The food conspiracy message of Dev and Bisram is teeming with racist overtones

Jul 04, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I recognized that demagogues masked as intellectual political analysts averring in these opinion columns that the banning of food items during the 80s was an orchestrated plan directed and designed specifically to hurt Indians and more so, Hindus of Guyana. I refer specifically to Ravi Dev and Vishnu Bisram, Svengalis, feeding readers with junk science of Machiavellian proportions. Their argument cannot stand up to the rigors of unbiased evaluation and should be regarded as fallacious demagoguery; any dispassionate consideration of the situation will render the duo as intellectual ‘blow-blows’, seemingly affected by a severe bout of brain fog worthy of permanent tenancy at bedlam.
These ‘goodly’ gentlemen argued that the food items banned were “ethnic foods” and proceeded to list aloo, dahl (split-peas) and roti (flour) with carefully twisted language to give the impression that these foods were unique to Indians and their method of worship. From whatever corrupt ideological cannon it was shot this is a blatant lie. These foods were introduced into Guyana by Indians in the days of indentureship but by the time of the 1980s these foods had become quintessentially Guyanese, a regular feature on the tables of all Guyanese families. In fact, the variety of dahl and roti, for example, made in Guyana is unique. Though they retained some of the format brought from India there are distinct features that distinguishes Guyanese roti, dhal and maunbug from that of Trinidad, Suriname and India. This is testimony to the Guyaneseness of some of these foods. Guyanese of all ethnicities and walk of life prepares and enjoy these foods. Wheat flour is not unique to Hindu religious ceremonies, making and eating bread together is central pillar of Christianity, “Jesus took bread … he broke it, and said, take, eat …this do in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:23-24), “when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them…” (Acts 20:7)
The proponents of the food conspiracy theory cleverly crafted their analysis to make it seem as if only a narrow list of Indian ethnic and religious food ingredients were banned, the items listed by Dev and Bisram was a small part of a long list of items. Chowmein was banned, was there a conspiracy directed against Chinese? Also banned or severely restricted were: cheese, jams and jellies, salt fish, onions, garlic, soft drinks, rum, beer, cigarettes, canned fish (sardine), corned beef,  carrots, apples, grapes, cooking oil, confectionery and sweets, nut butter, tomato paste, corn flakes and other breakfast cereals – Bisram and Dev need to tell us which ethnic or religious groups were targeted. The restrictions were not limited to food items; toilet paper, bathroom soap (sweet soap), washing soap (salt soap) and soap powder among other things such as electronic items, clothing and leathered goods were also black listed – again, Dev and Bisram need to tell us which Guyanese segment the restriction was orchestrated against.
If all Guyanese suffered – and it is scientifically indeterminate whether one ethnic group suffered more than another – and if the architects of the food conspiracy theory are not up to mischief of the vilest order, then why single out a particular group and make them victims of a conspiratorial state attack? Their repugnant junk analysis should find safe abode in the intellectual dustbin, analytical dementia has no place here
During the 70s and 80s Guyana like most of the other Latin America and Caribbean States (LACs) pursued centrally planned inward looking economic policies this meant that most trade occurred on a government to government basis, there was little room for private actors to negotiate private contracts that affected any major economic direction of these countries.
Due to the oil crisis of the seventies, the USA was plunged into deep recession and by 1980 the LACs were broke, unable to repay their mounting foreign debts. A combination of this phenomenon and poor economic policies left Guyana completely bankrupt. There was no foreign exchange to purchase the kind of goods Guyanese wanted and since the economy was centrally planned, the government was the major importer of items, the economic planners choose the road of cowardice – a restriction on private transfers of foreign currency and a ban (or severe quota restrictions) and high tariffs on private importation of so called non-essential goods. The active description at the time was, items for which useable local substitutes could be found, Guyana also promoted a “buy local” campaign
It is not farfetched to understand why the Burnham administration could have been easily misled into adopting such flawed and backward economic policies. The economic “infant industry” argument as a reason for high tariffs, foreign exchange controls, trade quotas and banning of certain categories of imports was very popular among radical economists. This was the dominant ideology of the LACs to the point where it was felt that it threatened world economic stability. It is no secret why GATT chose Latin America for its 1986 round of talks. It is also not a secret that the international community tolerated Burnham and his twisted political and economic “democracy” because they felt that he was the lesser of two evils Guyana had to offer at the time.
The evidence points to a combination of unfavorable international economic climate, the adoption of the wrong economic model/orientation/ideology and downright poor economic planning. Any attempt to denominate that into a grand government conspiracy that was selectively targeted to hurt the Indo-Guyanese community is downright treacherous, nasty and repugnantly calculated to stir up negative ethnic sentiments.
The food conspiracy message of Dev and Bisram is teeming with racist overtures.
Lenno Craig

---

---