Dear Editor,

For those who intently follow Bollywood movies and music, which might possibly be half of the native Indo-Guyanese population, the song Kal Ho Na Ho is hauntingly melodious. Even for someone with the euphonic I.Q. of a goldfish and tunefulness of a grating jackhammer, I find myself reflexively humming this song. I am no Bollywood zealot, so either this is an ambiguous genetic response encoded in my Indian ancestry, or as I strongly suspect, the consequences of the star power of the singer, Sonu Nigam.

Mr. Nigam, just in case you didn’t notice, your recent “Klose to My Soul” concert at the National Stadium testifies to your symphonic sorcery. I am not speaking here of the fans thronging every inch of the stadium, or even those flanking the stage and riposting your choral invitations with flashing cameras and smartphones. That must be the universal response to your celebrity and musical genius. As a matter of fact, the Trinidad Guardian reported on the resounding success of this same concert in that country.

What I am referring to is a profound form of hypnosis that so entrances some of our people that it configures their very cultural, social and political identities. I am in no way suggesting that you are directly responsible for these people’s enchantment. All I am saying is that their interpretation and consumption of the celebrity image that is Sonu Nigam alters their very sense of self, and has particular consequences for Guyanese existence.

Just so that I don’t become too abstruse, let me explain what I mean. You see, Mr. Nigam, some of our people still resonate to ancestral impulses. Every time they hear your melodies and sentimental outpourings they clutch for mother India. They might become over-awed as you saw in the stadium, or sometimes they weep, not even knowing the reason for their distress. Bollywood has that effect, Mr. Nigam, it deludes so many of these people—literate or not—into thinking that they are participating genuinely in Indian culture. But all they are doing is culturally-appropriating, cherry-picking from the amplitude of their lineage. It is distressing, Mr. Nigam. These are people whose Indianness revolve largely around the cinematic personalities of Bollywood. It is understandable in the romanticizing of any culture, people tend to exclude the unsavoury aspects of that civilization, so I won’t be quite surprised if these people preferred to be silent about continued religious and caste discrimination, racial conflicts between North and South Indians, and marginalization of the Bihari people in contemporary India. But not knowing some of the more redeeming aspects of Indian civilization such as the significance of Nalanda University, Panini or Gayatri Spivak is mildly embarrassing. In our Guyanese context that might be similar to saying we don’t know who Cheddi Jagan was, or maybe that we do know who Cheddi Jagan was, but are selectively unconcerned with Forbes Burnham or Walter Rodney. That is, revising our history and reconfiguring our historical and cultural identity.

You see, Mr. Nigam, this obsession with Bollywood as the ticket into a state of authentic Indianness irks me for other reasons. You may not have recognized it, but the seating arrangements for your show didn’t just stop at VIP, but also included VVIP, weighted with a price tag of $25,000 per ticket. So your show attracted some “Very Very Important People”, Mr. Nigam, with a price tag that exceeds that for similar seating arrangements for this same show at the Hershey Centre in Mississauga, Canada. It is right there on ticketmaster.com for all to see. How is this even related to Bollywood bewitchment you ask? Well, as you know, Mr. Nigam, Bollywood has increasingly become a machinery for class warfare in India. It simply deepens the demarcation between rich and poor by elevating elite tastes and attitudes. So with some of these people suckling at that aristocratic teat, they begin to normalize and institutionalize their mimicked tastes in Guyanese society. Needless to say, the less privileged are coerced into defining themselves by luxury goods—symbolic violence at its optimal stealth. So yes, you are right, the spatial demarcations in the stadium were not mere lines but expressions of economic, social and political power that currently operate to divide the elite from the non-elite in this country. And as in India, those boundaries are markedly increasing here.

Finally, Mr. Nigam, I am fully aware of your philanthropic efforts, so it would seem natural you would have wanted to lend your iconic status to the opening of the Bal Nivas Shelter. Maybe in addition to the proceeds from the concert, you also didn’t charge your full concert fee. I really am not sure about the logistics, but nonetheless, it would seem that your cutting the ribbon to that shelter symbolized deep altruism and concern for Guyanese orphans. I really hope to see your continued appearance and involvement, once these concerts have expired. However, I must intone that while your presence at that event would have possibly galvanized international support for similar causes in Guyana (which is more than welcome), there is also the possibility that inadvertently there was some image transfer that would benefit certain political and social class interests in this country. You know only too well how this occurs in Tamil Nadu, so all I would venture is that while acceptable, your cutting that ribbon could have implicitly snipped at the tenuous racial politics in this country.

Mr. Nigam, I am told that “Kal Ho Na Ho” roughly translates to “Tomorrow May Never Come”. I am troubled that for as long as an abridged Indian culture, or truncated sense of Indianness dominates the psyche of some of our political and economic elites that Guyana would be bedeviled. Worse yet, I worry that imbibing this false consciousness would render most people too intellectually and politically effete to demand a just, fair and conscious existence. So while tomorrow may come, Mr. Nigam, it is probably not one that most Guyanese would relish.

Yours faithfully,
Romain Khan

In part 1 of the column, I argued that cultural practices have to be observed within the constraints of politics and economics of the Guyanese society. The column briefly outlined historical events that set the two main ethnic groups in Guyana on a path of conflict that manifests itself in pernicious ethnic voting and mobilization. I argued that our history and constitution have wired the two main ethnic masses for suspicion and non-cooperation. Peer-reviewed studies on Guyana’s political economy have also documented how ethnic elites have mobilized their respective ethnic masses for leverage when dealing with the other side. Other analysts have labelled this non-cooperation the ethnic security dilemmas (ESD). Early interpretations of the ESD argue that African Guyanese are concerned about their economic security, while Indians have a perpetual fear of the military. The evidence over the past 22 years suggests that the military is willing to serve the constitution and the elected civilian government. The concern these days ought to be whether the military will become compromised by the established class of narco traders and those predisposed to smuggling gold, fuel, beers and the like.

My interpretation of the ESD is economic. Most of the masses of both groups vote for their respective ethnic elites because they perceive intra-group social networks will provide connections to economic opportunities once their elites win the election. Obviously some disgruntled folks would be willing to vote for the third party. But how are these discontented persons going to know whether the disgruntled members of the other group will also vote for the independent party? They can’t be certain; hence they play it safe and vote for their respective ethnic leaders. In the end, they all vote for their underdevelopment because this behaviour makes the elected leaders complacent with little incentive to propose nationalist policies that will benefit all. With the exception of the Hoyte years, I am not aware of any other President who outlined policies meant to benefit the country as a whole. Most times the policies were intended to solidify the interests of the political party over those of the country, while destroying the economic interests of others.

The leaders, except the Hoyte-led election campaigns, have to date mainly responded with strategies that can be termed “don’t split the votes,” an exact phrase used by Mrs Jagan at the Kitty rally in 1997. Perceptions of fears are largely reinforced by implicit campaigns meant for cementing the ethnic base. It is in this context we must understand why the government finally gave in after 22 years for a Rodney COI. It is meant for dividing the country and instilling fears in the East Indian communities. On the other hand, the independent voters – from the other ethnic groups – mainly split their votes among the three dominant political parties. Their voting pattern has shown a greater degree of randomness dividing their votes among the three parties. Two questions arise: (i) what is the tipping point whereby a sufficient percent of swing voters will be willing to vote on issues and platforms? (ii) Where is the strategy for winning the voters who vote with a fair degree of randomness?

The state of political economy described above raises a few crucial questions about the role of East Indian masses in shaping a political economy that is fair and just. The ethnic elites will do well regardless of which government is in power. In my opinion the masses of East Indians have to demand some important concessions from their elected leaders so that they can continue to practise their cultural and religious activities. The mandirs, mosques, churches and social organizations have to demand these concessions. Indian community leaders have to demand them also instead of writing with pennames in Guyana Times and a Muslim penname in the letter columns. (WHO THIS?)

So what are some of these reforms the grassroot members must demand from the PPP? The first demand must be constitutional reform that prevents the capture of the government after a leader has captured the political party and imposed his like-minded followers. Two ethnic post-independence Guyanese leaders – Mr Burnham and Mr Jagdeo – have shown that after dominating their respective political parties they can use the power of the constitution to undermine the public institutions and therefore the ability of the government to best serve all the people. They must demand that the powers of the President be curtailed.

The second demand must be the consolidation of democracy. After free and fair elections in 1992, Guyana has effectively become a quasi-democratic society where the East Indian elites connected to the government abuse democracy when it suits their economic interests. The 2011 election was free but unfair. The views of the opposition are shut out from the Chronicle, NCN and all the proxy private media outlets that were engineered through oligarchic expropriation of the people’s assets. The people have been denied local government elections since 1994, yet another indicator of non-democracy. As a result, party opportunists in the villages have effectively taken over the local governments. Many local bodies have become a redistribution system that channels the taxpayers’ dollars to a few supporters. It should be no surprise that local works are shoddily done, tending to break up overnight. When infrastructure works disintegrate quickly another contract replaces the old one in a continuing cycle of patronage. How can there be development in this system?

A third demand must be transparency and accountability in government. The government does not own the money of the people; it merely administers it. Moreover, the government does not have the moral right to deny the opposition, which is backed up by 52% of the votes, an input into key developmental projects the country is seeking to undertake. They must impart to the elected leaders of the opposition the feasibility studies that went into the investments of Marriott, the eight-gate airport terminal and the Amaila hydro project. The people must demand why there was no warranty clause for the Skeldon sugar factory. How can the Chinese contractor walk free after a horribly defective factory was built? Why is the government pursuing its present anti-Western foreign policy when most East Indians have chosen to migrate to Western nations? What is the backup plan in case the rice for oil barter agreement is reversed?

There are obviously many more fair demands that can be made. But I would close by mentioning reform to the police force. They cannot continue abusing people and killing people without just trial, nor can the force afford to continue letting in poorly educated people. Police pay has to be improved to attract better educated young people. Police predation has to be seriously punished. It is important to ask Mr Rohee to list a few murder and criminal cases his forensic lab has solved. Finally why the PPP, known for collecting foreign aid, frustrated British funding and a plan meant for improving police work?

Yes rituals, songs, dances and the like are very important forms of cultural expressions. But these can be even richer and broader if the political economy of Guyana is made to work for everyone.