Skip to main content

February 25, 2016 Source

Dear Editor,

The Walter Rodney CoI confirmed more than our suspicions about Rodney’s assassination and the intellectual authors behind the plot. A similar CoI, perhaps in the form of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, with a general overview of post-independence history, would put a lot of political rumours to rest. The general discourse in the media, however, tends to avoid focus on Cheddi Jagan, though it can be argued that Jagan’s legacy contributed enormously to our current politically dysfunctional society.


Cheddi Jagan’s political survival was due to a unique relationship he cultivated with Guyanese, particularly Indians. The unfortunate reality is that an older generation of Indians refuses to acknowledge his shortcomings. A central reason for this stubbornness has been the lack of a repository of experiences from which to draw inspiration, as well as the absence of serious sustained challenges to Jagan’s leadership from within or outside the PPP. Both of these situations created an organization that claimed, overtly or covertly, to be the sole representative of Indians.

The PPP leadership got a free ride. There was no Indian ‘Walter Rodney’ to expose the fallacies of the Jagan legacy, even when the party was at its weakest between 1964 and 1992.As a charismatic leader, the emotional bond Indians shared with Cheddi was unbreakable. They could not accept Jagan’s 28 years of exclusion and disappearance into the political wilderness and being out manoeuvered by Burnham’s pragmatism as reflections of a failed politician. His sacrifice was equated with fortitude, one to be imitated, as party cadres foolishly mimicked Cuban revolutionaries, knowing that Jagan had abandoned revolutionary tactics as a means of political struggle.


A number of deep contradictions shaped Jagan’s political career, all lost to Indians who were smothered by his charismatic appeal.
One, during the 50 years of his political career, from 1947 to his untimely death in 1997, Jagan remained a very naÏve politician, stuck in Cold War politics. Though communism brought consistency to his alien ideology, it did not provide him with a well-grounded understanding of the nuances and complexities of Guyanese society. Stephen Rabe noted that while declaring himself to be a “left-wing socialist,” Jagan developed a “lifelong habit of speaking of the cuff”, a practice that regularly baffled both his friends and enemies.


Second, the Marxist ideological litmus test led Cheddi to weed out potential and strategic supporters within its leadership core. The result was an open window for opportunistic newcomers and a closing of the door to intellectual elements from within and outside the party. This trend had devastating consequences on the once multi-racial mass-based organization. It delivered the party into the hands of an uneducated and inept lumpen/rural managerial class. Jagan’s ideological test created additional problems within the early PPP. For example, Colin Palmer, in his study of Jagan, argued that while Jagan was “naÏve” and “indecisive”, he accepted Governor Grey’s characterization of Boysie Ram Karran (Minister of Communications and Treasurer of the PPP) as a person “utterly devoted to Jagan,” who doubtfully shared “any ideology”; Fenton Ramsahoye (Jagan’s Attorney General) was seen as an opportunist, with “no deep convictions”; and R B Gajraj, a businessman, former mayor of Georgetown and a nominated member of the Legislative Council, was motivated by “a desire for personal reward”.


Third, despite its working-class rhetoric, the PPP’s dominant strategy for governing Guyana was based on its fortunate ability to win elections. Jagan knew, from the time he fought for universal adult suffrage, that the Indian majority and a divided politics was the party’s political ace. Coalition politics or power-sharing were given lip service, never taken seriously. Today, the PPP, based on changing racial configuration, cannot win a free and fair election by relying solely on its traditional support base. Yet, the party continues to hold out a false promise to its supporters that it can win an election.


Political emancipation for supporters of the PPP will come when the rank and file begin to deconstruct Jagan’s legacy and reassess support for the current leadership.
Yours faithfully,
Baytoram Ramharack

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Cheddie Jagan will forever be the father of the nation. He sacrifice his livelihood for the betterment of all Guyanese. Today Guyanese is enjoying the sacrifice he made.  

If anyone  has a problem with his leadership  ... Firstly show us the sacrifice and contributions you make for Guyana . 

It easy to criticize 

Long Live Cheddie Legacy... long live the PPP. 

 

FM

I appreciate Bayto's thoughts on Dr Jagan's political career. Indeed, there is need for a clinical and unemotional assessment of Jagan's 50-year contribution to Guyana's political evolution. That is what history is about. No matter how uncomfortable or unpalatable, the public actions of politicians and statesmen cannot be covered perennially under a rug. 

The first thing that must be acknowledged is that Cheddi Jagan was not a perfect politician. He made mistakes, and mammoth mistakes too. I say this with brutal frankness, as a card-carrying member of the PPP from 1969 to 1992. During that period of my political activism, many Indians told me that Dr Jagan's "communism" was in contradiction to Hinduism and Islam and the individualistic Indian culture generally. 

In his 2-volume book THE INDELIBLE RED STAIN Dr Mohan Ragbeer details how, in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s prominent Indians cautioned, cajoled and warned Jagan to abandon "communism".Those men included the respected Dr Jung Bahadur Singh and businessman Tulla Hardeen who was a regular financier of the PPP up to his death in 1960. 

In retrospect, I can say that those men have been vindicated. There is no doubt that Britain would have granted independence to Guyana before 1966 if Cheddi Jagan did not stubbornly stick to Marxism-Leninism and loyalty to the former Soviet bloc. The Soviet Union and its East European satellites collapsed while Jagan was Leader of the Opposition, and only then did the powerful ABC countries agree to restore him to power. Decades were lost but better late than never.

FM
ian posted:

Cheddie Jagan will forever be the father of the nation. He sacrifice his livelihood for the betterment of all Guyanese. Today Guyanese is enjoying the sacrifice he made.  

If anyone  has a problem with his leadership  ... Firstly show us the sacrifice and contributions you make for Guyana . 

It easy to criticize 

Long Live Cheddie Legacy... long live the PPP. 

 

"He sacrifice his livelihood for the betterment of all Guyanese."

What sacrifice??? his political ideology gave us Burnham.

"Today Guyanese is enjoying the sacrifice he made."

You are correct..he caused mass exodus,blessing in disguise the people saw what was coming and so they migrate by the thousands to every country where they got an opportunity to reside.

Django
Last edited by Django

He CAN say what he wants, it is a FREE Country.   NOW THE FACTS, THE FATHER OF OUR NATION THE LATE, GREAT DR CHEDDI BERET JAGAN WAS THE ONLY TRUE LEADER OF GUYANA.  A MAN THAT WAS MORE CONCERNED WITH THE WELFARE OF THE GUYANESE PEOPLE RATHER THAN HIS TITLE AND BANK ACCOUNT. HE RESPECTED HUMAN RIGHTS, FOUGHT TIRELESSLY FOR THE POOR, WAS A VISIONARY AND FOUGHT FOR WHAT IS RIGHT. HIS FIGHT FOR A BETTER GUYANA ON PRINCIPLE CAUSE THE BRITISH AND AMERICANS TO COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST HIM AND THE GUYANESE PEOPLE!!!!

Nehru
Last edited by Nehru
Django posted:
ian posted:

Cheddie Jagan will forever be the father of the nation. He sacrifice his livelihood for the betterment of all Guyanese. Today Guyanese is enjoying the sacrifice he made.  

If anyone  has a problem with his leadership  ... Firstly show us the sacrifice and contributions you make for Guyana . 

It easy to criticize 

Long Live Cheddie Legacy... long live the PPP. 

 

"He sacrifice his livelihood for the betterment of all Guyanese."

What sacrifice??? his political ideology gave us Burnham.

"Today Guyanese is enjoying the sacrifice he made."

You are correct..he caused mass exodus,blessing in disguise the people saw what was coming and so they migrate by the thousands to every country where they got an opportunity to reside.

This pure putrid hogwash. "Engage brain before opening mouth". You don't have the slightest idea what you wrote here. It was Forbes Burnham era that the mass migration started. Maybe you are too immature to accept this. The only good thing Burnham did for us was to show us that racism and crime pay, nepotism is alive and well..kick down door, arrest innocent coolies etc.

FM
skeldon_man posted:
Django posted:
ian posted:

Cheddie Jagan will forever be the father of the nation. He sacrifice his livelihood for the betterment of all Guyanese. Today Guyanese is enjoying the sacrifice he made.  

If anyone  has a problem with his leadership  ... Firstly show us the sacrifice and contributions you make for Guyana . 

It easy to criticize 

Long Live Cheddie Legacy... long live the PPP. 

 

"He sacrifice his livelihood for the betterment of all Guyanese."

What sacrifice??? his political ideology gave us Burnham.

"Today Guyanese is enjoying the sacrifice he made."

You are correct..he caused mass exodus,blessing in disguise the people saw what was coming and so they migrate by the thousands to every country where they got an opportunity to reside.

This pure putrid hogwash. "Engage brain before opening mouth". You don't have the slightest idea what you wrote here. It was Forbes Burnham era that the mass migration started. Maybe you are too immature to accept this. The only good thing Burnham did for us was to show us that racism and crime pay, nepotism is alive and well..kick down door, arrest innocent coolies etc.

You want to change history,Jagan ideology caused Burnham to be selected hence mass migration,any way no crying on spilt milk.

Django
Billy Ram Balgobin posted:

Ideology certainly caused CBJ to lose power.  Do you think we should put the blame on ideology for the mistrust and hate that exist between the two main ethnic groups?

Billy,i am sure you are aware of the year and what caused the ethnic strife from then on the distrust strengthened.

Django
Last edited by Django
baseman posted:
Mitwah posted:

Because of Cheddi's socialism and communism ideology, many Indians moved out.

Nah, it was PNC Apartheid and [racist] subjugation, murder, robbery (sanctioned and not) and the [mass] annexation of Indian rights and resources to the advantage of a sub-par performing segment!!

Jagan never even implemented any of the policies he touted as he was out of power!  When he got in in 1992, things had changed!!

His talk did cause wealthy Indians to panick.

Mitwah
Mitwah posted:
baseman posted:
Mitwah posted:

Because of Cheddi's socialism and communism ideology, many Indians moved out.

Nah, it was PNC Apartheid and [racist] subjugation, murder, robbery (sanctioned and not) and the [mass] annexation of Indian rights and resources to the advantage of a sub-par performing segment!!

Jagan never even implemented any of the policies he touted as he was out of power!  When he got in in 1992, things had changed!!

His talk did cause wealthy Indians to panick.

The declassified documents said a lot what occurred during that period.

Django
baseman posted:
Mitwah posted:
baseman posted:
Mitwah posted:

Because of Cheddi's socialism and communism ideology, many Indians moved out.

Nah, it was PNC Apartheid and [racist] subjugation, murder, robbery (sanctioned and not) and the [mass] annexation of Indian rights and resources to the advantage of a sub-par performing segment!!

Jagan never even implemented any of the policies he touted as he was out of power!  When he got in in 1992, things had changed!!

His talk did cause wealthy Indians to panick.

The masses of Indians driven out of Guyana were ordinary working class.  CBJ did not cause any panic among them.  Many wealthy Indians remain there to this day!!  It was Putagee wealthy who panicked and bolted!!

Aaright, bury yuh head in de sand.

Mitwah

Interview with Cheddi Jagan

NACLA Report on the Americas, May/June 1997

Cheddi Jagan, the President of Guyana, died of a massive heart attack on March 5, 1997. A committed Marxist, he was one of the founders of the independent state of Guyana and a leader of the anticolonial struggle of the former British colony, British Guiana. He was elected three times to lead the Guyanese, and was twice overthrown, first by British colonial troops in 1953 and then by a U.S. and British-backed coup in 1964. He was elected again in 1992 and remained in office until his death this year. He was interviewed in his office in Georgetown just a month before he died by Fred Rosen and Mario Murillo via radio hookup from the studios of WBAI in New York.

Dr. Jagan, you've been referred to in the U.S. press as an unabashed Stalinist and a Moscow-inspired purist, and on the other hand you've been referred to as a former Marxist who has seen the light and is now a converted practitioner of freemarket economics. How would you describe your political and economic evolution over the past 30 years?

Well, I have always associated myself with the ideology of the working class, and I have led a very strong working class party for the past 47 years. Different people see and call working-class ideology by different names. But what was important were the concrete historical conditions in Guyana and the creation of a programmatic platform which caters to the needs of the working class. In many ways we were different from the mold in which many people placed us, especially the far right during the period of intense political and ideological struggles. Marxism for me neither was or is dogma, but a scientific guide to action. It gave me strong ethical beliefs in social justice, particularly in helping the poor, the underprivileged, and the exploited.

I grew up in a sugar plantation. Sugar was king. As a matter of fact, it was the gunning down of sugar workers in 1948 which propelled me into the anti-fascist struggle for national and social liberation, and in particular the anti-colonial struggle for an end to foreign domination. We struggled in British Guiana for the right to vote, and later to raise living standards and to try to transform the colonial economy where we were just producers of raw materials, sending things abroad and getting very little in return. Today I would say that it's fashionable to talk about the collapse of Marxism and socialism, yet it is not Marxism that has collapsed, but some of its practitioners. There is a great distinction between theory and principles on one hand, and practice on the other. Our practice developed differently in a concrete and different historical context than say in Russia, Cuba, or China.

And as we know, many mistakes were made due to the wholesale adoption in developing countries of the programmatic position taken in Britain by the British Labor Party. Many developing countries saw their advance to socialism in the rulebook of the British Labor Party, the public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. That was in a developed economy. But because many colonial peoples, especially in the British empire, looked at the British experience and had links to the social democratic movement of the Labor party in England, our practice was more or less taken from theirs. In this regard, I think we made mistakes. We were not creative enough in adopting programs which were in keeping with our own concrete condition. Our concept of Guyana Socialism was premised on plural, peaceful, multi-party states with mixed forms of ownership. This was misunderstood at the height of the cold war hysteria.

Given the state of inequality in the world today where there is a greater percentage of poor people than ever before, do you see some form of socialism still on the agenda in Guyana?

Well, I would say that socialism has suffered a setback with the collapse of the world's socialist systems. However, there are experiments going on in different parts of the world, in Cuba, in China, and the struggle is being waged now in Russia between those who still want some form of socialism, and those who want Russia to pursue a capitalist course. So that struggle is going to continue. I would say that the contradictions now are sharpening between Marxism and the neoliberal model which is currently being dictated by the West. This is not the most important struggle that we have going on now. The most important struggle is to seek a balance of interests in this period of globalization and liberalization on one hand, and the specific interests of the developing countries which will continue to be marginalized if we do not collectively seek a new global order. Let me just say that socialism is not on the agenda in Guyana. We can speak of a period of national democracy.

How has the clash between the neoliberal model and socialism had an impact on Guyana?

We have inherited IMF and World Bank programs that were implemented by the last government. In this regard we are trying to move very carefully because we need balance-of-payment support of $40-45 million a year from the World Bank, IMF and the developed countries. So we see that there are many contradictions in the model that is advocated by the World Bank and the IMF, contradictions that do not solve our problems.

At our Congress two years ago, we said that we had to walk carefully, skillfully, and scientifically between conformism and transformation. To go along completely with the IMF and World Bank is going to lead to the death of many countries, as we have seen. As a matter of fact, politicians who follow that model lose when it comes time for the people to vote, they are thrown out.

In this careful walk between this Washington Consensus and a genuine Latin American agenda, with which you identify, where do you fit in the idea of privatization and low wages to attract foreign investors? How do you feel about these things in Guyana?

Under the last governments, we have experienced privatization along with the devaluation of our currency. A lot of those deals have proven to be a failure. We are examining everything very carefully and not accepting it as the one and only model. We are now talking about privatization of the electric company. And we have said that we don't want a model where foreign companies will hold a majority of the shares, and therefore control of the management and the board.

How would you characterize ethnic relations in Guyana and how do they relate to the political parties and the general political process?

This has a long history in Guyana, before we entered politics in the 1940's. Long before Mr. Mandela came up with the formula of bringing the opposition in, we had made several attempts to bring about unity in our country. In 1957 we failed [to create a political coalition between East Indians and Afro-Guyanese]. In 1964 we won and I tried again. I went to the UN in support of Afro-Asian states to work out the formula, but then the foreign governments were working with [cuop-leader] Mr. Burnham to put him in power. As the opposition for 28 years, we again tried to bring about some unity but we failed. In 1977, we came out with a slogan and a policy formulation called winner will not take all even if we win the election. We alone will not form the government. So, it is still the policy to bring about unity along ethnic and religious lines in Guyana.

We have signed the optional protocol to the UN on several non-political rights.

The last government did not sign this protocol. We signed it, and now anyone is entitled to go to the UN with any discrimination case they may have. We also have a taskforce for racial equality, headed by a very distinguished bishop of the Anglican church. He is a respected individual and his task force has produced a White Paper which will be presented to Parliament very shortly. And might I say that the opposition party has refused to serve on the task force because they hate Bishop George because he has fought for fair and free elections in this country.

When that White Paper is debated in the Parliament, we hope to get a law on racial equality. Then we will have a commission on racial equality. We hope that then cases can be brought, not to the UN or some other international body like the OAS, but can be dealt with here, by the Commission.

People have always said the racial factor is the only political factor here. That is not true. If that were true, we would not have won a majority of the votes in Guyana, over 50%. Indians are just above 50% of the population, and not all of them vote for us. In the 1992 elections, there were many irregularities. In spite of that, we won 54% of the votes. Given the peace in the country, I am sure we will break that gap again, as we did in 1993. In fact, when I was sworn in in 1992, I said that we would make a new beginning, start where we had left off and bring about what we call the spirit of 1953 which is about national unity, working class unity, and racial unity.

You have referred to Cold War hysteria in the United States and the developments that led to your ouster. How do you view the relationship between the United States and Guyana today?

Our relations are very good with the U.S. and we are working to achieve a partnership with the North and the South of the world, particularly with the U.S., Latin America, and the Caribbean. I have praised the U.S.; the past is the past. The Cold War was a historical process that was going on at that time, and we became the victims. I have no recriminations against the U.S. and Britain even though they have helped to destabilize my governement on two occasions.

Many have stated that the new method of U.S. intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean is the war on drugs, and many countries have approved the hot pursuit of narcotics traffickers on their territory. It has also been stated that if Guyana had been in opposition to that, there would be less of a threat to sovereignty. What's your reaction to that and the role that the United States is playing in the so-called war on drugs?

We haven't gone on completely, like some countries who have allowed American agencies to come into their territory. We have allowed them one thing only, and that is to allow them airline passage over our territory, but we have to be constantly informed when that is happening. We have taken the line all along in COMICON, and throughout the hemisphere, that we have to act together. In Bolivia, I stated that we must look at what is causing environmental destruction, underdevelopment and poverty. When I came to the emergency meeting held by COMICON about the narcotics question, and the U.S. way of dealing with it, we took the line that we must not only deal with the symptoms, which are narcotics trafficking, and narcotics production, we must also deal with development.

In my country we have two big regions: one in the northwest near Venezuela, and one in the south near Brazil. People living in these areas produced peanuts, quality peanuts. But we cannot compete against peanuts coming into the country. Right now the banana producers in the Caribbean, especially in the Windward and Leeward Islands, cannot compete on the open market, and they are getting a special price in Europe, and America and Chiquita is backing that price. A statement by the former Prime Minister of Dominica makes it clear that if the banana goes-and their income depends nearly 70% upon bananas-then the people will be force d to grow marijuana. In a letter to the World Bank president, I reiterated that statement. Not only will the people be forced to grow marijuana, but they will become refugees to the North. If they cannot get visas to go, they will go illegally. We have to therefore not just treat the symptom, but treat the root cause.

When I was in the government in the 1950's, there was no marijuana grown here.

But under the last government 60% of the land which was under rice cultivation was abandoned, and the people started growing marijuana. And if we cannot sell our peanuts from these two regions then what are the people to do?

Especially when there is a demand in the North for either marijuana, or cocaine, or heroin. Right? And therefore you have the people of Latin America growing coca leaves, producing coca plants, and the big drug lords transforming that into cocaine and sending it to the north. We have to get to the root problem of development, and overcoming poverty. That's my message

FM

THE JAGAN-KENNEDY MEETING - From Odeen's History of Guyana

As part of the Government’s attempt to speed up the country’s economic development, Dr. Jagan visited Canada and the United States in October 1961. He held discussions with officials of the governments of both countries and impressed on them the importance of their economic support for Guyana’s development programme.

In Washington, some American political leaders were already describing Dr. Jagan as a communist, and they were worried that even though he was the most popular Guyanese leader he would not follow the democratic path. As such, the US administration had already implemented plans to undermine the PPP Government, even though the British Government had insisted that Dr. Jagan was a more responsible leader than Forbes Burnham. The British had communicated their feelings to the Americans at the highest level, explaining that both governments should give Dr. Jagan economic support to prevent him from making approaches for support from the communist bloc.

Dr. Jagan arrived in Washington on late October 1961. He appeared on the popular “Meet the Press” television programme, and because he made no critical remarks of the Soviet Union, the Kennedy administration immediately felt less enthusiastic towards providing any economic assistance to him. President Kennedy, who watched part of the “Meet the Press” show, told his advisers that he would make no commitment until he met with Dr. Jagan.

That meeting between President Kennedy and Dr. Jagan took place at the White House on the 25 October. At this meeting, Kennedy was accompanied by his special assistant Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and George Ball, the Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs at the State Department. Dr. Jagan outlined the economic issues affecting Guyana and explained that as a socialist he believed that state planning would be most instrumental in overcoming the economic and developmental problems facing the country. Kennedy replied that the United States was not interested in forcing private enterprise in countries where it was not relevant. He added that the primary purpose of American aid was to support national independence and to encourage individual and political freedoms. For the United States, he said, it was important for a country to maintain its national independence. “So long as you do that, we don’t care whether you are socialist, capitalist, pragmatist or whatever,” Kennedy declared. “We regard ourselves as pragmatists.”

The two leaders then discussed the issue of nationalisation. Kennedy said that the US had no problem with this but would expect compensation to be given. A lively exchange on Dr. Jagan’s political ideas followed, and the Guyanese premier spoke of his commitment to parliamentary democracy. Kennedy said that the United States would be supportive of genuine non-alignment, but would be opposed to a total commitment by Guyana to the communist bloc. He then questioned Dr. Jagan about his views regarding relations with that group. The Guyanese leader retorted by asking him if the US would view a trade agreement between Guyana and the USSR as an unfriendly act. Kennedy responded by saying that it would be a matter of concern if such an agreement compromised the economic independence of the (weaker) country.

In terms of aid to Guyana, Kennedy did not raise any discussion as to specific amounts, leaving that matter to be dealt with by Schlesinger, Ball and other officials at follow-up meetings.

In preliminary meetings with US officials, before meeting with the President, Dr. Jagan had requested US$40 million in aid. This amount, the Americans felt, was out of proportion for such a small country as Guyana, and especially since Latin American countries with larger populations and more politically friendly to the US were also competing for American economic assistance. The Americans, after the discussions with the President, decided finally not to give any specific commitment to Dr. Jagan and told him that they would have to examine the relative merits of each project.

Dr. Jagan was clearly disappointed over this development and requested another meeting with Kennedy. However, Kennedy did not agree to this, but he instructed Schlesinger to meet with Dr. Jagan, especially since the British Government was concerned that the Guyanese Premier should not return home disappointed. Kennedy suggested to Schlesinger that a satisfactory statement could be drawn up which did not commit the United States to any immediate dispensation of funds. Kennedy himself was convinced that Dr. Jagan would cease being a parliamentary democrat. He told Schlesinger, “I have a feeling that in a couple of years he will find ways to suspend his constitutional provisions and will cut his opposition off at the knees. . . . With all political jockeying and all the racial tensions, it’s going to be almost impossible for Jagan to concentrate the energies of his country on development through a parliamentary system.”

On the 26 October at the Dupont Plaza Hotel in Washington, Schlesinger met with Dr. Jagan who expressed disappointment that the United States was not prepared to announce an immediate commitment to Guyana’s development program. But he was satisfied that the US side was willing to work out a joint statement on the meetings. This document, finalised on the following day, stated that the United States “looked forward to closer association between a free and democratic British Guiana and the nations and organisations of the Hemisphere.” It committed Dr. Jagan “to uphold the political freedoms and defend the parliamentary democracy which is his country’s political heritage” and indicated that the United States would send a mission to Guyana to examine what forms of economic assistance could be provided for the development programme

FM

The current issue in Guyana is the Rodney COI and how some people wants to have it acknowledged while others wants it dismissed. Bayto should be focusing his energy on that issue. Why jump pass the current issue to another which he basically acknowledged is political rumors? Looks like he is seeking to divert attention.

FM
ksazma posted:

The current issue in Guyana is the Rodney COI and how some people wants to have it acknowledged while others wants it dismissed. Bayto should be focusing his energy on that issue. Why jump pass the current issue to another which he basically acknowledged is political rumors? Looks like he is seeking to divert attention.

Bayto correct hai. There are PNC inconvenient truths and PPP inconvenient truths. Let's deal with them all and move forward. 

FM

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×