Since ancient times, names have been considered indicators of racial, ethnic or socio-cultural identity. Names have also come to signify the status of various groups in the social order and thus as a basis for assigning superior or inferior designations and assumptions about where socio-economic and political power should lie.
When Indian indentured immigrants (most of whom were Hindu) arrived in Trinidad during the second half of the 19th century, they were treated as indentured laborers (scabs, according to Selwyn Cudjoe) contracted to perform menial tasks in the economy and thus to occupy the lowest rung of the social ladder. This was under the British colonial regime. No wonder Indian names were distorted, misspelled, mispronounced, trivialized and mocked. Since then, people of Indian origin have been fighting for acceptance, legitimacy, inclusion and equality in society. The war has continued under the Afro-Trinidadian dominated regime, which inherited power from the British in a socio-cultural environment that continues to evolve.
In the recent war of words between Camille Robinson-Regis and Kamla Persad-Bissessar, it is clear, although not adequately publicized, that Robinson-Regis’s repeated references to Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s full name in an atmosphere politically charged were intended not only to ridicule and thus provide base entertainment for tribal forces, but also intended to cement support against the other side and signal the limits to which the bearers of such names should aspire.
The Express editorial of 7 June 2022 avoided this when it said: “Robinson-Regis may plead not guilty on purpose (unlikely) but the reaction of the crowd suggested they had read the code, recognized the joke and were in on it. “The editorial continued: ‘Hindi names are not the only ones used to comedic and sometimes derogatory effect in this country.’
Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s response to this apparent attempt at mockery and race-baiting (as noted by Merle Hodge) was legitimate, although it went to unnecessary lengths in invoking the slave-master connection. She may argue that it was necessary to respond as forcefully and painfully as possible, but this betrayed a lack of subtlety on her part and an innocence or disregard for the current political and socio-cultural context, trends and influences. If her response was calculated to resonate with the Hindu community and portray her as a champion defender, it is good to recognize some initial changes in that community, especially among the younger elements, and to gauge the impact of her statement on the population. wide. .
Hindus form a minority of the population (25 percent) and the numbers are dwindling. The complication of naming in our multi-racial and multi-ethnic society is evident. In Kamla’s case, her claim to have been converted to the Baptist faith raises the question of whether she was assigned a non-Hindu name and, if so, how it was used. In contact with the missionary efforts of the Presbyterian Church over many decades, many Hindus converted and adopted Christian names in search of status, job opportunities, or attraction to the tenets of another faith. They constitute an influential sector of the population.
Recently, there has been migration of thousands of Hindus to Pentecostal churches (one church in every Indo-Trinidadian community) and we are not sure to what extent name changes have been made in this transition. What is certain is that this migration involves a cultural diminution of the Hindu community, given that religious rites and practices are the cultural core of Hinduism and also given the deep hostility of Pentecostals to anything Hindu.
Recently, the local social environment and more North American cultural influence have motivated hundreds of Hindu families to assign modern names to their female children such as Traci/y, Courteney, Britney, Chelsea, Alexis, Steffi/y, Samantha and Bridgette, among others. This is part of a developing trend and one wonders about the association of these names with cultural preferences. To add to the confusion, there are many members of the mixed Indo/Afro community who bear a Hindu or Muslim surname, but the intensity of identification with that surname and its cultural connotation is an unknown factor.
Kamla’s assertion of names being taken by slave masters will be offensive to those with such names in her party, though they may not openly express their displeasure. In addition, there will be an alienation of potential support for the UNC from Afro-Trinidads and mixed elements opposed to the PNM, thus reducing the electoral prospects for the party. She can argue that she is fighting for a higher principle and not succumbing to political expediency. However, she is the leader of a party that aspires to power and has an obligation to members to do and say things to preserve the party’s integrity and strengthen its political prospects.
Not to be outdone in drumming up support for the tribe, Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley jumps into the exchanges by referring to Kunta Kinte, who is said to have been swayed into accepting an Anglo-Saxon name. Of course, some African slaves may have been brutalized in their refusal to change their names, but many others did so voluntarily, while some were indifferent. I was in Canada in 1997 when the TV series Roots with Kunta Kinte aired. The show had a large viewership, but doubts were expressed by scholars about the authenticity of some of the scenes and exchanges portrayed.
In this context, one must ask what should be the role of the Prime Minister. Is he simply the leader of a tribe whose job it is to keep the tribal fires burning and consolidate party loyalty or is he saying and doing things to bring about a greater understanding of the complexities of T&T’s cultural diversity and to encourage national cohesion. Of course, Dr Keith Rowley is not the last cast. I am sure that Camille Robinson-Regis has not been reprimanded or called to account as happened to the author of the “Calcutta Ship” statement or the authors of the “Yellow Sari” sketch.
Returning to Kamla’s response, the question for responsible citizens is: do you respond to attempts at ridicule and humiliation by resorting to counter-jokes and potentially offensive retorts? She could have achieved her goal by simply saying, “I am proud of my ancestral name and heritage, but are you proud of yours?” and let the implications simmer.
Indeed, one L Siddartha Orie (Express 8/6/22) referred to my experience when my proposal to declare May 30 a public holiday known as Indian Arrival Day came up for debate for the sixth time in 1995. The debate degenerated into an argument about ethnicity, tribalism, designations and perceived grievances rather than focusing on recognizing a remarkable landmark in the composite history of our society. My response to the announcement of my Hindu name by a PNM MP was simply to ask the question, “What is your African name?” which had the desired effect.
To give a twist to this matter, the announcement of his name by Mr. Orie is revealing. He consistently refuses to state his first name, which is Lester and begins with the letter L. Is it that knowing a Christian with a Western name will indicate some failure on his part? The name Siddhartha was the first revered princely name of the Buddha. It seems Mr. Orie’s parents had astronomical aspirations for their newborn.
Trevor Sudama
Saint Ferdinand
