Dear Editor,
For the longest while I have recoiled from writing about any utterances, developments or postures from the now Leader of the Opposition. His approach towards, and standards of, politics, governance, and nationalism are all diametrically different from my thinking and my own ethics. But now comes the calculated verbal detonation from New York, and I overcome momentarily my distaste to write. Why did he do so and why now?
First, New York was chosen for maximum effect. The poison was sure to rush rapidly and virally to back home, especially given the communication and technology world of today. Blanket coverage is the term of art. Or striking and riling two birds (there and here) with one vicious delivery.
Second, the sharp words were deliberately crafted to convey, at a subliminal level, the presence of an Indian champion, an Indian challenger, an Indian hero, and an Indian leader with no dilutive interests or distractions. There is only this single-minded focus on things Indian at the expense of all else, which is sure to elicit a warm stirring in listeners, wherever they may reside.
Third, it is a preemptive message and a personal vision for the helm, come the December congress. This is a powerful way of emphasizing and re-emphasizing ethnic credentials, ethnic priorities, and ethnic anxieties. And when all things are considered, they end at one place: I am the man. I am the only one. No other is worthwhile. No other can represent as well. No other can revitalize and lead to a return to power. This is completely self-serving, and is reminiscent of what went before, what was so characteristic of the roiling years still fresh in the memory.
Fourth, the speech was an invocation, and an appeal for circling the ethnic wagon to coalesce into an undivided bloc to restore political hegemony. I believe that it is related to the recently released census numbers, too.
Fifth and last, the rankling words and phrases just struck a severe blow, perhaps a mortal one, to national social cohesion visions and strategies. It sent a clear signal that that is not a consideration, it is off the table, found politically objectionable, dead-in-the-water, and seen to be anathematic. The still standing Berlin Wall of ethnic cleavage in Guyana was just reinforced and refurbished by way of New York. No one needs any reminder, but there it was anyway.
The content of the speech speaks for itself. The underlying thrusts and intents are as I identified above. Having touched the subject and subject matter I feel unclean.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
