Dear Editor,
The direct attack by Mr Ronald Bostwick in `We seriously need to unite as Guyanese lest we be overwhelmed by foreigners and foreign interests’ (SN Aug 26) accusing Indians of wanting to ‘appropriate’ an African event (at UG on August 25) needs explanation and clarification as there seem to be some misunderstanding of the event from his end. It was not billed as an all-African event and to now make that claim is “to racialize it” or ‘appropriate it’ excluding Indians and other groups. If he is of the view that it was or should be an African event, he should chastise the organizers and not excoriate Indians who sought fair representation in it. Bostwick also made a factually incorrect statement on land grant to Indians during indentureship that needs correction.
It would be wrong for Indians or ethnic members of any group to appropriate a significant event of another group (religious or race). Africans celebrate Emancipation Day and Indians “Indian Arrival Day’ and other groups also have their ethnic events and so many festivities. I am in agreement with Bostwick that it would be wrong for non-members (non-ethnics) of a group to seek representation or demand participation in events or festivities that are not of their group or background or culture. This is not to preclude non-ethnics involvement or observance especially if so graciously invited (although not a requirement for a public event as an apology that took place at UG) or to offer support for the event. Indians funded countless non-Indian programmes or celebrations and vice-versa. I attended countless non-Indian events. And as a Hindu, I also attended countless Muslim and Christian festivities and weddings as I have relatives, friends, and neighbours of all faiths. I also participated in Emancipation as well as Harlem Renaissance celebrations when I was a student in America. And when asked to speak, I chose if I would or not.
On the UG event, it was not billed specifically as “African”. If it were an African event, as Bostwick was suggesting when he accused Indians “of wanting to appropriate it”, Indians had no place in it and no right to seek participation. And Bostwick would be right in his accusation of Indians want ‘to appropriate it’. It was billed as an apology from the Gladstone family. That drew the interest of Indian scholars and rights activists that I engaged on the subject. I support apologies and ‘reparative’ justice for slavery, but I also seek same for indentureship (Indians, Chinese, Portuguese) and for the native Amerindians. Championing justice for one group does not preclude me from supporting the other.
As it were, the UG invitation and press release did not specifically say it was an apology for (African) slavery. It simply stated ‘apology’. One could have surmised it was African in nature since the African Reparations Committee was linked to it as a co-sponsor and co-organizer; there was no co-Indian organization or that from another ethnic group. It was a UG organized public event. To have one group linked to it and not others, is very wrong and would only serve to divide us – an anti-thesis of the caption or title of Bostwick retort. In addition, the event was conflated with another – two events in one – the apology from the Gladstone family that was involved in slavery and indentureship and the announcement of the launch of a new Institute on Migration and Diaspora Studies. And UG tried to be inclusive although Indians were seriously marginalized at the event. A steel pan is not Indian and Indians never sought to appropriate it. There were no sign of involvement of Amerindians or Chinese or Portuguese albeit the latter two were not directly linked to the Gladstones. Certainly, Indians had a right for involvement in the Institute if not in the apology on slavery. And since the Gladstone (deceased) family members were involved in indentureship and the horrific episodes related to it, certainly Bostwick would not be opposed to an apology for indentureship unless that is his quarrel – that Indians don’t deserve an apology and certainly not at that event. Profs Hillary Beckles (Barbados) and Verene Shepherd (Jamaica) stated that indentureship should be included in reparations. In an article in the Trinidad Guardian, Dr. Beckles justified the claims of reparations for indentureship. Indian rights activists sought an apology from the Gladstone heirs, and they got it. The spokesperson for the Gladstone heirs at the UG event apologized for both slavery and indentureship. Why then, after the event and the apologies, this ‘uncalled for attack’ on Indians accusing them of advocating for “an appropriation of an African event”. Is such a below the belt attack part of promoting one Guyana concept of President Ali?
Bostwick penned: “… after the costs of post-indenture repatriation fares to India proved burdensome, (freed Indians) were offered land in lieu which they happily accepted”. Bostwick and many others make the mistake noted above that Indians received compensation of land for remaining on the colony. It is not written anywhere that Indians ‘happily accepted’ land. I don’t think Indians or anyone from any ethnicity would ‘happily accept’ a small piece of worthless land to give up reuniting with families and returning to a home they had not seen for five or ten years. For the record, only 6% of the freed indentured (girmityas) received a small amount of land as compensation for the return passage. Many Indians bought land from their indentured savings. Prof Lomarsh Roopnarine wrote extensively on this subject that can be googled. As he and several scholars penned, the contract or girmit was not enforced and often the contract was unilaterally changed by the planters including by the Gladstone representatives on the colony. The land that was given to them in lieu of the $50 return passage was uninhabitable and inhospitable, largely useless swamp or thick forested land. There were also dangerous animals that attacked the indentured and their descendants. The land was not worth the $50. My father, mother, nanni and aja told me they had to drain the swamp, fell the trees which were hauled away for fuel, and clear the bushes in order to make the land habitable for houses, food cropping, and cattle rearing. It was not a tourist paradise where the indentured could go play golf and could afford (missed) air shots.
By the way, I know nothing of golf, a sport of the bourgeoisie or upper class, and it seems Bostwick is the one who fired an ‘air shot’. Cricket, the sport of the ordinary Africans and Indians, is their thing they picked up from the British. His fast ball bouncer (the attack) was knocked over the ropes for a six – thoroughly debunked.
Yours sincerely,
Vishnu Bisram
