Abstract :
It is remarkable that in three Indentured Indian Diaspora countries where the Indians were the largest group and/or were projected to become the majority their political integration became problematic. In Fiji, Guyana and Suriname the Indian population was politically marginalized in due time, while they were rather successful in the social-economic domain. This political marginalisation leads to a huge emigration of the Indians prior and after the independence of these countries. These Indian emigrants and their descendants became also social economically successful in the ‘developed’ countries. However, they are a tiny minority in these countries. Furthermore, this emigration leads to the further weakening of the political power of Indians in Fiji, Guyana and Suriname. In this article we describe briefly the political history of the Indians of these societies. While Guyana and Suriname as neighbouring countries are to a large extent comparable, Fiji differs on some characteristics. Guyana and Suriname has a history of slavery and a population of African descent, while slavery was absent in Fiji. Fiji has an indigenous population and is ethnically less diverse than Guyana. Suriname is a more ethnically diverse society than Guyana and has a smaller population. But Indians are in all three countries a substantially group. The similarities and differences will be explored. We tentatively explain why the Indians became politically marginalised. The interplay between group factors – relating to their Indian heritage- and the attitude and perception of the dominant ethnic group was decisive .
Introduction :
It is remarkable that in three Indentured Indian Diaspora countries where the Indians were the largest group and/or were projected to become the majority their political integration became problematic. In Fiji, Guyana and Suriname the Indian population was politically marginalized in due time, while they were rather successful in the social-economic domain. This political marginalisation leads to a huge emigration of the Indians prior and after the independence of these countries. These Indian emigrants and their descendants became also social economically successful in the ‘developed’ countries. However, they are a tiny minority in these countries. Furthermore, this emigration leads to the further weakening of the political power of Indians in Fiji, Guyana and Suriname. In this article we describe briefly the political history of the Indians of these societies. While Guyana and Suriname as neighbouring countries are to a large extent comparable, Fiji differs on some characteristics. Guyana and Suriname has a history of slavery and a population of African descent, while slavery was absent in Fiji. Fiji has an indigenous population and is ethnically less diverse than Guyana. Suriname is a more ethnically diverse society than Guyana and has a smaller population. But Indians are in all three countries a substantially group. The similarities and differences will be explored. We tentatively explain why the Indians became politically marginalised. The interplay between group factors – relating to their Indian heritage- and the attitude and perception of the dominant ethnic group was decisive
Between 1834 and 1917 more than one million Indians were shipped from (British) India to various Colonies to work as Indentured labourers. Besides the British Colonies like Mauritius, South Africa, Fiji, Trinidad, Guyana, Jamaica and some small islands in the Caribbean, the Dutch Colony Suriname and French Colonies Guadeloupe, Martinique and Reunion (formerly Bourbon) were in due time populated by Indians. Although roughly one quarter to one third of them returned back to India, the majority settled permanently in these Colonies. But these Colonies had already immigrants or an indigenous population. Thus, the Indians became part of multi–ethnic societies. All these Colonies became independent or became a provincial part of France after the Second World War. The Indians became citizens of the countries, but their political integration turned out in due time to be problematic. There are numerous studies analysing and describing the Indian population in these countries and their position in the different domains of society. Thus the position they have acquired in the social economic and political sphere and how their culture developed in relation to their Indian cultural heritage have been extensively studied. Also research has been done on the relations between Indians and the other ethnic groups in these multi-ethnic societies. There are some comprehensive studies of these countries and the Indian population (see: Dabydeen & Samaroo 1987, High Level Committee on Indian Diaspora 2001, Jayaram 2004, Lal 2006). There are also comparative studies between the different countries and the (political) position of the Indians. For example between Mauritius and Trinidad (Eriksen 1992), Guyana and Trinidad (Cross 1968), Trinidad and Malaysia (Jain 1989), Guyana and Fiji (Jayawardena 1980), Malaysia and Guyana (Milne 1977), between Trinidad, Guyana and Suriname (Choenni 1982) and between Suriname, Guyana and Jamaica (Gowricharn 2013). Some studies compare the Indian diaspora in the Caribbean with the Indian Diaspora in Africa (Dubey 2004).
Read the entire paper here :
https://gcids2017.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Chan-E.-S.-Choenni-Full-Paper.pdf
