Dear Editor,
Wilbert M Stephenson in his letter captioned “What cements the Indian vote is fear of what a PNC government may do” (07.12.01) painted the picture of Indian historical fear of African retaliation or violent behaviour and PNC history which would cause them to cling to the PPP. This is not necessarily a complete reflection of Indian fear because the forces of fear are deeper than the apparent. What cements the Indian vote is fear of what the PPP and fellow Indians will do to him should he break the rules of community relations.
There is a historical fear by Indians of Indian retaliation or violence. Discussions expressing dissatisfaction with the PPP are often seen as betrayal, being a neemakarram, resulting in alienation, threats of violence and violence.
There are two issues engaging national attention and Indians are very dissatisfied but dare not speak out aloud- the assault of a teenager by a government minister and the hardship of VAT. Persons are pressured to be very careful what they say in the presence of whom. At home family members agree the minister’s behaviour was wrong and VAT is killing but ask that you be silent. Friends who agree with you make sure it is done in whispers after looking around. If someone within this group betrays the trust and it gets to the wrong ear, it is easier to deny it was said or pass it off as a joke for the fear of what the offended may be capable of doing.
Ravi Dev and Khemraj Ramjattan have publicly shared their experiences of alienation, threats and violence inflicted on them and their supporters for daring to think differently, form their own parties, focus on the Indian security dilemma, changing the PPP leadership structure, and criticizing the PPP and government wrongdoings.
Indians feel strangled by the expectation of unwavering loyalty which must translate to “it’s we government, we can’t bad talk them and have to support them.” As much sense as Freddie Kissoon makes if he is criticizing the government or Indian behaviour he is rejected but if he is criticizing African behaviour, the PNC, Ravi Dev and other anti PPP leaders he is automatically elevated to the status of an Indian liberator. The PPP praises Africans criticizing the PNC and their fellow Africans but when these same Africans criticize the PPP they are racist, damned, and should be ignored. Indians have to constantly deal with this instability.
Over time a safety net has been developed, something like a secret code. Community cohesiveness and survival become learnt behaviour of supporting the PPP regardless, antagonism to Africans and Indians who criticize the PPP, and most importantly never break the secret code if you want to avoid alienation and violence. These are constant fears Indians confront that will keep the community united and it matters not whether they are constructed around manufactured or real events.
The sense of unity should then not be construed as PPP loyalty, it should be seen for what it is: -driven by the fear of being abandoned, attacked or ostracized from the community. This fear runs deep and is maintained by family, religious, and political leaders.
Most persons will agree with Stephenson that in Guyana “we have to promote unity and peace” but this can only come when Indians and all races do not have to fear community rejection, violence and alienation should they criticize.
Yours faithfully,
(name and address supplied)
