Dear Editor,
Messrs Asquith Rose and Harish Singh, advocates of AFC, are absolutely incorrect in several accusations levelled against me (SN Oct 17) in their retort to my missive (Oct 15). Instead of focusing on the contents of my missive, assailing the AFC for planning and organizing an anti-government rally and not putting into place mechanisms to prevent violence against Indians, the two AFC sycophants chose to attack my character and reputation instead of addressing the substantive issues I raised – finding restitution and justice for the victims who were beaten and robbed and making arrangement to prevent their recurrence. Their ad hominem logical fallacy in argumentation is the lowest and basest response to a critic.
Let me state at the outset I am not now nor ever was a member of the PPP and I never supported or voted for the PPP. I am informed Singh was a member of the PPP central committee until he was expelled. I have many grievances against the PPP for failing to live up to expectations and for inadequately servicing its constituents. In addition, I have critiqued and criticized that party on numerous occasions. So any attempt to link me with the PPP is plain malarkey.
The men made reference to my polling activities which bear no relationship with the demonstration or my missive as I made no reference to polls. This is the logical fallacy of non-sequitur. What university gives a PhD or (a BA to Singh?) for such illogical type commentary? That university needs to revisit its granting of the degrees.
And why Stabroek News would allow such unrelated, illogical comments in response to my missive is a question for the editor – such comments should have been excised from the response. The men also spewed hate (and personality attacks) instead of logical statements to debunk any critique that holds the AFC responsible for the beating and robbing of Indians. Just by their statements, one can decipher something is amiss about their frame of mind and the logic of their writing – talking of intellectual bankruptcy.
Rose and Singh queried where I got my information about the violence that was rained on Indians. The Agricola violence was covered by all the media (including SN). KN (Oct 17) reported the fear residents in neighbouring communities still have of the bands of marauding youths from Agricola who beat and robbed them.
After Indians were beaten and robbed, the PNC disassociated itself from the AFC rally and went on to hold one at Stabroek Market.
I organized many rallies in America and participated in several in Guyana, Trinidad and elsewhere during the period of the PNC dictatorship. (As an aside, Rose and Singh never fought for the freedoms Guyanese are enjoying today such as the right to demonstrate. I gave my blood and sweat in a sustained struggle of 25 years that helped to provide the freedom for people like Rose and Singh to freely pen their attacks on people like me).
The organizers of rallies are responsible for matters arising out of them. What kind of knowledge is Rose imparting on students (claims he teaches at John Jay) if he does know that basic fact? The AFC, whose leadership and many of its members are my friends, can’t plead ignorance if their rallies led to the beatings and robberies of people. And many of the people who were robbed and beaten voted for the AFC. The party’s leader Khemraj Ramjattan, my friend, admitted that those beaten and robbed were Indians and has been trying to empathize with the victims, visiting their homes. So the party recognizes it is responsible for the violence meted out against the victims. The party is responsible morally and ethically if not legally for what happened.
They can’t shift the blame to any other party and no amount of spin or accusations against the PPP or attacks on me would alter the truth. The AFC ought to know given the history of protests, that Indians would be targeted for beatings and robberies especially in Greater Georgetown.
I agree with those who criticize Dr. Roger Luncheon for his “let’s rumble” comment. But Rose and H.S Singh are dishonestly not mentioning that Luncheon directed the comment to the AFC’s Nigel Hughes who had given an ultimatum for the government to fire Rohee within 48 hours.
On the subject of intellectual bankruptcy, some 20 months ago, Mr. Rose penned in SN if an accused pleads guilty to a charge, then he or she committed the crime otherwise he or she would not enter a guilty plea. I would like to attend the college where Rose got his PhD – I am sure anyone can get a few PhDs there even if they lack academic depth.
There are numerous reports in American media of people entering guilty pleas but not actually having committed the crime for which they pled guilty. Many of them (Blacks and Hispanics, in particular) have had their guilty pleas reversed following investigative reports. Last week, the five Black accused who pled guilty to raping the Central Park jogger were cleared of the charge after serving ten years in the slammer. They pled guilty in order to avoid a lengthy jail term and now we know they never committed a crime. A different criminal pled guilty to the rape and beating of the victim. Isn’t Mr. Rose’s position on the guilty plea evidence of intellectual bankruptcy?
Also on the subject of intellectual bankruptcy, two years ago, Rose accused me (in SN) of defending Roger Khan. When challenged to provide evidence, he provided none and refused to apologize. What kind of academic would make such an unsubstantiated charge – that is evidence of intellectual bankruptcy. Also, as a college lecturer in a criminal law school in NY, as Rose proudly claims, Rose should know that the organizers of the protests are financially liable for injuries visited upon innocent commuters – attacks carried out by those who participated in the demonstration. Rose should know that the sponsors and organizers of the rally are liable for injuries unless they can show otherwise in a court of law. The right course of action is for the victims to file law suits against the opposition and let the court make a ruling on who is responsible for the beating and robbing of the victims – the ruling will show who is intellectually bankrupt and whether someone qualifies for a PhD or a BA. Instead of challenging me about AFC liability and moral responsibility, Rose and Singh should appeal to their party to give restitution to the victims. Very recently I provided unsolicited advice to my leadership friends in the AFC about their political activities.
They assured me they will not engage in activities that will make them “political kokobeh”. But that is exactly what they have done. They are burying their heads in the sand and have stopped thinking with their brains allowing vengeance to get the better of them. They will pay heavily at the next elections.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
