TRINITY CROSS DISTRACTION

The annual awards by the state to selected citizens are in the nature of a symbolic gesture to recognise the contribution of citizens in different fields of endeavour. I have argued previously that symbolism is important in the workings of any society but its significance should be placed in context and its limitations recognised.

My own view is that the general citizenry cares little about these awards and for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is viewed as a status symbol available only to the elites in the society in that it is primarily their contribution which is seen worthy of recognition. Secondly, there is great mystery as to the criteria adopted by the Awards Committee in making their recommendations and indeed in the procedures devised in the search for nominees. Thirdly, the awards are seen as acts of patronage by the ruling party in spite of the fact that members of the Awards Committee are appointed by the President and it is chaired by the Head of the Judiciary. This is because the Prime Minister has the final say in the grant of the awards and, as such, the process is seen as politically tainted.

Some people have argued that the Christian religious symbolism incorporated in the Trinity Cross is offensive and unacceptable to the adherents of other faiths. There is therefore the issue of religious equality raised but no one has articulated how this concept could be incorporated in any replacement for the Trinity Cross. But even if a measure of symbolic equality is achieved, how will this accomplishment augur for equality in other areas particularly in governmental operations and in the educational, social and economic spheres which are of major concern to Indo-Trinidadians.

Others have advocated that the Trinity Cross issue points to the need for a more secular orientation of the state. And while a more conscious effort by the powers that be to adopt secular ideals may be welcome, it is no guarantee against the existence of an ethos of prejudice and bias and discriminatory attitudes.

An effective struggle against discrimination must be premised on an on-going effort to reform the consciousness and culture of the society to accept equality, justice and fairness as social norms and to establish institutions including a re-orientation of the educational system to promote these ideals. In addition sanctions must be employed and corrective action taken where discriminatory practices are revealed. These are lofty aspirations bearing in mind the general impection of society and social orders. To achieve them demands much effort as well as determination, tenacity, commitment and focus on the part of leaders.

It is easy to get distracted by the so-called victory in the Trinity Cross decision by the Government. If it is a victory, it is merely a victory in a skirmish. The war against discrimination is a long way from being won. And those who are cheering today may discover in time that it was a Pyrrhic victory.

Many have rushed to praise the Prime Minister for his courage and statesmanship in making the decision to remove the Trinity Cross as the nation’s highest award without realising it was a calculated decision and involved a quid pro quo. Manning stands to gain support from the opposition constituency but will not lose the support of his own Christian constituency who may grumble and protest but will persevere with his leadership in a situation where it does not see an alternative to which it can attach its allegiance.

In exchange for his compliance with the court’s verdict and the Maha Sabha’s advocacy on this matter, Manning wants a concession in other areas. This can be gleaned from the mandate given to the Committee which has been set up to recommend a change for the nation’s highest award. The Committee is mandated “to review all aspects of the nation’s highest award and also to examine such other national symbols and observances which may be considered discriminatory.” It leads to the speculation that there is an ulterior motive. What other national symbols and observances may be considered discriminatory? Is it the national flag to include another colour representative of Indo-Trinidadians? Is it the national anthem to include gender, age and region as categories identified to find an equal place? Is it the prayer in Parliament which may be considered discriminatory against non-Christians? Is it the wearing of party ties and emblems on national occasions? Or is it some of the public holidays that we observe?

I firmly believe that Prime Minister Manning and the PNM Government have in mind the re-examination of Indian Arrival Day as a public holiday as being discriminatory against other races who migrated to this country. I have written extensively on this subject and the justification for May 30 to be declared a public holiday. I will not repeat those arguments here.

However it is necessary to recount the circumstances under which May 30 was declared a public holiday in the first instance. It was the year 1995 and the House of Representatives was debating a motion initially introduced by me. 1995 happened to be the 150th anniversary of the arrival of the first group of indentured labourers from India. The PNM was in office and Manning as Prime Minister made the announcement that May 30 of that year would be declared a one-off public holiday but to be known as “Arrival Day.” It was a fleeting gesture to the Indo-Trinidadian community and was not intended to be a permanent public holiday. It was the UNC Government in 1996 which added “Indian” to the designation of the holiday and made it an annual national observance.

trevorsudama@tstt.net.tt