A symptom of a deep underlying premise in the Guyanese political and social milieu

Aug 20, 2015 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
I was very interested to note Eric Philips’ reaction to my riposte to Freddie Kissoon in relation to the latter’s column, “What about a Black Guyanese Entrepreneurial Class?” I had objected to Mr Kissoon’s claim that while I identified an “African Security Dilemma”, I did not proffer proposals for addressing it.
I pointed out: “In the last 25 years, Mr. Kissoon has studiously refused to acknowledge our various proposals for the African Security Dilemma and its corollaries: Federalism, Shared Governance, Alternating Presidencies between major races, Ethnic Impact Statement, and specifically to the issue of his column, Affirmative Action to assist African Economic participation. And imagine all of this was done in the pages of the Kaieteur News.”
When Mr Eric Philips, one of our more responsible activists in this area, also made the same claim, while extending what has to be a backhanded compliment, it was not merely ironic but I believe indicative a deeper process operating when it comes to discussions between interlocutors “across the divide”:
“Ravi Dev responded to Freddie’s article and was surprisingly fair in his analysis. Over the years, Ravi has written much about the Indian and African Security Dilemmas. However, this was his first article in which he described actual systemic African marginalization and offered some solutions such as affirmative action. To be fair to Ravi, in 2014 he was very supportive in featuring African entrepreneurship.”
In my response to Mr Kissoon, I had actually mentioned that it was an article written in 2008 on “African Economic Marginalisation”. In it I alluded to prior proposals from 2002. But actually, the article was one of a series in the KN that considered various aspects of African Guyanese marginalisation: Cultural Marginalisation, Marginalisation of Identity, Identity and Marginalisation, Marginalisation and Racism. They were all republished in 2010 in the Kaieteur News.
From the beginning of my involvement in Guyanese politics I concluded that the fates of the two major groups, and in fact all groups in Guyana, are inextricably linked. Coming from a purely business background when I decided to return to Guyana in 1988, I wrote my first “academic” paper: “On the Guyanese Dictatorship: Substance, Form and Course” and presented it at a Conference on the “150th Anniversary of the Arrival of Indians to Guyana” at Columbia University.
I concluded: “The Burnham era, 1964-1985, has graphically and tragically exposed the dangers of permitting any man or group unchecked power. Yet Guyana is caught in its historic dilemma. The call for “free and fair” elections would in all probability lead to the permanent control of the state by an Indian dominated political group. The Indians have now increased their majority to over fifty percent of the population and the African and Creole sections have to be concerned as to whether this would be a vengeful majority.
There can be no lasting political solution in Guyana until the legitimate security concerns of the African and Creole sections are addressed along with the need for the full and equal participation of the Indian and other excluded sections, in the life of the nation.”
Once in Guyana, in 1990, I presented another paper that summarised my proposals for “A New Political Culture” which I circulated to all the political parties towards participating in a conference to address the problematic of the Indian and African Security Dilemmas. Dr Jagan of the PPP and Malcolm Parris of the PNC agreed, but the WPA torpedoed the initiative.
In 2007, I again had reason to respond to Mr Kissoon on the same claim of not addressing African Guyanese concerns. The response bears repetition: “On June 6th 2003, even in the penumbra of the armed insurrection, I wrote an article specifically on “the African Security Dilemma” and called on ACDA for a “constructive engagement” that was never answered.
“But what I find intriguing about the selective attack of amnesia when it comes to acknowledging the fact that we have always stated that the African dilemma is coterminous with the Indian’s is that it is not confined to Mr Kissoon. We have had to explain this time and again over the years… Even though most of our interventions have been recorded in the press, yet only one part registers.
And it is this stubborn forgetfulness, which has to be wilful, on which I wish to comment because, I believe, it is a symptom of a deep underlying premise in the Guyanese political and social milieu.
And the premise is this: to speak as an Indian Guyanese is to automatically and ineluctably define oneself as parochial at best and racist at worse, and thus incapable of speaking for the wider societal good.
The Indian in his presumably genetic prejudice always needs to “redeem” himself.”
Ravi Dev

---

---