By his own words, Ogunseye’s position on violence is unchanged

Nov 28, 2022 Letters

Dear Editor,

Kindly allow me to respond to Tacuma Ogunseye’s letter of 11-26-2022 titled

“Partisan distribution of Guyana’s wealth ought not be glorified by Dev

as progressive politics”. I wish to deal with one aspect of Ogunseye’s letter.

I had cause to point out in a letter in KN see “Why hasn’t Ogunseye spoken up to clear this issue?” https://kaieteurnewsonline.com › 2022/11/14 › w… Ogunseye was the third member of a three man WPA committee consisting of Dr. Walter Rodney and Dr. Rupert Roopnarine charged with amassing arms for the violent overthrow of the Burnham PNC government. I challenged Ogunseye to clear up the issue of violence to overthrow the government. He failed to respond. Editor, lo and behold Ogunseye writes in response to Ravi Dev on 11-26-2022 that “I have in the past said, and I repeat, I will support resistance be it unarmed or armed once it is a response by the poor and powerless of any racial group/ community against state-sponsored killings and political oppression, irrespective of the government in power. This is the bottom line of my politics on this matter and has remained unchanged. May I also remind Dev that I developed this position long before the PPP returned to power in 1992.”

The truth of the matter is Ogunseye has not renounced the use of violence in Guyana’s politics. He admits his position remains “unchanged”. This is revealing for the WPA’s Eusi Kwayana’s position that violence was not to be used to topple Burnham. Kwayana was mindful that in using violence to topple Burnham’s PNC Guyana’s armed forces, which is overwhelmingly African would come under attack by African rebels. Kwayana would not support Africans shooting Africans. This issue would explain why Kwayana was not trusted by Rodney as Rodney was in favour of using violence against Burnham; Rodney had penetrated the armed forces and was a growing threat to the PNC.

What is most dangerous is Ogunseye’s declaration that he would use violence against any government i.e. the present PPP/C whom he feels may be oppressing Black people. Should violence be used in such a scenario Indians would be slaughtered as they do not possess equal counter measures in weaponry. As a matter of fact, there exists no absolute militant Indian advocating leadership speaking for Indians similar to that of Dr. David Hinds, Tacuma Ogunseye, Eusi Kwayana, Hamilton Green, Lincoln Lewis, the GDF’s Leon Saul and Mark Benschop! The WPA’s Roopnarine is just a figurehead as he has absolutely no grounding in the Indian constituency.

What is now clear is that with the African masses at the bottom of the economic ladder, it will always provide fodder for agitators to seek cause for dissension. Hopefully, it would be by democracy. One Guyana is an ideal goal but is threatened by those who believe in violence as a solution.

Sincerely,
Sultan Mohamed

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News