Dear Editor,
In Elton McRae’s missive ‘Baroness Amos should not be guest of honour at NY independence celebration’ (SN, May 5), the names of Martin Carter, Sydney King, Hubert Critchlow, Burnham, Gaskin, Kendall and John were mentioned, in addition to a general “others”, who fought for Guyana’s independence. While all of those who fought for independence cannot be mentioned in a short missive, at least towering personalities like Cheddi and Janet Jagan should have been mentioned. Cheddi and Janet Jagan, Rudy Luck, Moses Bhagwan, Pandit Ramlall, Nasrudeen (all five of whom spent time in jail for advocating independence), Yacoob Ally, Boysie Ramkarran, Fenton Ramsahoye, Ashton Chase, J B Singh, Latchman N Singh, C V Nunes, etc – were far more instrumental in Guyana obtaining its independence. It is noted that Burnham was criticized for collaborating with Britain and the US to delay independence. Critchlow was initially for independence, but then had a change of heart when Jagan and the PPP were to take the colony to independence, a move he opposed; Critchlow also opposed adult universal suffrage, according to Jagan.
The sentiment being voiced now against the Baroness should have been raised when the Commonwealth Secretary General was being chosen last year. Guyanese Ron Sanders (who considered slavery and indenturedship as abominations) did not get the blessing of the region. Nevertheless, the views of the public should be considered in deciding who is invited as guest speaker (s). The bulk of the Guyanese population in NewYork does not support the NY celebration, believing there is nothing to celebrate in their former homeland. So they will not see the Baroness or have an opportunity to chastise her position on slavery or other systems of exploitative labour. They are not even paying attention to the planned celebrations in the diaspora. It must be asked whether any of these are being funded by the Guyana government. The Baroness served a government; she had to advocate the position of her government which may not be her personal position on slavery – that is the nature of politics. At the same time, if one is uncomfortable with an official position, one tenders one’s resignation or points out the difference. Those who viewed Burnham as their hero did not condemn election rigging.
If the Baroness is retained as guest speaker, and a convincing case is not made out against her, then she should use the opportunity to clarify her position on slavery. And while she is at it, she should also state her position on the atrocities committed during the indenturedship system as well as the abuses meted out to indigenous people and what she intends to do as Secretary General to address grievances relating to all three problematics.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
