Banning foods that were important to Indian dietary habits was wrong

Jun 11, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Mr. Robin Williams penned an ad hominem retort (KN June 6) to my comments on the banning of basic items that define the cultural diet and religious practices of Indians.
Williams turned cultural customs and facts into a spiteful, anti-Indian, anti-Bisram bashing. He went berserk in his ill-conceived response, attacking me without supporting evidence and denigrating my intellectual ability, without putting forth rational arguments. His perorations of my general comments on the banning of foods are a reflection of his small mind and ethnic bias.
For some inexplicable, strange, illogical reason, Williams used my expose on his party’s banning flour, dhal, alou, etc. to question the objectivity of my conducting opinion polls in Guyana. There is absolutely no connection between the two and in linking them Williams maliciously seeks to question the professionalism and objectivity of my work.
The fact that I conduct polls does not tie my hands to speak out against injustice meted to people who faced near cultural genocidal conditions having been denied access to foods and paraphernalia required in their religious practices and diet. Let it be clear I never stated that alou, dhal, roti were/are not important in the lives of non-Indians. I am well schooled in Guyanese cultural diffusion. But Williams has shown that he does not understand Indian people’s way of life.
Living in a society where Indians account for half the population, the least Williams should do is try to understand and respect other peoples’ culture and religious practices, and not belittle the importance of certain items to their way of life. I live in NY and make it my business to familiarize myself with the cultural practices of Jews, Catholics, Buddhists, Sikhs and other ethnic groups. I don’t put down people. It is regrettable that Williams apparently has not made any effort to understand the dietary habits and religious practices of Indians. Yet he tells readers that it is wrong for me to point out the importance of flour, dhal, channa, alou, etc. to the lives of Indians. This is the same Williams who chided me for comparing experiences of slavery with indentured labour arguing such a comparison cannot be made. By the way, I never said slavery is the same as indentured labour – I noted there were some similar experiences. My point was both Africans and Indians suffered (by no means equally) during colonial rule under those oppressive economic systems and should therefore reflect on those experiences to live in harmony in independent Guyana rather than tear themselves apart in ethnic conflict. Clearly, Williams and those of his ilk disagree with me.
I suggest Williams and others who felt Indians were not persecuted during indenturedship read Prof. Vijay Naidu’s “The Violence of Indenture” and other works about the abuses meted out to indentured labourers.
Williams has a problem with my use of the vernaculars alou, dhal, roti, etc as opposed to their English names. In Guyana, as in Trinidad, Fiji, etc., these words are not ethnic vernaculars but form the lexicon of the entire population. They are commonly used in the lingua franca of most of the Guyanese nation. In Guyana, dhal refers to split peas. Williams is just playing games to denigrate Indian people.
Everyone in Guyana knows what dhal is. I worked for years in a grocery and when my African patrons came to shop, most of them ordered dhal, not split peas. They ordered channa not chick peas. They came to buy alou, not potatoes. At home, Africans don’t say they cooked split peas soup and rice. They say dhal and rice. They don’t say potato curry but alou curry.
Williams conceals his motives and anti-Indian prejudice by making general statements about the use of dhal, flour, and alou among non-Indians. Simultaneously, he understates the importance of alou and grains in the lives of Indians by equating their use with that of other groups, comparing roti with salara and bread. He extrapolates a specific case of other groups using alou, dhal, flour into a general statement that everyone uses the products.
The logic is missing. In so doing, Williams is attempting to nice up Burnham’s anti-Indian food policy by essentially saying non-Indians were also affected by the policy. This is called hindsight cleansing, exposing his hidden motive, which is the defence of Burnhamism. While it may be true that flour, dhal and alou are used by all Guyanese, they are basic staples for Indians.
The way of life of Indians revolves around these items and they are used in their cultural diet and religious practices. So to compare their usage with that of other ethnic groups is completely missing the point and not showing an understanding of the culture of Indian people. In so doing, regrettably Williams is dismissive of the importance Indians place on certain foods.
The reality is, banning certain food items, however it is being (and was by the Burnham dictatorship) clothed, perfumed, and defended by Williams, disproportionately affected Indians more than other groups. Many of these items had religious and cultural significance and usage for Indians. And no matter how eloquently Williams waxes his verbiage to defend Burnhamism, it cannot and does not negate this reality.
Williams is totally wrong about his views on banning these basic foods. Grains, dried fruits, spices, incenses, etc. have a special meaning and role in the lives of Indians. It is not the same for non-Indians. For Indians, birth, life, and death all are tied up with grains and alou (and more) in religious rites. For example, flour (Wheat, not ground rice or cassava) is needed for holy lamps and dressing the ground in poojas. They are not interchangeable.
Flour, dhal, channa, alou, raisins, etc., all of which were banned, are required for offerings and oblations to the Gods and Goddesses in various elaborate rituals in Indian religions, particularly Hinduism.
Both are needed in rituals. Flour is used to make maleda and sirni that Indian Muslims offer at Koran Shariefs. Flour is used for making “mohanbhog” that Indian Christians offer at their special “Services” at homes. The offering of laddoo, made from channa and dhal, are a must in poojas. Parsad and roti are made from flour which is also required at poojas.
The Gods and Goddessess specifically require wheaten parsad not ground cassava. The Hindu scriptures make specific references to offerings of grains which are used for decorative purposes in poojas and weddings and offerings at funerals. Alou and onions are required for preparation of the seeds which must be offered after a pooja or funeral.
Also, some funeral rituals require the use of ground rice and some require the use of wheaten flour. They are not interchangeable and without them, religious ceremonies are not complete and Bhagwan is not pleased with the ceremony.
Williams attacks me for engaging in ethnic mischief. But it is he who engages in ethnic mischief by not recognizing the importance of banned goods to Indians, and then uses the tool of transference to paint me with mischief using his tainted biased brush.
Williams is suffering from convenient amnesia with his foolish comment about a Freudian slip about equating flour with roti. Let us be clear. Flour refers to wheat flour. Williams equates the use of flour in making roti and other foods used by non-Indians. It is not the same.
In addition, roti is the centre of the eating habit of Indians – virtually every Indian eats roti (not bread or salara) for breakfast. Williams must understand that roti, dhal and alou are the staples of every Indian home. And dhal, alou curry, roti, must be served at every bhojan, bhandara, Koran Sharief, and Indian Christian Service.
The banning of flour effectively means the banning of everything made from flour including salara and black-eye cake. Mr. Williams let us be honest — the banning of flour, effectively means banning roti, bread, parsad, mohanbhog, and other products made from flour.
Let us not forget that it was a crime to make products from flour. Penalties included serious jail time and hefty fines. I remember vividly the food police coming to inspect what was being served at Jhandis and Hindu weddings, and people hiding their roti under the rice so they wouldn’t be taken to jail. That is not the same as checking up on salara.
It is sad that Williams has shown that he is not prepared to accept that flour, dhal, channa, alou, onion, raisins, etc. have special meaning to the lives of Indians, equating their usage with that of other ethnic groups and not condemning Burnham’s criminalization of their consumption. It was wrong to make eating alou, dhal, parsad, roti, etc. a crime.
Vishnu Bisram

---

---