Anand Boodram’s letter to the SN of December 31, captioned, ‘We must eschew the “us” versus “them” mentality in the New Year’ refers. I agree with some of the things Mr Boodram said. I do not agree with his simplistic dismissal (maybe it was not intended) of Rodney. Rodney’s method of mobilization towards armed struggle as an option may have been too precipitate.
Dr Hinds in his letter in the KN of January 1, captioned ‘A shockingly biased appraisal of two significant leaders’ had this to say, “Guyana is a country of narratives, mostly ethno-racial.” I have been trying to steer the debate towards the expanded conception of race and class, unfortunately with no support from the Jaganites, or from the Rodneyites. Rodney was a self avowed Marxist.
It seems that Dr Hinds cannot escape from ethno-narrative tendencies. He seemingly injects the ethno-narrative even in writings where it may not have been intended.
He said in his letter, “I hope he (Anand Boodram) did not intend his letter to be an ethnic statement or a comparison of Drs Jagan and Rodney. But as a student of ethnic narrative and politics in Guyana that outcome is what jumps out of me.” Well Dr Hinds should control this tendency. It’s what intellectuals are supposed to do. This jumping out has unfortunately fixed the debate firmly within the ethno-dialogue simply because Mr Boodram is an Indian; Jagan, an Indian; Rodney, African. I am awaiting his response to CLR James, who according to Mr Boodram, called Rodney “naïve.” I guess no ethno-narrative.
Mr Boodram has praised Jagan and has criticized Jagdeo. I have criticized Burnham, nay condemned him; what narrative Dr Hinds?
Question to the PPP: Why did it not take up arms against the PNC dictatorship? The evidence indicates that the intellectuals, lecturers and students are usually in a rush because of emotion to start the armed revolution. The history of Latin America bears out this contention.
Jagan opposed the armed approach at a time when our people were polarized racially – an argument I accepted and preached to those who prefer the armed struggle. Also the fact that almost all the armed struggles have lasted for decades, with a tremendous number of deaths and social dislocation without bearing fruit.
Dr Jagan preached the need for a united and class-conscious working class and pointed out that the combined opposition could not even get the working class to unite in strike actions against its increasing impoverishment.
If one wants to have an armed revolution it is not flaunted. They tried to attract many PYO boys with the promise of fight. If one wants to organize an armed struggle one has to be exceptionally careful how one recruits and how one organizes revolutionary cells to prevent leakages, as penetration has to be sealed off quickly to save the others.
In many instances most of your recruits for that kind of struggle may not even be openly involved in the political organization. Some of the recruits may act as though they were indifferent, or even take critical positions against the very organization.
In a sense – and it’s a not a question of wrong or right – such attitudes to armed struggle without even the basic unity of the working people have been accepted by communists as left adventurism. For communists it was not just the taking of power for power’s sake but what one wants to do after, that needs some amount of genuine unity.
Even in Cuba, if my reading informs me correctly, Castro did not succeed by himself. The communist party had called a general strike. The major question is what was being done so as to break away the supporters of the dictatorship from the dictator. Where should our energies have been concentrated; towards what end? These are questions that I have asked. Maybe it would have been better for the WPA to have remained a pressure group. When it transformed itself into a political party, it had to contend itself with electoral mathematics for victory. It had to get more than the other parties and so we enter into a policy framework to make this possible. This policy needs to be identified and discussed critically. Was the necessary policy going to bring it into open conflict with the PPP? Was it from this that emerged the constant repetition of two racial blocs and we are the only multi-racial party? This to an extent was probably due to a misreading of the turn-out at political meetings. I used to be present at many meetings of the WPA. I was even accused by certain PPP members of being WPA after the dissonance between them.
I spoke to Rodney about the presence at meetings and whether support was forthcoming. I expressed the view that when he said, “We,” the crowd interpreted that to mean them.
Dr Hinds went on to say, “I have also been critical of Dr Jagan’s politics in the past and sought to highlight aspects of his praxis that his supporters have taken issue with.”As he is an Afro-Guyanese should his criticisms be placed within the ethno-narrative and should he be assailed for daring to criticize an Indian leader while praising and empathizing with an African leader, in Dr Rodney as he did with Anand Boodram?
It is my opinion that we need an alternative to the ethno-narrative; a line that underpinned the teachings of Dr Rodney.
And no, Mr Boodram, I would never consider Rodney’s speeches as rhetoric, and wish that more people within the ethnic divide would follow his teachings. There are those who say ‘Rodney lives’ but they buried his ideology with his bones. Same with Jagan.
Yours faithfully,
Rajendra Bisessar
