I HAVE always carried a suspicion about Eusi Kwayana’s openness to contribute to the “purification” of history. Over the long decades that I have known him, I have always been frustrated by his almost barefacedness in eschewing specificities in his descriptions of events.
About 30 years ago, I asked one of the most experienced, prominent Guyanese who served in the public service, historian, Pat Dial, how does one explain this “stinginess” with information on the part of Kwayana.
I remember decades ago, describing for my readers the explanation of Mr. Dial but cannot locate that column and my memory is not helping. But I think he said it has to do with the role Kwayana attaches to secrecy as part of his early activism.
I reached the zenith of my frustration with Kwayana’s “stinginess” when he wrote a letter in the newspapers supporting Donald Rodney’s petition of the court in 2019 to have his appeal heard. Rodney for those who don’t know was wrongly charged by the Burnham Government with conspiracy in the death of his famous brother, Walter.

It was a vulgar trial presided over by Magistrate Norma Jackman (deceased) and aided and abetted by special prosecutor, Rex McKay (deceased). In his letter, these were the words Kwayana used: “A certain magistrate in Donald Rodney’s trial.”
For Christ’s sake, isn’t this the height of asininity? The woman victimised a man that saw his brother got assassinated in front of his eyes, and Kwayana leaves a gaping hole in the recording of history by refusing to name Jackman. Why would any normal person choose to write about the legal oppression of Donald Rodney, and deliberately omit the name of his oppressor who cannot sue because she is in Le Repentir, where she rightly belongs?
Let’s examine the Freudian mind of this self-destructive man who destroyed his own legacy during the five months of election rigging in 2020. This Freudian mind was on show in the newspapers yesterday (Tuesday). Kwayana wrote that he wants the evidence from Mr. Ralph Ramkarran that, he, Kwayana referred to Cheddi Jagan as a racist.

Here now is the part where you see the hidden Freudian underpinnings. I quote Kwayana: “I have also been asked by people everywhere interested in the politics of Guyana whether, in my opinion, Dr. Jagan was racist.”
Any normal, logically thinking person would answer their own question by using these simple words “I did not and do not believe Cheddi Jagan was racist.”
Now, here is Kwayana’s answer to his own question and bear in mind one thing about the Freudian perspective – your words tell what is buried in your mind. I quote Kwayana’s answer to his own question: “I know what my answer has been, as I am a child of the era of anti-fascism, and believe I have convictions arising from that age about racism, which I do not confuse with an interest in racial affairs and outcomes. I ask Mr. Ramkarran kindly to remind readers, including me, of the occasions on which I have described Dr. Jagan as racist.”
Mr. Kwayana refuses to directly face the nation and answer if he thinks Dr. Jagan was racist, and instead of saying yes or no, keeps repeating in his letter, the request to Ramkarran to show him in black and white where he deemed Jagan a racist. The rest of this analysis here is about two instances where Kwayana’s Freudian mind was on display.

I quote him again: “We are lucky to have people like Mr. Ramkarran, Dr. Hinds, and other scholars who continue to engage in disputable political, historical, and constitutional issues.”
Kwayana can only come up with one specific name that contributes to the polemical landscape of Guyana, and that is David Hinds. Kwayana chose not to mention Ravi Dev who for years now has a weekly newspaper column; Christopher Ram who writes incessantly and has been doing so for over 20 years; Dr. Randy Persaud whose incisive analyses enliven the debate environment; young Joel Bhagwandin and Leonard Craig.
Only David Hinds, Kwayana chose to name. And why? The answer is simple. In his Freudian mind, Hinds is numero uno. Finally, the most graphic manifestation of Kwayana’s Freudian mind. I quote Kwayana one more time: “In political life, we drift into excesses despite our basic groundings, and I may not be free of this failing.”

If there is anything factual Kwayana has written about his 99-year-old life is that statement. His rejection of his basic groundings drowned out by his excesses has destroyed his legacy. “The fault Dear Brutus is not in our stars but in ourselves” (Shakespeare, Julius Caesar).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.