Latest update April 19th, 2024 12:59 AM
May 29, 2011 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev
Late last year, in an article “Guyana’s Tragedy”, I analogised the political struggle between Indians and Africans in Guyana to one between the two sets of cousins in the Mahabharat.
I wrote, in part, “As in the Mahabharat, both sides were promised that if they played by the rules, the “kingdom” would eventually be theirs.
While we may rail against Durjodhan (and Burnham) for their overweening ambition, no one can deny that they were leaders of groups that had legitimate moral claims to power.
Similarly, the gambling away of their inheritance by Yuddhistir (at dice) and Jagan (with Kennedy and Duncan Sandys) cannot be glossed over, but does not vitiate the similar moral claims of their supporters.”
My old friend from the New York days, Vassan Ramracha, in a letter in the Chronicle, “Dev is wrong about Mahabharata”, insisted: “There cannot be two groups that are right and wrong at the same time, as in Guyana ethnic politics. Guyana therefore is not an example of conflict as in the Mahabharata.
One side,(PNC) rigged elections, raped the national treasury, denied natural justice, wrecked the economy, stifled press freedom, starved Guyanese, persecuted and murdered its opponents and catalyzed the exodus of some of the most brilliant Guyanese to foreign shores.” Vassan left no doubt as to which group was “wrong”.
More recently, another friend, Malcolm Harripaul, took “umbrage” with me for “…ignor(ing) the real culprits – the Indian elected PPP which has been in power for 19 continuous years.
The Africans are not the problem here.” Alluding to my analogy of the Mahabharata, Malcolm wrote, “I am sure (Ravi) will agree with me that if we were to make an analogy, then the PPP are the ones on the side of Untruth, Evil, and Wickedness as is reflected by the scandals out of the Office of the President, and that the PNC Presidential Candidate David Granger represents Truth, Morality, Ethics, and Religious Values. On whose side will you stand Ravi?”
And here, I believe we witness the dilemma of Guyanese politics, represented interestingly, by three Indians. Vassan and Malcolm do not disagree with the key premise of my Mahabharatian analogy: to wit that both Indian and Africans in Guyana have a legitimate moral claim to political power. Where they differ from me is their insistence on framing our political conflict in an apocalyptic narrative of a battle of “good” against “evil”.
All I have been saying is that if we recognise that both groups should share this space, of what value is this narrative towards the construction of a just settlement?
Two years ago, I proposed: Criticism is always strategic. What is it we want as a consequence of our criticisms, narratives, actions and exhortations?
What is the Good? While there will never be – for the simple reason that it just cannot be – a single horizon of ends for all of us, I am pretty sure that among the various possibly competing ends, that of a more harmonious society would be there in common in all formulations.
I am suggesting that with the privilege of hindsight, we should connect the past with the present in a broader narrative that is healing rather than destructive. We cannot change the past, but we can certainly change the future.
Our horizon of expectation must generate strategies that speak to those normative ends rather than further dividing us.
Our problem space is different even from our immediate post-independence period, in that the demographics now deny any built-in ethnic majority, and so opens up the possibilities of a working democracy. A constructive narrative cannot then picture our opposing groups locked forever in mortal combat.
But as I wrote later in “Agonism not antagonism”, this does not mean that I envisage the lion idyllically lying down with the sheep. Presently, the lamb (and both sides picture themselves as lambs and the “other” as lions) will not be getting much sleep.
In our plural society where our divisions are not just around economic class issues, but include ethnicity and religion – going to the very heart of ascriptive identities – the emotional effects are with us in spades, because of incommensurable values.
Consequently, the always latent tendency for our political struggles – and all the other struggles are ultimately over questions of power and so political – is to get out of hand.
Rather than treating each other as enemies to be obliterated, the “other” must be considered as adversaries with positions we cannot agree on but yet respect.
Rather than pretending, as liberalism does, that we can always rationally discuss away the immanent hostility between deeply divided groups, agonistic politics aim to challenge and channel it in non-destructive, institutionalised ways. If this is not done, then violence will erupt periodically.
The goal is not to find consensus at any cost, but to manage dissensus.
So, Malcolm and Vassan and fellow Guyanese, the ultimate question is not which side we are each on, but what structural arrangements we support that can deliver justice to all sides.
I still believe that representative disciplined forces and federalism is the way to go.
Please share this to every Guyanese including your house cats.
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 News – For years, the disciples of Bharrat Jagdeo have woven a narrative of economic success during his tenure... 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]