Dear Editor,

I refer to a letter by Mr David Hinds (SN, June 5). Mr Hinds referred to a 1956 split in the PPP. He wrote: “In retrospect the 1956 split of the PPP when Sydney King, Martin Carter, Rory Westmaas et al were forced out of the party…”  This sentence contains two serious errors which, I suspect, were not intended. First, there was only one split in the PPP. That was in 1955. It resulted in a Burnham PPP faction and a Jagan PPP faction.

Secondly, “Sydney King, Martin Carter, Rory Westmaas et al” were not “forced out” of the PPP; there is no historical evidence in the public domain to support this kind of thought, or to justify the use of the phrase “forced out.”  Very often a person leaves an organization due to being at immense odds with its leadership; this is not being “forced out.” If there was indeed an expulsion, then let us re-write that part of the history in a proper and transparent manner.

Equally important, those who are privileged to acquire information from political figures should not convert such into historical truths at moments of their choosing to illustrate a history that is otherwise invisible to ordinary people. Mr Hinds made numerous other contentious points.  One is his reference to Mr Sydney King (now Eusi Kwayana) as the “same King who stood up for Jagan when Burnham tried to wrest the leadership” from Dr Jagan.

We have to make up our minds: either Mr Burnham broke party rules or he did not. If he did, then Mr King abided by party rules. If Mr Burnham did not break party rules, then Mr. King blundered. If one wishes to argue that Mr King “stood up” for Dr Jagan out of a practical need, fine.

But this would suggest that Mr King supported Dr Jagan out of allegiance for a leader instead of party rules. I understood Mr King’s decision to be one made because of party rules, but if this is incorrect, then we need to revisit the drama at that old cinema.

Yours faithfully,
Rakesh Rampertab