I think there was also a cultural divide.  Many of the Indians who left with Burnham were more "westernized", and quite likely Christians.  They probably despised this rural, heavily Hindu group who followed Jagan, and might have felt more cultural affinity with Burnham.

We can even see this today with the first wave of Indians who joined the AFC in 2006.  A more urban and educated crowd.

It is noteworthy in both Trinidad and Guyana that a disproportionate % of Indians embedded within the PNM and the PNC tend to be Muslims or Christians.  Given common Judeo origins I think that Christians understand Muslims more than they do Hindus.

Yes. The educated Indians, fearing Jagan's communism, migrated early and yes, many of them preferred Forbes over Jagan. Guyana's most famous family, the Luckhoos (indians), never backed Jagan. The sheer numbers of working class Indians and their apan jhaat politics did not bode well for afro guyanese and LFS knew it.

Witness the low class behavior, pedestrian performance, outright teefing,  sheer boorishness and lack of any sophistication in the current PPP and you see the apan jhaat indian.

J. B. Singh was Dr Jung Bahadur Singh, Rajkumari's father.

J. P. Latchmansingh was another person, notably the President of GIWU, forerunner of GAWU. There was no J. B. Latchmansingh.

He was lecturing me on U.S. nationality law and dual citizenship policy yesterday

I don't know why people don't just shut up or say "I don't know" if they really don't know instead of make shyte up.

Check carefully and you will indeed find J. B Latchmansingh's name.

I think DG is right. There was a JB Latchmansingh who was a member of the early party. And yes, Jung Bahdur (JB) Singh was a separate individual.

It was JB singh and Forbes who were close, no? Forbes lust for power (even noted by his sister) and his anti indian sentiments in the 60's did that friendship in. My recollection as a young one.

Correct Itaname.

On a personal note ...

We both have Guyanese folklore usernames.

Mine is from the folksong by Ramjohn Holder in the 1950's named Demerara Boy.

I changed Boy to Guy ... hence Demerara_Guy.

Burnham loved the Madras culture and people.  Even though the Madras component of the PPP party comprising Comrade Moses, Boysie Ramkaran and Mel Carpin were opposed to him and his government.  He always ensured that the Madras culture was included in cultural events at the Cultural Centre when he was Prime Minister.  So to say that the man despised all East Indians is not true

Dr Latchmansingh was a close friend of Burnham under Latchmansingh died.

That's the name of the drugstore I was trying to remember Latchman Singh, one is/was on Regent St not far from Bourda market, my relatives had a store next door. The other is/was on Camp St by the jail.

Guys, I checked again thru Google. Indeed, there are entries for both JB and JP Latchmansingh but the descriptions fit one and the same person who was a founding member of the PPP as well as the PNC. Until today, I've known the gentleman as Joseph Pariag Latchmansingh but it seems he had a B initial too. I ran an image check too and found a pic for JP but not for JB:

http://www.genealogy.com/ftm/s...E-0001/UHP-0663.html

This link may relate to J.B.Latchmansingh

According to this link, John Babu Latchmansingh is Joseph Pariag's father.

Jung Bahdur Singh is a different man from Dr Latchmansingh. Jung Bahdur I think was part Nepalese or a Nepalese Indian.

Hi DG, well someone has to keep the Guyanese folklore and folk songs alive. Yes, Ramjohn Holder went on to play Porkpie in the sitcom "Desmond".

There's one Ramjohn Holder song I enjoy, titled Guiana.

Someone told me Ramjohn Holder was a member of the PPP youth arm in the late 1950s or early '60s.

It was clear in my earlier posts on this matter that Forbes had a lot of Indian friends, notably the indo guyanese elite. So not suggesting he hated all Indians.

You, DG and others have helped affirm that our history of racism pre dates Forbes. It is time the vicious, nasty lives  perpetuated by today's racist indians about genocidal africans raping and starving poor helpless indians cease! Indians and their apan jhaat racism are equally culpable for our divided nation. In fact, they may have precipitated it.

Let baseman and kindred folks take note. Stop vilifying Afro Guyanese as though we are animals. To me, your indo nationalist racism is far more toxic. Educated Indians did not share your views on afro guyanese.

Indeed about Ramjohn Holder and his other song/acting career.

I have "tons" of folk songs; sharing one ...

SMALL DAYS

Guyana Original Folk Songs -- Vol. 01

The third song is Itaname.  

Thanks for the memories DG! I will look at more of the videos later on. I think my daughter is purchasing the Desmond series on DVD for me. I told her about Desmond after our chat here. It's supposed to be a surprise but grandchildren have a way of talking

The place is dead. Where has everyone gone?

You will indeed enjoy the music plus the memories behind each song.

I have two daughters; spouse transitioned in life; who were born in Canada and they are always interested in learning about Guyana.

While I was in the US_of_A on an official visit; with my family; at various hydroelectric power projects, I explained to them that I was the Executive Coordinator responsible for the development and construction of hydroelectric facilities in Canada, Europe, Africa, etc., including works for the Guyana government. At one of the facilities, they were engrossed with the dam, structures and other facilities that when we were in the theater of the facility where the works are simulated, surprisingly, my daughters began to operate the facilities and were enjoying the various scenes on the simulated model.

When we returned home, they began to review the various technical publications I have on hydroelectric projects and developments.

DG, listening to some of those songs, we are really a wutliss people. Anyway I spoke to 2 of my older relatives, one of whom was a police sergeant in the 50's and 60's (he's now in his 90's) and clarified some of the names

Jung Bahadur Singh - doctor in Lamaha street

Jainarine Singh - PPP member, LFS best friend as I pointed out earlier

JP Latchmansingh - a doctor in La Penitence opposite the market. PPP member. His brother owned a drug store in Bourda by Orange Walk and lived upstairs.

Apan Jhaat first reared its ugly head in Guyana in the Balram Singh Rai versus Sydney King (Eusi Kwayana) elections where Rai appealed to apan jhaat and won by a thousand votes or less. King (Kwayana) was devastated at the betrayal of the Jagans and left the PPP. That evening my relative saw King being carried on the shoulders of supporters by St James school in Kitty and then home to Buxton.

For the Indians like Nehru who hate Buxton and everything black, know that it was BLACK MAN IN BUXTON who first voted for Jagan and gave him his first seat. There was some UNITY until indian masses saw apan jhaat as a strategy.

Now I understand why Rai has appeal among some Indians so many decades later. Apan Jhaat is alive and well among them, but it ain't gon wuk no mo!

Wutlissness is a great part of the songs.

Your elder relatives have touched on the gist of the issues.

As a note, it is wonderful to have much older relatives and acquaintances who can indeed assist us to understand past issues.

My reason for posting the facts on this thread DG. We must learn from the past. The plot to lay racism in Guyana squarely at the feet of afro Guyanese must be stopped.

Arite go tell dem fuh stap rabbing dem coolie people and everything gun be all rite.

All those racist Indians who target Blacks criminally must be stopped. All those racist Indians who commit election-related violence must be stopped. All those Indo Freedom Fighters murdering ordinary Black people must be stopped.

Like we doan have Apan Jhaat in the Black community. Wah happening in Guyana right now is apan jhaat. It is an Indian word that defines those who vote for their own. And that was going on since the time when only Blacks, Putagees and Mixed People had the rights to vote.

We cooolie people were still at the logies when Apan Jhaat started in Guyana. Even the white planters were practicing apan jhaat. 

Apaan jaat is practiced by every race, tribe, nation, ethnic group on earth. That is how it is and always has been. Blacks say "Black Power." British whites say "Rule Britannia" and American whites have "white privilege." All fancy words for "apaan jaat"

Yeh, I know. These racists come on here claiming the words sounds Hindi like suh it signifies some kind of kulie thing.

Indeed Itaname.

As we know, worldwide and indeed long before 1492, we have become aware of the indifference of the Indians in India and Africans in Africa whereby there are marked differences in how groups of people treat others.

In Africa, one is aware that various groups captured and assisted in the capture of other Africans to eventually have them transported to Guyana and the other Caribbean countries.

Similarly, in India the people there were also captured, traded, sold, etc.; to eventually be transported to Guyana and other Caribbean countries, plus also to places like Fiji, Mauritius, etc..

In Guyana, while racial indifference has somewhat abated, the main reason for its existence lies particularly with the politicians, dating from the days of the British rule in the early 1800"s.

Old boy, iz wah razz yuh talking. Was apan jhaat at play when one african sold another african to the arabs and baccra.

In India, our people doan SELLLLLLLLLL ANYBODY. We have a well organized system of apan jhaat. We all know we place. And the intelligent ones, willingly leff India for the unknown places of the world. If u doan know, leh me tell u how dey recruit indentured servants. A group of men go to the remote villages, dey beat the drums, people gather, dey tell dem the lies. And those who fall for it fallow dem to Calcutta. There! It is a different story at Garden Reach-the waiting and the tiefing chokdars(Jagdeo family) robb and beat the people.

Do u know how nice dem black people threat indians when dem arrive in the wilderness of BG. Dem Black folks were more than happy to receive them-right up the Forbes Burnham. Then, Forbes forget about the Apostle James and he used his tongue to set strife.

Here we go.   

I know him also...growing up. We went to the same high school for a bit. He was an introverted awkward kid. He had to come to his Hinduism in the US.

Anyways, here is a bit he posted about 15 years ago on  rai.

BALRAM SINGH RAI OF GUYANA

By Dr. Baytoram Ramharack

“It is important if only for purposes of future guidance that we should have an adequate and objective understanding of the way our people lived, thought and acted since they came or were brought to this land, for what is a people or a nation that has no history or that has lost its history? In this way we can learn of our mistakes in the past and are enabled to avoid similar pitfalls in the future. Again, the past furnishes us with an organic connection with what we are today; it can tell us how, when and why we came to be what we are. The history of our people may also serve as an inspiration to us and a spur to future conduct and activity.”

Balram Singh Rai - Radio Broadcast, History and Culture Week, October 18, 1959
INTRODUCTION

The annals of Guyanese history is a reservoir for many political leaders who have achieved prominence because of their unique leadership skills and the particular circumstances that have created opportunities for them to demonstrate the application of those skills. In the modern era, Cheddi Jagan has emerged as the main architect of Guyanese political culture, and his influence in Guyana is demonstrated by the continued support by Indians for the organization he left behind, the Peoples Progressive Party (PPP).

While the role and contributions of Cheddi Jagan is yet to be critically evaluated and scrutinized by scholars, Jagan’s image as an iconoclastic figure overshadows that of another charismatic Indian political leader, that of Balram Singh Rai. Balram Singh Rai was a PPP member of Parliament who served as the Minister of Community Development and Education (1959-61) and as Minister of Home Affairs (1961-62). His association with the PPP exposed many contradictions and inconsistencies within the PPP and the leadership of Cheddi Jagan.

In 1964, when he formed the Justice Party (JP), he was in fact offering his political leadership as an alternative to the PPP as the representative vehicle for the Indians in Guyana. Unfortunately, his personality and organization could not transcend the political control and hegemonic hold that Jagan and the PPP maintained over Indians. His political contributions, some of which are examined here, are directly linked to the search for solutions to some of the pressing problems faced by Guyanese society today. This article, which is part of a larger study, will briefly examine the role of Balram Singh Rai during the pre-independence period in Guyana.

INDIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY
An examination of the political contributions of Balram Singh Rai is significant and merit careful examination for various reasons. One, it represents another attempt to add to the growing historiography of Indians in the Caribbean, Guyana in particular. In general, the history of Indians in the Caribbean has been minimized because of the dominant Western or Afro-centric paradigm from which most writers have approached the Indian presence in the region. Indians have been perceived and defined, often negatively and pejoratively, as the “Hindustanis” of Surinam, as Eric Williams’ “recalcitrant minority,” and as the “interloping, unpatriotic latecomers” in Guyana by members of other communities (Ramharack, 1994). This combined image of the Indian as an alien and sojourner in an Africanized Caribbean has certainly reinforced stereotypical perception of the Caribbean Indian. Others have sought to define the Indian in their own world-view, such as the Indian as being “black” (particularly during the Black Power movement) (Rodney, 1969:28-29) or the Indian as being a “creolized” or “assimilated West Indian” (Brathwaite, 1971). In Guyana, the Indians were not seen as a distinct ethnic community who deserved to be studied and defined by their own “primordial sentiments” but they were assimilated into Walter Rodney’s and Cheddi Jagan’s concept of “working class people.” Rai rejected the “cultural balkanization” of the various communities in the Caribbean and, as indicated in the excerpt from his radio broadcast above, was conscious of the role each community could play in the development of a plural society like Guyana.

Second, with regards to Rai, existing literature has not fully examined his political activities in Guyana, except through anecdotal references. For instance, Edwin Ali’s The Rise of the Phoenix in Guyana’s Turbulent Politics (1991), which reflected the author’s journalistic training, rather than critical analytical skills, contains several scattered references to Rai, including his participation at the 1960 London Constitutional Conference and his ministerial role in the 1962 riots. (The United States government, under the Freedom of Information Act, released some interesting information about that period, but that information will not be considered here). The other source that refers to Rai’s involvement in Guyanese political affairs is Cheddi Jagan's The West on Trial (1980). However, despite Jagan's ambivalent approval and praise for Rai’s role in assisting his candidacy (and political career) in 1947 and the PPP, the leadership of the PPP has aggressively and consistently attacked Rai’s credibility. Judging by the responses to the letter debates in the Guyana Stabroek News, including one by former President Janet Jagan (April 8, 1999), the PPP seemed to have embarked on a deliberate campaign to discredit, rewrite and erase Rai’s role in that party. Any attempt to define the role of Balram Singh Rai and examine his political legacy by the PPP must therefore be viewed with suspicion.

Third, as noted earlier, Rai’s relationship with the PPP brings out some of the contradictions and missed political opportunities within the PPP. Most notably is the relationship Indians continue to share with the PPP, despite Jagan’s long established Marxist-Leninist ideology and the failure to address Indian security interests vis-à-vis Africans. Rai’s Indian consciousness and progressive ideology were crucial elements that highlighted the contradiction/distinction between the PPP as a "Marxist party" and the perception held by Indians that the PPP is a "party for Indians," a dichotomy that still plague Indians today. An investigation into the role played by Rai within the PPP, in hindsight, offers some indication into the workings of the PPP and the nature of some of the important decisions made by the party leadership at a crucial point in Guyanese history. More specifically, there were some marked personal and political differences between the leadership styles of Balram Singh Rai and Cheddi Jagan that transcended into their political ideology. It is therefore an interesting task to examine the reasons why Rai joined the PPP, a question Janet Jagan posed in her letter to Stabroek News (April 8, 1999). Such a study can help us in the search for greater understanding of a tumultuous and controversial period in Guyanese history, and, hopefully, offer some insights into our current dilemmas.

Finally, from the standpoint of Guyanese politics, the 1950s and early 1960s clearly demanded skillful leadership and decisive decision-making about the events that defined the pre-independence period. There were some crucial moments in which Rai played a key role. For example, during the 1962 riots, in his capacity as Minister of Home Affairs, he successfully countermanded a police order to fire upon striking urban workers, largely Africans. This act prevented more extensive Indian-African carnage and negated the possibility of a re-entry of British troops to maintain law and order in the colony (as in 1953). Referring to the riots, Reynold Burrowes noted that “ …even if the police had succeeded in dispersing the demonstrators by the most violent means, the result would have most likely been the stimulation of civil war. Should such a situation have occurred the result would have been the same, the re-entry of the British government and the imposition of a solution” (Burrowes, 1984:187).

One of the frequently recurring themes in Guyanese society today surrounds the imbalance in the disciplined force in favor of Africans. Political leaders who want to justify this anomaly argue that, historically, Indians did not want to join the police force and the army. While various reasons are often advanced for this position, most ignore the negative climate created by the PNC (and the British) and the failure of the present PPP government to take corrective measures to address these concerns (chest measurements, screening by non-Indians, dietary laws, etc.). However, under Rai’s tenure-ship as Minister of Home Affairs, an effective recruitment policy ensured that Indians were well represented in the police force. For example, in 1961 there was an increase of Indian applicants compared to previous years, and in 1962 and 1963, more male Indians applied than Africans. In 1961, there were 700 Indian applicants, compared to 320 in 1958. In 1962 there were 1,407 Indian applicants compared to 1,711 Africans and 1,448 Indian applicants in 1963 compared to 1,698 African applicants. In 1962, a total of 52 Indians and 49 Africans were recruited to serve in the Police Force. George Danns attributed the “upsurge in East Indian application and recruitment” into the police force between 1961 and 1964 to increased interethnic tensions and “a deliberate policy of the PPP government to fill the ranks of the police with its own supporters” (Danns, 1982:118). While Danns has obviously overstated the PPP’s motive, this period covered the years Rai assumed greater control of the police force during his tenure as Minister of Home Affairs.

EARLY BACKGROUND
Balram Singh Rai, known to his friends as “Bal”, was born on February 8, 1921 in Beterverwagting Village, East Coast Demerara, to the parents of Ramlachan and Radha Rai. According to information on the Emigration Pass, Rai’s father was recruited from the village of Majholia in Chapra, at the age of 20, on June 18, 1901 and departed India on the Forth, which left the port of Calcutta on July 19, 1901. His parents were neither wealthy nor did they occupy any exalted social position in Guyanese society. They enjoyed a modest lifestyle and were well respected by fellow villagers. They were devoted Hindus who played a major role in establishing the foundations of the Arya Samaj movement in Guyana. Official documents indicate that Rai’s parents were of the Rajput (Kshatriya) social class. Rai’s father was literate both in Hindi and English, and was indentured with his mother and brother to the sugar plantation of British Guiana. He became a village councilor, and was a part-time Hindi teacher at a congregational primary school for several years.

Rai’s family placed great emphasis on the value of education. A strong sense of consciousness and regard for social justice for the unfortunate was imbued in the young Rai. His desire to help the less fortunate was inculcated, and later manifested in his various roles as a teacher, public servant, lawyer, politician and as a leader in the Indian community. It is perhaps this aspect of his upbringing and initial inculcation into the reformist Hindu culture and tradition that clearly distinguished Balram Singh Rai from Cheddi Jagan, and patterned his vision for a post-colonial Guyana very different from that envisioned by Jagan.

Given his religious persuasions and social consciousness, it was not surprising that Rai’s father would become a founding member of the village Arya Samaj (Society of the Noble) – a reformist Hindu organization – which was established after the visit from India of Pandit Ayodya Persaud around 1928 (Sriram, 1999). Rai himself would emerge as the President of the Beterverwagting/Triumph Arya Samaj, and those who knew him, often remembered that he was able to initiate many forward-looking reformist policies and practices in the Samaj. The reforms he initiated were in keeping with the tradition established by Maharishi Swami Dayanand Saraswati of India and the founding members of the Arya Samaj movement in British Guiana.

At age 13, Rai passed the Junior Cambridge examination and at the age of 15, he passed the Senior Cambridge examination. He was not as fortunate as Jagan to attend the Georgetown-based Queens College, the leading secondary school to which the country’s elite business community and professional class sent their children. Nor was he allowed to compete for the Mitchell scholarship tenable at Queen’s College since he was regarded as being of illegitimate birth because his parents were married under Hindu rites and customs. The British government or the trustees of the Mitchell Foundation did not recognize Hindu marriages as legitimate. The government was in collusion with the churches to Christianize the Moslem and Hindu “heathens.” Rai was deeply offended by this experience and hoped that one day he would be able to rid society of such discriminatory practices against the Indian community [Interview]. Such an opportunity presented itself while he was Minister of Community Development and Education and he proceeded to take over 51 denominational schools and placed them under direct or indirect government control.

During his formative school years, Rai was able to compare urban and rural life styles and was much affected by the comparative poverty and harshness of life for the majority of Indians, most of whom were rural-based. He felt, in particular, “for young children in the village trudging along early in the morning with their buckets to the neighboring sugar estate to bail out leaking punts transporting sugar cane from the fields to the factory; for women, many emaciated and some pregnant, with cutlasses going to weed the fields; and, men with their shovels, forks and cutlasses going to work in the fields and to reap the sugar cane, all barefooted and in tattered clothes” [Interview with Rai].

In 1949, the same year he got married, he was elected Vice-President of the Civil Service Association (CSA). The CSA secured better salary scales and cost of living allowances for its members during the war years when inflation was rising. However, as a trade unionist and member of the CSA, Rai was committed to the principle of “Guianization,” which was a policy of the CSA to “ensure the best available man for each post and that the selection had naturally to take into account not only formal qualifications but also experience and personal qualities.” (Lutchman, 1973:113-4). Guianization was a way to secure promotion for Africans and Indians to high-ranking positions in the civil service. Rai argued vigorously for the highest positions in the civil service to be filled by locally born Guyanese, particularly Africans and Indians. Rai’s role as a militant member of the CSA and an advocate for the postal workers were very visible in promoting the interests of serving officers, especially those in the lower levels, and the promotion of employment for qualified young men and women from rural communities. So effective was his role as a civil servant that Jagan noted that he “played a militant role as president of the Junior Section of the Civil Service Association” (Jagan, 1980:110).

However, it was after Rai became a Minister in the PPP government in 1957 and 1961, that many Guyanese were continuously being appointed to the highest career positions in the civil service, the education and teaching services and the judiciary. It should be noted too that his militancy very often led him on a collision course with sources of power in the colonial establishment. For example, at the risk of losing his job, he promoted Cheddi Jagan as a candidate for the 1947 General Election, and openly solicited electoral support for him in the Central Demerara (Buxton to Kitty) constituency. Civil servants were barred from such overt political activities. Jagan acknowledged this important contribution of Rai when he stated that “During the 1947 general election he [Rai] gave me strong support” (Jagan, 1980:110).

Because he was overlooked for promotion more than once, he resigned from the Civil Service and left to read Law at Middle Temple, London, in 1949. He secured the LLB degree with honors from the University of London and qualified as a Barrister at Law of the Honorable Society of the Middle Temple in 1952.

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL INFLUENCE
The young Balram Singh Rai, who was grounded in the teachings of the Arya Samaj, was taught from an early age that there is no authority in the Vedas for caste separation as a hereditary system. Progress and status were based on an individual’s karma (actions/achievements), guna (knowledge/wisdom) and subhavo (conduct/character). Even though he ranked high on social status due to the caste origins of his parents, he stood against inequality attributed to groups of people based on one’s class, as well as, caste. Rai believed “not only in the brotherhood of man but also in the unity of all life” [Interview with Rai]. While his father reinforced his Hindu values at home, his mother frequently took him to religious services sponsored by local committees on the sugar estates and villages so that he would be able to play an active role in local dramas about the Indian experience (Ramayana, Ramleela, etc). More important, however, was the fact that this cultural and religious exposure created an indelible impression upon his future personal life and political orientation.

Rai became an active member of the American Aryan League, the central organization representing Arya Samajists, and his village Samaj was affiliated to the League. His activities and support for the League led to his appointment as Senior Vice-President of the League with Dr. Jairam Bissessar, as President in 1957. He took time off from his budding legal practice to attend meetings and formulate plans for the League’s advancement. He frequently addressed conventions of large Indian gatherings in the rural areas. Upon his return from London as a barrister in 1952 he was elected as a Senior Vice President of the Hindu Religious Society (HRS), a charitable organization founded by Pandit Ramsaroop Maraj. The HRS, through its dharamsala in Georgetown, and with a branch in Canje, Berbice, catered to the needs of the old, sick and indigent, irrespective of race or religion. His role as a member of the government also greatly enhanced his standing within the Indian community. According to Shiv Gangadeen, a supporter of the United Force, “even before he assumed his present Ministry, Mr. Rai was highly regarded by Hindus of a particular persuasion: the Arya Samajists. His work and utterances as Minister are not only enhancing this regard, but are also winning the respect of people outside of the Arya Samaj” (Chronicle, November 27, 1959).

While Rai was aware of the differences that existed within the various traditions of the Hindu community, orthodox and reformist, he continuously professed a “love for the Vedic religion.” His goal was always to seek “unity and fraternity and for rallying all Hindus under the banner of OM” [Rai, “Diwali”, no date]. In his presentations, he often used the Deepavali celebrations to highlight the commonality among Hindus by referring to the “heroes” who were associated with this tradition that is celebrated annually. Sri Rama and Swami Dayanand were the two Indian heroes whom he exemplified as role models and held in high honor [Rai, “Dharma and Sri Rama”, no date].

Rai recognized that Deepavali was symbolic for Hindus because it was the commemoration of the triumphal return to Ayodhya of Maharaja Sri Ramachandra (Rama) after fourteen years of banishment and his victory over the demon-king Rawana of Lanka. Deepavali also symbolized for the Arya Samajists the transition of Maharishi Dayanand who died on that day and it was the day that his soul attained mukti or salvation. Referring to Rama, he noted “The festival [Deepavali] thus is marked by different events in different spheres of life by the noble achievements of two Aryan heroes. Sri Rama, who was wont to be called Aryaputra by his consort Sita, by his conduct in private life and by his dealings with his subjects and even his enemies typifies the Vedic ruler - just, upright, patient, virtuous, courageous, truthful and dutiful in accordance with dharma. The Vedas taught us ‘to be noble and righteous in word, thought and deed.’ So great was his devotion to dharma that he was reported to have said that he did not care for the sovereignty of the three worlds if it were in conflict with dharma…the term Ramraja is now used to refer to any state in which peace, social justice and good government prevail. A dutiful prince, he was also a dutiful son, a loving husband and a loving brother” [Rai, “Diwali”, no date]. Celebrating Deepavali, as Rai often reminded his listeners, also meant the commemoration of the life and recognition of the contributions of Swami Dayanand and condemnation of the many abuses he spoke out against.

For Rai, the teachings of the Ramayana presented the ideal characteristics and qualities that reflected balanced moral leadership and social responsibility that were worthy of emulation. He acknowledged the social and moral influence of the Hindu tradition on his character. Invoking references to the dichotomy of Plato’s philosopher-king, he noted “In his [Sri Rama] life there co-existed the Prince and the Philosopher, providing a loving and living example of the ideal Ruler, for it is my firm conviction that there can be no good government until statesmen and kings are imbued with religion and philosophy which is probably the converse of Plato’s observation that there would be no good government until philosophers became kings” [Rai, “Diwali”, no date]. His ideal society was to reflect these defining characteristics of a leader, characteristics that were embedded within his concept of “Ramraja.”

POLITICAL ORIENTATION
Rai was a frequent contributor to the letters column of the daily newspapers. In the 1940s, his letters to the press appeared under the pseudo name of “iconoclast.” He also wrote letters around the same time calling for local government reform and an extension of the franchise. His interests and observations of the functioning of the local government dated back to the early days when his father was a village councilor. His primary concern was to ensure a more efficient and democratic functioning of the village councils. In a letter to the editor of the Daily Chronicle (April 6, 1954), titled “Adult Suffrage for Rural Districts Urged,” he called for a transformation and reform of the local council to make them more democratic and responsive to the needs of the community. In relation to this concern, he was able to promote a number of country districts to village status during his tenure as Minister of Education and Community Development.

Many of Rai’s speeches, addresses and presentations as a Minister in the PPP government, were published either in whole or in part as extracts in the daily newspapers. Between 1952 to 1957, he wrote extensively on religious matter. These writings gave a very detailed overview of his early ideas and social and cultural orientation. They serve as an important primary source of information in helping us to understand the development and shaping of Rai’s political ideology. Rai’s role within the political sphere in Guyanese society is remembered by many who were associated with him or who were influenced by the policies he championed when he was a minister in the PPP government. It was therefore not surprising that PPP supporters protested and expressed deep concern when he was relieved of his portfolio as the first Minister of Home Affairs and subsequently expelled from the PPP. The event was precipitated by the 1962 election for PPP Party Chairman in which Rai, a popular candidate, challenged Jagan’s choice, Brindley Benn, an African, for the position and took a principled position against the high-handed and undemocratic practices employed by Cheddi Jagan and his supporters during the election. The controversy following that election revealed the extent to which the party elites, namely Cheddi Jagan and Janet Jagan, were willing to go to preserve the appearance of the “multi-racial” image of the PPP. The exchange of letters between himself, Cheddi Jagan and Janet Jagan regarding this incident was documented in a pamphlet, “Democracy Betrayed” , which was widely circulated throughout Guyana.

Balram Singh Rai, unlike Cheddi Jagan, was not, and had no intention of becoming a career politician. Increasingly, demands to expand his political role within the PPP were based on the series of unfolding events in Guianese society and the insistence by the Jagans that he accept greater political responsibility within the party. However, his agreement to assume a greater role in the PPP government was not necessarily motivated by personal ambition, but was based on an abiding desire to help his fellow Guyanese. Despite his close association with the PPP, Rai has consistently opposed the party’s ideology and raised concerns with Cheddi Jagan about the direction in which the PPP was heading. His ideological differences with the PPP led him to join forces with the National Democratic Party (NDP) during the 1953 election. The NDP was made up of a cross-section of the Guyanese community, including some members of the League of Colored Peoples (LCP). He had calculated, like others, that the PPP did not possess the organizational capability and resources to make a serious bid for office. Nevertheless, Rai, after several requests from both Cheddi Jagan and Janet Jagan, officially joined the PPP on July 2, 1956. He was part of the influx of Indians who joined or had remained with the PPP after the split with Forbes Burnham and his African supporters. During the 1953-1957 interim period, following the suspension of the constitution, he provided valuable pro bono legal services to PPP members who were arrested and detained by British authorities for violating their travel restrictions. His progressive views about social, economic and political issues were also reflected in the 1964 manifesto of the Justice Party.

Despite the views held by PPP leaders about Rai, his political stature commanded respect from various political leaders in the country. For instance, Peter D’Aguiar, the Leader of the UF, referring to the PPP’s dismissal of Rai as Minister of Home Affairs, said, “Dr. Jagan has made his greatest political blunder…he has cast aside moderate Indians in favor of rabid Communists. He has exchanged competence for incompetence” (Sunday Graphic, June 17, 1962). L.F.S. Burnham, who was Mayor of Georgetown when Rai was the Minister of Home Affairs, said “the Minister’s (Mr. Rai’s) dismissal meant that the last vestige of intelligence was removed from the PPP” (Sunday Chronicle, June 17, 1962). Rickey Singh, a prominent reporter who followed the 1962 Rai-Jagan split and reported on “RAI: THE INSIDE STORY” said “I happen to know that Mr. Rai is not in the habit of bowing easily to any situation. The ‘schools take-over’ legislation is ample proof of this” (Sunday Chronicle, June 24, 1962). Shiv Gangadeen, who recognized that Rai was thrust into a situation in which he did not invite, made this observation when he noted that Rai was “one of our successful Barristers, and can make quite a good living at his profession.” Gangadeen, as early as 1959, also recognized the distinction in the political ideology of Rai, which separated him from the doctrinaire Marxist-Leninist Cheddi Jagan and saw the potential for conflict between Rai and Jagan. Of Rai, he explained “He is already regarded as a serious threat to Dr. Jagan’s leadership of the PPP, and if he gets too deeply involved in the Jagans’ Communism, he will eventually be faced with the choice of either accepting a toady’s role model and going all the way with them, or else getting denounced as a stooge, traitor, etc.” (Chronicle on November 27, 1959). His words proved to be prophetic.

Rai rejected Jagan’s dogmatic, rigid ideological socialist construct as the methodology that monopolized and defined the “truth” and as the only social paradigm from which to analyze and understand the reality of the environment in which he lived. While declaring the Second Annual Convention of Aryan Youth open in the late 1950s, he noted that “the rich do not have a monopoly over truth, honesty and good character; poverty is no barrier to a good life. Rich and poor alike, therefore, can equally lead clean and good moral lives” [Rai, “Song of the Soul”, no date]. So strong were his views on moral behavior that after delivering a lecture at a seven-day Srimad Bhagavad Yagna on Hindu religion and philosophy at De Kinderen, Demerara, on September 9, 1962, several months after his expulsion from the PPP, he twice refused to be garlanded. While eventually accepting the garlands “as a token of religious and social esteem,” he expressed alarm at the lip service and lack of interest being shown to the Hindu religion by devoted followers. He stressed the importance of performing sanskars and the need for Hindus to educate their children about their tradition. According to him, without the aid of these practices and ceremonies, a Hindu is apt “to grow undisciplined, like a wild weed or animal” [Interview with Rai].

Rai’s cultural and religious orientation had an even more profound impact on his political views. He felt that any government which is not spiritually motivated “is bound to fall”and “people who deny their spiritual nature were ungrateful to their Creator and were only half-alive.” Man’s actions, he felt, must “conform to Dharma,” one’s sacred duty to mankind, and the Law of Karma. “The Law of Karma is immutable and eternal, and as such, consonant with justice. It is the principle on which God or the Supreme Atma created this universe and other universes and it is the principle by which He sustains them. God is not an arbitrary Being; although Omnipotent, He is himself subject to this Law. Were it otherwise, it would have been impossible to know him and unreasonable to worship Him. It would not have been possible to make progress in the material and other sciences and would have afforded no encouragement for persons to lead moral lives. Virtue is thereby its own reward in the sense that every act of ours yields its own dividends or otherwise, irrespective of the patronage of anyone” [Rai, “Karma, Justice, Reincarnation”, no date]. It was this doctrine which he found incompatible with the Christian doctrine of “forgiveness,” which to him was “religious bribery.” In his reasoning, “if an evil doer, by mere prayers and repentance can succeed in escaping punishment therefrom, I say there will be no real deterrent to evil doing. But the Law of Karma requires such persons to make restitutions either to the injured party or to his family or to Society generally before such wrongs can be accounted washed away; while by prayers and repentance the Supreme Being assists in overcoming recurrences.” [Rai, “Karma, Justice, Reincarnation”, no date].

There was no compromise in his belief that one’s duty towards society must be fueled by moral principles. Dharma was “the motor force, the rule of guidance and conduct in happiness or misery, in pleasure or pain, in joy and sorrow.” In Dharma, Rai saw “the principles on which the moral order is based, regulating not only one’s private life, but also one’s relation to his fellow-men as well as to his Creator” [Rai, Dharma and Sri Rama”, no date]. As a Hindu, he accepted that Sri Rama was incarnated with the characteristics of Dharma (fortitude, forgiveness, self-command, honesty, purity, control of senses, wisdom, knowledge, truth and absence of anger). Drawing from the exemplar life experiences of Rama and Swami Dayanand, Rai fully accepted that truth and right action must be upheld at all times, regardless of consequences.

For Rai, the Rajput, caste origin was a source of pride rather than a position from which to ascertain and flaunt his superior social status among his peers. According to Pandit Ramlall, a New York-based member of the Arya Samaj and a long-time PPP supporter, “Rai’s reference to being a Rajput when he campaigned for office in 1964 was an attempt to portray himself as a fighter, a warrior…He did not believe in caste distinctions” [Interview with Ramlall]. Pandit Birbal Singh, another prominent member of the Arya Samaj, suggested that some people may have misjudged Rai’s references to being a Rajput because “he was an independent thinker and he was very militant about what he had to do and what he had to say. He would argue and debate issues whenever such challenges arise” [Interview]. Moses Bhagwan, a former PPP member, concurred, but suggested that “Bal was not arrogant, but he may have seen himself as an elevated Hindu” [Interview]. In essence, his references to his social background on several occasions during the political campaign in 1964 was an attempt to convey to Indians that he was not going to sacrifice their political and security interests. The PPP, concerned about Rai’s political influence among Indians, and the potential threat the Justice Party posed to the PPP and its Indian base, seized upon Rai’s references to his caste origins as an opportunity to further ridicule him. For instance, in a letter to the Guyana Stabroek News (July 17, 1999), Minister Moses Nagamootoo of the PPP, recounting the 1964 electoral campaign, wrote that Rai “had exploited racism and religion as an ideological appeal to mask his political opportunism and betrayal…” Paul O’Hara, a journalist and a close friend of Rai explained that “Rai may have had a touch of arrogance because of his ‘chatri’ background, but he was over-confident. However, he was never afraid of Burnham…It was not surprising that Burnham intended to have Cheddi as his opposition” [Interview].

RAI-JAGAN SPLIT

The Rai-Jagan split was a much-publicized event, which followed the 1962 PPP election for Party Chairman, in which Rai was challenging Brindley Benn for that position. According to Rai, the chronicle of events leading up to his removal as Minister of Home Affairs were documented and presented to the public to make it clear that he “never resigned” from his appointment as Minister of Home Affairs. The events, judging by the reaction of PPP groups and religious leaders throughout the country disappointed many supporters of Rai and many protested his dismissal from the government and subsequent expulsion from the PPP. Several public meetings were held following the election and the PPP and its executive leadership embarked on a campaign to discredit Rai’s position and credibility as it became clear that he was unwilling to withdrew his statements about the “rigging of the election” held in April 1962 [Rai, “Democracy Betrayed”, December 7, 1964].

To be sure, this was not the first time that controversy developed over internal PPP elections. The August 1959 elections to elect officers and General Council members were also declared null and void by the election officer. In October 1959, Abdul Kayum, a member of the PPP’s General Council and the Chairman of the Progressive Youth Organization (PYO) was expelled by Janet Jagan for “causing racial disharmony.” In January 1960, five top PPP members faced expulsion, George Bowman (son of Fred Bowman), Karim Juman (party activist in north Georgetown, Shivsankar Sadhoo (a field secretary and activist from Vigilance), Patrick Alleyne (candidate elected in 1957 for the South Georgetown seat), and Pandit Siridhar Misir (a field secretary). The irregularities were viewed with much suspicion. On September 11, 1959, Cheddi Jagan issued stern warnings to persons who he described as “disruptionists” in the Party and threatened expulsion. He accused them of trying to split "the African comrades from the Indian comrades." (Chronicle, September 12, 1959). According to Leo Despres, a cultural anthropologist who studied nationalist politics in colonial Guiana in 1959, Pandit Misir, Bashir Khan, Abdul Cayum and Karim Juman backed Balram Singh Rai for the party chairmanship. The elections were declared “null and void,” and Janet Jagan filed charges against Rai’s backers and accused them of “racialism” and tampering with election boxes. All but Khan was expelled. Khan was probably exonerated of charges because “he not only owned a sawmill in Rosignol, but he has considerable local influence among East Indians in West Berbice” (Despres, 1967: 219).

Leo Despres further argued that this experience, as well as the expulsion of Rai in 1962, clearly demonstrated that the organizational structure and ideological character of the PPP were firmly established. The PPP Constitution placed “almost absolute” power in the hands of the Executive Committee of the party and it was difficult to remove a delegate who was supported by the Executive Committee of the PPP. What Despres was referring to was the authoritarian control the Executive Committee members maintained within the party through democratic centralism and commitment to an ideology that provided legitimacy for their actions. The basic units of the party were the local cells, which are aggregated into larger units throughout the country and represented by constituency committees. However, while the officers of all the members at both of these levels were directly elected, the nomination of candidates by local groups was subject to the approval of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee was comprised of the officers of the party and seven members of the party’s General Council. The members of the Executive Committee were directly elected at the Party Congress by delegates who were sent there by the local groups, who were themselves approved by this committee. This system of control from the top-down means that “the possibility of unseating a member of the latter group [Executive Committee] is rather slim, short of a rebellion within the party…the Executive Committee of the PPP tends to be a self-perpetuating group responsible for all the party’s policies and political activities (Despres, 1967:189). Cheddi Jagan and Janet Jagan, the founding members, no doubt were the two most powerful members of the Executive Committee.

Rai was the Senior Vice-Chairman of the PPP from 1961 to 1962. He stood for election as Chairman of the Party because he felt the current Chairman, Brindley Benn, given his communist orientation, had been making some “irresponsible statements” and the executive committee was not meeting as scheduled to address important issues [Interview]. It was clear that the Party was being run by a few people which included Cheddi Jagan, the leader, Janet Jagan, the General Secretary, Brindley Benn, the Chairman, and Ram Karran, the Treasurer. The latter two were faithful and loyal supporters of the Jagans. Rai was hoping that as Party Chairman he would have been able to steer the course of the party and influence the ideological orientation of its leadership. He had already made it clear to the PPP leadership that he was opposed to its Marxist notions of “class struggles” and “dictatorship of the proletariat” and he held fundamentally different positions on Guyana's’ relationship with the former Soviet Union and the United States.

On the first day of the meeting to elect the Party Chairman, the delegates met at the Plaza Cinema, where group members and delegates congregated from various parts of the country. The voting was scheduled on the second day at the Guyana Oriental School, a school headed by Sruti Kant, an Arya Samaj missionary from India who was also an assistant to the Presiding Officer at the election. Birbal Singh, who went with the Leonora group, was the constituency chairman representing supporters from Blankenburg to Boeraserie. He recalled the incident very well [Interview]. He said he was greeted by Jagan briefly upon his entrance and handed a list of candidates. Jagan told him “vote for the people on this list, and show it to other delegates.” Singh, who was aware that Rai was challenging Benn for the number two position within the PPP, was disturbed when he saw that the list contained the names of Brindley Benn and others, but not that of Rai. He observed also that Ranji Chandisingh, Jack Kelshall and other PPP supporters were meeting delegates and “pressuring” them to vote for Benn. Clearly disobeying Jagan’s request, Birbal Singh crossed out Benn’s name on the list. When the final tally was counted and Benn was declared the winner, “there was a whole lot of noise and confusion, especially from Corentyne people. Jagan and Janet remained quiet and appealed for calm.” Fenton Ramsahoye came up to Rai and Rai complained to him. His response was that “the party works in devious ways” [Rai, “Democracy Betrayed”, December 7, 1964]. Birbal Singh, like many other delegates left because they were very “disappointed” in the way the election was conducted and questioned the role the PPP leader played in the whole affair.

Rai explained that while several persons, some non-delegates, were given ballot papers to vote, the Party Leader, Cheddi Jagan, the Party Secretary, Janet Jagan, and Jagan’s Personal Secretary, Jack Kelshall openly campaigned against him. Jagan injected “race” into the election by attacking the delegates who supported Rai for doing so on “racial” ground, and then, proceeded to advise his followers to vote “not according to race but according to their opinion of who was better qualified” to serve in that position. Jagan proceeded to “insult, humiliate and slander” Hindus and Muslims and their organizations, namely, the Hindu Maha Sabha, the Latchmee Sabha (the Hindu Ladies’ Organization), the Pandits’ Council and the Sad’r Islamic Anjuman, presumable for supporting Rai [Rai, “Democracy Betrayed”, December 7, 1964]. Brindley Benn, the then Party Chairman, refused to allow Rai to address the delegates “after the Party Leader Dr. Jagan, had castigated everyone and praised the communists,” while his wife, Mrs. Benn, directed and “assisted” about forty members of the Women’s Section with their ballots. Neville Annibourne, the Progressive Youth Organization (PYO) Secretary also directed about sixty delegates outside the hall on how they should vote [Rai, “Democracy Betrayed”, December 7, 1964].

The battle between Rai and Jagan on this issue raged for 52 days and finally came to an end on June 15. At the time of his expulsion, Rai said “neither the revocation of my portfolio nor my expulsion from the Peoples Progressive Party can mitigate the moral defeat inflicted upon Dr. Jagan and the General Council by Party and public opinion throughout the country…history will prove that in relieving me of my portfolio, Dr. Jagan had committed the greatest political blunder of his career…” [Rai, “Democracy Betrayed”, December 7, 1964]. Several resignations by party group members also followed Rai’s expulsion from the PPP.

Recognizing the genuine concern and protest against the possible removal of Rai from his position in the PPP government, as well as his influence among party supporters, the PPP began to construct a response which painted Rai as an opportunist whose ideas were inconsistent with those of the PPP leadership. In response to questions at a meeting in early June 1962 with the East Demerara Constituency Group of the PPP at Mahaica, Jagan offered six reasons why Rai was expelled, without providing details. One, Rai was accused of “corrupt practices.” Two, Rai was accused of pursuing policies not in conjunction with top party executives because he had a different ideological perspective than that of the party. Three, Rai failed to comply with party orders and regulations. Four, Rai did not provide sufficient protection to certain Ministers of the Government and the Party’s executives during the 1962 February disturbances. Five, Rai refused to speak at party meetings during the Budget crisis. Six, Rai was becoming the “darling” of the opposition parties and press (Chronicle, June 7, 1962). Rai had already stated publicly that he had disagreed with the PPP on some aspects of the 1962 Budget, and relations with America, Cuba and Eastern bloc countries, but had abided by the majority decision within the party. In defending his actions during the 1962 riots, he explained that he, along with Commissioner of Police, W.R. Weber, was able to avert a strike by the police on Black Friday (February 16, 1962). This was done after Premier Jagan had failed to settle the problem of a revised emolument with the police.

The question that must be answered was why did the PPP leadership support the less popular candidacy of Brindley Benn, and opposed that of Rai, particularly since Janet Jagan, the General Secretary the PPP, had indicated that Rai was “an efficient and hard-working Minister?” [Interview with Janet Jagan]. There were a number of reasons why the Jagans threw their support behind Benn. One, Brindley Benn was a loyal supporter of the PPP and had accepted the party’s socialist ideology wholeheartedly. However, he had parted company with the PPP when it was in the opposition and formed a Maoist political party. A close friend of Janet Jagan, he was brought back as part of the “civic” component to serve in the PPP administration after the 1992 election. Two, given the split and the subsequent departure of the radical African Marxist element from the PPP, the party was badly in need of “token” Africans to enable the PPP to present a multi-racial image to the public and thereby pursue its socialist agenda for Guyana. With Benn as the second powerful person within the PPP, there was a possibility that the PPP could stave off criticisms by opposition forces that the PPP was a party of Indians. The political leadership was unwilling to confront the fact that the PPP was an Indian-based party and it was assuming that the African population would view its authority to govern and the implementation of public policy as legitimate.

From the African perspective, Benn’s position in the PPP was certainly not sufficient to pacify the fears of the African population. Moses Bhagwan noted that “Brindley Benn was not a charismatic or independent fighter, had no real standing within the party, and was never very popular with Africans. He was there because Jagan wanted him” [Interview with Bhagwan]. On the other hand, Rai was an independent thinker and the hardcore Marxist elements within the PPP wanted to minimize his involvement at such a high level within the party. As a result, as Bhagwan explained “Bal had to be expelled because of his direct confrontation with other members of the PPP” [Interview]. In order to address the fallout from this event, namely the rigging of the elections in favor of Brindley Benn, the PPP had to consistently defend its position, particularly since the matter was now in the public domain. The PPP, through its General Secretary, Janet Jagan increased its propaganda campaign against Rai. Rai was labeled a “racialist” because he opposed Jagan’s choice, the African candidate, Brindley Benn. Ironically, part of the reason the Jagans preferred Benn as the Party Chairman was because of his African ethnicity. Interestingly, no responsible member of the opposition parties had ever leveled such a charge against Rai.

RAI AND THE JUSTICE PARTY
With the possibility of independence looming in the air, the 1964 General Election was hotly contested. In 1953, 74.8% of the registered voters participated in the election, compared to 89.4% in 1961 and 96.9% in 1964 (Horowitz, 1985:327). The PPP found itself being opposed by the PNC, the UF, GUMP, JP, PEP and the NLF. The JP, along with the PNC, UF, and GUMP received support from the United States and local big business, while the PPP received assistance from the former Soviet Union. Rai’s campaign strategy was to cut into the base of the Indian support of the PPP. As part of the strategy, the JP attempted to convince Indians that the PPP was anti-Indian and anti-religion. Rai also addressed the issue of proportional representation (PR) and balance in the various institutions of power. He had condemned Jagan’s blunder when he gave total freedom to the British to determine the type of electoral system the 1964 election would be fought under, and had called for a referendum to allow the population to decide whether they want a PR electoral system or not. He reminded Guianese, particularly Indians, about his role in the PPP as Minister of Education and as Minister of Home Affairs.

He presented a scenario to Indians whereby he argued that the new electoral system of proportional representation meant that Jagan and the PPP could not and would not get a clear majority of the votes to enable the PPP to form the next government. Given this reality, he predicted that the next government would be a coalition of the People’s National Congress (PNC), the party supported by the majority Africans and the United Force (UF), the party representing the business interests. Rai predicted that Jagan, because of his ideological orientation, and external manipulations, would be left out of the next government. He warned that this political arrangement would create a dilemma

When the indians arrived our ancestors lived together. There was intermarriage, mostly indian men marrying or living with african women because there were fewer indian women than indian men. Then the battle cry of the 50's. LFS didn't set strife. He might've been a lot of things, but a dunce he was not.

Were u barn den wid nuff sense to know wah was going on in 1955-after Forbes and Cheddie Split.

Thank you for the article. I better understand Rai's appeal to the indo surpremacist, whether Mr. Rai intended for it to be so or not.

I lived through it. My family lived through it. It wasn't pleasant for black man and it wasn't pleasant for Indians either. But of course you only interested in one side.

You and your partisans keep using this term "Indo supremacist." I usually ignore it because it's a load of bull to me. What exactly makes one an "Indo supremacist"?

The radical notion that the PNC should not be beating and murdering innocent Indos as was their hallowed custom until circa 2006?