Dr Thakur failed to grasp the fundamental point that in a good society dignity is always upheld

Dear Editor,

So, up comes Dr Rishee Thakur referring to a “cuss up” at the National Cultural Centre (Letters SN, May 8, 2017). The event commemorating the centenary of the abolition of Indian indentureship was one of pride and dignity – “Garv Aur Izzat” – yet Dr Thakur persists with the notion that those of us who spoke could not have risen above the “cuss up” that passes for local discourse and which is the optimum level that many attain no matter the amount of education they manage to acquire along the way.

Dr Thakur, it seems, is most satisfied with accepting second-hand accounts that confirm his prejudices or else feels that our democratic state should not extend to Indian Guyanese voices expressing criticisms, concerns or varied points of view. How then to take him seriously?

I do not share Dr Thakur’s premise that rural Indians are uncivil and barbaric and therefore elicit feelings of shame and embarrassment from urban, professional Indian Guyanese. My formative years spent on the Corentyne coast is my own point of reference. My rural childhood instilled me with pride, dignity and civility though I was not unaware of the underbelly of rum-drinking, cuss-up and violence.

Indian Guyanese cultural and religious organisations are working assiduously to eradicate these destructive habits and addictions from these communities. They are detrimental to the people’s well-being and to the country as a whole and Dr Thakur could surely not view the commitment of these groups to effect reform and improvement as arising out of shame and embarrassment.

As a matter of fact, rather than the usual urban venues, the Girmitiya Research Center (Guyana) with which I am associated, held its Symposium on “The Indian Guyanese community: State and Prospects” to commemorate the centenary anniversary of the end of indentureship at Tuschen, East Bank Demerara to ensure rural Indians could “speak” their truth to power.

Despite his scholarly references, Dr Thakur also fails to grasp the fundamental point that in a good society dignity is always upheld and no one should ever be reduced to caricature and stereotype. GIFT condemned the Puddock caricature of the rural Indian because it was the right thing to do. It should have been similarly condemned by every Guyanese citizen as a matter of principle.

GIFT, GIHA and ROAR all had leaders who defended, protected, and spoke about the racial violence and the cultural stereotypes aimed at Indian Guyanese. There is much incivility and barbarism in these attacks which must always be countered and condemned.

The executive and membership of these groups were both rural and urban in proportion to their national distribution and our leadership never diminished Indians, including rural Indians. Rather they provided support and a voice where there would otherwise have been a void and deafening silence.

Dr Thakur reveals that he sees rural Indians as uncivil and barbaric, a view that was held by British imperialists and was extended to include all Indians. This imperialist view underlies much of the ethnic/cultural marginalisation of Indian Guyanese that contributes to Guyana’s deepening political and racial divide and where Dr Thakur has positioned himself rather strategically and opportunistically in order to win the approval he craves.

Yours faithfully,

Ryhaan Shah