Guyana, with its peculiar political  history, has experienced its  fair  share of

pain, especially beginning from the early 1960s. So much has happened since, events that have spawned  brutal deaths and assassinations and other related incidents.
Ever so often, there have been letters in the media from diverse quarters referring to these traumatic incidents, filled with bitter  recriminations and accusations against one side  or the other, with the finger-pointing still unabated.
It is as if  the ghosts of those eventful years, hovering around, still influence the continuous debates, and refusing to retreat to their final  place of rest, until the final truth about the circumstance of their metamorphosed state, is  told.
Inclusive of this period, would have been the beginning of the new millennium, that witnessed the extraordinary and frightening reign of criminal terror, that centred its attack on the state.
Never before in this nation’s history, had there been so much fear, terror, and blood, with the East Coast Demerara village of Buxton, the pivot and epicentre of this orchestrated onslaught. Added to the nation’s political compendium is the ghastly  word ‘massacre’, of which there have  been four incidents: those at Lusignan, Bartica, Agricola, and at Lindo Creek. Multiple lives were taken on each of  those occasions.
Recently, for the first time, a parliamentary motion has been tabled in the House by Opposition Leader Mr. David Granger, who is also the Leader of  A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), that requests an Inquiry into criminal events as from 2004 to 2010.
This is  encouraging, to say the least, but woefully insufficient, as any investigation relative to the period stated, will  yield only partial answers. Further, it is not only  selective, a strategy which is unexpected of an academic historian,  as Granger is; but it is  patently, downright dishonest and deceptive  for such a suspicious,  piecemeal approach on a most   critical, important aspect of this nation’s history to be dealt with  insufficiently.
Therefore, the amendments to Granger’s motion, by the Honourable Attorney- General, Mr.  Anil Nandlall, expanding the  period and scope of  such a proposed  inquiry, does indeed set the tone for a proper and comprehensive inquiry into those bloody events. This, of course, is unanimously supported by President Donald Ramotar, who has challenged Granger to opt for a broad-based  inquiry.
Significant is the fact that the smaller opposition party, the Alliance For Change, disagreed with Granger’s proposed period, stating quite unambiguously that it is limited, hence its reason for not supporting his motion.
Granger’s requested period, as per motion,  immediately raises the inevitable  question,  whether his party has anything to hide. For it is well known, even documented, of allegations of  the former PNC regime’s  questionable involvement and responsibility for horrific incidents,  dating especially from the 1970s into the 1980s. This can only be seen as a shockingly bold attempt to obfuscate the truth as to who may have been  the intellectual authors of such dark deeds, and the reasons.
Granger, as Leader of the Opposition, must be  reminded that there are too numerous, unanswered questions as to  these well known brutal and  bloody occurrences over the last 50 years. As a former national security advisor, he would have been privy to all of the answers, still anxiously sought  by the general citizenry. He must now support all measures to let the truth be known about all such  incidents.  The nation deserves the truth, and nothing less.
What does Granger have to hide?