Dear Editor,
By the frequency of M Maxwell’s opinions to the letter columns I am not sure if this is a group of writers or an individual completely occupied. Aubrey Norton is an acquaintance, who I think I understand to a great degree. I have read both of their letters on Brigadier (rtd) Granger’ ‘s statement that this nation has no legitimate romanticized ‘Mother and Father’ icons. This was uttered in respect of the PPP’s constant mantra that Dr Jagan is the father of the nation, repeated over and over by President Ramotar. This distortion of the national profile is narrow politics, and comical in our context. On Republic Day 2011 the Chronicle carried a supplement that downloaded an edited version of a previous Stabroek feature item ‘The shape of Guyana,’ and carried an article by Parvati Persaud-Edwards titled ‘Harbingers of Guyana’s Independence and Republican status’ that constituted pre-Independence photographs with the Jagans as the predominant figures. A picture captioned ‘Bilal Ato described as a House of Israel, PNC sponsored thug proceeding to murder Father Dark’ topped the page, while at the bottom was an article defining the Jagans under the caption’ ‘Father and Mother of the Guyanese Nation.’ I attacked the latter historical distortion presented in the supplement in a letter to the Stabroek News, published March, 3, 2011. I did discuss this with the Brigadier and with others. The fact is that British Guiana was a colony-nation with all its attributes in a period when the world mood was anti-colonial, and it was divided by the Cold War. Guyana was already born when it became Independent.
The singular concept of ‘Father on the Nation’ is ascribed to leaders who breach the walls of separate powerful authorities causing them to relinquish their individual powers for that of a united ‘Idea.’ For example, there was ‘Shaka’ who forged separate Zulu kingdoms into one Zulu nation; Otto von Bismarck, who united the German states into the first Reich; Genghis Khan; Ras Kassa; Josip Broz Tito; Garibaldi and Kofi, who in 1763 in Berbice had united otherwise hostile African tribes under his leadership and like Tito’s Yugoslavia, upon his death they fragmented. Our nationalist anti-colonial leadership resides in the term, the founding leaders of the Independence movement, for the simple reason that too many people were involved to cultivate a party cult, which Cheddi Jagan himself would not have wanted.
The PNC has always defined Forbes Burnham as the ‘Founder Leader’; these were sophisticated men who understood that ‘Father of the Nation’ was simply not in vogue. Thus Aubrey’s letter surprised me; as a seasoned politician I can only assume that as with Mr Desmond Hoyte, Mr Robert Corbin and Ms Volda Lawrence, Aubrey now has a problem with David Granger to have misrepresented as he did, possibly to benefit the coming PNC leader of the party elections. The leverage for error I can afford Mr Maxwell cannot be allowed with Aubrey.
The PPP must understand that the public also understands that the written words false or true go into posterity. David Hinds in a letter of June, 16, 2012 in the Stabroek News, highlighted some deliberate inaccuracies in the remarks made by President Ramotar at the commissioning of the new Tipperary Hall building at Buxton village last month. The President’s referred to an old and amicable relationship between Buxton and the PPP, but avoided as outlined in Dr Hinds’ letter the historical time spaces of that relationship. The PPP seems locked into a decadent mindset, and we must be astute about their irritating agendas, which have led to the act and responses that have resulted in this exchange of letters.
Yours faithfully,
Barrington Braithwaite
