Dear Editor,
The period of the Cold War was the most important geopolitical episode of the last century. The partial declassification of sensitive materials by the United States (Foreign Relations Files) on British Guiana 1961-63; 1964-68; Wikileaks and Colonial Office and MI5 documents provided an important source of information for an objective analysis on the impact of the Cold War in Guyana. Early this millennium, two publications by Stephen Rabe and Colin Palmer provided important insights on the effects of the Anglo-American cold war policies on the then British Guiana. Given that the British MI5 documents were released later, Clem Seecharan’s book was most welcomed as a new addition that should bring new insights.
Clem Seecharan’s publication contained more than seven hundred pages with nine chapters and a conclusion. More than two thirds of the book is devoted to selected quotes and evidence that Dr. Cheddi Jagan was an avowed Marxist-Leninist, something that was known and did not need that extensive elaboration that made the reading rather tedious. The book did not define what was meant by the Cold War, when and how it started and why the time period chosen was 1946-1992, dates that did not coincide with the beginning nor the end of the Cold War. Further, research continues as to whether national security or economic interest was paramount to the US as it relates to cold war policies in different countries; be it covert or overt actions.
President Kennedy took a harder line on British Guiana especially after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion that embarrassed him personally along with the rise of popular national liberation movements in Central America considered Uncle Sam’s special backyard. Some Republicans argued that British Guiana would be the second Cuba in the Hemisphere and that Kennedy was weak on tempering communism. Further, Kennedy was months away from what many considered would be a close Presidential election with his opponent Barry Goldwater, an extremist promising use of military force to curb communism.
Looking at the Republican Convention in 1963 and how Presidential hopeful Nelson Rockefeller was heckled off the podium is an indication of the rise of extremism. Professor Seecharan argued that the British and the Americans were vindicated on their cold war policies on British Guiana. While Professor Seecharan justified the Anglo-American stance, Arthur Schlesinger, Personal Aide to President Kennedy in the 60’s, admitted later that a great injustice was done to Cheddi Jagan, and he felt bad about his role thirty years ago (Nation US weekly June 4, 1990). Schlesinger’s remarks were clearly a vindication of Cheddi Jagan.
Iain Macleod the Colonial Secretary and then chairman of the Conservative Party in Britain met President Kennedy at the Oval office in 1963 and he insisted that British Guiana should be given Independence since it was no threat to the US. Macleod argued that “Dr. Jagan was no hardcore communist. He is a naïve London School of Economics Marxist filled with charm and personal honesty and juvenile nationalism. If I had to make a choice between Burnham and Jagan as head of my country I would choose Jagan any day of the week”. However, the tables turned when Macleod exited the office and Duncan Sandys became his replacement. He succeeded in delaying independence and forced Proportional Representation (PR) on Guiana. It is important to note that when PR was introduced in Guiana, Dr. Makepeace Richmond who was Deputy Leader of the United Force, wrote later in the Catholic Standard (1990) that PR mean permanent racism.
Dr. Jagan was castigated by Professor Seecharan for practicing racial politics in British Guiana – this allegation was challenged before by Professor Perry Mars (2011) an avid researcher on ethnicity, race and class. In his review of Colin Palmer’s book, he argued that “historical evidence showed that racial and ethnic division that followed the split of the PPP in 1955, and ignited political violence between 1962 and 1964 were mainly instigated by the British and American governments in order to prevent the supposedly communist Jagan from obtaining political power. Jagan’s political opponents, Forbes Burnham and Peter D’Aguiar, were more directly culpable in this racial and political conspiracy given their collusion with colonial and American authorities.” Moreover, a reputable historian, Dwarka Nauth, stated in his book, “A History of the Indians in Guyana”, when Dr. Jagan won the East Demerara constituency in 1947 only twenty six percent of Indians were registered to vote. A veteran journalist, the late Paul O’Hara told me race was always used as a weapon against Jagan in politics.
Professor Seecharan stated that after the PPP lost power in 1964 only three of its ministers remained in the Party namely, Cheddi and Janet Jagan and Boysie Ramkarran. This is far from accurate since EMG Wilson remained and worked with the PPP until his death in 1994, also former Finance Minister Dr. CR Jacobs was assistant General Secretary of the party at the time of his death in 1971 while former Minister of Education Cedric Nunes suffered more than 100 days in detention, was sick and migrated for health reasons but continued to support the party. Professor Seecharan took a low swipe at Boysie Ramkarran, who despite not being a person of letters was highly respected in the political and trade union field. Late DP Sankar and Leonard Dehal, two of the foremost Industrial Managers in sugar, attested to that by saying he was no pushover and even his political opponents attested to his devastating power of repartee that enlivened the entire Parliament Chamber.
The publication states that Dr. Jagan left a tarnished legacy, however, serious academic research pointed to the contrary. Professor Percy Hintzen of Berkley University, California wrote in an article on Race, Ideology and International Relations (2003) that during its term of office the PPP implemented policies that were directed at ameliorating the conditions of the country’s lower strata. Operating under considerable political restrictions of colonialism between 1957 and 1964, the party nonetheless managed an impressive array of domestic accomplishments. Its policies were focused on agriculture, health delivery, education and social welfare. Extensive and comprehensive surveys of the country’s resources were made for the first time. The country’s electricity generating capacity was upgraded and expanded with state takeover of the Canadian owned electric company. Agricultural production, particularly rice and vegetables, were expanded considerably. Malaria was eradicated and successful campaigns were introduced to control polio, typhoid and all other forms of diseases. Free medical care was introduced, and there was considerable expansion and upgrading of housing throughout the country and rent control ordinances were enacted to protect the rights of tenants.
There was also considerable expansion of primary and secondary education with the state assuming full control and management of all primary schools. Technical education and teachers training was expanded, and a University of Guyana was established. These achievements, as underlined by Professor Hintzen, are a strong reason why Dr. Jagan left a lasting legacy. In conclusion, one would have expected Professor Seecharan to present a more objective analysis of Dr. Jagan with a clearer cut conclusion backed by verifiable evidence. However, he seems to harp on Jagan’s socialist ideology. This however is not new as University of Guyana Lecturer Dr. Rishee Thakur in a letter (10/15/2007) in the independent media stated, “reading of the work of Professors’ Seecharan and Ramharrack locates them in another trajectory in common with a traditional East Indian middle class fear of Jagan and the PPP’s left politics”. Finally, many independent analysts felt that Dr. Cheddi Jagan and British Guiana were victims of the cold war.
Sincerely,
Rajendra Rampersaud
