Dear Editor,
With reference to the letter by Mr Eusi Kwayana captioned ‘Jagan and Rodney were not in competition and not opposed to each other (SN, January 17), this is the first time in the history of Guyana’s politics I came across someone who claimed that Dr Jagan actually said that his party would take up arms.
Mr Kwayana wrote, “In 1957 an election year, Dr Jagan declared at a public meeting at Mahaicony that if the Hallett Boundaries Commission did not draw up the electoral constituencies in a fair manner, he and his party would take up arms. A major ethnic group felt disturbed and threatened. In 1957, the same election year, Mr Burnham declared at a public meeting in Georgetown that if the PPP won the election, the Guyanese people could regain their freedom only by a bloody rebellion. A major ethnic group felt disturbed and threatened.
“Let me add in fairness, that though I myself did not call for violence, I called for retaliation in 1964 and the Archbishop of the West Indies denounced ‘the damnable doctrine of retaliation.’”
Firstly, this statement requires much corroboration since it would be most counterproductive for Dr Jagan to actually advocate violence after his jailing and the suspension of the constitution in 1953. This seems like a cheap attempt by the senior statesman to equate Dr Jagan with the others who advocated violence in Guyana’s political history. Mr Kwayana wrote, “Jagan knew therefore as perhaps the Jaguars did not that he was in no position to lead an armed struggle.”
I contacted one former officer of the BG civil service who was closest to Dr Jagan at the time cited, and he categorically denied Dr Jagan ever advocated violence in any public meeting.
Secondly, according to my source, the Hallett Commission was detailed to demarcate the electoral constituencies in 1961 and not 1957.
Thirdly, any alleged call by Dr Jagan for violence in the 1957 (up to the sixties) context would have been action against the British who were in control of the colony and not the other major race as implied by Mr Kwayana.
Fourthly, it was crystal clear that the alleged call by Burnham for violence would have been the result of the PPP presumed victory at any election. Obviously violence would have been against the party and its supporters, (the other major race), which would have won the election. Is Mr Kwayana opening up the issue that the PNC projected violence against PPP election victories had been contemplated since 1957?
Fifthly, Mr Kwayana was careful to say he “did not call for violence, but for retaliation in 1964.” Retaliation smacks of violence. Mr Kwayana should have explained what form his retaliation was expected to take and why the Archbishop “denounced the damnable doctrine of retaliation.” Mr Kwayana’s trademark statement of the sixties was ‘partition or death.’ Death, Editor, does entail some kind of violence. Would Mr Kwayana have fought violently for partition?
Mr Kwayana is respected for his longevity in the politics of Guyana, but time and again I have scrutinized his take on issues and found them wanting.
Yours faithfully,
Seopaul Singh
