The real pappyshow

Dr Eric Williams, the nation’s first Prime Minister, made a promise in 1977 to Dr Wahid Ali that the name of the highest national award would be changed from a Christian icon to one that would be acceptable to all peoples of the nation. Prime Minister Basdeo Panday kept the hope of a change alive with the 1997 commission of Chief Justice Michael De La Bastide that reviewed the national awards. This commission supported the name change as well as widening the scope of the national awards substantially. In September 2004 Prime Minister Patrick Manning slammed all the doors of hope with the post cabinet statement that the Trinity Cross will stay and there is no interest in examining the process of the national awards. This callous statement by the Prime Minister has had a tremendous impact on the Indo-Trinidadian population. The non-Christian communities such as Hindus, Muslims, Orishas, and Bahai now know that they will have no place at the table with regards to the nation’s highest form of recognition.

The nation now knows that no pundit or imam, no matter how much they have done for Trinidad and Tobago, will ever be able to accept the nation’s highest award. For this we have to thank Prime Minister Manning. The Prime Minister however at the press conference failed to address the other critical point of the debate surrounding the national awards — the social exclusion of Indo-Trinidadians for the past three decades. Statistics revealed that for the Trinity Cross only eight were awarded to Indo-Trinidadians out of the 65 given. Out of these eight there were some three that were ex-officio, ie the award came with a job such as Chief Justice (Hyatali, Hassanali, and Sharma). This means really that only five out of the 65 were awarded to Indo-Trinidadians.

The statistics for the Humming Bird and Chaconia Medals were equally as dismal for Indo-Trinidadians. These statistics have been repeated much this week, but they are worthy of repeating many times more as they show with hard facts the manner in which Indo-Trinidadians have been discriminated by the State for decades at least in one particular area. Yet Prime Minister Manning in his post-cabinet pronouncements failed to address this glaring imbalance. The other substantial issue raised during this debate is the whole issue of the process and transparency of the national awards itself. While it is known that the Chairman of the national awards committee is the Chief Justice, the other members are not well known. If the names of these members have been published it was perhaps so long ago that they remain veiled in secrecy. It is also interesting to note that the committee members themselves are not independent but subject to the whims of the Prime Minister. The recommendations made by the awards committee have to get the ‘blessings’ of the Prime Minister before they become public.

Should the awards committee recommend a name that does not find favour with the Prime Minister then that name of course will be struck off. It is irrelevant how deserving the person recommended is. Perhaps the better-suited name should be the Prime Minister’s Award rather than the National Awards. The national awards process is so flawed it is a shame. It is sad that the persons in charge now do not even care that the nation is aware of this fact. The committee normally advertises earlier in the year for nominations for the various awards to be given. This nomination process has a stipulated nomination date deadline as is logically accepted. If this is the case how can there be persons being given a national award for an event only mere days for the ceremony itself?

This clearly implies that the process is not solely dependent on the nomination process alone for the selection of awardees. Then it is in the Prime Minister’s prerogative to nominate and award persons of his choice. Therefore the argument that advocates that Indians were not nominated simply does not hold on this point alone. Even if Indians were not nominated the State has a responsibility for social cohesion and as such the State should have actively pursued a policy of including that section of the national community by including the process even without their nomination. It is perhaps this year’s choices that have contributed significantly in substantially cheapening the national awards like no other previous years. This year a self-confessed friend of the Prime Minister and a frequent radio caller supportive of the ruling party were given national awards. In 2003 another friend of the Prime Minister and ruling party was also awarded the highest award.

The previous year the founder of the ruling party was also given the highest award. On the surface the reason for these persons being given a national award is circumspect at least but clearly political. Indeed the reason and criteria used to select those persons receiving national awards are never given to the public. The public is not educated about these persons and the reasons why they were given a national award. This level of transparency perhaps is uncomfortable as Hindus receiving the highest award. The Prime Minister further adds insult to injury by stating at the post cabinet press conference that the national awards are not a priority of the government. This implies that the government cannot ‘chew gum and walk at the same time.’

Surely the government can address a series of issues at the same time in varying degrees. The Prime Minister ignoring the problems associated with the national awards does not make them disappear nor do they make them fictitious. Instead what it makes is a more resolved Indo-Trinidadian community determined to established their own national awards since it is unambiguous that the Prime Minister will not be including them into the State’s national awards. The Indian National Awards is now poised to become a reality on the night of August 30 2005. This award will challenge the national award on an annual basis.