Dear Editor,
Regarding the controversy surrounding the 1823 rebellion monument site, I agree with Mr Mark Archer’s sentiment in letter titled ‘There is something wrong … ‘ (SN, Jan 5) that the site “must by necessity be at a location chosen by the descendants of that struggle.” No one should dispute that African people have an unchallenged right to determine where and how their ancestors should be honoured. Even though I cannot see why they would want the monument sited at a place where they were humiliated rather than where they rebelled heroically, such a decision should not be undertaken by Indians or any other ethnic group or an Indian supported government even if the project is being funded by the Indian supported government. Indians can and should offer advice and recommendations, but the decision should ultimately be that of Africans.
This controversy has brought back bitter memories of another structure that was put up by government amidst widespread ethnic opposition (from Indians) during the heyday of the PNC when the late Forbes Burnham expropriated the Indian Fund to build the National Cultural Centre (NCC). The Cultural Centre on Homestretch Avenue was built with money from the fund amidst widespread opposition from Indian cultural groups and activists and Indian political representatives. The dispute surrounding the 1823 monument is not about funds, but it still impacts on the sentiments of Africans in a way that is similar to how the PNC hurt the sentiments of Indians when it arrogantly assumed control over the Fund that should have been used according to the wishes of the descendants of indentured Indians.
While not completely analogous, Indians should relate to the complaints of Africans as they unrelentingly opposed the PNC on the NCC issue, although the administration claimed it got permission from an Indian group (discredited) which was accorded no respect by the Indian population. Mr Archer is old enough to recall that struggle of Indians. The descendants of indentured Indians were never consulted about the use of their money. There was no consent given by those who genuinely represented the Indian population. I am curious to know whether Mr Archer ever thought that the descendants of indentured Indians should have had the right to choose how their funds (their own funds, not state funds) should be spent – what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Mr Archer should note the similarities in the controversies surrounding the two projects: The government’s plan has been sanctioned by several prominent Africans and a few African groups and the PNC plan for use of the Indian Fund was sanctioned by a few Indian groups.
Prominent Africans say those Africans who support the project cannot speak for the African population. Similarly, those Indians who supported the PNC could not have spoken for the Indian population. I opposed what the PNC did to money set aside for the repatriation of my ancestors and it would be wrong for me now not to relate to the opposition by prominent Africans to the monument. The issue I have is Africans did not relate to the struggle of Indians against the expropriation of their Fund by an African government. And the African population has not done anything to right that historic wrong. It is still not too late to publicly admit what the PNC did to Indians was an abuse of process.
I ask Mr Archer and others now analogous questions to those he posed to the PPP on the monument: Why did his party expropriate Indian Fund money to build a centre that the Indian population (that was a majority of the population of the country) oppose?
Why did his government feel it had the right to use the Indian money without consulting the Indian people, their organizations and their leaders? As Mr Archer stated, history is distorted when the descendants are not consulted.
Today, African groups are rightly venting complaints similar to those voiced by Indians during the early 1970s.
The government should heed the voices of genuine African representatives. In our deeply divided society, one group cannot speak for the other group.
The direct consent of the representatives of Africans is a necessity for the 1823 monument as should also have happened with Indians in the case of the National Cultural Centre.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
