15 June 2000, 807 words
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "identity" as "absolute sameness; individuality, personality".
For the ethnocentrists among us, it is only the first definition that applies. This is especially true of the Indocentrists, as represented by every Hindu columnist writing in the daily newspapers. Read Rajnie Ramlakhan and you know the opinions of all the other Hindu columnists. Read one of Kamal Persad's articles and you know everything he has to say in every other column.
The main mantra of these ideologues is that of identity. "People of Indian origin should have no confusion over the issue of identity or definition of self," writes Persad. "This does not diminish one's identity as Trinidadian, except in a few cases."
Those "few cases" include other columnists of East Indian descent, such as Raffique Shah, Vernon Ramesar and myself. According to Ramlakhan, we belong to "a minority group that rejects its Indianness [and] assume false faces."
But exactly what an "Indian" identity means is never really defined by any of these ideologues (and for damn sure they never say what a Trinidadian identity is). In India, those who push "Indiannesss" are generally viewed as a fundamentalist fringe; even the ruling BJP downplays their presence in the party. And India, like the United States or Trinidad, is very much a multiplicity of cultures, and those cultures are constantly undergoing a process of transmutation.
"The essential quality of living is change," says a character in John Wyndham's classic science-fiction novel The Chrysalids, a book about religious arrogance. "The static, the enemy of change, is the enemy of life."
That is why the Hindu ideologues like to pretend that Hinduism has been in its same form since the dawn of time. It is also why they never define how they are Trinidadian. None of them really believes in a Trinidadian identity. That is why they always call themselves "Indian" instead of Indo-Trinidadian. It is also why they insist that Indian culture is part of Trinidadian culture. Strictly speaking, however, that cannot be true.
Being Trinidadian can only be defined by what is not purely ancestral. Whatever is purely African, Indian, European, Chinese, Syrian or whatever is, by definition, not Trinidadian. "Trinidadian" refers only to what is indigenous to our society, from steelband to doubles, soca to chutney, Carnival to Hosay, wining to steupsing - in other words, cultural items that have evolved from ancestral traits to become definably Trini. Thus, every person who was born and bred in Trinidad must be primarily Trinidadian, no matter how self-consciously they try to be modified by ancestral harking.
And there is one quality even more important, defined by Derek Walcott in a 1992 interview: "It's wonderful to keep the heritage and even the distinction of identities in terms of culture," he said, "but when it's ultimately said...the composite nature of Trinidad...is what it means to be Trinidadian."
So the sociological aspect of having an identity is not as clear-cut as the ideologues try to imply. But it is the psychological aspect I find more interesting, because I can't see that this identity they are so proud of gives them any personal advantage in life. Indeed, it seems to have the opposite effect.
"The final injustice of historical injustice is that it does not necessarily endow its victims with anything except a sense of their victimization," writes American literary critic Harold Bloom. He was speaking of postmodernist writers, but his comment pretty much sums up the Hindu columnists.
In a column titled "The Indian media presence", for example, Indira Maharaj, who only recently began sounding like all the rest, writes, "The exposure and visibility of Indian culture...has resulted in a greater confidence level among Indians. There is a greater confidence and pride, among all, Hindus, Muslims and Christians, in their culture and their religions."
It seems to me, though, that if you are the kind of person who needs media visibility to bolster your confidence, then you never will be truly confident. And insecurity, far more than Hinduism, seems to be the defining trait of these columnists. Thus, where their supposedly strong identity should lend them tranquility, one instead finds bitterness. Where identity should give them self-assurance, one finds paranoia. Where identity should make them tolerant, one finds thinly-disguised bigotry.
By contrast, Ramesar and Shah seem to be self-confident men of tolerant outlook (though not for b.s.) who, despite their "false faces", do not push lies, half-truths and innuendoes, as Ramlakhan and Devant Maharaj are wont to do. Ramesar's and Shah's prose also expresses a lot more character than Persad's or Ravi-Ji's, because a strong identity can only come from its second definition: "individuality, personality".
And what about my identity? Well, don't tell anyone, but I'm actually a Dizzle from the planet Karklebon.
Copyright ©2000 Kevin Baldeosingh