Edited text of a Letter to Prime Minister Patrick Manning from Dr Hollis U Liverpool (Chalkdust). Associate Professor of History, University of the Virgin Islands, St Thomas, USVI

Dear Mr Manning,
Kindly accept my most sincere regards as I respectfully submit this letter for your due consideration. It is not often that I write to you, but because of the peculiar circumstances whereby the learned judge, Mr Peter Jamadar, has come to the personal conclusion that “the creation and continued existence of the Trinity Cross amount to indirect adverse effects discrimination against Hindus and Muslims,” I am forced to do so.

I am particularly concerned with the possible domino-like effect which perhaps you yourself might initiate, not unlike insidious discrimination, against Christians by your sudden decision to remove the Trinity Cross as the nation’s highest award.

Certainly, it should have been clear to you that Mr Jamadar’s conception of the original intentions embodied and motivated by the term Trinity Cross was erroneous. I will explain further.

First of all, Mr Jamadar, in coming to his legal conclusion, was of the firm opinion that the naming of Trinidad had religious roots, since, according to him, he, Columbus, remembered his vow “to name the first land he saw after the Blessed Trinity.”

Thus for Mr Jamadar, the Trinity Cross is and was from the beginning enveloped in religion, specifically, Christianity. Let me at the onset therefore state that while Columbus was a Catholic and professed the ideals of Catholicism, there is no proof that he ever vowed to name the first land he met after the Trinity.

The fact is that the third voyage itself was dedicated to the Holy Trinity and the singing of the Salve Regina, as claimed by Mr Jamadar as proof of Columbus’ intentions, was a normal everyday prayer of the crew (See Columbus and The age of Discovery by Zvi Dor Ner, 136).

While, conceivably, the three peaks of the Northern range might have reminded him of the Trinity, Columbus, on that voyage, was more concerned with finding the continent of South America.

On seeing Trinidad he nevertheless wrote, that “for the aloes” and for the “large palm groves…let infinite thanks be given to the Holy Trinity.” It is in that context that the word Trinity fortuitously arose with respect to Trinidad.

In addition to the above, the designer of the Trinity Cross has publicly stated that religion didn’t cross her mind when she set out to use the words “Trinity” and “Cross”; rather, she was thinking of the cross as a medium of an award, there being various examples of its use in several countries all over the world.

From these above, therefore, one may easily see the flaw in Mr Jamadar’s scholarship with respect to the original intention effected by the conjunction of the words Trinity and Cross.

Mr Jamadar himself noted that the Cross has been used “in western civilisations as a symbol for outstanding bravery, heroism, valour and gallantry,” and yet for all, he concluded that here in Trinidad and Tobago, which is of western civilisation derivation, it signifies a religious intent.

The point to be understood is that while in fact Christians of the western world, and we in Trinidad and Tobago do associate a certain type of cross with Christianity and with the crucifixion of Christ, there are several other notable uses of crosses all over the world from since the dawn of civilisation, all having different values and symbolisms. …

In terms of the concept of the Trinity, Mr Jamadar, in my respectful opinion, went at length to prove that the East Indians do not nor have ever related to the Trinity.

As such, he went on to say that it was “inaccurate to suggest that there are concepts equivalent to the Christian concepts of “trinity’ and “cross” in Hinduism, and that the “Trimurti” of Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma in the Hindu pantheon “is the same one unmanifested Brahman, but is called by different names.”

Mr Jamadar may be versed in law, but not in history or philosophy, for there have existed in the world, including India, several references to beliefs in a trinity of gods. So strong was the belief in the “Trimurti” as one god in ancient India that historian Joseph Geer was forced to remind East Indians of this oneness of the three gods in his book What the Religions Believe”(page 25 onwards), and famed Indian writer Rammohan Ray sought in the early 19th century to purge it out of East Indian philosophy and religion. …

Not only has the trinity concept been a part of Hinduism for ages, the people of Ancient Babylon believed and prayed to the three-in-one god concept of Ninas, Istar and Tammuz; similarly in ancient Rome, there was the single godhead of Jupiter, Fortuna and Mercury, while the Egyptians honoured as one God, the pantheon of Osiris (Nimrod), Isis (Semiramis), and Horus (the Son).See Exploring Ancient History-The First 2,500 years, by Schulz, Ch11:24).

In addition to all these believers in the trinity, it must be further understood that for the first three centuries before the Nicene Creed was made absolute by the Council of Nice in 325 CE, Christians and others believed in the oneness of God made manifest in three persons.

Mr Jamadar is, therefore, inaccurate to state that the trinity is news to Hindus and others, and that the concept is disrespectful to non-Christians. Moreover, it must be emphatically stated that the trinity concept which is basic to the faith of all Christians does not state that there are three gods; rather, the Christians believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all one and the same God.

The Muslims then ought not to feel disrespected by the Trinity concept for like them, Christians know and believe that--call him what you will, Allah, Jehovah or Yahweh--there is and will ever be one God.

In terms of the relationships between East Indians and Christians in Trinidad and Tobago, Mr Jamadar went at great length to show that over the years, particularly in the 19th century, the East Indian population experienced alienation and marginalisation, as the Christians and the elitist colonials showed discrimination toward them in matters of class, labour and religion.

As proof of the neglect which befell Indians, Mr Jamadar quotes Dr. Eric Williams and the Keenan report of 1869 to underscore the poor treatment meted out to East Indians.

What Mr Jamadar did not say is that the very same Keenan and the very author Dr Williams in the very same book from which he quoted pointed out the countless examples of discrimination and societal inequalities that were also meted out to the Africans in Trinidad and Tobago.

Keenan in fact went the extra mile to show why Africans then were backward educationally and why they could not ascend the social ladder in terms of education, occupation and social acceptance.

Above all, Mr Manning, Mr Jamadar neglected to show that the very same Christians whom he accused of discriminating against East Indians were the ones who went at great length to bring education, as a tool for stability and equality, to the East Indian minority. In addition, Christians have contributed rather handsomely to the social welfare and evangelisation of East Indians from 1845 until the present day. …

I can show too, that the hand of friendship and love that was extended to East Indians by Catholics was also extended to them by the Presbyterians headed by John Morton, and by Anglicans as well, but space does not permit.

I must briefly state, however, that before the advent of the Canadian Missionaries and Mr Morton, the Anglicans built six schools, one of which was the Tacarigua Orphanage, for East Indians.

The Canadian missionaries by 1911 had 61 schools for East Indians and continued the evangelisation and education started by John Morton who began his missionary zeal in 1868 in Iere Village on the doorsteps of the tapia home of an East Indian immigrant.

When Mr Jamadar states then that in coming to his conclusion re the use of the Trinity Cross, that the “relevant historical, sociological, cultural and religious contexts must be considered,” and these must “include the perspectives of Hindus and Muslims who have lived and are living in this society,” but neglects to show the charity and love that was extended and continue to be extended to the very East Indians by the Christian community and one may add, by a local Christian government, then unfortunately, his findings must be utterly skewed. Calypsonian Smiley has a saying: “A shilling has two sides.” One needs no Privy Council to so conclude.

I honestly am of the opinion that the wiles of Mr Sat Maraj have been extended to our courts of law to test the application of the Trinity Cross as an award for all citizens only because of the writings and challenges posed to traditional Hindu culture by famed Rammohan Ray who was born in British-ruled Bengal in 1772.

After studying and rewriting the Upanishads (ancient and holy books of the East Indians) into Bengali and Hindi, Ray attacked missionary Baptists, challenged Christian supremacy and the concept of the Holy Trinity in India. I and countless citizens are of the opinion, Mr Manning, that, given the sociological background under which it was established, the Trinity Cross is national in scope and function and not religious, even though the name espouses a religious concept in the hearts of many.

It is like a wrapped dhalpouri roti, which though East Indian by linguistic translation and modified eastern origin and history, is economically and socially Trinidadian in function.

It must be understood that the Hindus were at no time in our history in the majority. In terms of the numerical population, Trinidad and Tobago has always been a Christian country. …

What all this adds up to is that one cannot take the history of thousands of Christians who have laboured in the vineyard for centuries and throw it all down into the abyss of forgetfulness and despair in one fell swoop, simply because one of the Christian traditions appear unfriendly to a non-Christian? 

To do so is to show total disrespect for history, the numerous dead and the tens of thousands who have given their all to Trinidad and Tobago.  Moreover, it is total disrespect for all the Trinbagonian Christians who are not yet born, and who because of the wiles of a few mischievous and attention-grabbing persons may never hear of or understand fully, the holy, viable and extant traditions of their ancestors.

This is not politics, Mr Manning; this is culture; this is life. It was Aristotle, speaking on democracy, who said: “One principle of liberty is for all to rule and be ruled in turn, and indeed democratic justice is the application of numerical not proportionate equality.”

It was Abraham Lincoln who intoned: “You cannot help the poor by overtaxing the rich.” Paradoxically, you cannot help the non-Christians by trampling upon the traditions of the Christians.

History, Mr Manning, will condemn you.

Faithfully, in History and Culture.