The IAC would continue to devote its time to meaningful activities

Feb 03, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Thank for publishing in your Friday, January 29 edition my response to Fredrick Kissoon’s article of Wednesday, January 27. I wish that you would afford me the same opportunity to make some further comments on his and Mark Benschop’s letters published in your Sunday, January 31 and Monday, February 1 editions respectively.

While the Indian Arrival Committee (IAC) would continue to devote its time to meaningful cultural and social development, it cannot allow the vile attacks of Frederick Kissoon and Mark Benschop to go unanswered. It is pellucid from Kissoon’s tone in his misinformed and inaccurate missives, he prefers that the tragedies of Lusignan and Bartica be forgotten and that no government official is invited to attend and speak at such functions.

If this were to happen then, Kissoon with his Freudian confused mind would have accused organisations like the IAC and even the Government for turning their backs on the traumatised relatives and survivors of such heinous crimes. It is obvious that Kissoon has become bitter for reasons articulated in the media by others. This bitterness which permeates his writings is directed at government officials, organisations and individuals who, by their observance of protocol, are deemed government affiliates.

The IAC would like to reiterate that it is an independent organisation fostering issues pertinent to the Indian community, but which are beneficial to all Guyanese. In addition to its numerous cultural activities, the IAC played an integral role in ensuring that the legal age of consent for sexual relations was raised from 13 to 16. The benefit of this landmark decision is not confined to one ethnic group of Guyanese.

Based on Kissoon’s rants over the years, the IAC would like to reiterate what is already known; he is a biased writer and a mouthpiece for the Opposition. The fact that he has never concealed his allegiance to and admiration for the Opposition negates any semblance of professionalism from someone who professes to be a scholar and an independent writer. The IAC, like thousands of Guyanese, is convinced that Kissoon is a front for the Opposition and those he benefits materially from.

As such, organisations and individuals with the best of intentions but which respect protocol by extending invitations to government officials, will always be met with disdain by Kissoon. In his letter referred to above, he questioned why certain individuals and the Chairman of Council of Churches were not invited by the IAC to its “Night of Remembrance” held last month. It is not surprising that the two individuals he mentioned are known critics of the Government. Is it that Kissoon prefers that such forum which provides comfort to traumatised survivors be an opportunity for government bashing vis-à-vis his columns? Is it that he wants his cohorts to spread his vile harangues at solemn observances?

Kissoon needs to be edified as to some of the prominent religious leaders from the three major religions who made presentations at the January 27, 2010 function. They include Moulana Abu Bakar Hannif, an Islamic scholar and the Imaam of the Lusignan Masjid; Haji Mohamed Shaheed, respected Imaam of the Queenstown Masjid: Pastor Balgobin Rajnauth, Head of the Lifespring Ministries in Guyana; Pandit Rabindranath Persaud, renowned Hindu Priest and Dr. Ram, a prominent Christian Leader from Lusignan. In addition, other Guyanese from all ethnic groups, the Chairman of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) and relatives of those slain, participated.

Is Kissoon’s preference as noted in his letter, suggesting that the respected Guyanese religious leaders and others who participated are not credible? The IAC strongly condemns such disrespectful and denigrating insinuations. The Council of Churches, as I understand, is made up of representatives from Christian denominations. Whilst the IAC holds this organisation in high esteem, the IAC has never confined participation to all of its national events to a group representative of one religious persuasion.

Further, those slain were not members of one religious grouping and any attempt by any organisation to host a function with the participation of one religious body can be seen as disrespectful and insensitive to others. The IAC is an all inclusive organization. Kissoon’s demands as to who should have participated are evident of his divisive attributes. With regards to his baseless theme for Indian migration, immigration records will show that migration is not confined to the Indian community. His consistent generalisation and lack of basic research and common knowledge expose his inherent disposition to mislead. These characteristics of his can only culminate in deliberate biasness.

Kissoon has a proclivity to divert from the real issue of contention. How can he, in a civil debate pertaining to the remembrance of slain victims of the Lusignan and Bartica massacres, degenerate into the bashing of an official and his family? What’s the relevancy of this to the IAC’s inclusive event to remember that cruel incident? Again, one should not be surprised at irrelevant arguments by Kissoon since he cannot discredit the value of such events and the IAC’s inclusiveness. His ability to vilify others whose opinions differ from him is unmatched. It seems that Kissoon is helpless in his ability to conduct a civil exchange and can only indulge in character assassination.

With regards to Benschop’s jargon-filled diatribes alluded to, the IAC will not allow itself and others to be hoodwinked by his attempts to impress with elaborate verbiage.

He cannot, despite his seemingly eloquence, mask the fact that he stood with a bullhorn bellowing outside the gates of the Office of the President; he cannot mask that as he bellowed, part of the crowd he led invaded the premises; he cannot mask the fact that the invasion led to offices being ransacked and security officers injured; he cannot mask the fact that lives were lost as a result of those actions; he cannot mask the fact that his incarceration was related.

Benschop should be reminded that he was not freed by the court but was pardoned as a result of the magnanimity of the President. The IAC in its last response to Kissoon pointed out that his hero is Benschop. The IAC feels that given Kissoon’s anti-development and anti-cohesive traits, his admiration for Benschop is not coincidental. The IAC is convinced that Kissoon is in dire need of help. The IAC has always been willing to provide assistance to lndo-Guyanese in need. Despite Kissoon’s pronouncement that he is ashamed of being an East Indian, the IAC stands ready to provide help.

Priya Mahase

Coordinator/Secretary Indian Arrival Committee

 

---

---