Dear Editor,
While one must agree with Parvati Persaud-Edwards’s aspiration to reach the realms of humanity of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi- (her letter “Shri Prakash Gossai can make a contribution” [07.01.25]) two weaknesses in her argumentation should be noticed.
The first is that King, much more so than Gandhi, anchored his campaign on the desirability of racial parity. Gandhi was imprisoned by the inegalitarianism of the caste system, which he could not assail, and accordingly settled for the categorisation of the Dalits as Harijans (God’s people).
The second is that both Gandhi and King were quite prepared to be confrontational. The distinguishing feature of both men is that they endeavoured to resolve conflicts without resort to violence.
Persaud-Edwards recognises situations in Guyana that are intolerable and that result in migration. Those situations should be confronted.
A more fundamental difficulty is that Persaud-Edwards sees Hinduism as pure, sublime, perennial and enduring and subject to no sublimation. I am not sure what is meant by “no sublimation” but it is generally held by Hindu thinkers that there are deficiencies in Hinduism that fail to elevate “the principle of Being, (all Being) as the absolute Reality.” (Maharishi Mahesi-Yogi in A Transla-tion of the Bhagavad-Gita, p. 10). In other words, there is no superiority of brahmin Being over chudra Being. One would hope that Shri Prakash Gossai can address those deficiencies and uplift Hindu thinking in Guyana to reach the realms of humanity of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, but moreso King than Gandhi, because of King’s nobler focus on the centrality of racial equality. If that is Gossai’s task, it is huge.
This gives rise to a second fundamental difficulty, namely the absence of terms of reference for Shri Prakash Gossai. Is he expected to strengthen Hindu culture so that Hindus can interact with Africans, Amerindians, Brazilians and Colombians with greater confidence? If that is his mission, does President Jagdeo expect to appoint an African guru and an Amerindian guru to his office? Was this decision discussed with the Opposition leaders?
The bias to East Indian primacy in Persaud-Edwards’s letter is disturbing. The President is president to all the races, not just to East Indians. For one who appears to be an admirable person, Persaud-Edwards is not aware of the hate that results from total exclusion in decision making.
The President should realise that a single person like Gossai will not produce racial harmony. The President’s commitment to racial parity will do so if it is followed through with the appropriate policies. Gossai can help but the full involvement of all Guyanese-East Indian, African, Amerindian, and Portuguese-is central to the process of racial peace.
Yours faithfully,
Clarence F. Ellis