From left, outside Town Hall on Mackenzie's Republic Avenue, taking salute at march past are Mr. Mortimer Mingo, Prime Minister Sam  Hinds, Chief Magistrate Juliet Holder-Allen and IMC Chairman Orrin Gordon. (Joe Chapman photo)

Indentureship celebration

There must also be more regular publications of emergency numbers to call in the various regions and communities and these should be kept as simple as possible.

A call to one number or Police Station should be immediately re-directed if necessary by those receiving the call, by phone or radio, to the appropriate Police Station or Outpost or patrol vehicles for action to be taken. The caller, especially in relation to a crime in progress, should never be told to call another number or station.

According to the nature of the criminal matter being reported, roadblocks should be set up or expanded in the surrounding areas to intercept any escaping bandits.

Such actions by the Police are the minimum expectations of citizens who look to them to provide protection.
Yours Faithfully,
Natalie Williams

PNC skullduggery does not absolve anyone else from Gibson scrutiny
IN BEING dismissive of Dr. Kean Gibson's intellectual buildup (Chapter 1 of her book, 'The Cycle of Racial Oppression in Guyana,' has 24 references, Chapter 2 has 68) as "standard historical fare", M. Hackett blunders seriously in that he first agrees with Gibson on her intellectual premises (quote: "From page 4-21, she gives a clear and concise scholarly description of the bases and effects of European oppression"), then does an about face and then accuses her of "planting a tiny seed of discrepancy" in adverting to Brackette Williams' hierarchy of "Givers and Takers". He ratifies his own self-assessment as "being naïve and simplistic" (a direct quote found in the 3rd paragraph from end of his contribution) by unilaterally deciding that Williams' decision to place Indians where they were on that scale was purely fortuitous to Gibson's argument, and did not come after seasoned reasoning, and thereby does not help Gibson's theory. This argument defies logic, and could be seen as being academically disingenuous. It does not speak well of academic pedigree to see socio-cultural theory worked out, then to ask what Hackett asks: "How could he (Williams) have known to place Indians in the top position when the 1992 elections were one year in the future?" To the extent that this is again rhetorical, and argumentative for the sake of argument, he should be asked to cease and desist. He cites this point as the "seed" issue that "contaminated" the entire book, and to the extent that this is now seen to be a non-starter, his arguments are not valid.

Chapter 3 fares worse at Hackett's summary justice. In her "aims" ... restated below under the heading "Chapter 1" ... Gibson makes it clear that she is proposing an indictment of a local political culture of oppression and repression based on extant principles of Hinduism, and uses "European" and "African" examples of the same merely as illustrations of the alternative. To ask her to treat them all with the same intensity given her stated aim is to stand on thin ice. You cannot use "she only used three pages to do that" as constructive criticism in this regard. The objective thing would be to comment on if the evidence she DOES offer in that regard addresses core issues, and to perhaps comment, too, on the need for future expansion and research. It is easy to argue that her assessment of the issues on pages 36 and 37 does just that ... outlines the core issues in post-1973 PNC rule that amounted to dictatorship, without detracting from the central thrust of her argument. She even goes the distance in referring us (reference 70 per Chapter 3) to Morrison's work on the "inhumane acts that took place during the Burnham era". This is hardly evasion on her part, and detracts completely from a "pro-PNC" stand.

The logic here is that the fact of political skullduggery and dictatorship in post-1973 Guyana courtesy of the PNC and Burnham does NOT automatically absolve anyone else of scrutiny under a truly democratic process, and it would be dishonest to argue otherwise. Indeed, Gibson's explicit outline of the core illegalities perpetuated by the PNC serves another purpose: it constitutes an effective backdrop against which the "cycle" of oppression can be measured and appreciated ... if the presence in post-1992 Guyana of any of the atrocities listed can be ascertained with certainty. Therefore, his insinuation that that the chapter can be summarized as: "Just implying that Africans oppressed Indians because Indians oppressed Africans ..." is at best disingenuous. There is another conclusion that can be reached. Chapters 3 and 4, each has more than 100 vital issues that Freddie Kissoon, Hackett and Mahadeo have not addressed, nor even bothered to deny. The frightening possibility is, then, that they are really true. We will list these issues below.

We need not look any further than Mr. Hackett's last argument to expose another gaffe. He refers to a page-25 statement in Gibson's book that, according to him, is the central focus of her theory: "None would belong to the Shudra caste since this caste is now reserved for African-Guyanese". Hackett objects that the statement is "un-referenced", giving rise to a "strong suspicion that this is Dr. Gibson's personal opinion, formed by her own cultural perception of reality as seen through her own lenses". Four paragraphs later, he quotes from Ravi Dev's 1998 "Aetiology Of An Ethnic Riot":

"By the end of indentureship the Indian had moved very far towards re-evaluating his caste system and incorporating all castes into a unitary system of "nation" or "jati" and allocating the outcaste position to the African. To mix and mingle with the African, much less "combine", was beyond the pale in this scheme."

Then, recognizing that Dev changes his mind by 2003 in an effort to become politically correct, Hackett now reverses and advises: "Nevertheless, I do believe that her page-25 statement has some validity in that it now forces Indians in general and Hindus in particular to re-evaluate their idea of caste". To the extent that they cannot, or will not (because naming and caste ultimately define Hinduism as a concept regarding individual and corporate social relations), then Clarence Ellis' observations (quoted next) hold true.

For Hackett, however, this is an unacceptable level of ambivalence, inattentiveness and distortion for someone who has just accused, tried, condemned and sentenced an academic colleague.

There is another dimension to this analytical failure. He had previously adverted that Gibson's primary sources for her ideas about the caste system were two "non-Guyanese Indians". What does this have to do with an assessment of Hinduism's caste system? Dr. Ramesh Gampat's idea of "Indian-ness" renders this a non-issue from the outset, since no one has seen fit to dispute it. Despite the fact that Indians on both sides of the Diaspora have "expressed disgust" at the caste idea, no reform has taken place ... or is even being considered as far as we know. J. Ajith Kumar in June 22, 2003, (http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/054.htm), laments the dearth of takers to his suggestions for reform.

Unless the Hinduism being practiced in India is different from that in Guyana (in which case it is not Hinduism), then Clarence Ellis' words are the final installment in exposing the ultimate logical flaw in Hackett's, and Mahadeo's, attempt to refute Gibson:

"Dr. Gibson says that GIFT has the 'double objective of looking after the interests of their own group and of ultimately destroying the Africans with whom they share the same space'. That is very strong stuff and possibly the passage to which East Indians take the most objection. But if they do, they should come out and say so and affirm that they are willing not only to share the same space with Black people but to do so on terms of equality.

The surprising fact is that not a single East Indian leader or leadership group has come out and said that they are willing to share the same space with Black people on terms of equality."

(SN 11/24/03: http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article/id=843336 "

He is not alone in this conclusion. Hackett himself gives us insight into another interpretation of Ravi Dev's restatement as he (Hackett) accedes to this question of equality as a core issue, and offers a solution that is revealing in its simplicity (to the extent that it is not simplistic and incomplete):

"According to Mr. Dev, in 1998 Africans were "outcastes"; today they are not. Other Hindu scholars and leaders also need to tell us whether the Sudra class still exists in Guyana. If it does, then who are those Sudras? They need to say clearly and unequivocally like Mr. Dev: "Africans are neither Sudras nor outcastes."

"Instead of trying to destroy Dr. Gibson's book by banning, burning or "busing" it, why not destroy her central argument by coming out with a statement like Mr. Dev's. He is only one voice. Let us hear the others. If they convincingly refute Dr. Gibson's central argument, then the rest of her book will automatically fall apart."

Hackett has "forgotten" to mention the other logical end of this "awesome" solution ... that the statements must not only declare the non-existence of the "Sudra" or "Outcaste", but should also assign regard and respect on the basis of "equality" rather than seeking comfort in reassigning the offended party to another indeterminate caste or position. Otherwise, lip service is the only real outcome. Dev has, in fact, achieved nothing with his "politically correct" restatement. Hackett, in his wisdom, even advises that the others should state their intentions "clearly and unequivocally" like Dev.

Point by point, the shallowness of the "contentious" issues reveals themselves in Hackett's contribution. A final illustration is the insinuation that the link mentioned at Note 9 for Chapter 3 is a figment of her imagination. An obvious typographical error is cast in the mould of "cooking the books" (the real reference is http://www.indolink.com/Forum/Arts-Culture/messages/521.html) since he now asks: "Why didn't she consult the updated works of Guyanese Indians?" Which ones disagree with Viswanathan and Ghurye to any significant degree? We should identify them so that an analysis of these works can begin as well. They could settle the vexing issues definitively.
Roger Williams

Use the ballot, not terror
I APPLAUD the stand taken by Gloria Stepheney in a letter published in Stabroek News, April 28 on the question of "Haitianization" in Guyana.

I quote inter alia..."ethnic induced violence as a means of toppling the PPP- controlled Government, will not be countenanced by the international community.

"Those who honestly believe that an Haitianization process can take place in Guyana are suffering from delusion..."

The PPP/C Government came in power through free and fair elections - whether it was race voting or not. Whether they are competent or not, is another issue.

The PNC stayed in power through fraudulent elections and although they brought the country to its knees, it did not give up power.

In fact the PNC used its "kith and kin" terror tactics to remain in power until they were removed by free and fair elections.

I cannot understand the thinking of its leadership. Is their desire to return to power so dominating that they want to get there according to Stepheney, "to float their beached boat on a flood of African and Indian blood to the harbour of Shared Governance"...?

I do not hold the brief for any political party; if the PNCR feels they can do better than the PPP/C, do it democratically: persuade the electorate through the ballot, not by threats, marches or terror tactics!
Steven

May Day is once again an all-worker day
ON Saturday, May 1, or May Day, thousands of workers once again celebrated that important occasion by taking part in marches and rallies throughout the country. And those rallies were addressed by union leaders.

Long gone are the days when it was incumbent upon the head of the government to function as the chief speaker in Georgetown.

After the PPP/Civic Government came into office, it relinquished governmental control over the labour movement; that control was returned to the workers.

The PNC greatly manipulated the executive and the role of the labour movement, coercing workers to turn out to rallies or risk losing their jobs, and subtly directing some labour leaders how to conduct themselves at the podium. Instead of representing the interests of the workers in their bargaining with the government, union leaders at that time peddled government policies to the workers.

All this stopped from 1993 to this day. The workers and their leaders enjoy the fullest freedom to speak their minds without fear of retaliation or victimization.

While some may virulently criticize the government of the day, they and their members should fully appreciate the freedom that they now enjoy under the PPP/Civic Government.
Yours faithfully,
Pamela Ferguson