Dear Editor,
There is a myth being peddled in Guyana that “95% of the country’s wealth is owned by Indians”. Continuously repeating and legitimizing this myth as if it was an uncontested fact only serve to galvanize greater antagonism towards Indians at a time the political atmosphere encourages members of both major ethnic communities to “dig in” and rely on “primordial sentiments” instead of rational judgment to make political choices. This myth took on greater meaning when Dr. Clive Thomas in a paper presented to an ACDA Conference in March 1997, using “poverty and related data” concluded that Africans were discriminated against in terms of general employment and senior positions, housing, composition of boards, the allocation of land, government contracts and development expenditure. That presentation contained several arithmetical errors, according to an unpublished paper by Dr. Ramesh Gampat, an economist at the UNDP.
Data from the Household Income and Expenditure (HIES) and the Living Standards Measurement Survey (LSMS) of 1992/1993, conducted by the World Bank and the Government of Guyana found that 43.2% of the general population lived below the poverty line, while 27.1% lived in extreme poverty. The HIES/LSMS and the Guyana Survey of Living Conditions (GCLC) of 1999 divided the country into four distinct geographical areas, namely, metropolitan Georgetown (21%), other urban areas (9%), rural coastal regions of regions 2,3,4,5,6 and 10 (61%) and the interior areas (9%). Between the mid-1980s and 1999, roughly 70% of the population lived in the interior and rural coastal areas outside of Georgetown. In 1992/1993, Indians constituted half of the 85% of the rural population, while Africans constituted 36%. World Bank figures (1994) show that in 1994 Indians were more ruralized than Africans, with about 74% Indians living in the rural coastal areas in 1993 (84% in 2000). According to Dr Ramesh Gampat in a study on “Guyana: Population, Poverty and Ethnicity” (2002), HIES data indicated that the majority of Africans fell in the middle of the income/consumption expenditure with a small percentage located in the “very rich” and the “very poor” class. For Indians, there was a “small”, but “very rich class”, while the middle class, which was sizable three decades ago, “has been reduced considerably”, leaving the majority of Indians in the bottom end of the distribution spectrum (p. 16). Admittedly, while “the majority of Indians are poor”, there exists a “small rich and powerful class of Indians” (p.17). One wonders how this small rich Indian class will stack up against a giant firm like Exxon and the vertical integration of newly created oil-related industries.
Dr. Gampat calculated that 39.4 percent of the Indian population lived in absolute poverty in 1993 but this figure declined to 32.9 percent in 1999. For Africans, these figures are 36.0 percent and 28.0 percent, respectively. Further, average consumption spending by Indians and Africans were about the same in 1992/1993. This may or may not be true of income. To be sure, nothing can be said about the ethnic distribution of wealth as no data currently exists. To argue that Indians own x percent of the country’s wealth or Africans own y percent is simply speculation that cannot be settled by a mere “counting exercise.”
Dr. Thomas, ACDA and others have argued that Africans are considerably poorer than Indians because of the PPP government’s “marginalization”. However, the 1994 World Bank report suggested that the government should concentrate on growth reduction policies for poverty reduction in the rural areas (p. 14). This has been the trend, even though as Dr. Clive Thomas admitted previously, the Burnham government controlled 80% of the economy through its nationalization policy. President Hoyte’s liberalization policy contributed towards the economic advancement of some Indians. The PPP government, which disagreed with the World Bank’s advice, concentrated its poverty-reduction effort in urban areas, resulting in the miniaturization of the Indian middle class (while maintaining close ties with a small incestuous urban-based wealthy Indian class). To suggest that Indians “control the economy” ignores this historical development of the government’s role in the economy and sidesteps the question of how and why one major ethnic group owns more of the country’s wealth than the other major ethnic group. There is a process behind the accumulation of wealth.
Based on the available data, the conclusion is this: like Africans, the majority of Indians are also poor. World Bank figures (1994), drawn from HIES/LSMS (both conducted in 1992/1993), shows that 30% Indians lived below the absolute poverty line in 1992/1993, with 43% of Africans (poverty 10% higher for Africans), with 139,724 Indians and 92,071 Africans confronting absolute poverty. The situation for Amerindians residing in the riverain areas was more dismal.
Should Guyanese politicians willingly remove their pretentious masks and honestly expose their ethnic fears, they will acknowledge that the current anxiety over the forthcoming election in Guyana centres around the Ethnic Security Dilemmas (ESDs). I suggested the need for a new paradigm and an alternative political framework for a future Guyana that ought to encompass structural and normative changes. Constitutional Reform, a ruling Government of National Unity (of all parties that captures proportional votes) governing for 5 years, utilization of Ethnic Impact Statements to ascertain equity and diversity in the distribution of state largess and Affirmative Action Policies to promote fairness in resource allocation are priority on that list. A study prepared by Pamela Rodney (2007) for the Ethnic Relations Commission on Employment Practices in the public and private sector recommended calls for Affirmative Action policies and an Equal Opportunity Commission.
In a previous letter (SN, Feb 18, 2019), I underscored the point that, given current and prevailing patterns of behaviour among our political leaders, there ought to be a structural redistribution of political power. It is ironic that a recently-formed political party in Berbice is now advocating for shared governance through a system of devolution of power. I would add another consideration to the list: removal of the country’s capital city in preference for a forward capital to be strategically situated in Guyana’s interior region. These proposed changes, admittedly, were designed to address the deep-rooted ethnic cleavage that informs political participation in Guyana.
Articulating a plan to address the ESD requires an honest appreciation of the narratives and group experiences of all Guyanese, particularly Indians and Africans (Amerindians included). This is precisely what we have been advocating. Regarding the ESD for Africans, I have argued that while it is important to recognize that historically Africans gravitated towards employment within the civil service and security forces, the functional role of the disciplined forces created an ESD for Indians which ought to be recognized, and addressed. Professor George Danns of Guyana in a Ford Foundation funded research (Domination and Power in Guyana, 1982) documented how Forbes Burnham (as Party Leader, Prime Minister, Minister of Defence and Chairman of the Defence Board) transformed the armed forces into an “arm of the government”, noting that the army “frequently patrols East Indian villages” and “keep a close watch on the activities of PPP activists”. The vulgar politicization of the disciplined forces and the militarization of Guyanese society are well known, resulting in the WPA suffering the greatest harm.
Especially in the present political atmosphere, the narrative of those who promote the myth of the Indian-controlled economy have taken it to another dangerous level, further, suggesting that many Indians were engaged in narco-trafficking and money laundering activities.
Yours faithfully,
Baytoram Ramharack
