Dear Editor,
In responding to my letter of July 12 in the SN, the TUC’s Mr Lincoln Lewis resorts to the usual in his SN letter of July 14 titled ‘The GTUC has a proud record of fighting for and achieving racial equality.’ He claims all Guyanese workers, more so Indians are indebted because the Afro-Guyanese led TUC fought for those benefits. We are proudly reminded by Mr Lewis that “These were done during the stewardship of an African dominated PNC government.” His letter has its quota of fulsome disrespect giving ‘dishonest’ a sharper edge. No offence is taken. But living in the PNC’s past has become a big burden for black progress. Dialogue should however continue even with a gifted shape shifter, now holding forth about yesterday’s PNC magnificence. Mr Lewis of course has the democratic right to remain anchored in yesterday’s privation. But assuredly what is currently desired, and it is also everyone’s right, is to be included as equal beneficiaries in “the nation’s bounty and beauty” regardless if it is under the stewardship of a working class based PPP/C government that has massively neglected its Indian base no less working class for sure.
No way does it follow that when Mr Lewis’s TUC democratically decides to remain manacled to the PNC and its sordid past, can demands by race entitlement become the automatic solution of equality when it is also a forever hindering imposition on Guyanese with their own mental chains keeping them permanently imprisoned.
Guyanese are not so dimwitted to actually believe his is no abrupt about turn of disassociation from his first letter of July 7 in SN. Why does Mr Lewis boldly deny, in his own words, mind you, that he “did not set out in any form or claim to say executive power-sharing/shared-governance must be the new form of executive governance”? Could he have set out to probably embrace federalism? Compare the dissonance where in his first letter he wrote: “As a trade unionist an element of such discussions [his!] would ensure respect for universal [truth?] principles. The GTUC in 1978 during the tenure of Joseph Pollydore as General Secretary took to the Constituent Assembly a proposal for executive power-sharing.” Still touting old time TUC munificence to all workers – no exceptions , it was Mr Lewis himself who also reminded us that, “The call by the GTUC, though initially rejected, or not quite understood by some, has over the years been reproduced in various forms in the call for executive power sharing.” This is the same man who also wrote, “Though there’s respect for the calls for a new model of executive governance, what is not being made clear is how this will… [be implemented].” All these ingredients Mr Lewis wants us to believe in no way endorse “power dispensation” by whatever flavour of the month it is described.
Guyanese swift automatic evaluation of such catalogued fossils of yesteryear will not find it difficult to discern if these are more fictions all packaged by an undaunted trade unionist. It’s either partition, sharing of whatever, retaining the present status quo or federalism for sure.
While today’s Lincoln Lewis however rides the sprinting race horse like a seasoned jockey he is also most welcome to ignore those glaring valid demands in my letter of July 12 which is embedded with its own prerequisite urgency and necessity: “For power-sharing to work it must be very clear what is being brought to the table by all sides.” Would these demands disappear if ignored?
The opposition is the alternative government in all democracies but not by entitlement or race. There are many talented Guyanese on both sides of the divide who will never rise to the top. But no one marches into oblivion by choice in a democracy.
Let’s analyze Mr. Lewis’s thesis that “This GTUC has a proud record of fighting for and achieving racial equality, a record that is open for public scrutiny.” When Mr Lewis cites Guyanese history, most notable is his uncanny proclivity to assume joint ownership with the PNC of what’s their good minus the bad and the ugly.
(1) Responding to the charge that the TUC practises racial discrimination against Indians, Mr Lewis correctly cites the MPCA’s Mr Richard Ishmael as ‘Indian’ enough to be elected as the TUC President in the early 1960s. The MPCA was under fire by the PPP backed GAWU which sought to supplant Mr Ishmael’s MPCA in the sugar industry. With external forces anxious to be rid of the 1960s PPP government Mr Ishmael was elected as TUC President to spearhead the CIA funded 80-day national strike with active PNC and UF support. Crippling the country, it partially led to the PPP’s removal from government in the 1964 elections. Of interest is the very remorseful Christmas card reportedly sent from Texas USA to Freedom House in December 1992 after the PPP/C was reelected in October two months earlier. Mr Ishmael apparently confessed his sins and six months later, his conscience clear, he passed away. Since Mr Ishmael’s presidency, the TUC has found no Indian qualified to be its leader.
2) The TUC absolutely had no input whatsoever in regard to GAWU attaining recognition, contrary to Mr Lewis’s hallucination. Volunteering this caveat to strengthen his case about non-discrimination has backfired on him. It is an untruth most shamefully unbecoming. In return for the PPP’s “critical support” to the PNC for nationalizing the bauxite industry the PNC conceded recognition of the GAWU in 1976.
(3) ) Mr Lewis volunteered that Mr Boysie Ramkarran was the GAWU candidate for the TUC presidency in 1982. The truth of the matter is he was never elected TUC President at that election or at any time afterwards. Mentioning his name is just dishonest obfuscatonary padding to big up an untruth as fact. Such braggadocio by which Mr Lewis puffs up himself or TUC achievements, originates in the fake licence he also took to claim TUC credit for GAWU’s recognition.
(4) History completely negates Mr Lewis’s self-promoting boast that the TUC gave Indians a solidarity monument, as if that is the most important aspect of their existence. Every year monument or not the GAWU paid annual tribute to those bulleted Enmore workers. When will the PPP/C government make reparations to those families? The Enmore Martyrs monument was the actual brainchild initiative of Mr Ranji Chandisingh, the highest-ranking PPP Marxist ideological defector to the PNC and not a TUC initiative. With the PNC anxious to appear communist by cloaking adornment they humoured him until he was no longer useful. These developments with Demba’s nationalization, PPP “critical support” and GAWU’s recognition rapidly followed one after the other. How can such dishonesty engender trust for inclusionary government or whatever?
(5) If Mr Lewis insists GAWU is not Guyana’s largest trade union he is obligated to boost his case since the TUC also archives the membership evidence totals and their sources. Providing the figures to compare any five other descending Guyanese unions should be no big challenge. Mr Lewis will also regain credibility with Guyanese to be provided full receipt of all the dates of formation of those Jamaican unions, their membership totals and verifiable sources to ratify his claims that they outrank the GAWU in active dues paying membership in the Caribbean. In any case, and despite Mr Lewis’s request, why FITUG broke away from the TUC with the GAWU as a founding member is best left for them to explain.
For Mr Lewis to however require Indo-Guyanese alone, specifically by race, no questions asked, to bear kickback forever burdens when all were equally similarly visited with TUC “blessings” is beyond belief.
Yours faithfully,
Sultan Mohamed
