Parliamentary Linguistic Inclusion Must Leave No Language Behind
Language & Politics
By Pawan Kumar
The appointment of the parliamentary Select Committee to consider the introduction of Kreol into the National Assembly has sparked widespread debate across Mauritian society. For decades, parliamentary proceedings have relied strictly on English and French, excluding the island’s daily spoken tongues — such as Bhojpuri, Kreol, Tamil, Telugu, Marathi, Urdu, and Mandarin. The Select Committee’s mandate reflects an effort to align official legislative debates with the country’s diverse linguistic reality. Yet, as the Select Committee reviews written representations and sets out to shape the linguistic future of our Assembly, a fundamental principle must guide its work: the recognition of Kreol must not introduce an official hierarchy among the languages of Mauritius.
Linguistic equality is the cornerstone of a pluralistic democracy. To elevate one language while establishing a legal or procedural wall against all others would risk replacing an old colonial hierarchy with a new domestic one. As the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has recently underscored in its assessment, the term “and matters ancillary thereto” in the Select Committee’s mandate must be construed broadly to prevent institutionalising one language to the detriment of all others, opening the door to an inclusive, non-communal parliamentary policy.
Demographics vs. Rights
The primary argument for introducing Kreol is demographic accessibility. According to the 2022 Housing and Population Census, Kreol is spoken in almost 90% of Mauritian households (89.91%), either alone or in combination with other languages. It acts as a national bridge language, spoken by communities in every district.
However, a constitutional democracy does not measure rights purely by majority percentages. The same census reveals a vital socio-linguistic dynamic: while domestic use of Asian languages has diminished over generations, their cultural, historical, and institutional weight remains immense. Over a third of the population (34.22%) traces its identity to Bhojpuri, despite it being spoken at home in 8.64% of households. Meanwhile, French is spoken at home in 5.61% of households, and Hindi and other Asian languages maintain connections to up to 8% ancestral heritage per language despite representing under 2.5% of home speech.
However, demographic size should not dictate democratic representation. As the Human Rights Commission pointed out, language in Mauritius is not the exclusive property of any single ethnic community; it forms the shared linguistic reality of the nation. If an Member of Parliament (MP) chooses to draw upon an Asian language — whether to convey a nuanced cultural concept, quote historical text, or address a segment of their constituency — parliamentary procedure should facilitate, not prohibit, that expression.
Institutional Precedents
The argument for permitting ancestral languages in Parliament is not a novel demand created out of thin air; it is the natural extension of established State policy. The Mauritian government has repeatedly affirmed the value of its full linguistic spectrum through three domestic and international mechanisms, a point central to the NHRC’s findings:
1. Statutory Frameworks: The Parliament of Mauritius has enacted legislation establishing dedicated Speaking Unions for English, French, Creole, Bhojpuri, Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Marathi, Sanskrit, Tamil, Telugu, and Urdu.
2. Education and Broadcasting: The national curriculum provides formal instruction and assessment in ancestral languages, while the national broadcaster allocates dedicated daily programming to them.
3. International Cultural Commitments: In 2016, the State Party of Mauritius successfully nominated the Bhojpuri folk song tradition, Geet-Gawai, to UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity.
Having institutionalised, funded, and celebrated these languages across education, law, and international diplomacy, the State cannot logically claim they are unfit for parliamentary deliberation. The Human Rights Commission rightfully concluded that a State that has recognized these languages at the highest domestic and international levels must give reasoned consideration before excluding them from parliamentary review.
The Technological Solution
In decades past, arguments against multilingual parliaments centred on logistical barriers: the cost of physical interpreters, the delays of sequential translation, and the complexity of producing printed Hansard transcripts across multiple scripts. In the modern digital era, these technical objections are obsolete. Under a modern multilingual parliament model, an MP’s floor speech in Kreol, Bhojpuri, Tamil, Hindi, or other languages flows through real-time AI audio processing backed by a human verification layer, instantly feeding live subtitles, multi-language audio streams, and an automated digital Hansard record.
Parliaments across the globe — from the European Parliament (handling 24 official languages) to the Parliament of India (where members may address the house in any of 22 scheduled languages) — demonstrate that multilingual governance is entirely feasible.
With modern real-time audio processing, natural language processing (NLP), and computer-assisted translation tools, parliamentary staff can be equipped to handle multi-language contributions seamlessly:
* Simultaneous Audio Feeds: Members and public broadcast viewers can select their preferred audio channel — whether English, French, Bhojpuri, Kreol, Tamil, Hindi, or other languages — via earpieces or online streaming feeds.
* Automated Hansard Indexing: Speech-to-text algorithms can generate immediate draft transcripts in the original language alongside standard written translations in English or French for official archives.
* Cost Efficiency: AI-assisted translation drastically reduces the operational overhead traditionally required for large teams of manual translators, making multi-language inclusion fiscally responsible.
Technology removes the physical constraints that once forced legislatures to pick a single dominant tongue. Today, parliamentary language access is a matter of institutional willpower, not technical capability.
Legal Integrity
The Human Rights Commission’s ruling revealed a serious constitutional flaw: because Section 16 omits language from its anti-discrimination protections, victims of language bias currently have no legal remedy.
A comparison between international standards and domestic law highlights this vulnerability clearly. Articles 2(1) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by Mauritius, explicitly prohibit discrimination based on race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national or social origin, property, language, or “other status.” In contrast, Section 16(3) of the Mauritian Constitution protects against discrimination based on race, colour, sex, creed, political opinion, caste, or place of origin, but completely omits “language” and lacks a general “other status” clause, exposing a clear constitutional gap with no domestic remedy for language protection.
Furthermore, referencing European jurisprudence (Birk-Levy v. France and Mestan v. Bulgaria), the Commission emphasized that while deciding a legislature’s working language belongs to the State, restricting public submissions or creating absolute linguistic exclusions engages Section 12(1) of the Constitution (freedom to receive and impart ideas). The NHRC formally recommended:
* Amending Section 16(3) of the Constitution to add “language” as an explicit ground against discrimination.
* Reviewing Sections 33(d) and 49 regarding language proficiency requirements for MPs to assess their compatibility with Section 1 of the Constitution.
A Vision for an Inclusive Assembly
The consideration of Kreol in the National Assembly should not mean side-lining Bhojpuri, Tamil, Telugu, Marathi, Urdu and Mandarin that form the nation’s broader heritage. The Select Committee has a rare opportunity to build a parliamentary framework that reflects the full linguistic reality of Mauritius.
By framing language policy around national heritage and equal access, utilising modern translation technologies, and heeding the Human Rights Commission’s call for non-communal, open-minded democratic deliberation, Parliament can ensure that every voice — regardless of the number of people who speak its tongue — finds a welcome, respected place in our national debates.
Failing to meet the legitimate expectations of the Mauritian public — and their own constituents — carries a political cost that MPs inside and outside the Select Committee can ill afford.
Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 25 September 2026
An Appeal
Dear Reader
65 years ago Mauritius Times was founded with a resolve to fight for justice and fairness and the advancement of the public good. It has never deviated from this principle no matter how daunting the challenges and how costly the price it has had to pay at different times of our history.
With print journalism struggling to keep afloat due to falling advertising revenues and the wide availability of free sources of information, it is crucially important for the Mauritius Times to survive and prosper. We can only continue doing it with the support of our readers.
The best way you can support our efforts is to take a subscription or by making a recurring donation through a Standing Order to our non-profit Foundation.
Thank you.
