The Architecture of Empty Indignation: A Critique of Hemdutt Kumar’s Populist Rhetoric

Jan 27, 2026 Letters

Dear Editor,

The recent exchange in the January 25 edition of Kaieteur News has laid bare the hollow core of Hemdutt Kumar’s populist project. In his attempt to dismantle a principled defense of national sovereignty, Kumar has transitioned from a local contrarian to a voluntary spokesperson for diplomatic overreach.

His latest missive, which mocks the Vienna Convention as a “muzzle,” is a masterclass in the very hypocrisy he purports to fight. He demands absolute transparency from his own government while pleading for the interference of foreign powers in national affairs. This is the hallmark of a man who confuses the noise of the marketplace with the heavy lifting of statecraft.

There is a distinct luxury in the position Kumar occupies. It is the luxury of the perpetual outsider, the man who has never assumed a position of actual responsibility, never had to manage a complex budget, and never had to balance the competing interests of a sovereign state. It is remarkably easy to “mouth off” from the sidelines when one has no skin in the game and no professional legacy to protect beyond a collection of newspaper clippings.

Kumar’s rhetoric is a study in selective indignation. He scoffs at established legalisms, framing them as relics of an archaic age, yet he offers no alternative to the international order other than a chaotic free-for-all. He accuses others of being condescending, yet he treats the citizenry as if they are incapable of understanding that a country without diplomatic boundaries is not a nation, but a playground.

The caricature of the modern “activist” is perfectly personified here: a figure who thrives on the noise of the moment but lacks the stamina for the intellectual rigor of the academy or the boardroom. Kumar dismisses the defense of sovereignty as a distraction, failing to realize that sovereignty is the foundation upon which any meaningful progress must be built. To him, a tweet from a foreign diplomat is a revolutionary act, while the maintenance of international law is a “secret.”

This is not just a disagreement on policy; it is a fundamental rejection of the seriousness required to govern a modern state. Kumar does not seek solutions; he seeks an audience for his cynicism. He is the man who would burn down the house just to complain about the lack of light, all while blaming the architect for the height of the windows.

Ultimately, this assault on national protocol reveals a desperate need to stay relevant in a discourse that is rapidly outgrowing such emotive populism. While serious minds speak to the long-term integrity of the state, Kumar remains tethered to the immediate gratification of the grievance. Having never carried the weight of real-world responsibility, he finds it quite easy to throw stones at the foundations others are trying to build.

Latest News

The Architecture of Empty Indignation: A Critique of Hemdutt Kumar’s Populist Rhetoric

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Similar Articles

Listen to the The Glenn Lall Show

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Hackett fires flawless 68 to win NTFGL latest round

VIEW ALL SPORTS

Features/Columnists

Mashramani and the national identity crisis

Sir. Ronald Sanders

Education as Economic Policy: Remedying the Mismatch

The GHK Lall Column

Guyana – What kind of country, society, is this?

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

> Berbice Bridge […]