Rejecting any call for partitioning

Dec 10, 2018 Letters

MY DEAR PARAM & THE EDITOR,
I reject any proposal for partitioning Guyana… as vehemently now as when, as a youngster, I did after Eusi Kwayana (formerly Sydney King) first proposed it; for such would sound the death knell of the country.
But who am I to speak, you might ask; and where am I located?…. COMFORTABLY OUTSIDE. Anyhow… the thoughts I had in Kwayana’s time are still current… and find repeat expression here.
If, regrettably, the country is split into two parts, who is to decide the geography of the separation?… whether straight across from East to West, or right down the middle from North to South ? And who gets the Essequibo and the legacy of tangling with Venezuela?
And who gets the Corentyne, with the legacy of a border squabble with Suriname?
My concern is that if Guyana is divided into two parts – one to the “Africans”… and the other to the “Indians” – it would be the beginning of the end for the country.
Those who so propose have a blinkered view of the country’s reality and the kaieteuresque fall that the country would suffer…a reversal so significant that all the oil in the world would not provide an economic rescue.
Guyana projects itself as being the Land of Six Peoples, but the proposers of separation recognize the existence of only two.
Four others, principally the indigenous Indians (or American Indians or Amerindians) seem not to exist in the minds of those urging a split.
Thus, when separation comes – if it does – what option would be offered them ?… Go to which part they wish and thus be even less than second-class citizens from the start? In any case, the Guyana Constitution protects the Amerindian rights to their land in perpetuity. Though one might argue that they can be part of a political half and not lose those constitutional prerogatives.
The proposers of separation have a blinkered view of reality, thus their expectation is that the two halves which were once one would proceed peacefully their separate ways, pursue their individual programmes, develop at their own pace, and experience prosperity or problems within their individual borders… and never the twain shall meet.
That is a fallacy. The more likely scenario over time is that the pace of development in one or the other would lead to jealousies, incursions, raids, robberies… and likely, eventually, border skirmishes and clashes. Out of such constant ruckus, one side or the other can eventually militarily control all of Guyana… but the cost in lives and property destroyed would be considerable.
If such is what those who now exercise political control over Guyana’s “Africans” and “East Indians” want, then proceed. History will severely judge them.
HUBERT WILLIAMS
Boston, Massachusetts

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News