Khemraj Ramjattan’s ‘no fear’ call

Feb 08, 2011 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
Emile Mervin’s missive titled, “Ramjattan’s race reasoning – reality versus rhetoric” published in both Kaieteur News and SN (dated 1-31-11), again exposes the shortsightedness of Ramjattan’s Bath Settlement call.
An examination of those, so far, who have come out to defend the AFC presidential candidate’s remarks have all vindicated my position and unconsciously, I believe, provide examples which demonstrate that the call was ill-advised. Emile Mervin and the rest of the defenders have hinged their responses on some worrying tenets and dangerous propositions. I can only hope that these positions do not form part of the AFC or Ramjattan’s defence of the issue, for if it is, it will demonstrate a distorted and highly bias position grounded in perception rather than reality.
The first defender of the “Ramjattan no fear call”, Mr. Amar Pandy was bold to tell the people that Ramjattan was not attempting to offer a sociological analysis of the Guyanese society, therefore he reasoned that the “fear call” was appropriate. This response projected the dismissive, arrogant, irresponsible, and condescending, angle. Then there was Mr. Harry Gill who introduced a ‘crime’ dimension in which he seems to be suggesting that the Indo-Guyanese fear Afro-Guyanese because of crime. He alluded to some “crime committed by ethnicity” the statistics of which he said is unavailable but hints that if such data exists, it may some how indicate that Afro-Guyanese are committing crimes on Indo-Guyanese and as such there is this fear on the part of the latter for the former.
A very dangerous and preposterous claim, I dealt with this in an earlier letter. This position I call the “no brainer crime tenet” which lacks sound analysis and much needed empirical data. This is a deliberately branded and structured piece of PPP/C propaganda, which seems to have taken strong roots in AFC and its agents.
Then comes Mr. Emile Mervin, who seems to be embracing a belief that is premised on a thinking which says “others do the same, or even worst so why can’t Ramjattan? Mervin and the others also have one thing in common that is, that they seem to see the “Bath Settlement Call” as a non-issue or trivial matter. In fact, Emile Mervin describes reactions to Ramjattan’s call as an “inconsequential storm in a tea cup”. It is clear that those who have come to defend the call, clearly, lack the ability to appreciate that premature comments and careless conclusions about any racial group can likely attract responses, which may have serious consequences.
These positions proffered by these three defenders of Khemraj Ramjattan indicate exactly what is wrong with the call, it is so ill advised, insensitive, and troubling that it has opened the floodgates for people to insinuate all kinds of things, advance wild, baseless theories, and regurgitate unhelpful views or positions. In addition, it might even cause some to act foolishly.
Emile Mervin in his letter, defending Ramjattan’s call sought to advance his defence by stating the following: –
“But how is this any different from the President’s visit to Babu John as he launched his 2006 re-election campaign bid before a gathering of PPP supporters? The PNCR was somehow linked to the disappearance of weapons from the GDF’s Camp Ayanganna bond, and so he warned that if the PNCR got elected, criminal elements wouldn’t have a problem getting their hands on guns”. With this statement, Mervin tells us that he does not see any difference between Ramjattan’s call and President Jagdeo’s comments, and laments there was no outrage at Jagdeo’s comments.
While Mr. Emile Mervin might be absolutely right about there being no difference in the call it is dangerous for him to attempt to justify Ramjattan’s insensitive call by trying to seek refuge in, what might easily be described as, Jagdeo’s racially charged political statement, which was clearly bent on forcing Indo-Guyanese to cleave to the PPP/C.
The rationale seems to be Jagdeo was given a free past for spewing racial sentiments and making statements capable of attracting dangerous racial connotations why not allow Ramjattan a free pass as well.
Firstly, Mervin is wrong on the point that there was no concern about Jagdeo’s comment; he must know that the PNCR did condemn it and expressed serious outrage. Secondly, one would belief that a political party, such as the AFC, which promotes itself as being interested in promoting racial harmony would take care to ensure that its leaders or agents provocateurs do not make statements or take actions which goes counter to that ‘touted belief’.
Further, it is unimaginable that someone who understands the serious racial implications of the Jagdeo comment would attempt to use same as a reference point to stress that similar racially charged comments should be left alone.
To amplify his call for Ramjattan’s comments to be given a free pass, Mr. Mervin continued, to provide calls he deems similar to Mr. Ramjattan’s and which he believes did not attract similar criticism so he posits “…late Janet Jagan on a previous campaign trail as Dr Ravi Dev’s ROAR appeared to be drawing huge crowds of Indian Guyanese who were worried about the government’s inability to stop the relentless violent attacks on them by criminal elements. At one campaign stop she cried, “Don’t split the vote! Don’t split the vote!”
Here he tells us that the late PPP leader, Mrs. Janet Jagan, also did what Ramjattan did and he felt that she too was not chided for her appeal. So Mervin’s defence lies in his comparing Ramjattan’s call to actions of PPP/C icons whom he claims did as Ramjattan has done but who he believes were not criticised for their comments. I guess the lesson here is “they did it so he has a right to do it as well” – a reflection of serious backward thinking.
Supposing he is right, that the comments of Bharrat Jagdeo and the late Janet Jagan were not denounced, does that give Ramjattan the right to follow suit? Aren’t we, who are hoping to change the ‘race based politics’, supposed to be more sensible and responsible in our actions and comments?
Apart from the comparison Mervin also stated: “Mr. Ramjattan went into an Indian community and reassured Indians that Africans are not necessarily the enemies of whom they should be afraid”. My question is, why does Ramjattan need to reassure the Indo-Guyanese that they should not be afraid of African Guyanese? Where is the evidence to suggest that Indo-Guyanese are afraid of Afro-Guyanese? What will be Ramjattan’s reassuring call to Afro- Guyanese, I guess the answer might be there is no need for reassurances here.
I also wish to ask Mr. Mervin to explain what the word “necessarily” means in the context in which he used it. I think it apposite for me to stress a point which I consistently make, and that is that; in Guyana we continue to be a country that does not embrace scientific research, as such all kind of hunch and perceptions are making their way into documents and theories and recorded as though they are facts. This is a problem that the “new political culture” must address, the need for research and empirical evidence, to arrive at conclusions on various issues.
From examining the statements of those rushing to defend the AFC presidential candidate, all I see is a set of people who have decided that their main objective is to blindly rush to defend Mr. Ramjattan and their party. As such, no care is taken to apply some level of objectivity to the issue; one may argue that this kind of mentality might be likened to the very political culture the AFC says it hopes to change. Is this the way the party hopes to appeal to Guyanese “based on reason and substance?” Are we getting more rhetoric than substance coming from the AFC? Given the reasons advanced by the defenders of the call, since they claim that the call was not ill-advised it might be fair to assume that their collective expressed positions form part of Mr. Ramjattan’s thinking on the subject.
With this situation the question now becomes whether this thinking is capable of “doing away” with the “race based political system”, Emile Mervin tells us, was the principle rationale for the birth of the AFC.
Lurlene Nestor

---

---