Against the US, Jagan had only his extremities, dreams and Marxist theology

Even a cursory reading of the protagonist side of the recent “Jagan debate” conveys the idea that Dr. Cheddi Jagan was a selfless man who was above any wrongdoings. He was Guyana’s Mahatma. I accept that a large fraction of ordinary, poor Indians who fear for their personal security, property and family have a deep love and respect for Jagan and indeed saw him as their savior. The Indian politicians, their octopus (PPP) and connected businesspersons – the political and business elites – are a different matter. Buried below the apparent devotion by the protagonists in the debate (former President Donald Ramotar, Clement Rohee and others, including some bloggers) is an issue that needs excavating. I am referring to the Indian political elite who knows that a re-examination, a re-interpretation of Jagan and his legacy and the slightest sign that they are not devotees and sycophants of Jagan is political suicide.

This contextual understanding brings me to the “Kanhai principle,” if I am permitted to so label it, which states that the power to shape our future is always in our hands (“Exploration of the ‘victim’ mentality of Indians holds the key of what Guyana is all about,” SN, 23 December 2021). To some extent, that folklore principle may be true for an individual person as each of us has a certain degree of freedom to shape, not determine completely, his/her future. It is, however, incorrect and misleading to scale up the principle to the level of a country for a country cannot be run - managed - like a company or a household. A country is not an individual.

The fact that Guyana’s future was taken away from Jagan’s own hands (was it ever there?) and that he wandered for 28 years in the wilderness, desperate, hopeless and powerless, invalidates the country-level applicability of the Kanhai principle. The point is that whether or not Jagan’s beliefs, perceptions and actions were guided by logic, reason and evidence is irrelevant. It is untenable to invoke the equivalence principle for the simple reason that while Jagan stood on two feet, those of the US were countless. The US was – and still is – the most powerful country on the planet and all Cheddi had was his two feet, two hands, ivory-tower dreams, and Marxist theology. The struggle was an asymmetric one in which Jagan could only loose, which explains why the US prevailed and Jagan came up emptyhanded. I remain baffled why Kanhai asserts that the “victim” mentality of Indians holds the key to all of this.