A/HRC/10/11/Add.2 page 15 41. Representatives of the Indian community, the Government and PPP party acknowledge that disparities exist between Indian and Afro-Guyanese. However, they reject allegations of discrimination, stating that causes of inequality lie in socio-economic, cultural and historical factors. A history of entrepreneurship within the Indo-Guyanese community and via the exploitation of Indian capital, labour and skills, reflects not discrimination, but relative success. Divisive allegations of discrimination and exclusion are sometimes politically motivated and exploited by the opposition they claim. The Government and the PPP reject allegations of impropriety and discrimination and note their desire for a speedy enactment of legislation and establishment of the commissions. Indo-Guyanese sources point to a lack of Afro-Guyanese firms with the capacity to compete for government contracts. 42. In contradiction to Afro-Guyanese sources, Indo-Guyanese non-governmental sources painted a more positive picture of ethnic relations and social cohesion. They noted that beyond the urban areas where divisions may appear more pronounced, many villages are ethnically mixed and that relations are harmonious, with interracial relationships being “quite common”. Public holidays and celebrations are shared events, they suggest, which all ethnic groups participate in and welcome. 43. Afro-Guyanese trade union sources consider that the Government has been actively pursuing a discriminatory policy and programmes against Afro-Guyanese. They claim that the Government is working to undermine and divide the union movement, with the aim of weakening the primarily African Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC). They suggest that the Government orchestrated a split in the union movement by initiating and supporting a parallel union body, the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG). Union representatives believe that government actions are discriminatory, politically and racially motivated and an attempt to curtail the legitimate powers of the unions that have previously led to strike action over labour rights and government activities. 44. Considerable anger was expressed regarding the termination of the annual State subsidy awarded to Critchlow Labor College, which had been in place over the previous four decades. Critchlow Labor College provides “second chance” educational opportunities meeting the needs of predominantly Afro-Guyanese students, and has been seriously restricted in its activities and student intake. The annual subsidy reportedly amounted to some 48 per cent of the College’s operating costs. Its withdrawal has resulted in a dramatic fall in student intake, reportedly from about 2,600 (98 per cent of whom were Afro-Guyanese) to only about 200 students, and a 90 per cent reduction in staffing. Civil society groups expressed the opinion that termination of the grant is politically and racially motivated. 45. Funding for Critchlow Labor College was reportedly approved by the National Assembly but subsequently blocked by the Government, initially on the grounds of failure to submit audited accounts. Reportedly, when accounting issues had been satisfactorily addressed, the continuing refusal to release funds was claimed by the Government to be due to the split in the union movement that it is accused of orchestrating. 46. Union representatives raised further concerns regarding the Government’s alleged misappropriation of the bauxite industry pension fund, considered to be the largest pool of capital owned by Africans in Guyana. They consider the fund to have been “dismantled” to the