Whether for human consumption or religious purposes, wheat flour ban affected everyone

Jun 16, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I have followed with measured consternation the exchanges in KN’s letters column between Messrs. Robin Williams and Vishnu Bisram on the issue of Forbes Burnham banning certain foreign foods from Guyana.
But it was Mr. Ravi Dev’s letter, “The ban affected Hindus,” (KN, June 15) that spurred me to jump into the fray with my two cents worth of comments. In defence of Mr. Williams, who is pretty much capable of doing a fine job here, I don’t think Mr. Dev really understood the context of Mr. Williams’ argument.
The food ban affected everybody and not just Hindus or any other particular group, so let us stop this charade of trying to score cheap political points by trying to paint a picture of a Black Burnham banning foods that affected Indian Hindus.
I know Mr. Bisram well enough to detect his covert and subtle injection of race into the equations of many of his letters, and that letter was an example of such a putrid attempt.
But then Mr. Dev, known for his abiding concern over the Indian security dilemma in Guyana, jumped head first into the exchange and exposed a shocking shallowness of his own by extending Mr. Bisram’s silliness. Yes, Mr. Dev, you completely missed the cardinal objective of Mr. Bisram’s divisive missive, and that’s why you missed Mr. Williams’.
I don’t recall the year, but as a kid I do recall Burnham banning ‘iced apples’ and ‘grapes’ and ‘walnuts’ at Christmas time. Christmas is a Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, and because the British celebrated Christmas, this tradition was passed on to us long before 1966.
So, with Christianity being practiced in Guyana mostly by Whites, Portuguese, Blacks, (Indians, Chinese and Amerindians rarely, if ever, practiced Christianity back then) did Burnham’s decision to ban these imported Christmas-time goodies target Christians?
Or did he ban them as a prelude to his political plan to rid the country of Whites, which eventually happened after nationalization of bauxite (Demba and Reynolds), sugar (Bookers estates and department stores), Sprostons, etc.? Or did he ban them as part of his plan for Guyanese to eat their own home-grown foods?
Then came the banning of sardines and potatoes and the rest of the list, but did he actually extend the list of banned items from a racial or religious perspective?
In my opinion, no credible nexus has ever been established between the banning of the food items and any religion in Guyana, but especially the Hindu religion.
On the sore point of the banning of wheat flour, this issue was raised several years ago in the letters column by me, seeking clarification from former Deputy Prime Minister Haslyn Parris about the truth behind the alleged banning of wheat flour. The then editor-in-chief of Stabroek News successfully got Mr. Parris to pen a response, and these are the details as best I can recall them.
Guyana had been receiving shipments of flour on a credit line from a foreign supplier. That credit line became exhausted and Guyana had piled up a huge debt to the supplier.
A shipment of flour arrived and the ship was docked in Port Georgetown for several days while the government and the supplier haggled over payments and release of the flour.
The exact details of the haggling I don’t recall, but several days later, Burnham bluntly told the supplier to take back the flour, even though the supplier caved and said okay, “You will owe me.”
And on that note Burnham issued the now infamous edict that flour was banned. There was no talk about Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Rastafarians, etc. It was a purely political, yet somewhat personal decision.
Everybody was affected. And even after the banning of flour, Indians (Muslims and Hindus) who lived on the Corentyne took advantage of their proximity to Suriname and kept flour coming into Guyana.
This was the only banned food item that caused the most problems for people and the government. Even government officials got caught with flour. It was a national embarrassment.
But let witnesses tell you, flour travelled from Corentyne to Linden and parts of the hinterland, so that even though it was available in lesser quantities and higher costs, there was flour for human consumption and religious practices.
So when Mr. Dev pulls a Bisram and says he hopes that “Mr Williams and other non-Hindus may be a bit more sympathetic, especially to Hindus, when they describe the impact of the PNC’s food bans on their community.
They are not asserting exceptionalism: it restricted, at a very fundamental level, their freedom to worship,” he is being politically and racially myopic in his asseveration.
I think I can make a more powerful argument against the Burnham PNC’s treatment of Christians, but why should I relive the Burnham PNC years when I have a fight on my hand today with the Caribbean’s most vindictive, corrupt and lawless regime?
Where are the missives from the Bisrams and Devs against these disgusting excesses of the Jagdeo regime? Or is it okay to lambaste the Burnham PNC for its atrocities, but excuse the Jagdeo PPP for its equal or worse atrocities?
Messrs. Bisram and Dev need to pull up their zipper, for they have been advertently or inadvertently exposed!
Emile Mervin

---

---