Dear Editor,
First I want to add my condolences to the family and friends of Cpl Williams and those of the other eleven persons killed in the massacre in Lusignan. However if we sincerely want to honour the memory of those who were killed, then the duty of us who are still here is to resolve to do all we can to ensure conditions do not exist that appear to provide fertile ground for such acts to be perpetrated.
There seem to be two schools of thought on this issue. On one side we hear that this massacre was a criminal act pure and simple and that if we see it as a political issue we are saying that catching the criminals is not a priority. This seems to be the position of the PPP. At least Dr. Ramsammy and Minister Rohee articulated this position very clearly on Friday 1st February 2008 on NCN. For them, therefore, the only thing the nation needs to do is to get these killers and bring them to justice.
On the other hand, there are those who see the killing as a symptom of a greater problem. They feel that, in essence, no matter how misguided the killers are, no matter how absolutely unacceptable their approach to conflict resolution is, this cannot be used as a reason not to investigate their claim of marginalization. Thus for this group what we have here is essentially a political problem. So even though an immediate law and order response is necessary, we must quickly, even as we hunt down the criminals, begin to address the bigger issue of a significant number of persons feeling discriminated against.
It seems to me that those who perceive a bigger meaning to this massacre have got it right. Incidentally, even as Ministers Ramsammy and Rohee say that this is merely a criminal matter that demands only a law and order response, they nonetheless, regularly stated, during the said program, that this massacre was “an act of terrorism.” Terrorism is not merely a criminal act. The highly respected writer Noam Chomsky quotes the official US army definition for terrorism as “the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims.” In fact, Dr. Misir, who is a pro government commentator, said on NCN on Saturday 2nd February that terrorism is violence with a political objective. So why do Minister Ramsammy and Rohee contradict themselves, why do they struggle to admit that this act could possibly have political intent? I might be wrong, but my guess would be that they are reluctant to do so because to admit that this massacre has political intent, would demand that a political solution be found. This would mean, if the response is to be meaningful, some form of power sharing arrangement, and sharing power is not something the PPP seem to have any interest in at this time. Thus, because the PPP is adamant that there is no just cause for blacks to claim marginalization they cannot, at least officially, accept that this act has anything to do with blacks’ sense of being marginalized. Thus, they choose to close their eyes, and give the incident a definition with which they are comfortable and prepared to respond to.
Based upon what we heard on TV, the people of Lusignan are convinced that there is significant support for the alleged criminal, Mr. Rawlins and his gang, in the black community and in Buxton in particular. At the same time the people of Lusignan are asking for the return of Mr. Roger Khan an alleged criminal. So, if we take the utterances of the people of Lusignan as truth, we are left with the scary situation in which both of the major groups have no faith in the legal structure and are looking to alleged criminals to provide their security.
Is it not amazing the reasons we give for either discrediting the views of others or not talking to those who oppose us politically? For example Oliver Hinckson, who is widely acknowledged as having been a very competent military officer, offered his assessment of the approach being used to apprehend the criminals who many feel are hiding out in the Buxton backlands. However instead of responding on the merits or demerits of his argument, we dismiss his suggestions because sometime before he did/said something that was irresponsible/or contradicts his present position. We use the same argument to dismiss Mr. Hamilton Green’s contribution to the search for a solution.
The President will not sit and talk with Mr Corbin until he (Mr Corbin) acknowledges that Buxton is a haven for criminals. I suppose if we follow this logic, Mr. Corbin should not talk with President Jagdeo until He (the President) acknowledges that Mr. Gajraj and Roger Khan were involved in extra judicial killing. Taking into consideration that both of these parties are guilty of some extremely irresponsible behavior from time to time where does this leave us. In terms of the national plea for us to have a common front on the many issues that face us, could placing conditions on meeting be helpful?
So we continue with business as usual, the PNC will content itself with telling us of all the wrongs the PPP use to do and is doing and the PPP will content itself with telling us of all the wrongs that the PNC used to do and is still doing. For both parties nothing matters more than this.
Chalkdust, that outstanding Trinidadian calypsonian, on assessing the situation in Trinidad after it had experienced rule by both the PNM (a party seen as a Blacks party) and the UNC (a party seen as an Indian party), came to the conclusion that the only persons who prospered from this call to racial cleavage were the politicians, their families and friends. Thus he sang a song, directing his lyrics to the people of Trinidad and Tobago and said something to this effect:
“Suh you see, the loser hay. Is stupid you and foolish me”
Yours faithfully,
Claudius Prince
