Latest update April 24th, 2024 12:59 AM
Feb 03, 2009 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon
Dr. Henry Jeffrey, writing in the letter section of both independent dailies last week observed; “I believe that had he (Dr. Cheddi Jagan) followed some of his more “radical” supporters and appeared to be associated with an armed uprising that cost Afro-Guyanese lives, the situation would have been very different. A non-violent approach is more likely to win over elements of a regime’s community base.”
This is a difficult position to defend especially when the person (Dr. Jagan) you are writing about has had such a long, controversial career. Dr. Jagan’s praxis stretched over more than sixty years. Did Jagan believe in the application of violence in political strategies? Yes is the response.
Did Jagan at the practical level practice violent confrontation? The answer is to a very small extent. The answers to these questions nullify the validity of Dr. Jeffrey’s thesis.
We start first with theory. Of all the people that embraced the theories of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin since communism became an ideology in the late 19th century and early 20th century, Cheddi Jagan of Guyana remains one of the most emotionally charged and faithful servants of Marxism-Leninism in the world.
Jagan never waned even in an infinitesimal way from the doctrine. He was one of the last romantic purists in communist ideology.
An adherent to Leninism believed in the Marxist clash of class contradiction and the need for the proletariat to overthrow the ruling classes.
Marx didn’t have much to say on class violence but Lenin wrote profusely on the need for the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie.
When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia they executed the Tsar and his family. Cheddi Jagan accepted the exigency of the violent revolution and shamelessly and unapologetically supported the role of violence in politics.
In his long career, he endorsed some of the most brutal and bestial manifestations of what he would have referred to as justification of class preservation of the proletariat
Cheddi Jagan writings in the Thunder include support for the violent Soviet invasion of East Germany, 1953; Hungary, 1956; Czechoslovakia 1968. In his article, “The February Revolt” Jagan endorsed the uprising against the Eric Williams Government (Thunder, Vol. 2, No.1 Jan-March, 1971. Research would show Jagan applauded all the violent energies that came with socialist impulses and resulted in the overthrow of right-wing regimes.
This is not to say that he was wrong to do so. The point is that Dr. Jeffrey is saying that Jagan avoided a pathway that Jagan was proud to say he walked through.
To argue that Jagan advocated a non-violent road in dealing with authoritarian regimes is to show a large lack of familiarity with his long career.
Dr. Jagan never wrote a word of condemnation against one of the two most despicable rulers of modern civilization, Josef Stalin. But one wonders what Dr. Jeffrey was thinking when he overlooked the strongest legacy Cheddi Jagan passed on to all his protégés – his undying love for the Cuban Revolution.
Surely, Dr. Jeffrey must know that the Cuban Revolution was a long, violent battle. Jagan went to his grave without uttering a single word of disagreement on the cruelties and democratic denials of Fidel Castro. This man executed thousands and imprisoned thousands and ended up ruling over a country that still lives under primitive conditions.
What about Dr. Jagan’s actual politics. It is stretching the imagination to think that Dr. Jagan did not know of the brutal attacks by his cadres that resulted in the loss of Afro-Guyanese lives from the seventies onwards. Surely, Dr. Jeffrey is not saying that it was PNC members that killed and wounded policemen guarding the Corentyne toll gates.
Didn’t Jagan know about incessant arson on the sugar estates by his activists? But what about the many defectors from the PPP that were attacked and some killed? The most talked about story in this respect was Sydney Sukhu.
It is true that Dr. Jagan did not conceive of a general guerrilla attack on the Burnham regime. Neither did he agree to an uprising.
But these two approaches were unrealistic. Jagan did not have the strategic location from which to launch these attacks. Also he did not have popular support. Only the Indians stood him. To confront the PNC Government would have engendered race wars.
Finally, it is time the debate resume about which party weakened the Burnham administration.
What did the PPP achieve in the 28 years it was in opposition? It would have remained for double that time if the WPA did not emerge. The facts of Dr. Jagan’s long career need to be further researched lest the truth remains locked away.
LISTEN HOW JAGDEO WILL MAKE ALL GUYANESE RICH!!!
Apr 24, 2024
Round 2 GFF Women’s League Division One Kaieteur Sports – The Guyana Police Force FC on Saturday last demolished Pakuri Jaguars FC with a 17 – 0 goal blitz at the Guyana Football...Kaieteur News – Just recently, the PPC determined that it does not have the authority to vitiate a contract which was... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]