Indo-Trinidadians and others

The assertion reflected a candour not normally associated with those with real wealth and economic clout.

The apology was motivated not primarily by any carelessness of expression but by the violation of the norm that those who exercise significant economic power do so unobtrusively and self-effacingly.

In my columns over the years, I have argued that, in order to obtain a more accurate profile of ownership of economic assets in the country, the considerable involvement in the economy not only of Syrians but those of Chinese, French Creole and mixed origins should be researched.

If such research were to be done, I feel certain that it would put to rest once and for all the enduring myth of Indo-Trinidadian domination of the economy.

This false alarm was first raised in 1976 by JA Bain, prominent member of the then politico-bureaucratic elite.

He claimed that Indo-Trinidadians enjoyed overwhelming ownership of all business, land and property in the country and were vying for political power.

Later, Selwyn Ryan and others would attempt to give credence to this assertion by superficial research, questionable data and disingenuous conclusions.

In a column published on June 9, 2013, Ryan would imply that there was Indo-Trinidadian dominance in business. He stated: “Recent analysis based on the 2010 Population Census indicates that there are many more businesses owned by Indo-Trinidadians than by Afro- Trinis.

The percentages were 30 percent owned by Afros, 50 percent owned by Indos, five percent by mixed elements and five percent by others.” These statistics give a totally erroneous impression of dominance of the whole economy. To rely on the Population Census report on business ownership is to proceed from rather shaky premises.

Even so, a full picture is not presented.

No mention is made of the kind of businesses to which reference is made, what is the value of assets employed in them, what are the sectors of the economy in which these businesses operate, who are the mixed elements and who are the others and what kind of businesses of what value are owned by them.

Two years later (13/9/15) Ryan would add all commerce, significant sections of the banking sector and even hydrocarbons to the overall area of Indo-Trinidadian dominance.

If the term “commerce” referred to retail trade, then this constitutes a mere three percent of the GDP of the country. From general observation it would appear that the imputation of Indo-Trinidadian economic dominance is groundless.

I am of the view that the notion of Indo-Trinidadian dominance is grounded in the invidious comparison with the stake of Afro-Trinidadians in the economy.

As between the two major ethnic groups, casual observation would indicate that Indo-Trinidadians do enjoy a stronger presence than Afro-Trinidadians in small and medium-scale business in agriculture, retail trade, manufacturing and services, as well as rural and semi-urban land and property ownership.

However, such a circumstance hardly translates to dominance of the national economy, especially if we take into account asset ownership in the energy sector, finance, large-scale manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing and other services, construction as well as urban real estate and the involvement of the State in the economy.

It appears that Afro-Trinidadians’ antipathy and animosity are primarily directed against Indo- Trinidadians as having arrived later and having been the recipients of unfair advantages. The considerable economic presence of Syrians, Chinese, French Creoles and the mixed elements tends to be ignored.

But the Indo-Trinidadian e conomi c dominance thesis nicely supports the caveat that they should not enjoy political power as well.