Dear Editor,
I refer to Mr Abu Bakr’s letter of June 25 in SN (‘It doesn’t matter what the historians say if we continue to hold on to the myth of a single guilty race’), and Mr Kwayana’s of June 26 in SN (‘To rely on PPP sources alone is to give only “one side of a historical narrative of guilt”’).
I recently wrote an article on the issue of an apology by the PNCR, prompted by public comments made by prominent members or former members of that party. Dr David Hinds wrote a response in which he said that it was the PPP that should apologize because it had been responsible since 1956, apparently solely, for generating ethnic tension in Guyana. He cited instances of history. I replied in another article in which I made three main points, namely: (i) that Dr Hinds had ignored the PPP’s offer to the PCD in 1992 for Dr Clive Thomas to be the prime ministerial candidate with Jagan as the presidential candidate; (ii) that Dr Hinds had ignored the PPP’s proposal for a National Patriotic Front and Government in 1978: and, (iii) that Dr Hinds had relied on unknown or obscure facts of little or no significance particularly relating to Mr Eusi Kwayana. I accused Dr Hinds of having a narrative of historical guilt of the PPP which ignores these facts. Maybe he thought that the facts were unimportant or did not contradict his conclusion. But in the absence of any explanation by him of his omissions, I think that I am entitled to make the conclusion that I did in view of the flat contradiction of Dr Hinds’s narrative by the facts he omitted.
Mr Abu Bakr, in his letter, in a patently disingenuous effort, seeks to rescue Dr Hinds and obscure that objective by donning the garb of intellectual neutrality and by changing the argument. His lecture to us on the psychology and narrative of suffering of ethnic groups in divided societies is interesting but irrelevant. It forms the backdrop for his conclusion that: “It is therefore unlikely that agreement as to the existence and interpretation of ‘objective fact’ will be easy.”
The facts – the National Patriotic Front proposals of 1978 and the PPP’s offer to the WPA in 1992 – are not in dispute. They occurred. They are known by Dr Hinds. He lived through them. There is no possibility of disagreement here. The prima facie conclusion in both instances, unless shown to be otherwise, is that the PPP was making efforts to deal with the political/ethnic divisions in Guyana, contrary to Dr Hinds’s criticisms of the PPP and Mr Bakr’s attempt at providing protective cover for Dr Hinds. How can these facts be “irrelevant” as suggested might be the case by Mr Bakr? And how can Mr Bakr conclude, by my insistence that their omission leaves a gap in Dr Hinds’s analysis, that I am party to some kind of “myth” that “Dr Jagan’s hand [was] eternally extended in a gesture of reconciliation and invitation”? History, not myth, or ethnic narrative, will eventually determine Dr Jagan’s gestures. I’m not talking about history. I’m talking about living facts, within the memory of both Dr Hinds and me.
My issue with Dr Hinds had nothing to do with separate ethnic narratives in Guyana. I do not believe that Dr Hinds subscribes to or would perpetuate ethnic narratives. And Mr Bakr makes no such accusation against Dr Hinds. Sadly, however, he freely implies, without evidence, that I am inspired by a PPP/Indian narrative which is “at the root of the conflicting versions of PPP and Guyanese history.” Is Mr Bakr saying that I represent the PPP/Indian version of history and Dr Hinds represents a separate Guyanese version? If so can Mr Bakr tell me if he is saying that the National Patriotic Front proposals and the PPP’s offer to the WPA are figments of my PPP/Indian imagination and mere PPP/Indian versions of history?
My argument with Dr Hinds is not about ethnic narratives, a reality in ethnically divided societies, including our own, but which Mr Bakr unsustainably propounds as a defence of Dr Hinds. It is about Dr Hinds’s narrative of the PPP. In excoriating the PPP, he fails to mention known, salient facts which contradict his thesis. I believe that this is unacceptable for a political scientist and a man of Dr Hinds’s stature.
I should like to thank Mr Kwayana for the historical tidbits, correcting my own representations and adding a few more. Despite my ignorance of some of the facts and mistake about others, I believe my judgment about Mr Kwayana and his motivations are accurate. He is not qualified to be a judge in his own cause.
However, in relation to the exchange between Dr Hinds, Mr Ogunsaye and myself, Mr Kwayana glaringly omits mention of the PPP’s initiatives of 1978 and 1992 under discussion. His letter, therefore, does nothing to resolve my complaint about the failure of Dr Hinds to consider important facts, of which he is aware, in his judgment of the PPP. Mr Kwayana unjustly and unjustifiably accuses me of asking for an apology from only one side of the historical narrative. I did no such thing. My sole and singular complaint was against Dr Hinds’s narrative about the PPP, which is incomplete and flawed because of its incompleteness.
In relation to the PPP generally, Mr Kwayana gives us his usual offerings – starting with sarcasm, spicing up the middle with self denigration and ending in bitterness. They speak for themselves. No response is necessary.
I thank your readers for their patience. They must by now be thoroughly bored with this issue. I undertake to now bring my side of this correspondence to a close.
Yours faithfully,
Ralph Ramkarran
Its a pity that u choose to no longer be a part of this discussion. Your main arguments or facts to demonstrate the PPP had attempted racial reconcilliation by inviting Dr. Hinds to join the PCD are at best weak. If the PPP was and still is interested in racial reconcilliation then it must demonstrate this internally and on a daily basis, and not by making superficial gestures. The fact is the way Mr. Jagan went after Mr. Kwayana after he refused to join his slate showed his contempt for genuine reconcilliation. The fact that with Mr. Sam Hinds as Prime Minister for 17yrs has not brought about any reconcilliation, as a matter of fact things have gotten worse. As it relates to who should appologise, for me its not necessary. If u r sorry about something u did I should not have to ask for an appology and if u r sorry then u won’t continue to commit the same acts under different guises.
Ramkarran’s frequent interventions on this issue confirm his ineliegibility for the presidency of this country. Ramkarran is a product of the bitter ethnic battle between the PPP and PNC and demonstrates in his narrative his inability to move the debate beyond the narrow ethnic divide that has moved Guyana backwards as its Carribean neighbours have made substantial progress. We need to hear from this emerging champion of this regime what his position is on extra-judicial killings, corruption, and the range of other glaring issues in this society. I suppose, in response to this he will run for cover claiming his status of Speaker precludes comment.
What is needed is to write down the facts as we see them from each of our own perspectives in books and publish them before we leave this existence.
Okay Darwin, you go first.By the way, how many email adresses do you have Hacket?
Same email address, but easy to change the blogging name, just type in a different one. But Kaietuer remains.
Ramkaran, I detect a lack of intellectual curiosity on your part. Yes, hide the history from the soup drinkers. Be gone!
Wow—such arrogrance ” he is not qualified to be the judge in his own case”—yes this is the arrogance we live with.
As i suggest to Mr. Kwayana (and it was not published yesterday) this is the opportunity to bring all the facts out and write as often as possible to make it clear and the historical circumstances in which the occassion led to the played out history.
Write often or we will be drowned by the lies in the “West on Trial” and the “Oral Historyof the PPP ” by Birbalsingh ( more like PPP gossip to make themselves arrogant like Ralph.)
So Mr. Kwayana plese write to erase the arrogance of this letter writer.
Politics, history, religion, philosophy are subjective desciplines. Subject matter in each of them can be easily slanted or skewed to suite one’s agenda, to win over hearts and souls, or to defend hogwash ideas or failed policies. These desciplines are not necessarily on facts, but what the author(s) say about the facts.
Gentlemen, though there is the need to give both sides of the story in an objective way, I can say that any “fact” at all is the way the victims feel about the policies and politics that are/were practiced in Guyana.
The hoplessness, the pain, the anxiety. Watching a mother cry, not knowing where the next meal is going to come from for her children. Yes my friends. I was there. I walk this path. I seen many such cases. How do you propose to solve this?
Why sould be a debate about facts? No debate is necessary.Facts speak for themselves.
Facts cannot speak; they are dumb. Only people can speak what they perceive and interpret as the facts.
A blanket statement will cover all the issues.Are you ready?Guyana’s problems is inherent in the Guyanese DNA.Unless we have Guyanese born abroad become leaders of Guyana,the gene pool will continue to churn out the same likeness of material.
Heredity transcends territorial boundaries. A Guyanese born in the US still has Guyanese DNA.
Well we have to recognise that talking about who stoked racism and who quenched it goes beyond who offerred to share the government with whom at what point. Panday shared the government in Trinidad at one point and then jumped out claiming the racism was too bad and playing the card.
The question is, did Cheddie dissuade Indians from believing the PNC was driven by other things than racism in banning flour? Did he speak out clearly against Indian racism and prejudice. Perhaps he did. We need to know. In any case I am sending a reponse this newspaper.
Fact….he didn’t.The main thrust or objective in banning flour and other foodstuffs was to get Guyanese to use local products….and avoid the use of foreign exchange….just stop and imagine for a moment….had we moved in this direction we would today have been indeed the bread basket of the West Indies…..unfortunately…..the maturity of politicians in Guyana has been sorely lacking…..and none puts Country first……Actions ’speak’ louder than words…..and for 17 years this present PPP Govt has been deadly silent….
I would like to know if we have a genuine race problem amoung our citizens or whether politicians use the race card for political benefits
Gaul, there are persons who can argue very persuasively for one or the other, even to trotting out and parading figures to support their view.
Gaul says:
June 28, 2009 at 4:55 pm
“I would like to know if we have a genuine race problem amoung our citizens or whether politicians use the race card for political benefits.”
Guyana has always had a race problem. A few interacial breeding doesen’t change anything. I can’t think of anything that has changed the way the two races really think about each other.
Reader Gaul,for your enquiry,a combination of citizenry and politicians push the race issue.However,that can be averted at a srroke.South Africa.One man one vote.If one man one vote is good for South Africa, it is good for Guyana.Get the elections going then,and nobody should have anything to say about the outcome.
There are different ways of collating the votes from one man/woman – proportional representation, first-past-the-post, and others – that can yield different outcomes.