Dear Editor,
Please consider publishing my response in your esteemed newspaper. The original title to my letter was “redefining history”. I applied a method of analysis that was consistent to the subject matter, be it Jagan, Burnham, or anyone else. Stabroek News changed the caption to “The power to shape our future was always in our hands”, one that I am in agreement, with an important modification. I would replace “was” with “is”, which is the fundamental point of the movies I listed. External forces having a major role in shaping who we are is a constant in our lives. ‘No country is an island’ in Dr. Ganpat’s metaphor. British Guiana was the result of world historical forces at work, from the early period of Dutch rule, a brief period of Spanish rule, to the British takeover. The 1763 Rebellion headed by Cuffy and Accara, was an attempt to seize control from foreign powers. It was crushed, but that does not make it a failure. Today we sing praises to our heroes, for their sacrifices. There were internal problems between Cuffy and Accara, possibly of some similarity to the Burnham/Jagan divide. The pre-independence struggle brought forth Jagan and Burnham, amongst others. We shaped our destiny, through our struggles, against a collapsing colonial power and the rising imperialist power, the USA. The post-independence struggle was another phase and our struggles mirrored our response to the challenges. And the post-1992 Guyana, again shaped by the world historical forces, is a ‘work in progress’. It is also being reshaped by the discovery of massive oil reserves controlled by a major US corporation, and other western interests. It is a “what if” as to how this drama will unfold, and recent controversies around oil reveal major challenges unfolding. My point is, at no time in history is the struggle free from external forces. The struggle against those external forces is what shapes who we are. This led me to the obvious conclusion that: “The power to shape the future is in our hands today, as it always has been. We simply do not accept the results of our handiwork.” The debate over Jagan and Burnham is taking place in the year 2021, about events that have unfolded over the past 70 years. During this period, world historical events took place with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, soon followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. These events had a major impact on the reassessment of our history.
Dr. Ganpat explains that: “The paragraph in my earlier letter made the point that the US perceived Jagan as a communist, which posed a grave danger to its geostrategic interest in the region. Hence it was perception and belief, not reason, logic or evidence or all three that motivated the political decisions of the US, which was to prevent the Pro-Soviet Jagan from leading an independent Guyana at the height of the Cold War. That’s all I am saying”. He is saying that the US position was devoid of “reason, logic or evidence”, but was based on “perception and beliefs”. This would suggest, if not imply and/or assert, that Jagan’s position was based on “reason, logic, or evidence, or all three.” Hence, Jagan is being condemned for supposedly engaging the highest faculties in the making of rational decisions. Dr. Ganpat and those who lend mutual support to his reading of history, want to paint us as victims. According to his doctrine, we are victims of US “perception and beliefs”, as well as Jagan’s “reason, logic, or evidence, or all three”. If we are “victims” of Jagan, then what are we in relation to Burnham? Curiously, it is Jagan and the PPP that have always “perceived and believed” themselves to be the victims of Burnham and the US. An exploration of the “victim” mentality of Indians in Guyana holds the key to the understanding of our “perceptions and beliefs” of what Guyana is all about. It is a matter of urgency that we do so. This is what “reason, logic, and evidence” demands of us.
Sincerely,
Rohit Kanhai
