Dear Editor

STATEMENTS emanating from the Indian Arrival Committee (IAC) on the President’s commented intent to have his administration address the issue of having African ancestral land regularised are wicked and designed to pit race against race.The President, in reported words, said: “It is the intention of this government to establish a Lands Commission in order to rectify the anomalies and resolve the controversies which, up to now, surround thousands of hectares of communal lands which were purchased in the post-Emancipation Village Movement.”

While the IAC reserves the right to seek clarity on the President’s reference to Land Commission, given that there exists the legally constituted Lands and Survey Commission, this is clearly not what goaded its statements. Following on the particular statement are the clear intent of this body. To state that those of “Indo-Guyanese origin…given the turbulent history of this country, fear that their lands may be taken away from them, and they are very apprehensive as to what mechanism, outside of the Law Courts of Guyana, would exist to address any grievance in this proposed new system” is using Indians to front the IAC’s dastardly motive against Africans.

Every racial group that came to this society has its unique history of original acquisition of land. Africans’ first acquisition of land came in the post-slavery society, and had to do with them pooling their pennies, buying up plantations, and converting them to villages in what is known as the Village Movement, which had its own economy and system of government. This also is the history of Africans’ communal lands. There is no other race with this legacy.

Young Indians are advised that when Africans are calling for the regularisation of lands, these are lands that were bought and paid for by their forebears/ancestors, which in this modern era need to be identified and properly documented, and the rightful owners made known. It is the responsibility of Government, in ensuring an orderly society, to have the country’s record, including ownership of lands, properly demarcated and identified which are fixed assets and wealth for the owners, and also determine revenue to the State in the form of rates and taxes. That previous presidents and administrations did not put systems in place to have this done does not absolve the present administration from such responsibility.

That the Bharrat Jagdeo Administration and PPP/C-controlled Parliament stoutly rejected a motion brought by late PNCR Member of Parliament Deborah Backer to have this issue regularised through a commission should be of concern to the IAC. After that, the very Jagdeo Administration coveted lands at Sparendaam in what is known as Pradoville II, and sold parcels of those lands at rock bottom prices to themselves and cronies. Had this land been accounted for consistent with present accounting systems, this could not have happened. The rightful owners would have exercised their right to determine if they wanted to sell, to whom, and at what price.

On the IAC’s reference to reparation and Guyana being part of the engagement with CARICOM and Britain, this is also wicked. Reparation has to do with slavery. The lands’ issue is related to post-slavery, and were bought and paid for. So there is nothing owing here that Britain is being asked to compensate. Let me repeat, communal/ancestral lands were bought by Africans, and their heirs are seeking regularisation of them, consistent with 21st century reality, which includes being properly accounted for, recorded, and attributed.
Regards,
LINCOLN LEWIS