Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter by Mayor Hamilton Green in the March 28, 2013 edition of Stabroek News (`What must be debated is the need for Justice, Equity and Decency to be all-pervasive’). In the letter, the mayor repeats a familiar narrative that distorts our political history. Mayor Green wrote the following: “After the PPP victory in 1957, this question first surfaced and for political reasons, the PPP Administration began discriminating in the Administration of the colony. This led to Sydney King (Eusi Kwayana) from within the PNC raising a demand for partition.”
The truth, which I am sure is known to Mayor Green, is that Kwayana’s principal “demand” was not partition. His principal “demand” was for “Joint Premiership” between Mr. Burnham and Dr. Jagan with partition as a last resort. Let me quote directly from the “Villager”, which contained Kwayana’s proposals on behalf of the African Society for Racial Equality (ASRE):
“Here is our special solution: Joint and equal Prime Ministership according to LAW, between the leaders of the Indian and the African people.
An independent Watch Committee established by Law, made up of people of all races and especially the minorities to supervise the spending of Government funds and the benefits derived by various races. The same committee will keep a watch over jobs and employment at all levels to see that justice is done to all races.
A socialist system without foreign links and a state neutral BY LAW, of Russia and the U.S.A. By socialism must be understood a system of co-operatives in all fields, existing private enterprise and some state enterprises; production for needs, respect for all religions and for the religious tradition of our peoples.
OR – If the power drunk Jagan, wanting to be a top dog as usual, should agree to this plan, all well and good. If he rejects it we should refuse to be ruled by him and call for a division of the country, before independence into three Zones – an African zone, an Indian Zone and a free zone in which those who wish to live with other races may do so. The cities will be free.”
I don’t wish to quarrel with the Mayor, a fellow fighter against the current political depravity and with whom I have cordial relations. I don’t know his reason for omitting the essence of Kwayana’s “demand” and highlighting the alternative to the “demand.” Maybe he wanted to stress his point. But in doing so, he painted a distorted picture that is obviously unfair to Kwayana. But it is even more unfair to our young people to give them part of the story on such sensitive and important matters. As a student of history, the mayor must know that we ought to strive as much as possible for historical accuracy.
There is an irony to this story. Both Jagan and Burnham rejected Joint Premiership, a rejection that played not a small role in pushing the country to civil strife which left a portioned country in its wake. By the time Jagan made his own proposal for Joint Leadership, it was too late. Both Jagan’s PPP and Burnham’s PNC were to benefit politically from that partition. And it was Kwayana’s WPA that would struggle to unpartition the country. Another aspect of the irony is that both Jagan and Burnham and their respective parties would later embrace, even if only when in opposition, Kwayana’s “Jointness” as the solution to our seemingly chronic ethno-political illness.
Yours faithfully,
David Hinds
