Trinity Cross recognises service not religion

THE EDITOR: The Hindu and now Muslim mobilisation around the Trinity Cross continues. May I repeat what I have written before. It is absurd to claim that Eric Williams, who never darkened the door of any church for worship and whose secularism was so extreme that he was known to be against church schools, established a Christian symbol as the highest award in Trinidad and Tobago. The Trinity Cross was awarded at a period when some Trinis were known, from our vantage point in London, to be angling for British honours. Eric Williams, in his characteristic way, replied by establishing the Trinity Cross. The word ‘Trinity’ is the English translation of the Spanish word Trinidad, while Cross was used as an obvious reference to the most coveted British award: the Victoria Cross.

It has no religious significance whatsoever. Rather the imputation that it has is related to the recent Hindu mobilisation both here and in India. This has been around some supposed Christian oppression. In the case of Islam there is a new Muslim mobilisation around ‘Crusader’ and around the Cross even in non-Muslim countries. In both cases, Hindu mobilisation or Islamic mobilisation, Christians have ended up counting their martyrs. I therefore do not agree with a change of name of the Trinity Cross:

(a) because the charge of a Christian symbol is as absurd as supposing that the Cross of Lorraine today is a Christinan symbol rather than a secular symbol of De Gaulle’s resistance to Nazi occupation; and

(b) because I consider it dangerous to encourage this type of religious mobilisation around a supposed Christian discrimination against others which in fact does not exist.

That this last is what it is about is illustrated by the recent charge of Sat Maharaj that Hindus have been discriminated against in the Awards — this discrimination, he claims, is illustrated by the number of Hindus getting the Trinity Cross. No country that I know of calculates its awards by religion. If they did this the purpose of the award would be lost. The example is given by Sat Maharaj himself. He cites three Catholic clergy as receiving these awards and compares this with the non-awards to Hindus. The three Catholic clergy are Archbishop Finbar Ryan, Archbishop Anthony Pantin and Fr Gerry Pantin. I know of no other ‘clergymen’ of any religion whatsoever who established as many secondary schools and for all religions, in particular Indians in Central, as did Archbishop Finbar Ryan. If a Hindu has done this and beyond his own community, let me know.

Archbishop Pantin in 1990 reaffirmed our democracy when there was a Muslim coup d’?tat and it was dangerous to do so. Name a Hindu who did. Fr Gerry Pantin established Servol — name a Hindu who compares with this. These three individuals received the Trinity Cross for their extraordinary contribution to the society. It so happens that they were Catholic. This religious-race mobilisation is dangerous and I hope that the Government has the courage to face it head on and to maintain the Trinity Cross.

Here every creed and race has an equal place is of no value whatsoever if religious-race mobilisation of one group dictates the equal place. The Trinity Cross is a symbol of our struggle for Independence and our rupture with the colonial government. May I add that as far as I know there is no theological reason for a Christina to refuse Om or Crescent if this is given as a recognition of service even if it is associated with a confessional state, let alone a secular state. The recognition is for Service — it does not imply identity or belief. The same is true of the Trinity Cross: it is the recognition of service to citizens. It is not a reward for belief.

MARION   O’CALLAGHAN
Port-of-Spain