Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

The main architect of the independence struggle was Cheddi Jagan

Dear Editor,

Guyana has come a long way since the attainment of political independence fifty years ago.

Our political and constitutional landscape has undergone fundamental changes from colonialism to internal self-rule and finally to one of republican status.

The main architect of our independence struggle undoubtedly was Dr Cheddi Jagan, who will go down in history as the first colonial leader to be granted a hearing at the United Nations in support of his case for independence of the then colony of British Guiana. The case presented by Dr Jagan as a petitioner at the United Nations was well received by several countries, mainly from the developing world and in particular India and the African countries, many of which at the time were also struggling for independence.

It was the international pressure exerted on Britain that was mainly responsible for the British government agreeing in principle to the convening of an independence conference in the early 1960s and a commitment to grant independence to the colony regardless of the outcome of elections which were due to be held in 1961.

However, under pressure from the USA that commitment was honoured in the breach and independence was delayed until the PPP was manipulated out of office in 1964 under what a former British Prime Minister once described as a β€œfiddled constitutional arrangement”. A new system of voting based on proportional representation was imposed which resulted in the formation of the PNC-UF coalition government.

Independence was finally granted in May 1966 under the coalition government, despite the fact that Dr Jagan blazed the trail for an independent Guyana.

I thought of highlighting these facts in our political history as we celebrate our 50th year of independence, if only to draw attention to the pivotal role played by the PPP and Dr Jagan in the independence struggle of Guyana. In a real sense, Dr Jagan could be considered as the hero of independent Guyana even though his party was denied the opportunity by Britain to take the country into independence mainly out of Cold War considerations.

Yours faithfully, Hydar Ally  

http://www.stabroeknews.com/20...ruggle-cheddi-jagan/

Replies sorted oldest to newest

ba$eman posted:

We should give both Jagan and Burnham credit for their struggles.  I find it unacceptable that both were ignored by Granger!  I have a problem in principle with that!

Granger wants to take credit for himself for helping Burnham by rigging the election. Burnham could not have accomplished anything without the army.

FM
ba$eman posted:

We should give both Jagan and Burnham credit for their struggles.  I find it unacceptable that both were ignored by Granger!  I have a problem in principle with that!

More to come as the days roll on.

Regardless of our politician views, indeed both Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham should be prominently recognized for their efforts in Guyana.

  

FM

Before CBJ and LFSB returned to Guyana, self rule was discussed by the colonials and even a commission of inquiry took presentation by noteworthy Indians and Blacks and Coloreds. Mostly Coloreds. This was back in 1934. Unfortunate for Guyana, the Second World War breakout. And the matter was shelved. Unfortunate for the diligent people of the era, two of Guyana's worst sons just land back in the country after de war. And the havoc they created for the lives of the diligent people. Dem pack dem bags and claimed British Subject status and leff Guyana, fuh good.

Dem two fools run race(race like racism) for dem own benefit. And ****ed the country good.

Din Granger said he wasn't gonna mention dem in his speech. He damn right. Suffering is associated wid dem names. Dem like blight.

I recommend Granger pay homage to Quamina. 

S
VishMahabir posted:

I think both Burnham and Jagan deserve credit for Guyana's independence. Some people will argue that both of them led Guyana in a path of destruction, Burnham more so than Jagan.

I will be the one that both men were a huge disaster for Guyana.

The fact that Burnham did more damage is a pure accident of history.  If the UF refused to enter into a coalition with him in 1964, Cheddi would have introduced his Marxist Leninism, after independence.  Like Burnham, he would have exploited the ethnic insecurities to ensure that he remained in power.

A  Cheddi led gov't from 1966 would have led to either an immediate invasion by Venezuela, and Brazil, backed by the stridently anti communism LBJ administration. 

Or if this didn't happen, out of fear of WWIII, with nuclear capabilities, then Guyana would have become a 2nd Cuba.

When the Cold War ended and the USSR abandoned Cuba, that island was able to rebuild itself to some degree based on its white sand beaches, and its rich heritage.

What would Guyana have done, having completely destroyed its private sector?

FM
Demerara_Guy posted:
ba$eman posted:

We should give both Jagan and Burnham credit for their struggles.  I find it unacceptable that both were ignored by Granger!  I have a problem in principle with that!

More to come as the days roll on.

Regardless of our politician views, indeed both Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham should be prominently recognized for their efforts in Guyana.

  

Yes.  Taking a country which was on par with Jamaica, and only behind T&T to the bottom of the pile.

In retrospect Guyanese should have supported the UF.

FM
caribny posted:
Demerara_Guy posted:
ba$eman posted:

We should give both Jagan and Burnham credit for their struggles.  I find it unacceptable that both were ignored by Granger!  I have a problem in principle with that!

More to come as the days roll on.

Regardless of our politician views, indeed both Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham should be prominently recognized for their efforts in Guyana.

  

Yes.  Taking a country which was on par with Jamaica, and only behind T&T to the bottom of the pile.

In retrospect Guyanese should have supported the UF.

Done by Forbes Burnham and Desmond Hoyte under the PNC rule from 1964 to 1992.

FM
caribny posted:
Demerara_Guy posted:

Done by Forbes Burnham and Desmond Hoyte under the PNC rule from 1964 to 1992.

I know that you are upset that Hoyte's reforms and the end of the Cold War preventing Janet from building her communist paradise, shaped right out of the Soviet politburo.

You know squat and spout nonsense, as usual.

FM
Demerara_Guy posted:
caribny posted:
Demerara_Guy posted:

Done by Forbes Burnham and Desmond Hoyte under the PNC rule from 1964 to 1992.

I know that you are upset that Hoyte's reforms and the end of the Cold War preventing Janet from building her communist paradise, shaped right out of the Soviet politburo.

You know squat and spout nonsense, as usual.

yes, like when I laughed at your predictions of a 60% PPP victory in 2011, and 54% in 2015.

Will never let you forget that.

FM
caribny posted:
Demerara_Guy posted:
caribny posted:
Demerara_Guy posted:

Done by Forbes Burnham and Desmond Hoyte under the PNC rule from 1964 to 1992.

I know that you are upset that Hoyte's reforms and the end of the Cold War preventing Janet from building her communist paradise, shaped right out of the Soviet politburo.

You know squat and spout nonsense, as usual.

yes, like when I laughed at your predictions of a 60% PPP victory in 2011, and 54% in 2015.

Will never let you forget that.

Staying within the focus of a topic/discussion is a major challenge for you.

FM
Demerara_Guy posted:
caribny posted:
 

yes, like when I laughed at your predictions of a 60% PPP victory in 2011, and 54% in 2015.

Will never let you forget that.

Staying within the focus of a topic/discussion is a major challenge for you.

Of course I expect that response, given that you never recovered from the shame of being so wrong TWICE.

Yes I remember the excuse in 2011, was the life was so good under the PPP, so people took it for granted, so didn't vote.  And yet again 4 years later 50%+ voted AGAINST the PPP.  Must be something going on there.

FM
caribny posted:
Demerara_Guy posted:
caribny posted:

yes, like when I laughed at your predictions of a 60% PPP victory in 2011, and 54% in 2015.

Will never let you forget that.

Staying within the focus of a topic/discussion is a major challenge for you.

Of course I expect that response, given that you never recovered from the shame of being so wrong TWICE.

Yes I remember the excuse in 2011, was the life was so good under the PPP, so people took it for granted, so didn't vote.  And yet again 4 years later 50%+ voted AGAINST the PPP.  Must be something going on there.

Always apt for your focus on unrelated issues to a topic.

FM
Last edited by Former Member
Demerara_Guy posted:
caribny posted:
Demerara_Guy posted:
caribny posted:

yes, like when I laughed at your predictions of a 60% PPP victory in 2011, and 54% in 2015.

Will never let you forget that.

Staying within the focus of a topic/discussion is a major challenge for you.

Of course I expect that response, given that you never recovered from the shame of being so wrong TWICE.

Yes I remember the excuse in 2011, was the life was so good under the PPP, so people took it for granted, so didn't vote.  And yet again 4 years later 50%+ voted AGAINST the PPP.  Must be something going on there.

Always apt for your focus on unrelated issues to a topic.

OK DG.  If that helps you forget the embarrassments of 2011 and 2015.

FM

Add Reply

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