Because of the divided nature of our society, we had described the existence of a “security dilemma” as an element of Guyanese politics that had to be addressed before social cohesion and national unity could take place. The African-Indian racial division that guided our politics since independence will continue to dog us. It will have a direct impact on how the nation develops economically and politically. More specifically, we used this term to describe where we are in our quest for nation-building and to suggest that as long as the perception is that one ethnic group dominates political power, the excluded group will continue to find ways to delegitimise the Government, rather than cooperatively working for the public good.
Africans felt this way before the May 2015 election, while Indians believe the situation has reversed itself with an African Government more concerned about addressing their own security. Judging by the perspectives of both groups, as well as the recent quarrel over Jagdeo’s comments in New York regarding discrimination against Indians, this problem is not going to go away anytime soon.
To address the security dilemma, we proposed a number of institutional and structural changes. These changes would engineer a multiethnic society characterised by meaningful social cohesion, a recognition that we are a diverse group of peoples, with a shared destiny, and working towards nation-building.
In more concrete terms, we have argued that structural changes can be fostered by a revised Constitution, and suggested that institutions like the Disciplined Forces and the civil service must reflect the composition of Guyana’s multi-ethnic population. In addition, an ethnic impact statement should accompany major policy prescriptions of the Government of the day so that an honest assessment of the impact of such policies can be undertaken so as to demonstrate non-biasness on the part of the Government. To be sure, the increasing visibility of Amerindians in the political domain will add another dimension to this debate.
It is already established that the issue of African reparations should be supported by all Guyanese because it is a just cause. However, my contention is that caution must be taken in the manner in which Africans pursue their demands in a racially sensitive society.
So far, the reparations issue has not really been extended to the level of a national dialogue, but there have been “tongue and cheek” statements that serve to lay blame on Indians as collaborators in the Europeans’ grand scheme to deny the human rights of Africans and deprive them of land settlements. Part of the problem is that those who have championed the reparations cause have proclaimed that Indians were collaborators with the Europeans, but they have not been very forthcoming with their assessment as to how Indians facilitated this role, except to point to historical events that were totally consistent with European hegemony. Eric Phillips has left us in suspense when in a recent letter he hinted this much, but then told us that he will continue this discussion later.
A clearer view of how Africans perceive the role of Indians is more visibly stated by Cedric Grant in the foreword of a book written by Carl Greenidge (now Second Vice President and Minister of Foreign Affairs) titled “Empowering a Peasantry in a Caribbean Context: The Case of Land Settlement Schemes in Guyana, 1865-1985”. Grant noted that “…in emphasising permanence of abode to indentured labour, land settlement schemes completed the destruction of the African bargaining power which indentureship had precipitated” and “…the land settlement schemes fortified the colonial administration in its policy of withholding financial and infrastructural support from the villages which were sugar estates that the liberated Africans pooled their savings to purchase and communally own”. “Instead of providing assistance to these villages, the colonial administration taxed them punitively to ensure their failure and the consequential return of the Africans to the sugar labour market.” Grant continues to argue that “the undermining of the village movement, coupled with the establishment of the land settlement schemes for Indians under the aegis of the colonial administration continued to tip the scales against Africans…”.
Greenidge accepted that squatting by indentured labourers “had begun to penetrate the African villages” and “…squatting usually constituted the first phase in the transfer of African lands to Indians” and that “Indians began purchasing the land, in addition to squatting, as the more orthodox form of appropriation of African lands”.
While this type of argument ignores the fact that Indians were merely pawns in a European construct, and their actions were attributed to the indentureship experience, logical questions arise from this argument such as: How are those lands to be identified and how will they be transferred to Africans? And, will the Indians who now developed those lands after years of hard work and development be justly compensated at market value? Would the State or Government play a role in facilitating this process to ensure that Indians (and Amerindians?) are relocated, and compensated?
Perhaps I am reading too much into the claims for African reparations. But correcting a historical injustice done to one group of people should not create an injustice to another.
