Latest update May 13th, 2024 12:59 AM
Aug 04, 2015 Letters
DEAR EDITOR,
Dr. Yesu Persaud, some local and overseas-based Guyanese businessmen, and a few New York-based Guyanese activists played a crucial role in transforming socialist Cheddi and Janet Jagan and PPP into moderate figures acceptable to Guyanese business and US political interests, leading to enormous goodwill for the party.
But after their death, the political children of the old man and old lady started to disrespect and even attack those who deposited goodwill savings into the PPP account and who helped the party get into office, forcing many to adopt a position to remove the PPP from office last May.
The leadership became drunk with power and went after Glenn Lall, Adam Harris, Yesu and many of the party’s supporters. Dr. Yesu and several of us in America helped build friendly relations between the US and leftist PPP and the business community, and the then opposition party that helped to propel it into power in 1992.
Jagan’s successors undermined the relationship with those who helped the party with their arrogance and hubristic behaviour leading to removal from power.
The PPP was adamantly opposed to American foreign policy (that was labeled imperialistic) and to the local bourgeoisie. A change in the relationship can be attributed to individuals like Vassan Ramracha and his brother Rennie, who stressed the importance of a new PPP ideology away from socialism and that would be friendly to the US and the business community. As political gurus, they notd this was necessary if the PPP were to have a chance at returning to office.
I met Vassan, Rennie, Jewan Singh, Chuck Mohan, Arjune Karshan, and other PPP-affiliated activists while a student and political activist in New York during the late 1970s. Chuck and Karshan were hardcore activists of the Association of Concerned Guyanese (ACG – a PPP affiliate group) that was founded by Mel Carpen, Flatty Singh and others.
In Guyana, influenced by my teachers Dr. Chaitram Singh and others, I became an outspoken teenage political activist in 1976 against injustice at the Corentyne High School that continued into 1977 with the student strikes. This activism was carried over in NY when I migrated to further my studies at City College of New York (CCNY), a hot bed of political activism and left wing movements.
In the Fall of 1977, at CCNY, I met Vassan and Rennie, both political science majors, Baytoram Ramharack and other Guyanese at the India Club activities held on Thursday afternoons. The Caribbean Students’ Association made it clear Indians were not welcomed. So we gravitated towards the India Club, the closest we could relate with culturally. However, because the India Club lacked a Caribbean Indian focus, we formed the Indo Club that addressed issues more pertinent to Indo-Caribbeans.
It was Vassan and Rennie who encouraged members of the Indo Club to address human rights abuses in Guyana. They shamed us for not making the restoration of democracy a priority. It was noted that the US supported the PNC dictatorship and would not change its position unless the PPP changed its ideology. Vassan and Rennie advised that democratic change in Guyana would only come about through a shift in the PPP ideological position and lobbying US to intervene against rights abuses.
Through street political activism and writing efforts of Ramharack, Vassan and myself, we convinced Members of US Congress of the need for democratic change in Guyana. But we could not convince Karshan’s ACG and the PPP of an ideological shift that would be looked upon favourably by Washington. It would take the collapse of communism in the late 1980s to bring about a change in the ideological position of Jagan. Even in July 1989 at the GOPIO Convention, Dr. Jagan was adamantly opposed to any change in his view of America and of his ideological conviction. He railed against Rennie in the presence of Ramharack and myself at the convention for suggesting a moderation of his political communist ideology. He called Rennie bourgeois, as he did Yesu Persaud and those who opposed his communist ideology that was an anathema to political survival in Guyana or anywhere in the west.
Yesu Persaud and the business community were sympathetic to Jagan for being cheated out of political office, but they were concerned about Jagan’s socialist policy, pointing out to us at the GOPIO Convention that change would not come about unless Jagan and the PPP moderated their political outlook. When Dr. Yesu suggested to Dr. Jagan to moderate his socialist ideology and anti-Americanism to make the PPP acceptable to the business community and America, Jagan shot back: “You are a bourgeois and I am a socialist. You engage in your capitalist activities and I will stick to my socialist principles”.
Yesu did not give up on moderating Jagan’s ideological position, seeing it as the only way for democratic reforms in Guyana and PPP’s electability.
During my teaching breaks in NY, I traveled to Guyana and met with Yesu, discussing Guyana’s future and how to bring about political change. He continued his personal meetings with Jagan and also arranged meetings with the business community. I also met Jagan at Freedom House, impressing upon him to moderate his anti-Americanism and anti-business position. He was not as hostile as before, saying he was open to investment in Guyana and that there would be a role for business in his administration.
Jagan would support perestroika and glasnost that was sweeping the Soviet Union, saying he was Gorbachev before Gorbachev. Eventually, Jagan embraced Yesu’s advice and stopped denouncing bourgeois economics and the business community. He viewed Yesu as an asset to neutralize anti-Jaganism among the business community and in helping to bring about democratic reforms in the country that would lead to free and fair elections.
Yesu was at Jagan’s side at several business meetings that were addressed by Jagan who slowly became palatable to the business community and gradually acceptable to the US. At virtually every meeting, whenever Jagan appeared to stray from a business-friendly theme or shifted towards anti-Americanism, Yesu would kick his feet or groan and Jagan would shift back to a middle ground. So Yesu and other businessmen were largely responsible for Jagan’s middle-of-the-road approach in relations with America which was largely responsible for the restoration of democracy in Guyana.
The business community was feeling at ease with a potential Jagan government and America was seeing a decreasing threat of Jagan to its regional interests.
Across in the US, the ACG group had also moderated its anti-Americanism and reduced its participation in anti-American activities. Meanwhile, my doctoral History (with whom I had three courses) Professor Arthur Schlesinger at CUNY Grad Center, with whom I had lengthy exchanges and pleaded for his assistance to help redemocratize Guyana, appealed to his contacts to assist us in our struggle for the restoration of democracy. Schlesinger was extremely influential in American politics and he spoke favorably about Jagan with his contacts at the US State Department, Congress, and the media fraternity. Thereafter, Jagan was featured in several influential newspapers and magazines. Even the conservative Wall Street Journal condemned the dictatorship in Guyana, likening it to apartheid South Africa in an editorial.
Schlesinger expressed regrets for his role in the removal of Jagan from office in 1964 and the installation of Burnham, who Schlesinger described as “a racist and opportunist”. Schlesinger would later meet with Jagan (at the left wing Nation Magazine office in Manhattan) and personally apologized to him for the 1960s race riots and his removal from office. In remarks to me, he blamed the race riots and Jagan’s removal on “the role of the CIA”, swearing he had nothing to do with it.”That was their recommendation and we simply implemented them,” stated Schlesinger.
While this was happening, Dr. Ramharack, Vassan and myself and a few others were lobbying Members of Congress and the State Department to intervene in Guyana to help restore democracy. Free and fair elections returned in 1992 leading to the rise of Jagan as President. Relations between Jagan’s government and the US blossomed and grew, but suffered a severe setback following the death of Jagan and his wife.
The political children of Dr. Jagan frittered away (“bilaway” as we say in panchayat politics) the goodwill that the Jagans, Yesu, the business community, and those of us in the US built and accumulated as political savings over the years. It was inexplicable why the PPP became unfriendly and hostile towards Yesu and other respected members of the business community and to America (indeed the ABC countries).
Not surprisingly, PPP was removed from office. Several business people I interacted with said PPP’s removal from office was justified because of the arrogance of its leadership among other factors. “They (the arrogant leadership) would not listen”, was how they put it.
The PPP owes a debt of gratitude to Dr. Yesu and other business leaders who helped influence change in the PPP and to those of us who lobbied the US government to help restore democracy in Guyana. Instead of being thankful and grateful to and humble towards those who did so much for the party, Jagan’s political children displayed nimakharism and paid the ultimate price. Had the PPP heeded advice and a list of recommendations from Yesu and the business community and objective political analysts and critics like myself, it would not have lost office.
Vishnu Bisram
Listen how to run an oil country
May 13, 2024
GCB T10 Blast Semi-finals… Kaieteur Sports – The semi-finals of the GCB T10 Blast will get underway today, barring inclement weather as the final four teams look to book spots in the...Kaieteur News – The PPP is engaging in myth-making in seeking to perpetuate the narrative that it is now an ideologically... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Is it ever justifiable for journalism to fan the flames of geopolitical tension? This question arises... 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]