Latest update June 13th, 2026 12:40 AM
Ensure the committee has equal ethnic representation
Dear Editor,
Reference is made to CR Peters’s riposte “This man writes only on Indian supremacy” (KN Feb 23). Instead of engaging in constructive dialogue, and make an argument based on logic and reasoning, Peters opt to engage in name-calling. He attacks the messenger rather than address the message. He uses terms (racism, racist, supremacist, etc.) without showing an understanding of their meaning and constructs.
It should be pointed out that Peters behave very defensively to a complaint leveled by Guyanese Americans of the inadequate racial representation of the so called golden jubilee committee. Rather than offer a solution to the complaint, as Janice Hall did (SN Feb 14), Peters acts “guilty as charged” by complainants of “deliberately marginalizing Indians, Amerindians, Chinese, and Whites”. Thus, he becomes the real racist and supremacist for wanting to perpetuate this offensive, unacceptable marginalisation of ethnic groups.
Contrary to what Peters penned, Ms. Hall, an APNU-AFC government official, admitted (SN Feb 14) the jubilee committee does not “adequately represent the diversity of the Guyanese population” and she noted that the committee seeks “greater participation of Indians and other ethnic groups”. Does that not confirm that Peters is not telling the truth
An event celebrating the country’s independence should be truly representative of the population, especially when it is sanctioned by the government of Guyana, which complainants say, has wired US $300K to a law firm in Brooklyn to organize the US celebrations.
Peters mentioned five Indian names in a committee of nearly 150 although he said the committee invited 2000 to be members. So as not to be dishonest like Peters, the complaints reported that there are 14 (or about 10%), not 5 Indians, of nearly 150 members in a greater New York diaspora population where the distribution is some 60% Indians, 4% Amerindians, 1% Chinese and Whites, 8% Mixed, and 27% Afros. How can Peters justify a racial composition of 5 Indians or 10% Indians in the committee? So Indians are given 10% of representation when they comprised 60% of the American based diaspora and the Indians become the racist for exposing this farce? Brilliant definition from Peters of racism and supremacism! In America
Peters mentioned that there are “12 AFC members in the committee”. That would represent about 8%. Wasn’t the AFC supposed to get 40% representation in the agreement made with APNU? How could Peters not conclude that AFC is under-represented? Doesn’t Peters feel AFC members have a right to complain about this political imbalance?
Some of the complainants query how the committee was formed, who was invited and who was excluded and why? It was alleged by AFC members that a partisan committee of a select few (APNU-AFC affiliates) was first formed at a Brooklyn meeting and executives chosen and then “outsiders” were invited to be a part of it. Is this not a sign of a hidden agenda and of political and racial exclusion?
As the complainants note, the committee started out badly and its formation is hardly likely to attract the broadest of participation, especially given that decision-making is locked into a select group that is almost completely “uni-ethnic” and supportive of only one political party. Even AFC complainants say it does not represent the coalition, much less the 50% of the nation who don’t support the coalition. People feel isolated and marginalized.
They query whether this is a celebration of only government supporters. Other complainants have stated they do not wish to be mere “racial tokens” in the committee or lend legitimacy to an outfit that was constituted without the widest possible consultation or reflective of the AFC support in America.
Unless there is some drastic effort to be politically inclusive and racially balanced, this celebration is likely to take place along the lines of race and politics. There should be joint or co-leadership of the committee organizing the celebrations — a real effort at power sharing that President Granger and Prime Minister Nagamootoo say they support. I suggested a joint committee of Indian and African leadership, of equity representation among supporters of the parties, of proportional representation among the races. How is that racist? Is it not better than having five Indians he mentions?
Vishnu Bisram
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.