Dear Editor,
Your editorial titled, ‘Indentureship abolition,’ which adds to the celebration of the centenary of the abolition of the indentureship of Indians, is timely. If I may, allow me to add a few comments, kindly.
It is right to note that textbooks in our schools failed to provide schoolchildren something “substantial about the contribution of the Indian foreparents to our society.”
In that vein, a long time ago, writing a master’s thesis on Salman Rushdie’s controversial novel, the Satanic Verses, which includes a few Caribbean characters, it became clear after having examined a substantial amount of post-colonial literature that emerged from the English-speaking Caribbean by that point in time, that only a handful of works by Indians had been published.
Later, I wrote a letter in our media about the failure, for example, of compilations of Caribbean poetry to adequately include the Indian poets. Mr Jeremy Poynting, of Peepal Tree Press, to whom Indian authors owe appropriate gratitude, objected to this by noting that Peepal Tree had published a number of Indian writers.
Part of the problem exists with Indians themselves. In regard to the centenary of the abolition of indentureship of Indians, I wish to recommend, respectfully, that the Indians continue their forward journey with a greater embrace of literature in order to better document their lives and their primary challenges, especially crime.
There is a greater need for documentation and an embrace of literature meaning that more writing, more storytelling, poetry, journals, reports, essays, and publication are essential if they are to exist with respect in the “plural society” identified in your editorial. Existence without respect is not enough.
There is an extraordinary need to document the legacy of criminal disobedience that has and continues to confront Indian life. All sorts of crimes. No exceptions. Without this, there will be no respect.
Indian professionals in Guyana especially doctors, lawyers, accountants, auditors, former judges, and economists have failed to participate in this process. The journey forward has little room for learned professionals to watch from the sidelines. Too much has been left for too few to do. These professionals must begin to produce literature from their experiences in dealing with crime and its varied effects.
Historians need to reveal the history of criminal disobedience in Guyana; economists need to produce reports about the effect on the economy historically. Otherwise, crime will continue to be the destructive force it is against the contributions of the indentured servants to the Guyanese society, such as the almost extinction of the use of certain jewellery in Indian customs. It will continue to destroy other sections of the Guyanese society also.
Yours faithfully,
Rakesh Rampertab
