Dear Editor,
Reference is made to report on the Land Commission of Inquiry (Guyana Times September 5). Legal experts and historians say land claims are unsubstantiated, worsening fragile race relations. Transport and prescriptive (long, continuous use) rights are factors for land claim. And these were not provided at CoI. Some arguments and claims at the CoI are deeply flawed and, worse, comical.
If Africans, Indians, whites or Mixed bought land and have deed or prescriptive right, then the land belongs to them. If a racial group or its members sold land once possessed, then descendants cannot now make a claim to the land. Some Africanists are pursuing this illegitimate claim.
Proud Africanist Lincoln Lewis claims his family bought a village and wants all that land. If the land is his family’s, it must be physically in their possession and or titled to them — there would be a deed or transport title. The British were good at giving deeds, and Lewis’s family would have the transport to support the claim. But if parts of the land were sold or given to others, then making a claim for all of the original land would be illegal. The law does not operate that way. Otherwise, all of us would make a claim for land we once owned and ceded to others.
As long as land was acquired legally and not forcefully, and evidence of ownership is provided, then the claimant is entitled to the land.
Africanist Eric Phillips, advisor to President Granger on land, makes a claim of 15,000 square miles for Africans. The claim is made on the basis of land development carried out by black slaves – a hundred million tons of earth moved in developing 20,000 acres for sugar. The sugar industry expanded rapidly during indentureship, and Indians contributed to the development of the industry. Indians developed a further 100,000 acres, moving five times as much earth as the African slaves with the same technology. Deductively, Indians would have moved 500 million tons of earth. And logically they would be entitled to five times 15,000 (since they developed five times as many acres as the slaves) or 75,000 square miles. Using the Phillips argument, Africans and Indians would be entitled to a total of 90K square miles – a ridiculous argument, since Guyana only has 83K square miles, and it shows how idiotic the claim is.
Phillips completely misunderstands the concept of land development. Any economist or business graduate (MBA) knows that land is developed not with physical labour alone. Other inputs, like technical (technology, engineers, surveyors, etc.) labour, as well as well as capital and equipment are essential for land development. It is established that the land belonged to the Amerindians. The blacks provided the labour. And the whites supplied the additional resources required for development, like technology and capital and whatever else that was required. What is certain is Africans alone cannot claim all entitlement for the development of the 20,000 acres. Similarly, Indians can’t claim exclusive credit for the additional 100,000 acres that they developed during indentureship. It would seem that whites should be entitled to far more than the others, since they provided the capital resources which in modern economics is considered the most important input.
Logically, whites would be entitled to more than half of the 15K square miles. Or if blacks are entitled to 15K square miles, then whites must get significantly more, say around 20K square miles. Under the Phillips logic, Indians are entitled to about 75K square miles. But since whites provided the resources for Indian development of land, then whites would be entitled to much more land, say an additional 100K square miles on top of the 20K. Altogether, this would add up to a total of 210K square miles, far more than the 83K land size of Guyana. And then we have to also find, say, an additional 200K square miles for the Amerindians, since the land is theirs. We would have to intrude into Venezuela, Brazil and Suriname to get enough land for the four ethnic groups. And this does not include land claims for the Mixed races, Portuguese and Chinese, as they are also entitled to land for their contribution to development. Clearly, this shows how ridiculous and laughable is the ethnic claim for land.
Clearly, this whole issue of land claims at the CoI is flawed.
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
