Exploration of the “victim” mentality of Indians holds the key of what Guyana is all about

struggle against those external forces is what shapes who we are. This led me to the obvious conclusion that: “The power to shape the future is in our hands today, as it always has been. We simply do not accept the results of our handiwork.” The debate over Jagan and Burnham is taking place in the year 2021, about events that have unfolded over the past 70 years. During this period, world historical events took place with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, soon followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. These events had a major impact on the reassessment of our history.

Dr. Ganpat explains that: “The paragraph in my earlier letter made the point that the US perceived Jagan as a communist, which posed a grave danger to its geostrategic interest in the region. Hence it was perception and belief, not reason, logic or evidence or all three that motivated the political decisions of the US, which was to prevent the Pro-Soviet Jagan from leading an independent Guyana at the height of the Cold War. That’s all I am saying”. He is saying that the US position was devoid of “reason, logic or evidence”, but was based on “perception and beliefs”. This would suggest, if not imply and/or assert, that Jagan’s position was based on “reason, logic, or evidence, or all three.” Hence, Jagan is being condemned for supposedly engaging the highest faculties in the making of rational decisions. Dr. Ganpat and those who lend mutual support to his reading of history, want to paint us as victims. According to his doctrine, we are victims of US “perception and beliefs”, as well as Jagan’s “reason, logic, or evidence, or all three”. If we are “victims” of Jagan, then what are we in relation to Burnham? Curiously, it is Jagan and the PPP that have always “perceived and believed” themselves to be the victims of Burnham and the US. An exploration of the “victim” mentality of Indians in Guyana holds the key to the understanding of our “perceptions and beliefs” of what Guyana is all about. It is a matter of urgency that we do so. This is what “reason, logic, and evidence” demands of us.

Sincerely, Rohit Kanhai the writer is not clear; all sugar workers, union and nonunionized should receive the increment. During the coalition reign from 2015 to 2020, sugar workers did not get a wage increase. The workers of other government sectors received an annual pay increment totaling some 67% during this period, according to former Finance Minister Winston Jordan. In labour union laws, at least in the US, there is a concept called “pattern bargaining” where all government workers receive similar percentage (and perks) for same duration of a contract. Some years ago, New York City educators were denied 4% annual increase by Mayor Bloomberg as was given to other municipal workers. The Mayor refused to authorize the new contract for educators because of some political fallout. When the new Mayor, Bill DeBlasio, took over, he honored the 8% raise retroactively with 3% interest accrued from that time; hundreds of Guyanese educators were beneficiaries. ‘Pattern bargaining’ labour rules are followed internationally by all democratic governments. This would suggest that the sugar workers should have received the similar percentage (67%) of increments as paid to other government workers and doled out retroactively (from 2015) with interests or whatever date their contract expired..