Dear Editor,
I write to correct a number of historical inaccuracies contained in a recent missive by Eric Phillips (Dec 5, 2019). But more so, I question his motive for being fixated on his historical selection (which he repeated in another media forum). Eric extracted a singular event from the annals of Guyana’s history and deduced that a little known “British Guiana Colonization Scheme” has influenced many attitudes in today’s Guyana. There are two incontrovertible facts about the so-called “colonization” scheme. One, this scheme was part of a larger immigration plan (colonization being a ploy) initially supported by the planter class and some members of the British Guiana East Indian Association (BGEIA). The plan to “colonize” Guiana on behalf of India was not a plan proposed by Britain or India. Two, Britain never made any proposal “gifting” the colony of British Guiana to India (a colony Britain also controlled). These are conjectures, easily refuted.
Here are the historical circumstances surrounding the scheme. Contrary to the postulation of the writer, research will confirm that the proposed scheme has been written about by Basdeo Mangru, Odeen Ishmael, Clem Seecharan, including myself, in a recently published book on Jung Bahadur Singh. If this event is “little known”, as suggested by the writer, it is perhaps either because Indian historiography is still in its primal development, or the existing literature on the Indian girmitiyas (indentured laborers) to British Guiana, confirms that this “colonization” plan, part of an immigration proposal, did not materialize and did not receive serious consideration by Great Britain or British India.
W. Hewley Wharton (first Indian doctor) became the Secretary and JA Luckhoo (first Indian Guyanese legislator) was elected President of the BGEIA in 1919. Luckhoo and his colleagues initiated the scheme in an effort to forge closer ties with India. These prominent Christian British-trained citizens could hardly be considered “extremists”. They were loyal British subjects. The immigration plan was seized upon by the planter class who viewed the scheme as an opportunity to address their plantation labour shortage, following the abolition of indentureship, at a time when the price of sugar was depressed. Attorney-General JJ Nunan, on December 5, 1919, in a meeting with the Secretary to the Government of India, explained that the plan was based upon the free immigration of Indian agricultural families to the Colony. India, in response, offered to send a number of deputations to investigate labour conditions in the Colony. Their findings were recorded in the Pillai-Tewary report of 1924, and the Kunwar Maharaj Singh report of 1925. Neither reports considered the issue of “colonization”, but they addressed pressing issues like land settlement, repatriation, the political and economic status of Indians, the cultural needs of Hindus and Muslims and permanent Indian settlement.
The BGEIA wanted to secure ethnic balance and fair representation in government (goals they repeated at the 1938 centenary celebrations). The Negro Progress Convention (co-founded in 1921 by MEF Fredericks, a Buxtonian lawyer, and Theodore Nichols, a physician) called for the introduction of a similar migration “scheme” to introduce Africans from West Africa and other parts of the West Indies into British Guiana. In December 1923, the Secretary of the NPC, EP Bruyning made it known that the proposed BGEIA immigration scheme was a “distinct act of discrimination” against Africans who were entitled to “first consideration”. Besides the NPC, Nathaniel Critchlow (also a founding member of the NPC), and his BGLU opposed the immigration scheme. Others in the BGEIA did too, but for different reasons. Francis Kawall (President of the BGEIA in 1923-24) argued that newly arrived Indian immigrants would make it difficult to bargain successfully for living wages. He suggested they concentrate on improving the living conditions of Indians already in Guiana. The immigration scheme was effectively dead by 1924-1925.
While arguing that the 1919 “colonization” scheme was “unknown to 99.99% of Guyanese”, Phillips claimed that this event “influenced many attitudes in today’s Guyana”. This is a startling contradiction, which in effect suggests that .01% of the population was so fixated on this singular issue (presumably mostly Africans) over time that it dramatically transformed the Guyanese political culture. Two things ought to be noted here. First, there were other broader issues that divided African and Indian leaders at the time. These include the fear of a faster growing Indian population (which had established a majority by 1911), Ayube Edun’s disappointment that HN Critchlow’s BGLU could effectively represent the rural-based Indian sugar workers (prompting Edun to form the Man Power Citizens’ Association), and the struggle for universal adult suffrage. On May 30, 1944, during a Legislative Council debate in the Tenth Session of the Third Legislative Council of British Guiana, Critchlow gave a startling, albeit honest response, in order to provide justification for his objection to universal adult suffrage, reversing a position he held since 1925. While these issues, in totality, laid the basis for African-Indian suspicions, they did not prevent ethnic entrepreneurs from working together for common cause. For instance, Critchlow endorsed Daniel Debidin’s candidacy and spoke on his platform in 1947, while JB Singh worked with prominent African leaders in the British Guiana Labour Party.
Guyana is not an Indian colony. However, the British did present the PNC party with independence. This same party continues to wield overwhelming power through its control of every branch of government (of which Eric is an advisor), including the coercive arms of the state through its dominance in the disciplined forces, as well as the civil service.
Is Eric really interested in historical accuracy, or is he circling the wagons at a time when we desperately need national healing?
Yours faithfully,
Baytoram Ramharack
