Dear Editor,
I write regarding Dr Devanand Bhagwan’s letter “Hindustani, not Girmitiya, is the correct and respectful designation for descendants of Indian indentured labourers in the Caribbean” (Stabroek NewsDecember 12, 2024). I commend him for sharing his knowledge on aspects of Indo-Guyanese ancestral history based on his decades of living in India.
In his letter he writes “Intellectuals such as Ravi and Ganga must exercise precision in using historical terminology. Referring to Caribbean indentured labourers as Girmitiyas inadvertently distorts the historical and cultural specificity of the term. Instead, Hindustani remains the correct and respectful designation for the descendants of Indian indentured labourers in the Caribbean”. I share Dr Bhagwan’s concern for “precision in using historical terminology”.I look forward to seeing Mr Ravi Dev’s and Dr Ganga Ramdas’s responses. However, I have a different view than Dr Bhagwan, and for this reason I have decided to offer my views on this matter.
Wikipedia, under the caption “Names of India” states “The Republic of India has two principal official short names, each of which is historically significant: India and Bharat. A third name, Hindustan, is also used commonly when Indians speak among themselves. The usage of “Bhārat”, “Hindustān”, or “India” depends on the context and language of conversation…”Hindustan” is still commonly used in the subcontinent to refer to the modern day Republic of India by Hindustanispeakers”.
Indeed the word “Hindustani” refers to a person from Hindustan (India). However, as the last sentence of the preceding paragraph shows, it also refers to the language. So, are Indo-Surinamese called “Hindustanis” because their ancestors came from Hindustan (as implied by Dr Bhagwan in his letter) or because they continue to speak “Hindustani” to this day? If it is the latter, then the terminology would not apply to Indo-Guyanese since the language “Hindustani” never gained prominence and has been extinct in Guyana for decades.
Another point to consider is that “Hindustani”, as a person, does not specifically refer to a person who was taken under indentureship to work in the European colonies. The Indian nationals who came to Guyana and opened clothing stores in the 1950s and 1960s (Thanis, Kirpalanis, Bhojwanis, and others) would be “Hindustanis” but certainly do not fall in the same category as the Indians who were brought under contract to work in the sugar plantations. Despite its perceived limitation, it seems that “Girmitiya” is more reflective of the shared experience of the indentured Indians across the globe.
The terminology that emerged in the Bhojpuri region of India (the area where the majority of the indentured were recruited) is “Bidesia”. In an article titled “Bidesia: Migration, Change, and Folk Culture”
(https://www.iias.asia/sites/default/files/2020-11/IIAS_NL30_12.pdf ) Dr Badri Narayan Tiwari, Lecturer at the G.B. Pant Social Science Institute in Allahabad (city now called Pyaragraj) Uttar Pradesh, a major part of the Bhojpuri region of India, writes “Bidesia was the affectionate form of address given to the migrants by loved ones who were left behind in the homeland, and so lends its name to the new folk culture that emerged out of this migration, bidesia folk culture. This folk culture is represented in many forms, such as nautanki (musical theatre), dramas, folk songs, and folk paintings. It is a complete folk culture, or holistic folklore tradition, which developed as an outcome of the vacuum caused by the departure of the migrant Bhojpuris”
Dr Tiwari’s article continues “It seems that the use of the word bidesia for migrant labourers in Bhojpuri folk songs began after the year 1837, when migration from the region began”. One of the songs, reflecting the lament of loss and grief, translates as “It is neither the train nor the ship that is our enemy but rather the money that compels our husbands to migrate to other lands”. Interestingly, the first batch of indentured Indians arrived in Guyana in 1838.
I am not a historian or a cultural anthropologist. However, considering the context of indentureship and the experiences of the indentured in the new lands and of the family and friends left behind, I hope Dr Bhagwan could investigate this topic further and inform us of his findings.
Harry Hergash
