Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter by Mr. Eric Phillips, “Africans were among the first to acquire the skills to cultivate rice in Guyana” (SN 10-14-22) reacting to a Guyana Times editorial, “21st Century Agriculture”. One of the challenges of cohabitation in a plural society with a history of ethicized political conflict, is the inevitable “social comparison process”. Hypersensitive persons see “slights” or worse when there may be none, bereft of “giving the benefit of the doubt”. The editorial discussed the government’s efforts to modernize the sector, which had been dominated by sugar and rice. This passage earned Eric’s ire: “Towards the end of the 19th century, Indian Indentured labourers – brought in to replace African slaves on the sugar plantations – introduced a second commercial crop – rice.” He concluded that this statement “included skillfully deceptive language about the origin of rice in Guyana.
The impression given by the author was that Indians were the first to plant rice in Guyana, or as the language skillfully puts it: “on a commercial scale”.” Philips expatiated on the Dutch introduction of rice cultivation in the 18th century and that this was subsequently practiced by runaway slaves. He extended a quote from Dr. Wazir Mohamed, “the slave population was not only prevented from planting rice officially, but was also prohibited by force of arms to do so unofficially” to assert, “they did not have the freedom to plant rice either during slavery or after.” However, eminent historian, Dr. Winston Mc Gowan, offers a more nuanced perspective: “Enslaved Africans initiated rice cultivation in Guyana in at least three kinds of circumstances. Firstly, some of them who worked on plantations, used a part of their free time to plant rice to supplement their meagre food allowance and to sell to other slaves. This practice continued until the end of slavery…Secondly, enslaved Africans were required to cultivate rice by a small number of planters who used a part of their land for that purpose no doubt to provide food for their slaves. This was a rare occurrence.” Thirdly, there was the cultivation by runaway slaves mentioned by Mr. Philips.
But as with Dr. Wasir Mohamed’s explanation, that was during slavery. Following Emancipation in 1838, to their great credit, many freed Africans pooled their savings and bought abandoned plantations into which half of their populace moved, founded villages and cultivated their thousands of acres of lands. The question, of course, is why they didn’t grow rice on these transported land? Dr. Mc Gowan’s answer is, “The end of slavery in 1838 resulted in a decline in African participation in rice cultivation for most of the ex-slaves opted to focus principally on the cultivation of ground provisions. An official report in 1848, however, does mention that rice was being planted in Berbice by Temnes.” On Mr. Philips’ charge of “deception”, I surmise that because of the Guyana Times procrustean 700-word limit on editorials, the early introduction of African rice cultivation was not mentioned, just as the early efforts of Indian indentureds from the 1850s.
It was only at the end of the 19th century, that the sugar industry depression forced the state to end the constraints of sale of Crown Lands (100-acre minimum and high prices) to facilitate interior gold mining. It was then Indian time-expired indentureds started purchasing large acreages and (as the editorial stated) rice became commercially viable. At this time, even African Guyanese who did not own village lands, could have followed suit. But there is a pertinent question for African Guyanese in the present focus on agriculture that harks back to the Black Bush Polder (BBP) rice development schemes in the 1950’s under the first PPP government. That was a key mobilising issue by the PNC in 1961 and 1964, since the overwhelming number of grantees were Indian Guyanese. That the selection criteria were facially neutral was irrelevant.
After its installation into office in 1964, the PNC embarked on a number of initiatives to increase African Guyanese participation in the rice industry. A section of Mibicuri – dubbed “Zambia” – was carved out for African Guyanese farmers who were each given the same 2.5 acres for cash crop cultivation and 15 acres for rice farming. In the Mahaica/Mahaicohny Abary Rice Development Scheme (MARDS) more than half of the 63,000 acres were leased to African Guyanese. This was replicated elsewhere and they all had access to financing from GAIBank and GNCB. Today, however, most African Guyanese who have not sold off their lands are now leasing them to others. How do we ensure their greater participation today?
Sincerely,
Ravi Dev