The legacy versus the betrayal of Walter Rodney

Dear Editor,

I commend Dr. David Hinds for his excellent writing about The Walter Rodney Legacy. Dr. Hinds resurfaces memories, history, and salience of a great Guyanese hero whose life was snuffed away while still in his prime. (I prefer not to be polemical as to whether he was assassinated or killed or murdered or whether it was misadventure as some like to obliquely and indecently imply.)

It is apropos to remind all of us — the old but especially the young — as Hinds points out, of this valiant fighter for bread and justice and democracy. This name of Walter Rodney must never be blotted out or erased, as is being attempted in some quarters. I make the bold presumption that a generation of young Guyanese do not know of Walter Rodney because there was/is a deliberate or benign obscurantism to cover up or blur, and revise a part of Guyana’s history.

David Hinds was there and so was I; and my memories are still vivid. (I have a tidbit about Rodney, which I will share some other time – non-political – which makes it personal.)
The WPA of which David Hinds appears to be the most prominent and prolific spokesperson, has been dealt a deathblow after Rodney was killed ingloriously by “sharper steel”. WPA personage of stature — Rupert Roopnarine, Joshua Ramsammy (deceased), Eusi Kwayana, Moses Bhagwan, Clive Thomas, Andaiye (deceased), Jocelyn Dow, Tacuma Ogunseye, Kenneth Persaud (deceased), Rohit Kanhai, Wazir Mohamed, Omawale, and others in the periphery, and thousands of the grassroots, (and Moses Nagamootoo who shared many podiums with Rodney) — must be recognised for their fearless role in the struggle for freedom and justice.

A pervading fear subsequently gripped the land – fear for the physical safety of self and family – fear that commanded silence and/or behavioural complicity; fear that infected the mindset of most or all of those in the hierarchy of the WPA. I myself experienced this visceral distress, and this became the push factor for me to leave my homeland.

David Hinds is an honourable man. He is never afraid of repartees. He claims to be a “Rodneyite” and I believe him; but this is where I respectfully depart. What I find troubling is the obvious duplicitous stance that he and other WPA public figures have taken in recent years.

Recently, Tacuma Ogunseye and Eusi Kwayana have written defensively in response to Gail Teixeira’s critical analysis of Hinds’ article. Others have since written about Walter Rodney. I particularly like Peeping Tom’s contribution. However, Tacuma Ogunseye and Eusi Kwayana did not address the “betrayal”; they rambled about other disparate tangential matters, thus clouding and sidestepping the pertinent question of betrayal.

But the truth is an imperative, and must be addressed. As I said, I was there, and now I am upset and angry because of current attempts to confabulate the issue as others have done before. Have these WPA figures undergone intellectual diapause or cerebral menopause? No, it is all well measured!

The professed leaders of the WPA (except perhaps Wazir Mohamed, Moses Bhagwan and Rohit Kanhai) have disgraced the stature of Walter Rodney. They went to bed with the PNC during the formation of APNU with poorly disguised rationale. The marriage was not truly consummated. They “aided and abetted” (that the best way I can say it) the abortion of the Cheltenham Commission of Inquiry, consciously acceding to moral impotence.

Many have found solace in the bosom of official positions for rewarding comforts. The big question is, why. Why the dishonourable somersault and metamorphosis? Why negate history? Why the disavowal of your comrade? Martin Carter is so fitting: “The mouth is muzzled by the food it eats to live.” But it is more than that… Is it also an atavistic regression of the “mattey” praxis? Is it also for security within the new ACDA? Note that David Hinds coincidentally espoused Pan-Africanism.

To me those (including Eusi whom I have great respect despite difference in ideological stance) who are now reacting to the public condemnation of their paralytic dithering are trying to justify, trying to save face, or trying to be relevant. Faustian bargaining to me. Hypocrisy to say the least. Betrayal in my opinion.

Those of us who pontificate and think of ourselves as pillars of virtue and mortality have an ethical duty to be responsible, and to demonstrate in deed and action what we profess. “It isn’t what we say or think that defines us, but what we do.” Thus, we should endeavour to do what is right, not what is easy, convenient and expedient, nor being disloyal and traitorous. Do I sound angry? You bet I am.

I end with Walter’s prescient words: “For a small nation, Guyana has produced a discouragingly large number of lackeys and stooges who hide in the shadow…”
Yours truly,
Dr. G. Girdhari
New York City