Dear Editor,
Brigadier (rtd) David Granger’s remarks to the Guyana Times that his partisan description of army involvement in the 1973 general elections, has its origin in the Commission of Inquiry Report filed by Justice Dhanessar Jhappan, is not supported by evidence in the report. Before proceeding further, a few preliminary remarks.
In 2006, before Mr Granger ran for office, I wrote what may be the first article criticizing his portrayal of the aforesaid army role, as stated in his booklet, ‘The New Road: A Short History of the Guyana Defence Force: 1966-1976.’ My article was for the ‘Guyana Under Siege’ website. Over the years, others used the article’s contents to criticize Mr Granger, and request an explanation.
I also asked that the ‘New Road’ be removed from the GDF’s website for its unquestionable partisan bias, where it was posted as official army literature. It was removed.
During the last elections, Mr Granger had selected pages of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Deaths of Bholanauth Parmanand, Jagan Ramessar and Vernon Campbell, by Justice Dhanessar Jhappan, distributed as if to suggest that he was correct in what he wrote.
To greater insulate himself from criticism, he recently said: “Well it is not my job to have a new Commission of Inquiry into what Justice Jhappan did over 40 years ago. I simply quoted in my book or I put a phrase in my book referring to what Dr Justice Jhappan said. I’m not going to decide now whether they behaved in one manner or the other.”
First, what he said about the army is not supported by what the justice wrote in his report. Mr Granger’s writing described the action of the army deployed across Guyana on elections day; in contrast, the justice’s report is concerned with, specifically, actions of one lieutenant (Henry) and a few of his companions at No 64 Village where 2 men were shot, and the neighbouring villages (eg, No 65).
Mr Granger’s idea of GDF history for 1973 was not limited to events on the Corentyne corridor. But the Justice’s report was, and this is evident in the very title of his report and his mandate. Indeed, on p 2 of the report, the Justice said he had to remind some that his “terms of reference did not include conduct of the election…”
Said another way, the description of one or a handful of soldiers by the Justice cannot be used by Mr Granger to justify his biased description of the work of the army at large.
Secondly, Mr Granger indulged in very derogatory descriptions of the PPP and its supporters, which are not in the Justice’s report. One example is referring to them as “gangsters.”
Third, here is, arguably, the most important and revealing paragraph describing the actions of the most involved soldier (Lieutenant Henry) at No 64 Village where civilians sustained gunshots. The Justice said: “Taking all these circumstances into consideration, especially the important task of escorting the ballot boxes with so few men under his command, I find that Lieutenant Henry acted with consideration and thought under those very difficult situations, and when he fired at the crowd, it was both necessary and reasonable; and that he was justified in so doing.”
The justice did not use the word “splendidly” here or elsewhere. Here, he cautiously used the words “necessary,” “reasonable,” “thought,” and “consideration,” none of which is synonymous or similar to the word “splendidly,” used by Mr Granger.
Fourth, the Justice’s report says nothing of political education, but Mr Granger says that the soldiers “saved the day” from the PPP and its supporters because of the political education they received, as early as 1971. Perhaps Mr Granger is suggesting that the army and the PNC colluded since 1971 to remove ballot boxes two years later, and deny others access to them.
Writing must be capable of survival to be credible. The ‘New Road’ is a very informative work discredited by its writer’s fabrication done to comply with then PNC ideology. And it reflects poorly that he now seeks protection in the words of Justice Jhappan, but this unfair exchange of words Mr Granger is trying to sell the public, is just not supported by the report.
Finally, one who glorifies the undermining of people’s right to speak politically by ballot or bullhorn should not be celebrated. But a dangerous new culture is afoot, as politicians are force-feeding voters the idea that the past is dead. No distinction is made; even theft of ballots is now acceptable, as long as the dust and blood on them have faded.
But the past is not dead for Mr Granger. Not yet. PNC history must be celebrated and, to speak metaphorically, instead of ending the conflict, he keeps circling the wagons as if his resistance to critics is sanctified by PNC history.
Yours faithfully,
Rakesh Rampertab
