Dear Editor,
Re the Stabroek News editorial of May 5, it has been established that with respect to one assertion, the editorial was inaccurate (Harry Hergash ‘Indian-Guyanese have been keen on education since the 1920s and 1930s‘ (SN, May 10) and M A Bacchus, ‘Keen on education since the 1920s and 1930s (SN, May 8)). To date, however, Stabroek News has not carried a retraction, as is normative practice in the media world, when an inaccuracy has been published.
According to the editorial, “…just a few decades ago the Indians were not as keen on education as they are today,” The simple reality, however, is that Stabroek News confused desires with actualization.
That Indians have been acquiring education in increasing numbers over the last few decades simply means that there has been an increasing scope to enable this.
That they did not do so earlier in time is the result of factors that militated against such a realization and not because of a lack of desire on their part; indeed Indians were as keen on education then as they are now. As pointed out by quite a few letter writers, Indians have always been aspiring for education as the basis for socio-economic advancement and upward mobility of self and family.
The words of my parents encapsulate an outlook that was passed on through the generations: “Tek ayu education because abe na get house and land fuh gie ayu.“
Furthermore, as others have pointed out, many kept their children out of the Christian church schools to prevent hem from being pressured to give up their Hindu or Islamic religion and become Christians. And many who graduated from high school were kept out of jobs that would have provided a catalyst for further education, because they refused to convert to Christianity or expose themselves to decultarization. Yet those who could so afford, did travel overseas to acquire the requisite qualifications as doctors and lawyers while those who were afforded the opportunity did serve in various public service areas, some with distinction.
Perhaps the one area in which Indians can be blamed in a historical sense is with respect to females, until the advent of the Arya Samaj began to change traditions. The traditional belief was that since the roles of females were those of wives and mothers, education was not an important aspiration for them.
But even then, while other segments of Guyanese society did not hold to this belief those segments did not distinguish themselves by enabling scope for women to be educated to the same degree and in the same numbers as men.
The other issue that provided a slight to Indians has to do with the struggle for universal adult suffrage. There are those who argue that it was Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow who carried this fight to the British. But while one would agree that Critchlow was part of a set of labour leaders who included this demand in their repertoire, it has already been pointed out that Critchlow was not in favor of granting the vote to Indians. Whatever his rationale (and no rationale can justify this outlook), this makes it clear that Crtichlow’s struggle was not for universal adult suffrage. And when one looks across the range of the last century it becomes clear that while many were involved in this struggle, it was Cheddi Jagan who took this fight to the British.
Editor, what the two issues referenced above indicate is transparent: a retrogression to a time when those who summed up history denied them the roles and achievements that were rightfully theirs.
Until these issues began to rear their heads, one would have thought that as a nation, we had gone past that stage and reached a place where all and sundry were accurately and unstintingly recognized for their contributions and accomplishments. And so one has to hope that this aberration is a passing fancy rather than precursor of a particular strategy about to unfold.
Yours faithfully,
Annan Boodram
