Andaiye’s book and Aubrey Norton’s words

Dec 24, 2022 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

Kaieteur News – Clement Rohee’s autobiography is a massive disappointment and that adjective is mild. When you consider that this gentleman was part of the war-room of the PPP and that the PPP was part of some of the most momentous occurrences in Guyana’s political sociology since the 1970s, then his autobiography had to be a gem.

I ran into Rohee two weeks ago outside Mattai’s supermarket. I told him my impression of his autobiography. He replied that he chose what to include in his memoir. He did say that maybe Ralph Ramkarran’s autobiography would include things I want to read about.

Mr. Rohee is right. The writer has to choose what to leave out. But that choice is limited. You are writing about your life not for the fishes in the sea to read but people would prefer to know more about what took place in their country.

When Mr. Ramkarran was the guest on The Gildarie – Freddie Kissoon Show, he mentioned his mistreatment at close-door meeting of the PPP leadership in June 2012 that caused him to resign. He named Rohee as one of the persons who confronted him at that meeting. That incident is missing from Mr. Rohee’s memoir.

Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine’s book, “The Sky’s Wild Noise,” does not detail the story of the WPA”s fight with the Burnham regime. There is nothing about Roopnaraine’s feelings about that era.

Dr. Roopnaraine is publishing another book – his speeches in parliament. At his age, it looks like history will not be the recipient of any account of Roopnaraine’s days during the era of Burnham’s autocracy. But more disturbing is the reality that history will not be told about the nature of the Granger presidency by Roopnaraine that Roopnaraine served as a senior minister.

This is in sharp contrast to Aubrey Norton last Wednesday on The Gildarie – Freddie Kissoon Show. Mr. Norton acknowledged that President Granger made mistakes but declined to discuss them. To date, he is the only high-ranking individual from the APNU-AFC government to have conceded that his president had made errors in office.

We come to Andaiye’s book – The Point is to Change the World. The item was brought for me by my friend, Mike Khan, former CEO of the Georgetown Hospital who is home on holiday.

Once more, I repeat on this page; Mike has one of the largest private collections of books on Guyana and books authored by Guyanese. The State has to move quickly to buy the collection. Minister Frank Anthony has the list.

Andaiye’s book, like Roopnaraine’s irritates you. When you were a larger than life figure that Roonaraine once was, people expect to hear about your revolutionary experience. Andaiye’s volume avoids methodically and meticulously that pathway.

I think that was a deliberate choice of both WPA leaders. There are about seven lines on Andaiye’s role in the fight against Burnham’s dictatorship. It is in the form of an answer to a question by her interviewers in which she said that the WPA’s intention was to overthrow the Burnham government.

There are not even a few brief paragraphs on the era of the 1970s; why the WPA took the violent pathways it did; the strengths and pitfalls of the WPA’s praxis; the snubbing of the PPP as subtly alluded to in a letter in the newspaper by Mr. Ramkarran etc; are not recorded in her book.

There is a chapter titled, “Inside the WPA” which was misleading. It consists of ten pages in which she talked with an interviewer about the WPA but the ten pages are not exclusively about the WPA.

Andaiye died in May 2019 and at the time was still active with the pen. But she chose not an offer a single word on the government of 2015-2020 that her, hero, Rupert Roopnaraine was part of. I know Andaiye deeply admired and cherished Roopnaraine.

I once mentioned on this page in 2017 that she was part of the WPA’s leadership. She called me on the phone and was agitated. She asked that I clarified her position in my next column that she was no longer part of the WPA.

But it was what she said in our conversation that was instructive. She told me, “I don’t want to be part of that kind of politics.” I don’t know what she meant so I decided I will interview her and I sent her a message.

David Hinds told me she said that she will only speak to me if David and Tacuma Ogunseye were present. I distinctly remember the laugh on David’s face when I angrily told him I reject that conditionality. After that, I never contacted her and was no longer interested in speaking to her.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of this newspaper and its affiliates.)