In 1845, the first Indians arrived on the shores of Trinidad. The men were strong, the women beautiful, and neither had lice. Although India was a well-ordered society where everyone was happy, the Indians came here because of their adventurous spirit to save the sugar industry. The men worked hard, saved money, and never killed their wives. Every Indian child was above average.
I am writing this correct history of Indians because Maha Sabha head Sat Maharaj last week announced that he would be giving $100,000 toward the writing of an “authentic history” of Indians. While I know that Sat said that the funding would not be given to the “children of converts”, I am like the pundit Javali who in the Ramayana tells Lord Ram that “There exists no other world but this. That is certain.”
The Indians who came from India brought their great culture with them, wrapped in their dhotis. This culture was a good thing in the case of Hindus, but a bad thing in the case of Muslims and Christians who, respectively, made up 15 per cent and one per cent of the indentured labourers. Historians who are either the children of converts or a Hindu woman have claimed that only 13 per cent of the Hindus who came here belonged to the Brahmin caste and that most of them were not pundits but farmers. But this is obviously not true since no Brahmin did manual labour, including scratching.
Now Indian anthropologist KS Singh in his book People of India writes: “The Brahmans of India are heterogeneous and suggest incorporation of more than one physical type involving more than one migration...detailed investigations of eight Brahman groups in Maharashtra reveal not only great heterogeneity in both morphological and genetic traits, but also that three Brahman groups are closer to non-Brahman castes than the other Brahman castes.”
But, even though Singh is not the child of a convert, his claim is obviously wrong since he misspells “Brahmin”; and now that Narendra Modi of the Hindu fundamentalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is Prime Minister of India, history will be re-written to match Sat’s newspaper columns.
So no longer will so-called historians like KO Laurence in A Question of Labour be able to write that “Hindus in the West Indies mixed easily across caste lines and cross-caste marriages soon began and became common by the 1880s.” That is because Laurence is worse than a child of a convert, but an actual convert. This is why he insults Indian women with bogus history by stating that “The evidence that there was a noticeable incidence of prostitutes among emigrants is too strong to be denied...on large estates there were ‘always some women of notoriously lax morals’ and a few lived as prostitutes, while the general level of sexual morality was lower than in an Indian village”.
This is obviously not true, since all Indian women are chaste and loyal to their fathers, brothers and husbands. Yet, between 1872 and 1900, out of 87 women murdered, 65 were killed by their husbands, according to records kept by the colonial authorities: which proves that the Englishmen wanted Indian women for themselves and so reported them dead.
Besides, in India there are women called the Bedias, who say they are high-caste because most of the men who give them money for sex are high-caste: which, again, proves that Indian women cannot be prostitutes since Indian prostitutes, if they did exist, would be low-caste. This, however, does show that Indian men are great lovers, and this was especially true of the Indian men who came to Trinidad.
Once this is understood through the writing of correct history, historian Dr Radica Mahase and writer Kevin Baldeosingh will no longer be able to claim, as they do in their textbook Caribbean History for CSEC, that “Once in the Caribbean, however, Hindus were forced to adapt many of their ancient practices, since it was difficult to keep certain traditions among a relatively small group in a new environment.”
But Indians have never been defeated by any difficulty, including hairy ears, so that argument has no merit. More importantly, Baldeosingh’s ancestors clearly belonged to the Carvaka, who didn’t believe in an afterlife or karma or ghee, and so were stamped out by the Brahmins, and the Brahmins who came to Trinidad stayed Brahmins and no other caste really matters.
As everyone knows, everyone with the Brahmin surname “Maharaj” is highly intelligent, moral and sexy, for this name means “great king” in Hindi and this is not a family name found anywhere in India, which means that every Maharaj in Trinidad changed their name so all the lesser castes would know for sure that they were Brahmin.
All that being said, I think I have proved that I am well qualified to write correct Indian history, and I look forward to getting my $100,000 cheque.