Sam Hinds personifies the collective mind of the PPP leadership

Feb 03, 2018 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

There appeared a letter at the beginning of the week in this newspaper and all the other dailies with the same heading; “The morbid one is Freddie, not the PPP/C nor Jagdeo” authored by former Prime Minister Sam Hinds. It is a huge letter replying to my column of January 23 in which I described the PPP government’s attitude to African Guyanese as the politics of morbidity and the morbidity of politics. I stand by that description.
Mr. Hinds chose to be personal in the use of his caption. His headline boldly stated that I was the one who is morbid not former president Jagdeo. I will ignore Sam’s personal jab. But for the record, there is a significant detail that must be stated, because it brings into sharp focus just who is morbid when a comparison is made between me and Jagdeo.
Historians are people that are obligated to dig deep, so the following needs to be put in print. Next year marks forty years of unbroken marriage for me. I have never been accused of “hi-tech domestic abuse,” the words of Mr. Jagdeo’s common law wife, Varshnie Singh, which is just part of a wider concatenation of accusations in relation to spousal mistreatment.
Secondly, I have never held membership in a political party or been part of the exercise of power. Mr. Jagdeo has. And during his tenure, he has been cited for the most egregious violations of rights.
I would like to remind Sam that head of the Energy Agency, Joseph O’Lall, cited President Jagdeo as illegally sacking him in the presence of Mr. Hinds, who uttered not a word of support for him. Surely if Sam finds me morbid, I cannot see how any decent mind can exonerate Jagdeo from such a charge. If you say that I have a record of morbidity, then surely, Jagdeo’s morbid record is billions of miles longer than mine.
Let’s examine the contents of Sam’s reply.
In his missive he wrote; “I do not do so as a Freddie fan; far from being a fan, I do so respectful of the opinion of any fellow Guyanese, and aware that Freddie’s view would be informed by some scholarship; although in my view it is too often forced, selective and distorted, all in efforts to be critical of the PPP and the PPP/C.”
I will be harsher in my judgement. I see nothing scholarly in the many letters Sam Hinds has written since the PPP lost power. They are all propagandistic sermons without even a modicum of regret. They are unadulterated embraces of the tragic roads the PPP presidents took this nation through.
This column here is a response to Mr. Hinds’ Sunday piece. He has another letter in all the dailies yesterday, accusing the then-opposition of creating the mayhem that Guyana experienced during 2002-2006 which is commonly referred to as the crime wave. I will respond on another occasion to that emanation. It is viciously misleading and needs to be confronted. But let’s stick to his propaganda last Sunday.
I offered a mere four examples of ethnic insensitive and race crudeness when Mr. Jagdeo ruled with hegemonic bombast. Roger Luncheon’s statement in my libel trial that no African Guyanese was qualified to be ambassador; the refusal of the Public Service Ministry to provide data on scholarship recipients to a researcher from the Ethnic Relations Commission who investigated ethnic bias in the awards; the horrible racist editorial in the Chronicle by an Indian woman who openly stated that African youths are socialized to hate Guyanese East Indians; and the erection of the 1823 monument on the seawall not at Parade Ground.
In every instance, Sam Hinds defended what could not be politically and morally defended. That Indian woman should have been charged and jailed under our anti-discrimination and anti-incitement law. Here are the apologetic words of Hinds as he came to the side of the lady, “It could only be considered “venomous” in the pain of its truth. I, like Jagdeo and Ramotar, sense no case for sanctioning that lady.”
Do readers understand what this former Prime Minister is saying? An editorial posits that African youths have been socialized to hate Indians and that is why they rob and kill them. Hinds is saying that it is a painful truth we must all face.
I have several nieces and nephews who are half-African and none of them hate Indian people. Sam Hinds’ sons are African Guyanese. Were they socialized to hate Indians? I will not cite Hinds’ justification of the 1823 monument placed on the seawall rather than at the Parade Ground, the spot where the slaves were tortured and executed. Sam Hinds’ defence of that caricature honestly makes me nauseated.

1 thoughts on “Sam Hinds personifies the collective mind of the PPP leadership”

RLSG February 7, 2018 at 3:06 pm

This is my third missive on this subject. As I said before Sam Hinds does not have a foot to stand on or to give an opinion on anything. While serving as the Prime Minister he stood idly by while his party reigned terror on the Guyanese population .. he said nothing and did nothing. As a part of a foreign delegation who visited him at his office I asked about the black people and his connection to them. He replied that black people children don’t want education they just want to make money by whatever means. He is and has been a insult to Guyana’s black people hence the name Sam Blinds.