Criticism of Jagan is an intentional censure of the PPP

There has been a noticeable stream of detailed letters written by non-resident Guyanese of a particular ideological, political, cultural and ethnocentric genre denigrating Cheddi Jagan, his beliefs and identified few of his followers. Although Ramkarran, Ramotar, Ramcharan and Rohee aka ‘The Four R’s’ are not the only ones known to have spoken or written favourably about Jagan, nevertheless they have been singled out for attack by Ramharack and company. Their new line of attack is reflected in a letter; ‘Sentimental reverence for Cheddi’s enduring legacy and legitimizing the silencing of Indian history’ written by Baytoram Ramharack and published in S/N of April 7, 2024. ‘Neither Ralph Ramkarran, Donald Ramotar, Dr. Bertrand Ramcharan or Clement Rohee – and I reiterate – none of these individuals have demonstrated an appreciation for Indian history. Nor can they boast of a public record of defending Indian interests. They have, instead, knowingly in some cases, contributed to the silencing of the Indian voice.’

My question is, should one of our Indian, African, Chinese or Portuguese peoples’ history and/or contributions to nation building take precedence over the sum total of Guyanese historiography? Are we not woven into one as reflected in our National Motto? It seems to me that by particularizing or ring-fencing any specific ethnic group for the sake of political or ethnocentric expediency, especially within our multiracial, multicultural society, that would be tantamount to unraveling what our constitution demands of us, that we ‘celebrate our cultural and racial diversity and strengthen our unity by eliminating any form of discrimination.’ In this regard, one is left to wonder whether the writings by Baytoram and company are meant to influence the deliberations at and the outcome of the 32nd congress of the PPP due to be held in early May this year since they have stepped up their efforts at a time when the philosophical and ideological pillars on which the PPP was founded have, coincidentally, been brought into question.

There is absolutely no need to delve too deeply to discern the real motive behind Baytoram and company’s campaign to besmirch the legacy of Jagan and to include those who they have singled out for attack simply because they do not embrace ethnic solidarity nor the sectarian cause that Ramarack champions. This leads me to wonder

whether they have ever noticed that there is no discernible efforts by any Afro-Guyanese individual or group to pull down Burnham’s legacy in the same way as Ramharack and company try to pull down Jagan’s. Those who seek to besmirch Jagan’s beliefs as well as that of the three named individuals have a right to do so, but that same right must reside with those who disagree with Ramharack and whose views support what Jagan stood for.

From the writings of Baytoram and company, it is clear that by criticizing Jagan’s beliefs they are ipso facto criticizing the PPP. It is within a chosen ethnocentric framework that Ramharack and company have opted to hang on to name calling, cliches and language in order to gain traction for views whose genesis is to be found in an era long gone. As a consequence, they end up misinterpreting and erroneously misapplying the ideological framework laid down by Jagan which, through the years, has been the platform through which the PPP pursues its programme and policies under present-day conditions.