Rejecting the National Awards

The Trinidad chapter of the Global Organisation of People of Indian Origin (GOPIO) last week officially rejected the National Awards and launched its own Indian National Awards. GOPIO asserted that the Trinity Cross, the highest national award, excluded non-Christians and Tobago nationals from relating to the award. GOPIO’s other point of contention was that the National Awards were indeed not national in scope and a review of the award recipients showed a clear bias against Indo-Trinidadians. GOPIO was also critical of the transparency of the entire process of the existing National Awards. Who are the persons that form the selection committee of the National Awards? What standards of measure are employed to rank one citizen above his/her peers?
 
GOPIO’s establishment of a rival National Awards structure has been met with overwhelming support from all quarters of the Indo-Trinidadian community. Hundreds of calls of support flooded the radio call-in talk show circuit. The Secretary General of the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha, Sri Satnarayan Maha Sabha, The Leader of the Opposition, Political Analyst Dr Kirk Meighoo and scores of other Indo-Trinidadians have openly supported GOPIO’s Indian National Awards. This support for the Indian National Awards and in essence the rejection of the State’s National Awards speak volumes to those who have the ability to understand the message being sent. The Indian population of Trinidad and Tobago, now the majority of the population, view with a deep sense of alienation the National Awards each Independence Day. Yet the pain continued to be ignored.
 
The call from GOPIO struck a cord in the Indo-Trinidadian community because the call addressed the principle of equality and what is defined as “national.” National Recognition requires as a core component the principle of equality. If one is not viewed as equal then it follows logically that there is no need to be recognised. If one is not viewed as part of the mainstream as a result of the lack of representation in “national activities” then omission from the National Awards is not seen as an injustice. Indian culture is not often viewed as a core component to the national culture. The rejection against the sanctioned National Awards is therefore to be seen in the context of the struggle for equality and a redefinition of what is national in a plural society. The bold action by GOPIO is not one born over night but took nearly three decades to arrive at. In 1977 Dr Wahid Ali was awarded the Trinity Cross but as a good Muslim he declined the award. Ali was prevailed upon by then Prime Minister to accept the award on the condition that the name of the award would be later changed.

Of course three decades later the name remains the same. So much for the promises of a politician. In 1995 Pundit Krishna Maharaj, the Dharmacharya (spiritual head) of the Hindu Community, while accepting the honour of the award rejected the award itself. Former Head of the Public Service Reginald Dumas as a Tobago national has publicly stated that the award is not inclusive of Tobago. In 1997 then Prime Minister Basdeo Panday established the National Awards Commission chaired by then Chief Justice Michael de la Bastide. That Commission advised the authorities that the name of the highest award should be changed and that the scope of the award criteria be widened substantially. In 2003 Government Senator Manideo Persad lamented in Senate that the Trinity Cross should be changed. Ironically Senator Persad spoke as an Opposition Senator forgetting that he belonged to the ruling party and was indeed in a position to make the change.

It is instructive that shortly after making the call to alter the national award Senator Persad was transferred to the Trinidad High Commission in India. Also in 2003 Chief Justice Satnarayan Sharma, a Hindu, no doubt accepted with hesitation the highest national award. For the Chief Justice to openly reject the award would have been politically incorrect and therefore the Chief Justice really had no choice but to accept the award. A dispassionate cursory evaluation of the so-called National Awards over the past few decades will show that the distribution of Trinity Cross and Chaconia awards are in fact skewed toward male citizens whose fields are Law, Medicine and Sport. Indeed the facts are that over 50 percent of the awards are to persons falling into these categories. It is also interesting to note that Indo-Trinidadians are clearly under-represented in these awards. Despite the three decades of quiet diplomacy to have the National Awards changed to reflect a plural society there has been absolutely no change. Given this lack of responsiveness the Indo-Trinidadian community has now embarked in the inauguration of their very own National Awards, rejecting the inequality of treatment by the State’s National Awards.

The critics of the Indian National Awards have expressed a fear that these awards will widen the ethnic cleavages of the society. Of course these same critics care not that for over three decades the Indian community has been falling into these cleavages. These critics do not comment on the various acts of discrimination against the Indo-Trinidadian population and how those acts contribute towards the ethnic divide. The employment practices in State bodies, for example, TTEC, WASA, CEPEP, Petrotrin, and of the closure of Caroni (1975) Ltd. The proposed selection process by COSTAATT, the scholarships given to St George’s Medical School, , the legal victory by the Maha Sabha and Khemraj Bissessar are all acts and statements and factors that have over the past two years contributed to the divide. These issues however find no sanctuary in the media, as these are issues where the Indian population is the victim. The action of GOPIO reveals that there are some who, being the target of discrimination, have refused to become a victim.