REFERENCE is made to letters by Mr. Neil Adams (GC June 17) and Dr. David Hinds (SN Jun 17) on the banning of basic foods by the PNC dictatorship.  Not many writers understand the devastating effects the ban on basic foods had on Guyanese, especially those who depended on them for their religious practices and cultural or ethnic diets. What is disappointing from most non-Indian writers is a refusal to condemn the ban. So it is refreshing to read the two commentaries in which the writers accept that banning flour (wheat), dhal, channa, alou, etc. had a telling effect on the cultural lifestyles of Indians and hurt Indians more than other groups.
There is no denying that the ban affected all Guyanese regardless of ethnicity and no one has trivialised the effects the ban had on Africans and other non-Indians. And no one stated that because an African government banned the products, then Africans should not complain that they too suffered from the ban. But one cannot be flippant and dismissive (As Robin Williams was ) of the fact that the above products are an integral part of the religious practices and dietary habits of Indians and as such one should not equate the sufferings experienced by different ethnic and religious groups as a result of the ban.
Pandit Rajin of New Amsterdam, at a discourse in New York (NY) in Richmond Hill, made reference to the importance of cultural food of Indians.  Flour, dhal, alou, channa are essential in their food consumption. The Holy Hindu scriptures make references to these basic items and other grains, legumes, pulses, spices, seeds, etc. By banning these products, Indians felt slighted.  These foods cannot be easily replaced as they are for other groups.  They complained as such during the 1970s and 1980s when I interviewed them as part of my research and writings. The products should never have been banned.  Denying a group access to cultural foods and religious paraphernalia is cultural genocide which can lead to physical genocide if the group lacks access to adequate nutrients to replace those that were banned. Rice, cassava and plantain cannot replace the nutrients in wheat. Black eye (or bhora dhal as we call it in Guyana) does not have the same nutrients as dhal, channa, lentil (or urad as we call it in the villages). I remember in the 1970s sugar workers complaining that they did lacked the strength and stamina to cut and load cane when they could not consume roti and dhal.  Hindus complained that they could not conduct pooja to their satisfaction because they could not offer prasad (mohanbhog, lapsey and rote) and roti made from flour. Muslims and Christians also complained that the ban affected their practices.
No one stated that Africans did not protest against the ban. The WPA was in the forefront in the battle against the ban.   I recollect Elder Eusi Kwayana and the late Dr. Rodney opposing the ban on flour.  I remember stories in the Caribbean Contact (published out of Barbados by Rickey Singh) with photographs of protests for food, including the Linden protest.  One of the pickets presciently read: “Give us our daily bread” (sometime around 1983) literally meaning bread to eat because Lindeners, like the rest of the country, were on the verge of mass starvation during the dictatorship.  People had money but could not find roti, bread and other foods to purchase.
I also remember Dr. Jagan, appealing to Burnham and Hoyte not to ban flour, split peas, etc. because they are essential staples used by all Guyanese. During the late 1980s, pandits, mulvis, and respected businessmen went to Desmond Hoyte during the reform period appealing to him to remove the ban on these products and telling him such an act would bolster his standing among Indians.  Hoyte acquiesced.
It should be noted that when Dr Jagan visited NY in 1992 with Sam Hinds, he was asked about banned products.  Dr. Jagan said the PPP would never entertain the idea of banning any products and underlined the fact that banning flour and peas affected the morale of workers for whom roti and bread are essential staples of the working class.
On whether there are ethnic effects of the ban on Indians, I have several anecdotes.
1. A few years ago I met a taxi driver in Antigua who told me he is married to a Guyanese and visited Guyana regularly during the 1980s and up until now.  The taxi driver said “it was wrong for Burnham to deny Indian people flour to make their roti”.  He also revealed that Prime Minister Vere Bird Sr. told him that he appealed to Burnham to cancel the ban on flour because of the effects the ban had on the population.
2. The Trinidad Guardian ran an editorial in the early 1980s condemning Burnham for what the paper described as an anti-Indian policy banning flour making it impossible for Indians to make roti.
3. I read of Burnham’s passing in August 1985 in an English edition of a Thai newspaper in the city of Chiang Mai where I was studying Buddhism.  The news story linked Burnham to banned foods that it said affected the Indian community.
4. Several Indian publications in NY and India also ran clippings of Burnham’s death and making references to his policies that hurt the Indian community.
5. The Guardian and Express newspapers in Trinidad also ran editorials following Burnham’s passing making references to his policy of banning essential items used by Indians.
Guyanese are not likely to forget the period of banned items. In surveys I conducted in Guyana for TRPI (with Prof. Baytoram Ramharack and Ravi Dev) and NACTA, respondents told me in 1990, 1992, 1997 that they are not going back to banned foods.  Also, in April when supporters of the AFC and PNC jointly picketed Club Tobago where President Jagdeo and Donald Ramotar addressed a public forum, someone came up to me and said: “Mr. Bisram, don’t pay attention to those demonstrators. They want to go back to eating rice, cassava and plantain flour”.
Mr. David Hinds made reference to “a certain pollster who saw the ethnic effects of PNC policy on Indians”.  He should state the ethnic effects of PPP policy on Africans. I notice Hinds, who campaigned against the PNC since the 1970s because of oppression and the murder of Rodney, etc. is now defending the PNC.  That is an interesting development – causing my NY colleagues to query whether racial solidarity makes one forget the past?
To conclude, since as Hinds said the ban affected every Guyanese, then everyone should disapprove of and condemn the ban, not defend it.