Did President Jagan deceive Mr. F. Hamley Case?

Aug 23, 2015 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I am responding to Mr. F. Hamley Case’s letter of august 18 on President Cheddi Jagan and the UNAMCO story in response to one of my columns. This is an immensely important statement on Jagan. All Guyanese who are interested in understanding the modern shapers of Guyana should read it. Those who have knowledge of Dr. Jagan’s deceptive ways should add their analysis. There is a part of Mr. Case’s description of Dr. Jagan for which there should be a note from Dr. Henry Jeffrey. I will cite that section below.Here is the crucial aspect of Mr. Case’s outline of Dr. Jagan; “On at least three occasions we met with President Jagan asking him to intervene and pave the way for CTL/Unamco to enjoy a better working relationship with the GFC. At these meetings the President would have several high-ranking government persons present including Navin Chandarpal and Kellowan Lall. I am convinced that President Cheddi Jagan did his best to tame GFC’s hostility towards Unamco and set the investment on a safe trajectory. Indeed he gave instructions to this effect on several occasions but they were never carried out. In my humble opinion, Cheddi Jagan as Guyana Inc’s CEO, was too trusting of his subordinates and assumed that once he gave instructions, they would be carried out to the letter. It is my view that his subordinates recognized these weaknesses and took full advantage of them. To a man they were anchored in a communist ideology” (end of quote).
I have the greatest respect for Mr. Hamley Case, a deeply decent man whose father was one of the greatest contributors to education in this country. But I am afraid the historians and political analysts that study Guyana’s modern history and the evolution of Guyana’s post-colonial governments will not be satisfied that the quote above accurately reflects who Cheddi Jagan was. I will dissect the quote and hope to show Mr. Case that President Jagan was the main deceiver but it appeared to Mr. Case that Jagan’s juniors were the culprits.
1 – Dr. Jagan ran the PPP with an iron fist. It is doubtful that he would have allowed his juniors to do what they wanted. He never did allow them to.
2- When Dr. Jagan became president in 1992, ninety five percent of the PPP leaders around him were virtually boys and girls whom he proteged from the seventies. Most of them were not educated with CXC certificates. They all looked up to him, deferred to him, and it is doubtful had the impertinence to defy his presidential orders.
3- President Jagan worked late nights. From daybreak to way past midnight he would be in constant touch with these protégés that were now his Ministers. He got furious and angry with them when they made mistakes. Deceased husband of Gail Teixeira, Fazal Khan, told me that Dr. Jagan so berated his Heath Minister, Ms. Teixeira, in a Cabinet meeting that she cried. For this reason, it would be valuable if Minister Henry Jeffrey could tell us if Jagan castigated members of his Cabinet. When the head of the Rice Producers’ Association, Fazil Ali, took a shipment of fertilizers from Dr. Hugely Hanoman for rice farmers and failed to pay, Hanoman complained to President Jagan. At a Central Committee meeting, Dr. Jagan was uncontrollable in dressing down Ali.
4- Surely if three times, President Jagan spoke to these protégés about a huge Malaysian investment and they didn’t move, then Mr. Case should have suspected that Jagan himself was involved in slowing down the process. In real life, Presidents and Prime Ministers do not allow their mandarins to do such things
5- Mr. Case stated that President Jagan’s subordinates didn’t want the Unamco investment because “they were anchored in communist ideology.” Who do you think they got their communist fanaticism from? From two of the 20th century’s most committed and irrational communists – Cheddi and Janet Jagan
Now for my analysis on Dr. Jagan, which has relevance for the Unamco fiasco. Dr. Jagan was an extremely deceptive politician, whose gentle nature and accommodating style masked a very devious character. I honestly believe that Guyana’s historiography has been too generous to Jagan and too unfair to Forbes Burnham. Historians need urgently to correct this. From what I know of President Jagan, I would suggest to Mr. Case that Jagan wasn’t interested in the Unamco project, but he let the blame fall on his protégés. And he did that for the greatest part of his long career as both an opposition politician and Premier and President.
From 1992 to 1997 when he died, when President Jagan wanted something, he got it. I think it really strains the imagination to think that people like Navin Chanderpaul and Kellawan Lall would have undermined Unamco, if they know Jagan wanted it. I am sorry if Mr. Case disagrees but I think the documented behaviour of Jagan does not support the theory that he was President but his underlings in his Cabinet ran the show and did what they wanted. I will leave Mr. Case with an iconoclastic comparison between Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan. In the PNC, ideologues and liberals argued with Burnham and got their way. Not so with Dr. Jagan. Guyana and the world are yet to know about the real Cheddi Jagan. Mr. Case’s letter should galvanize us to write on what we know
Frederick Kissoon

---

---