Dear Editor,
REGULAR letter writer and columnist GHK Lall in a recent letter (Aug. 30 in another media) asserts that the PPP/C administration practices ‘apartheid’ (racial discrimination). Like him, I am for inclusive governance (which he has not defined), and I am also supportive of his advocacy of free speech. On the latter note, I am against libel suits to silence the media. I am also in agreement with him that there was an apartheid system of governance between 1966 and 1992; he cited examples to buttress that fact. But I am in disagreement with GHK’s characterisation of governance from August 2020 to now as “apartheid in nature”.  As he pointed out, Indian were victims of PNC discrimination and persecution triggering mass migration of hundreds of thousands after independence. Indian culture was marginalised during the PNC tenure in office and Indians were discriminated against in State employment and service. No culture or group is marginalised now.

Researchers have argued that the PPP/C Government (1992-2015) and (2020 to now) did not and have not practiced racism against any group. Researchers argue that the PPP/C did and have done more for Africans and Amerindians than the PNC/R, much more than what was done for or given to Indians. As critics have pointed out, the government’s two-year record of diversity and progress is unmatched by any previous administration. Data would show that Africans dominate every State institution. The Chancellor of the Judiciary, Chief Justice, head of Armed forces, head of Police Service, Chief Clerk of parliament, and several other institutions are Africans. There is ethnic balance in the government during past and present PPP/C administrations. The PPP/C had an African President in 1997. And since 1992, has had an African as Prime Minister when in office. The police, army, teaching service, nursing, and other State employed agencies are overwhelmingly African. So where is the discrimination or apartheid?

Apartheid is a governmental system that is based on racism and organised or de jure segregation, the domination of majority groups by a minority group which consigns them to live in ethnic enclaves under extreme poverty. Subjugated groups live at the pleasure of the dominant group. The minorities cannot occupy top positions in the governance structure. Apartheid is a version of the caste system which correlates colour with status: the lighter the colour the higher is the social ranking and the darker the colour to lower the social ranking. Can GHK give examples where Indians dominate others! When Indians were a majority, they were not allowed to elect a government of their choice. Unlike the PNC and WPA which have countless Afro centric and Afro nationalist figures, the PPP/C has a paucity of Indians who are Indo-centric or who champion an Indian cause.

Africans are not the only one crying discrimination. Indians also complain about reverse discrimination.  An impartial study will reveal which group (s) get favoured treatment and disproportionately more resources if indeed any imbalance is practiced by the State.

To buttress complaints of discrimination and ethnic bias, one needs data, not mere generalisations and ‘cry wolf’ statements but hard statistics – on state employment, salaries, housing distributions, award of contracts, scholarships, etc. Can GHK cite figures to support his assertions? Only with reliable and accurate data, one can get a true sense of purported discrimination and adopt policies to address them.

If Lall describes Guyana as an apartheid state, then one can make the claim that the country under Burnham and Hoyte administrations was ‘super-apartheid’ because it was a minority ethnic autocracy ran along similar lines as John Vorster’s South Africa.  And what about the UK, Canada, and US with a history of segregation, discrimination, and ghetto life? Would they also be described as apartheid like?

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram