Ramharack omitted critical source documents which did not support his thesis
I write in relation to two items in the Stabroek News (SN) of December 3, 2021. The first relates to Tarron Khemraj’s comment in the SN web edition on my letter “Ramharack’s piece on Jagan lacks rigorous academic analysis”. Generally I am not in the habit of making or responding to comments in SN. However, Dr. Khemraj is a university professor. His views carry much weight in the community and also, his students must be clear about expectations in academia, hence my response. Importantly too, for me, is that he did not hide his identity by using a pseudonym. In his comment he stated “One cannot say that Dr Ramharack’s recent essay on Dr Jagan lacks academic rigor. Ramharack looked at the primary sources in crafting the essays - hence, he used a proper historical methodology in writing the essays”. I want to believe that Dr. Khemraj did not put much thought into his comment or looked carefully at the two “essays” by Ramharack.
Ramharack may have looked at primary sources, but in his first essay, either unintentionally or intentionally, he omitted mentioning critical source documents which did not support his thesis. I pointed this out in my first letter (As far as the Americans were concerned, Jagan’s fate was sealed on May 5, 1961, Stabroek News, November 22). Is it “proper historical methodology” for an academic to omit documents that do not support his/her views? I doubt it. If the omission was unintentional then it points to sloppy work; if intentional, then it is scandalous. Dr. Ramharack’s second essay continues from his first, and flaws in the first affected the second. In addition, even if information is taken from a primary source, isn’t there a responsibility for an academic to assess the information for credibility? In both essays, Ramharack reproduces quotes and formed conclusions without assessing the information, or, who made the quotes. From Kwayana’s quote he concludes “Kwayana’s appraisal spoke to the absence of an Indian cultural tradition that left a social void that needed to be filled” (which was then filled with Soviet Marxism). Then he quotes Clem Seecharan “a massive void created by his estrangement from his Hindu-Indian frame of reference had replicated an unassailable niche in the young man’s soul: he would never retrieve or manifest a religious or cultural frame of reference”.
As far as I am aware, neither Eusi Kwayana nor Clem Seecharan are qualified psychologists to come to those conclusions. Also, Kwayana’s quote was made in 1991, more than three decades after he and Jagan had parted company on less than friendly terms. As for Seecharan, in his book “Sweetening Bitter Sugar”, a recurring sub-theme is that Jagan was no statesman. Are these then independent interlocutors who are objective in their statements? Incidentally, while Seecharan has expressed his views on Jagan’s cultural void, others have questioned Seecharan’s views on Indo-Guyanese and Hinduism. Readers may want to take a look at the book “A Mauling of Indians: Prof Seecharan’s noxious “revisionist” falsehoods of Indo-Guyanese History” by Veda Nath Mohabir, published in May 2019. This book is in response to his portrayal of Indians and Hindus in “The 2014 Republic of Guyana Distinguished Lecture” which the author considers as “pathologizing and belittling”. In any case, Cheddi Jagan was running to be the Prime Minister or President of Guyana, i.e. to be the Prime Minister or President of all Guyanese, irrespective of race or religion, not the Head of the Pandits’
Council or the Guyana Maha Sabha or the British Guiana East Indians Association. So why this preoccupation with his Hinduism?
The second item is Ravi Dev’s letter “It was Cheddi himself who insisted that there be criticism”. In his letter he writes “…From the reaction of some true believers, it would appear that Dr Jagan should be above critique much less criticism!! These sycophants forget that it was Cheddi who insisted that not only must there be criticism, but also self-criticism as advised by the master, Karl Marx in “The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte”. I think that Mr. Dev understands the difference between a sycophant and someone who is calling for fairness and objectivity in what is written about a person. I want to believe that he would not like someone to defame him based on misrepresentation. I hope he reflects on the online comment to his letter by AB 10460 “But neither Marx nor Cheddi propagated criticism for criticism sake, criticism that is non-contextual, based on confirmation bias, makes assertions unsupported by the facts et al”.
Sincerely,
Harry Hergash