Dr
Jagan's Legacy: To Use or Not To Use
Posted March 20th. 2005 - by Kampta Karran
That Dr Cheddi Jagan has left a tremendous legacy cannot be denied. It is nice to know that his legacy is being guarded. But sometimes when legacies are guarded too zealously the guardians imprison them and the beneficiaries of the legacies are robbed of their inheritances.
One aspect of his legacy is the many ideas he offered for the political advancement of Guyana. Perhaps at this stage of our troubled history it will also be useful to apply some of his ideas more liberally. There is one powerful political idea of Dr Jagan that I find particularly appealing.
Dr Jagan was toying with the notion of a Mandela Formula as a possible political solution for Guyana. Sadly, his death robbed us of this happy inspiration. His fascination with a Mandela Formula was not a sudden whim. In fact it had a long history. It started with the PAC. Dr Jagan knew from that early stage of his political career that a successful assault on colonialism must of necessity be done by an alliance of class and race. In his practice he always sought a running mate of African ancestry.
A close examination of the establishment of the PPP and its subsequent victory at the 1953 elections shows how much he was willing to endure to keep this uneasy alliance together.
After the split of the so-called national movement, he did all he could in the first half of 1960s, when he was if office, to re-attract Mr Burnham and his PNC to continue the anti-colonial campaign. Reading his correspondence of that period showed just how badly he wanted a coalition with the PNC. To achieve this end he was willing to give up the leadership position which was the bone of contention between him and Mr Burnham in the early 1950s.
After the 1964 General Elections he tried to get Mr Burnham and the PNC to form the coalition with the PPP but his efforts were in vain.
By the second half of the 1970s he came up with another idea to realise this very end. It was documented in what became known as the National Patriotic Front Government proposal. Sadly, Mr Burnham and his PNC did not respond positively to his overtures.
But Dr Jagan was persistent. He also offered critical support to the PNC and many of his comrades left him to join Mr Burnham and the PNC. Receiving evidence is now showing that before Mr Burnham passed away talks were afoot to explore a power sharing arrangement between the PPP and the PNC.
His longing for a national front arrangement inspired him to engineer the PPP/CIVIC to contest the 1992 elections. A combination of local and international forces assured him political victory.
But his idea of a truly representative government was never really abandoned. He followed Mr Mandela’s career very closely and when he saw what was being done in South Africa which was much more divided that Guyana he obviously wanted to adopt what was appropriate for his beloved homeland. Time did not permit him to pursue his grand mission.
Today, for the first time in the history of Guyana the entire opposition is willing to seek a political solution which has at its core some form of power sharing. One would suppose that the Guardians of Dr Jagan’s legacy have a responsibility to bring to fruition Dr Jagan’s life long political dream.
THE
ERC & BAD PRACTICE: A CALL FOR A PUBLIC INQUIRY
Posted March 10th. 2005 - by Kampta Karran
Mr Clarence Ellis, in the print and electronic media raised the question: "Is Edghill African? Does he identify with the aspirations of Black people? Does he know what those aspirations are? Or is he one of those individuals who think that to have a racial identity is to be dysfunctional in a multi-racial society?"
Action speaks louder than words. So let us examine Mr Juan Edghill’s action as Chairman of the Ethnic Relations Commission. In this regard it was stated earlier “perhaps a look at the employment practice of the ERC would be revealing. The Chairman, the CEO and the officer in charge of administration all belong to the same ethnic group. This means that:
1. the three main areas of authority reside in the hands of members of the same ethnic group.
2. members of all other ethnic groups could only find employment in subordinate positions.”
We are told by Mr. Raschid Osman, Public Education and Awareness Department of the ERC, “The Commission recruits staff through advertisements in the media, and working with applications, and looking at the qualifications and experience of applicants, the Commission tries, as far as possible, to come up with a workforce that reflects the ethnic make-up of the Guyanese people.”
We are also told that some one was offered the position of Deputy Chief Executive Officer/Head of the Public Education and Awareness Department but that that person eventually withdrew. This bit of information while useful did not address the main concern raised. That is the outcome of the employment procedure is that today in the ERC power resides in the hands of members of one race.
It should be noted that even if this person who was offered the position of Deputy Chief Executive Officer/Head of the Public Education and Awareness Department was in the employ of the ERC this would not have changed this imbalance. But why did Mr Osman throw in this red herring. Perhaps it was to discredit the person making the observation about the improper employment practice of the ERC. Also perhaps it was to create a distraction from the main issue. But based on the emails I have received people are not deceived and they really saddened to know that at the levels of the Chair, CEO and Administration, power in the ERC resides in the hands of members of one racial group.
In an effort to point the way forward, the Stabroek News editorialised [27. 02. 05] “One has the feeling that the Ethnic Relations Commission should be concentrating on its true functions.” Which according to the SN editorial “is to promote inter-ethnic harmony, and discourage and prohibit discrimination.” To engage this grand project in multi-racial Guyana the ERC must first of all be beyond reproach. Its legitimacy should not be open to question and its process of recruitment must not appear to place power in the hands of members of one racial group and thereby marginalise or exclude all others. Who will trust the ERC when it has to monitor the employment practice of others if its own house is not in order?
Mr Osman enlightens us “the Commission tries, as far as possible, to come up with a workforce that reflects the ethnic make-up of the Guyanese people”…The issue of ethnic representation is addressed. But ethnic representation is not only a numerical affair. It also has to do with seniority and power relations. If senior positions are reserved for members of one race only, then this could be deemed unfair. We are then told “…there are times when applications received by the Commission are not truly representative of the ethnic groups that constitute the Guyanese people.” Are we to conclude that only the applications from members of one racial group possess the qualifications and experience necessary to occupy the senior positions?
To further compound the matter, someone who is acquainted with the workings of the ERC sent me an email which claims that there is a racial imbalance among the Commissioners with voting rights. According to the sender of the email if you were to examine the racial composition of the commissioners, you will find that there is exclusion and imbalance. Chinese, Amerindians and minorities are excluded and there are more members [with voting rights] who will be identified as belonging to the same race as the Chairman, the CEO and the Officer in charge of administration. If this is true then something is definitely wrong. If this is true then the ERC borders on something called institutional racism. And the diversionary tactic we see in the response of Mr. Osmon could now be cast as part of the defense mechanism of an organisation with something to hide.
These are fundamental matters and it is hoped that they will be treated as such. So far the race relations discourse has thrown up some important concerns that has to be addressed if we are going to chart a redemptive pathway to peaceful living in a multiracial society. And the institutions that are established to help us get there must be beyond reproof. They must not appear to run the risk of losing their moral authority that is essential for them to perform their true function. Neither must they appear to run the risk of perpetuating the same distrust and insecurity they are mandated to eliminate. One could only hope that the recent response of the Ministry of Finance to the ERC is not based on any form of disrespect. The manner in which Dr Gibson's book was handled has occasioned major dissatisfaction among a sizable proportion of population.
Against this backdrop, an inquiry by a competent and neutral body will help us to determine whether the ERC has run counter to good practice and has in the process breached the Prevention of Discrimination Act. Further one could only agree with Mr Ellis’s caption “A philosophy based on inequality will defeat the ERC(’s) push for equality of opportunity.” Therefore, all those who are committed to the cause of equality of opportunity should lend their voices to such a call. As the ERC embarks on its mission I am sure that the Chairman, commissioners and employees will also welcome such an inquiry even if to demonstrate that its employment practice, its decision making behaviour and the philosophy that guide its work are exemplary.
1953
and national unity in Guyana
Posted February 26th. 2005 - by Kampta Karran
According to Prem Misir “The 1953 People’s Progressive Party (PPP) Government brought national unity to Guyana.” Now this is accepted in Guyana almost as a truism. But deeper reflection may suggest other wise. The intention here is not to dismiss the value of that moment but rather to interrogate the truth-value of the claim.
I have argued elsewhere that the root causes of the ethnic conflicts we experience today could be traced to the antagonistic relations that developed in the 19th century. While the 1953 election victory under the leadership of Jagan and Burnham is momentous, to equate it with national unity would be pushing it a bit.
In the main, the Amerindians, the Portuguese, and the Europeans were not included in this “national unity.” Further the business classes and major sections of Christian church especially the Catholics and Anglicans did not form part of this national unity. The leadership of the Hindu Maha Sabha, the Pandit’s Council and the United Sad’r Islamic Anjuman and the Muslim League was not part of this national unity. Sections of the professionals also staid away. New Amsterdam, the other major town, did not vote for the PPP and followed Kendall out of the national unity. Concerning the hinterland communities, where the majority of the Amerindians live, Jagan tells us “Our campaigning in 1953 brought us into contact with the working people all over the country, with the exception of the interior.”
Even during this campaign one could recognise unease in the leadership of the PPP. In Jagan’s opinion “Burnham was not … prepared to undertake arduous work …never ventured very far away from Georgetown …made few contributions to the party newspaper.” How do we explain Burnham’s attitude and behaviour? Was he lazy? Was he disenchanted? Was he building his own urban base as Kendall had done in New Amsterdam? The answer is open to speculation.
What is certain is that Burnham challenged Jagan’s authority in the PPP as early as 1952. In fact the so-called national unity was rescued by Sidney King’s “an impassioned speech.” So by the time of the 1953-election victory the stage was already set for the divisions that were to follow.
“An uneasy coalition” seems more appropriate to describe the state of affairs as existed in 1953. National unity is too strong. The way the movement splintered and the ease with which it was done in the decade to follow called attention to all the elements that constituted the “uneasy coalition.” In the first wave the middle class and professional Indians left with Burnham. In the second wave ethnicity kicked in. Jagan’s PPP was seen as an Indian party. Burnham’s, by this time PNC, became the party of the working and other classes of Africans.
Working within a majoritarian framework one could see how easy it is to label the 1953 election with Burnham and Jagan in the lead as the achievement of national unity. However, national unity is not only a majority affair. True national unity has to include the majority, embrace all minorities and all stake holders. In 1953 as in 2005 this grand objective remains most elusive.
ERC
and EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES
Posted February 20th. 2005 - by Kampta Karran
Kean Gibson’s book has created quite a stir. While the tenor, tone, method and conclusion of the book were sources of offence for many, I am relieved that it was not banned. Kean’s previous scholarship outshines that which she presents in Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana and it is hoped that the flaws in this preliminary work would be corrected at some future time. Bridging the racial divide is a far more useful project and in her work on Comfa in Guyana she demonstrated such an inclination.
What is revealing is how the Ethnic Relations Commission works. At first it releases a statement calling for the book to be withdrawn from public places. However, after some critical responses to that decision we are made to understand that the book was not really banned. In the meantime, the way the votes were cast became public knowledge. One wonders if those who voted for the book to be banned would be put at risk at a later date? Remember the medical doctor who had to hide at Georgetown hospital? We could only hope that this will not happen.
Mr. Clarence Ellis raised the question in the print and electronic media if the Chairman of the Ethnic Relations Commission recognises his African-ness. Perhaps a look at the employment practice in the ERC would be revealing. The Chairman, the CEO and the officer in charge of administration all belong to the same ethnic group. The means that:
1. the three main areas of authority reside in the hands of members of the same ethnic group.
2. members of all other ethnic groups could only find employment in subordinate positions.
Perhaps there is need for a public inquiry into the employment practices of the ERC. Equality of opportunity in employment has to do with more than numerical representation. It also includes things like power relations, opportunities for self-development, trips abroad, etc. Such an inquiry would have to examine, among other procedures, the advertisement, receipt of application, short listing process, invitation to interview, the actual interview, post interview actions, offers of employment, contracts and so on.
I will not deal here with the issue of appropriate qualification, training and experience for the task at hand. But these should also be opened to public scrutiny.
As the ERC embark on its equal opportunity mission I will recommend that its members pay attention to the piece on Towards an Equal Opportunity Policy in Employment in Race and Ethnicity In Guyana pages 248 to 251. I donated a copy of this book to the ERC last year.
We could only wish the ERC well and help it to satisfy its mandate.
Responses
To Power Sharing
Posted November 10th. 2004 - by Kampta Karran
There have been several responses to power sharing proposals which are offered as a possible solution to the democratic contradiction in which Guyana now stuck.
In practice power sharing does not work. Some seek a precedent from the larger world and recently the case for a Caribbean example was invoked. South Africa is often presented as a good international example. A regional example becomes more difficult particularly since NAR collapsed in Trinidad and Tobago. Perhaps Surinam practices a few power sharing tendencies.
The statement power sharing does not work or the question will power sharing work here? continue to cause many to hold back. While such reluctance is understandable it should not stop us as a nation or a multination to seek out alternative ways of governing ourselves. Encouragingly in the past right here in Guyana, elder Eusi Kwayana pointed to a form of power sharing at the local level, between BV and Triumph, two coastal villages dominated by Guyanese of African and Indian ancestries.
Importantly also is the objection based on the fact that in all the proposals for power sharing it is yet very difficult to understand what it is all about. It may come as a surprise but most of the texts on democracy would admit that democracy is a slippery concept and very difficult to describe and define in concrete ways. Freedom, liberty and virtue also defy precise definition. However, in our search for the decent society and the good life these guiding principles or rather approximations thereof are not abandoned because it is difficult to understand what they are all about. In fact uncertainty never stopped people from operationalising them, hoping that in action their meanings will be unravelled. Perhaps a similar case could be made for power sharing in Guyana. South Africa is none the worse for being innovative.
Another response is that people who support power sharing belong to a category called ‘opposition elements.’ When we look at the wide cross section of people who support this initiative it would be difficult to place all of them in this single category. Names that come to mind are Messrs Eusi Kwayana, Cheddi Jagan, Desmond Hoyte and Ravi Dev. All the major political parties are championed here.
A compelling argument is that there is already a level of power sharing in the parliamentary committees, on boards, on commissions and so on. And further the PPP/C is sharing power with the TUF. It does give a degree of power to the opposition. This level of participation and recognition is a great leap in the right direction and certainly and improvement on what existed under the PNC administration. Yet at best this is a minimal strategy. A little over 42% of those who cast their votes and who come mainly from one ethnic group may fell that they are shut out of real power. Including their representatives in Government is one way of resolving the democratic contradiction in which Guyana’s politics is caught. Obviously there are other ways of political inclusion which was dealt with elsewhere.
Putting trust first. Now trust is not an end state. If we were to wait on mutual trust before engaging in any transaction then very few if any transactions would be made. Trust is not an absolute quality. It is relative. Therefore parties to a transaction will have different notions of what trust is. That is why to facilitate transactions there are rules of engagement. In the case of power sharing the constitution and other legal instruments, oversight by neutral regional e.g CARICOM and international agencies e.g. the United Nations can provide the framework for political action. Degrees of trust would develop over time. If we wait on trust in Guyana our politics will continue to worsen with each passing election.
The PNC did not want power sharing when in office. Now they want it because it will allow them to get power through the backdoor. First let us touch upon the moral issue. If power sharing was a way forward when the PPP was in opposition surely it remains a way forward when in government. It could even be argued that at certain levels the PNC/R is governing Guyana by opposition. The main opposition, in many important arenas, heavily restrains the elected Government from acting. Why not go the extra mile? A shared government with the opposition forces would not only result in shared power but also shared responsibility. Surely, in such an environment the incentive for co-operation will out weigh other considerations. Remember the parliamentary committees and the many consensus decisions on issues of national importance? Further, it will demonstrate that the call for power sharing when the PPP was in opposition was not a mere ploy but rather a deep conviction, a national unity legacy of Dr Cheddi Bharat Jagan!
The mandate argument has been dealt with elsewhere, suffice to say that when taken to its logical conclusion it supports power sharing.
In his New Human Global Order Dr Jagan is appealing to the use of power, political and otherwise, for the benefit of all humanity. He presents a case for those excluded, the minorities, the poor and powerless to have an equal say in which the resources of the world are harvested and distributed. This conception is in keeping with the philosophy that power is to be used for a noble purpose easily lends itself to equal participation to all who are affected. At a deep level his philosophy here is in keeping with the call for power sharing in our troubled home land.
That the Westminster model of democracy where the winner takes all is a valid form of Government is a strong argument. However, those who govern by this system, e.g. Prime Minister Tony Blair, are proposing power sharing as the way forward for the highly polarised Northern Ireland. Perhaps there is a lesson here from which Guyana can benefit.
The argument of legislating the PPP/C out of Government could be seen from another angle. Legislation that promotes power sharing would ensure that the PPP/C is never out of Government. In the main, even if they both receive some cross ethnic votes, both the PPP/C and the PNC/R get their votes mainly from ethnic constituencies. The PPP/C will win once its ethnic constituency is in the majority but surely this will not last forever. The PNC/R will one day soon command the majority. Political rationality will suggest that it is wise to support the necessary enabling legislation now.
In multiethnic societies a Government which gains its support mainly, from one ethnic group will always have difficulty in commanding national legitimacy. Good intentions and good actions are not enough to persuade important sections of the ethnic group that did not vote for it that it governs fairly in the interest of all ethnic sections. Sharing power from the grass roots to the Cabinet is one way of building cross communal security and trust. And further, set up a national patriotic front government in which the PPP will be legitimate partner.
Guyana’s
Challenge: Research Notes
Posted October 2nd. 2004 - by Kampta Karran
First of all I will like to express my satisfaction at the return of the PNC/R to the National Assembly. Secondly, the consensus on the report of the Disciplined Forces Commission (DFC) by all the parties represented in the National Assembly demonstrates that when our leaders want they could work together. They must be aware that in the day-to-day life of the Guyanese people, the current situation of mutual fear and distrust is helping no one. The country does not benefit when sections of the society feel that at any moment as individuals or as a community they could be attacked in broad daylight and no one would do anything to protect them.
Reflecting on the 2002/2003 period of unprecedented ethnic-based violence in post-independence Guyana let me say that I do not know any of the persons who were involved in the kidnapping, the raping or the raiding of the villages on the East Coast Demerara. I do not know whether the motivation is political, racial or for economic gain or for any reason or combination of reasons. I do not know who were involved in the phantom death squad. I am not sure why it came into being. If it was a response to the crime wave or meant to protect innocent people, I do not know.
What I do know is that both phenomena need not have happened. Members in the Guyanese society are in a contractual agreement to respect the rights and privileges of each citizen regardless of the race, color or creed. Those who don the mantle of leadership have a responsibility to facilitate this process. The use of violence and/or the threat of violence upset the social contract and lead to chaos.
During upheavals in divided societies, leaders, with the best intention in the world, seldom if ever, could represent or claim to speak for the entire citizenry. Could the leadership of the PPP/C Government go into Buxton during the 2002/2003 period when the situation was most volatile? I doubt it. How many members of the PNC/R during that period openly condemned the attack on Indian villages by some of their African neighbors? The recent public call for peace by Mr. Aartie Ricknath of the PNC/R is most commendable. He knows that it is wrong for one group of citizens to drive fear into another group of citizens. He also knows that such behavior helps no cause.
In divided societies citizens and their leaders are often forced to take sides. Let us reflect on the response of the Hon. Minister, Mr. Mansoor Nadir when he and his family were attacked. In the heat of the moment he is reported to have said, among other things, that he was attacked because he was Indian. Up to that point Mr. Nadir never treated race as so salient a factor in political reckoning or in his day-to-day living. If there is corruption in high places as claimed by Mr. Khemraj Ramjattan, why is Rev. Dale Bisnauth, a Minister of Government, silent? Perhaps he silent because there is no corruption in high places?
During my interviews with female and male Guyanese of all races, political affiliations, classes and religions many Indians said that if the phantom is eliminating the criminals who are responsible for the mayhem then it is serving a useful purpose. However, there were many others who disapproved of these extra judicial measures. They reasoned that violence leads to more and worse violence. Further, I was told that there are legitimate ways of maintaining law and order and, however difficult it may appear, this is the way forward.
Many Africans told me that the violence was necessary part of the struggle for their individual and group rights. There are at least two such positions in the public domain. We will remember the medicine rationale of Mr. Vincent Alexander and the African traditional use of violence to move society forward as advanced by Mr. Dalgetty. However, the not-in-my-name declaration by Ms. Andaiye is an eloquent testimony to the many who would prefer to honour the social contract with Guyanese of all races.
Leaders in ethnically fragmented countries could advocate genocide, ethnic cleansing, or domination. Alternatively, they could advocate ethnic healing, human need satisfaction, forgiveness and reconciliation.
Genocide was practiced in Rwanda ten years ago. It solved nothing. Ethnic cleansing was practiced in Bosnia. It solved nothing. Racial/ethnic domination in apartheid South Africa had to yield to a fairer system of governance. Whether it is Northern Ireland or Sri Lanka the political leaders have come to realize that alternative ways of dealing with conflicts are essential. In Guyana, while the break down in inter-ethnic amity is under threat, peaceful co-existence is the dominant guiding principle. However, the fate of our country is in the hands of the leadership from all sides.
Recently, I attended an IMA sponsored conference on conflict analysis and conflict resolution at St. Catherine’s College, Oxford. One of the conclusions drawn is that the rule of the majority ethnic group in a multiethnic country is begging for trouble. In Guyana the democratic contradiction argument is well known. Our present government and its party will do well to reconsider its strategy for the 2006 national elections.
The conference also concluded that open violence on a section of the society by another is unsustainable as a political strategy. For one thing violence begets violence. For another, by some evil logic violence tends to turn upon its perpetrators and do damage to innocent people and to people in whose name the violence was launched. Our recent history will validate this conclusion. Importantly also, it was demonstrated that large sections of our planet subscribe to humanitarian norms that look down upon warmongers and will distance themselves from such people.
I came out of the conference with the same feeling I had last year after the conflict resolution conference dealing with Sudan at St. Antony’s College. The distress and political blunders in the Sudan make our experiences look like a walk in the park. But with each passing violent episode Guyana is being drawn deeper and deeper into the sphere of no return.
At this moment our leaders have important choices to make. We could only hope that they will not let slip this opportunity presented by the Bacchus/death squad and Vivekanand/East Coast Demerara kidnapping affairs. These tragedies and others could provide the springboard for the transformation of the conflict into problems to be solved.
In Guyana, the general election is scheduled for 2006. Political parties are no doubt planning their strategies and tactics. The PNC/R may be saying that 2006 is not about winning or losing at the polls. It is about all sectional interests having an active role in political decision-making and in the distribution of material, cultural and status resources.
Perhaps the WPA and ROAR are sharpening their ideas around the notion of a new political culture while TUF is deciding how it will present itself to the electorate and its members come 2006. GAP, ARC and the other political forces are thinking how to broaden their appeal.
In many ways our Government and the PPP/C feel that they are doing a great job, that they were elected to govern and that the collective opposition is making it impossible for them to satisfy this mandate.
The current situation, though different in fundamental ways, reminds me of 1964. On the eve of the elections Premier Dr Jagan gave an excellent speech in which he highlighted the advances his government made in spite of the frustrations caused by local and foreign oppositions. He lamented, "What saddens me is that the working class should be divided and more so because it is cleft by the terrible sword of racial prejudice." To overcome this hurdle he confided, "I have done everything to bring about unity in 1957, in 1961 and again recently. But every overture on my part for re-uniting the Guyanese liberation movement has been rejected, even a coalition government based on parity which, at one time, the opposition leader [read Mr. Forbes Burnham] advocated."
Perhaps it is time for our government and the PPP/C to rethink their strategy and tactics. Remember three of our Presidents, including Dr. Jagan, advocated some form of power sharing before they passed away. The challenge of government and the ruling party face is a tough one. A majoritarian democracy based on one- person one-vote with the traditional winner and loser outcome is an option. Another is power sharing where all stakeholders win. The latter choice will shift the paradigm of democratic governance and usher in a new era of politics in the Commonwealth Caribbean. Together the executive and the legislature in consultation with the relevant stakeholders could devise a formula to take all Guyana forward. At the moment, while the position of TUF is difficult to determine, the other parliamentary opposition is supportive of this thrust and it would appear that the international and regional communities are also sympathetic.
Two months ago, on 5th March 2004, our young and energetic President in commemorating Dr. Jagan at Babu John said that while things have changed many of the challenges that People’s Progressive Party (PPP) faced during the early days still exist. However, he reassured us that "the founder of the PPP, Dr. Cheddi Jagan, has left the framework to tackle these." He vowed that he would always aspire to keep the vision and legacy of Dr. Jagan alive. "Any goal I manage, would remain true to the ideas of Dr. Cheddi Jagan," he is reported to have said. What about his 1964 idea of coalition government to prevent race-based violence and the collapse of law and order? He proposed this when he was in office. What about his 1970s national patriotic front government idea meant to facilitate greater inclusion and participation? He proposed this when he was in opposition.
The value of a power sharing approach to government is that it places responsibility in the hands of all stakeholders. A success in one section of the society brings pride and joy to all sections because all other sections of the society would have contributed to the success. Similarly, a failure in one section would be seen as a collective failure. When things go wrong everyone share in the blame. When things go right everyone shares the fame.
During my fieldwork in Guyana many Indians told me that they feel that their pain is not recognised by others even by the Guyana Human Rights Association. That organisation I was told seem more concerned with the welfare of those who perpetuate the injury that with the welfare of those injured. Many also feel that agencies like the police force, which is supposed to ensure their safety, appear impotent in the wake of this violence or threat of violence which seem reserved for only their kind. As I read the newspapers recently, I begin to hear the voices of some of my Indian respondents.
In like manner, many of my African respondents told me that they feel marginalised from the benefits of the state; that members of their race seem to meet violent and unexplained deaths. I was told that order would be disrupted if a section of the society feel that they are marginalised and discriminated against in all manner of ways. The issue here is not whether this perception is validated by hard evidence or not. The issue is that people believe that they are unfairly treated and they are willing to take action on that belief. Hence the data produced Dr. Prem Misir while useful will not placate some of my African respondents.
In the race relations discourse the voices of the minority races are not heard. The Amerindian struggle for a fairer share of the national pie and for recognition and respect is an uphill task. In some of the communities I visited I was told that civilian and [para] military personnel would on occasions treat them badly, that equal opportunities in education and employment are sadly lacking.
To assist in the promotion of equal opportunities, peace and good ethnic relations, the Ethnic Relations Commission is now in place. Unfortunately, that Commission’s employment practices seem to follow a certain ethnic preference. All the key positions [Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Head of Administration and Head of Finance] are held by staff who could be deemed as belonging to the same ethnic group. This manifestation just goes to show how deeply ethnic prejudice run in Guyana.
My research shows that both Africans and Indians recognise that aggressive action violates the well being of others who are not responsible for the plight of the aggressors. Some people feel that such violation is the price our country has to pay. I am an advocate of peaceful conflict resolution and so I do not share this view. There are always peaceful mechanisms for the avoidance or management of conflict. As a diverse people we have to be creative in our endeavours to put closure to the madness of violence that seem to take possession of the souls of so many. Our leaders have to be visionaries and seek out the redemptive pathways. The recent successful parliamentary debate on the DFC report tells us that they have what it takes. A more frequent expression of this level of goodwill and maturity could only be beneficial to all Guyana.
Mr. George Bacchus’s murder triggered the recent demonstration in the streets of Georgetown. The call by some of the protesters for business houses to be closed is very instructive. Mr. Ravi Dev, part of the rule of law protest, condemned the act. He reasoned that in trying to uphold the law you cannot break the law. Mr. Tacuma Ogunseye, on the other hand, praised the action and saw it an act of redemption not only for the protesters but also for all Guyana. Obviously, those Guyanese who disagree with his analysis would not feel redeemed. Further, there are others who feel and publicly expressed their disapproval and condemnation.
The opposing views of these two gentlemen, both of whom, I am sure, have the interest of all Guyana at heart, demonstrate one of the main dilemmas our fledgling country faces. People of different races and different political persuasions can examine the same phenomenon and arrive at a different conclusion. There is also an inability among our leadership to feel and articulate the pain of the other. Why does this happen? Perhaps there is a lack of adequate communication.
It is this breakdown in effective communication across ethnic and political lines that is at the core of our troubles. The leadership of the rule of law protest is fully aware of the volatile nature of our politics and race relations. Did the members sit down and work out the possible courses of action that their demonstration could call forth? Did they consider what they would do to curb excesses? Did they even discuss what behaviour they would condone and what they would not? Perhaps they did; perhaps they did not.
I remember one particular 1980 demonstration, a massive multiethnic demonstration, that started from a village, some may even say two villages on the East Coast Demerara. The death of a human with a saviour’s heart triggered that demonstration. Several persons left their homes that day prepared to pay the ultimate price for a cause they were convinced was just. Yet, either by a miracle or sensible guiding leadership, or both, the day ended without blood letting. Emotions ran high, many are still scared, but peace prevailed.
Surely there are alternative and effective ways of protesting. When protest action drives fear into innocent citizens that action runs the risk of losing its legitimacy. The challenge that faces those who are confronting the state in Guyana today is to find a peaceful way of conducting their affairs. I am sure there are many lessons to be learned from the 1970s and the 1980s. Any protest action that alienates the sectional interests of the population will further contribute to widening the racial divide.
The national platform that Mr. Trotman and his colleagues mounted has suffered a major set back. Mr Ravi Dev and Roar run he risk of being labelled anti-Indian because of their participation in the rule of law protest action. Why anti-Indian? Because a break-away faction forced city businesses to shut their shops and also because the safety of many Indians were compromised. In the past Mr Ravi Dev and Roar accussed the PNC/R of assisting in the creation of the conditions which led to Indian suffering. A similar charge is now laid at their door.
While Guyana’s economic performance leaves much to be desired, it is in the political sphere that many see the answer. While the recent successfully held parliamentary session gives cause for hope, our political leaders may still need help to get their dialogue starting again. The international community and donor agencies have to work overtime on this one. In the meantime, Messrs Ravi Dev and Tacuma Ogunsey could take this opportunity to get better acquainted. Sharing opinions in the press is a good start.
After the War Einstein and Freud were selected to begin correspondence on peace. Perhaps our major political parties could make public their ideas for a peaceful Guyana. The objective is not to treat the first statements as set in stone. We should see modification. The debate should produce dynamic results. The Ramjattan/Trotman debate was a good start. Perhaps the Stabroek News should now broaden out the discourse.
Third parties like Caricom, Commonwealth, Carter Centre, UNDP, USAID have been playing a vital role in the promotion good community relations. At the level of our political leadership, both government and opposition, care should be taken not to fatigue these good intentions but to harness them for our collective benefit. Further, these international organisations should ensure that the resources they make available are properly utilised and that sustainable structures are in place and continuity is ensured. Very often when support is withdrawn everything collapses. This constant cycle of invoking hope and then frustrating it is having a negative impact on the individuals and communities involved.
As we are preparing for the 2006 national elections, our leaders must begin peace talks in the public domain and implement peace guideline within their parties. Followers should be persuaded to respect and observe these guidelines in practice. One could only hope that the next general election will be organised and conducted in such a manner that no community will feel that it has lost. Similarly, the election must not result in another community feeling victorious. Like, the recent parliamentary debate on the DFC report, let us have a general election in 2006 that would yield not ethnic violence but inter ethnic co-operation and peace.
The
Amerindian Narrative: Draft Notes
Posted June 9th. 2004 - by Kampta Karran
Information for this piece is taken from interviews conducted between 7 December 2003 and February 2004. They were conducted in Georgetown, in Wales on the West Bank Demerara and on an Amerindian Mission. Like in the interviews conducted among the East Indians and Africans I will be using categories garnered from these interviews to organise the information that was offered during the informal sessions. Some of the interviews were conducted on a one on one basis while others were conducted in a focused group setting. Some of the interviews were recorded on audio cassettes while others were captured on video.
The Amerindians are Guyana’s indigenous peoples. They are not a homogeneous group. Conventional wisdom tells us that there are nine recognisably different groupings ["tribe"] viz. Akawaio, Arawak, Arakuna, Carib, Makushi, Patamona, Wai Wai, Wapishana and Warrou. While most Amerindian settlements also referred to as reservations and missions would have more than one "tribe" living there, in the main each would be dominated numerically by one tribe or the other. Nowadays, it is hard to find a reservation that is not inhabited by other races.
LAND
One of the issues raised in all of the conversations was the issue of land. This burning concern was common to all, regardless of gender, "tribe", location of community or level of education achieved. The Amerindians in my sample expressed the fear that they are gradually losing their right to ancestral lands and the wealth thereof.
How? The answer to the wealth part would be offered first. I was told that big businesses like Barama [a Malaysian logging company] and Omai [a Canadian gold mining company] and also some locally owned ones like Toolsie Persaud [a logging and quarrying company owned by an East Indian family] are getting the best concessions. The profits generated from these do not filter down to the Amerindian communities. The employment provided is of an uncertain nature. Those that are employed said that they get the jobs that are most dangerous and the most poorly paid.
Further, these companies damage the natural environment that is very vital to the survival to their way of life. In the early 1990s there was a spill of toxic waste matter from the Omai mines. This spill contaminated large stretches of the Essequibo River. There are people who are still suffering from the effects of this spill. I was told of one woman whose skin "was eaten away" by the contaminated toxic river water.
Amerindians are hunters of wild game on which they depend for food. The harvesting of the forest resources by logging and mining companies affect the wild life by destroying their natural habitat. This in turn adversely affects many Amerindian communities. I was told that these types of activities which exploit and damage the non-renewable resources of the hinterland pose a direct threat to the way of life of our indigenous population. If these activities are allowed to proceed without regulation and reforestation projects then my respondents fear that their very survival is in jeopardy.
My respondents were very careful in stating that their ancestors were always in Guyana, which after all is a Carib word that means land of many waters, as long as any one could remember. All the other races came and met them here. Yet today unlike the other races living in Coastal Guyana, individual Amerindians do not have title to the land in the hinterland they have been occupying for generations. In short, they have no legal document that gives individual Amerindians legal right to the land they occupy. Because of this they cannot use their property as collateral should they need to enter a business or so. As a result the Amerindians are placed at a disadvantage and their entrepreneurial capabilities and ambitions necessary for the harnessing of the resources and opportunities around them are inhibited and stifled. It should be noted that recently land titles were granted to certain communities. The intention is to give titles to all communities. However, while this is an advance on what existed before, it takes away the right of the individual Amerindian to own land legally in her/his community.
Another worry they express is that of the size of their reservations. It would appear, according to my respondents, that many Amerindians are of the opinion that the current demarcation of lands to determine the boundaries of Amerindians communities is not fair. They recognise the efforts of the PPP/C government to make lands legally available to the various communities. They fear, however, that the allocation does not take into consideration the future growth of the Amerindian. Further, it does not take into account the traditional way of life of the Amerindians and their dependence on large tracts of land and waterways for farming, hunting and fishing, and for materials necessary for the construction of their homes, canoes, craft and so on.
EDUCATION
My respondents told me that most members of their communities see education as one way to develop themselves, families and communities. I was told that the present system does not give them equality of opportunity. Residents of the community I visited pointed out that there was no provision for secondary education. According to one of the teachers there are many capable students who have completed primary school but could not go to secondary school because none is available nearby. It should be noted that nursery, primary and secondary education is free in Guyana. However, several Amerindian communities are yet to fully benefit from free secondary education. The high costs of sending children to school on the Coast is beyond the reach of most parents. Obviously the absence of secondary schooling places the Amerindians at a grave disadvantage in the job market and in the pursuit of higher education.
In spite of this disadvantage, I was assured that several families made and are making tremendous sacrifice to send their children to school outside the mission. The community boasts trained and qualified school teachers and graduates from Georgetown Technical Institute.
PARTICIPATION
As Guyana’s first nations several of my respondents feel that special privileges should be given to them and that they should be allowed more active participation in decision that affect their lives.
First of all there is the subtle hint from some of my respondents that Guyana is their country which was stolen from them by Europeans who subsequently cause the others to come. In the process they were pushed onto reservations and their welfare neglected. As a result more attention should be given to them as a group and as individuals so that they could be brought up to speed so that they could compete on an equal footing with the other races. Without mentioning it they were touching on issues that has to do with positive discrimination or affirmative action.
I was told that they are never properly consulted. My respondents are of the opinion that the policy makers and others are never really committed to hearing what the Amerindians have to say and to understand their vision of their future. Discussions that are held in their communities are guided in such a fashion that the outcome always seem to favour the ideas that were brought from outside by the policy makers and others. Several of my respondents participated in some of these exercises and they all told me the same story.
Under these circumstances very little gets accomplished because the hearts of the people are not in the decisions. As a result new rounds of meetings are held and the process keeps repeating itself. Efforts are duplicated and much valuable.
The level of superficial participation that they are allowed takes away from the Amerindians, as individuals and as a community, control of their destiny.
REPRESENTATION
As the first peoples of Guyana, my respondents feel that the Amerindians should be more visible. They have strong feelings against being constantly relegated to the margins of the society. They need to be represented at the very centre of the public life of the country. They argued that they should be given special opportunities to be sitting on boards, to benefit from contracts that undertake capital works in and around their communities.
While they express appreciation that there is a Ministry of Amerindian affairs, they hinted ever so subtly that the Ministry operates under Marxists assumptions which are alien to their world view. I was told that the Ministry reflects an improvement on what obtained previously. However, they would like to see the Ministry reorganise itself to reflect the cultural interests of the Amerindians. A few of them even suggested that the Ministry should start a campaign inside the Government to have Guyana’s international airport be renamed Timehri.
Similar opinions were offered concerning the level of representation that is made on their behalf in the Cabinet and in the National Assembly. It was felt that the representatives of the Amerindians who sit on these bodies are more loyal to their political parties that to the interests of the Amerindians. As such it was suggested that the Amerindian communities should be given the opportunity to elect their representatives to these bodies. And that they should also be empowered to recall their representatives should they fail to represent the interest of their Amerindian constituency.
In was pointed out by a few of my respondents that Mashramani, traditionally an Amerindian celebration, was elevated to a national festival to mark the achievement of Republican status. In the process, it was converted into the spirit of carnival. Today, I was told, Mashramani does not reflect the spirit of bonding and co-operation. If anything it has been politicised and like all things political in Guyana it is divided into a government Mashramani and an opposition Mashramani. In a sense it is transformed into something that misrepresents the cultural ethos from which it sprung.
My respondents all acknowledge that symbols from the heritage of the Amerindians are very visible. The Cacique Crown has pride of place on Guyana’s Coat of Arms. One of the National Awards is titled Cacique Crown of Honour [CCH]. At state functions and at national festivals, aspects of their music, song, dance, food, drink, art and craft are well displayed and consumed. Guyana, the very name of the country, is taken form an Amerindian word which means land of many waters. On the National Calander of Events to be observed each year the month of September is designated amerindian Heritage Month. It is a month long celebration of things Amerindian. However, recently their request to have an Amerindian Day as a national holiday did not meet with approval. The Africans have 1st August as Emancipation Day. In 2004 the Portuguese, East Indians and Chinese were granted 5th May as Arrival Day. This holiday may be high-jacked by the sections of the East Indian community who have been campaigning to have 5th May as a national holiday to commemorate their presence in Guyana. As the first nations, my respondents wanted to know why they were denied a special day?
However, during our conversations I got the distinct impression that my respondents were not totally pleased with mere symbolic representations. Upon probing It was discovered that some of them wanted the acceptance of these symbols to be translated into material benefits like jobs, scholarships, community development, individual land titles and so on. It was pointed out that it was the sellers of the Amerindian art and crafts that made the profits while they, the producers have to eke out a subsistence livelihood.
RESPECT & RECOGNITION
I was told in no uncertain terms that Amerindians are not given the respect and recognition they deserve. In the main the other races do not treat them as equal. During a focused group interview one of my respondents said: "To be an Amerindian in Guyana is to be like a last class citizen." The others in the session nodded their agreement.
"People on the Coast think that we are slow and stupid" one of my respondents told me. In Georgetown [Guyana’s capital city] even today one could hear expressions like "you walking like a buck." If you try to examine a product before purchasing some vendors may say "you buying like a buck."
A "buck" is a wild deer. It is a derogatory name given to the Amerindians given by early European adventurers and settlers and it continues to be part of the racialised discourse even today. To walk like a buck means that you do not understand to walk in a "civilised" manner. You are walking wild, not observing the rules of traffic and that you are discourteous to others. To buy like a buck carries the same suggestion that you are not a civilised customer and that you would spoil, break or damage the goods and that you are obstructing other customers.
Even today I am told that there are East Indians, Africans and Portuguese who treat Amerindians as invisible or exotic. As the exotic other it is nice to see them once a year or so dance the mari mari in their traditional outfits, eat their pepper pot and drink their piwari. However this does not translate into jobs and scholarships on the coast.
In Georgetown I was taken to a particular house of ill repute by one of my male respondents. He advised me to observe how the male patrons would treat the Amerindian women. I did see first hand that while the men treated all the women badly, the worse treatment was reserved for the Amerindian women. The men, Africans and east Indians, treated these women as "bucks" wild things from the jungle that have come out to excite them. No doubt all their repressed sexual fantasies were displaced on the Amerindian women.
CONCLUSION
In this piece I have offered aspects of what was told to me Amerindian Guyanese. I have tried to report their narrative as they related it. My intervention is minimal. Previously I offered aspects of the African and East Indian narratives. At a later stage I would attempt an analysis.
Draft
Notes on Focus Interviews – June to August 2003
Indian Fear?
Posted May 1st. 2004 - by Kampta Karran
The purpose of the present piece is to offer an outline of some of the opinions I gathered in my fieldwork in Guyana last year [2003]. It should be remembered that the research was conducted immediately after a year of unprecedented anti-Indian violence in Guyana. My respondents had relatives, friends and neighbours who have suffered. They were traumatized.
In this piece an examination of the causes of the anti-indian conflicts will be explored. The reasons given here are those given by the respondents. I used their words to form the headings under which their narratives flow.
Causes
Religion
Very often when people try to make sense of the world around them they return to philosophies that are deeply imbedded in their culture and heritage. In an effort to make sense the violence to which members of their community were subjected all of the Hindus in my sample refer to the notions of Karma and Reincarnation. They all seem to believe that either in their present birth or in some past life the victims of the violence either by an act of omission or commission were responsible for their present experiences. They also believe that the perpetrators of the violence either in this life or in the next would suffer for their misconduct and inhumane actions.
Two important things to note here are:
1: The willingness of this group to accept responsibility for their destiny.
2: Their willingness, almost in silent resignation, to accept the violence meted out to members of their ethnic group.
These responses give us a small glimpse of the absence of retaliatory violence against their Afro-Guyanese neighbours.
The Christians, Hindus and the Muslims all acknowledge that we are living in the end times. The Hindus call it Kali Yog, whilst the Christians and Muslims refer to this era as the Last Days. Hence the violence that we are experiencing in Guyana is seen as a product of the age in which we live.
One of my Christian respondents believes that those who are persecuted for righteousness sake will be rewarded in the after life. Further, she also believes that the meek will inherit the earth.
In keeping with a notion of biblical justice all the major churchmen and women spoke out against the violence. Two prominent Afro-Guyanese church leaders are Reverend Randolph George, Bishop of the Anglican Church of Guyana and Bishop Juan Edghill, are numbered among those who not only condemn the violence but are tirelessly working for its resolution. Many Afro-Guyanese see their concern for the welfare of the Indian community as a betrayal of their kith and kin. In an effort to uphold their commitment to social justice they expose themselves and their families to great risks. It should be noted that most African Guyanese I spoke with condemned the violence against innocent as wrong. Dr David Hinds, Eusi Kwayana and Andaiye have publically declared their disapproval.
The Islamic community declares that Islam is a religion of peace and submission and as such condemns the violence. The Central Islamic Organisation of Guyana (CIOG) is in the forefront of the anti-violence campaign. One of my Muslim respondents was adamant that self-defense is not against his religious principles. In fact, he sees self-defense as integral to his faith.
Jealousy
Sometimes people depend on commonsense when they try to explain events unfolding around them. All my respondents mentioned the word jealousy during our conversations. They mentioned the word jealousy to explain the reasons why people of African ancestry were attacking their Indo-Guyanese counterparts. They believe that members of the African community are jealous of their way of life, their achievements, ability to save money, to maintain their family and also their retention of aspects of their ancestral culture.
My Hindu respondents suggested that because of slavery the Africans lost their ancestral culture, adopted Christianity and as much of the white man ways of doing things as they could. As a result they are upset by the fact that Indians are able to benefit from western ways of doing things and still continue to cherish their ancestral religion and other aspects of their culture. In the view of my Indian respondents some Africans feel that the colonial experience benefited the Indians more than it did the Africans.
Strangely, there was some confusion in the way the Indians explained the impact of colonialism on these two communities. My respondents also suggested that because the Africans adopted the white man ways the Africans felt superior to the Indians who remained less creolised and less acculturated. My respondents in their effort to explain this African jealousy paradoxically used the concepts of the African feeling superior to the Indians and the African recognition of Indian retention of their ancestral culture to explain anti-Indian violence. In other words some Africans unleash violence against members of the Indian community because they feel that the Indians are inferior to them. They also beat up the Indians because the Indians are able to succeed although they have not surrendered their culture in the way the Africans were forced to do.
The jealousy generated among members of the African community because of the achievements of the members of the Indian community seem to nurture a kind of rage which sometimes bursts into aggression and violence against members of the Indian community. My respondents pointed out that many of the victims of this anti-Indian violence were poor people who were attacked and robbed in their homes.
Second Class Citizens
All of my respondents said that as Indians they feel that they were second class citizens in Guyana. They all confided that as a result of this feeling they would leave Guyana and take their families and friends with them should the opportunity present itself. In any democratic society a citizen has certain basic rights and responsibilities. Security and control over ones life and property is one such fundamental right of any citizen. In Guyana my respondents feel that Indians seem to have lost this right. In an effort to explain this notion of second-class citizenship it was pointed out that the security of Indian life and property is under threat.
They pointed out that Indians were robbed of their television sets, of their shoes and of their meager savings. They were also keen to point out that sometimes members of the African community would burn Indian business houses in the city and loot the contents of stores. On several occasions gangs of Africans attacked individual Indians. In almost all of these cases no one was apprehended. Very few, if any, of the perpetrators were brought to justice. And there was a tendency for people to pretend as if these incidents never occurred. It would appear as if the Indian community has lost their right to protection from the state.
When asked why they felt they were not given the protection which is a right of citizenship several responses were offered. The most pertinent was the belief by the perpetrators of the violence that the Indians were mere interlopers more interested in the preservation of their Indianess that to become Guyanese. In other words although they were living in Guyana for more than 150 years they were still seen as aliens and as such should not accorded the full rights of citizenship. They are strangers in the land of their birth.
Respect and Recognition
My respondents were of the view that perhaps the Africans who attacked the Indians without any provocation from the victims may have done so because they have no respect for the group to which they belong and they do not recognise that the Indians have the right to live in Guyana as equal citizens.
Socialisation
When asked if they foresee a change in ant-Indian violence in the future they were all rather doubtful. In fact it was pointed out that many of those who were engaged in the beatings, lootings and burnings were young people. They therefore concluded that it would appear, that a large number African youths is being socialized into believing that their anti-Indian campaign is justified. Further, since the risk of being caught and punished is very slim and the rewards, that is the booty of their plunder is great the chances of them stopping are even slimmer. The Indians in my sample were here expressing the view that a cause of the racial violence against the Indians is the way some young Africans are taught by significant others that it is right and rewarding to engage in such criminal and racist actions.
Material Rewards
Guyana is a very poor country. Opportunities to gain quick wealth therefore are most welcome. As we have seen above that the temptation of stealing from the Indians is ever present. We have also seen that the chances of being caught and punished are very slim. It is no wonder then my respondents argue that the anti-Indian violence is accompanied by robbery and looting. In recent times, 2002-2003, kidnapping of Indians emerged as a new form of racial violence. Large ransoms are claimed for the return of the kidnapped person. There are occasions when the ransom is paid but the person kidnapped was still murdered. The case of Dev Sharma is very instructive. All my respondents knew that he was kidnapped from his home, taken to Buxton, his kidnappers revealed their identities to him and told him that although they were asking for a ransom, they will collect it and he will not live to disclose who his kidnappers were. Dev Sharma escaped with broken ribs to tell his story. He is one of the lucky ones said my respondents.
Politicians
All of my respondents are convinced that the political leadership of the majority of Africans are encouraging race based violence. Mr. Desmond Hoyte, a past President of Guyana and leader of PNC/R until his death (2003) is known to have incited anti-Indian violence through his public declarations. He would appeal to the ethnic loyalties of the mainly African dominated Police Force and Army. He once referred to the Police and the Soldiers as the kith and kin of the African protestors, demonstrators and rioters. It was coded way of saying it is in the interest of the Police and Soldiers to forego their professional responsibility to the Indians and to protect their fellow Africans even though they may be violating the law. Professor Clive Thomas, a leader in the WPA argues that under the present system of Governance the majority of Africans are marginalised. My respondents are convinced that his marginalisation thesis is nothing more than a philosophical rationalisation and justification of African violence against the Indians.
Media
The print, electronic and other media are major opinion moulders. They have the capacity of inciting people to action. My respondents have identified two major trends in the way ethnic violence is reported. One trend is to pretend that no violence is occurring and when the violence is reported it is presented as if it is neutral that is it’s ethnic dimension is either ignored or downplayed. The other trend is to incite anti-Indian violence.
Arrogance
I was told that some Indians have overberaing [arrogant] attitudes and behaviour. These would offend some Africans and when the climate is right and the occassion is created they would display this store-up anger against other Indians. Very often in ethnic conflicts, individuals are not attacked in their individual capacities but as representatives of their group.
Conclusion
In this piece the voices of my Indian resopndents were recorded. As the researcher, my intervention was minimal. At a later stage I will offer an analysis of both the Indian fear and that of the African.
THE
AFRICAN FEAR?
Posted April 1st. 2004 - by Kampta Karran
With weapons ranging from hand-grenades, sticks, clubs, machete, and guns, neighbours clubbed and chopped their neighbours to death, teachers killed their students and doctors murdered patients under their care. No. This not fiction. This is what happened in Rwanda ten years ago. In 1994 between eight hundred thousand [800,000] and one million [1,000,000] persons were murdered. This carnage took place in a mere hundred days. Imagine the entire population of our country wiped out in about three and one third months. The victims were mainly Tutsis. The Hutus were the main aggressor.
These two groups who speak the same language and have many common cultural practices were constructed into different ethnic groups by Belgian colonisers.
In her novel, For the Love of My Name, Laxhmi Persaud predicted that we would sink under the waters of the Atlantic. Recently I was told that while “coolie and blackman a fite between demself otha people go tak over we land.” In the creative and popular imaginations of many we are caught between a rock and a hard place and neither is good for our survival.
I am using the above two dismal paragraphs as preface to some of the findings of my research. It should be noted the people I spoke with are aware I would make these views public. It is difficult for me to say how prevalent these views are. However, it is hoped that though limited they could assist us in the search for solutions. It should be noted that the views expressed here are those of the respondents. I will keep analysis to a minimum.
The recent upswing in the violence, the pressure politics of the combined political opposition and the seeming belief that the situation is not yet at crisis point could only force one to wonder what are our leaders thinking. In a conversation with three persons whom we could consider as members of civil society/social partners, I was told [sarcasm and all] that they would be careful how they intervene in the future because in the eyes of the PPP/C they have no mandate. I am sure that when push come to shove they will act in the benefit of the country they love.
The PPP/C administration, not without due cause, sees these violent interventions as part of a larger plan to destabilise its government. The now infamous “ungovernable” declaration of former President Mr. Desmond Hoyte is an ever-constant reminder of the 1960s and the twenty-eight years in the political wilderness which, in some ways, did prove that time was not on the side of the indomitable Dr.Cheddi Jagan.
Why would African Guyanese from all walks of life define the conditions of their ethnic group with words like marginalisation, underdeveloped, powerless? Dr. Prem Misir marshalled statistical evidence to show that the claim that African Guyanese are marginalised is not true. Similarly, facts and figures are used to show that the Indian Guyanese communities are just as underdeveloped and powerless.
Why then would articulators of African discontent continue to press their case especially when it is public knowledge that when their political party, the PNC, was in office from 1968 to 1992 the majority of Africans were marginalised, underdeveloped and powerless. Why would Africans who fought the PNC and who suffered tremendously because of this now join that party and do battle against their former ally the PPP and its supporters?
On February 6, 2004 Linclon Lewis in an informal conversation used the word economic genocide. During the conversation he explained that the economic policies of the present administration is causing tremendous hardships to the African communities. One of my female African respondents, a schoolteacher attending CPCE, was most forth coming. She said “this Government killing black people.” She was using “killing” in both a metaphorical and a literal sense. Many of those who participated in the January/February 2004 demonstration, pickets, chants and all, in front of the Office of the Home Affairs Minister, the Hon. Ronald Gagraj, share the views of this teacher. Her opinion is echoed by a significant number of Africans. It is heard on public transport, in the market places and even in casual conversation.
The point I am making here is that there is a very potent body of opinion in the African community that the African community is in danger: economic, political and even mortal. These are among the dominant ideas that inform action and as we have seen sections of the African community is mobilised. The analyses and disapproval of three respected Africans viz. Dr. David Hinds, Brother Eusi Kawayana and Sister Andaiye notwithstanding, some members of the African community continue to attack their Indian neighbours.
Such attacks have been described as interactions and discourse and are seen as a painful but necessary part of the African liberation struggle. The perception, which becomes truth and reality, is that these freedom fighters are, in the final analysis, fighting for the very survival of their group. The wealth they gather along the way is to resource their cause. Africans who do not join are seen as traitors.
Why would Africans see the PPP/C government and the Indians in adversarial terms? During my fieldwork I received many answer to these questions. Nothing spectacular was uncovered as will be seen. In his 19th Century study of the Guyanese working people Dr. Walter Rodney tells us that with the arrival of the indentured servants the African Guyanese presented themselves as the indigenous working class and saw the others as immigrants.
As early as 1842 Henry Barkely, later to become Governor, suggested that the Africans were beginning to take it for granted that the country is their own. This notion of ownership of Guyana recently resurfaced in an article by Ras Dalgety. The Indians and by extension all others are living in the African house. How pervasive is this view is anybody’s guess. But a version of this view was repeated to me during my interviews. I was also told that if Africans are not careful the Indians would make this country their own. They have economic power and now their numerical majority guarantees them political power into the foreseeable future. It would be remembered that in the first half of the 20th Century the notion of converting Guyana into an Indian colony was in circulation.
Hinduism, the religion of the majority Indians, is used to justify that the Africans are inferior. Further, Hinduism is seen as “subscribing to the suppression of the Africans who in the Caribbean context are the new outcasts and the sudras.” African aggression against Indians is a defensive aggression. “Do unto others before they do to you” is how one of my respondents put it. I pointed out that people did terrible things in the name of Christianity and Islam but that does not mean that we could hold these religion responsible. In response I was pointed to Dr. Kean Gibson’s book which I am told has proven her point.
A University of Guyana graduate who has radical pre-1992 anti-PNC credentials and who is also of African ancestry asked: “why does the PPP/C refuse to share political power? This was one of Dr. Jagan’s ideas. Why was it not given the same prominence as his New Human Global Order.” He shakes his head knowingly and then gibed “do you smell a rat or something fishy?” It would appear that there are Africans who sees the unwillingness of the PPP/C to make power sharing part of their public agenda as further evidence of an all Indian take over. Perhaps this fear feeds some of the anti-Indian violence.
In a future letter to the editor I would share the fear I found among members of the Indian Community.