Dear Editor,
I like David Hinds primarily because he is a Buxtonion, and also because he was (and probably still is) willing to go to jail (like Gandhi, Mandela and Jagan) for his political and moral convictions.
Buxton holds a special place for me because in the early seventies, when I was in my early twenties, I ‘sported’ a lot in Buxton. With (Dr) Stafford Griffith, his beautiful wife (Magistrate) Pansy, Oswald McGarrell and others, we staged plays and concerts and partied freely late into the night. I think I was safer in and more accepted in Buxton than I was in my own home town of Wales. Buxton, at the time, I would say, had the highest literary quotient, more than any other township in Guyana, save perhaps, Georgetown. There were ‘walking dictionaries,’ poets and statesmen overflowing at every corner. It was the time also when Eusi Kwayana and his wife were highly revered by everyone in Buxton. Not even the pompous Forbes Burnham could match him in Buxton. Buxton, aptly named after the great emancipator, was the independent and revolutionary machinery that stopped the ‘massa’ train (and even intercepted Cheddi Jagan’s funeral procession). A village undoubtedly with the richest history in Guyana. That was the village and the time that produced the illustrious Dr David Hinds.
Having premised that, I now refer to his letter, ‘Guyana should applaud No 48 villagers, but why were Lindeners treated differently?’ (SN, Jan 31), in which he is in full support of the protests staged by the people of Number 48 village, Corentyne.
So am I.
It seems that anything a people want in Guyana, even the common decency of police protection and simple needs like basic utilities, they must resort to blockading the streets before they gain attention from this government. True, as I once wrote, “these simple things, today, are not given by the government, but have to be wrested from them by the people.”
Unfortunately, David further wrote, “I have waited two days and more for the experts on violence to condemn the actions of the people of Number 48 as violent, unpatriotic and aimed at overthrowing the government. Not a word.”
I may not be an “expert on violence,” but I did a doctoral course on Urban Violence and Terrorism, and I have come to accept that, unlike Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, but more in sync with Nelson Mandela, Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, Walter Rodney, and perhaps, Rupert Roopnaraine, violence is, at times, justified.
Yes, in the political definition of violence, the action of 48 Village was violent, and in my opinion, the action was justified. At 48, the questions of violence: when, how, against whom, and for what objective were clear. But Linden and Agricola were different. Burning down the ruling party’s office, burning down a school, in the case of the first, and attacking private and hapless citizens and destroying their property in the case of the second.
Yes, the people of 48 were justified because their specific objective was reasonably and clearly defined. And in the end they achieved it. The use of violence as a means to an end is a strategy not to be used at every whim and fancy.
I urge David, whose heritage is from Buxton, to redefine his concepts and focus on the praxis of what is to be done.
Yours faithfully,
Gokarran Sukhdeo
