Dear Editor,
In his letter captioned ‘Mr Green quoted half of what I said’ (SN, 9.2.07) Minister of Home Affairs Mr Clement Rohee was correct to say that I was not in Parliament to hear his remarks. If my response which was based on media reports did not capture faithfully what he said, I regret this faux pas and unhesitatingly, apologize.
Genuine as Mr Rohee may be, and I believe deep down he is sincere in his belief, one must respect another person’s point of view. However, I do not agree with him. On the main issue at hand, he states, “that there are more critical and important issues in this country that we need to preoccupy ourselves with to make the lives of our people better and better.”
To make the lives of our people better goes well beyond material things. There is the spirituality, the soul and pride of a people. The brochure relates to what is accepted as perhaps the most important social event of this decade. The eyes of the world are on us. To put down some set of citizens, and to encrust division as it does, is unacceptable. To trivialize this matter will be tragic.
The way a country and a people see themselves, and are seen by outsiders is always important.
The picture painted of Guyana to the outside world is extremely important. A distorted image is not nice. History shows that societies were defined consequent to perceptions by the different people who made up the amalgam of their society. Modern and ancient history demonstrates how propaganda, education and the mis-education of a people, determines whether they survive with dignity, live in harmony or conflict, be made to feel inferior or superior, or live in conditions which cause a society to implode. The information or facts gleaned determine how we relate to one another. Should it be one of mutual respect and equity, a master-slave relationship or who ‘pon top.’
I now react to Mr Devanand Bhagwan’s letter which appeared in the same issue, titled ‘There is a distinct Indian heritage in Guyana but it is not above any other.’ I have no quarrel with him when he postulates that there exists a distinct Indian culture in Guyana, but is he not saying as the brochure does, that other ethnic, religious or social groupings in Guyana are not distinct? Is it a march towards hegemony?
Distinct can be quite a harmless term, because it simply means ‘distinguishable from all others,’ or easily perceived, but used in the context of the brochure, it is much more than this. However, in our circumstances, it becomes interesting when to support his contention Mr Bhagwan refers to the fact that “almost any time of the day there is either a radio, a television, or live show ballyhooing Indian music.”
True, like other Guyanese, I enjoy Indian music and dance; some of my most trusted and respected friends are Indo-Guyanese. My wife’s family circle includes many Indo-Guyanese. What concerns me is to note that the TV stations that carry – and these are my words – a preponderance of Indian music, are either state controlled, or owned and controlled by known political supporters of the party in office. This media imbalance is, of course, another matter, which requires a separate debate.
It is an indictment that after fifteen years of this purported return to democracy we still have the only radio station controlled and managed by the state. The Guyana Chronicle incidentally avoided like the plague treating with this issue of the brochure until in an editorial last week.
It is my belief that the statement in the brochure is part of a deliberate process with a political, if not an ethnic, dimension. We know how well the Government Information Agency scrutinizes all documents as these relate to Guyana. The fact that a minister could say that up to late January, early February, he had not seen the document, is interesting, but I believe them all, cum grano salis (with some reservations).
What this brochure says is clear and unambiguous. It is this: that the East Indians do not regard themselves as part of a West Indian culture. The government must pronounce on this issue. If not, let us have a referendum to determine if the majority of people in Guyana would wish to live as separate ethnic groups, or wish to be dominated by one, or other groups. Heaven forbid. This is the gut issue.
You see the brochure deals with twelve cricket locations and none of the other countries made such clear reference to ethnicity, and culture. Look at Trinidad and Tobago, which is similar to Guyana with regard to ethnic composition. The brochure on Trinidad states, join the “?Trini Posse’ in the Party Stand – the true spirit of cricket in Trinidad.”
Our Motto says “One people, one nation, one destiny.” A plebiscite or referendum must determine whether we change it to: “A people plus East Indian, A people plus African, A people plus Amerindian,’ etc.
The two issues are therefore:
1. What is government’s position on the culture of the West Indies?
2. Are our Indian, African, Amerindian, Chinese, Portuguese Guyanese West Indians? This is the real question, which Mr Bhagwan is missing. For me, it is fundamental. My dream is for peace. Unity and harmony is a dominant feature of my life. Until and unless our leaders and our people, irrespective of race, religion or political persuasion can see ourselves first and foremost as Guyanese, then, secondly, but very importantly, as West Indians, we leave wide open the door for constant conflict and suspicion, leading to slow growth, and a further haemorrhage of our human resources.
Finally, I am a little disappointed that the government has not made a clear statement about whether they agree or disagree; after all, the brochure was being distributed for some months. If government considered it offensive, they should identify the author of the document.
It is not sufficient to say it came from Jamaica; that is much too ambiguous, since we have Guyanese in every country of the world. Who in, or from Jamaica produced the statement? We need an answer – who produced the statement on Guyana, not which agency – who? If it is indeed a marketing strategy, who, or where is the target consumer, customer, and if the government does not support it, why was it not excised, and has not yet been withdrawn.
Mr President, is this what you often talk about transparency?
Yours faithfully,
Hamilton Green JP
Mayor
