Much brouhaha has been made about a statement attributed to Prime Ministerial candidate Moses V. Nagamootoo that he was “not an Indian” during a speech he made on the campaign trail in Queens, New York, ever since the information was brought to our attention in a letter written by Dr. Baytoram Ramharack. While the PPP/C sought to capitalise on the statement, others, like Christopher Ram, David Hinds and Freddie Kissoo, have asserted that it is somehow unpatriotic for a person to claim to be an “Indian” in our multi-ethnic society. Ram, Hinds and Kissoon are guilty of conflating the issue of nationality (citizenship) with that of ethnic identity, and of wanting Moses to adopt a politically correct position, to wit, being “Guyanese”. This is understandable, given their political conviction and passionately anti-government posture. Perhaps Moses can clarify the issue with a response. Some facts have gone unnoticed in the rush to defend Moses.
One, it appears that Moses, now part of a “multi-racial coalition”, by making such a statement, was appeasing his fellow African Guyanese. Listening to the speech on the internet, it is clear to me that Moses went to great lengths in his NY presentation to make it a point that he was not an “Indian tribalist”, because he shared so much in common with David Granger and African Guyanese. Instead, Moses should have made it clear that his presence within the coalition was designed to allay the fears of Indians. He was certainly clear about the fact that the APNU will deliver 40% of the vote. In other words, he left himself open to criticism from the PPP: he is a turncoat who is dividing the votes on behalf of Granger and APNU. A rational Indian voter will ask, what is the basis for this statement if his argument now is that he will deliver “11% of the Indians” into the APNU camp.
Second, what makes Moses’ statements even more suspect is the fact that he dismissed what he termed as attacks against the PNC for “alleged rigged elections”. This is quite a stunning declaration, given his past experience. In describing an event that transpired during the 1985 elections, Dr. Odeen Ishmael, quoting from international observers to show how the “election was crooked as barbed wire” wrote that “PNC gun-wielding thugs unleashed a violent attack on British journalist Anthony Jenkins and Dr. Jagan at Haslington, East Coast Demerara”. Dr. Jagan, Moses Nagamootoo and a bodyguard had gone there “to investigate why a polling agent had been ejected from the polling place and why a PPP supporter had been refused the right to vote”. Instead, as Dr. Ismael noted “a group of armed men then rushed into the building, attacked Dr. Jagan, and pushed him down the stairs. The British journalist who was standing on the roadside was then set upon and severely beaten by the thugs.” Maybe Moses has forgotten this event? He now evokes as a moral equivalent “PPP refusal to hold local elections” with “alleged PNC rigged elections”. This position poses a dilemma for the AFC leader, namely that he is more interested in a marriage of convenience that will guarantee him a seat in power.
Third, his “I am not an Indian”statement creates a paradox, and a contradiction when measured against his previous political positions in our bifurcated state where ethnicity has so clearly defined who we are as a people. Ethnicity (often confused with race) refers to identity with a group of people who share common cultural traditions of a particular homeland or hearth. The cultural traits displayed by an ethnic group are derived from particular historical experiences, practices and connections with other groups. One should not confuse the symbols of nationhood, nationality or citizenship with our rich cultural heritage, a heritage which the AFC in a recent statement noted “our diversity is our greatest strength.” We can deny or suppress our identity but we cannot choose to change it in the same way we can choose to speak a different language or practice a different religion. In the political sphere, ethnicity can act as a positive centripetal force (as in the case of English as a unifying language in Nigeria) or as a centrifugal force (as in the case of ethnic conflict leading to the balkanisation of the former Yugoslavia). In our bifurcated state, where primordial sentiments are often invoked, it is difficult to avoid this issue. Moses has added to the confusion for some by insisting that while the APNU will bring a guaranteed “40%”(Africans) he can deliver the “11%” Indians to assure the APNU/AFC a victory at the polls.. Is Moses not now invoking his “Indianness” or the “ethnic identity” by which the 11% perceives him?
Finally, Moses has further added to the confusion. In a presentation Moses made in June 16, 1997 in NY commemorating the Enmore Martyrs at the Guyana Consulate, he clearly identified himself as an Indian, being one of the “unlettered people, barefooted workers”, much like the Enmore martyrs (Pooran, Surujballi, Rambarran, Harry and Lallagaghee). As far back as 1988, on the 150th Anniversary of Indian Immigration, Cheddi Jagan – in collaboration with Nagamootoo (“The Afro-Guyanese Experience”), complimented Dr. Walter Rodney for being a “Pan African”. But in the same year as Dr Jagan’s compliment to Rodney, the Marxist leader had also written: “It is short-sighted to see the “Caribbean man” only as a “Black man”, and Caribbean culture as African culture. Apart from the different countries of their origin, both our Black slave and Indian indenture ancestors watered the sugar cane with their blood. Through their struggles and sacrifices, they have made valuable contributions to our historical and social development.” In his writings, Moses clearly demonstrated knowledge of the following: discrimination of Blacks by Europeans in Guyana, Rastafari movement, Pan African Movement, Dr. Walter Rodney, Kwame Nkrumah, WEB Dubois, Paul Robeson and the Black Power movement in the Caribbean.
Moses should also know that his new friends in APNU have long gone past that complex – the complex of denying one’s ethnicity – especially David Granger, who, as a historian, has written analytically and proudly about the African experience in Guyana. Moses should say he is a proud Indian, not deny his ethnicity or hide it in his nationality in his quest for political office. The irony is that he does not see the irony in his statement.
Vishnu Mahabir