Dear Editor,
This is my final response to Abu Bakr on this issue. Mr Bakr seems to be more concerned with splitting hairs. If deciphering and navigating through his play on words is not enough of an exercise in teleology, one that lacks a specific focus, his confession to having a flair “to exaggerate, deform, etc, for effect” gives us an insight into the most legitimate rationale for his missives.
We would like to believe that our contributions address and highlight some of our more pressing national problems, and in our developing political entity, there are many to consider: social cohesion, corruption, crime, narco-trafficking, suicide, human development the list goes on. Mr Bakr is free to pontificate and philosophize about the Indian identity. Trying to situate who we are, be it Indians, Africans and Guyanese, from whence we came, and to what we are evolving, does not bring us any closer to addressing the current problems we face in this country.
Notwithstanding the inconsistency in his own analysis, he is asking far too much. We are not blessed with a crystal ball to guide our imagination far into the distant future regarding the next “level of ethnicity”, or the previous one, whether that identity is based on “ethnic or national” conceptions. The real question is: to what end and what does it matter? The focus should be on the here and now.
Since the establishment of the modern political state in Europe, more than two hundred years ago, leaders have sought to wrestle with the question of what constitutes a nation, an entity we now know to be an association of people with shared, but equal political rights, and an allegiance to national symbols, political institutions and procedures. The values that shape our nationality continue to do so, even when we have occasion to question those values over the course of time.
One cannot, however, ignore the fact that people who occupy the same political space within such a state, particularly in a multi-ethnic state like ours, share a common heritage, experience, ancestry, and set of values that are shaped within the community and by forces ‘external’ to their communities. Again, with the passage of time, cultural transformations do take place.
The duality is at work here also, and it cannot be ignored, even when others may tell us otherwise, or more so, define it for us, or dictate what those values should and ought to be. It is never a question of “original identity”. Mr Bakr wants us to ignore that historical experience simply because we have embarked on a journey of examining these values as we move towards the goal of nation-building. Missing in his consideration, is the question of the Amerindians and their contribution to the national culture, as well as their place in our society. Ravi Dev, in his uninvited comments, has addressed some of the other issues he has raised.
I would leave this final thought with Mr Bakr. As Guyanese, we have an obligation to continue to engineer a nation in which we can all coexist within the political state we share. Africans, Indians, Amerindians do not have to give up their cultural attributes, however defined, for the other. Social cohesion is a work in progress.
This is far too conspicuous in our society. Mr Bakr need not worry; “intellectualizing” the issues that define us will not diminish this process, it can only strengthen us as a people.
Yours faithfully,
Baytoram Ramharack