Mr. VICKRAMADITYA Puran’s in his letter titled “Eusi Kwayana was not part of the ‘military wing’ of the WPA” in the KN, 9-6-10 must be commended for his candor, bravery and zeal to free Guyana from 28 years of PNC misrule.   He was impressive in his commitment to democracy when he wrote that “in the present context of Guyana, violence as a political tool is not available. The electoral process is alive and well.”
Can the WPA leadership really escape responsibility for Dr Rodney’s death however?  With an experienced politician such as Mr. Eusi Kwayana, how does the small WPA amass weaponry and establish an armed wing leading to Dr Rodney’s death?  Was Mr Kwayana excluded from the WPA decision making process despite his demands to be treated as an equal?  Did Dr Rodney distrust him? Or was he intimately immersed in the WPA arms buildup and in originating its military arm? Is he innocent of Dr Rodney’s death since he was negligent in preventing it?
With, Mr. Puran’s revelation “that Dr Rodney was not killed by the bomb plotters; he was murdered by the cowards within the WPA” he clarifies some of Guyana’s history as much as it raises questions.  Does this explain why the WPA is not pursuing any public inquiry into the good doctors’ assassination by the PNC? While Mr. Puran depicts Dr Roopnaine  as fearful and Moses Bhagwan as indecisive one is puzzled by his silence and treatment of Mr. Eusi Kwayana and its Presidential candidate Dr Clive Thomas.  How were they involved and did they authorize  “the  1979 decision (which) was taken to defend the public meeting at Bourda Green (to) teach the Rabbi (Washington) goons a lesson?
Or were they also “cowards”, rather than vocal admirable proponents who advanced Dr Rodney’s violent course to topple the PNC?  Did they abandon him (like Judas and Peter abandoned the Christ) when he needed them the most?   Revisionist examination validates, Mr. Kwayana especially, could have prevented Dr Rodney’s death. Mr. Puran must certainly recognize that his critics would quickly dismiss him as untrustworthy, with a weak moral and ethical foundation. They will point to the fact that he was an “appropriately equipped” simultaneous WPA activist headed for Bourda Green who during “the time of Walter’s funeral (he) was a member of Prime Minister Forbes Burnham staff” also, and attended the funeral.
Remember that Mr. Eusi Kwayana is one of Guyana’s most experienced politicians. He was the leading defender of Buxton in the 1960s race riots and knows what violence can achieve.  Touted as a ‘saint’ he operates with a mantle which appears to exonerate him of seeming innocence from Guyana’s racial conflagration.  Could he escape responsibility in Dr Rodney’s death by apathy and silence in the WPA when he was an “equal’? (Wasn’t he?) Why didn’t he succeed in preventing the WPA from embarking on a violent course which saw the good doctor killed? The evidence now suggests that the experienced politician is equally culpable and guilty as sin in Dr Rodney’s death.
My essential proposition underscored anguish and concern that an attack on the PNC government could be used to whip up and escalate racial retaliation as (KN, 10-3-10) “the PNC government was then and is still predominantly African supported. Guyana’s army and police forces are overwhelmingly African. And it has remained so despite the PPP/C complaints when out of power that it needs to be addressed.”
It is now a foregone conclusion that any political inspired violence in Guyana inevitably always results on attacks on Indians, their womenfolk and property while the PPP/C party who they vote for, are unable to effectively protect and guarantee their security. With Indians fast becoming a minority in Guyana they have yet to address and find solutions to the threats which challenge their survival. What is the answer to peaceful coexistence in the Caribbean where they will always be a minority? Can Federalism of Guyana, consociationalism, power sharing or a coalition government guarantee their existence and survival?  While the last two alternatives are temporary solutions the first two ideas are more promising with federalism the most attractive and desirable.
What is so disappointing (and we go off the main road here) is Mr. Puran’s “fowl cock heralding” of Mr. Tacuma Ogunseye lamentation that “even though an Africanist, he was able to see the country first…(that) Mr  Ogunseyes’s greatest lamentation is that Guyaneseness still eludes the descendants of East Indians in Guyana. This has caused many to retreat into an induced relevancy of Africanness.”
If the quotation accurately reflects Mr Ogunseye’s thoughts and objectives  its  very ironic; an Africanist WPA activist  expecting and promoting  “Guyaneseness” from Indians while he himself is Africanist and is  finding  Africanness more relevant!  If Indians are found to be “inducing” people into Africanist culture are they praiseworthy or condemnable? Some one call the police!
Caribbean Indians seems to be the favorite targets of many. Trinidad’s late Prime Minister labelled Trinidad’s Indians as “a hostile and recalcitrant minority” while Dr Kean Gibson unapologetically and openly attacked Hindus and Hinduism. Immediately upon Trinidad’s Mr. Basdeo Panday’s UNC winning elections, Dr David Hinds wrote an article (he has yet to post it on the WPA website) demanding power sharing. He never made any such demands of the black dominated PNM which governed Trinidad the overwhelmingly majority of the 48 years and only witnessed two Indian Prime Ministers since independence in 1962.
Apparently Indians will never cease being attacked in the Caribbean unless they start defending their existence and culture more vigorously. In Guyana absolutely none of the current WPA Indians advocate or champion Indian values or defend their cultural survival. None in the wider Indian community equals the talent, vigilance and clamour of the WPA African leaders.  While Indians in Jamaica and Grenada are already a dwindling cultural minority, currently political pressure has caused them to fast track into becoming a threatened minority in Guyana.  Migration, aggressive intermarriage, suicides, cultural genocide and criminal savagery and plunder are taking their toll on them.
No doubt this advocacy for Indians to embrace “Tacuma Ogunseyean Guyaneseness” (TOG) is suspect and deplorable.   At a time when some Guyanese, like Mr. Ogunseye have regressed to their African roots and culture and have even Africanized their names how can such advocacy (TOG) be foisted on Indians?   Isn’t Mr. Ogunseyes’ search for his cultural heritage a joyous assertion of his freedoms, his ethnic pride and his cultural expression?  This TOG policy cannot be acceptable. Why must Indians be required to self destruct their cultural way of life for survival? Freedom guarantees their choice in a free society.