Dear Sir,

The letter "Injunction on cremation site had nothing to do with religion" (SN 4/10/99) ostensibly written by a Guyanese-Indian Muslim who has chosen to remain anonymous is an ad hominem diatribe. The fact that you have allowed my accuser to hide implicates you in the mud-slinging. A minimum standard of fairness would require that a person be allowed to know his accuser. How does one respond to what is essentially a stab in the dark? Yet I have my doubts about the alleged authorship of the letter for the simple reason that I have known Muslims to be generally blessed with the virtue of fearlessness. If I am not mistaken, the anonymity of an accuser is a violation of the Muslim law of evidence. In Hindu jurisprudence, according to the law-giver Atri, the accuser must face the accused.

Did the injunction have nothing to do with religion? We Hindus have been performing the sacrament of the last rites at the Ruimzeight foreshore for around thirty years. The site is a sacred one to us, even more sacred than the temples in which we worship. And a judge orders a prohibition on cremation, a major religious practice of a major religious group in this country and the letter writer claims that it has nothing to do with religion!

The letter also carries with it the imprimatur of the present political directorate and attempts to hide the principal issues with which I was concerned confusing them with fabrication of "the great animosity which was directed against all Muslims." My concerns in the interview (CNS, Justice For All, 3/26) focused on the involvement of the La Jalousie/Nouvelle Flanders NDC, the RDC #3, the Central Board of Health in the injunction. The known facts are as follows.

1. Mr Karamat, a single individual, unilaterally applied for permission to relocate the cremation site, a site used for over thirty years by thousands Hindus of the West Demerara, East Bank and East Coast and Georgetown. Apparently at the behest of this individual the NDC, without any evidence of consultation, on August 13, 1997 applied to the Central Board of Health for permission to relocate the cremation site.

2. Upon approval having being granted by the Central Board of Health, the NDC applied to the Sea Defence Board on September 11, 1998 (copied to the REO Region #3) for permission to relocate the site. It should be noted that the chairman of the NDC, Mr Guyadeen, has claimed on national television (CNS Justice For All 3/26) that his signature on the September 11 letter to the Sea Defence Board is a forgery. On Thursday March 12, 1998 Mr Joshua Safeek of Tropical Engineering Group, Inc., apparently on behalf of Mr Karamat, met with Mr Pariag Sukhai, Chairman RDC #3, at his (Mr Sukhai's ) home. Following this meeting a letter dated March 14 was sent to Mr Sukhai requesting permission to relocate the cremation site. Finally, on July 17, 1998 the RDC granted permission to begin work for the relocation of the site.

What I find truly outrageous and what is indicative of the extreme contempt that the authorities the NDC, the RDC, the Central Board of Health and the judicial system have for Hindus is that up to this stage there is no evidence of consultation with the Hindu people of the area. What is even more contemptuous, as it is inexplicable, is the fact that none of these authorities sought to refer the matter to any of the national Hindu organisations including the Guyana Hindu Dharmic Sabha closely connected with the present administration.

While we contemplate all these anti-Hindu measures, we must also keep in mind that at least three Hindu families were denied the fundamental human and sacred right to a central religious belief and practice. The mortuary rites for Hindus called the antyeshti samskara, literally the last rites, for the disposal of corpses are the most solemn and sacred event in the life of a Hindu. While death in itself presents its own problems, imagine the deep psychological disorientation, religious trauma, and the emotional hurt that these families must have experienced to have been forced to carry out what for them had to be an act of sacrilege: burial instead of cremation. If such a denial of fundamental rights had happened to any other religious community, including the one of which the letter writer is a member, there would have been a certain outburst of rage and protest in Guyana, if not more. It is in the light of this outrage and violation that our Guyanese Indian Muslim accuses me and others of exploiting the situation, deliberately confusing what I said with the utterances of others who were interviewed.

The entire episode must have come as a rude awakening to the Hindus of Guyana. We have always allowed ourselves to be taken for granted, with the infinite ability to absorb one eye-pass after another. While we must be free to associate with any political party of our choice, we cannot allow any affiliation to silence us when the Dharma is threatened. Our loyalty must be to the Hindu Dharma, not to any political party or government. For one day we may very well wake up to find more than the right to cremate taken away from us.

Yours faithfully,
Swami Aksharananda

The Hindus in Guyana should applaud Swami Aksharananda for his bold and fearless stand against injustices done to Hindus.

The Ruimzeight cremation site was taken away by order of court from Hindus and relatives of dead bodies could not have taken their dead to this sacred place to dispose of it during that period all because of one resident of that area who is a non-Hindu.

This episode could have involved the regional administration, the Ministry of Health and the sea defence board. It appears as if all these organisations have colluded to deprive the Hindus of some of their sacred rites. Swami Aksharananda had challenged this court decision and the order was reversed.

We have many pandits in Guyana yet none see it necessary to speak out against this gross disrespect. In Trinidad a cremation site could accommodate at least five bodies cremating at the same time, each dimension properly demarcated. Proper seating accommodation and parking are provided. In Guyana one of our Hindu leaders who is a senior minister of government claimed his sincere interest for most Hindus throughout Guyana yet where is his concern for our welfare. While in opposition he called for so many things for Hindus now he is in government what has he done. All he is doing is following the noble Swami all over this country to influence the Hindus against this revered Indian monk.

Please Panditji we need a proper cremation site at Ruimzeight. Let's get modern as we approach the 21st century. Let's take a page from Trinidad, a country that you are very familiar with.

Yours faithfully,
Pt. Krishna Persaud

Dear Editor,

Permit me to respond to the letter, "Injunction on cremation site had nothing to do with religion," by "A Guyanese Indian Muslim" (GAI). As a Hindu, I strongly object to the last two paragraphs of GAI’s letter, because as a Muslim he has no moral authority to make pronouncement on the actions of Swami Aksharananda – the most senior Hindu authority in Guyana.

GAI should know that cremation is a very sacred thing to Hindus. The fact that Mr. Karamat has filed an injunction, to restrain Hindus from performing the sacred cremation rite at that site, is an insult to the Hindu religion and the Hindu people of Guyana. This is a religious matter; how can cremation not be a religious matter? The claims of stench and smoke, are an excuse and a further insult to the sentiments of Hindus. If Mr. Pariag Sukhai, the PPP’s regional chairman of Region 3, affix his signature to the documents seeking to stop cremation at the site as claimed, then it tells a lot about his Hinduness.

As a Hindu, I feel that GAI is not only an apologist for Mr. Karamat, but he is also bent on denigrating one of Sanatana Dharma’s highest authority – a Swami. Swamis are not individuals who sit and do not act while Hindus are suffering. The great Swami Dayananda, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Chinmayananda, and a host of others have left a powerful legacy of fighting for the upliftment of Hindus and Indians. The fact that Swami Aksharananda has followed in the footsteps of other great Swamis is probably a problem for the oppressors. Swami Vivekananda asked the Hindus to shed their blood for freedom against their oppressors; Dayananda fearlessly debated anyone in public. Our Bhagvan Krishna, presided over a great battle to destroy the oppressors. So, what nonsense is GAI talking, that, "this Swami is involved in politics." All Hindus have to be involved in politics – this is the most important thing that governs their lives. Or is GAI a PPP apologist as well, who is afraid of men like Swamiji?

Finally, I find this Muslim (GAI) very insulting of Swami Aksharananda when he states, "Does he think that spending a few years in India and donning a saffron dhoti and kurta makes one a Swami?" I wonder if there is no proper Hindu of the Kastriya tradition left in Guyana; nobody, especially a non-Hindu should be allowed to insult a Hindu monk, especially some one of the high esteem of Swami Aksharananda. It is this Muslim writer who by his very actions, is destroying the relative harmony with which Hindus and Muslims have been living in Guyana. GAI owes Swami Aksharananda and the Hindu community an apology. Swami Aksharananda will go down in history as one of the greatest Hindus of Guyana. Yes, a Swami is a renounced individual, he does not have to please the Tom, Dick and Hariram, that is what makes him so potent, he is not afraid to stand up to the authority of the day. He is an agent of Dharma and a warrior for his people. Fight on Swamiji.

Yours faithfully,
Pt. Radhharaman Upadhyaya