I write on behalf of the People's Movement for Justice (PMJ) to correct some of the inaccuracies contained in the letter by Dr David Hinds, captioned "The death squad was a response to Buxton" [ please note: link provided by LOSP web site ] in SN of Sunday, April 4, 2004.
Before addressing the matters which the PMJ believes must be clarified, I want to use the opportunity to ask Dr Hinds if his letter was done on behalf of others or, if it represented his personal perception of the situation he sought to address? If it does who then are the "we" he referred to in his letter?
While it is true that the PMJ respects and upholds the prerogative of individuals to offer constructive criticisms of its performance, the PMJ also believes that any criticism of its objectives and performance should be based on objectivity. In this context, the PMJ strongly believes that if the distinguished political analyst and social commentator, Dr David Hinds, had availed himself of the opportunity during his visit to Guyana in March 2004, to engage the PMJ in a discussion in respect to its aims and objectives, he would have been better equipped to pronounce on the PMJ and its operations.
For the record, the PMJ arose out of a need to address the collapse of the rule of law in Guyana and to struggle for its restoration. At its inaugural meeting on January 21, 2004, which was attended by twelve organisations and a number of concerned citizens, a number of important decisions were made. Three of those decisions were (1) as the PMJ struggles for the restoration of the rule of law, the area of its immediate focus would be the Gajraj affair, which is a clear indication of the extent to which the rule of law in Guyana had fallen by the wayside. (2) The PMJ would strive to develop a broader, cohesive, coalition of concerned citizens and organisations across race, class, gender, religious and political and cultural lines to pursue its goals. (3) As it works towards the achievement of (2) the PMJ will, however, undertake those tasks that are deemed necessary to advance its work.
The Gajraj affair was therefore not intended to be, nor will it be the only focus of the PMJ in its efforts to arrest the current deteriorating situation in Guyana. This point was underscored when two PMJ representatives appeared as guests of Mr Christopher Ram on his programme, Plain Talk on Sunday, March 14, 2004. In response to a question posed by Mr Ram as to whether the PMJ will go out of existence if the government bows to pressure and orders an investigation into the Gajraj affair, they said the rule of law has a number of facets to it of which the Gajraj affair is only one, and that the PMJ will therefore continue to focus on other issues in its ongoing quest to have the rule of law restored in Guyana.
To Dr Hinds' submission that the "PMJ's case against Gajraj would be stronger and the movement might have attracted PPP supporters had ACDA, WPA, PNC and the TUC held vigils, pickets and marches when Buxton was raging," the PMJ responds by saying (1) it places on record its appreciation for Dr Hinds' advocacy for a resolution of the crisis in Buxton while at the same time recognizing that there were other advocates who were also clamouring for a resolution; (2) the Buxton situation had occurred long before the birth of the PMJ. Its member organisations would have individually addressed that crisis in their own way, though not necessarily in conformity with Dr Hinds' approach; and (3) the PMJ's case against Gajraj is the people's case against him and it cannot be wished away. It must be vigorously pursued to its logical conclusion if the struggle for the restoration of the rule of law in Guyana is to be given any real meaning.
The point raised by Dr Hinds is, however, an interesting one which the PMJ may wish to examine at some point in time. It should, however, be noted that within the PMJ, all of its member organisations, including the four named by Mr Hinds, have come out in clear condemnation of racial violence, violence of citizens against citizens, violence against women and children and every other form of violence wherever it exists. The PMJ further demonstrated its maturity when it unequivocally asserted that the concerns of our Indian sisters and brothers in respect to their perception of the violence which targeted members of Indo-Guyanese communities must be addressed in the quest to restore the rule of law. While the PMJ has condemned all forms of violence committed on Guyanese, it has also issued a warning about the possibility of politically orchestrated violence to give the impression that it is racially motivated.
In its attempts to develop the broadest possible coalition to pursue its programme, the PMJ has sent out 34 letters of invitation inclusive of 2 e-mails to organisations and individuals to be a part of the process that it had embarked on. Thirty-one of those letters were hand delivered personally by me, because I wanted to ensure they were delivered. The letter to the Indian Arrival Committee was sent via a Post Office box number. Six of the invitees positively responded. One person indicated that he was scheduled to be in Berbice on the day of the meeting. He was, however, informed that the invitation was an open one and that he was welcome to join us any Wednesday at City Hall. Twenty-seven organisations did not even offer the PMJ the courtesy of an acknowledgement of the letter of invitation which was sent to them. An invitation was not extended to the PPP/C because that party had already declared its position in respect to the allegations against Mr Ronald Gajraj.
The PMJ has never sought nor will it seek to condemn any of those organisations which refrained from responding to its invitations. We are fully aware that a number of different factors may have militated against those organisations and individuals' desire to be part of this process. It cannot be denied that the fear of intimidation and victimization still pervades this society.
Another factor may very well be that people believe that their vested interests are not and will not be threatened and therefore, there is no need for them to identify with this kind of movement. We are all aware of the saying that goes 'I am not my brother's keeper.'
What is really tragic in all of this is that there are still some people in Guyana who do not fall into either of these two categories. Historically, they have always been prepared to stay aloof from situations, only appearing to become concerned when events reach explosion point and threaten their vested interests. They then come out of the woodwork, pontificating and shedding crocodile tears. By then, irreparable harm has already been done to the society. But the moment there is a lull these people revert back their normal ways. The situation the PMJ hopes to avoid is one which may very well be explosive. It is the reason why we have been saying that the situation we are now faced with in Guyana affects all Guyanese. In this respect we have made the call for Guyanese to be united in the cause for the restoration of the rule of law. If we are not, we will all be consumed. It is in this context the PMJ believes that a primary concern of Dr Hinds should be how to get the fence straddlers involved consistently in action to restore the rule of law.
For Dr Hinds and the public's benefit it should be known that ROAR is not a member of the PMJ, although we will gladly welcome it to our ranks. Unfortunately, it was one of the organisations which failed to respond to the PMJ's invitation.
The PMJ is, however, deeply grateful to Mr Ravi Dev of ROAR, as we are to Ms Violet Jean-Baptiste of ACDA. Mr Vic Puran, then unattached but now Leader of The Guyana Patriotic Alliance, Dr Clive Y Thomas of IDS and social commentator, Mr Christopher Ram, for agreeing to be presenters and in the case of Mr Ram, moderator at its symposium on 'Guyana A Nation in Crisis - The Way Forward' which was held at the City Hall on Tuesday, March 16, 2004.
It should be noted that in organising the symposium the PMJ, in keeping with its decision to involve a wide cross-section of individuals and organisations in its activities had also invited Dr Peter De Groot of the Guyana Private Sector Commission and Ms Jean La Rose of the Amerindian People's Association to deliver their perspectives on the topic to participants. Unfortunately, they were unable to attend.
All of the presenters at the symposium dealt with the situation in Guyana in as comprehensive a manner as they were able to do in the limited time allotted to them. That Dr Hinds was not aware of this may have resulted from his late arrival at the symposium.
Finally Dr Hinds, replacing the PPP with the PNC does not fall within the mandate of the PMJ. I wish therefore to reiterate that in the PMJ, we are concerned about the restoration of the rule of law in Guyana and are not propelled by a partisan agenda.