Dear Editor,
The insults of Dr.Tara Singh that have been hurled at Brother Eusi Kwayana should be unreservedly withdrawn.(See” Shri Gossai is a charismatic leader, a man blessed with humility”in SN , March 9th.) Kwayana is, without any doubt, the most honest political activist in Guyana’s history. He has not been known to change his loyalty to principle. In the early history of the PPP, in the struggle between Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham for the premiership of the country, Kwayana stuck with Cheddi Jagan in a manner that was far more principled than Jagan ever showed in his behaviour to Kwayana. To this day, Kwayana has not enlightened us about all that he knows about Dr.Jagan because he sees no worth in character assassination. Dr.Singh’s character assassination of Kwayana is despicable and unworthy of someone with his standing. I defy Dr. Singh to point to one single act of Kwayana’s long political activism that can be considered shameful.
To say that Kwayana remained silent during the Burnham years is utter nonsense. Does Singh know of the many battles that Kwayana waged against Burnham single handedly and in the WPA against the PNC regime? Does Singh recall the many fasts that Kwayana undertook to call attention to the destruction being wrought on the country by our racial wars? Does Singh recall the action that Kwayana took with David Hinds and Andaiye to protest against violence against Indians? Does Singh recognise that it calls for extraordinary courage to stand up to the members of your own race and say to them, “You are wrong.” This is courage that ,in my debate with Singh, he never demonstrated.
Kwayana is an African. He believes as much in his identity as Singh believes in his. The appointment of Gossai crosses the line between spirituality(church) and the state in a manner that is suggestive of exclusion of the faiths of Africans and Amerindians. It is unwise. As I have argued in my letters in response to Mr.Ravi Dev, Guyana is not an Indian Ethnic state, at least not yet. The state in Guyana should not foster one religion and not another.
I made the mistake when I was at the World Bank of dangerously crossing that line between spirituality and state. I was an ardent transcendental meditator of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi school. Dr. Kurleigh King of Barbados was a leading member of the Maharishi establishment. But it was Mr. Patterson, Maharishi’s assistant, who approached me to ask Mr.Hoyte to assist in the promotion of TM in Guyana. There was a good case for TM. A relationship had been set up between the TM movement and the Mozambique Government. There were reports of the reduction in recidivism that resulted from the practice of TM in prisons in Africa. TM is accepted as treatment for stress relief in the U.S. and qualifies for insurance coverage in the U.S. Mr. Hoyte, however, was not inclined to take up the Maharishi offer.
When Dr.Jagan assumed the presidency in 1992, the TM people repeated their request. I approached Dr.Jagan who told me that his nephew was then a TM practitioner. One of his advisers in the Presidential Secretariat told a friend of mine that I made the approach to Dr.Jagan because I was pandering to preserve my job and that he would expose my obsequiousness to the Guyanese public. I was hoping that the ignoramus would do any such thing but better counsel prevailed. Dr.Jagan was, like Mr. Hoyte, unwilling to take up the Maharishi offer.
There is a big difference between the Maharishi offer and the Gossai appointment. TM is a meditative technique practiced by all races. Emphasize, all races. As noted above, Dr.Kurleigh King was a leader in the TM movement. Dr. John Hagelin, an outstanding physicist is a leader of the TM Yogic Flying group that is assembled at various places because they feel that their presence will promote peace. TM originated from an Indian but it is not exclusively Indian.
Despite those very strong credentials, on reflection, I was wrong to suggest to Mr. Hoyte and to Dr.Jagan that they should give assistance in promoting the TM movement in Guyana. It was crossing the line between spirituality (religion, church) and the state. It would certainly be advantageous if many politicians took up the TM practice. They would stop stealing and would become trustworthy. But, in the circumstances in Guyana, it is not the role of the state to foster spirituality even when it can be advantageous.
I have reflected on multi-racialism, particularly in my recent debate with Mr.Dev. Racial prejudice is a particularly deep-seated emotion that is not easily removed from the human breast. Guyana is not an Indian Ethnic state. If there is a desire to function as a Western state with a substantial Indian population and reduce racial prejudice, efforts have to be made to root out racial bias in state operations wherever it occurs. It was the church that destroyed Africa with its oozing piousness. Under the cover of piousness, Africans were hoodwinked into surrendering their birthright. The piousness of Mr.Gossai is likely to have similar soporific effects. Mr.Gossai does not have the multi-racial reach of TM. Gossai is confined to one race and one race only.
A one-race Presidential Secretariat is an unenlightened proposition. I think the spiritual dimension is important but spirituality should not be pursued by the modern state. Society has had a long history of the horrors that resulted from the power of the mystique of religious men, like born again Christians. From the worship that Gossai is already receiving, we are in danger of being ruled by a mystique that will not be easily reduced to rationality. Brother Kwayana is correct.
Yours faithfully,
Clarence F.Ellis
