Dear Editor,
Tacuma Ogunseye (SN, 8/23/24) has taken it upon himself to chastise a couple of individuals who seek to offer a supportive voice to Indians in the public space.
Indians were deprived of a voice until the emergence of the universal franchise and Cheddi Jagan, the plantation son who spoke to their lived experiences and made them conscious of the need to become agents of political change. In our culturally diverse plural society, if Burnham as a dark-skinned African from Kitty was taunted at Queen’s College, imagine the experience of Jagan who hailed from a rural plantation of Berbice. Unlike Burnham, who aspired to become “Coloured,” Jagan rejected his Indian world view for the Marxist prescriptive analysis, which viewed Indian culture as backward “false consciousness.” He contributed to the suppression of an Indian narrative.
In the decades following the elections of 1964, PPP leaders have not publicly projected an Indian voice, much less an Indian narrative. The party is considered by Indians as their political vehicle, but the PPP has historically ignored the “ethnic security dilemma” of both major groups, while contributing to the suppression of legitimate independent Indian voices and organizations.
It is for these reasons that Ogunseye must understand that it is not a counter-narrative which we seek to project. It is a narrative intended to fill a gap by un-silencing the Indian voice, with the hope that a national narrative will emerge, one that can give meaning to being Guyanese. It was this concern which motivated us to query as to whether the WPA of Walter Rodney was genuinely multiethnic and to interrogate as to whose voice within the WPA resonated with legitimate Indian concerns. Our query was greeted with a newspaper advertisement in 1992 by the WPA which sought to label us as “triumphalist.” Rupert Roopnaraine, (along with Moses Bhagwan) presumably represented the Indian voice within the WPA. If an Indian narrative existed then, it has surely been extinguished by the fringe element that now occupy the core leadership of the WPA, of which Brother Tacuma is a co-leader.
I was appalled when at the recent emancipation event in Buxton, Tacuma himself joined the chorus and pronounced that Africans control “3” or “7” percent of the wealth in Guyana. He was, in effect, perpetuating a myth promoted by Professor Clive Thomas, who had no empirical data to support his assertion during his presentation at an ACDA event in the 1990s. It is politically inflammatory.
I do not speak for the PPP. I have condemned the excesses of the PPP, be it corruption, police overreach, unfair treatment meted out to teachers, keeping the mostly Indian supporters tied to the sugar industry, removal of “Indian” from Arrival Day, refusal to balance the disciplined forces, etc. I have critically examined the legacy of both Cheddi and Janet Jagan and the consequences of their Marxist orientation on the lives of Indians, much to the consternation of friends and apparatchiks within the PPP. I have argued that perhaps the first rigged election in our modern political history (following the attempted rigging by Burnham at Metropole in 1954) took place in April 1962 during the PPP election for Party Chairman. The PPP leadership intervened to produce a result favourable to Maoist Brindley Benn, against a popular Indian, Balram Singh Rai, to project its “multiethnic” character.
Such an electoral transgression is not unique to the PPP – just ask Aubrey Norton, Clarissa Riehl or “Big Purple” about previous PNC Congress elections. However, the rigging of consecutive national elections is a political sin, for which the PNC ought to take ownership. The point being, one party has sought to govern by domination, the other by cooptation, while both continue to eschew national dialogue which might contribute towards an amelioration of our enduring racial/ethnic problems.
While “executive” power sharing is fraught with inherent pitfalls, we have consistently supported mechanisms that would lead to greater inclusivity and distributive power arrangements, particularly since we now have a party of “minorities.” Aside from constitutional changes, the mechanisms we promoted include a federalized structure with decentralized power given to local communities, affirmative action to address economic inequality, an ethnic caucus that functions as an advisory body, professionalizing and balancing the disciplinary forces so all communities can share the burden of national defence, and utilizing ethnic impact statements to assess the effectiveness of government policies in advancing all communities – indigenous, African, Indians, rural, hinterland, etc.
Given the shenanigans surrounding the 2020 elections, one must question whether some in the Opposition are interested in “sharing the corn” or are instead seeking to hog the entire political enchilada. This belief is further reinforced by the “prior arrival” and “greater suffering” rhetoric advocated by descendants of formerly enslaved people.
Henry Jeffrey has injected a realpolitik scenario the Opposition should contemplate: “To win (the election), you will have to carry some Indians with you but what have you done to liberate them from the notion that their party has to be in power to have basic equitability…” How does Tacuma intend to accomplish this task? More importantly, aside from an a priori forfeiture of Indian support, how does the Opposition expect to court the votes of non-Indians when they self-indulge in inflammatory rhetoric: slave catchers, African Resistance, undermine the government, installed regime, etc?
The rational Indian voter might be “mentally lazy,” but will not be inclined to accept the electoral promises of the memory warriors – Indians have vivid memories of what life in Guyana was like when power was abused – at the exclusion of others.
Sincerely,
Baytoram Ramharack
