Sat Maharaj made an accusation about PNMites in the civil service and of course anything that he says will have detractors since people tend to see the glass as being either half empty or half full.
The PNM has been a political party since 1956 and even then it was seen as a party for people of African descent although there were people of other ethnicities who supported it. The original DLP was basically a Hindu party, so from then it was "us versus them". The civil service was and is made up of mainly people of African descent who grew up clinging to the PNM.
When Indians were brought in as labourers for the cane estates some felt that there they belonged, but as time went by many of their children went into academics or into business while children of African descent shunned these. I remember hearing disparaging remarks such as they only eating bhagi and rice, or that their children only studying to be "docta or lawya". Now these professions are made up of doctors and lawyers who are people of Indian descent.
Jealousy of others can lead to the way we treat the person in front of us and not many can be neutral. Also, the way this person presents him/herself affects our behaviour.
Civil servants should be neutral but they are human and the past tends to control the present, so for those former heads in the civil service to claim that Sat Maharaj is wrong holds no water since people are not robots and tend to see back or white or other shades. A person's religion also plays a part in how we see and treat them. A person's standing in society plays a part in how they are treated or viewed as well.
Discrimination can be subtle or obvious. This has been so from the beginning. It was and is a case of us them versus us.
Clermont Andrews,
via e-mail