Over the years, the question of Indians arrival and their indentureship in Guyana has been subjected to much commentary and critique. There are those who have equated indentureship to slavery. Others have trumped the contribution of the indentured Indians as the defining movement in the humanization of the Wild Coast (British Guiana). And others have even suggested that the enslaved and emancipated people of African descent made no contribution to the humanization of Guyana.
The apposite issue of divide and rule has been addressed in the context of the plantation owners pitting the various ethnic groups against each other. In recent times, there are those who have associated Guyana`s racial strife with it politics, the ethnography of the political parties and their pursuit of ethno-political dominance. All of the aforementioned partly constitute the narrative and the quagmire which represents the historiography of Guyana`s evolution.
Guyana`s recently appointed High Commissioner to India, Charrandass Persaud, in presenting his credentials to the President of the Republic of India was reported to have made statements associated with the issues mentioned above. He stated that “we in Guyana refer to India as the motherland”. Referring to the Sugar Industry and India`s assistance in its resuscitation he stated that we are back to “where we started in 1838, labourers were sent to help keep the industry a float”.
These statements seem quite contrary. Which ‘we’ is he talking about? Is he suggesting that Indians were sent to rescue the plantation from demise rather than that they came seeking opportunity or a conflation of both? There are others who contend that the Indians were fooled into believing that indentureship represented an opportunity.
In any circumstance, his statement implies that the interest of the indentured Indians countered that of the emancipated workers and enabled the plantation owners to deny the Africans employment at the wages which they demanded based on the demand and supply of labour before the coming of the indentured Indians. That may well have been the origin of divide and rule, offering a carrot to one group while denying the other an opportunity of a livelihood, and as a consequence pitting them against each other.
What about India being the “motherland”? Is this another instance of subjugating the other groups in Guyana to the supremacy of one group and influence, namely the Indians? Is this the posture of a High Commissioner who represents a country of diverse peoples and a President who proclaims that he represents all Guyanese and that his goal is to achieve “One Guyana”?
We seem to have a penchant in Guyana for making the wrong turn at an opportune time for the right turn. How much longer will we claim unity while perpetuating disunity by our partisan, bias and revisionist pronouncements? President Ali is challenged to have his representatives talk his talk or be accused of insincerity in his pronouncements. He is challenged to make the right turn.
