In spite of t he strong nationalist appeal in favour of Creole and, to a lesser extent, Bhojpu ri, people at large are still not convinced that these two languages should be s tandardised, written and used at school. Technically, somebody who has acquired literacy in English and/or French can use that competence to write Creole, even if that would mean using a non-st andard writing system based on French and/or English. Similarly, somebody who ca n write Hindi should normally be able to write, read and understand Bhojpuri. It is, therefore, significant that the 75% or so of Mauritians literate in Europea n languages (ELs) and Oriental languages (OLs) have not thought it fit to extend the benefit of their reading and writing competence to Creole and Bhojpuri. Another important feature revealed in Table 3 concerns the marginal perc entage of people (3,1%) who are literate in OLs only. One may safely assume that many of them would be adult and elderly people who have acquired and maintained a home or community-based competence in OLs. The high level of literacy in ELs, namely English and French (52,1% for ELs alon e and 21,6% for ELs+OLs), is in sharp contrast with the marginal status of these two languages as CLs (English 0,2%; French 3,3%). It reflects the extent to whi ch ELs are associated with education and knowledge, and consequently, with prosp ects of social and professional advancement. Interestingly, the school appears to have replaced the traditional community age ncies through which literacy in OLs used to be acquired. In a way, this correspo nds to an important accepted function of the school as an agent of cultural main tenance and transmission. It must be pointed, however, that the acquisition of l iteracy in OLs has a more of a symbolic than a functional value. This may be ill ustrated by the fact that school-based literacy in OLs only is not possible with

in the system: it has to be linked with literacy in ELs, as shown in Table 3. In other words, a pupil learning an OL has to learn three languages at school; but if he/she chooses to learn two languages, these can only be ELs. The system doe s not allow the combination of one EL and one OL. In summary, the various languages to be accounted for within the Mauritian conte xt may be categorised into three distinct domains, as follows: the home/private, non-formal/public domain of oral use occupied by Creole, and t o some extent by Bhojpuri, especially in the countryside the domain of symbolic reference and cultural identity covered by OLs and Bhojpu ri, and now progressively in association with Creole, and the domain of education, information, career prospects and advancement, which is the realm par excellence of ELs. There is, thus, a high degree of complementarity among the languages and the language categories discussed in this paper. This would to a large extent e xplain why the politics of linguistic and cultural pluralism, as practised withi n the Mauritian context, have up to now generally been successful. Over the last twelve years or so, Mauritius has been liberalisin g its economy and society and modernising its infrastructure and support service s. It is now being progressively absorbed into the one-world system of the globa l market economy, communication and culture. However: how far will it be able to preserve its linguistic and cultural diversity in a growing context of the tren d towards increasing global uniformity? To what extent will the very notion of p luralism remain valid, relevant and compatible with the politics of development and modernisation based on the market economy and open society model? These are so me of the issues which will be raised in the following section. Language and development in plural or post-ethnic? Mauritius One fundamental statement made at the beginning of this paper was that M auritius, as a social and economic formation, is the product of Western colonial expansion. Therefore, it follows that the various ethnic groups which settled h ere or were forcibly transplanted from elsewhere had to fit into a society patte rned on the European model. The changes that took place during the late 19th cen tury and the first half of the 20th century basically, this means the social, cu ltural and political rise of the Mauritians of Indian origin had a bearing on th e system, even if they did not challenge its foundations. In time, those foundations became more flexible and elastic. Under mass pressure for political, social and cultural restructuring, the system opted for compromise and adjustment. This has more or less been the pattern of change and evolution followed by modern Mauritius today. It may be described as the politics of consensus and gradualism. To illustrate my point, I will quote some examples from the field of lan guage legislation. Contrary to many newly-independent countries, Mauritius prefe rred not include an official language policy as such in its 1968 Constitution; a lthough mention is made to official language and language use, that reference is res tricted to parliamentary conduct. The 1968 Constitution stated that the official language of Parliament was to be English, but that any member was also permitte d to address the Speaker of the House in French. Twenty-five years later, when t he country became a republic in 1992, the only changes made to the Constitution concerned terminology. For example, Parliament was replaced by National Assembly, an d the Crown by the State. The English/French compromise regulating language use at national level has some interesting variations at regional administration level. The urban auth orities, for example, are free to use English or French for their proceedings an d debates as well as for the recording of minutes. The greater flexibility noted here is in favour of French, which is a way of acknowledging the greater import ance of French within the urban context. When it comes to rural administration, the use of English is made compulsory for recording minutes of proceedings, but

no rule is laid down as far as debates are concerned, which means that any langu age including Creole or Bhojpuri may be used. Once again, the constraints of the context appear to have been taken into account. The use of French is rather rar e in the villages and the recourse to written English for administrative matters is a more or less familiar practice. There have been significant changes in the spread of English and French language competence thanks to the school system, b ut since the language regulations are so flexible and adjustable, nobody has fel t the need to press for their review. It is precisely in the field of education, in fact, that the language pr ovisions of the 1957 Education Ordinance still hold good. During the first three years of early schooling, theoretically, any appropriate language of instructio n may be used. Since English becomes the medium of instruction as from the fourt h year, however, sheer pragmatism dictates that it be introduced as early as pos sible. Similarly, since the law makes provision for the introduction of languages other than English, and as the social and cultural importance of French has neve r been questioned, French is also part of the early curriculum. With English and French having set the pattern, the system has been pressurised to make room for the simultaneous inclusion of Oriental languages within the school curriculum. For quite some time now, educationists have been questioning the wisdom of the early introduction of three languages that are not, from the learners pers pective, his/her first or home languages. Their questions have been systematical ly answered with the political argument that there a price is to be paid for ens uring peace and harmony in a plural society. The argument still continues, and h as even become more heated since 1995, when the government decided that Oriental languages should also count for ranking and selection, in addition to certifica tion, at the primary-school terminal examination. Once again, the opponents in this debate are the modernists, on th e one hand, who believe that more importance should be given to English and Fren ch in consideration of their strength and value as instruments of access to the modern world of technology and development; and the traditionalists, on the other hand, who feel that the preservation of ones reference language and culture shoul d be reinforced within the education system, particularly in the present context of growing consumerism and the increasing global trend towards cultural uniform ity. The ongoing debate is certainly not a new one, and may end up in a stalemate since there is no clear-cut ethnic or social line of demarcation be tween the two sides. What it does highlight, however, is the great difficulty of striking the right balance between preserving cultural diversity and promoting industrial development and modernisation. Among the three main stalwarts of the Mauritian economy sugar, t ourism and industry sugar is no longer perceived as the backbone of the economy. The old agricultural basis of Mauritian society is progressively giving way to the other two sectors, which are clearly more dynamic, profitable and future-ori ented. With tourism, the country has developed a sophisticated infrastructure to cater for the taste and comfort of a Western clientele. At the same time, howev er, it has felt the need to preserve and promote its cultural diversity as a com modity with appeal for tourists. Paradoxically, the result has been the emergenc e of a soft, composite version of the various cultures, cultivated as part of th e sun-sand-and-sea package, but which, interestingly enough, is also appealing t o the increasingly Westernised average Mauritian, irrespective of his or her eth nic background. With its industrialisation, Mauritius has developed a keen sense of the value and importance of its Western linguistic and cultural background. Consider ed as one of the rare francophone countries where the French language and cultur e continue to progress, Mauritius nevertheless remains firmly attached to Englis h: it is essential for the development of trade, business, industry and informat ion technology. Mauritius is also actively involved in promoting the recently cr eated Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Co-operation (IORARC), within wh ich English is the common medium of exchange. However, the Indian Ocean is not simply another commerce and trade zone:

it is also an important zone of cultural exchange and migration. Mauritius is a good example of how peoples and cultures have migrated across this vast ocean. The business communities of the island are also part of complex networks with Au stralia, China, Hong Kong, India, Madagascar, Malaysia, Singapore and South Afri ca, where communication is greatly facilitated by common ethnic and cultural bac kgrounds. Taken together, all these factors may explain why Mauritius has, up to now, managed to reconcile linguistic and cultural diversity with economic development and modernisation. However, the society is still in transition. As it moves along the path of establishing a market economy and comes closer to the consumer-oriented, open society model, cultural differences may probably become l ess significant. In a comparative study of Mauritius and Trinidad, Eriksen (1992 ) questions the classic concept of plural society in relation to these two count ries, and suggests that the culturally homogenising processes of modernity are a ctive in both of them. He therefore proposes the concept of post-ethnic society to refer to them. How far this new concept is applicable to present-day Mauritiu s is subject to debate, but it has nonetheless stimulated an alternative approac h to the stereotypical, static view of Mauritian society with its languages, cul tures and ethnic groups co-existing in tenuous peace and harmony. Over the past few decades, Mauritian society has been subject to profound changes in terms of economic development and modernisation. Some of th ese changes have been reflected in the language landscape that has emerged from the census data presented and analysed earlier. The language landscape does not resemble the usually clear-cut picture showing distinct language profiles: rathe r, it shows a restructuring of the traditional multilingual repertoire of the av erage Mauritian, largely as a result of formal language acquisition at school. A t a more general level, the changes currently observed point towards a shift fro m a plural society in which the unit of measure and reference is the community, to one in which that unit is the individual. The prospect of linguistic and cultur al diversity located in the individual represents a worthwhile ideal, the pursui t of which may be most rewarding in a world context where globalism may mean gen eralised uniformity. References Allen, R. 1983. Creoles, Indian immigrants and the restructuring of society and e conomy in Mauritius, 1767-1885. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Illinois. Benedict, B. 1965. Mauritius: problems of a plural society. London: Pall Mall. Colony of Mauritius. 1944. Census of Mauritius and its dependencies. Port Louis. Colony of Mauritius. 1952. Census of Mauritius and its dependencies. Port Louis. Colony of Mauritius. 1962. Census of Mauritius and its dependencies. Port Louis. Eriksen, TH. 1990. Communicating cultural differences and identity: Ethnicity and nationalism in Mauritius. Occasional papers in Social Anthropology. Oslo: Scandi navian University Press. Eriksen, TH. 1992. Us and them in modern societies: Ethnicity and nationalism in Mauritius, Trinidad and beyond. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Government of Mauritius. 1968. Constitution of Mauritius. Port Louis: Government Printer. Government of Mauritius, Central Statistical Office. 1972. Population census of Mauritius. Rose-Hill: CSO. Government of Mauritius, Central Statistical Office. 1983. Housing and populatio n census of Mauritius. Port Louis: CSO. Government of Mauritius, Central Statistical Office. 1990. Population census of Mauritius. Port Louis: CSO. Grin, F. 1996. The economics of language: Survey, assessment, and prospects. Inter national journal of the sociology of language, 121:17-44. Hookoomsing, VY. 1986. Langue et identit ethnique: Les langues ancestrales Maurice . Journal of Mauritian studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 126-153. Hookoomsing, VY. 1987. Lemploi de la langue crole dans le contexte multilingue et m

ulticulturel de Maurice. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universit Laval, Qubec. Hookoomsing, VY. 1994. Preserving pluralism in the context of development and mod ernization: The case of Mauritius with particular reference to the Indo-Mauritia ns. Paper presented at the International Conference on the Maintenance of Indian Languages and Culture Abroad, Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, Ind ia, January 1994. Republic of Mauritius. 1992. Constitution of Mauritius. Port Louis: Government P rinter. Simmons, AS. 1983. Modern Mauritius: The politics of decolonization. Bloomington : Indiana University Press. Stein, P. 1983. Connaissance et emploi des langues lle Maurice. Hamburg: Helmut Bu sche Verlag. Strubell, M. 1996. Language policy perspectives in Switzerland. Swiss political sc ience review, Vol. 2, Issue 3, pp. 93-111.