Dear Editor,
Mr Bisram and others seem to forget despite strenuous reminders that Burnham’s ban of wheat affected not only Indians but Africans, Amerindians, Portuguese, Chinese, Caucasians and Mixed Races (‘Wheat was important in Hindu religious rites’ SN, September 10). It also affected Hindus, Moslems, Christians, atheists, spiritualists, Baha’is and Jews. All Guyanese were victims of the ban. That while some may feel more victimised than others and are entitled to that perception, they cannot parade this perception as the only or whole truth, or attempt to distort truth. Beyond the impact on religion, the ban was a bigger strain on the entire Guyanese people. Maybe Mr Bisram does not know, but Africans also eat roti and Indians eat bread and both eat both. However, all Guyanese of all ethnicities use flour for everyday subsistence. That is the bigger issue here not some weak attempt to emphasize the victimisation of a
particular group and to attempt to portray that victimisation as more terrible than the victimisation of other groups or as the only victimisation that occurred. For religious ceremonies and the practice of religion does not supersede the practice of life. The majority of this nation does not attend places of worship or practise their respective religions steadfastly. But the majority of this nation eats every single day several times regardless of their ethnicity. They eat bread, roti, cakes, pastries and the like consistently more than religious foods. They were all denied this normal way of life by Burnham. All of them.
Who is to tell me that my perceived religious suffering from the ban on flour is less than that felt by a practitioner of another denomination? By what measure is one’s religious belief and the perceived denial of the ability to fully practise it less than that of another religion? If a Hindu is denied the use of flour in three ways does it automatically mean that Hindu is hurt more and violated than a Christian who is denied use of flour in two ways in his religious practice? Any religious person from any denomination will tell you that any denial of their right to practise their religion is crushing to them. It is just the way it is. Indians and non-Indians are entitled to feel passionately about policies that affect their ability to freely practise their culture and religion, but any resort to blame and victimhood must be rooted in fairness and intellectual honesty.
Mr Bisram nefariously distinguished “Indian Muslims” and “Indian Christians.” Hindus did not get this distinction from him. Mr Bisram disturbingly suggests a difference in the use of flour between Indian Christians and non-Indian Christians. The ethnic recklessness continues. Do non-Indian Muslims and Christians use wheat in Mr Bisram’s mind?
Is Mr Bisram telling us that those very poor Hindus who cannot afford to buy flour even now in its abundance cannot gain the salvation of the Divine because they cannot offer wheat? Mr Bisram like others from other ethnic groups are not just myopic but completely blind, which is why Indians and other Guyanese in this nation need to speak up and define their experience rather than become lambs to the conniving pens of men like Mr Bisram.
Yours faithfully,
M. Maxwell
