Dear Editor,
I write in response to D Singh’s “Unity has vanished” (Guyana Times April 4) signing as a Richmond Hill resident. There was no unity. So nothing vanished. Singh does not understand the concept of ethnic unity – shared leadership and relatively equal representation to reflect on the composition of the population.
I live in greater Richmond Hill, have been an activist and advocate for “Richmond Hill”, and a community news reporter for close to 40 years. I attended and or have been immersed in almost every major community activity; I also helped to organise several events. I can affirm without any fear of contradiction that there was hardly any “unity” in last year’s golden jubilee celebrations in New York. It was not the kind of celebration we should encourage. It disrespected the Indian community.
We should strive for ethnic unity. But to say there was unity between Indian and African Guyanese is a misnomer. We must not fool ourselves into thinking that a handful of individuals from one group joining hundreds of others from another group represent “unity”. Let us stop that charade and call out things what they really are. Indians, as indeed other ethnic groups, were marginalised at last year’s golden jubilee celebration in NYC. And several pieces of evidence as revealed to me by others confirm this fact.
The large organising committee comprised of only 12 per cent Indians in a greater NY Guyanese population of about 400,000 comprising of about 60 per cent Indians. Can anyone explain how 12 per cent Indians (to represent 60 per cent of the population) in a committee gives it “unity”?
There was hardly any unity at the several functions. At the various events, the attendance and or participation were between three and 10 per cent Indians. The parade had one “Indian” float – that of Lisa (Latchmee) Singh promoting her TV show. Does one out of more than a dozen floats bring “unity”? All the floats were ethnic in nature with hardly any multiethnic representation.
The Indian attendance at the parade was estimated at three per cent Queens virtually blanked the parade – no unity there.
At the York College seminar, there was one Indian presenter. Expenses for over a dozen presenters were paid for by the Government of Guyana, but only one Indian (eight per cent) was among them – The attendance in the audience comprised of a handful – not even five per cent. The banquet in Manhattan was about 10 per cent Indians with an Indian co-emcee.
The cultural show in Queens had several Indian participants but the audience was estimated at 10 per cent.
It is noted that only three Indians were honoured out of dozens. Some 50 citations were given with only five Indians (10 per cent) who all happened to endorse the celebration. Only two of these honourees had standing in the community with two others being seen as “maha” opportunists and one an unknown. Those critical of the planned programme and under representation of Indians were not honoured. Worse, they were attacked for exposing the charade.
Singh believes that his and Attorney Rhonda Binda participation in the committee brings unity. There can be no unity without the recognised leadership of both communities being part of the celebration.
What occurred last year was not unity. In sociology, it is known as ethnic marginalisation. Singh and a few others contributed to and excused that marginalisation and how about the underrepresentation and or a lack of presence of Amerindians, Chinese and Whites (Portuguese) in the planning, presentation, and attendance? Does that make for unity? Even the Alliance For Change representatives criticised the celebration as being “unrepresentative” of Guyana’s diversity.
Unity is when you have a fair representation of all the ethnic groups in the planning and participating in the varied activities and programmes.
Also, those who attempt to speak for the community must have standing in the community as an advocate and champion of their causes. Ms Rhonda Binda is not known in the community and is not an advocate or champion of the community. Since the celebration, Ms Binda has not been seen. Thus, the description of “darling of the Indian community” would not fit.
Clearly, contrary to what Singh penned, the 50th Anniversary Committee NY is not a model for national unity. Its composition leaves much to be desired. Doesn’t Singh feel 50 per cent Indians (as opposed to 12 per cent) in the committee with co-leadership would be a better symbol of unity? An effort must be made to bring all major black and Indian leaders together under joint leadership in order to attempt to bring unity which is highly desired.
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
