By Cecilia McAlmont
Introduction
Nearly two months ago, we celebrated the 39th anniversary of our achievement of Republican status. However, it was forty years ago this year that the Act making February 23 a public holiday was passed by the National Assembly. The act was the last of a series of Holiday Acts that were passed during the 20th century and February 23, 1970 was the last holiday to be established before the change of administration in 1992. It was the culmination of a deliberate effort to make the public holiday structure of the country more appropriate. The focus of this article is to look at the preceding holiday structure, the rationale for and the decision making process that was involved in making the changes and a look at if the goals were achieved.
Historical background
of the holiday structure
The need for a new holiday structure became a matter of urgency as the country was moving towards independence and the one that existed was clearly unsuitable. The structure which obtained was known as “the Clementi structure” named for Sir Cecil Clementi, who administered the colony in 1919. The list of public holidays under the 1919 0rdinance included Sundays, the first week-day of January – New Year’s Day, Good Friday, the day after Good Friday, Easter Monday, Labour Day, Whit Monday, first Monday in August, the second Monday in October – “the Clementi Holiday”, the Monday that falls on or nearest the 9th November – “Peacemaker’s Day”, Christmas Day, December 26 or Boxing Day and the Queen’s Birthday.
The list of holidays underscored the fact that as a British colony, British holidays had to be the order of the day even though they had little significance for the people of the colony. For example, Whit Monday was an English Bank holiday after the Christian festival of Whit Sunday while “Peacemaker’s Day was created by Clementi in honour of King Edward VII who was known as the “Peacemaker”. “The Clementi Holiday”, the second Monday in October was created by that gentleman for no better reason than the fact that there was no holiday in October!
There was grudging acceptance of the fact that a majority of the population were adherents of the Hindu and Muslim faiths. Six of their main religious days – Phagwah, Ram Naumi and Deepavali in the case of the Hindus and Eid-ul-Fitr, Eid-ul-Ahza in the case of Muslims were recognized and granted to them as holidays but were not made public holidays .Not surprisingly therefore, the primary focus of the discussions on the new holiday structure was the granting of parity of treatment to the three religions.
Rationale for the
new holiday structure
The resolution on the holiday tabled by the member from Ruimveldt, L.F.S. Burnham on December 12, 1962 read “that this Legislative Assembly recommends that a committee be set up to recommend significant and suitable national holidays for an independent Guyana.” However, when the actual debate on the resolution took place, Burnham posited that because of the cosmopolitan nature of the society and the need to achieve a unified nation especially as we moved towards independence there was need for holidays “which allow people of different persuasions to participate with each other…” since “one of the difficulties in our community is that we have Christians living side by side with Muslims and Hindus living side by side with Christians and none of those three understanding even some of the basic tenets of the other two”. He further posited that if we were able to share the holidays then we at least would be invited to attempt to learn each other’s point of view, creeds, beliefs and attitudes, and that further education and information will undoubtedly lead to a greater understanding and bring closer to us the day when we have a Guyanese nation as distinct from a country with a number of different peoples.
Burnham’s colleague, John Carter, seconded the motion and said, among other things, that if they were going to break down racial and other barriers, religion which played a very important role in the life of the community must also be understood. E. M. G. Wilson from the government bench, in supporting the motion opined that it would be a good thing for people to understand something about the various religions. Premier Jagan stressed “I remember the early days when I was a member of the Opposition, the people who were then opposed to me and to the views I expressed used to say that this is a Christian country. In the circumstances, everything rotated around that concept I am glad that we have come to the point where it is realized that we are living in the concept of a community or society which is multi-ethnic and multi-religious and that it is necessary for us to make a homogeneal society…”
The committee set up to deal with the matter recalled the inequality of treatment of religious days by the small European ruling elite since the days of slavery and opined that a modern Guyana could not continue such inequality. They felt that all exclusive religious holidays should be extended to everyone so as to ensure parity of treatment and justice to all of the three national faiths but more importantly “it is an essential if cultural integration of Guianese society is ever to be achieved.”
They also felt that several of the holidays could be developed as tourist attractions. The new holiday structure included several Clementi holidays the five aforementioned Muslim and Hindu holidays and the anticipated Independence Day.
The 1967 Holiday Act.
The new holiday structure recommended by the committee actually went into operation in the second half of 1964 and it was expected to be formalized in the new year. However, the PPP lost the December 1964 PR elections and the new coalition government had its hands full first stabilizing the country in the aftermath of the 1962-1964 ethnic violence then leading the country to independence.
The holidays listed under clause 3(1) of Ordinance no. 4 of 1967 differed in one very important respect from the Act which had been in operation since 1965. It did not include the Hindu religious day of Ram Naumi or the Muslim religious day of Eid-ul-Fitr. Their absence and the fact that there had been no consultation outraged both communities. In a press release, a Joint action Committee representing four Hindu and the Muslim organizations – the Maha Saba, the Gandhi Youth Organisation, the United Sad’r Islamic Anjuman, and the American Aryan League accused the government of obduracy and intransigence by its refusal to declare Ram Naumi and Eid-ul-Fitr national holidays. They further charged when it decided to restrict the number of holidays to 12 the “Government ought to have permitted the religious leaders of the Hindu and Muslim Communities to choose which two the followers of each religion would prefer. Forbes Burnham, as opposition leader, had in 1963 passionately made the case for the granting of Hindu and Muslim feast days as public holidays. He had also supported the motion that the selecting and placing of the holidays would be the subject of consultations with the various religious organizations. The article concluded:
The exclusion of Ram Nawmi and Eid-ul-Fitr from the calendar of national holidays is an act of disgrace and stamps the government with the indelible mark of tyrants. It is certainly symbolic of religious intolerance and in our view even amounts to religious oppression.
The Holiday Act of 1969.
The act of 1969 was in fact an amendment act. It simply called for the deletion of the words “Independence Day” and the insertion of the words “Republic Day…” Prime Minister Burnham perhaps did not see the need for consultation, because on February 23 1969 Opposition Leader, Cheddi Jagan himself had called for February 23 to be declared a national holiday. Perhaps, what he did not anticipate was that it would replace independence day. Indeed, there was little negative public reaction to the decision that from 1970 the holiday would be Republic Day rather than Independence Day.
Were the stated
goals achieved?
The two broad goals of the holiday structure were (1) to create a structure in which the holidays had local significance and (2) to ensure parity of treatment in respect of religious holidays. The claim was that it would and lead to, among other things, cultural integration of the society and a better understanding among the Guyanese people. It would also facilitate an understanding of the various religions and, above all, contribute to the creation of a Guyanese nation.
It would be true to say that by and large that in both the short and longer term both the broad goals have been achieved. However, it is equally clear that in both the short and longer term, the stated benefits that were to accrue from their achievement remain almost unattainable.
This is partly because the promised education programmes were never implemented and therefore the Creole/Euro-centric world view that set Christianity above these faiths has never been challenged.
The continued racial and other tensions in the society indicate that we are still groping towards the goal of becoming a Guyanese nation. Because of the tempo of the times in which they were done, the expectations from simply making a few Muslim and Hindu religious days public holidays were unrealistically high.
However, there are indications that despite its rocky start, Mashramani, especially over the last decade, thanks mainly to the significant efforts put in by the Minister when Culture, Youth and Sport became a Ministry in its own right, is evolving into a truly national holiday.
