Mr. EDITOR, against overwhelming odds the PPP claimed and occupied political space during the Burnhamite years and it was this political space that enabled the WPA to find a niche. It was also this recognition of the PPP’s endurance that led Dr. Rodney to Dr. Jagan when the former first returned to Guyana. And, contrary to the assertions of WPA intellectuals and sympathisers, Dr. Rodney’s relationship with Dr. Jagan and the PPP remained cordial and based on mutual respect, until his tragic assassination. If Mr. Kwayana wants to be honest he would attest to this, although this attestation may be unlikely, given Mr. Kwayana’s strategy of attempting to sanitise aspects of his role in Guyana’s politics (SN: Jan 17 and Feb. 6) by according self-motives in studied retrospect, rather than frankly conceding the time appropriate motives which were usually quite different, or by deeming to be one persona whereas his writings reveal another (see Ravi Dev: KN, Feb 7) while simultaneously spuriously recasting Dr. Jagan. Of particular significance are the mischievous insinuations inherent in the phrase “the question of Dr Jagan’s estate has been ignored”.
Incidentally Mr. Editor, Mr. Kwayana is being less than honest when, in reference to our appearance on New York’s WBAI Radio, he stated, “Regarding his question to me and my answer, I could not answer such a serious question in a sound bite or two. A proper answer, not so much for him but for the audience, would have meant leaving the mischievous book aside and expanding on another topic. Not only would the audience have been disappointed, but, I would have had to encroach on the time available to other panelists. It is the kind of answer the moderator could not fairly allow.”  The facts are that Mr. Kwayana and I were the only two panelists, the author of the book declined to show up, the program ended up focusing on the WPA and the moderator did not disallow any aspect of the discussion. So Mr. Kwayana had the time and scope to tell us about the enduring political legacy of Dr. Walter Rodney in the context of Guyana’s politics, but there was not to much to tell, as borne out by his subsequent letter (SN: 01/17/10), in which his main thrust was to be condescending.
Also, contrary to the assertions of Mr. Kwayana and others, what I have done thus far is to analyze Rodney in context (although some of Mr. Kwayana’s WPA colleagues see context as a deliberately misleading ploy, while others seem confused as to what constitutes context) – the context being his sojourn on Guyana’s political landscape, which, as I pointed put elsewhere, does not negate his tremendous, multi-faceted accomplishments as a scholar, academic et al. Furthermore, my treatment of Dr. Jagan does not imply the opposite treatment for Dr. Rodney. For were this so then, by the same logic, the all positive accolades heaped on Dr. Rodney by David Hinds et al would also imply the opposite for Dr. Jagan, which would then parallel exactly what they accuse me of. Therefore I have to ask: how is mine an “attempt to turn Walter Rodney into someone in all respects unworthy”?
Additionally, it was and still is not my intention to compare Dr. Rodney and Dr. Jagan, although David and others ‘ferreted out’ this intent in my letter. In fact, I too postulate that Dr. Jagan and Dr. Rodney were not in competition and not opposed to each other but rather saw each other as allies in the common goal of returning Guyana to the democratic fold. However, the fact remains that their respective locations in the political milieu are still been sorted out and mine is simply another perspective in this endeavor, one that I’m willing to change if proven wrong on the basis of hard evidence as against simply being emotively characterized as wrong. Meanwhile, Mr. Editor, given that I, and others, have adjusted our perspectives on Dr. Jagan in the face of new evidence, in the same manner should not the WPA intellectuals and their erstwhile supporters adjust their perspectives on Dr. Rodney when they are unable to support such perspectives with nothing more than repetitive rhetoric?
Mr. Editor, this range of repetitive rhetoric, the fallacy of which have previously been pointed out, is typified by Peeping Tom, in his Kaieteur News column of January 29 headlined ‘Rodney was no Romanticist’. Denying that Rodney had to seek assistance from seasoned campaigners such as Kenneth Persaud and Eusi Kwayana to negotiate the nuances and complexities of a political landscape that was new and strange to him, Tom reproduced the worn out declaration, “that Rodney…hardly needed help in understanding the political dynamics of the country”. Tom conveniently ignored the WPA insider source which I quoted since he could not negate that source. And, of course, he offered no corroboration of his declaration.
After a series of such dangling assertions and denial of reality, all of which have been repeated ad nauseam over the years, Tom concluded, “The PPP has recognized Walter Rodney as a hero. It awarded him the country’s highest national honour, the Order of Excellence. So what are we to assume by all of that, that the PPP and Cheddi Jagan did not know what they were doing when they elevated Rodney to this standing?” Actually we don’t have to assume anything of that nature simply because this recognition was accorded to Rodney for his life’s works and achievements not for his brief (1974 to 1979) sojourn on Guyana’s political landscape. In effect this honor was not an acknowledgement that Rodney had has an enduring impact/influence on Guyana’s politics or bequeathed any substantive legacy therein, but rather that in toto, his accomplishments confer on him the status of an outstanding son of Guyana.
Additionally Mr. Editor, another ruse to offer supporting ‘proof’ of dangling assertions is the circular argument. Nigel Westmaas typifies this argument in his letter (SN: Feb. 6) headlined ‘Context Has Been Omitted’. For example he states, “Mr. Boodram likewise critiques Rodney’s “groundings” and wonders, “why such a positive concept of groundings would lead to Rodney’s expulsion from Jamaica.” Astonishingly, Boodram answers his own question without realizing. It was precisely the effect of Rodney’s groundings in Jamaica that led to the authorities’ refusal to allow him re-entry! His “positive” groundings among Rastafari and poor people of urban and rural Jamaica were too much for the state and he was banned.”  The only valid conclusion anyone can derive from this astounding convolution is that the Jamaican authorities simply did not welcome positive activism aimed at enhancing the quality of people’s lives! Unless, of course, the argument is that the Shearer government did not see Rodney’s groundings as positive, in which case the question has to be asked: did Rodney possess exclusivity as to what was positive and life enhancing? After all attempts to actualize his political philosophy in real life situations got him banned from Jamaica and tragically led to his assassination in Guyana. Perhaps this is why CLR James declared that in relation to power, Dr. Rodney’s method of proceeding to that goal was wrong. Consequently, is it not logical to infer that a wrong methodology derives from a wrong understanding and a wrong analysis of the dynamics of power?
Even more confusing was Westmaas’ assertion that “Rodney, like others in the WPA, disdained the puffed up, restrictive intellectual outlook of the formal academy and was candid on the issue.” But did not the WPA emerge out of and remain rooted in the restrictive intellectual outlook of the formal academy? And were not the gestation and sustenance of the leading lights of the WPA, Dr. Rodney included, enveloped within similar settings? Also do not current WPA intellectuals, Westmaas included, continue to feast off t
he bounty of this formal academy? So where then are manifestations of the lessons taught and learnt?
Perhaps worse Mr. Editor, is the fact that some of my critics went beyond ‘ferreting out’, to actually attributing to my letters (SN: Dec 31, 2009; Jan 27, Feb 2, 2010) what was not even written. For example, one responder triumphantly declared, “Rodney did not alone launch or lead the WPA”. Yet nowhere in my letter did I even imply, much less state the opposite. Others stated that I referred to Dr. Jagan as Gandhi and a saint and by implication to Dr. Rodney as a demon. The fact, however, is that my precise point, that Dr. Jagan was seen by the mass of his supporters as Bapu, a la Gandhi (an ethno cultural connection), has been verified by Mr. Eusi Kwayana. Would Mr. Kwayana agree that this perception of or any of his other laudatory references to Dr. Jagan automatically conferred demonic status on Rodney?
Also Mr. Editor, some WPA supporters/sympathizers attempt to rebut valid argumentation by referencing each other. Thus one responder exclaimed, ‘Those Who Were Around Rodney Can Bear Witness’. However, all that those who were around Rodney have done is either contradict each other, repeat grandiloquent assertions as if their say so transformed such assertions into facts, employ questionable analytic tools such as ‘ferreting out’ and reading what they want to see rather than what is actually written, attribute ulterior motives to what I (and others) write in order to denigrate the messenger in lieu of addressing the message or engage in dubious tactics such as circular argumentation and doublespeak. One example of doublespeak – one yardstick for the WPA and Dr. Rodney, another for others – is that while I am on record as being critical of both Dr. Jagan and the PPP over time, neither Dr. David Hinds nor any other WPA supporter/sympathizer has found anything to be critical of the WPA and Dr. Rodney. Would Dr. Walter Rodney have agreed that he was infallible?
Mr. Editor, when all is said and done, we are still left with the question of ‘wither Guyana?’ In this respect I totally agree with David’s’ conclusion that the third narrative (KN: Jan 5,2010), a rejection of the first two ethnic narratives (PPP/Indian and PNC/African) and a propagation of “national reconciliation and ethno-racial equality” is what is needed for Guyana, although I disagree with any implication that this third narrative is the exclusive intellectual property of the WPA, as many others outside of the WPA have advocated this position over the years, including yours truly. May I remind David of a letter in the Stabroek News in February 2009, entitled ‘Time is Opportune for a Third Force’, or an even earlier one at the beginning of January 2009 talking about a new political culture, which must springboard on eschewing politics that appeal to ethnic interest. In short, my new year’s letter was far from being the first time that I have been calling for moving beyond us versus them. So if my part of the narrative is Indian-PPP then, by the same logic, the part belonging David and like-minded others, whose writings are much ethnocentric than mine ever have been, would have to be part of the Afro-PNC narrative, unless we are once again seeing doublespeak in action.
Meanwhile, like David, I agree that the ethno narrative will continue to have relevance in Guyana until catharsis is realized and a commonality is found that reaches beyond us versus them to incorporate a unity amidst diversity consciousness that will enable ‘us’ and ‘them’ to be comfortable with, and trust one another. And it is only in the continuance of this ethno narrative conversation on the basis of honesty and open mindedness that we can reach that place of comfort and trust.  However, in order for us to reach that place, esteemed purveyors of the third narrative like David Hinds must display the intellectual honesty, fairness and open mindedness that they demand of others, otherwise the eschewing the ‘us versus them’ mindset would become unsalable.