Dear Editor,
I thank Abu Bakr for our debate and his latest reply captioned ‘In general, the PNC and government were more restrained in their responses,’( SN, July 9). It provides me with an opportunity to contribute to Guyana’s historiography in a way that I think fills lacunae.
I promised myself years ago to write two books – one academic, the other on my life. I still want to pursue that goal but time keeps slipping away.
But my newspaper contributions should add to our county’s historiography if I fail to compose the two books. I endorse Abu’s approach that we need to look at the Burnham period more closely and I am in complete agreement that there were lighter moments of repression under Burnham that we would not see under the PPP today if the shape of the opposition to Burnham was the same today. Today’s regime is nastier.
As Abu would know I went through two incidents that I couldn’t see happening under Burnham. I believe state agents acting on central orders made attempts on my life. I am of the inflexible belief they were motivated by the heat of my columns.
I couldn’t see Burnham ordering an assault on me for my columns. He would have waited for more conspiratorial acts by me.
In my academic head, I believe the PNC under Burnham would have considered my columns as part of the things government has to face. When an opportunity presented itself, I may have got some rude words from the regime but not physical attacks.
I deeply hold the view that Guyana’s historiography has obfuscated the positive side of Forbes Burnham’s rule and has obfuscated the negative side of Cheddi Jagan’s politics. When it comes to recording Burnham’s descent into the frightening use of power, history has got it right. No fanatical love for Burnham can dissolve his undemocratic pathways. They are simply too numerous to wish away.
But history should record the other inviting, salutary, impressive side of Burnham. Unfortunately it has not been done yet, neither by his children nor his protégés.
What you get from Burnham supporters is banal stuff that undermines the legacy of Burnham. There is too much denial of the authoritarian dimensions of his stewardship rather than a thoughtful, plausible presentation of what he stood for and what he achieved.
On every occasion a Burnhamite supporter opens his/her mouth, it is not about Burnham’s seminal contribution to Third World culture, Guyanese nationalism, etc. It is always a denial of the wrong side of Burnham. I think Abu’s polemic here addresses that deficiency and Abu’s perspective needs to be joined by those who want to see a fair treatment of Burnham in Guyanese history.
It simple boggles the mind why Burnhamite scholars do not write about Burnham’s exemplary accomplishments. I will offer two examples, one of which I mentioned in a paper I recently presented at the annual conference of the Guyana Historical and Research Society. Prime Minister Burnham requested a contingent from the YSM to greet the visiting Chinese Vice- Premier at the airport.
The YSM leadership refused, citing China’s cooperation with apartheid South Africa. Burnham accepted their position and did not retaliate. There is no way Jagan would have remained unmoved if his request for a PYO delegation to greet an important Soviet Union official had been turned down.
Secondly, historiography has recorded Jagan as being a victim of Western bullyism. Burnham as leader of Guyana was equally victimized by the West. The Reagan administration was nasty to Burnham for his involvement in helping the Grenadian and Nicaraguan revolutions.
About Jagan: My writings over the past thirty years have been very revisionist on Jagan’s politics and his reign in the fifties and from 1992. I don’t believe Jagan has committed the same amount of repugnant, repellant and unacceptable acts as Forbes Burnham. But historiography continues to paint him in a better light than Burnham and I think that is not only misleading but dangerously unfair. The reason for this is because Jaganite scholars continue to hide Jagan’s racial preferences and anti-nationalist and self-centred politics during his years in power including 1992-1997.
Just one example. Dr Jagan after he became President told me that he could not appoint Dr Clive Thomas as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Guyana without Professor Thomas going through the formality of an application.
At the same time, Jagan was inviting many Indian diaspora intellectuals to come and work with him, and they came without even applying orally. Jagan knew Dr Thomas was indignant at being asked to submit an application and he used that opportunity to deny a giant like Clive Thomas what was naturally due to him.
I could cite many more examples of the egregious conduct of President Jagan, including turning a blind eye from 1993 onwards to Indian businesses which were engaging in corrupt acts.
President Jagan victimized Malcolm Harripaul for acting against these Indian capitalists when he was the head of the fraud squad. Our historiography is still awaiting the arrival of historical facts.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
