Brute force and ignorance

Vitriol

We return to the utter ignorance redolent in the utterances of Lincoln the Loud on the president’s comments during the Arrival Day commemorations. One might be tempted to dismiss the extremism of Lewis as the antics of a buffoon – one given to ‘brute force and ignorance. But in Guyana there are grave dangers in turning a blind eye to such provocative vitriol on race relations in Guyana.

We can do worse than ask if Lewis – as the putative head of the ‘umbrella’ body of trade unions – issued a felicitating statement on the occasion of Arrival Day? This is a national holiday set aside to acknowledge the arrival of labourers to this country. You think a trade union leader would find some commonality with this event?

So if we examine the accusations of Lewis, we can see clearly that his twisting of the president’s remarks is a projection of his own virulent racial and ethnic prejudices. Lewis demands proof for the president’s saying that Indians agitated for the right to vote. Imagine that! The British had imposed requirements on the franchise – knowledge of English, property ownership, and income level that precluded almost all Indians.

In 1911, of a total Indian population of 126,517, only 251 were on the voters’ list. African/ Coloured Guyanese had formed a solid middle class by then and regularly elected their representatives. Only by 1916 was Joseph Alexander Luckhoo successful, and he became the first East Indian to be elected to the national legislature, the Court of Policy. Indians had to agitate for the franchise.

As Cheddi Jagan wrote in 1988 (the 150th anniversary of Indian arrival) “The black middle class, which had emerged earlier historically… saw the emergent Indian middle strata as a threat. They perceived the lower rungs of the colonial administrative ladder as their preserve.

In this sense, they tended to be conservative; wanting maintenance of the status quo. And so, they assumed, for instance, in Guyana, increasingly a conservative political posture and opposed reforms for adult suffrage and self-government.” Indians fought for their franchise.

Sucking up

Ralph Ramkarran wrote a letter to the Stabber claiming that the PPP had actually opposed the government’s cessation of ads to that paper some years ago. Secretary to the Cabinet Roger Luncheon disputed his account of what actually had transpired. He mentioned that although – as usual – there might have been differences of opinion on the issue, the decision-making procedure of the party – dubbed ‘democratic centralism’, mandated that, just as when Cabinet ministers make decisions together, they all bear collective responsibility.

Ramkarran fired off another missive making distinctions between “Ex-Co” and the Central Committee, but we’re not sure what’s the point he’s trying to make.

The bottom line was that in the end the PPP decided not to oppose the government on the ad issue. Is Ramkarran saying that he should have sent off his article opposing the government regardless of a definitive position by the party? He should now also clarify his position of the PPP’s procedure of ‘collective responsibility’.

But we still wonder what’s this storm in a teacup all about? Is Ramkarran looking ahead at new elections and his place in it? Is he trying to suck up to the ‘independent’ media that have viciously skewered the PPP and the government for the last two decades? C’mon Harrinaraine, let’s hear it!