The opposition PPP today rejected the use of the historic Red House for the collections of Presidents other than the late Dr Cheddi Jagan.
In a statement, Freedom House said: “Red House is a symbol of the “Four Freedoms” that Jagan so ardently believed in; it symbolizes his fight for Guyana’s independence, for the right of the Guyanese people to elect a government of their choice, for a democratic culture and for peace and social progress.
“To associate Red House with Burnham, Hoyte and perhaps later Granger would be a historical misnomer and contrary to the progressive anti-colonial and anti-imperialist ideas, thoughts and memories associated with Cheddi Jagan.”
The statement will likely sharpen the divide between the government and the PPP over the future of Red House which is currently the repository of Dr Jagan’s life’s work.
During the budget debate this year, Minister of State Joseph Harmon disclosed that after being renovated at the cost of millions, the historic Red House was leased by the former PPP/C government to a private company for 99 years at a rate of $1,000 per month. He added that state funds were still used to pay the staff afterward.
Harmon told the National Assembly that up to 2012, Red House, which was renamed the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre, was state property. Since Harmon’s announcement, the government has made it clear that it is intent on revoking the lease and possibly having the works of other presidents housed there.
Last month, Attorney General Basil Williams said that there had been discussions with the PPP on the building. Freedom House today clarified that it was not part of the meeting with Williams and had advised against it. It said that Williams met with two members of the Management Committee of Red House.
An edited version of the PPP statement follows
Mr. Basil Williams, at a press conference held recently, referred to his meeting with “a PPP delegation” for talks to have the Red House “lease deal revamped”.
The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) wishes to make it clear that at no time did a “PPP delegation” meet with Mr. Basil Williams. Further, there are no on-going talks between Mr. Williams and the PPP.
Mr. Williams met with representatives of the Management Committee of Red House who had been earlier advised by the Party against such a meeting with Mr. Williams and particularly in the absence of any written communication from the Attorney General’s Chambers on the matter.
However, two (2) members of the Management Committee persisted and proceeded to the meeting with Mr. Williams only to have their views/proposals rebuffed by Williams as was predicted by the PPP.
The PPP is of the view that the name “Red House” involves more than meets the eyes.
Red House is not simply a reflection of the vivacious red in which the building is painted. It is also an exemplification of the fact that Jagan was, at that time, branded a “Red” and a “Communist” and due to the fact that he lived at the time in that building it became known as Red House or the Red’s House.
Consequently, since neither Burnham nor Hoyte were deemed “Red” nor “Communist”, nor did they share the ideology nor philosophy of Jagan, the suggestion that Red House be the depository of his life’s work is not only ludicrous but objectionable to say the least.
Red House is a symbol of the “Four Freedoms” that Jagan so ardently believed in; it symbolizes his fight for Guyana’s independence, for the right of the Guyanese people to elect a government of their choice, for a democratic culture and for peace and social progress.
To associate Red House with Burnham, Hoyte and perhaps later Granger would be a historical misnomer and contrary to the progressive anti-colonial and anti-imperialist ideas, thoughts and memories associated with Cheddi Jagan.
Red House serves as a continuous embodiment of Jagan’s life’s work linked especially to the early times of his life as Premier of the then British Guiana.
In the circumstances, it would be anathema to disperse, integrate and to contaminate all that Jagan stood and fought for with the reactionary pro-imperialist, repressive and oppressive praxis of the Burnham/Hoyte regime.
The sad thing is to see this misnomer being promulgated by the disciples of Burnham and Hoyte who obviously, have ulterior motives disguised as good intentions that requires us to constantly sharpen our sense of awareness.
Jagan’s legacy can, in one way or another, be associated with former President Janet Jagan, Samuel Hinds, Bharrat Jagdeo and Donald Ramotar but certainly not with Hoyte and Burnham. What they stood for are wide apart in relation to what Burnham and Hoyte stood for and is like mixing apples with oranges.
Moreover, looked at in the context of the wider society, since there is certainly no semblance of unity nor cooperation between the PPP and the PNC, why seek to promote a falsehood by placing the founder leaders and political adversaries of these parties under one roof? Such an act can be characterized as the epiphany of surrealism and consequently, abhorrent and distasteful to the hundreds of thousands of members and supporters of the PPP in particular, and all decent-minded Guyanese in general.
Hoyte’s House at Lot 12 North Road, Bourda, is currently unoccupied and shut tight for years now; why not take possession and use it as Hoyte’s House?
A section of Castellani House can be used for Burnham or better yet, why not make the proprietor of the residence at Belfield an offer he cannot refuse?
The Management Committee at Red House must reject outright the approach by the APNU+AFC nihilists, who would have us believe in nothing, have no loyalties and no purpose in life other than, perhaps an impulse to destroy Jagan’s legacy.
In the circumstances, all Guyanese who support maintenance of the status quo in respect of Red House must reject the subterfuge and bullyism by the APNU+AFC to subvert the annals of history and to allow historical revisionism to prosper in our society to the detriment of present and future generations.
It is interesting to note that some countries have criminalized the negationist revisionism of certain historical events as well as the denial and minimization of historical events associated with outstanding personalities in their countries’ history.
Guyana need not go in that direction save there is total national unanimity and consensus to go that far.
