Dear Editor,
I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the ongoing discussion on whether “Girmitiya” or “Hindustani” is the more appropriate term to describe the descendants of Indian indentured labourers. This letter responds to perspectives shared by Baytoram Ramharack, Ravi Dev, Harry Hergash, and Seeraj Matthai.
Firstly, I commend my fellow Indian brothers and sisters in Guyana and the diaspora for striving to reshape how descendants of indentured labourers are perceived. The transition from the derogatory “coolie” to more dignified terms is a positive development. However, any chosen term must reflect the historical and cultural specificity of the group it describes. Language evolves dynamically over time; for example, the British no longer use “coolie” in official language to describe Indians. In Guyana, however, the term is still used across ethnic groups and has acquired nuanced meanings—sometimes derogatory, sometimes celebratory. For instance, the “coolie bai” song remains a popular chatney anthem! [Editor: Please retain the spelling “chatney.”] Incidentally, I proudly identify as a “coolie” man—perhaps as an extension of “coolie-tude”? While some embrace the term humourously or defiantly as part of cultural identity, others understandably reject it.
In his presentation, Dr. Ramharack did not substantiate how “Girmitiya” is a “strategically useful concept” encompassing the global indenture experience. Moreover, the claim that the term is “attributed” to Mahatma Gandhi is demonstrably inaccurate. Historical records show that “Girmitiya” was a linguistic adaptation by Bhojpuri-speaking labourers in Fiji, who phonetically altered the English word “agreement” to “girmit.” Gandhi’s writings acknowledged the term but did not prescribe it as a universal identifier; his reference was descriptive, not prescriptive.
Baytoram’s acknowledgment of the term “Hindustani” as effective in Suriname is valid, but it is essential to recognize that the term’s historical use extends beyond the Surinamese context. Oral histories from Guyana confirm that “Hindustani” was widely used to describe both language and identity among sugar estate workers, particularly before the 1960s. Ravi Dev has noted that “Hindustani” in Suriname carried similar connotations to “Indian Indentureds,” a term occasionally employed in British Guiana’s colonial records. Academic literature further supports that “Hindustani” reflects cultural and linguistic identity, distinguishing it from labels derived from colonial labour contracts.
Dr. Ramharack’s citation of scholars Brij Lal and Ashutosh Kumar warrants careful examination. Lal’s work confines “Girmitiya” to the Fijian context, reflecting the specificity of its origins. Similarly, in discussions, Professor Kumar has acknowledged the lack of academic justification for extending the term to regions beyond Fiji, such as the Caribbean or South Africa. The indiscriminate application of “Girmitiya” risks both historical and cultural inaccuracy. Dr. Matthai’s assertion that “Girmitiya” is a Hindi word meaning “contracted native labour” is particularly problematic. This statement is both linguistically and historically unfounded. The term is absent from Hindi lexicons and emerged solely as a phonetic derivation in Fiji, reflecting the colonial experience rather than indigenous linguistic roots. Misrepresentation undermines the term’s credibility and highlights the necessity for precise academic discourse.
A blogger aptly summarized this debate, wrote, “…the term “Girmitiyas” (used and accepted by contemporary academics on the Indian indentured experiences to describe descendants of indentured Indians) clearly is in my view, a “contemptuously” coined word to describe descendants of indentured labourers, simply because the word “girmitiyas” is derived from “girmit” a mispronunciation by Fiji indentured labourers of the word “agreement” — in effect, retaining the description “indentured” — probably to the delight and psychological comfort of the caste and “kala pani” mentality higher castes of India. Could you imagine Afro-Guyanese descendants of slaves still being referred today as “slaves?” So it’s just as contemptuous, in my opinion, to refer to all descendants of indentured labourers as “Girmitiyas.”“
The primary objection I have encountered regarding the use of the term “Hindustani” stems from concerns that Muslims and Christians might feel excluded or uncomfortable being associated with it. However, when individuals understand that “Hindustani” is not rooted in any specific religion but reflects a shared geography and cultural heritage, they are more likely to embrace it wholeheartedly, as they have done in Suriname. (Would the Surinamese spelling “Hindostani” make a difference?) Unlike “Girmitiya,” which confines individuals to their colonial past, “Hindustani” situates people within the broader narrative of Indian civilization and cultural pride. Derived from “Hindustan” (India), this term resonates deeply. I am, without hesitation, a proud Hindustani! Wishing all Guyanese a safe and joyous holiday season.
Sincerely,
Dr. Devanand Bhagwan
