Dear Editor,
Harry Hergash’s ‘Indian-Guyanese have been keen on education since the 1920s and 1930s’ (SN, May 10), a response to my ‘Furthering an agenda at the expense of others’ (KN, May 8) continues the manipulation of our history. The thrust of KN’s, May 5 editorial, while seeking to laud the achievements of Indians, undermined said achievements with inaccuracies which elicited the May 8 letter. According to this editorial, “When one considers that just a few decades ago the Indians were not as keen on education as they are today, when one considers that the Indians sought economic activities in every corner and succeeded beyond people’s wildest dreams, then one can see why Guyana is perhaps the economic capital of the Caribbean.”
Guyana by no stretch of the imagination is the economic capital of the Caribbean. On Indians’ so-called absence of keenness for education I attribute to varying factors. One is that schools prior to nationalisation were largely run by religious groups, mostly from the Christian belief and had Christian influences in the curriculum. This obviously would be a deterrent to Indians who were largely non-Christian in their beliefs. Another view is that with nationalisation, non-denominational, universal, school feeding and uniform programmes, free and compulsory education up to secondary level, a policy advanced by successive PNC governments, education became attractive and more accessible for all. Free university education also played a role in educational and economic advancement, another benefit of the PNC administration which was taken away by the PPP administration.
Mr Hergash disagreed and posited that the Indian approach to education is practical, citing “that in 1935, ie just eighteen years after the ending of indentureship, 85 (52%) of the 165 medical practitioners and 110 (50 %) of the 220 barristers and solicitors in the country were Indians.” This practicality is also credited with “the emergence of the British Guiana East Indian Association (BGEIA) in 1916 and its push for Indian education, as well as the setting up of the Canadian Mission schools (funded by the Canadian Presbyterian Church) which hired Hindi speaking teachers, taught Hindi, and encouraged the retention of Indian cultural practices, [following which] an increasing number of Indian children took to education.”
While such statements carry some weight they do not negate the fact the PNC governments’ approach to education made it attractive and more accessible for all. Neither does it prove Mr Hergash’s point that, “the effects of these initiatives were likely negated by other factors. As noted earlier, Indians have always taken a practical approach to education.
“In the mid-1970s when political affiliation with the ruling party was an unwritten requirement for government jobs, Indians started to neglect education turning more to self-employment in the trades, businesses and agriculture, or emigrating.”
To this the question is asked, if nursery to secondary education was compulsory under the PNC how could Indians have been neglecting same. To be absent from school over an extended period without a justifiable reason, would be a violation of the law and parents/guardians would have had to answer to the education authority. A significant number of PPP leaders and workers today are the beneficiaries of a PNC education. So this begs the argument of Indian children leaving school during the 1970s.
His observation that “in the late 1950s, Mr Balram Singh Rai, Education Minister in the PPP government, terminated ‘management control of 51 schools under Christian denominational control,’” was still insufficient to address the national demands. It also confirms that Christian schooling was a deterrent to Indians. This is reinforced with Mr Hergash’s recounting of Dr Jagan’s anecdote that “if I wanted to become a teacher, I would have to become a Christian, and my parents would have none of this.” The PNC nationalisation of Christian schools to make it universal for all came in for sharp condemnation from the Churches. As such they are deserving of the credit for making school accessible and attractive for non-Christian Indians.
It is stretching reality for Hergash to say that rejection of a PNC education “became more pronounced with the downturn in the economy when even lecturers at UG became part-time traders to make ends meet.” Supplementing income or changing careers is not the same as having an education. As is evident, to be a UG lecturer one would have had to be the recipient of education. His view that “the introduction of compulsory national service for UG students became a major deterrent for Indian females to attend the university and many Indian girls opted for marriage instead of a university education,” is a matter of dispute. Some would argue that this is true; others remind that culturally girls left schools earlier than boys to uphold the tradition of early marriage and homecare. The jury is still out on this in the absence of scientific data.
With population growth, inherent cultural uniqueness and economic disparities the PNC’s educational policies made education attractive and more accessible for all. What the beneficiaries sought to do, or not do with it, does not negate this fact. As said in my letter of May 8, when efforts are made to manipulate history it hurts rather than helps the image of those promoting their achievements.
Yours faithfully,
M A Bacchus
