IT has been many decades since I came to know of the use of the term ‘Massacre’ to describe the killings and displacement of East Indians in Linden. I am also aware that there were objections to the use of this term.
Those who persist in using the term are almost exclusively people of Indian descent, while those who object are almost always Afro-Guyanese. The events were definitely racially inspired and racially driven and still loaded with racial sentiments.
A recent book, “The Wismar Massacre: A case of ethnic cleansing of Indians in Guyana” by academic and researcher Dr Baytoram Ramharack has caused this issue to resurface and brought this controversary to the limelight once again.
The facts are that there was well-planned intense and widespread violence and the wanton destruction of property perpetuated by Afro-Guyanese against Indo-Guyanese leading to an almost complete uprooting and dispossession of East Indians from their homes and properties.
Most of the three thousand plus East Indians who were forced to flee to other regions, never knew what became of their properties after they fled. Based on historical records, there were reports of rape, even gang rapes, beatings and killings. On the other hand, smack in the middle of the violent deposing of East Indians, the Son Chapman motorboat was blown to shreds and over 40 Afro-Guyanese perished. Most of the historical accounts are not in dispute.
People of East Indian descent who examine the events have claimed that many natural facts and perspectives were silenced and euphemised in ways that reduced the events to a basic ethnic disturbance. There are two major claims: one, the British colonial reporters suppressed certain angles and facts designed to make the colonial office look good and two, Africans who are either embarrassed by the events or wished to hide their own part in condoning the atrocities, situate it as an ordinary part of a series of disturbances across the country. In that way, its scale and enormity are not readily understood. Of the Son Chapman, Africans made pretty much the same allegations. The claim is, the incident was treated as a mishap, instead of a planned and orchestrated event. In so doing, the lives of Africans are cheapened, lowered and of lesser consequence than the lives of Indians.
In order to really situate the arguments, certain key sequences of events must be appreciated. Reportedly in response to the death of two Africans in another part of the country, the attacks on Indians in Linden resulted in three deaths while Indians sought refuge mainly in police compound and others were ferried to other locations. Things quieted down a bit, then the Son Chapman incident happened. In response to the Son Chapman incident, a fresh round of violent attacks occurred on Indians resulting in the deaths of five persons. Almost all that is controversial is contained in that sequence. There are two main categories of people who shape opinions on the issues: politicians and academics.
Dr Cheddie Jagan is credited with first employing the term Massacre to describe the killings of East Indians in Linden. From my perspective this is understandable. Dr Jagan was a politician and an East Indian. He was in the middle of fighting off formidable plots and threats to destabilise and weaken his government and political movement; he had his job to do. His job was to display his deeply felt indignation for what occurred, show that he was actively advocating for displaced Indians and to appeal to the deepest recesses of human conscience in a way to drum up political militancy. In that moment and circumstances, he would not be a politician worth his salt if he did not go for the most graphic term available to his vocabularic repertoire at the time. He chose Massacre. He also used the word in “The West on Trial” which was first published in 1966 when the incident and all of its gory details were still like a fresh wound. Since then, many politicians and social activists echoed the term, so much so, that it became a household sobriquet.
On the other hand, if an academic researcher employs that word as an accurate descriptive or definition for the events, given the history of objection against its use, he is situated in different territory from Dr Jagan. That is where this book by Dr Ramharack comes into sharp focus. I have not yet read the book, but I will. I hope Dr Ramharack fulfills his promise to give me a copy, if he doesn’t, I will have to procure one by some other means. When I do, I will come back and give a review. Until then, these notes are basically my framework to be employed when reading and evaluating it.
In my view, politicians are freer and more apt to describe events more loosely and provide emotive political stimuli. Academics, however, do not have such ambit in the political construct where it is easy and tempting to ask, “what’s in a name?” However, the academician cannot be that dismissive. They are required to stick within an established research framework, confirm to certain ethics and do pure research to expose and record historical facts, wherever it leads.
Further, academics need to be upfront about their own biases that may affect their research and show how they employed methods to control for personal biases or conflicts of interest.
Massacre has a definition in academia and international law. Did this book interact with those definitions, or did it simply pander to political stimuli? Did the author acknowledge that there are decades of pre-existing controversy relating to the way the events were defined and that the very controversy will affect how his book is read and received? Is any aspect of the book intended to be of any cathartic value to the greater Guyanese society or a specific demographic? I look forward to reading this book.