THE MAN WHO KEPT HIS PEACE

Jun 18, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Ranji Chandisingh, who died this past week, has endured more than his share of vilification for his break from the PPP in 1975. Through it all, he has never explained or justified his decision along with Vincent Teekah, Harry Lall, Halim Majeed and Vic Puran to defect from the People’s Progressive Party to the PNC.
The PPP has always painted Ranji as a traitor and someone who betrayed Jagan. It is always about Jagan who it seems had such a grip on the thinking of the PPP that anyone who stepped outside of his reasoning was considered to have betrayed Jagan and the PPP.
Jagan himself painted the defection as being due to the lack of perseverance by some of his leaders. He said the same of Jai Narine Singh who had gone with Burnham during the heady days of the sixties.
For him, all those who left in those days, placed their personal ambitions above that of the party and left for opportunistic reasons. Jagan himself said that many of them were worried as to what would become of them if they had to wait in the wilderness and unwilling to take part in the long struggle, they jumped ship.
This is what he and his party also peddled in relation to the devastating defections of 1975 when Chandisingh, Teekah and others went over to the PNC. The PPP painted these as traitors who betrayed the party for their own selfish ends. The truth is simple.
What Jagan and the PPP failed to concede was that there was a serious rift within the leadership of the party, one that was not ideological or strategic, but one that was simply tactical.
History may have proven that the decision that Jagan took in opposing the position of Chandisingh and others may have been right, but there was a compelling logic to the position that Ranji adopted.
Before I outline the fundamental difference that Ranji had with the PPP, let me debunk that crap that the PNCR is now peddling about the defectors questioning the PPP leadership’s seriousness about socialism. This was never the issue.
There were never any questions about the commitment of all of those who left and all of those who remained towards the building of socialism in Guyana. Where the difference lay was in tactics.
By the time 1975 came around, the PNC was firmly committed to turning Guyana into a communist State. There were a great many reasons for this and one cannot deny that Burnham was ideologically committed to a non-capitalist path to development, even though he was quite prepared to allow a small band of bourgeoisie elements to dominate the private space that was provided for in the economy. But that is a debate for another time.
The fact of the matter is that socialism was being established in Guyana and given the developments in the international community, the PPP felt that regardless of their differences with Burnham, that it was better to support this process so as to consolidate the socialism in the country.
Those who have consistently argued that Jagan’s politics was about race should be reminded that he and his party were prepared to play a secondary role for the sake of ensuring that socialism was achieved in Guyana.
The PPP had long been discussing within the leadership of the party the issue of critical support for the PNC’s thrust towards socialism.  In 1975, Jagan speaking at a party conference, called for a more flexible approach by his party towards the PNC.
He stated, “ The party (PPP) had previously declared that it did not have a monopoly  on socialism, that it is prepared, regardless of ideological and tactical differences, to work with others if they are interested in building a socialist Guyana. And this included the PNC.”
He then went on to drop a major policy shift within the PPP, one that had been canvassed by Ranji and others. He said, “Our political line should be changed from non-cooperation and civil resistance to critical support.”
The concept of critical support has itself come under a great deal of misrepresentation and did not infer getting into bed with the PNC. Rather it must be seen as the PPP being willing to change gear from its previous attitude towards the government following its rejection of the results of the rigged 1973 elections and its boycott of parliament.
There was no major dissent within the leadership of the PPP over critical support. Where the problem arose was in terms of tactics. There was grouping within the PPP, and Ranji was part of this grouping, that felt that in terms of moving towards socialism, Jagan needed to do more than simply offer critical support.
They felt that tactically the PPP should instead join with the PNC so as to prevent a retreat on the part of Burnham who was known as a wheeler and dealer.
This is how the defection of Ranji came about. The others who are still around can speak about their motivations. But as far as Ranji was concerned, the PPP should not go halfway, it should tactically join with the PNC so as to ensure socialism was achieved.
All these years and despite the defilement of his good name, Ranji never once discussed his reasons for defection, never justified his decision, just as how he never spoke out against what the PNC subsequently did to him and others who had defected in 1975. He lived with his decisions. He kept his peace.
Rest in Peace, Ranji!

---

---