By Dr Bertrand Ramcharan
Previously Fellow of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.
India, a sprawling sub-continent of numerous ethnicities and groups, with rich varieties of language and culture, achieved its independence ‘at the stroke of the midnight hour’ on 15 August, 1947 after a decades-long struggle for its freedom from British rule led by Mahatma Gandhi. Guyana, a country with the physical size of Great Britain and a tiny population of six ethnic groups, had a tempestuous decades-long struggle for independence which it achieved on 26 May, 1966, with Forbes Burnham as Prime Minister and Cheddi Jagan as Opposition Leader. Jagan had been manipulated out of office.
At independence India was partitioned into India and Pakistan. At independence, Guyana was historically, intellectually and politically divided between Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese. India’s post-independence leaders, with Jawaharlal Nehru at the forefront, held India together as a unified secular state – something that is under challenge today. Guyana’s immediate post-independence leader, Forbes Burnham, whose party ruled for the first twenty-eight years after independence, brought about a situation in which, to quote a prominent and respected Guyanese commentator, ‘two nations inhabited one physical space’. The current government has a slogan of ‘One People’, but whether this has taken root is open to discussion.
There are two great books on India’s post-independence experience. The first is by acclaimed historian Ramachandra Guha who wrote his magisterial India after Gandhi. The second has just been published, a mammoth eight hundred page political and economic history written by Professors Devesh Kapur and Arvind Subramanian with the title, A Sixth of Humanity. Guyana has not yet been blessed with such published histories, although it has within its ranks talents such as political historian Harold Lutchman and world class economist Professor Clive Thomas for both of whom I have the highest respect.
A number of pertinent comparisons can be made from the post-independence histories of India and Guyana.We shall discuss six of these. The first two of these relate to democracy and elections. While there was a moment of stress when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi arbitrarily declared an emergency in 1975-77, independent India has held fast to democratic governance throughout its post-independence history. It has a venerable history of conducting democratic elections at the federal and the state levels.
The government of Guyana, on the other hand, trampled on democracy between 1968 and 1992, and the party responsible for this tried to do so again in 2020 with a blatant attempt to rig the elections. Elections in Guyana have invariably come under ethnic tensions: pre-elections, during electoral campaigns, and post-elections. Fortunately, the 2025 general elections ended smoothly but there have since been many shenanigans about the functioning of Parliament and respect for the role of opposition parties. Guyana’s democracy remains under great stress.
On economic policies, as related by Kapur and Subramanian (a former Economic Adviser to the Indian Government), India has had four phases: planning failure; growth without structural transformation; fiscal and redistributive measures; and skewed and ambivalent globalization. Kapur and Subramanian make the point forcefully that living standards can only be improved in a country when there is economic growth.
Guyana’s economic history saw phases of so-called socialist planning with no growth, liberalisation of the economy with resultant growth, heavy debt burdens to international creditors – which have now attenuated, and more recently massive infrastructural investments using funding from oil and gas, with persistent poverty affecting broad sections of the polity. There have been some initial handouts but so far there has not been a considered effort to tackle the root causes and the incidence of poverty.
On social inequality, India continues to experience massive problems when it comes to the plight of the untouchables (Dalits), of tribals, and of women. In Guyana, its indigenous peoples, known locally as Amerindians, continue to suffer from widespread economic and social deprivations. India’s women suffer from many social inequalities rooted in customs and practices going back centuries. Guyanese women are probably more liberated and vibrant in defending their rights, but they continue to suffer from many inequities.
On the role of the Courts, India’s Supreme Court has set a sterling example of independence and originality. Legendary Indian Chief Justice P.C. Bhagwati participated in a human rights conference in Guyana in 1996 (that I also attended) and won the admiration of the Guyanese Judiciary and Bar. Notwithstanding this, Kapur and Subramanian describe a painful picture of across the board incompetence in judicial administration and growing political interference with the judiciary. It is painful to read this and we would let the reader consult the evidence for herself or himself.
In Guyana, the Judiciary and the Bar have valiantly struggled for their independence in the face of encroachments from every political party so far in governance. Between 1964 and 1992, the ruling party proclaimed the doctrine of paramountcy of the party over all institutions including the judiciary. A former Chancellor of the Judiciary gave a notorious lecture on ‘Socialist Legality’. I interviewed him shortly after, and he clearly did not believe in the tenets he had put forth.
Yet, as I showed in my book on the Guyana Court of Appeal, which covered the period 1966 to 2000, great judges such as E.V. Luckhoo and J.O.F. Haynes, put down legal precedents that have enriched Guyana’s jurisprudence. There are, today, fine judges, led by the Acting Chancellor, who hand down courageous decisions, but are then lectured to by senior governmental leaders. This is an unfortunate phenomenon that hopefully will diminish when Guyana’s democracy is more vibrant and the Opposition is allowed to play a meaningful role in Parliament.
Finally, there is the issue of corruption. Kapur and Subramanian describe a situation in which corruption is endemic in all parts of government in India. The facts they marshal are painful to read. Alas, from what one reads, corruption seems to be endemic in governance in Guyana as well.
The six comparisons above, drawn from the experiences of India and Guyana, touched on the issues of: 1. Democracy, and 2. elections; 3. economic policies; 4. social inequalities; 5. the administration of the courts; and 6. corruption. India comes out well on democracy and elections, and perhaps on recent economic policies. On social inequalities, the administration of the courts, and corruption it comes out dismally.
Guyana does not have a stellar record when it comes to democracy and elections, economic policies, social inequalities and corruption. However, its administration of the courts is nowhere near as atrocious as documented by Kapur and Subramanian. And probably corruption in Guyana has not reached the levels documented by Kapur and Subramanian.
Ramachandra Guha has argued that there are five major fault lines in contemporary India: 1. the adverse treatment of Muslims and Christians; 2. social inequality and discrimination affecting Dalits (untouchables), tribals, and women; 3. growing environmental degradation; 4. the declining capability of public institutions such as the non-functioning of Parliament, the decline of press freedom, political encroachments on the police, and the judiciary; and 5, the rise of authoritarianism and the cult of personality.
In Guyana, there would be need to: 1. Monitor grievances by different sectors of the population; 2.Address social inequalities particularly affecting indigenous communities; 3. Always be mindful of the risks of environmental degradation; 4. Address the declining capability of public institutions, including the non-functioning of parliament and political encroachments on the police and the judiciary; and 5. Be vigilant about the cult of personality at the apex of government.
The ties between India and Guyana have been, and remain, quite close. It is appropriate to reflect on, and learn from, each other’s experiences. India’s attachment to democracy and the holding of free and fair elections is inspiring. Guyana has much to learn from India in these areas. These are areas where the two countries can engage in beneficial exchanges and cooperation.
Discussion