Dear Editor,
In his riposte to my comments regarding the lack of guidance from Indian intellectuals who can shape the Indian imagination, Abu Bakr pushes the discourse into a new direction (‘The Indian intellectuals are fighting a losing battle against a natural force’ SN, November 5). Bestowing the concern as our “dilemma” (not a Guyanese dilemma?), he points to an overarching natural force quietly at work, shaping our notion of the “Guyanese”. Our “wailing”, “militancy” and “self-pity” (his words) amounts to nothing more than a losing battle to protect “spectacle and gestures” of a sub-culture. Demystifying his narrative, we are left with a mere question: When does ethnicity transform into nationality?
Our nationality, ‘Guyaneseness’, if you will, like the notion of ethnicity, can only be defined through shared cultural values, Blacks, Amerindians, Indians, others. It is not a new ‘entity’ borne out of a sudden revolutionary act that negates entirely the acculturated experience and culture-sharing of the past. Rather, there is a duality of forces at work. There is manifestation of this national transformation, as well as the other.
We never denied that there exists a move towards an organic culture of ‘one love’ in Guyana. This is essentially the goal of nation-building. But, a country made up of multiple ‘nations’ has its challenges to the zeitgeist of a popular culture. More so in this world, constantly being transformed by globalization, information-sharing and time-space compression. Our difference is that Mr Bakr seems to be arguing that we have long past this turning point, and emphasizing our cultural differences threatens to shatter this paradigm.
Our experience has shown that obstacles and setbacks become evident in our diverse culture and geographically fragmented state, embracing intervening obstacles to that end, like national elections, national policies, who gets the largesse of the state, etc. Yes, we are bound by tradition, laws and citizenship. But the folkloric aspect of self continues to raise challenges in both communities. Nation-building can be a time-consuming political struggle with its many nuances. But, does not our Guyanese culture have to take into consideration the elements of our many sub-cultures, Indians, Amerindians, Blacks, others?
While we have indicated that this should be the national goal, Mr Bakr should know that, given his ability at scrutinizing past events in Guyana, facilitated by the internet, ROAR’s calls for a structural rearrangement of the political state (devolution) was coupled by recommendations that serve to incorporate far-reaching distributional changes that went beyond “balancing the force” and calling for “religious and folkloric” holidays.
What possible illuminations does Mr Bakr need to confirm identity? The marketplace in which we interact on a daily basis is more complex and multicultural today, a result of nation-building within the organic state. Yet we still cling to what makes us unique, while sometimes rejecting the driving forces of assimilation, popular culture and forced cultural appropriation.
The question, as we have argued, and Mr Bakr knows this, is how do we move beyond the current divide to a national cultural celebration of being truly Guyanese? Cultural transformations cannot be promoted when one side dominates and controls the parameters of the discussion. The current national divide does not allow us to fast forward with a national force that drags us into a melting pot. It is a question of effective leadership, availability of opportunity and careful social engineering that can move us closer to this reality. Perhaps the kind of discourse like this one that can alert us to such a plan to create a more organic state and forge a genuine multinational culture.
Fifty years of tongue-in-cheek attempts by political gamesmanship make some wonder ‘when?’ while others roll our eyes to high heavens and suck their teeth when they hear of words like ‘social cohesion’ and ‘national unity’.
Interestingly, Mr Bakr admits to selectively borrowing from a Stabroek News “blogger” who endorses his argument, while revealing to us that he (Bakr) writes because he is on a “mission” to provide “reasoning and arguments for another generation”. All the while, Mr Bakr ignores another adjacent blogger, who, while supporting his thesis, advocates that Indians should “catch a plane to the land of India”.
Undoubtedly, we have a bit of a journey ahead of us.
Yours faithfully,
Baytoram Ramharack
