Dear Editor,
I write in response to Mr. Freddie Kissoon’s letter `Hypocrisy simply unbearable’ (SN Apr 24) wherein he unjustifiably and scurrilously pilloried the noble characters of (Shri) Ravi Dev, (Shrimati) Ryhaan Shah and Swami Aksharananda. Understandably, these three esteemed scholars tend not to dignify Kissoon’s contentions with a response. Kissoon’s comments are contradictory and are not supported by facts, logic or rationality.
In academia, a writer lays out a case and goes on to prove it with supporting evidence or arguments. Kissoon fails in this simple task. His indictment that Dev, Shah, and Swami are hypocrites falls flat and put “putna” (blackpot) on his face. And worse, Kissoon has exposed his own hypocrisy, lack of scholarship, and shallow-mindedness by heaping insults on others. What kind of teaching is Kissoon imparting on youths when he uses the kind of language he does to describe others?
SN, as a respected paper, should not have published a letter with such bile attacking a Hindu religious icon like Swamiji. The same would not have been done to a religious leader of another faith — at least not in SN.
Kissoon announces he cannot use the “word Swami” in front of Aksharananda; it is a title and can only be conferred on someone who has undergone intense training (and self sacrifice) to qualify for the honour, and the title is not dissimilar from that of the highest titles in other faiths.
Kissoon proclaims that Swamiji has “a poisonous and bigoted mind”, but no examples or evidence were offered to support the claim. Swamiji never denigrates anyone or any ethnic group. He is a role model for the youths and is respected for his highly admirable administrative traits at the SVN. Is it not hypocritical of Kissoon to use Pastor, Father, Archbishop, Bishop, Pope, etc for other religious figures (some of whom committed the worst sins) but not Swamiji, a religious icon?
Kissoon states he finds the opinion of Swamiji penning that “Ravi Dev and Ryhaan as being educational, informative, and honest” as “appallingly egregious” because these two writers expose “disenfranchisement, marginalisation, and discrimination faced by Indians under the present coalition regime”. What is so outrageous about exposing racism or political victimisation?
And then Kissoon claims that during the PPP tenure, the writings of Dev and Shah were “never about discrimination”. Yet Kissoon contradicts himself with “the writings of Dev and Shah were about Indians needing to be on equal par with Africans”. Is that not about discrimination suffered by Indians – any logic there?
Kissoon posits that Dev and Shah “are not honest” but provides no supporting evidence except to make a wild assertion that they “never called for African equality in access to resources”. What is the relevance with honesty? This myth that Dev and Shah did not call for racial equity is debunked by the dozens of articles of theirs (easily obtained from the internet) calling for power sharing, decentralisation of state power (to the ethnic communities) and equitable distribution of resources”. In addition, Dev, Shah and Swamiji assailed the PPP administration for its policy of neglect, abuse and marginalisation of its own supporters.
Kissoon declares that Dev, Shah and Swami are content “of (sic) Indian domination of the economy”. What is his definition of domination and can Freddie please provide (official – not manufactured) stats to show how Indians dominate the economy. When the (PNC) state controlled 85% of the economy during the 1980s and 40% now, and with the global MNCs controlling another 25% today, how can Indians dominate the economy? What sort of logic leads to such an irrational, unsubstantiated conclusion?
Kissoon adduces that when Swamiji wrote about the spectre of authoritarianism, it is about “the period of the PNC fascist dictatorship of 1966 to 1992”. What else could it be about? Kissoon feels that Swamiji should also include the Jagdeo-Ramotar Presidencies as fascist. I studied fascism in several doctoral courses including under distinguished Profs Gregory Massell, Bertell Ollman, among other scholars. Ivelaw Griffth was in one of my classes on political philosophy. Kissoon would not recognize fascism if it slaps him. Can Kissoon define fascism and say in all honesty that the period between 2000 and 2015 was fascist? This was a period when human rights were not violated, a free press flourished, opponents were not beaten, parties freely held meetings, there were free and fair elections, and all the other tenets of democracy were in place!
Kissoon accuses Swamiji of using “vulgar semantics” to describe other people – but not one example was provided. Swamiji is not the kind to call people names (as Kissoon does) or to derogate any ethnic group.
Kissoon claims that Dev runs Guyana Times. I do not see Dev’s name on the GT masthead (except as a columnist), and as such cannot make a claim that he is in charge of it (stand to be corrected). On the other hand, Kissoon is the editor of the KN letter pages, and he deliberately excludes critiques of his writings in the paper – a violation of an essential principle of journalism.
Kissoon declares that Swami, Dev and Shah are tribalists; none of them is. Kissoon should look around among those he keeps company.
I have a humble suggestion to Kissoon – please do research before writing anything in order to know the facts. Moreover, please learn the definition of social science concepts and terms before using them.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
