Dear Editor,
DEVELOPMENT inevitably brings changes, new arrangements, new views and, hence, are full of contradictions. More often than not the conflict is between different rights. Often too, certain improvements are required but not some of the features that accompany the improvements.

The “legalities” must be taken into account as the base on and from which some reconciliation is sought. In the consideration of the “traditional/natural” rights of Amerindian villages, recall that at independence when the British left, there were 65 Amerindian villages listed.

It was towards the end of the 1980s that movement from coast to hinterland generated amounts of evident contradiction that required resolution. Dr Jagan and his PPP/C administration moved to demarcate and mark on the ground the original 65 villages, whilst opening the door to the proclamation of new Amerindian villages, now more than 150 are listed, and the door was opened too to extension of earlier villages. In the extension and proclamation of new villages, conflicting situations with existing mining and forestry rights were inevitable; and in the case of the Kaieteur National Park somewhat reversed, the Park was extended to the village boundary, whilst the village wanted to be expanded to the earlier KNP boundary. Most of the conflicting mining and forestry situations were resolved generally by encouraging the miner/logger to accept alternative areas but a few intractable knots remained and the parties approached the courts as they were free to.

Was it noticed in a recent newspaper one article denouncing the mining at Chinese Landing and another by some resident women villagers bemoaning no opportunities in that area to earn money? With all protections in place, a win-win solution is a possibility if mutual respect could be attained and retained. President Ali’s proclamation of, and urging the development of a sense and reality of “One Guyana”, within what many sense as “One World”, would be a good starting point. History is full of wrongs that could not practically be righted today. Mutual understanding, respect and reasonable accommodation [are] what is called for and possible now. The case could be made that all Guyana was Amerindian, just as all the Americas were held by the Indigenous peoples. We must go forward. We can hustle forward under a banner of “One Guyana” a part of “One World”.

Yours sincerely,
Samuel A A Hinds
Former Prime Minister and Former President