Dear Editor,
Harry Nawbatt (Oct 24 in Guyana KN) penned a nasty, personalized essay based on hearsay, not facts attacking me, Baytoram Ramharack, and otehrs and as such not worthy of a reply. However, there is a need to correct his gossip in which he stated that he was told that I am “anti-Jagan”. Continuing with the Diwali metaphor invoked by Nawbatt, let me illuminate brightly with the lights emanating from the deyas the following: I was involved in the introduction of Cheddi through GOPIO and by letter to the Carter Center, to the Chair of Democratic Party Ron Brown in 1989, and to my History Professor Arthur Schlesinger who apologized for his role in the toppling of Jagan. In addition, I appealed to Ramesh Kalicharran to provide accommodations to Cheddi and Sam Hinds in 1992, and checked up on their comfort at the 170th Street facility where they were hosted. It could not be that I disliked Cheddi that I did the above for him.
Nawbatt went berserk on my commentary on constitutional reform in which I stated that people were disappointed that Dr. Jagan and his PPP reneged on their commitment to replace the Burnham constitution after their electoral victory and restoration of democracy in 1992. He has not disputed that Jagan failed to honor a commitment on the constitution. Instead, he accepted hearsay or gossip that I am anti-Jagan and didn’t bother to request evidence to support his assertion. That says a lot about the man who served as a Minister of government. What does that say about the intelligence and quality of some people who served as Ministers in Guyana? No wonder the public eternally complained about the performance and erudition of some (former) Ministers. And the audacity of a man who wants readers to believe him! So if people say he is an idiot, doesn’t he think I should ask people why they feel he is an idiot? An intelligent person would think differently from Nawbatt. In my academic training, gossip and hearsay are dumped in the garbage can with evidence marshalled to debunk or support a claim.
Nawbatt also invoked Dr. Baytoram Ramharack’s name as being anti-Jagan’s. His communist comrades like Clement Rohee and a few others also labeled Ramharack, Ravi Dev and those of us who critiqued Cheddi and Janet’s communistic ideology as being opponents. Let me assure Nawbatt and others I was never anti-Jagan’s or anti-PPP and neither do I think the others who critiqued the Jagan’s. We were and are anti-communist as we believe it never served the interest of colonial Guiana or independent Guyana. Communism deprived people of their human dignity and basic rights. It was also a threat to American and Western interests. The threat of the rise of Communism was the primary reason for the rise of the authoritarian state in Guyana in 1968 and the collapse of the economy and the emptying out of Guyana post-independent. If the Jagan’s were not communist, they would have been allowed to govern Guyana and the country would not have sunk into a dictatorship.
Baytoram, Ravi, I, and a few others played a significant role in the restoration of democracy culminating in FFE and Jagan’s election as President. I wrote many articles praising the Jagan’s and their contributions to the struggle and I also critiqued them. I was trained to write objectively, not with bias as Nawbatt. I organized seminars and conferences on the Jagan’s. I lobbied Washington and governments of other countries to give Dr Jagan a chance. I was rebuffed by Western governments and members of Congress. In India, state foundations that I approached declined to fund a seminar in tribute to Dr. Jagan for the centenary of his birth. I was told that Dr. Jagan was a great man and that Indian Guyanese considered him their “Mahatma” but his ideology resulted in undue sufferings and persecution of his people in Guyana, and as such state foundations could not fund an honor for him. However, programs I co-organized in India, USA, and Trinidad did pay tribute to him, his spouse Janet. Ditto events I participated in Guyana.
Baytoram and I landed at City College in September 1977 as Freshmen in pre medical studies at the tender age of 17. We were influenced by Vassan and Rennie Ramracha, who had majored in Political Science, to pioneer a movement against the Guyana dictatorship and to switch our major to that discipline to enhance our tools on political struggle and revolution. The duo, rightly asked how we could concern ourselves only with a planned medical career and turn a blind eye to the suffering of our people in Guyana. We decided to change Majors and committed to a struggle against the dictatorship. That struggle redounded to the benefit of the Jagan’s and the PPP; we were not interested in running for office in Guyana. We simply wanted the restoration of democracy and free and fair elections (FFE). We organized rallies, petitions, protests and more against the dictatorship and penned letters to Congress and Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations as well as to other governments to apply pressure on Burnham and Hoyte to return the country to democratic rule. Trips were made to Washington from New York to engage Americans politicians and Administration officials. Members of Congress told us that they would not support the replacement of an opportunistic socialist with an avowed communist, cementing our belief that Jagan could not make a come back unless he broke with communism.
On our pro democracy struggle to benefit Jagan, Ramharack was the point writer, waking up in the wee hours to prepare literature for distribution and communication with others. At times after midnight, he would be called upon to construct newsletters or flyers about rights violations in Guyana to distribute at public events and to engage in correspondences with politicians globally. I also penned articles and engaged in communications with world leaders and politicians. Ravi Dev also penned articles. Ramharack and I organized protests in front of the UN annually for the General Assembly focusing attention on rigged elections and rights violations.
I was elected to student government in 1978 and re-elected several times and pioneered motions for funding for seminars, lectures, conferences in which Dr Jagan and Janet Jagan were speakers. Chuck Mohan facilitated several of these programs. Arjune Karshan and Mel Carpen, not students, were at some of these lectures. Joey Jagan and Ralph Gonsalves were speakers at one such seminar that got funding and co-organized in 1980 at the Finley Center, south campus. Those activities could not be of a person who was anti-Jagan.
After the collapse of communism, Jagan agreed that we must work with the West. He implicitly agreed that communism couldn’t work in Guyana or the West, and explicitly, he accepted IMF conditionalities. As President, he didn’t visit the East bloc. Clearly, those of us who were anti communist, are or were vindicated.
The other matters Nawbatt raised are not worthy of a response. The issue of polling will be dealt with in a separate response.
Nawbatt asked a relevant question — who the public would believe — a person who made an allegation based on gossip or a person who presented a refutation buttressed with evidence?
Your truly,
Dr Vishnu Bisram
