Dear Editor,
I would like to place on record as I have done several times in print, my position on the death of Walter Rodney. The opportunity this time is a letter by Abu Bakr (`Those who see Burnham as innocent operate from predisposition and preconception in the same way those who see him as guilty’ SN July 3, 2014). Abu wrote; “I personally am among those who lost five years at university because of the National Service….I put personal grievance aside.”
I don’t know if Abu reads all my columns. I doubt anyone would. I did a daily column up to 2010, and since then do five a week. It is only natural for a reader to miss quite a lot. In many of my columns, I have taken the position that not because President Forbes Burnham personally victimized me, I would put subjective thinking ahead of my academic objectivity. I am proud of my university training and hope at all times to be respectful of history. I don’t think in every instance I have but I do try.
My position on Burnham is that I think he was a seriously committed nationalist who cared intensely about the life and condition of the working people. He was committed to the preservation of the African race but he was not racist against East Indian people.
Burnham and Bharrat Jagdeo have served longer than any other leader. My scholarly mind puts Mr. Burnham as a better leader than Mr. Jagdeo. I honestly think Mr. Jagdeo had very little love for Guyana, cared little about the poorer classes and had no standards and values about him. Mr. Jagdeo’s power lust has damaged this country perhaps irreparably.
It would be a huge injustice to this nation if a non-PPP government does not implement a judicial commission to investigate alleged illegal use of power by Mr. Jagdeo. Having said that, I want to be pellucid on my interpretation of Burnham’s use of power. He was gravely obsessed with power and fell prey to the post-colonial madness of the one man show. It destroyed his legacy. I come now to Burnham’s role in Rodney’s death
I hold to two alternative theories. Burnham was directly involved. It was ether he lived or died because Rodney was out to get him. I hold to the position of Tacuma Ogunseye that Burnham panicked. He conspired in the death of Rodney. The other paradigm so to speak has to do with a sub-plot that was put to Burnham by his key associates, both political and military.
These actors told Burnham that if he, Burnham did not want to do something about Rodney, then they would do it. They put to Burnham the understanding that they were part of a political establishment that Rodney intended to remove and they would be victims just as Burnham if Rodney overthrew the PNC Government. Either Burnham was in no position to stop them or he did not want to. But he knew that Rodney would be killed
This will remain for a long time to come my two theories. I cannot and will not accept that Rodney was assassinated by state actors and Burnham didn’t know about it. Really that borders on the bizarre. Guyana in 1980 was not the US. China, Pakistan, India, Brazil, Indonesia etc. Those are countries with enormous populations and humongous land space. The military in those countries have so many leaders with access to so many resources that a general can do things that his superiors or President or Prime Minister do not know about. An opposition leader can be murdered in those countries and the civilian government will not know.
Not in Guyana in 1980. How many planes the GDF had at that time? How many military bosses we had in 1980 that they could have acted independent of each other? There is no way the murder of a world renowned scholar could be planned and executed and President Burnham did not know about it.
Let’s say Burnham did not know about the beginning of the plot. You couldn’t murder Rodney using so many state actors whose service had to be called upon, and all of these activities took place right in Georgetown and no one whispered anything to the President. Rodney’s death was planned over a protracted period of time. He wasn’t shot by a crazed gunman who came up to him at a rally.
You may want to fault Rodney for misunderstanding the particular nuances of post-colonial Guyana with its ethnic underpinnings. You may want to fault Rodney for going too far in creating fear in Burnham. You may want to fault Rodney for being out of context in his strategies against Burnham. But you cannot be that indecent to think he was murdered by others and not by Mr. Burnham or those who cared about Burnham.
Either Burnham participated directly or he knew and did nothing to stop it. Finally, Rodney’s death psychologically destroyed Burnham. He was never the same man anymore. I think he regretted Rodney’s murder.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
