Dear Editor,
Are Guyanese beyond race? Heading, in historical terms, to a ‘post-racial’ dougla paradise? Or, on the contrary, en route to the final segregation of the federated race homelands some dream of from their exclaves in New York or Toronto?
Is the ‘principle of adherence’ around which we congregate and cohere now something more advanced than the primordial incidence of the common race?
The week’s newspapers are laden with phrases evocative of our dreams as of our fears. Talk of Muslim marginalisation and federal race-states, and Granger’s platform of “one people” are testimony to the confusion of a society that never took the time to define itself, and that contained the conceptualisation of itself in pious slogans and in a constitution that was made for another polity.
An important letter from Raymond Chickrie was published in your newspaper of July 28 that goes to the heart of the question. It asserts that Muslims are, in a way, marginalised in our political and legal regimes – treated as a minority subsumed under the category ‘Indo-Guyanese,’ essentially written out of that group’s narratives, ignored as a source of legal doctrine, denied due voice in the conduct of our affairs despite the presence of active representative groups. It cites scholarship on the matter as saying that the fact of faith-based differences is key to understanding that “religion is at the core of defining the Indian diaspora,” which is seen as Hindu and treated as such in our historiography and analyses.
This implies that the construction of the idea of a national community has got to move away from the egalitarian and ennobling illusion of ‘one people’ and toward a recognition of our diversity, as it is continually re-affirmed in our voting patterns.
Should this diversity, as in your letter from Sultan Mohamed in the SN of July 30, lead to the creation of territorial non-sovereign geographic regions each peopled by a distinct race, and also, logically, a self-defined interest group, is a question unceasingly thrown at us by the ROAR political philosophers.
Muslims are marginalised. I have written here as elsewhere that the hegeomony of the Creole Afro-Anglo-European, is as insensitive to other cultural currents as was the imperialism whose template he inherited and possesses. A society as a repository of a legal system and its expression, articulates its present systems and lays precedent for its future, in accordance to laws. Our laws define us as a mono-cultural state. Neither PPP nor PNC has taken it further than granting us holidays and rights to issue marriage licences or intone a prayer at this or that public ceremony. Divorce laws in this republic are19th century English (grounds of malicious desertion or cruelty must be proven, etc) and ignore more advanced systems in the cultures of the subalterns. Which, ‘subalterns’ is how we continue to be viewed. Muslims have contributed a great deal to the creation of this country. From pioneering entrepreneurs such as Rahaman or Mazaharally or RB Gajraj, to scholars, professionals, and the building of institutions such as high schools and orphanages, Muslims have been in the forefront of creating the social structure of this country.
Yet, a question of numbers, our views are not always considered. It is a matter to which we are blind.
I recall, years ago, a conversation with my friend the bussinesman Nezar Mohamed, in which he raised the very question of the role of the Muslim community in the Guyana we are building. We were talking about Asgar Ally (former minister) and reactions to his loss of the ministry. It became obvious that many Muslims feel the faith and the Islamic identity need to be respected and represented. They are convinced that Islam holds the values needed for social peace and advancement.
Fazeel Feroze, the CIOG leader, may be, like many Muslims, cited as a case of a leader of a ‘post-racial’group. His organisation has had a policy of reaching out to all communities in keeping with the principles of the faith. Muslim groups in this country have done as much as Christians to reach out to members of the other race. And, even with incidents of mis-comprehension, Afro-Guyanese have been active in working with them in promoting a Guyanese Islam that is a good example of how we could live together. It is how our republic should work.
Let us therefore propose that the republic be conceived not as a collection of disparate and discordant racial groups to be blended into one under the hegemonic cultural rule of a Creolised dominant, but as a collection of groups that define themselves in ways that include but are not limited to race.
A person could very well see himself as Muslim or Evangelical or Madras first, and Indian second.
It is possible for a person to see himself calling for a piece of the federated nation (note to Mr Mohamed here) that is reserved for Indian Muslims, or the corner exclusive to Indian Christians. This federated state has to be further fragmented to work.
What remains to be answered is the question, How do we keep each federal state racially pure? Will there be settlement laws as in the South African apartheid township case? Pass laws?
Of course Mr Mohamed makes no mention of mixed-race federal states. Oversight, or do they have other solutions for them?
Yours faithfully,
Abu Bakr
