Dear Editor,
I write in response to the missive by Aubrey Norton on the Wismar Massacre of Indians (June 11). He is probably responding to two recently published books on the massacre— one by Dr. Yog Mahadeo and the other by Dr. Baytoram Ramharack. I too wrote about the massacre in articles and organised memorial tributes and prayer services to the victims as happened on May 26, 1964, the day chosen by the then PNC government for independence. Norton does not dispute that the event (s) happened but objects to it being labeled a massacre because he argues that only a few Indians were killed. The entire Indian community, except a handful, were driven out of the area that was renamed Linden, the middle name of Forbes Burnham.
One must not belittle or undermine the enormity of the episode. The event is known and remembered as the Wismar Massacre. Everyone refers to it as such. It does not appear that Mr. Norton read the book penned by Prof. Ramharack who explains how the term came about. The term massacre was used by the Premier and others. It was also called a genocide, ethnic cleansing, holocaust, and worse descriptions. One should not focus only on the numbers killed in the area to qualify or quantify it as a massacre. How many must be killed to call it a massacre. News reports stated five more died from injuries. There were mass rapes and arson. Hundreds were beaten. Several little females were violated, bottles inserted in them. Dozens of properties were burnt. An entire community of 3,000 was uprooted. They lost valuables and properties. They were in shock, homeless and worse. They feared for their lives. More and more exposure about the massacre is revealing that more died and many more brutalised than reported. At the time of the commission hearing, people were fearful to come forward to testify and give accounts.
They were also in shock and mourning. They wanted to forget those horrible acts of violence unleashed on them unprovoked.
Truths at times are ugly. We must fest up to difficult facts. We must not erase history. Wismar violence happened. A community was grieved. The community has a right to mourn and tell their story. And so too the families of the victims of Sun Chapman; we must not erase Sun Chapman event. Ramharack and other writers are narrating, describing, analysing what happened at Wismar. Former President David Granger and others penned their versions of Sun Chapman. Granger’s version of Sun Chapman is disputed by others. We know who drove the Indians out of Wismar; we do not know definitively who carried out the Sun Chapman explosion. Regardless of which is the correct account, and who did what to whom, we can’t equate the two major historical events. One can’t negate the other.
As a social scientist, Norton knows that history should not be whitewashed or erased and a community must not be silenced in its views of how it was victimised or brutalised. If not written, how would we have known about Sun Chapman or Wismar. People must have freedom to pen their own accurate, factual, version of history whether it is Wismar, Sun Chapman, violence elsewhere. The facts must be accurate. Norton has not disputed the facts., merely the term ascribed to the events.
It is important that history be recorded accurately, be known, remembered, preserved for posterity. This can only be done through documentation as has been done by Dr. Yog Mahadeo, Dr. Ramharack, myself, and others. The Indian community has been grieved by the massacre so much so that Dr. Jagan and the PPP objected to May 26, the day Indians were erased from Wismar, as Independence Day. That date was viewed by Dr. Jagan and others as the triumph of one race over the other and not a day for celebration. Memorial services, not celebrations, are still held in the diaspora on that date.
A monument was established for the Sun Chapman victims; one should also be established for the Wismar victims. Wismar and Sun Chapman should never be repeated.
On this note, the writers of the massacre are praised, commended, saluted for documenting the historical events of what occurred. Ramharack’s book has very detailed documentation. Norton and others who object to the term should read it and not be bogged down by what it is called, known, recognised, and widely accepted.