Dear Editor,
I had stopped responding to the writings and utterances of Mr. Ravi Dev, Dr. Ramharack, and Dr. Vishnu Bisram. While I often find their insights on Guyanese politics and political economy interesting, as well as their comments on social, cultural, and religious matters, and their advocacy on the Indian narrative, I chose to disengage.
I have engaged in spirited polemics with Ravi Dev, which I once considered useful. However, over time, I have become convinced that he and his colleagues mentioned above are not genuinely committed to finding a just and lasting solution to our racial and political divide. This lack of sincerity was evident in their recent GlobeSpan show on ‘The Indian Narrative.’ During the discussion, Dr. Ramharack and Dev claimed that Ogunseye, David Hinds, and others articulate an African narrative—essentially labeling our advocacy. They then counterposed it with their Indian narrative.
The question I now pose is: Does an African or Indian narrative exist independently of the voices of Hinds, Ogunseye, Ramharack, and Dev? My answer is yes. Such narratives exist, and they are intrinsic to our existence. These narratives were present long before we entered this world and will remain after we depart. Our role is to highlight, explain, and interpret events—what we call ‘objective reality.’ Everything we say about the African experience, past and present, has been articulated by Africans both individually and collectively. Our task is to emphasise what is important and relevant in our struggle against the PPP’s control of government and state in their pursuit of racial and political domination. This is our fundamental human right
We, in the WPA, have always upheld the right of every racial group in Guyana to express their reality as they perceive it. This principle held true before Walter Rodney, during his activism, and continues to do so afterward. The WPA’s history on these matters is clear and can withstand scrutiny. The Ascria/IPRA African and Indian organisations, recognising the racial dilemma, committed themselves to work towards a solution. We publicly announced the formation of a race commission, which held several meetings in both African and Indian communities. Through these discussions, it became evident that both groups desired a resolution to this historic issue that has long divided our nation.
It would be remiss of me not to mention that both Jagan and Burnham dismissed our initiative, labeling it as ‘the racists coming together.’ Nevertheless, it was from this groundwork that the WPA was formed. What followed was the development of a multi-racial political approach, informed by the failed experience of the old PPP in the 1950s. For the WPA, multi-racial politics meant that Africans, Indians, Indigenous People, and other racial groups could work either within a single organisation or in separate organisations, provided their political goals promoted and enhanced their racial, class, and national interests.
This approach was successfully demonstrated during the Civil Rebellion’s mobilisation. At that time, neither Ravi Dev nor his associates challenged the WPA’s articulation of multi-racial politics or its claim to be a multi-racial party. The challenge only arose after the assassination of Walter Rodney, when ROAR and Dev argued that the WPA was not truly multi-racial and that Indian interests were not represented within the party. They contended that the WPA could not speak for Indians. The WPA disagreed with this assessment but chose not to make it a major or divisive issue with ROAR.
After successfully pushing their agenda, with Indians and Africans voting for their respective race-based parties from 1992 to the present, they have demonstrated the nonexistence of a multi-racial consensus, thus proving the correctness of Dev’s point. Now, Dev and Ramharack are complaining that the ‘new WPA’ is promoting a one-race narrative. They have shifted from arguing that we have no right to speak for Indians to insisting that we should address both narratives simultaneously. They warn that failure to do so could create a dangerous situation in our multi-racial society. However, their hypocrisy is evident. At no point in their advocacy of an Indian narrative did they genuinely address the African narrative—instead, they constructed their own version of it. This includes highlighting everything they perceive the PNC/ Burnham did that negatively affected Indians, which they labeled as ‘political sins.’ For them, there are no ‘sins’ committed by the PPP, Jagan, or the current leadership
On the question of power-sharing, they performed a ‘sand dance’ as they attempted to explain their current position. They rejected executive power-sharing, arguing that it would give Africans all the political power since they control the institutions of the state. According to their reasoning, in an executive power-sharing government, Africans in state institutions would follow the directives of African ministers while ignoring the Indian ministers. Dev and his associates are essentially advocating for the retention of the ‘winner-takes-all’ governance system, content with Africans in state institutions carrying out the dictates of the Indian-led PPP government.
To justify their stance, they narrowly defined political power, excluding economic power as an integral component, reducing it to mere influence. Ironically, they pointed to the peak of the army/military under Burnham with 17,000 personnel but failed to acknowledge that the drastic reduction in those numbers was due to the economic collapse. This omission underscores my point that political power, in real terms, is intrinsically linked to economic power. Throughout the show, there was an almost complete silence on the subject of Indian economic power in the country and how it enhances Indian political power. They only mentioned that Indian economic progress was the result of hard work and sacrifice. All in all, it seems that Dev and his ROAR comrades are quietly exulting in the realisation of their narrative through the PPP’s dominance of the oil economy – the height of “winner take all” in a multicultural society.
In closing, I wish Dr. Ramharack, Dr. Vishnu Bisram, and Mr. Ravi Dev well. I look forward to further discussions on the Indian narrative. In the WPA, we believe that initial agreement on narratives is not essential. What holds greater value is for each racial community to articulate its own narrative. The crucial point is to commit to a politics of non-domination.
Sincerely,
Tacuma Ogunseye
WPA Co-Leader
