By Lelon Saul- Guyana’s political landscape is deeply divided along ethnic lines, often characterized by heated rhetoric that highlights the tensions between the Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese communities. Recently, Dr. David Hinds, a prominent Afro-Guyanese activist and scholar, faced criticism for using the term “lick bottom” to describe Africans who support the Indo-Guyanese-dominated People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C). In contrast, the Indo-Guyanese term “neemakaram,” which means “ungrateful traitor” and is used against Indo supporters of the Afro-Guyanese-aligned APNU/AFC coalition, has not faced similar scrutiny. This selective condemnation demonstrates a troubling double standard perpetuating division rather than fostering unity.
Both “lick bottom” and “neemakaram” are derogatory labels used to enforce political loyalty within ethnic groups. “Lick bottom,” a Creole phrase, implies subservience and suggests that Afro-Guyanese who support the PPP/C are betraying their community by siding with perceived oppressors. On the other hand, “neemakaram,” derived from Hindi, carries significant cultural weight, condemning Indo-Guyanese who back the APNU/AFC as ungrateful traitors to their heritage. Although the terms differ in language, their intent is the same: to shame individuals who cross ethnic and political boundaries.
Critics have quickly condemned Dr. Hinds for his choice of words, arguing that such language exacerbates racial divides. However, when Indo-Guyanese public figures referred to APNU/AFC Indo supporters as “neemakaram,” there was a noticeable silence.This inconsistency is not simply an oversight; it reflects the deeply entrenched biases in Guyana’s political discourse.
Afro-Guyanese leaders are often held to a higher standard of scrutiny, while similar rhetoric from Indo-Guyanese is frequently minimized or excused as “cultural expression.”
Selective outrage reinforces ethnic tribalism. By condemning “lick bottom” while tolerating “neemakaram,” critics imply that some communities are allowed to use identity as a weapon, while others are not. This imbalance creates resentment. Afro-Guyanese may see the lack of accountability for “neemakaram” as a sign of systemic marginalization, while Indo-Guyanese might view criticism of Hinds as dismissive of their concerns. These dynamics deepen the divisions that hinder national progress.
Guyana’s history of ethnic politics, which ranges from colonial divide-and-rule tactics to post-independence tensions, requires careful consideration of language. Using derogatory terms simplifies complex political choices into acts of ethnic betrayal, discouraging meaningful dialogue. When criticism is applied inconsistently, it reinforces a toxic status quo in which loyalty to one’s ethnic group takes precedence over policy discussions. This undermines democracy, as voters may feel compelled to align with ethnic blocs rather than focus on the issues at hand.
Further, we have unfortunately observed recently an individual named Priya Singh posting an inflammatory and racist statement on the Facebook page titled “PPPC Family.” She stated, among other things, “God never created black people to be human beings.” However, we have not seen any condemnation from those who consistently criticise Dr. Hinds.
Guyana’s future depends on addressing the hypocrisy of selective outrage. It is unfair to hold Dr. Hinds accountable while ignoring “neemakaram.” This approach fails to prioritize national healing. Only by equally challenging all forms of divisive rhetoric can Guyana move toward a politics defined not by race, but by shared aspirations. Let us demand consistency, not only in our criticisms but also in our collective commitment to a united Guyana.
