WITHOUT ‘INDIAN’ BEFORE ‘ARRIVAL DAY’ IS LIKE OMITTING GEERA IN DHAL

May 06, 2013 Letters

Dear Editor,
In all fairness to the prominence given to former Chief Magistrate Juliet Allen Holder letter titled ‘this date has no significance to me as an African Guyanese’ published in KN of April 28, 2013 can you permit my response in hopes of meaningful dialogue? Public debate is certainly preferable and brings into sharper focus the urgency for federalism of Guyana. Ms Holder is right. May 5th is not ‘Arrival Day’ but ‘Indian Arrival Day’ i.e. Bharatiya aagaman divas and the PPP/C government should stop the hypocrisy and revert to the correct original name. Without Indian participants, promotion and celebration, this event has no meaning. The name ‘Indian’ omitted from ‘Indian Arrival Day’ is like serving dhal without its geera spice or removing ‘Chinese’ from ‘Chinese food’.
Would Indians like to have all Guyanese be participants of this historic event? As an integral part of Guyana’s main ethnic makeup similar to what Emancipation day celebrations is to black people it is most desirable. But Ms Holder has no obligation to participate. That is her democratic right. In Trinidad
the predominantly black PNM government of Patrick Manning removed the designation ‘Indian’ out of ‘Indian Arrival Day’ and the predominantly Indian UNC government of Basdeo Panday restored it to its
original ‘Indian Arrival Day’ designation. Ms Holder still continues that debate in attempting to define others. The same cannot be said for Emancipation day. No such public debate occurred except
amongst black people. There was no concerted Indian or any other race groups’ involvement in Emancipation Day definition, origination or participatory celebrations during its conception. There was absolutely no Indian objection to Emancipation day celebrations except for similar reciprocal acquiescence. What’s for black people, they should rightfully get. What makes Ms Holder so privileged to define Indians and others can best be described as arrogance. The Caribbean Indian experience and history cannot therefore become diluted by accommodation to those who demand to define them. Since ACDA and black advocates seek to reclaim their heritage, it cannot be wrong for others to retain
and remain what they are naturally and legally. Ms Holder and other black advocates are attempting to impose legitimacy by quoting an incomplete history to abrogate a superior legitimacy over others by
illegalities. In the final analysis, what is morally right and judicious is what gives our native inhabitants true and legitimate ownership of Guyana as a priority. Freedom gave the right to return to Africa after
slavery’s abolition. It also gave indentured servants (Chinese, Portuguese, Bajans and Indians) the right to remain in Guyana or return to the land of their ancestral origins.
That Ms Holder is Guyanese is not in question. Whatever she desires has never been clearer. But perchance if she decides to exercise her freedom to return permanently to Africa she may need help after she selects which country is suitable.
Vassan Ramracha

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News