In this column, I will address the second of the multipartite model of Indian identity in Guyana, which is ethno-national. To reiterate, my purpose of writing on these forms of Indian identity is to bring some alternative analyses of who Indians are in Guyana with the intention to foster and feather a better understanding of ethnic relations, which I believe, has currently hit rock bottom.
I am also writing in anticipation of 100 years of indentured emancipation (March 2017) to understand how Indians have evolved since they were released from narcissistic neuroses of this colonial clutch, command and control.
Of all the Indian identities I have proposed, none is so rooted and rancorous than ethno-national identity. This form of identity is when and where an individual or group of individuals expresses feelings of attachment to a nation-state first by ethnicity and second by nationality.
These feelings vary from casual to mild to intense. For example, some may carry with them a flag of their nation-state, some may express openly their preference of government and some may go to war to defend their ethnic attachment to the nation-state.
Guyana is fortunate to have not experienced the latter but in some ways living in Guyana is like living in a war zone. Trauma in Guyana is similar to countries that are ravaged by war. Ethnic insecurity is a consequence of the trappings of war whether real or imagined.
Ethno-national identity may also be manufactured and manipulated to achieve desired objectives in an attempt to claim a secure place in the nation-state. In multi-ethnic states like Guyana, this has been a common experience.
To deal with the different ethnic expressions of and approaches to nationalism, governments tend to project or facilitate a common sense of belonging or what is labelled as nationalisation of culture, that is, whereby a national culture, a mixture of all cultures, takes precedence over one particular culture. Some degree of cultural autonomy is allowed during the process of the nationalisation of culture. When this happens certain ethnic groups feel that their ethnicity is suppressed and engage in ways to reclaim lost ground.
By contrast, Indians in Guyana and Suriname and less so in Trinidad, if they are not politicised into a creolised sense of nationalism, generally tend to express an ethno-national identity or subethno-national identity.
That is, they express their feelings toward their home State alongside their ethnicity, customs, and languages that are specific to them. For example, when asked, “Who are you?” the reply normally is “I am an Indo-Guyanese” or “I am an Indo-Trinidadian”, or “I am an Indo-Surinamese.” The expression of this identification varies according to situations. But what this identification suggests is that Indians feel rather comfortable in recognising their cultural heritage or ethnicity alongside their national identity.
What this identification also suggests is that Indians link their sense of belonging, progress, and development with their dual identity.
While the expression of ethno-national identity may serve as a sense of place and solidify political camaraderie for Indians, especially when they are not in control of politics in Guyana, Trinidad, and Suriname, the mere idea of an ethno-national identity is controversial.
Some ethnic groups may claim that the retention of ethno-national identity as opposed to Guyanese identity in multi-ethnic Guyana demonstrate that Indians want to be separate from the national culture which invariably means they do not value and share Creole norms.
Such a sentiment reached a breaking point in Guyana in 2015 when an Indian politician declared that he was not an Indian but a Guyanese, implying that Guyana comes first and ethnicity later, if at all. A substantial number of Indians, particularly from the opposition, were offended by the politician’s remark, asking what sort of a message he was sending to the younger generation of Indians.
During my trip to Guyana in August 2015, I had a conversation with one middle-aged Indian man about the politician’s remarks and he said this to me: “He [politician] is dismissing his ethnicity and culture. Have you seen any African politicians do that in Guyana? They are proud of being African.”
The questions that should be asked are: Why do Indians feel comfortable with an ethno-national identity more so than other ethnic groups?
Is there room for the recognition of ethno-national identity?
Is there a possibility for a conversation or a platform from which an at least limited semimutual adaptability between ethno-national and Guyanese (national) identity can be achieved?
What would become of Guyana if ethno-national identity does not exist any longer?
Are the aforesaid questions meaningless because Guyana has been such a fractured and fragmented country that a strong sense of rootedness, a strong sense of belonging to home and homeland, lies outside of Guyana?
To be continued (send comments to: [email protected]).
