Dear Editor,
Officials have been criticizing letter writers for inventing the nature of Pandit Gossai’s supposed appointment in the Office of the President. It was the Chronicle of December 6, 2006 that purported to carry a release purporting to be from Mr. Gossai’s New York headquarters. That release spoke of the appointment as adviser on ethnic affairs and other things. No official so far has faulted either the Chronicle or the Mandir for misinformation. All we see are attacks on those who believed them. Mr Bisram had admitted making an error. However, the Chronicle of December 6, 2006 and not Mr. Bisram, was the source of my information. It seems that the Chronicle has been accorded from on high the status of infallibility; it cannot be wrong.
If the news had reported that Mr Gossai had decided to start a Mandir in Guyana, or start a hospital, or even a bank, I would have been silent. Advising the President is an entirely different matter of direct concern to citizens.
In my letter objecting to Pandit Gossai, or any individual, as a presidential adviser either on ethnic affairs or religious affairs and other things, I had a passing comment on his claim, reported by Mr Bisram, his ardent promoter. It was the part of my letter questioning how a mature spiritual leader could talk about “my followers”. I thought that it betrayed a kind of attitude. I did not know at the time that members of his faith in Florida were even then raising questions about Shri Gossai’s expectations of people he saw as followers. They have been resisting some of the authority claimed by Shri Gossai, alleging that he was exercising powers he did not possess in the affairs in a Mandir he had co -founded in Florida about 2002. Members of the faith from both Guyana and Trinidad had been involved in the founding of the Florida Mandir.
Copies of Court pleadings I have seen allege unauthorised actions by some of the members and allege also that part of the land donated for the building of the Mandir in Florida was mysteriously transferred to a close relative of the central figure, and transferred at a price below market value. Some members claiming to represent the majority have asked the court to decide whether this conveyance was valid. The unity attending the establishment of the Mandir did not hold, because there were spirits willing to challenge abuse of authority. The allegation is that Mr Gossai became disaffected after a majority decided to hold elections at an early date, rather than wait to be advised of a date by Mr. Gossai, who they said claimed the right to decide when elections should be held in the Florida organisation..
There are now civil suits, with Mr. Gossai as a central figure, pending in Florida. However, a disgusting feature of the allegations is that the Gossai faction employed an African American to prevent members of the dissident faction from entering the building in question. In fact he was a chucker-out in a Hindu factional conflict. This has for me shades of Roger Khan who had employed paid African vigilantes to achieve his purpose.
In this case the chucker- out was a suspect with a police warrant pending against him.
A worrying feature of all this is we are dealing with a matter of religion now brought to the attention of the courts by Mr Gossai. This is a public matter and the information I am just seeing, and which I have under-reported, was in the public courts, at Mr Gossai’s instance, since at least 2005. Mr Gossai even complained in his suit that his opponents had circulated flyers making allegations against him, causing the level of donations coming to him for his support to drop. Did Pandit Gossai’s promoters know this and conceal, or were they also under-informed. It is a good rule to question executive actions once the process seems to be irregular. Does President Jagdeo need Shri Gossai, or does the Pandit need the President?
Mr Robert Gates in defending Mr Kerik relied on scriptural admonitions. He cited the case of a number of males bringing a woman to Jesus, claiming that she has been caught red-handed in adultery.
They tried to entrap him with his gospel, asking whether he agreed with previous practice that she should be stoned. Jesus did not ask for the other suspect, who had not been held.
As a feminist, he made it, in my opinion, a universal matter of Gender, and gave the signal ruling so fittingly quoted by Mr. Gates. “The one of you without sin cast the first stone.”
Here are other warnings from the same body of scripture, “Lay hands suddenly on no man.” Another is ” Forgive us, as we forgive those that wrong us (trespass against us)”
In his letter promoting Mr. Kerik, no doubt in all sincerity, Mr Gates sought to silence by intimidation critics and would -be critics.
True, we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, as Mr Gates argues. Therefore, why harass Mr Kerik. Whoever is without sin, or claims to be without, let him cast the first stone. This is the gist of his statement. It is to be wondered whether Mr. Kerik ever gave such advice to his cops in New York. “Let the cop who thinks he is free of sin shoot the first bullet.”
Yours faithfully,
Eusi Kwayana
