Latest update March 28th, 2024 12:59 AM
Apr 09, 2018 Letters
Dear Editor,
After carefully selecting the caption for his article, “Roopnaraine is the most honest activist the WPA produced”, Freddie Kissoon informs us that his original caption would have read “The tragic decline of a brilliant mind” but he “thought readers could be misled into thinking it was Burnham or Jagan or Hoyte.”
He then goes on to justify his definition of “honesty.” Rather surprisingly, it is the last paragraph that reveals what the article was all about, captured in the sentence, “why would WPA leaders heap scorn upon him” (Roopnaraine). His last sentence claims, “History is more important than friendship.”
I am unaware of any WPA leaders heaping scorn upon Dr. Roopnaraine. On the contrary, it is precisely because of the great admiration and deep respect for Dr. Roopnaraine that there is total concern about the state of his health and how it is affecting him in the performance of his public duties.
In that sense, it can be claimed that the performance of his public duties becomes more important than friendship, since non-performance can jeopardize friendship. That does not relegate friendship to secondary proportions. On the contrary, it is precisely because of that friendship that the person must be protected.
His health issues should not be used to manipulate him into taking positions that are detrimental to the political party that he is representing in the current government. It is tempting to see it as naked exploitation of the sick person by those who do so in the name of friendship. It is because of this susceptibility to manipulation that WPA leaders have criticized him, without having to “heap scorn upon Roopnaraine,” as Kissoon claims.
Ethical norms protect persons who are sick from being exploited by professionals who are responsible for their well-being. There have been cases in Guyana of persons in power using their authority to exploit vulnerable persons who depend upon them for protection by the law. Again, there are strict ethical norms in place to prevent such an abuse of authority.
Friendship does not permit for the violation of those ethical norms. Friendship actually demands that they be enforced, because it becomes a particularly vulnerable area when people are familiar with each other. It is a well know maxim, “in sickness and in health, till death do us part.” This vow demands that persons who become sick should be protected and not cast aside. It goes beyond friendship and enters into the realm of ethical conduct, having the status of a sacred vow. Sir Thomas Moore lost his head on this matter.
President Granger, in removing Dr. Roopnaraine as the Minister of Education, a role that the President himself had felt was suited to Dr. Roopnaraine’s brilliant mind, noted that his removal and re-assignment was premised on the findings of the Commission of Inquiry. The President, on face value, did not allow friendship to get into the way of public duty. The WPA has argued that there is a fuzzy line between the claims of friendship and the interests of the WPA, sounding a warning bell that Dr. Roopnaraine was being possibly being exploited by the government to the detriment of the WPA.
Kissoon’s observation that “Rupert always came across to me as a bohemian middle class intellectual with real and definitive flashes of elitism, who really didn’t care about grounding with the masses” is rather revealing. The question must be posed as to whether Kissoon’s observation is indeed an accurate reflection of “Rupert.”
If it were at that time, did it evolve into a more working-class philosophy which represents the core value of the WPA as it changed from a pressure group into a full-fledged political party?
Kissoon also informs us that “I met Rupert in 1976 and never got close to him when I was in the WPA. Being close to such a giant of an intellectual with such a deep analytical mind, you would have learnt priceless lessons in sociology and history.” This is certainly one of Kissoon’s greatest misfortunes, one had he not suffered, would possibly have caused him to reexamine many of the things he claims to be gospel truth.
In 1979, when the WPA declared itself a political party, the social reality of Guyana took a dramatic turn. It had changed from a pressure group into a contender for political power. It was a direct challenge to the “big boys.”
Prime Minister Burnham declared that university professors could engage in academic exercises, but once they stepped into the political arena, they would be subjected to a different set of rules, rules more akin to the Roman amphitheater. He boasted of his sharper steel.
The political reality of Guyana took on a new persona, one that forever changed the historical narrative of Guyana from that day forward, creating a new narrative regarding the sociological reality in terms of the racial divide.
The Jagan/Burnham political/racial dichotomy had been seriously challenged, and both men realized the danger the WPA posed to their racial blocks.
At a public meeting Eusi Kwayana raised the hands of both Walter Rodney and Rupert Roopnaraine, clasped them together, and proclaimed that these two men represented the new political/racial reality of Guyana.
It was a moment of inspiration for many Guyanese of all races, one that they will forever cherish. Without that hope of a new dawn, Guyana is doomed. With the assassination of Walter Rodney, Rupert Roopnaraine, at that time, assumed a heavy burden of ensuring that vision of the WPA remain alive.
Kissoon makes the claim that, “I knew the WPA burnt down the Ministry of National Development. I know that it stole the arms that were removed from the People’s Temple when Jonestown collapsed and other conspiratorial things. I know the little illegal things I did.”
There is no indication by Kissoon whether his knowledge of the events he claimed were first hand or second hand. It raises the question as to why the Burnham-led PNC state was unable to prove what Kissoon claims that he has definitive proof of, despite hauling the arson-trio to court as in the case of the burning down of the Ministry of National Development, a ministry which was in reality the PNC headquarters financed by state funds under the Doctrine of the Paramountcy of the Ruling Party.
The assassination of Walter Rodney was one of the most traumatic events on the Guyanese nation. It was also one of the most devastating and sobering moment in the life of the WPA. In the chapter Kissoon refers to, published in 2013, Dr. Roopnaraine made it known that he had not had time to mourn the death of his beloved comrade and friend.
Any psychologist will attest to the need for the mourning of a loved one, and how tormented a person will remain if they are unable to do so. Why Dr. Roopnaraine has inflicted upon himself such a terrible burden is a great tragedy, and it represents the type of case that Dr. Freud would have been willing to investigate for the sake of advancing scientific knowledge. It can be speculated that this may be contributing to Dr. Roopnaraine’s ill health.
Many of the young cadres at the time felt the loss of Dr. Rodney profoundly as he was their mentor. Several sought solace in the person of Dr. Roopnaraine for leadership at that critical juncture of the party’s history.
They were granted that invaluable insight that Kissoon wished he had access to, but deliberately spurned, that of “being close to such a giant of an intellectual with such a deep analytical mind.” These young men and women did learn “priceless and valuable lessons in sociology and history.” Dr. Roopnaraine shared his profound insights with them. Today they yearn for the person they knew him to be. Kissoon’s “tragic decline of a brilliant mind” reminds us of that reality.
If Kissoon’s definition of “honesty” is taken at face value, should Dr. Roopnaraine have confessed to the burning down of the de-facto PNC headquarters assuming Kissoon’s knowledge of the facts of the matter to be true?
If Kissoon is prepared to argue that “History is more important than friendship,” then he must tell us when “history” begins and when “friendship” ends. There is also a question mark as to what Kissoon meant by “friendship.”
Kissoon original title, “The tragic decline of a brilliant mind,” is a no-brainer if he has a grasp of what is the state of Dr. Roopnaraine’s mental and physical health. It would be useful if Kissoon assists us in revealing how the tragic decline is manifesting itself in the present situation since he has not stated that he has medical information on this matter, and he must be judging it by its manifestation in “one of Planet Earth’s most complicated polities.”
Kissoon failed to give testimony at the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry, where his “honesty” would have set the historical record straight. He states that Dr. Roopnaraine did not give names to the claim “(w)hen he admitted that the WPA was stockpiling arms to overthrow Burnham.”
It is unlikely such testimony would carry much weight, since any person could make such claims without any means of corroboration from independent sources. More fundamentally, the WPA never depended on the use of arms to remove the Burnham dictatorship, so the statement is very inaccurate if taken out of context.
Without an insurrectionist strategy, which depended heavily upon the involvement if the masses, any attempt to remove the dictatorship that depended on guns would have been doomed to failure. As Professor Ken Danns noted in his study, the Burnham regime outgunned the population with its monopoly on guns, by a ratio of one gun for every thirty-five citizens.
The claim that the WPA is a dead party has been made by Kissoon on numerous occasions. Is Kissoon making a case that “the decline of a brilliant mind” of Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine is a major contributing factor to the lingering presence of the corpse?
Political parties are known to come back to life when the occasion demands it. Kissoon more than any other critic, has kept the WPA alive with his high expectations of the party, expectations he claims it has failed to live up to. He remains one of the WPA’s best friends with his critique of the shortcomings of the party, regardless if they be real or imagined.
Rohit Kanhai
30 Clovelly Drive
Valley Stream, NY 11580
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 28, 2024
Minister Ramson challenge athletes to better last year’s performance By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – Guyana’s 23-member contingent for the CARIFTA Games in Grenada is set to depart the...B.V. Police Station Kaieteur News – The Beterverwagting Police Station, East Coast Demerara (ECD) will be reconstructed... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... 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]