Dear Editor,
Ethnic harmony recommended. National unity it is, and must be. Social cohesion is the answer. From the Rodney CoI to the Head-of-State to a few intrepid citizens the word goes forth in different rhythms and volumes and postures on this Holy Grail so indeterminate in individual hearts and so haphazard in the collective consciousness.
There is no question that this is a restatement of the obvious, especially given the fraught national history and continuing story. It is one that has backed and bounded inextricably in a political, racial and social cul-de-sac, that has led to a remorseless pummelling of the psyche and the rushing dissipation of the spirit. Having highlighted the most central of national issues, and the most crippling of national malaises, it would be an even greater disaster if things were allowed to wither on the vine, and expire for want of interest and energy. What is the way out? Can there be one?
The supposedly comforting words are good to the ear, are better than nothing (or the reverse). They must not, like before, embody the cruel condolence of hollow insincere utterances that twist the pain, and mock the ongoing individual and societal tragedies. Things must not continue to be like before. The time is now for the next steps of educating, conditioning, indoctrinating, and a sharp intolerance for any intolerance of the kind that was cultivated and now flourishes so seamlessly. The hard past that refuses to die, must die, if only so that the present can be infused with life. If not, then the present too will die the same lingering death, and take the future with it. If this moment and opportunity is not seized with both hands, it may never regain priority and be placed on the national agenda.
While the social positives are undeniable and environmentally wholesome, are they politically pragmatic enough (these unity and cohesion irritants and distractions) at the leadership level? At the less senior, less visible levels? At the secret party caucuses and sit-downs?
Men and women have been seduced, induced, and reduced to certain fixed ways of thinking, tailored racial visions, and of pervasive traditional political dishonesties. It is why revolutionary calls (from whatever source) run the risk of deaf ears and nonchalance. Other times this could rise to the level of fierce internal anxieties and de facto sabotage. It is extremely difficult to change people who have been immersed in “this is the way, and this is success. This is for you and you alone.” It is why the sometimes haunting, sometimes mesmerizing spectre of national unity and social cohesion (and all the rest) looms as the equivalent of cutting one’s nose, or donating a kidney without any anaesthetic. There is hurt, and rejection rears up as a serious risk.
The dirty, slimy, sickening job of division has been so well done that turning around seems insurmountable, if not impractical. Taking a telescopic peer, national unity movement signals (to too many) the dilution and diminution of party hold and hegemony. This is more than hated self-sacrifice; it is about the unwanted bitter chalice of possible political self-destruction. From leader to layman, within the bunkers to outside the circle, there ought to be awareness of the expansive perimeter encircling national unity and social cohesion. Or that locks such out.
Unless these soothing phrases making the rounds progress beyond catchy concept, and enshrine a certain state of mind, and sharp anticipation of the breadth of new possibilities, then there is only the pathos of the same unconvincing fooling of selves.
For all of this to gain some smidgen of traction, there has to be readiness, must be determination and commitment to start the journey (it has not), and then finish it despite the lurking ambushes, entrenched snipers, and friendly fire.
I hope and do believe that this Guyanese Mission Impossible can happen in time. But only if there is the willingness and abiding dedication to pay the steep, at times unbearable, price.
At this point in time, President Obama’s star wanes and Prime Minister Modi’s struggles for alignment. In Guyana, President Granger’s own star can rise, but only if his gaze is directed heavenward. He must remember Churchill, and I improvise: when the story of Guyana is recounted 1000 years hence, this can be remembered as its finest hour. Do we have what it takes?
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
