Skip to main content

Nov 24,2017

Source.

Dear Editor,

Charlotte Brontë, the author of Jane Eyre wrote, “Prejudices, it is well known are the most difficult to eradicate from the heart whose soil has never been loosened or fertilized by education; they grow there, firm as weeds among stones”. This quote reflects the thinking of Hamilton Green when one reflects on his letter in Stabroek News (‘PPP has had history of unparliamentary behaviour’, November 17)  and his reference to Dr Jagan regarding an old event in the ʼ60s. He deliberately chose not to mention a more contemporary event, ‘Pandemonium in Parliament’ on January 14, 1992, when the Speaker refused a debate on the controversial Constitution (Amendment) Bill 1991 seeking to extend the life of the Fifth Parliament and postpone general elections. This dastardly act forced an agitated Dr Jagan to take matters into his own hands in this acrimonious National Assembly. The narrative of this unprecedented event in Parliament was beautifully captured by Indranie Deolall’s article in Stabroek News a few weeks ago on November 9, ‘Fear for this fair land’, and was again featured by the Stabroek News as part of its 30th anniversary celebration.

The Fifth Parliament presided over by Speaker Sase Narine and Hamilton Green as leader of government business in the House could be considered the most acrimonious with a sense of deep ill feeling. Opposition motions were not debated; their time was restricted to the bare minimum and interruptions of their speeches were the order of the day. These glaring and notorious acts in the National Assembly could have only been exposed by Dr Jagan taking his protest action to the next level.

Apart from widespread publicity in the private and regional media, a very astute Joseph Pollydore made a very calculated and clever reference to Dr Jagan’s protest action in the National Assembly. At a May Day Rally in the National Park, Mr Pollydore tasked with the responsibility of introducing Dr Jagan as one of the main speakers remarked that “I have the task of introducing Dr Jagan to you, however I don’t need to since Cheddi is a man capable of creating his own headlines.” He continued: “You think I am going to talk about what happened the other day in Parliament? No, it was he who created the University of Guyana.” This brought laughter and clapping from the workers at the rally. Mr Pollydore further remarked that at this rally “Dr Jagan will be given unlimited time to speak,” in stark contrast to not being given the right to speak in Parliament for more than two years.

Dr Jagan returned as President to address the ceremonial opening of the Sixth Parliament on 17th December 1992 with former Speaker Sase Narine, now a beleaguered MP on the PNC benches. His speech was magnanimous, forcefully recognizing a multi-party system in Guyana and promising that opposition parties will not be treated with the arrogant disdain of the past. He expressed his concern for inequality, especially low pensions.

Dr Henry Jeffrey’s article in Stabroek News ‘Right is only in question between equals’ in March 2013, argued that by any historical standard the (1992-1997) Cheddi Jagan regime was the most productive period for legislation intended to protect the working people of Guyana. The process involved not only consensus with opposition parties but broad and meaningful consultations with the trade union movement and the private sector.

Finally, Dr Jagan, one of the longest serving parliamentarians in the Western hemisphere was just a few months short of five decades of a rich legacy of parliamentary struggle for a better Guyana. The late Ranji Chandisingh stated that Dr Jagan brought Parliament to the people and the people to Parliament. The richness of his parliamentary struggle is second to none, while his sincerity of purpose is written in the stars, something that is far beyond the reach of Hamilton Green.

Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Cheddie Jagan was a damn decent and principled man. Green on the other hand is a son of a bitch. And what makes Granger look so terrible was that when he was getting ready to give out his first set of awards, he went looking for Green. Since becoming President, he has also made several pilgrimages to Burnham's burial site. Burnham is undoubtedly the worst President in Guyana's history. And Granger makes pilgrimages to his burial site. Shows who Granger really is.

FM

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

S

Cheddi Jagan was a communist who transformed the PPP into an ethnically based entity.  People like Eusi Kwayana, who didn't trust Burnham so didn't leave with him, left when they saw the writing on the wall.  While Cheddi didn't coin the phrase "apan jhat" he certainly didn't discourage voting on that basis.

In fact in 1961 victory celebrations legions of PPP thugs had a motorcade through black villages on the East Coast screaming racially incendiary threats, including promises to re-enslave blacks.  A black woman, who was still a Cheddi supporter, was roundly abused by these people, who assumed that she voted PNC, because she was black.  I bet that she voted PNC in 1964.

Those who praise Cheddi need to ask why in 1961 did some of his supporters feel perfectly free to engage in racist behavior as they celebrated the PPP victory.

Cheddi cynically based his strategy on the fact that a race based vote would benefit the PPP given that Indians the majority in most of the in the then constituencies.    The PNC was confined to McKenzie, New Amsterdam and most, but not all, of the G/T seats, not sufficient to win. With most of the seats in rural areas "apan jhat" voting guaranteed the PPP victory!

FM
Last edited by Former Member
caribny posted:

Cheddi Jagan was a communist who transformed the PPP into an ethnically based entity.  People like Eusi Kwayana, who didn't trust Burnham so didn't leave with him, left when they saw the writing on the wall.  While Cheddi didn't coin the phrase "apan jhat" he certainly didn't discourage voting on that basis.

In fact in 1961 victory celebrations legions of PPP thugs had a motorcade through black villages on the East Coast screaming racially incendiary threats, including promises to re-enslave blacks.  A black woman, who was still a Cheddi supporter, was roundly abused by these people, who assumed that she voted PNC, because she was black.  I bet that she voted PNC in 1964.

Those who praise Cheddi need to ask why in 1961 did some of his supporters feel perfectly free to engage in racist behavior as they celebrated the PPP victory.

Cheddi cynically based his strategy on the fact that a race based vote would benefit the PPP given that Indians the majority in most of the in the then constituencies.    The PNC was confined to McKenzie, New Amsterdam and most, but not all, of the G/T seats, not sufficient to win. With most of the seats in rural areas "apan jhat" voting guaranteed the PPP victory!

If we were to agree on anything, CBJ was a real skont. Imagine, he let indians abused blacks. And to think, I blame him for abusing low income indians. The man was a Soviet mole, communist agenda replaced all Guyanese, they were simply nameless number in a stack against American imperialism. I guess Forbes loved him so much, he cautioned Black ppl to be respectful to him when the Black woman was going to moon him(CBJ).

Perhaps, In a silent way, mockery.

Oridinary black ppl have a tendency to be vulgar with their discontent with Indo ppl. CBJ was not Indo, he was not Guyanese. He was SOVIET.

All those who pay homage fail to come to grips how the man really really f-up Guyana.

Before he arrived back in Guyana, the colony was developing a sense of balance, culturally. There was respect, understanding and to some degree tolerance. Guyanese had a norm how to conduct way of life. He dismantled all of that in 4 years, just a measely 4 years.  He made room for Hamilton Green to rise, Jagdeo to rise, Forbes to rise. And every mean muddah f who can't govern to rise. Simply, he took away law, order and respect.

His desire was to have a classless society. Today, the country has no class. That shouldn't be too difficut for all to apprehend.

According to Caribj, and I agrre with him, he was a racist towards black ppl. It had to be. Those decent fine upstanding Eurocentric principled ppl had to endure CBJ's racism to so quickly hate coolie ppl, like instantaneously. 

Doan forget, Hoyte had to remind  him of his kith and kin. I suppose that isn't race baiting bcz CBJ was racial to begin with.

In my annals of the destruction of a glorified society, CBJ is blamed 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% for it.

Long Live Jagdeo, a reminder of CBJ's glorious f up of the people of Guyana.

Leh me hear yuh Bruddah.

S

Prashad has genes in him from three West African countries. So this had to be some koolie man in the past having a relationship with an Afro Guyanese woman or the opposite. The race situation between Afros and Indos could not have been like it is today.

 

Prashad
seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan. Was it not Burnham that made you flee Guyana? The Indian leadership in the latter part of the 1940's and early 1950's focused mainly on their own economic interest, paid lip service to the interest of East Indians.   Why blame Jagan when the Indian leadership was weak? It was until the PAC and the PPP came along that the interests of the working people of Guyana were coherently and massively represented in the political structure. So, the Indians benefitted from this and your so called Indian leadership were made irrelevant and other Indian leaders attuned to the needs and interests of East Indians emerged. People like RAi were  going no where until they linked up to the PPP Under jagan and went no where when they left the PPP other than being quislings for Zburnham and some for the USA.

Z
Zed posted:
seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan. Was it not Burnham that made you flee Guyana? The Indian leadership in the latter part of the 1940's and early 1950's focused mainly on their own economic interest, paid lip service to the interest of East Indians.   Why blame Jagan when the Indian leadership was weak? It was until the PAC and the PPP came along that the interests of the working people of Guyana were coherently and massively represented in the political structure. So, the Indians benefitted from this and your so called Indian leadership were made irrelevant and other Indian leaders attuned to the needs and interests of East Indians emerged. People like RAi were  going no where until they linked up to the PPP Under jagan and went no where when they left the PPP other than being quislings for Zburnham and some for the USA.

Exactly. My buddy Carib likes to make up stories to equate Jagan with Burnham although there are none. Jagan does not have the brutal governing record that Burnham did. Even f one generously take Carib's stretched imagination that PPP supporters allegedly did terrible things in the 60s, there is no nexus between those allegations and Jagan. Not quite the same with Burnham as he clearly directed the military and paramilitary forces against those who he saw as his opposition. Socialism/Communism was appealing around the middle of the 20th century and many saw it as a system to bridge the divide between the haves and haves-not. Jagan also saw that connection. He was driven by the need to bridge that divide and not like Burnham who was driven by power hunger. Siggy is just falling into the trap.

FM
ksazma posted:
Zed posted:
seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan.

Exactly. My buddy Carib likes to make up stories to equate Jagan with Burnham although there are none. Jagan does not have the brutal governing record that Burnham did. Even f one generously take Carib's stretched imagination that PPP supporters allegedly did terrible things in the 60s, there is no nexus between those allegations and Jagan. 

Jagan was communist but those Indian businessmen in Water St, Lombard St, Regent St and High St were not communists. Why did black hooligans/rioters burn down and loot those Indian shops and stores on Friday February 16, 1962?

Furthermore, in 1963 during the PNC-incited 80-day general strike 12-year-old Gilbakka was not communist. Why did a gang of marauding black hooligans pounce on him, lift him up and dash him into an eel-infested gutter in D'Urban Street, causing his clothes and book-bag to get soaked? I was just a Form 2 Central High School pupil. That unwarranted racial assault caused me to seek a transfer to Zeeburg Secondary, a lower-grade school.

FM
Gilbakka posted:
ksazma posted:
Zed posted:
seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan.

Exactly. My buddy Carib likes to make up stories to equate Jagan with Burnham although there are none. Jagan does not have the brutal governing record that Burnham did. Even f one generously take Carib's stretched imagination that PPP supporters allegedly did terrible things in the 60s, there is no nexus between those allegations and Jagan. 

Jagan was communist but those Indian businessmen in Water St, Lombard St, Regent St and High St were not communists. Why did black hooligans/rioters burn down and loot those Indian shops and stores on Friday February 16, 1962?

Furthermore, in 1963 during the PNC-incited 80-day general strike 12-year-old Gilbakka was not communist. Why did a gang of marauding black hooligans pounce on him, lift him up and dash him into an eel-infested gutter in D'Urban Street, causing his clothes and book-bag to get soaked? I was just a Form 2 Central High School pupil. That unwarranted racial assault caused me to seek a transfer to Zeeburg Secondary, a lower-grade school.

No matter how one tries, they cannot truly rewrite history. History of Burnham and his PNC party destroying Guyana. Jagan, coulda, shoulda woulda is just that, coulda, shoulda, woulda. But Burnham did. Fortunately for Jagan, when he was finally allowed to govern as the majority of voters would have preferred since being denied that opportunity in 1964, he did govern in an non-Communist and non-dictatorial manner. Burnham allowed his wickedness to destroy Guyana. That is the only history. Everything else is mere conjecture.

Sorry to hear of your ordeal back then Gilly. Maybe my buddy Carib can have an eyewitness and actual victim of "PPP hooliganism" in the 60s post a first hand account on GNI.

FM

Clive Thomas who is the head of the money finding outfit S something is in Dr Jagan's book "The West on Trial" as being fired by Burnham because he was a friend of the Jagans.  Clive Thomas at Dr. Jagan's funeral stated that Dr. Jagan always called him by phone two to three times every week at night to talk.  Now Clive Thomas is hunting President Jagdeo and other East Indians.

Prashad
Last edited by Prashad
ksazma posted:
Gilbakka posted:
ksazma posted:
Zed posted:
seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan.

Exactly. My buddy Carib likes to make up stories to equate Jagan with Burnham although there are none. Jagan does not have the brutal governing record that Burnham did. Even f one generously take Carib's stretched imagination that PPP supporters allegedly did terrible things in the 60s, there is no nexus between those allegations and Jagan. 

Jagan was communist but those Indian businessmen in Water St, Lombard St, Regent St and High St were not communists. Why did black hooligans/rioters burn down and loot those Indian shops and stores on Friday February 16, 1962?

Furthermore, in 1963 during the PNC-incited 80-day general strike 12-year-old Gilbakka was not communist. Why did a gang of marauding black hooligans pounce on him, lift him up and dash him into an eel-infested gutter in D'Urban Street, causing his clothes and book-bag to get soaked? I was just a Form 2 Central High School pupil. That unwarranted racial assault caused me to seek a transfer to Zeeburg Secondary, a lower-grade school.

No matter how one tries, they cannot truly rewrite history. History of Burnham and his PNC party destroying Guyana. Jagan, coulda, shoulda woulda is just that, coulda, shoulda, woulda. But Burnham did. Fortunately for Jagan, when he was finally allowed to govern as the majority of voters would have preferred since being denied that opportunity in 1964, he did govern in an non-Communist and non-dictatorial manner. Burnham allowed his wickedness to destroy Guyana. That is the only history. Everything else is mere conjecture.

Sorry to hear of your ordeal back then Gilly. Maybe my buddy Carib can have an eyewitness and actual victim of "PPP hooliganism" in the 60s post a first hand account on GNI.

The Carib is right to an extent, the individual PPP grassroots activists can match the violence of the individual PNC activists in several  tit for tat ways. The bomb and the gun can be use by any race. What the PPP  is weak in is the defense of their supporters in a multiracial areas.   This is because these people living in multiracial areas do not have communities that have people in them with multiple guns, ammunition and the knowledge to quickly make an explosive device to protect themselves. As result, they are left at the mercy of supporters of the other parties living in these areas. 

Prashad
Zed posted:
seignet posted:

In Guyana, post colonial leadership among Indians is very poor. CBJ thought doing things Indian was anti-guyanese. So he took us down a destructive path by dismantling Indian Leadership. Check see how many Indians he ridiculed. I put him in the same category as Forbes-asbsloute demented individuals.  

This is bunk. There is no moral equivalence  with Burnham and Jagan. Was it not Burnham that made you flee Guyana? The Indian leadership in the latter part of the 1940's and early 1950's focused mainly on their own economic interest, paid lip service to the interest of East Indians.   Why blame Jagan when the Indian leadership was weak? It was until the PAC and the PPP came along that the interests of the working people of Guyana were coherently and massively represented in the political structure. So, the Indians benefitted from this and your so called Indian leadership were made irrelevant and other Indian leaders attuned to the needs and interests of East Indians emerged. People like RAi were  going no where until they linked up to the PPP Under jagan and went no where when they left the PPP other than being quislings for Zburnham and some for the USA.

The moral eqivalence is that CBJ set the stage for what Guyana is today.

Burnham never had to have that opportunity to do what he had done and his proteges to follow.

In his book, he proudly states how he was beseeched by the BGEIA not follow the path on anti-British.

I see a country that is never getting anywhere. I witnessed and lived in it when it like utopia. And he wrecked it. 

Doan blame Forbes, CBJ removed the checks and balances for him by simply being anti-British and anti-American.

Today, it is considered the PPP lost the 2015 elections because of fiery speech by Priya at US ambassadors home. 

Do these pple ever learn?

Hell, no!

And they have created Granger just as  they created Forbes.

Destruction of a whole country is eqivalent by both CBJ and LFSB. One for communism the other for the right to govern bcz they the were slaves.

Cheddie had to solutions for Guyana-just examine what he left behind. I think he allowed his fateful to thief.

S

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×