Trinidad and Tobago’s cultural diversity is one of its greatest strengths. Divali, Ramleela, steelpan, calypso, mas, tassa, Spiritual Baptist and Emancipation celebrations help preserve heritage, bring communities together and deepen understanding among different groups. Government support for these activities can be a worthwhile investment, but it must be guided by fairness, transparency and accountability.
The challenges faced by community Ramleela groups illustrate the issue. Pierre Road Ramleela Committee head Kimchan Sahadeo said this year’s production cost more than $300,000 and was funded mainly through community fundraising, without State sponsorship. Similar groups across the country face the same struggle despite providing opportunities for people of all backgrounds to learn about Hindu culture and religion. Their efforts demonstrate how much cultural preservation depends on volunteers and community commitment when institutional support is limited.
These events are more than entertainment. They preserve traditions, support artists and cultural workers, strengthen community bonds and contribute to economic activity through tourism and local business spending. They provide opportunities for young people to participate in cultural life, learn valuable skills and develop a sense of belonging. Yet, when communities shoulder the burden alone, important cultural expressions become harder to sustain and less accessible to the public.
None of this suggests that every cultural event should receive identical funding or that public money should be distributed without scrutiny. Taxpayers deserve accountability, and government must balance cultural spending against pressing demands such as healthcare, pensions and public services. However, accountability should be applied consistently. It should not become a justification for withdrawing support from one cultural sector while others continue to benefit.
The Prime Minister has argued that Divali Nagar, as a privately organised event, should rely less on taxpayer funding. She has also said that State companies have reduced support for a range of cultural activities, including steelbands, Carnival events, tassa groups, Baptist Liberation Day and Emancipation celebrations. If public funding is being scaled back generally, the policy should be clearly articulated and applied evenly. If resources are being redirected, the public deserves an explanation of where they are going and why.
Fairness does not mean equal treatment in every case. Different events have different costs, audiences and national significance. What matters is the existence of transparent criteria that consider cultural value, community impact, reach and access to alternative sources of funding. Smaller groups may require targeted support for venues, equipment, transport, insurance or promotion. Funding decisions should be made through open processes, clearly communicated and subject to public review.
The controversy surrounding Blue Waters’ sponsorship of Divali Nagar also demonstrates the importance of public confidence. Political disputes and shifting corporate relationships should not determine which traditions thrive. Cultural organisations and sponsors alike should be assessed according to clear and transparent standards.
A balanced cultural policy would support a broad range of traditions while safeguarding public funds. Fair support for Divali, Ramleela, Emancipation, steelpan, calypso, mas and other cultural expressions is not a competition between communities. It is an investment in Trinidad and Tobago’s shared heritage, creative economy and social cohesion.
