The authorities have been tiptoeing around the Sangeeta Persaud issue as if they expected a bomb to be detonated underneath them at any moment. Of course, they see it as touching on religion and race, both of them subjects to which they are acutely allergic. The problem is that the central question which needs to be asked in this case is really quite straightforward, and has nothing to do with either religion or race. As Ms Marcus of Red Thread said in a letter to this newspaper, it is simply what did Sangeeta die of. Did the actions of those who performed the ‘exorcism’ on her cause her death? Or if those actions did not constitute the primary cause, did they at any level contribute to her death? Was it, for example, a case that she was in such a weakened state that a ritual which might not have harmed a healthy teenager was detrimental to her?
Anyway, it seems that the powers-that-be had absolutely no intention that we should find out the answers to these questions, because after the autopsy report listed the cause of death as “inconclusive,” Sangeeta’s body for reasons which have not yet been explained, was handed over for burial. If the authorities were of the view that by burying Sangeeta they were burying the problem, they were mistaken. Dr Ramsammy told reporters last week that an investigation would be carried out, although he was not altogether enlightening as to what would be investigated. If he meant the cause of death, then exactly what conclusion he expects can be arrived at when the scientific evidence has been interred with the corpse is not at all clear.
Guyana is a secular state. Of necessity it has to be, because this is a multi-faith society. Freedom of worship is certainly guaranteed under the constitution, and presumably under that rubric so is the freedom to believe in demon possession. Anyone can believe in fiends, ghouls, evil spirits, or whatever else they want to within the framework of their faith, but the mantle of religion does not protect the person who commits a crime under the laws of Guyana just because they say it is part of their religious belief. Perhaps some people will recall a case a few years ago, when a woman died following a beating inflicted during the course of an ‘exorcism’ in Alberttown. In that instance the perpetrator was arrested and convicted of manslaughter in a court of law.
But where Sangeeta is concerned, the authorities have displayed absolutely no appetite for trying to establish exactly why she died. If the post mortem was inconclusive, why did they not seek a second opinion; and if local science was not up to the task, then why did they not cast around for more sophisticated expertise, if not in the country then in the region. The point is, every attempt should have been made to pinpoint the cause of death before surrendering the body for burial. As it is, the public has not even been told whether there was any evidence of injury – such as bruising – on the body, which would be problematic in its own right, even if such injuries were not connected to Sangeeta’s death. There is dispute about what was involved in the rituals, the girl’s grandmother giving an account involving pressing, squeezing and palming, as opposed to that of the pastors and Sangeeta’s mother, who said only praying took place. Suffice it to say here that the grandmother came across as a credible witness.
The young teenager’s mother subsequently revealed that Sangeeta had been diagnosed with TB, although whether the pastor of Christ Ambassadors Church knew that when he ‘diagnosed’ demons, is not known. In any event, she was clearly very sick, and one might have thought that her debilitated condition would have been readily apparent to everyone including the pastor, more especially since he knew the family well because they attended his services.
Whatever was known or not known about her medical condition, it is at this point that religion collides with rational explanation. If, for example, what amounted to a physical assault had taken place, and that had played some role in the death, as said above, that would have brought the actions of those involved within the ambit of the law, religious belief or no religious belief. But what about the initial ‘diagnosis,’ that Sangeeta was possessed by demons, and that the ‘appropriate’ course of action was therefore to drive them out, rather than take her to the hospital? Dr Ramsammy did dip his toe into those murky waters, saying (among other things) that alternative methods should not take precedence over medical treatment.
Well, he is certainly right about that, and no religious figure in this country should be attempting to ‘drive out demons’ before a sick person has been taken for medical attention first. A pastor may feel he’s an expert on demons, but unless he is medically qualified, he certainly is not in a position to pronounce on physical or psychological ailments. Since the pastor himself eventually took Sangeeta to the hospital, one is presuming he does not belong to the school of religious thought that denies the efficacy of medical intervention altogether.
To pursue the argument within the pastor’s own frame of reference, there were two possibilities when he was called to see Sangeeta: either she was possessed, or she was sick. (From his point of view, she could have been both sick and possessed, but that possibility would not affect the argument.) He owed it to her to eliminate the second possibility before he proceeded on the assumption that the first was correct. In any case, if, as he said, all that happened was the participants in the ritual prayed over Sangeeta, they could have prayed for her in the church while she was at the hospital; there’s no incompatibility there.
What is even more perplexing, however, is why it took the pastor so long to decide to take the girl to the West Demerara Hospital. The ‘exorcism’ proceeded for about three hours in the house with no success, so why at that point did he not have recourse to a doctor? But no, she was carried to the church where she underwent another five hours of ritual – whatever form it took. Did it really not occur to the two pastors present (there were two by that time) that this was not really working and that perhaps modern medicine should be given a chance? How could they believe it was acceptable to subject a young girl, who was clearly unwell at some level, to an eight-hour ritual before seeking medical attention? Having made an initial misjudgement of a gross order, it was then compounded by an eight-hour delay in seeking medical assistance. No one will ever know whether had Sangeeta been taken to hospital in the first instance, she might have lived.
Whether, as Swami Aksharananda has urged in a letter to this newspaper, the authorities will entertain an exhumation of Sangeeta’s body so a second autopsy can be done, remains uncertain, but given the public importance of this matter, other details from the post mortem should be released, as well as the results from the “samples” which this newspaper was told were taken.
Finally, the message has to be sent to all religious figures in this country who believe in casting out demons, that in a case involving a minor, such as Sangeeta – and in cases of adults who develop physical or psychological symptoms outside a religious setting, as opposed to ‘demons’ revealing themselves in a healthy person, for example, during a church service – the first recourse should always be to a medical professional. The publicity surrounding this case may be the only good thing to have come out of it, since the opprobrium it has generated has made clear that the law aside, the general public is not prepared to indulge a private religious belief where that conflicts with the welfare of a child.
