Dear Editor,

I am a poor debater and have no passion for winning an argument. My passion is for actual history. I have been corrected and have corrected my testimony of the year 1957 as the year of the Hallet Commission, which acted for the 1961elections. Rev Seopaul Singh in his comments on my letter of January 21, 2001 speaks some truths (‘Corroboration required’ SN, January 21). Not always, but in the circumstances I mentioned in my admission, a call for retaliation on that occasion was a call for counter violence. I accept that. If it were not I would not mention it in that context. When I say, “Although I did not incite violence I called for retaliation,” I am sharing my state of mind at that time. I think I last took that position in 1968, again in public, in Guyana on an international matter. At that time I was more against violent aggression than violence in retaliation. Because of this route which I have travelled I do understand, though no longer support, the logic of retaliation. Needless to say retaliation is action of the same type and violence is not always present.

Rev Singh affirms on evidence available to him that Dr Jagan never called for violence at a public forum. Citing a civil servant who was “closest to Dr Jagan” does not convince me. Did this person accompany Jagan to his public meetings all over the country? And what if he or any other advocated violence at a private forum? Would that be halal or righteous? Rev Singh gives what on face value is a reason why Dr Jagan would not have made such a statement – that if the election boundaries were rigged his party would take up arms. He argues, “it would be most counter productive for Dr Jagan to actually advocate violence after his jailing and the suspension of the constitution in 1953. This seems a cheap attempt by the senior statesman to equate Dr Jagan with the others who advocated violence in Guyana’s political history.” First, the constitution was not suspended because of violence. It was suspended on the unfair British allegation that the PPP would “turn British Guiana into a communist state subordinate to Moscow.” Was it “counter productive” after that for the PPP in the western hemisphere to become a communist party attached to Moscow while the government was rigging elections against the PPP? For me, that was not a matter for me to comment on, but an internal party matter. Was it counter productive? It was heroic and heroics run through all types of politics.

In my political analysis it is likely that, here and there, my analysis was faulty, but I have never seen lying in public life as safe, useful, or even clever. I do not accept that there is any person, who, through being a civil servant, could tell me what Dr Jagan said at all public forums. Nor did I claim that the statement was made at a private meeting. My proposal is that my testimony be tested by research. The words I claim as being spoken by Dr Jagan, Mr Burnham and me all appeared in the public press during the 1961 elections, not 1957 as I had first said in error, and for me during 1964. I have no present access to those documents. I invite those who deny the reports or who are passionate about these matters to research all the newspapers within those time ranges. The researchers should make sure that they are not put off by missing issues.

I must also let readers know that Rev Seopaul Singh about a decade ago reported in the Guyana Journal  (New York) that I had chained myself to a metal gate or iron gate with the slogan ‘Partition or Death.’ He intends to pin that on me by hook or crook. Now he has modified as well as extended his charge. ‘Partition or Death’ was my trademark statement, he says. On the previous occasion my answer was that the only reason Rev Singh alone could see me tied to an iron gate with that slogan was that he was my bodyguard. I wish to treat this the same way. When  Rev Seeopaul made his first allegation a decade ago, I wondered if it might have happened. I tried to reflect on my movements and locations and asked where was this iron gate? Estate? Village? City? Throughout the sixties I was Public Enemy Number One.

The press cameras would have taken that image and spread it. So, there must be a photograph somewhere in some newspaper. And death to whom? I am not denying, ‘Joint premiership or partition’; ‘Partition as a last resort’; ‘Partition or Independence with a veto for the opposition,’ (long forgotten) ,when those concerned had rejected joint premiership as something never attempted in the world. But ‘Partition or Death’? It does not ring my bell. I remember one ‘Or Death’ slogan in red paint which I saw daily in one village I would not name, but it was published in the press. I am not naming the place, to avoid labelling an innocent present-day population. The Thunder or the Mirror would not have missed ‘Partition or Death.’ The West On Trial missed or never reported joint premiership. It reported partition but not ‘Partition or Death.’

I shall ask a small group of reasonable people in Guyana to kindly examine the evidence if someone produces it. If it rings true and points directly or indirectly to me, or an organisation that  I was in,  I shall say so. Many readers will be shocked to be informed that a very prominent private sector king and political leader proposed “ideological partition” under certain conditions at one stage.

I have to thank the citizen, not a former associate or colleague, who pleaded for me to be released from ancient stigma. He referred to my fasts on public issues. I myself ignore them. For me those were secular events and I steered clear of any claims to holiness. I always said my own vigils or hunger strikes were against particular developments “and my own weaknesses.” Some of them were undertaken with others, or attracted solidarity. The longest and for me the one that ‘bit’ was with Mr Paul Tannassee against a disappointing voters’ list ahead of the 1992 return of the PPP.

I had always known of ambitious political leaders exploiting religion. Although I made this distinction from the example of Mahatma Gandhi, the First Lady of 1992 felt moved to say in an interview with Frank Birbalsingh in reference to me: “He thinks he is. He’s trying to be a Black Mahatma but he really isn’t. Because the Mahatma didn’t have hatred and viciousness.” Here ends my reply to Rev Singh’s second chiding. I have not missed his sarcasm, but I wish him a purer  and less mean “longevity” than he finds in me.

Yours faithfully,
Eusi Kwayana