…for outright win – Nagamootoo

Saying that A Partnership For National Unity (APNU) will easily win 40 per cent of the votes at the upcoming elections, the Alliance For Change (AFC) said it could give the David Granger-led coalition the other 11 per cent it needs to clinch a majority.

This was disclosed by AFC Presidential Candidate Moses Nagamootoo on Sunday as he tried to sell the proposed Pro Democracy Alliance between the two parties at a public meeting held in APNU’s stronghold – Angoy’s Avenue, New Amsterdam.

At the last elections, the AFC under an Indian Guyanese leader Khemraj Ramjattan won 10.3% of the votes mainly from the Indian dominated Region 6 votes.

AFC Presidential Candidate Moses Nagamootoo

In 2006, the AFC had secured a similar percentage of votes but under the leadership of Raphael Trotman, most had come from the APNU African dominated constituency.

Conceding that the AFC cannot compare itself with APNU in terms of its electoral strength, Nagamootoo who was hand-selected as Presidential Candidate by AFC’s Leader, Khemraj Ramjattan said electoral alliance was the way to go.

Nagamootoo was deliberately selected by Ramjattan who arbitrarily jettisoned the “presidential candidate rotation principle” to select the Indian Guyanese AFC Vice Chairman Moses Nagamootoo over the Chairman Nigel Hughes.

The AFC has been afraid to coalesce with APNU fearing the backlash from its constituency who have not forgotten the muck and stain of the People’s National Congress track record in government.

Newly-minted executive member of the AFC Daizal Samad had also said that the coalition will not happen, deeming the talks as a “talent scouting” exercise.

A source also told this newspaper last week that the coalition talks have been bogged down by disagreements as to who will lead the alliance.
The parties have also not been able to agree on the name for their party and the symbols. Guyana Times was told the APNU has been holding out that it will not change its name and also does not want to give up its symbol.

Unsure about talks

Nagamootoo, speaking at the political meeting said the two parties have been working in unity since the 10th Parliament convened. He said what happened in Parliament should send a signal that the party is serious when it talks about unity.

“We don’t know where the talks will go, we have stated our position but honestly speaking, this small seven seat party called the AFC, we cannot compare ourselves to a 26 seat party called APNU. APNU can always have 40 per cent of the votes.

“APNU is like a large umbrella that has attracted large numbers of people, particularly Afro Guyanese. But APNU cannot win an election alone, APNU needs to have a strategic alliance with the church and the trade unions and other groups and the AFC could bring in the eleven per cent,” Nagamootoo told the meeting which included senior members of APNU.

Some 330 odd persons attended the meeting. Nagamootoo said the AFC needed the support of APNU in order to get a No-Confidence Motion in the Parliament and all the other actions taken by the alliance, including cutting of the National Budget in the tenth Parliament. This he added was only successful because of a unity it developed with APNU.

“One of the major parties of APNU being the PNC [People’s National Congress], and so as these elections approach we want to forge the closest possible unity not only with APNU but with the trade union movement, with the church, with the civil rights organisations, with women groups, with youth groups…

“We don’t know where the talks with APNU will go; we are hoping that we will reach some accord and that we can understand that in a strategic alliance it is not the strongest who can bring hope, but the small party who can bring the cross over votes.

“And to be fair we need to hold out an appeal to people who once voted for the PPP/C [People's Progressive Party/Civic]; Guyanese of East Indian decent that they have nothing to fear and nothing to lose if they vote for a collation of parties at the next election which include APNU and the PNC,” Nagamootoo told the gathering.

“However if we cannot succeed in this short space of time to bring together a unity among the parties of civil society to have one block contesting the election as happened in Sri Lanka… then obviously we are prepared to go alone as sad and disappointing as that may be.” He said the AFC will like to share the Government with APNU and give three places to the PPP/C.

According to the party Vice Chairman, if the nation has another minority Government and the PPP/C gets back into power with 35 per cent of the votes and 65 to the Opposition, no one can guarantee that Guyana will have stability or peace. “Thirty-five per cent cannot rule 65 per cent it is not only immoral, it is mathematically wrong,” he shouted.

Speaking of plans the AFC has if it is to be elected into Government, Nagamootoo said the AFC will ensure that no one earning a salary of below $70,000 will be required to pay income tax.

Public servants will receive a 10 per cent across the board wage hike and the cost to cross the Berbice River Bridge will be reduced to $1000 for a small vehicle.

Nagamootoo also said that under an AFC led Government, the current marijuana laws will be reviewed. Central Executive Member Michael Carrington while addressing the gathering said that if elected, the party will double the investments made in health and education.

This was the first time the eight-year-old alliance held a public meeting in that part of New Amsterdam.

Dear Editor,

The findings of opinion surveys conducted by the North American Caribbean Teachers Association (NACTA) in July, October and December found voters are divided in their views on whether there will be a recurrence of rigged elections and the re-establishment of a dictatorship under a PNC (APNU) Government should it win the next election.

Voters were polled on these as well as other issues in light of the PNC rigging of its own internal election last July when David Granger emerged as political leader. The PNC was known to rig elections and establish a dictatorship between 1964 and 1992 when it governed Guyana.

The poll found that nearly half the voters, those supporting PNC, as saying they don’t feel the PNC would return to the infamous method of rigging in order to win post 2015 General Elections or regenerate the dictatorship.

They also feel that the PNC should not be judged by the rigging of its internal party election. Many express the view that what goes in the party is its own business and that “internal” rigging has no bearing on national elections.

The PNC supporters feel their party has learnt from mistakes, and they don’t think it would re-commence a dictatorship, which the late PNC leader Desmond Hoyte reluctantly ended (under international and domestic pressure) in 1992, ushering in democratic governance.

In contrast to PNCites, supporters of the PPP/C and AFC are not so sanguine about the return of possible election riggings and the rise of another PNC dictatorship. They point to the fact that the PNC rigged its last two internal elections and view such acts as an omen of what is to come.

In one internal election, NACTA poll showed Carl Greenidge in a close fight with David Granger for leadership and would have won a free and fair PNC leadership election.

In another internal election last July, a NACTA poll showed Granger would have defeated Aubrey Norton in a competitive contest without the need to resort to electoral fraud. Yet Granger felt compelled to fiddle with the electoral arrangements.

The latest polls randomly interviewed 1,250 voters to yield a demographically representative sample (44 per cent Indians, 30 per cent Africans, 16 per cent Mixed, nine per cent Amerindians, and one per cent other races) of the population.

The results of the poll were analyzed at a 95 per cent significance level with a statistical sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Asked if they can trust a PNC (APNU) Government, should it win the next election, to hold free and fair elections thereafter, 48 per cent of respondents said no, 29 per cent said yes, and 23 per cent offered no comment.

Asked if the PNC (APNU) were to govern Guyana after the next election whether it would transform Guyana into a dictatorship as happened between 1968 and 1992, 43 per cent said yes, with 41 per cent saying no, and 16 per cent offering no comment.

Several PPP/C and AFC supporters feel it would be extremely difficult for the PNC to return to dictatorial rule with democracy being institutionalized over the last 23 years.

Interestingly, almost every PNC supporter laughed or smiled when the above questions were posed to them. Supporters of the PPP/C and AFC, on the other hand, displayed fear and anguish over the questions.

Asked if they think the PNC (APNU) has been (democratically) reformed since it was ousted from office in elections in 1992, 30 per cent said yes, with 56 per cent saying no, and 14 per cent not expressing a view.

Many point to rigging of internal elections and violent protests as evidence that the party has not undergone significant reform. The recent scheduling of their campaign launch on February 20, the birthday of their founder-leader Forbes Burnham will hardly assuage the doubts of the sceptics.

The polls also tested likeability and approval ratings of the President and Opposition Leaders. These would be released in subsequently.

Dr Vishnu Bisram

New York-based pollster

Dear Editor,
Permit me to point out that the Kaieteur News refused to carry this letter of response to Frederick Collins.
As an educator of over 35 years, and one quite familiar with dyslexia in its various manifestations, I find it rather difficult not to diagnose Mr Collins letter in the KN as possessing the elements of a dyslexic writer, since it seems clear that Collins read into my response to a previous letter of his content and intent that were non-existent.

Either that or Collins chose to see what he wanted to see rather than what had actually been written. He discards empirical and first hand evidence as if to say the individuals spoken to were lying whereas he, Collins, who spoke to no one, knows the truth about the experiences of others.

In effect Collins is not only guilty of that which he accuses me, but he practices “transference” as a defensive mechanism. As a social scientist, while conceding that everyone has a “perspective”, contrary to what Collins penned, I have no “agenda” in my remarks about racial persecution during the PNC dictatorship.

I wrote factually – people suffered economic, political, religious, and cultural discrimination at the hands of the PNC. This is supported by numerous researches and publications.

For example Dr Ken Danns, who wrote his PhD thesis on “Power and Domination in Guyana”, wherein he described with copious details, the discrimination against Indians in the Disciplined Forces. Did he have an agenda?

Professor Prem Misir and other scholars also documented the racism experienced by Indians and other groups during the PNC dictatorship.
The eminent Bajan novelist George Lamming and the Nobel Laureate VS Naipaul exposed and condemned the racism and ethnic persecution practiced by Burnham’s regime. Did they have an agenda?

Then there is Eusi Kwayana who wrote that the politically directed violence by the “kick down the door bandits” against Indians amounted to “ethnic genocide”. Did he have an agenda?

Actually, it is Collins who exposes his agenda in dismissing the racism and human rights violations experienced by Indians and other ethnic groups during the dictatorship. Did he not for instance hear Rabbi Washington on the radio castigating Indians in the most racial terms?
There are certain facts of history that are taken as public knowledge; no one questions their truthfulness – examples being election rigging, banning of foods, racial and political discrimination, dictatorial rule, lack of press freedom, among others.

It is shocking, therefore, that Collins would ask for “evidence” to support a known, documented and accepted fact that non-supporters of the PNC were victimised. Collins is attempting “to perfumigate” the era of PNC misrule.

However, him seeking to deride my claims, engaging in a vitriolic attack, and being downright nasty do not alter the truth about life experiences during the ethnic dictatorship.

Persecution takes many forms and is not restricted to physical, cultural and religious abuses, and such abuses should not be derided and equated with the tactic of a victorious party replacing political appointees (ethnic patronage and clientelism).
But even then when Burnham sent an all African contingent (no Portuguese, Amerindians, Chinese, Indians) in 1969 to an international expo, was that just rewarding supporters? There was no racism?

Victims describe Burnhamism, the crux of racial persecution, as “hellish”, being denied access to their cultural foods and having other aspects of their culture marginalised.

Indians and other victims complain that discrimination against them extended to every field of life, from housing to sports, to security, to music, to food, to employment, to the right to religious freedom, etc.

Can Collins peruse the scholarship lists awarded during the Burnham dictatorship? Can he explain why Indians had to practically beg the PNC for a Government to Government scholarship from India then?

It is public knowledge that Indians and other non-supporters of PNC (Portuguese, Chinese, Amerindians and others) were persecuted. Many atrocities were committed. Burnham and his apologists like Collins tried to explain that his discrimination was “political” rather than “racial”.

But as American law has taught us, racial discrimination has nothing to do with “motive” and everything to do with effects. The insidious nature of PNC racism is well documented in countless sources. Every scholarly piece on ethnicity on Guyana has endorsed this view.
For Collins to not acknowledge that Indians and others were victims of racism suggests a racist ideology.  Indians and others were victims of racial discrimination in virtually every facet of life during PNC rule; that fact was never disputed.

Has Collins looked at the data on Government spending by Burnham that essentially benefited his own supporters, whereas agriculture, for example, under the trust of feeding the nation was neglected in Indian communities?

In New York lectures, Dr Jagan and Eusi Kwayana addressed the issue of widespread racial and political discrimination and victimisation under the PNC; the PNC relentlessly persecuted those who spoke out against racism and or the dictatorship. The Internet has endless reports and commentaries on racial discrimination.

“Guyana Under Siege”, by Rakesh Rampertab is a good read on the subject. Professor Bertrand Ramcharran also wrote a few excellent pieces on racial discrimination. Proceedings from the Rodney Inquiry provided further proof of human rights abuses and racism.
Peeping Tom (January 13) exposed the racial discrimination experienced by Indians in the security forces.

There are numerous examples of racial persecution. Denying Indians and others the right to vote in Guyana was an act of racial persecution not dissimilar to the experience of blacks in minority ruled Rhodesia, apartheid South Africa and Jim Crow America.

If Indians did not experience racism, the group of Indians who hosted David Granger in Richmond Hill last July would not have asked him to apologise for the PNC’s persecution of Indians.

The banning of cultural foods and religious paraphernalia used by Hindus and Indian Muslims were acts of persecution. As an example, ghee plays a very important role in Indians’ religious practices (pooja, Koran Sharief) and rituals relating to the preparation of disposal of the dead. It could not be acquired.

Flour, raisins, split peas, channa, cardamom, black till and numerous other items that were banned are all important ingredients central to the lifestyle of Indians.

When dhal was banned, one Minister commented “only one community is objecting about banning of split peas”. What is wrong with Indians protesting about not being ableto eat their favourite dietary staple. Indians informed me they were told to go back to India to eat roti and dhal when they complained about the ban of both items.

Is that comment not inherently racist? Is that not ethnic persecution? The following excerpt from a speech of Burnham’s amply illustrates racist ideology of the comrade leader and his party. At a public meeting to PNC supporters, Burnham thundered:
“Comrades! Who mined the gold?” They responded: “We do comrade leader”. He asked: “Who has the gold?” They responded: “The Indians, comrade leader”. He implored: “Then take back your gold.”  Is that not racist?

Who invented the kick down door banditry and who were the victims? Who controlled the KSIs? Who controlled trade prior to the nationalisation thrust? And what happened to the Portuguese and Chinese when privatisation was effected?

I ask Collins, who coined the term “Putagee Mafia”? Is that not a case of scapegoating the Portuguese group? Was there ever an apology from Hoyte when he called David DeCaires a member of the Potugee Mafia?

When the a Chinese man’s daughter was raped at national service, prompting him and his extended Chinese family to migrate, was that not an act of persecution or was it merely a result that Collins says comes from a change in Government?

Collins is wrong on persecution. He needs to face hard facts. Certain racist policies are indefensible no matter how much one loves his party. The media and civil society should introspect bias against Indians, Chinese, Portuguese, Amerindians and other ethnic groups under PNC rule or under any Government.

Collins and others should not criticize for criticise sake from the sundry of their comfortable chair with nothing substantive to say.
They should conduct a survey among Portuguese, Chinese, Amerindians, Indians and others about their experience during the PNC era and reveal the results. In the meanwhile, no amount of derision from Collins or other detractors will discourage me from seeking a solution to our racial conflict and building a race free society.

Vishnu Bisram

On Saturday, APNU and AFC formally announced that they have formed a pre-electoral coalition to contest the upcoming May 11 elections. They also signed the Cummingsburg Accord which they said would see an end to winner takes all politics in Guyana, and herald the formation of a Government of national.

At the press conference, the leadership of both parties tried desperately to sell the new coalition as the only viable option of unseating the ruling the PPP/C. They insisted that together they could herald an era of constitutional reform which they argued is badly needed, healing and reconciliation, socio-economic change and creation of a new political system aimed at ending race politics.

Interestingly, the new coalition which has not yet done basic things such as choosing a name and symbol, vowed not to lock out the PPP/C from its governance structures if it wins the May elections.

It was clear from the tone of the comments made by the leaders of both parties that they have neither given any significant thought to some of the promises they have made to the Guyanese public at this infantile stage.

How does the new coalition coalition intend to address the ethnic insecurities in Guyana? How do they plan to campaign?

To add insult to injury, the media was not given a copy of the Accord which was signed so that an independent analysis could be done of its strengths and weaknesses, policies, and thrust. Recall, that these two political parties chose to negotiate in secrecy and away from the watchful eyes of their supporters and financiers.

Even after the signing of the agreement, their supporters and by extension the general public, were unaware of what concessions were given up to arriving at the deal. This in itself smacks of a lack of transparency and accountability.

It has failed to dispel the rumours that the AFC’s bargaining chip was its ability to convince East Indian Guyanese that they could trust a coalition with the PNCR and APNU given their own history.

The leadership of the two sides has also failed to remove the suspicions that the AFC promised to deliver 11 per cent or more votes from PPP/C strongholds to the coalition in return for the conferral of more powers on the Prime Ministerial post.

The Accord is not historic, and its signing is anything but a water shed moment in Guyana’s political landscape. It appears opportunistic and convenient, but not the only option of unseating the ruling Government and creating an administration of national unity.

If either of these parties wanted to form a Government of national unity, their negotiations should have been done in the public. If that was not possible, then the minutes of their meetings and the newly inked Accord should have been widely disseminated for perusal.

The PPP/C, which remains the largest and most influential political actor in the country should have been formally invited to the talks. The truth is, there can no Government of national unity or no shared governance agreement without the PPP/C, regardless of how it is viewed by other actors in the political sphere.

Edmund Burke is quoted as saying that “those who have once been intoxicated with power, and have derived any kind of emolument from it, even though but for one year, never can willingly abandon it. They may be distressed in the midst of all their power, but they will never look to anything but power for their relief”.

Sadly, following their display and posture in the 10th Parliament, the statement above appears as gospel when one considers this new Accord and the new coalition arrangement. The Cummingsburg Accord should be seen for what it is worth. It is a mere power sharing arrangement between the AFC and APNU should they get into office.

It does nothing for the people of Guyana and offers no new hope that would not have been promised by the two main parties had they decided to go to the polls alone come May 11.

Dear Editor,

“I’ve told the Cabinet, when I’m dead, demolish it.”
“Why?” the interviewer asked. The Prime Minister replied his house would cost taxpayers too much to maintain. It would become a shambles when tourist “people trudge through it”, came the reply.

Recently, Singaporeans were plunged into nationwide mourning with the passing of Prime Minister Lee Kwan Yew, 91. He ruled for five decades as a dictator. But by “a mix of semi-authoritarian, one-party rule, meticulous urban planning, laissez-faire economic policies, low taxes and selective wooing of imported foreign talent, the former British colony became a tidy, gleaming Asian metropolis”(NYT).
Whether his house survives or fulfills economic expediency is not important right now. Today, the Chinese leader’s death finds him getting a reverential send off by all citizens in nationwide grief. Singaporeans do not ask or expect any apology for his dictatorship.
Lee Kwan made Singapore and its citizens rich, industrious and ensured them a safe place for all to live.

Before independence Singapore had a GDP of about $1 billion. After Lee Kwan ruled for five decades, the GDP rose to some $300 billion! While the Chinese Lee Kwan was a similar ruler to the African Forbes Burnham, their legacies are in sharp contrast by all the abundant evidence. (My Thoughts: No mention here of the critical support by East Indian Cheddi Jagan. In my opinion, nationalization was the single most destructive policy choice in post-independence Guyana. No mention of successful Afro led countries like those in Caribbean and Botswana, places way more successful and progressive compared with Uttar Pradesh and Bihar).

Burnham’s dictatorship became a national nightmare long before his PNC was democratically removed after its three decades in power. But that party’s historic violent ownership of Guyana’s habitual destruction with its rigid sanctimonious shape shifting deflection, keeps insisting that no PNC election rigging occurred.

While the GDF seizure and murder of 1973 Berbicians election martyrs Jagan Ramessar and Bholanath Parmanand is history, it is repugnant as it is transparent, even today. An apology will serve no good purposes right now. In due time genuine remorse and the necessary reparations will suffice.
What is now more important is whether the APNU-AFC coalition can emulate and surpass Singapore’s success miracle.

Any wonder why there was more national relief even worldwide celebration at the PNC founder leader’s departure? His successor Desmond Hoyte quickly changed course but it was too little and too late.
His own state funeral became a national disgrace of worldwide shame. After Burnham’s legendary game changer PNC took over from Guyana’s booming economy vacated by Dr Cheddi Jagan’s PPP in 1964, the country quickly became bankrupt as the PNC easily destroyed the breadbasket of the Caribbean.

Guyana became a blighted country with its people in mass starvation and in rushing exodus. Whereas Guyanese only migrated for education and returned to serve, the PNC’s policy drove away citizens, frightened away investors and shackled its remaining citizens both economically and politically.
There was no freedom of the press and letters critical of the PNC, as occurs today, were not published or lost their ambience in editing. PNC corruption and their lavish public lifestyles were no confidence builders for victory against poverty.

Guyanese can elect the PNC to repeat its same disasters again in May 2015 as it did in 1964 with another similar coalition partner in its amorous bosom embrace.

With the country now rebuilt by the PPP/C since 1992, will Guyanese also risk gambling on whether the PNC’s touting of Granger as their game changer, ever cleaver, disguised and fully calibrated, is less a considered and ominous danger?

What makes him less a stranger but instead angelize him a healing messiah, reborn among the animals in a manger as best equipped to move us forward? Will Africans vote straight race loyalties unlike their Indian countrymen who are reminded race does not matter?

When Singapore mourners filed past their Prime Minister’s body they spoke in unity about him with a zeal and adoration usually reserved for sainthood candidates. “We are deeply indebted to him,” said Irene Yeo, a saleswoman who brought a bouquet of flowers.
She listed the reasons for her gratitude for Lee Qwan: “My life, my housing, my family, the good environment, the good transportation and medical care,” are all due to him she said. Vasuki Thirupathi, a Singapore Indian engineer said he sobbed uncontrollably for two minutes when he heard the news.

“He is my idol, and not a day passes without my saying it,” Mr Thirupathi emphasised. “Security, law and order, truth, honesty — all of this requires vision and boils down to leadership.”he said.

Contrast both Singapore and Guyana with their two  sharply different post independence dictators.  The Chinese have a saying: “When drinking water, always remember the source.” One dictator skyrocketed Singapore “From  the third world to the first world” (his book) with its economic successes.

The Afro Guyanese “other” destroyed his country with his unchecked ambition and incompetence. Nothing in Granger’s background nevertheless proclaims any economic expertise to continue building on the PPP/C’s current and massive economic development of today’s Guyana.

Absolutely nothing. Granger’s resume has nothing positive, just blood on his hands.
The PPP/C’s problem is not that it has failed Guyana. But its economic successes have galvanized national expectations for more accelerated dispensation. All Guyanese correctly seek to become rich and beneficiaries of the national wealth. To expect it will happen by overnight entitlement and handed on a platter is however unrealistic.
Which party is best equipped to deliver the goods is the big question at the  May elections. To expect the PNC to be less corrupt in power is foolish considering all its anticipatory salivation which abounds.

Its either Guyana becomes better than Singapore or we get an improved militarized PNC with its aged, outdated leadership desperately struggling to remain relevant and solve problems for which they are not equipped.
Can’t we get along after Rodney? If not, what are the alternatives?

Vassan Ramracha

… “worrying” – ACDA;  “unacceptable” – IAC; “hypocritical” – PPP/C

By Michael Younge

Prime Ministerial Candidate for the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR)-led A Partnership for Unity (APNU) and Alliance for Change (AFC) coalition, Moses Nagamootoo insists that  he is not Indian but rather Guyanese.
Nagamootoo while speaking at a meeting held in New York to raise funds for the Opposition coalition group ahead of the May 11 election invoked a trip he made to India to receive a prestigious award where he claimed to have first made the declaration.

Neaz Suban, IAC Chairman

He was honoured in 2008 by the Global Organisation of the People of Indian Origin (GOPIO) and presented with a community award which is generally given to “People of Indian Origin” recognised for their work among the Diaspora.

Nagamootoo insisted that that he did not see himself by being defined by his ethnicity but rather geography, explaining that he came to the conclusion after a process of introspection and searching for his identity. The organisation that was honouring him, specifically did so for his “community work as a Person of Indian Origin” and not that he was an “Indian National”. Nagamootoo accepted the award  which is mentioned on every web page established by him, or about him.
On the campaign trail in New York, Nagamootoo once again took pains to point out “I have Indianess in me because of my ancestry but I had been born in Pakistan looking the way I look then I would have been a Pakistani….I wasn’t born in India, I was born in Guyana and I am a Guyanese.”
The statement came at an awakard moment in his speech and appeared unrelated to the theme of his address which dealt with moving Guyana forward and appealing to Guyanese to forget their past which was dominated by riggings, injustices and wrongs committed by the PNC, while it was in office. Most of the members of the audience at Nerissa Place in Queens listening to Nagamootoo were Indian Guyanese.

His statements obviously caused some uneasiness among Guyanese here and abroad who interpreted his declaration as denying his ethnic identity, background and original ancestry.
But when Guyana Times contacted Nagamootoo for a clarification as to why he felt it necessary to make such a statement at the meeting in New York, he declined to comment.

Dr Eric Phillips, ACDA Executive Director

Asked too to offer clarifications on statements he made and whether he saw any potential impact on his promise to deliver Indian votes to the PNC-led APNU/AFC coalition, he declined to comment and hung up the phone.
But the Indian Arrival Committee’s Chairman Neaz Suban said it appeared that the politician was denying his ethnicity and ancestry for political reasons.
“This is unacceptable”, Suban said as he explaining that any move to deny one’s ancestry is similar to demonstrating a lack of respect, appreciation and acceptance of one’s culture.
Suban argued that Guyana is now a multiethnic society made up of six races and there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of the races promoting their cultures, traditions or identity.
“If we fail to accept that we are Indian, African, Amerindian, Portuguese or Chinese, in many ways, we are denying the diversity that makes us strong”, he reasoned while explaining that being Guyanese cannot remove genetics.

Meanwhile, Executive Member of the African Cultural Developmental Association (ACDA), Dr Eric Phillips described Nagamootoo’s statement as “intriguing”.
He said that while it is understandable that politicians while have to address the issues of race and unity as central themes on the campaign trail, there is nothing wrong with demonstrating proudness about one’s ethnicity or nationality.

He said “it would be interesting to understand the context and scope of the comments made”.

“I worry about politicians who are not comfortable with their own culture because if they are not comfortable with their own culture how can they be comfortable with somebody else’s culture. If you love your culture, you will treat it with respect and only then you will be able to entertain others cultures”, Phillips said.
Additionally, Ifraan Ali, Housing and Water Minister, when asked as to whether Moses Nagamootoo, who boasted about “spending 50 years in the PPP/C” was following some principle of the PPP/C when he said he was “not an Indian but a Guyanese” said that this was absolutely not so. “I am a young man who has also been the PPP/C practically all my life. And I must say that in no way, shape or form did Nagamootoo get such a belief from the PPP/C.

The PPP has always maintained that Guyana is a multiethnic nation – and that everyone should be proud of their culture.”

Minister Ali questioned why Nagamootoo would deny his ethnic identity in a meeting introducing the AFC’s new coalition partner, the PNC-led APNU.  “I find it very hypocritical of Nagamootoo to enter a coalition with APNU in which he pointed out his only bargaining chip was “the 11 per cent Indian-Berbician votes” he could deliver and now act as if  there is something  wrong about being “Indian”. The APNU/AFC coalition is now boasting about creating “national unity” because APNU’s predominantly African-Guyanese would be joined by Nagamootoo’s “Indians-Guyanese. So where is Nagamootoo in that “unity”??

When asked that maybe as an old Marxist, Nagamootoo rejects “ethnicity”, Minister Ali was very scoffing. “Let me tell you something comrade. As far back as 1988, on the 150th Anniversary of African Emancipation and the beginning of Indian Indentureship, Cheddi Jagan – in collaboration with the same Nagamootoo, imagine that!! – complimented Dr Walter Rodney for being a “Pan African”.

Moses Nagamootoo, PNC led-APNU/AFC Prime Ministerial Candidate

“On the question of race/ethnicity and class Dr Jagan believed as CLR James did: “The race question is subsidiary to the class question in politics… but to neglect the racial factor as merely incidental is an error only less grave than to make it fundamental.”
Min Ali continued, “And Nagamootoo isn’t even making an “error”. It’s clear he has serious issues with his identity as an “Indian Guyanese”. Maybe he’s trying to curry-favour with his new companions in APNU. But in the same year as Dr Jagan’s compliment to Rodney, the Marxist leader had  also written:
“It is short-sighted to see the “Caribbean man” only as a “black man”, and Caribbean culture as African culture. Apart from the different countries of their origin, both our black slave and Indian indenture ancestors watered the sugar cane with their blood. Through their struggles and sacrifices, they have made valuable contributions to our historical and social development.”

But he should know that all his new friends in APNU have long gone past that complex – especially the two David’s, Granger of the PNC and Hinds of the WPA.  If they can say they are proud to be “African Guyanese” why does Nagamootoo believe they don’t want him to be an “Indian Guyanese”?? Yet he wants to exploit Indian Berbician votes as such. What a hypocrite!”