THE story began with my assessment of the political career of Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine after his funeral service. One of the eulogy presenters was Dr Wazir Mohamed. At the event, Mohamed waxed lyrical about Roopnaraine being a figure of national unity.
That contradicts my experience in Guyanese politics. Dr Roopnaraine was genetically anti-PPP. It is too long an explanation why Roopnaraine (for cultural and psychological reasons) was always subtly and diplomatically anti-PPP.
The evidence of that is easy material for the historian to gather. In my seven-part series on Roopnaraine in March this year in the Chronicle, I dealt with some reasons for his attitude towards the PPP and PNC.
In one of those articles, I rebutted Mohamed’s declaration that he made at the funeral that Roopnaraine was a political actor that strove for national unity. I gave one example. When the Cheddi Jagan presidency in 1993 offered a Cabinet post to Clive Thomas, the WPA met in emergency session and the offer was rejected. Roopnaraine was against the offer.
Here now is Mohamed’s reply to my position: “I state clearly and unequivocally that the Committee, over which I presided, voted by majority to accept the offer to participate in government. Furthermore, Dr Rupert Roopnaraine argued strongly and consistently in favour of the WPA accepting that offer.”
I did not accept that explanation by Mohamed. I quoted what David Hinds said on page 158 of his book, “Ethno-politics and power-sharing in Guyana.”
Hinds noted: “The WPA itself was split over participation in a PPP dominated government. No doubt the risk of being perceived as siding with one ethnic group, and being seen as an appendage of the PPP may have been uppermost in their minds.”
So, the question becomes pyrotechnical. Mohamed used the word “majority” which meant there were rejectionists.
Hinds used the word, “split.” What Mohamed and Hinds have done is that they have robbed Guyanese history by not telling us who were for and who were against. I am saying that Roopnaraine, Moses Bhagwan and Eusi Kwayana voted at that meeting against Thomas joining the Jagan government.
Enter Bhagwan. He claims he was there. But what he describes as “there” differs from what I wrote. By “there” he meant the discussion between a WPA delegation and President Jagan and Roger Luncheon about Thomas’s participation.
Either Bhagwan has Alzheimers or is possessed of political dishonesty. By “there” I meant the emergency meeting of the WPA to discuss President Jagan’s offer to Thomas.
At that meeting, Roopnaraine, Bhagwan and Kwayana voted against Thomas joining the Jagan Government. Now I agree that the three men may have felt it was “eye-pass” for the PPP to name Thomas rather than the WPA doing the selection but I stand by what took place at that meeting. The three men voted against the WPA joining the PPP government.
Bhagwan writes an epistle criticising me but removed the emergency meeting that I wrote about and put in its place the discussion between a WPA delegation and President Jagan and Luncheon. I did not write on that event. Anyway, Bhagwan suggested in his epistle that I should have consulted primary sources like him rather than rely on “second or tenth rate hearsay.”
Obviously, he is referring to David Hinds. I quoted from Hinds on how the government felt about the WPA joining the PPP Government in 1993. Looked at from any angle, Bhagwan meant Hinds when he referred to second or tenth rate source. I am not interested in the dispute between Hinds and Bhagwan but what is involved here is chauvinism.
Bhagwan is saying that he is relating what happened because he was there and Hinds wasn’t. But there is a large but. But why should we believe Bhagwan? Why should we believe anything the former leaders of the WPA say especially those who carried an old anti-Jagan sentiment since the 1960s?
In Bhagwan’s voluminous condemnation of me, he left out who comprised the members of the delegation that met with Dr. Jagan and Luncheon. Isn’t that strange? Was Roopnaraine part of the delegation?
Secondly, Dr. Jagan and Luncheon are not around to contradict Bhagwan’s description of what took place.
In conclusion, I think Dr. Jagan wanted the inclusion of Thomas in his Cabinet as an act of good faith and then see how things would evolve. But Jagan was met with hostility from the WPA, particularly Bhagwan, Kwayana and Roopnaraine, and he felt these people would never drop their anti-Jagan hostility.
Interestingly, one of the WPA leaders who argued for Thomas to take up the position was Dr Josh Ramsammy. From that moment, Ramsammy was isolated and never reintegrated himself into the WPA. He left the WPA shortly after.
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.
