God, I hate this thing!
Freddie Kissoon column
Kaieteur News
November 21, 2006
Have you read the letters throughout the two decades since Forbes Burnham died of people who would say that they know Burnham made mistakes and did some wrong but he was a gifted, far-sighted man that did a lot for Guyana. Then the achievements of Forbes Burnham would be reeled off. When you look at the list, it is impressive, superb and largely indicative of a man who knew what was particularly relevant for the developmental needs of Guyana .
The supporters of Burnham in bringing out his many positive accomplishments are creating a pattern of revisionist history in Guyana that will certainly be a springboard for scholars of the next generation.
One day in the future, historians and political analysts are going to put both Jagan and Burnham in proper context using proper perspectives. Dr. Baytoram Ramharack's biography of Balram Singh Rai and Clem Seecharan's biography of Jock Campbell are devastating exposures of the crass manipulation of the PPP and the sugar union by Jagan to further his own selfish interest.
One of the reasons why scholars have continued to see Jagan in a good light was because his book “The West on Trial” was standard reading for an entire generation whose only source of what Guyana was like from the forties to the sixties was that book itself.
I have written on more occasions than I can remember that The West in Trial is a deceptive book, replete with subjectivities, emotionalism, distortion of historical facts, brutal scandalisation of the character of many good Guyanese. Scholars doing profound studies of Guyanese contemporary political history should be careful about the extent to which they rely on this book for the essential facts. It is autobiography not an analysis of Guyana during that period.
Right now, we know that Burnham had descended into authoritarianism and that Jagan was a victim of western machinations. Too many students of modern Guyanese history continue to juxtapose the morality and sociology of Jagan and Burnham, and Jagan comes out as the better person. There are obvious reasons why.
Burnham ruled for 21 years. During his control, terrible and horrible action against the basic principles of freedom and democracy took place. In opposition to the PPP from 1955 until 1964, Burnham was certainly not a practitioner of decent politics. This needs no debating. The released British and American archival documents tell the story of the man, Forbes Burnham.
My research leads into the direction of seeing Burnham as the classical plotter of power when he was in opposition and the consummate enjoyer of power when he had possessed it. My research on Jagan paints a grim picture of a selfish man whose nationalism was secondary to his ideology. My research on both Jagan and Burnham leads me to the conclusion that these were two destructive creatures who were identical in their opportunistic approach to nationalism.
Both men committed treason against this country, for which the present and the next generation should not forgive them. Burnham wanted power at all cost and to please the Venezuelans who were opposing independence, he agreed to open the Venezuelan border claim.
Jagan in 1976 was called to Cuba by Castro and was insisted upon that he must not oppose the Government of Forbes Burnham and cause it to be endangered because the world communist movement is poised for a victory over American imperialism that in the scheme of things, the Guyana Government under Forbes Burnham was a necessary plank in the world wide movement against imperialism. Jagan came home and declared critical support for Burnham. His country's interest came second to Cuba's.
As we research more into Burnham and Jagan, we will see more of the vision of Burnham no doubt, and less of the supposed greatness of Jagan. But what is morally reprehensible is that these supporters of Burnham who willingly admit that yes, he made mistakes but did immense good for Guyana, only enumerate the positives, dishonestly refusing to attempt even brevity on the negatives. Hamilton Green leads the chorus.
Hammie tells us that errors were indeed made. Then the prodigious picture of Burnham's greatness is painted. Not a word about what the errors were. Other names come to mind – the late Tyrone Ferguson, the late Lloyd Searwar, David Granger, Aubrey Norton, Rashleigh Jackson, among others.
In last Sunday's edition of the Kaieteur News, a letter-writer by the name of Humphrey Charles published a compilation of Burnham's positive directions from which Guyana benefited. Mr. Charles rattled off a huge list of Burnham's merits, many of which are factual and can hardly be debated. He sums up the visionary input of Burnham into the sugar industry which is handsomely laid out. I did find this aspect of his letter revisionist in approach. Burnham did not undermine the sugar industry because Jagan had his support-base there.
Next he moved to agriculture. Here new facts are brought out about Burnham's interest in the role of agriculture in the development needs of Guyana. I doubt that Charles is a real person. The argument is well oiled, neatly laid out and factually compelling. Seems to me that it is someone who worked closely with Burnham and had access to his thoughts, and appeared to have worked closely on some of the ideas Burnham implemented that were germane to Guyana's economy, then and now.
Now here is the habit of the Burnham supporters that really makes me livid. I hate this thing in the fans of Burnham. It is dishonest and shameless. Charles wrote; “Burnham made mistakes but no one can deny he was a committed nationalist.” Charles then began to describe this nationalist commitment and he succeeds in doing a good job. But why not tell us about the faults along the way.
In that letter, Charles tells readers that in running down Burnham, we show the hate in us. I wonder if Charles would admit that in oppressing so many people Burnham showed the hate he had inside of him. Burnham denied me a job twice in my country. Why should I like him? I wonder how nice he treated Mr. Charles.