Balram Singh Rai: 51 years of zero contribution

Feb 05, 2022 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

Kaieteur News – Mr. Balram Singh Rai (BSR) was a charismatic politician from the PPP at a time when I was in short pants in Wortmanville. He left Guyana when I was a teenager. After his departure, he spent 51 years in the UK without any involvement, participation or observation in relation to Guyana whatsoever. BSR did not want to know Guyana; did not want to talk about Guyana; did not do anything for Guyana. It was 51 years of complete withdrawal.
Within that context, can he be assessed positively? The answer is yes but within the short period, which he spent in Guyana. But he could equally be criticised for turning his back on Guyana and he did exactly that thus denting any possibility of being described as a Guyanese patriot.
There is a biography of him written by Dr. Baytoram Ramharack who extols Rai in the book but ironically the author’s words in the acknowledgement section paint a gloomy picture of a man who may not be worthy of the praise he received.
Here are some quotes from Ramharack followed by my comments.
Q – “After all, one cannot write about a popular, political figure without first doing an in-depth interview with him.”
C – Ramharack in the same section admitted that BSR did not do the interview thus did not contribute to the writing of his book. I will elaborate when I offer a relevant quote below.
Q – “However he made it clear…he was going to abstain from participation in writing the book…I would have to complete this project on my own with little or no assistance from him.”
C – Without the interview, the resulting lacunae have taken away from a comprehensive work. Interestingly, the little assistance Rai offered was a donation of photographs and speeches. It is funny that Rai cannot offer analyses and descriptions of people, places and events to his biographer but only pictures of himself and his speeches. Does that tell you something about the psychology of the man? But here is more on the psychology of the man. I quote Ramharack again.
Q – “He said that he would never participate in an effort to write his biography because…the PPP would certainly accuse him of re-writing and falsifying history.”
C – For an educated man, that statement showed that Rai understood nothing about life and history. If all humans had the same approach to life as Rai, then there would never have been memoirs biographies and autobiographies.
So, I guess we will not see a biography of Rihanna or Cristiano Ronaldo or Mia Mottley or Kamala Harris because they will live in fear of the accusations of others that they did not paint a true picture of what happened. Can one believe that nonsense from Rai?
He was unwilling to record history for subsequent generations because he did not want accusations from the PPP that he falsified history. If Rai wanted to live as a recluse and not talk to anyone about Guyana, then that was perfectly logical. But don’t tell people you do not want to give published interviews because of what the PPP will say about you.
If you do not want to give your biographer information that will add to the knowledge of Guyana because you want to leave that period of your life alone then that is also perfectly understood. But why send your photos and your speeches?
Rai’s lifestyle after he left Guyana in 1970 was his business and it should be respected. But the fact is that after 1970 for the next 51 years of his life, he made no contribution to Guyana and that is factual. I taught at UG for 26 years and I never heard about a man named Balram Singh Rai ever donating even a book or anything else to UG.
I have lived all my life in Guyana with over 50 years of political and social activism and I never saw a letter in the media from Rai offering words of advice to young high school graduates and UG graduates who did well. I never heard about Rai making a presence in Guyana even from abroad about anything.
For 51 years, Rai completely divorced himself from Guyana. In this context then, one has to be careful how one assesses him. It would appear that Rai was a sound politician and competent minister in the 1960s. That is the period, which we should evaluate him on but we must be careful in attributing patriotic qualities to him. Since he chose not to explain his difference with Dr. Cheddi Jagan, then we should not rush to condemn Dr. Jagan. A story has two sides. Rai refused to tell his side. Why then accept what never came out of his mouth?
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News