Who gained by Dr Rodney’s demise and who inherits his legacy?

May 19, 2011 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Dr Walter Rodney earned the wrath of the PNC not because he was black but in spite of it. He was adored by Indians and other races just for being a decent, fair human being. He unreservedly championed a class based political ideology which found a commonality with Dr Jagan’s PPP because they were both socialist. For this approach he earned universal respect. Who gained by his death and who alone have claims to inherit his legacy?
Only his immediate family Eddie, Donald and Hubert, or wife can explain Dr Rodney’s rumoured secret agreement with Dr Jagan for him to organise black people and reunite again with yesteryear’s PPP. Dr Jagan reportedly had discussed with him the declining non appeal of the powerful black PPP Deputy Premier Brindley Benn in his 1960’s government even though he was a diehard communist and to the left of the Jagans. It is no surprise that a post Rodney Guyana witnessed Dr Jagan’s PPP holding secret talks with the PNC in 1985, concomitant with his Rodneyite agreement because the PNC always enjoyed significantly more black support in Guyana. What is the PPP/C doing so right which sees them being supported by some 25% of black people in Linden?
Did some black WPA activists, who were diametrically opposed to a PPP reunification akin to 1953, privy to the Jagan/Rodney agreement and proceeded to sabotage its realisation? Did they secretly participate in Dr Rodney’s demise? In other words if they secretly assisted the PNC to kill Dr Rodney, even by inaction,(then similarly to the Grenadian extremists  led by Bernard Coard who killed Prime Minister Maurice Bishop) they could step into the giant’s shoes and scuttle the agreement? It should be noted that the post Rodney WPA convinced itself not to name Dr Rupert Roopnaraine as its leader but instead chose joint leadership. They also demanded that the WPA equally share all cabinet ministries just prior to the 1992 elections. That both WPA joint leadership and demands for equal government ministries were Eusi Kwayana’s partition platform in the 1960s has previously escaped much notice. It was old wine poured into new WPA bottles.
Rather than face absorption in a pre 1953 PPP which Rodney favoured did they hope to emulate the Fidel Castro achievement of supplanting the traditional Cuban Communist Party by dramatic screaming activism. Both the PNC’s embrace of Kwayana’s cooperatives advocacy and joint WPA leadership were miserable failures. Both Dr Hinds and Tacuma Ogunseye’s demand for power sharing are blueprints for even greater acrimonious misery.
It is no secret that prominent black WPA leaders viewed black progress through advocacy of equal partnership rather than part of a united team. So when Dr David Hinds solitarily opposes any welcoming of the President in Buxton and “screams” his full partnership with Tacuma Ogunseye’s for violent marches he reveals more than he probably intended. Never mind President Jagdeo committed $50 million to rapidly rebuild from scratch the Buxton Tipperary Society Hall and has so far failed to build any senior citizens retirement nursing homes in Berbice or Essequibo where PPP supporters live.
This displeasure which Dr Hinds exhibits must call into question how much more displeased he had been with any talk of the Rodneyite socialist proclivity for reconciliation with the socialist PPP. It is no secret paragraph 2 of the guidelines for cooperation and technical assistance in the field of urban crime prevention (1995) argue that urban crime is characterized that a socialist Dr Rodney did not trust many of his WPA colleagues but Guyanese are yet to identify them. Who actually tried to dissuade him from his walkie talkie course and were their failure preplanned to ensure his dramatic death?
In Dr Hind’s reminder to Guyana, he has a very proud history in also opposing the black PNC. He visited the PPP’s Freedom House where he joined with Gail Teixeira and Shirley Edwards to perform in Indian villages. But Dr Hinds like Ogunseye have always been unrepentant Afro centric activists. Dr Hinds could not have been fighting for Indians when he visited the PPP’s Freedom House and liasoned with the obvious Portuguese Gail Teixeira and an equally PPP black diehard Shirley Edwards, both socialists. Obviously Dr Hinds must have been only seeking a stage for a dramatic performance to advance his own agenda. Would Dr Hinds concede that Gail Teixeira as Guyana’s premier Portuguese politician can demand reparations for the exodus of the Guyanese Portuguese population under the black PNC?
Dr Hinds can never equate his activities with the penultimate sacrifice of Dr Rodney or Jagan Ramessar and Bholanauth Parmanand who the GDF shot dead in the 1973 rigged elections. Hundreds of faceless PPP supporters were jailed, harassed and tortured for 28 years and did not seek power in the name of Indians. They never sought individual publicity. Why does Dr Hind’s incarceration entitle him to more bargaining power? He is still alive, living in American luxury.
Can Dr Hinds or Ogunseye justifiably elevate by leap-frogging their sacrifices above those of WPA Indian leaders like Dr Rupert Roopnaraine,  Professor Kenneth Persaud, Moses Bhagwan,Swami Aksharananda (Dr Odipaul Singh),Wazir Mohamed, Rohit Kanhai, etc. and other races who also made exemplary sacrifices from 1973 to 1980 alongside Dr Rodney? The record will show none of them have ever claimed their sacrifices were done in the name of Indians or they followed Dr Rodney other than advancement of his socialist ideology.
What makes Dr Hinds and Ogunseye, among others, so endowed with more rights than others in the WPA? To justifiably bask in one’s blackness is a political right but to instead demand rights by the colour of their skin is untenable as it is unfair. The N word, Negro, blackman, darkie, coloured, African, black! So many names have been used for the same people and with so many advocates and false pretenders to Dr Rodney’s laudable treasury.
The light of education takes a while to shine and reach to the far corners or the woods, nooks and crannies. Racial prejudice, against Indians once scorned as backward, even anti black prejudice is not easy to eradicate nor does tolerance grow faster by cries of discrimination. Tolerance and its benefits are nurtured and germinate in the womb of the mind.
The ‘mind is a terrible thing to waste”, you know, and while those even within the negroid family journey in time to debate and adjust how they should label themselves, the transition definitely takes significantly longer even amongst those who are farther removed. Black detractors will label them by the most prominent or debasing characteristics when they view them rather than what they rightfully prefer. Such negatives can never be fair or justified when applied to anyone.
Any debate whether the name change is more important ought to include addressing attitudinal changes for a dramatic transformation and advancement. The respect earned is greater and obvious, I submit, when the attitude reflects the complete shedding of mental slavery which has subjugated a talented people for so many years. How does one transition to become a better human being and how did so many former black slave descendants (including Jews) achieve this transformation? Cultural pursuits and religion may hold the answer. Elevating one group by disparaging of another’s religion like Dr Kean Gibson’s attack of Hinduism triggers more animosity and reflects a primitive boorish approach.
Shouldn’t respect be earned by the way one behaves instead of demanding to be treated by the colour of one’s skin? The demand for power sharing is a meaningless temporary solution which presupposes a dependency on other compatriots. All Guyanese have rights to their fair share of Guyana’s bounties. Federalism however facilitates numerous Hinds and Ogunseyes to achieve black political power to showcase their talents and resourcefulness in advancing themselves.
Indians and others must also be allowed to defend themselves in Guyana’s taxpayers’ funded armed forces and not be perpetual hostage to black appeals which endanger their security. Indian culture and existence has been perpetually under attack because they are viewed as guilty due to their numbers. Will such attacks ever cease and are their fate destined to emulate those of the original Arawak and Carib tribal extermination in the Caribbean?
Indian response to Dr Hinds and Ogunseye must be seen as struggling for survival in a predominantly black Caribbean where they will always be a dwindling minority. Why would Dr Hinds and Ogunseye want political power through dependency on supposedly exploitive Indians when the latter will themselves prefer finality from the constant bullying acrimony? Federalism offers fairness to all. Dr Hinds and Ogunseye have much to learn.
Sultan Mohamed

---

---