Annan Boodram’s letter in the Stabroek News of December 31, 2009, published under the caption ‘We must eschew the “us” versus “them” mentality in the New Year’ refers.
Mr Boodram’s sincerity in his New Year call is questionable since, he has demonstrated his reluctance and/or inability to deal fairly and objectively with the roles Walter Rodney and the WPA played in the political struggles in the period he alluded to. This point assumes greater importance in light of the fact that Rodney and the WPA’s role in Guyanese politics was a non-racial one.
His interpretation of Rodney and the WPA’s role in Guyana’s national politics is very interesting. I have always made it a point to keep up to date with the analysis of our historical and current politics made by Indian Guyanese activists since, as opinion makers in the Indian community and the nation, their influence cannot be underestimated. Their declared perceptions of the situation in the country, warped as they may be, have contributed to my own understanding of the thinking of important sections in the Indian community.
Mr Boodram’s poisonous assertions against Walter Rodney and the WPA have been effectively dealt with by Nigel Westmaas, David Hinds and Abu Bakr in letters already published in the newspapers. Their very insightful presentations have relieved me of the need to make a comprehensive reply to his nonsense. However, there are aspects of his letter which I need to comment on and of course, to clarify, both for the purpose of the records and for the benefit of readers who have accessed Mr Boodram’s letter in some form and are unaware of the developments around the issues he raised.
In his attempt to diminish Rodney and the WPA’s outstanding and patriotic role in the country’s politics, Boodram reported that he had asked, Eusi Kwayana on a New York radio programme, “to itemize Rodney’s legacy in concrete terms in the context of Guyana’s politics and that Kwayana was unable to do so.” I am in no position to question the accuracy of Boodram’s contention. But even if the question was at all posed, I suspect that “legacy” might have deterred Kwayana from engaging the issue since Rodney would not have seen the role he was playing as one in which he had an interest in bestowing his” legacy.” For Rodney and the WPA, the collective was always more important than the personality. Of course, this is not to deny that political analysts, social scientists and political activists like the Boodrams, can legitimately ask the question which Mr Boodram claims to have asked. What I am absolutely sure about is this: if Boodram had even dared to pose to Kwayana the question about Rodney’s contributions to Guyana’s political process his response would have been most comprehensive and revealing.
In his attempt to prove that Rodney was “politically naïve” Boodram in his letter went on to state, “When I pointed out that if the WPA was the manifestation of Rodney’s legacy then that legacy was an awfully abject one….” Kwayana he claimed responded that the WPA had done “some things” after Rodney. Mr Boodram’s point of view is prevalent among reactionary elements in the Indian community and it is not surprising given the WPA’s poor showing in election politics in 1992 and in subsequent elections. What is obvious is that Mr Boodram is not interested in objective analysis. His sole intention was to cuss out the WPA. He has placed all of the party’s failings on Walter Rodney, when in fact we have been victims of the racially polarized politics which the WPA and Rodney had struggled to eradicate.
The post cold war politics that saw the USA reconciling with the Jagans, the agreement which was struck in Washington between Dr Jagan and officials of the US State Department, precipitated the demise of the PCD and contributed to the rebirth of the old politics, ie, Hotye/ Jagan/ PNC/PPP/C – African /Indian electoral contests with their known consequences.
I wonder what authority Mr Boodram relied on when he concluded that the WPA and its leadership claimed that the crowds they attracted during the civil rebellion and after Rodney’s assassination would have been transformed into strong electoral support. This was not only a fiction of his imagination but a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation. I challenge him to produce evidence to substantiate his claim, and further, I challenge him to produce any WPA document in support of his contention.
Many Guyanese of all races and even our political opponents had thought that on the strength of our political work, the party would have done very well in the 1992 general elections. Some were even over optimistic and believed that the WPA could have scored an upset win. This was not the view of the WPA. At best, we had hoped to have garnered enough votes to hold the balance of power. During that period it was none other than Brother Eusi Kwayana, with his long association with Guyanese politics and racial behaviour at election times, who had always kept us focused by cautioning about an unrealistic expectations. Boodram should heed Nigel Westmaas who pointed out that in Rodney’s time elections were never on the cards.
After the assassination of Walter Rodney, the party did more than its share of credible political work and on at least two occasions during the food crisis we called for a day of rest that resulted in significant success.
In closing, I want to assure Mr Boodram that Walter Rodney in his lifetime was very conscious of and not surprised by the behaviour of the ‘Boodrams’ of this world. Rodney was fully aware of their proclivity to rewrite history. He once pointed out to me in a conversation that in revolutionary struggle when you win you are heroes, but if you lose condemnation and ridicule are your reward.
Finally, I want to say that in spite of the WPA’s history of not promoting the personality cult, I am departing from party tradition and posit here that Walter Rodney’s “legacy” was a simple one – a true revolutionary must be prepared to die for the revolution if necessary.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
