Dear Editor,
I thank Ms Janice Hall for the invitation “to make recommendations for participation in the 50th independence anniversary celebration committee” (‘The NY 50th Anniversary committee seeks diversity,’ SN, Feb 14). It is interesting to note that my letter on the public complaints about the composition of the NY Jubilee Committee was not published in SN but in another newspaper. Yet a response to the letter (based on complaints of the ethnic composition of the committee) was published in SN. Will this response be published? The complaints about inadequate ethnic diversity (representation of Indians, Chinese, Amerindians, Whites, and Mixed) were made at an open forum; I was merely a messenger of the complaints.
As Ms Hall admits, the committee does not represent the diversity of the Guyanese population, and she and the committee are seeking diversity of its composition. President Granger noted that Guyana was born out of racial division and fifty years later he would like to see racial unity. The committee did not heed that advice as it started out on the wrong footing. I applaud Ms Hall for now stating publicly that the committee seeks racial diversity. Like her, I too feel the committee should reflect the face of the nation at home and abroad, and I too also call for greater diversity in its composition. Racial discrimination or under-representation cannot be condoned and in fact must be condemned. Every effort must be made to be ethnically inclusive in all events. In national, public celebrations, especially when funded by the national purse and/or sanctioned by the government, every effort must be made to represent the composition of the population. An event celebrating the country’s independence, and the golden jubilee at that, should be truly representative of the population, especially when it is sanctioned by the Government of Guyana. Complainants cannot help but recall the racially biased (victory) celebration last September in Brooklyn with several ministers and APNU officials present and hardly any representation of the culture of Indians, Amerindians, Chinese, and Portuguese. An observer would have thought Guyana is a ‘mono-race’ nation. There cannot be a repeat of that racially and politically partisan affair.
Ms Hall noted that “Dr Rajkumar (representing Richmond Hill) and his team have been working to ensure broad representation (of Indians)”. If so, then the team is not doing a very good job because the complainants allege that in spite of Dr Rajkumar’s involvement, along with Latchmee Singh and Rhonda Binda, only 14 (or about 10%) of nearly 150 members are Indians in a greater New York diaspora population. Clearly, the committee is not representative of the face of the Guyanese population abroad or at home. Outreach has been woefully lacking and more must be done to be inclusive.
Some of the complainants query how the committee was formed, who was invited and who was excluded and why? It was alleged by NY AFC members that a partisan committee of a select few (APNU+AFC affiliates) was first formed at a Brooklyn meeting and executives chosen and then outsiders were invited to be a part of it. (AFC members complained to me they were not invited to the original meeting and were only told about the committee’s existence after it was formed.) Indeed, this is exactly what Ms Hall is also doing – inviting others to join the committee after it has long been established without input from the leadership of key segments of the diaspora communities.
Surely Ms Hall and the leadership of the committee could not have been that naïve not to expect complaints about its non-representative ethnic composition. As the complainants note, the committee started out badly and its formation is hardly likely to attract the broadest of participation, especially given that decision-making is locked into a select group that is almost completely uni-ethnic and supportive of only one political party. Even AFC complainants say it does not represent the coalition, much less the 50% of the nation who don’t support the coalition. People feel isolated and marginalized. They query whether this is a celebration of only government supporters. In order for people to participate, they must feel they belong and that they can participate in decision-making and be convinced events and nominees for honours will fairly represent all groups.
I am sure the complainants have or will take notice of Ms Hall’s renewed public invitation and her reiteration of the need for racial diversity. Nevertheless, the invitation for participation has also been passed on to complainants. But the damage has already been done, and it has been most difficult to convince non-participants and (original) non-invitees to join the committee; even some AFC NY activists don’t want to be part of it. Some have stated they do not wish to be mere racial tokens in the committee or lend legitimacy to an outfit that was constituted without the widest possible consultation or reflective of the AFC support in America.
In an earlier letter (SN, Feb 8), I suggested that a non-partisan (joint) committee (equitably appointed by government and opposition) reflecting the racial diversity of the population be formed to plan and organize celebrations in Guyana and the diaspora. It fell on deaf ears. Perhaps Ms Hall may wish to pass this suggestion on to her political directorate in Guyana as well as the leadership of the jubilee committee as a way to bring the ethnic groups together for a united celebration. Otherwise, the celebration will run mostly along the lines of race and politics.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
Editor’s note
The Stabroek News did not publish Mr Vishnu Bisram’s letter about the composition of the New York Golden Jubilee Committee because although he purported to speak for the representatives of several organisations (including some from the AFC) and individuals, who were present at an “open forum” – as he describes it ‒ in Richmond Hill, he did not name any of them. If he had been writing purely on his own account, we would at least have considered his letter for publication.
While we would not normally print a response to a letter which we had not selected for publication in our newspaper, in this instance Ms Janice Hall was not in the least tendentious in her response, showed herself eminently prepared to take Mr Bisram’s criticisms on board, and what is relevant in this instance, provided detailed information about how the New York 50th Independence Anniversary Celebration Committee was set up. It should be noted she was responding formally in her capacity as Co-Chair of the Public Relations & Diaspora Engagement of the 50th Independence Anniversary Celebration Committee (New York), and as such, this newspaper thought it important that the public have access to this information.
