To be more explicitly explained, Eisenloher mentions arguments about the diaspora

studies with creolization issues. Various languages such as Arabic, Persian, French, and
English were basically standardized; but those are not practically used by the communities;
but then new language is formed. In addition, tradition of research on language ideology is
applied in the studies mentioned in the first chapter. It is clearly explored how the politics of
Little India spread in terms of the sociolinguistic and political point of view. Particularly,
based on the modulatory of ethnolinguistic nationalism that the author finds regarding to the
motivation behind his ethnography research, there are some fundamental issues that
surprisingly raise. “Officially recognized ancestral language are considered the exclusive
ethnic property of the particular groups claiming them.” (p.31) In the other
words,sanskrititized Hindi is actually being promoted by Hindu nationalists as a language of
ethnic affiliation in a place where only few people are able to control it.

Mauritians claim that Hindi is the main language among all the ancestral languages. It
is mostly used in educational context. The use of the other ancestral languages such as Tamil,
Telugu and Marathi is mainly indicated and associated with Hindu religious contexts.
However,as time passed, the ethnographical observation done by the authorto people’s daily
life in the field reveals that Hindi is not used in everyday interaction. There are probably
particular reasons behind this; such as the political issues related to Hindu religion brings
some transitional dimension. As the result, ancestral languages that are not in line with
French and English, including Hindi, is signposted to Hindu identity. This brings Mauritians
to have the experience of creolized. To face these phenomena, Local Hindu nationalist
organization “voice their agenda”. (p.40) The promotion ancestral languages is always gained.
Going withit, Bhojburi is mostly used in their daily life and widely known by people there,
especially people who speak in two languages; as the effect of creolization. Yet this happens
not because the promotion of the Local Hindu nationalist organization. It occurs because of
the subsuming the ancestral language under the category of Hindi in the eyes of those who
play the politics of Hindu nationalism.

The lack of Hindu identity’s securities in the diaspora triggers global Hinduism which
argues that “Hinduism is not a religion but a civilization”. (p. 48) This global political
movement attempts to place Indo-Mauritians within the larger Hindu world through the
performance of connection to India. Hindu nationalism forms the basis of an exclusionary
politics contrasting markedly with efforts to promote Mauritian Creole. This language is
basically a national language that is spoken by mostly all of Mauritians. Identifying Hindi as
the language of ancestor is taken to make all of the Hindi aspects becomes a promotion of
Hindu power in Mauritius. Another ethno-linguistic perspective on Mauritian identity
centered on the idea of Mauritius as a Creole country was formulated soon after
independence in 1968. If the maximal overlap between Creole ethnic traditions and a
Mauritian nation conceived through the lens of Mauritian Creole linguistic nationalism were
achieved, Indo-Mauritians would find themselves in a peripheral position of ethnic mark and
difference from a hegemonic national culture, not unlike the experience of Indo-Trinidadians.

In the politics of Hindu diasporization, Creole speakers of African descent are left
without an ancestral language tying them to a homeland outside the island. “Hindi as the
ancestral language of Mauritian Hindu is the product of a complex history of articulation
between European ideals of linguistic ethnicity linked to standardized vernacular languages
and South Asian traditions of connecting social and linguistic differentiation. (pp. 62-63)
English and French, meanwhile, continue to dominate in formal education and in the mass
media. Tamil, Telugu, Urdu, and Marathi have all been marginalized, and whereas South
Indian Hindus might have spoken Bhojpuri as a second language in the past, these speakers
are now switching to a more solidly Creole repertoire for everyday talk. The author could not
have picked a better site from which to interrogate the politics of officializing discourses on
language in relation to the social fact of “incompatibility between creolization and Hindu
collective self-imaging”. (p.65)

As one might have imagined, the state-backed politics of ancestral languagehas been
received with a degree of ambivalence among Indo-Mauritians. Formany, the experience of
economic progress since independence has meant ashift to Creole away from Bhojpuri, and
away from the life of work in thesugarcane industry that has long been associated with the
latter language. Aresulting sense of loss of tradition, or what some Mauritians call
“deculturalization”(53, 208), appears to have opened the way for the promotion of Hindias an
ancestral language through the politics of Hindu nationalism, thus separatingquestions of
ethnolinguistic belonging from everyday vernacular practice.This dissociation between
unmarked practice and the discourse on ancestralethnolinguistic belonging is Eisenlohr’s
main thematic thread in the first partof the book. He attempts to make sense of this
ideological phenomenon throughan analysis of the spatio-temporal relationship between
ethnic communities andtheir imagined homelands, a relationship that comes to the fore in the
secondhalf of the book.