‘The history of the PPP is a history of struggle for racial and national unity, with strong emphasis on working class unity. It is, therefore, satisfying to see this unity growing in our country at this time.’

In recent times, the old and new distorters of history are at it again. They are writing letters in the newspapers, on blogs and everywhere else on the role of the PPP in the struggles of Guyana in the 1960s, etc. A favourite topic of these people is the role of Balram Singh Rai and the issues of racial disturbances in the 1960s.

Few of those people write with any facts and very little analysis. Almost all the sources that they have used are those that were and are hostile to the PPP. Very often, they have no sources and only repeat hackneyed allegations.

On many occasions, they have been replied to, including by the author of this article. They often go quiet for a whole and then resurface with the same old story. It would not be wrong to say that these distorters and rewriters of history have taken pages out of the book of propagandists like Goebbels about repeating lies often enough to make them believable.

In this short article, I want to deal with Rau and his relationship with the PPP, particularly in the 1962 period.

Ms Gitanjali Persaud, in a letter to the Stabroek News of June 19, wrote that “…No one can deny that Balram Singh Rai was cheated by Dr Jagan and the PPP…” This is the worst possible distortion, which is being constantly repeated.

The PPP had no reason to cheat Balram Singh Rai when he contested the position for Chairman of the PPP. He was fighting against Brindley Benn, who was already the Chairman of the Party. Balram Singh Rai was beaten fairly and squarely.

In the first place, Benn was always more popular than Rai in the Party. It must be remembered that Benn was one of the founders of the Progressive Youth Organisation (PYO) in 1952. At that time, Rai was not a member of the PPP.

Indeed, Rai had contested the 1953 ekections against the PPP. He fought on the National Democratic Party’s (NDP) ticket for the Central Demerara constituency and lost his deposit.

In 1962, when he contested against Benn, he tried to take advantage of the racial atmosphere that was created by the PNC to back his position.

However, most of the delegates were against him. At that Congress of the Party, resolutions were passed condemning racism in the country and the Congress was urged to fight relentlessly against this parenthesis. One of the groups of the Party that had such a resolution was the Christianburg PPP Group.

It is true that Dr Jagan supported Brindley Benn in that contest. That was his right as a delegate. Really, therefore, Rai could in no way defeat Benn.

In fact, Rai did not himself say that he was cheated. What he said was that the Party’s machinery was against him. No doubt he must have been referring to Dr Jagan’s open support for Benn.

Ms Persaud, in trying to come up with an explanation to justify her charge, made a new claim that Dr Jagan acted the way he did because of the loss of Sydney King and Rory Westmaas. That, too, does not hold water. The Party had in its ranks such giants like Ashton Chase, EMG Wilson, George Robertson, C.V Nunes, Brindley Benn himself, and a host of other comrades in the PPP.

Let us, however, return to Rai. It is clear that whatever popularity Rai had, it was due to his association with the PPP. The evidence is clear as is mentioned above in 1953, he fought the Central Demerara constituency and he lost his deposit. In 1957, he contested on a PPP ticket and won the same constituency. He again won the same constituency in the 1961 elections. In 1964, at the first PR elections, Rai’s party, the Justice Party, could only muster 1,334 votes in the whole country!

Ms Persaud went on to charge the PPP with using race in that period. This, too, is utter nonsense. None of the independent observers at that time made such charges. Even the Commissions that the British sent here did not come to such conclusions.

The Commonwealth Commission of 1962 said in part “….The political professions of the PNC were somewhat vague and amorphous. There was a tendency to give a racial tinge to its policy. Mr. Burnham expressed the opinion that it was DR Jagan who was responsible for this unfortunate development.

We do not, however, think that there is much substance in the contention of Mr Burnham and it seems to us that whatever racial differences were brought about by political propaganda…” (my emphasis)

Professor Peter Newman, who was then attached to the University of Michigan, wrote in the magazine “Race” in May 1962, the following “…the defeat of the Burnham-led party resulted in its increased emphasis on African race consciousness…” He concluded “…this attention to a unified African front led to the need for a common enemy, a role which was filled by the East Indians…”

In dealing with the role of the PPP, Professor Newman had this to say “…the PPP continued to maintain a public image of non-partisanship; many African intellectuals, especially among the younger groups, began to feel dissatisfied with the racial policies of the PNC…”

Ms Persaud, in a desperate attempt to brand the PPP as practicing racism, used her father’s remarks to use her own words “…Blacks were Rawans…” She claimed that he got that from the PPP. If he did, it must have been from Balram Singh Rai, whose attempt to use race to promote his ambitions in the PPP, was defeated at the Congress in 1962.

Ms Persaud falls in that category of commentators on Guyana’s political life, who seek wide acceptance at the expense of facts and objective analysis. She seems to want to blame the PPP, the Party that was the main victim of racism.

The history of the PPP is a history of struggle for racial and national unity, with strong emphasis on working class unity.

It is, therefore, satisfying to see this unity growing in our country at this time.