Dear Editor,
The present PNC-WPA outfit has a significant number of African intellectuals, scholars, and activists who are quite vociferous when it comes to “ethnic honour,” and for whom the “furtherance and defence of African Guyanese interests,” is an important plank in their political and public life.
What is more, this group of individuals seeks to connect “ethnic interests” with “national interests,” and I agree there is nothing inherently contradictory in this thinking. My concern, as I have been pointing out, is the asymmetry in this position when it comes to Indians. Somehow, Indian ethnic interest has been presented as diametrically opposed to national interest.
Of course, the counter-argument could be made that it is Indians themselves who must make this argument, who must speak for themselves, who must represent themselves. But as we have seen, throughout the last sixty years or so, whenever any Indian attempts to do so, he is ground in the dust and destroyed.
Further, because of the systematic conditioning to which Indians have been subjected, there is nothing that an Indian fears most in Guyana than being called a racist, which is the label for those who dare to speak their truth. It follows that there is nothing an Indian is not prepared to do just not be labeled a racist, even to the point of purging himself of his ethnic identity. This has been the dominant narrative in Indian politics in Guyana.
Africans intellectuals however have no such inhibition. One recalls the near hysteria that was created when the name of Mr. Moses Nagamootoo, later to be anointed Brother Moses Nagamootoo, was proposed as the presidential candidate for the yet to be formed coalition. No one could fail to see the argument that was advanced on the basis of ethnic honour why he would not be acceptable to Africans. When African ethnic honour was invoked, those who dared to make the suggestion were effectively silenced and made to see the light.
A major concern for many Indians in Guyana with respect to the coalition is who in the coalition will speak for Indians? Because of the presence and prominence of Mr. Nagamootoo in the coalition the argument has been made that Indians who voted for the AFC in 2011 and those voting for the same party now, “would be voting for someone of their own ethnic group.”
If this someone is referring to Mr. Nagamootoo, then here is the dilemma that the Indians will face. Apart from the fact that he does not have the credentials to be a spokesperson for Indians, at least in the same category as the African ethnic activists, Mr. Nagamootoo clearly does not see himself in this role. Because of the brand of Marxism practised in the PPP that he has inherited he seems quite averse to being labeled an Indian activist in any way. Unlike many African activists and politicians who have been able to creatively reconcile their ethnic politics with Marxism as they understood it, the Marxist ideologues in the PPP, including Mr. Nagamootoo, chose to “ignore or discard their ethnic identity and interests.”
Clearly, then, those Indians who are busy abbreviating, hyphenating, punctuating, ignoring, discarding and denying their ethnic identity cannot be trusted to speak for Indians. The most they may do is to use the cover-all phrase “our supporters,” as is their habit. In any case, it is the Indians of Guyana who have to decide who should represent their ethnic interest. This cannot be an imposition certainly not by any person or persons outside the Indian community, no matter what is the political expediency.
Mr. Nagamootoo’s position on the ethnic question can be better understood by analyzing his recent brazen claim that “we” will break the “Berlin Wall of ethnic preference.” Before examining this assertion, it would be fair to say that this is a wall that he himself spent fifty years constructing and zealously guarding, while at the same time being its prisoner.
Who is behind the wall as far as Mr. Nagamootoo is concerned? And, who is to be freed? Whose ethnic preference is to be shattered? The logic of this statement is clear. The Africans will maintain the status quo and assert their ethnic preference. It is the Indians who are called upon to give up their ethnic preference.
Regardless of the constant boast of unity, the coalition has nothing to do with ethnic unity. It is merely an expediency hastily contrived to remove the PPP from office which can only be done if Africans stay with the PNC and Indians abandon the PPP. Talking about sacrifice, this is the sacrifice Indians are called upon to make.
Instead of seeking to fabricate an artificial coalition and depending on defectors so to speak, the PNC should have sought to reach out to Indians. I have not seen anything that the PNC has done in recent times to win the confidence of Indians. They have actually abandoned Indians to the PPP, and have done everything in their power to reinforce fear and mistrust.
If there is as much disenchantment of Indians with the PPP as they claim, then they have lost an opportunity which may not come back in a hurry. If Indians entertain a fear that the today’s PNC is no different from the one of the past, then the present leadership has done nothing to disavow the Indians of this feeling. Can anyone blame Indians, then, if they fear that they will get more of the same from the PNC?
In conclusion, to quote from the Hitopadesha, that offending text that caused so much consternation among foes and friend alike the last time I referred to it, one does not have to proclaim that one is a brahmin or chamar. One’s actions speak loud and clear enough.
Yours faithfully,
Swami Aksharananda
