Latest update April 19th, 2024 12:59 AM
Jan 01, 2010 Letters
Dear Editor,
Guyana is a country of narratives, mostly ethno-racial. During the last couple of months we have argued over these narratives in the context of historical revisionism — Hinds-Kwayana-Ogunseye vs. Ramkarran, Jackson vs. Misir, Kissoon vs. Dev, to name three which come to mind..
Now in comes Anan Boodram.. His letter “We must eschew the “us” versus “them” mentality in the New Year (SN December 31, 2009) did not heed is own advice. He started off his letter as an endorsement of Ravi Dev but ended up with his own narrative or revisionism that heaped ridicule on one leader and showered praise on another. Note he describes Dev’s narrative as “almost objective.” Hence Dev’s detractors such as Freddie Kissoon and Lincoln Lewis are “almost non-objective.” I may be wrong, but I don’t think Ravi Dev, who understands ethnicity more than most, will describe his narrative as “almost objective.”
There is a lot in the letter with which I disagree, but I respect Boodram’s right to interpret political events and the activities of political leaders the way he wishes. I hope he did not intend his letter to be an ethnic statement or a comparison of Drs Jagan and Rodney. But as a student of ethnic narrative and politics in Guyana that outcome is what jumps out of me. Unlike Dev who generally overtly locates his discourse in the ethnic mix, the racial bent of Boodram’s narrative has to be ferreted out.
Let me say from the outset, especially for those who do not know, that I am WPA and Rodeyite. Thus I am less objective than others on Rodney and the WPA — I assess their roles from an insider’s perspective. I can also be found guilty of being more sensitive than non-WPA people to criticism of Rodney and the WPA. I have also been critical of Dr Jagan’s politics in the past and sought to highlight aspects of his praxis that his supporters have taken issue with.
I will do more of this in a forthcoming book. But I have tried to situate criticism of Dr Jagan in a broader critique of Guyana’s ethnic politics rather that dismiss him as a stupid politician of the first or any order who left no lasting legacy. I suspect that Mr. Boodram intended his letter to be an unbiased political critique, but it ended up as a “praise of “us” (the Indian) Jagan and a ridicule of “them” (the African Rodney). Boodram characterizes Rodney as, “naïve,” a “political novice of the first order,” “violent,” with “no legacy in concrete terms” and foolishly thinking “that crowd attendance would automatically translate into electoral support”. Further, according to Anan “Rodney did not build any political entity that endured with viability; did not lay down any policy/programme that was visionary or impactful; did not establish a cadre of leaders that forged ahead with any degree of political success.
His appeal was transient and personality-centred rather than premised on the potency and message of the political entity – the WPA.”
Finally, Boodram dismisses the crowds at Rodney’s meetings as the result of “Rodney’s rhetoric, the novelty factor, curiosity, an opportunity to anonymously express their frustrations without being targets, crowd-pull factors, attendance encouragement from many quarters, et al.” Well what Mr. Boodram is telling us in other words is that the people in those crowds were morons who risked brutality from the police and thugs and other forms of victimization to hear some rhetoric and attend a novelty show. Dr Jagan on the other hand was, “neither radical nor extremist,” he was “Bapu, the father figure a la Mahatma Gandhi” and his “embrace of Marxism was not dogmatic and deterministic.” Dr Jagan and the PPP faced “paradoxes” while the WPA “flailed, floundered and flapped”. For Anan, Jagan was not “naïve” not to realise that “he was insulated from the daily maneuverings and manipulations of the party and that he was fed only what those with regular access to him”. According to Boodram, Dr Jagan was a “a human being who was warm, caring, honest, approachable, humble, moral, and ethical, a man for whom ostentatious displays of wealth had little attraction. That same person will be the first to also admit that Cheddi had his imperfections, but that these flaws did not detract from a man who lived the conviction of his beliefs – an unwavering belief in the capacity of Guyana to be a successful nation and an abiding interest in the welfare of the Guyanese people.”
I have pulled out these quotes from Anan’s letter to refresh the readers’ memory and to make a quick observation. Many will agree that his criticism of Rodney is deserved, justified and correct. But many will also ask where is the criticism of Dr Jagan whose presence on the Guyanese political stage lasted 54 years as opposed to Rodney’s six. I am not arguing for equal criticism but for fair assessment. Boodram critiqued Dr Jagan’s Marxism but did not give Dr Rodney’s Marxism the same treatment. He did not critique Dr Rodney’s praxis; he simply presents him as devoid of praxis. He invoked Dr Jagan’s, ignored Dr Rodney’s humanity. He situates Dr Jagan as part of the Indian culture but presents Dr Rodney as having no cultural attachment or connection to other great African leaders.
For Boodram, Dr Jagan’s successors may be rascals but at least Dr Jagan left them a party; Rodney left nothing — only an “abject” group of nothingness. Dr Jagan was wise enough to avoid violence but Rodney the simpleton caused his own death by embracing violence. Had Boodram engaged Dr Rodney’s praxis as he did Jagan’s and arrived at the same conclusions I would be writing a different letter. I am sure that many African Guyanese, including those who loathed or disagreed with Dr Rodney, will shake their heads in frustration at what is a clearly a shockingly biased appraisal of two significant leaders by an Indian writer. Some will obviously observe “…and these are the Indians he fought a Black government for.” Characterizing one of your race in saintly terms while dismissing one of the other race as a fool smack of ethnic disrespect. There is a thin line between ridicule and criticism but one has to try very hard to avoid ridicule when its not ones expressed intention. When you veer towards ridicule, as Boodram has done in his letter, you invite the perception of disrespect which in our ethnic environment translates into ethnic disrespect.
I am sure I will be chastised for reading race into a non-racial letter. But I insist that because we live in a society where politics is primarily race-based it is difficult for our political discourse to escape or ignore that reality. I can assure Boodram that his narrative will excite a counter narrative, which in the long run creates more confusion and ethno-racial resentment.
David Hinds
JAGDEO ADDING MORE DANGER TO GUYANA AND THE REGION
Apr 19, 2024
SportsMax – West Indies Women’s captain Hayley Matthews delivered a stellar all-round performance to lead her team to a commanding 113-run victory over Pakistan Women in the first One Day...Kaieteur Sports – The South Turkeyen Sports Committee, in collaboration with Johnny Barnwell, popularly known as “Overseas,”... 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]