You are hereAnand's Collection / Radica reigns
Radica reigns
Panday’s call for a re-definition of one of our nation’s watchwords that was drummed into my ear in primary school was shocking and amusing. He said Indians no longer wanted to be “tolerated,” but “appreciated.” His statement marked the critical social junction where Indians were numerically no longer a statistical “recalcitrant minority.”
The country had changed to the point where the unthinkable had occurred: an Indo-Trinidadian Prime Minister had been elected. These thoughts flooded my intoxicated mind at the Chutney-Soca Monarch Finals in Skinner Park, San Fernando, after a conversation I had with genius promoters, Mr and Mrs George Singh, who conceptualised the Indian response to the traditional Afro-based national calypso monarch.
Chutney was no longer rising; it had risen, to the point where it surpassed the height of our State-sponsored premier national competition, the Calypso Monarch. The racial mixture of the massive crowd at Skinner Park bore testimony to the fact that the Chutney-Soca Monarch had eclipsed its national counterpart. The Indian response and cultural reaction to the exclusion and ridicule of the Indo-Trini population from mainstream calypso and soca events had exploded. Calypsoes were characterised by distinct pro-PNM, pro-African sentiments. How is it possible to have “national” competitions for half-century that did not reflect the Indian presence?
An Indo-Trini has probably never made it to the Calypso Monarch finals. The sight of Afro-Trini competitors in the finals of the Chutney-Soca Monarch has been a regular occurrence since its inception. The sight and sound of Alison Hinds embracing Drupattee Ramgoonai while singing the remixed version of the classic Roll up the tassa was incredible. The Afro and Indian-Trini crowd went wild. The reaction of the Pleasantville crew to Lalchan “Hunter” Babwah’s runaway hit, Jep Sting Naina, heralded the dawn of a new era. We had moved from the Mighty Trini’s Curry Tabanca and Ricky Jai’s Hold d Lata Mangashcaar and Sunny Mann’s Lotay-Laa to the The Jep Sting.
The faceless star of the show, however, was Radica. The crowd grooved, wined, jammed to the strains of the true story of unforgettable true love. The real-life Indian movie romance has captured the imagination of the population. Ken Salick’s Radica appeared on the front page with an enthralling story of how the tears flowed freely when she watched her ex-husband publicly rehash his heartache. The ongoing national romance between Radica and Salick has mesmerised the nation and reduced many to tears. He used to ride his bicycle up and down the road just to catch a glimpse at her while she would do extra outdoor chores to catch a glimpse of him on his bicycle. She was reduced to tears as she watched him pay loving tribute to her on the national stage at Skinner Park.
Radica said she watched Salick ride through the village with a hero’s welcome, but couldn’t step forward and embrace him. Upon hearing this, Salick immediately declared his undying love and promised her a share of his prize money, because she inspired the song. The nation waits with bathed breath, because both Radica and Ken are single. Would we hear “Radica, I glad yuh cum back” next year? So what do we do when society moves beyond the government-sponsored “national” competition? Must we resist the spontaneous urge to dance and sing about Radica and Naina? Must we ignore Alison Hinds and Drupattee Ramgoonai?
Panday was right: The “recalcitrant minority” will no longer accept simple tolerance. The Indo-Trini demands appreciation and equal space. He/she is no longer content to be “wined on.” They simply want to “wine” and “wine on.” The Soca-Chutney Monarch is more reflective of our society in every respect. Both contestants and crowd reflect and embrace the diversity that is Trinidad and Tobago. Traditional Carnival is dying, because of its failure to move past the narrow socio-political confines of the PNM base. Indo-Trinis finally said “enough is enough” and refused to patronise calypso tents where they would be insulted and ridiculed and be expected to “fake laugh.”
Their children didn’t deserve to pass Common Entrance for prestige schools, Oma was a kitchen mechanic and Panday was the only raw material calypsonians could find while they studiously avoided criticising Manning. The art form was misused for what bordered on racial and political hatred. It became a one-sided political weapon for the PNM disguised as social commentary with few exceptions. Salick said he recorded 108 songs during his bout of “tabanca.” He is our very own Slumdog Millionaire. And one can only hope that some producer steps forward to give life to these songs, for there are many more like Salick who simply need a chance on the big stage to prove their worth. He is the undoubtedly the Indian Road March winner for 2009!
By Anand Ramlogan 2009-02-15
- Printer-friendly version
- 1137 reads
Reading the above somehow took my mind back to Plessy v Ferguson 1896. See also Homer Plessy.
In essence the story was:
"Although Plessy was born a free person and was one-eighth black and seven-eighths white, under a Louisiana law enacted in 1890, he was classified as an African-American, and thus required to sit in the "colored" car. When, in an act of planned disobedience, Plessy refused to leave the white car and move to the colored car, he was arrested and jailed. In his case, Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Louisiana, Plessy argued that the East Louisiana Railroad had denied him his rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. However, the judge presiding over his case, John Howard Ferguson, ruled that Louisiana had the right to regulate railroad companies as long as they operated within state boundaries. Plessy sought a writ of prohibition."
The matter reached the US Supreme Court which ruled:
"We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."
The judgment appeared strange then as it is now. However, it was legally correct. The court considered a specific issue - a specific point of law. However, there was a Constitutional crisis becuase in reality (outside of law) Plessy's situation on one form of public transport could not be dealt with separately. There were other situations that clearly pointed to inequalities. But what was even more strange was the judgment which led to the doctrine of 'Separate but equal'.
If memory serves, I think this had recently reared it's head on T&T soil and in the UK - not in the same way as it applied in the US. Can separation every truly provide equality? A very difficult one to untangle, because it cuts to the nature of why the separation needs to be enforced in the first instance.
Are so-called Indians (i.e. indo-trinidadians) being treated separately but equally?