Dear Editor,
The two recent columns by Dr. Baytoram Ramharack have stirred quite a furor and, at least for me, in somewhat unexpected ways. Based on the online comments posted on these two columns, it appears that most bloggers (commentators?) basically agree with Dr. Ramharack that Burnham was a cunning man with an insatiable desire for power. On the other hand, a larger proportion of bloggers, presumably Indians, took issue with what Dr. Ramharack wrote about Dr. Cheddi Jagan: that his broad humanistic values were admirable, but he was politically naïve. Indians do not complain much when Burnham is scrutinized but go into paroxysm when any effort is made to do the same with Jagan. The asymmetric delight is both noticeable and troubling.
With respect to the column on Dr. Jagan, some bloggers and letter writers seem to be equally naïve and defensive and take refuge in an imagined world. Hence, their ruminations on what would have been and not what is (was), rest on historical counterfactuals and not reality. The letter by Harry Hergash is apparently premised on historical counterfactuals (SN, 3 December 2021). Here are two examples to illustrate what I mean. First, he asks: “Had Jagan been a devout Hindu who parlayed his Indian culture in 1953, would Messrs Carter and Kwayana have joined him in the only genuinely national political movement in the country up to that time?” How are we to know whether or “Messrs. Cater and Kwayana” would have joined Jagan if he were a devout Hindu? And if they did, how are we to know what would have happened? How do answering these “what if” questions help the thousands of us who have migrated or the impoverishment of Guyana?
Here’s the second example: “Ramharack writes ‘Jagan angered the imperialist gods, but the political guardian angel, considered a ‘god’ by his Indian supporters, could not deliver them to the promised nirvana.’ Who knows what he would have done if he had been given a chance in 1964?” It would be great if Mr. Hergash could enlighten us as to what would have happened if Jagan were “given a chance in 1964.” Having done that, so what? Answering such questions may bring emotional exuberance but the responses change zilch. We are still stuck, like Rain Storm, in the morass created by the two “fathers” of the nation.
“What-would-have-been” thinking is both unhelpful and misleading. There were four principal agents in the political equation: Burnham, Jagan, Britain and the United States of America. Burnham was interested in power and domination, Jagan in creating a socialist nirvana, Britain in getting rid of its insect-infested, racially divisive mudflat as it was becoming huge financial burden, and the US in protecting its geo-strategic interests in the region at almost any cost (the Bay of Pigs (Cuba) nuclear fiasco easily comes to mind). By the early 1950s, Britain was spending around US$20 million to keep its mudflat afloat, which is around US$120 million at today’s prices.
Since Britain almost abdicated its responsibility, the dominant agent in the quadripartite relationship was the US. Both Britain and the US suspected that Jagan had communist leanings since the early 1950s (the suspension of the Constitution in 1953 easily come to mind). And the dominant agent, the US, made its position crystal clear: it did not want another communist regime in the region. Whether or not Jagan was a real communist is not the point. The point is that the US geo-strategic interest was above the interests of Jagan, Burnham, Great Britain and Guyana. It is perception and beliefs that matter in politics, not reason, logic, evidence and reality. The post-mortem excursion into historical counterfactuals merely delights the analysts but has no bearing in reality.
Mr. Hergash asks: “If Jagan’s “lostness of culture” caused him to embrace inflexible marxism, what caused Burnham’s devolution into despotism and impoverishing the country?” While it is difficult to establish a causal link between “lostness of culture” and “inflexible Marxism,” it is not difficult to answer the second part of the question: it was Burnham’s hunger for power, domination and fame and the fact that he could not win a fair and free election that led to the victimization and marginalization of Indians, which, in turn, led to the destruction of the economy. It was Jagan’s Marxist’s leanings that gave Forbes Burnham the golden opportunity to fulfill his despotic ambition and that opportunity was created by Cheddi Jagan.
Anti-critics may argue as to whether Jagan was Marxist, socialist, communist or all three until the cows come home. But the man speaks for himself. It was Cheddi who told Naipaul: “It was Janet who, when she came here in 1943, brought me little Lenin Library books … It was the first time I read Marxist literature. And then … I began reading Marxist like mad. I read Das Capital after the Little Lenin series. And that helped me to have a total understanding of the development of society. Until then, all the various struggles – Indians, Africans, the American people – has been disjointed experiences.” Jagan became a Marxist mystic, a Marxist high priest, sometime around the mid-1940s. Jagan could have disregarded labeling and badgering and tell the Commission exactly what his political and economic philosophy was and was not. He was too intelligent to fall into the trap Lionel Luckhoo was laying for him. But he fell and life became hell for Indians in particular. To this day, no one can put Humpty Dumpty back together again – the country has been teetering on the brink of a failed state for some time no.
Finally, Mr. Hergash writes: “It is incredible that Indo-Guyanese academics keep on writing books to trash Cheddi Jagan but no one has seen it fit to write a book on Burnham.” I would like to refer Mr. Hergash to my recent book: “Guyana’s Great Economic Downswing, 1977-1990. Socio-Economic Impact of Cooperative Socialism.” Besides this book, there are several academic articles written by Indians that examine Burnham’s ambition, philosophy and actual doings. It appears that the only way to examine Jagan is to ask historical counterfactuals. Anti-critics can ask what-would-have-been questions and supply responses until they turn blue. None of it would change what actually happened in Guyana. We live in the real world and not an imagined one.
Yours truly,
Ramesh Gampat
