CaribbeanHindu.net - Non-Profit Educational Resource Center
Shri Balram Singh Rai
Lawyer; Hindu leader; social worker;
fearless political leader who stood up for Indian rights
Born: February 8, 1921 in
Beterverwagting Village, East Coast Demerara, Guyana.
Page contents (Please scroll down):
(1) Balram Singh Rai of Guyana - Dr. Baytoram Ramharrack
(2) Mr. Rai was part of the influx of Indians who joined the PPP after the split
- Dr. Baytoram Ramharrack
■ 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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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 for Indians in that they would not have a
legitimate representative in government to protect their interests. Two
positions he identified as significant and for which he felt the JP would
bargain were the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture. He
had already served in the position of Home Affairs and understood the need for
the disciplined forces to reflect
the makeup of the community and had initiated policies to that effect. Burnham
certainly understood the power and politics of the army and police when he
proceeded to make both institutions subservient to his dictatorship. In the case
of agriculture, most Indians were rural based and a significant part of the
Indian population earned a living in the agricultural sector. Sound agricultural
policies, he argued, would be beneficial to the Indians who were employed in
this sector. To support his argument that “no Party can win an absolute
majority” and that “the PPP will be left out of the Government,” Rai
pointed to the registration figures for eligible voters. The figures showed that
Indians were outnumbered by others by 23-25,000, enough to give the combined
forces of the opposition a majority over PPP supporters [1964 JP Manifesto].
The
1964 elections were fought amidst sporadic, but widespread ethnic violence
throughout the country. The parties contesting and the results included the
following: PPP (109,332), PNC (96,567), UF (26,612), GUMP (1,194), JP (1,334),
PEP (224), and NLF (177). The main contestants were the PPP, PNC and UF. The UF
was made up primarily of the Portuguese, Chinese and Indian business community
who were opposed to Jagan’s and the PPP’s communism. The UF had in fact been
supported by many Indians who were uneasy with Jagan’s communist rhetoric.
Paul O’Hara noted that “before the party [UF] was formed in 1961, many
Indian businessmen approached D’Aguiar and asked him to form a party to
represent their interests and oppose the PPP. D’Aguiar asked them to get 14
Indian businessmen who were willing to join with him. Mr. Kemal Majeed, managing
director of Abdool Majeed and Sons was one of them who encouraged D'Aguiar to
run” [Interview] The list of candidates for the UF included 18 Indians, 18
Africans, 9 mixed, 3 Portuguese, 3 Amerindians and 2 Chinese. According to Jagan,
“…prominent Indians like Balwant Singh, Richard Ishmael, Hoosein Ganie also
came out against us. And so did Abdool Majeed, wealthy Indian merchant who was
then president of the United Sad’r Islamic Anjuman, and the chairman of the
United Force in 1961 and 1962” (Jagan, 1980:304). Among those who supported
the UF were wealthy rice farmers, including Mohammed Kasim, R.N. Singh, F.
Singh, Shiv Gangadeen, H. Prashad, Sardar Singh and Roopnarayan Singh. The PPP
secured 24 seats with 45.8% of the popular votes, the PNC gained 22 seats with
40.5% of the votes, and the UF secured 7 seats with 12.4% of the votes. With
proportional representation being the guiding the principle under which the
election was fought, the PNC and UF, with a combined total of 52.9% of the votes
and 29 seats, were able to form a coalition government.
The role of the JP, which secured no seats, deserves
attention, particularly with a view towards the inherent contradictions within
the PPP and its leadership, as well as the lessons for ethnic politics. The JP
fought a vigorous campaign. During the campaign the PPP made several charges
against Rai and the Justice Party, which are worth repeating below:
a.
The JP was formed to “split the Indian vote”, thereby threatening to
keep the PPP, and Indians, out of Government.
b.
The JP was actually working in collusion with the PNC and the opposition
to depose the PPP.
c.
Rai was an agent of the United States and the CIA.
d.
Rai was promoting racism and racial hatred.
The
campaign strategy of the PPP during this election was repeated at future
elections, particularly with regards to Indian-based political parties. The fact
that the Indian votes were not “split” nor the fact that the PPP did not
deny its Russian links did not prevent Indians from supporting the PPP. Its
fixation on the JP was unjustified.
To
the extent that Indians and Africans would have voted racially with little
crossover votes was confirmed by the election results. Rai understood the racial
dynamics in Guyanese society and he fully acknowledged that both the PNC and PPP
were representing racial factions, except that the PPP continued to deny its
Indian support base. His central goal, as stated in his 1964 manifesto, was to
secure enough votes to enable the JP to negotiate and become part of the
coalition, thereby representing the interests of Indians. He argued that the PPP
was not the multiracial party that it once was and that the political equation
has transformed itself since the early 1950s. He was inclined towards a more
honest and realistic politics of which the Guyanese people were not yet ready.
It was clear that the PPP was never going to regain the African support it lost
when the party split and most Africans followed Burnham. According to him,
“the policy of using what is termed ‘show Negroes’ in the USA in the
persons of Benn, Wilson, Nunes, Bowman, Mann, Downer, and Robertson has failed
to secure any political support from the African section of the community” for
the PPP (Chronicle, December 17, 1962). Rai had made it clear in his
manifesto that the JP was going to pursue policies based on proportional
representation within the electoral system, the Police Force, the Army, the
Civil Service and other Government services so as to provide “fair
representation for all the races in the colony” [1964 JP Manifesto].
Rai
understood very clearly, given the plural nature of Guyanese society, that all
Guyanese cannot be pigeonholed into becoming a member of
the oppressed “working class,” or
the privileged “ruling class” as the Marxist Cheddi Jagan saw it. The
presence of different ethnic communities and the cultural ties that bind members
of those communities together created boundaries that defined the nature of
interethnic relations in Guyanese society. He expressed this belief during his
radio broadcast on October 18, 1959 in recognition of British Guiana History and
Culture Week when he noted that “We are not yet a nation and we have no
national history in the strict sense of that term…I am more interested in the
history of peoples, their social organization, customs and institutions, their
economic and political emancipation, their cultural integration and the spread
of their civilizations. In this way we learn of the aspirations, the struggles
and achievements of men and women in society rather than with the wars and
conquests and other activities of a personified nation-state… .”
Nevertheless, with a eye towards independence in the near future, he did not
hesitate to point out that nation-building entails the establishment of common
goals and citizenship in a sovereign state.
Many
Africans and Indians considered Rai a social and political reformer. It is
unfortunate though that some members of the PPP have labeled Rai as a
"racist" and continue to deny any major role he played in that party's
history, largely because it was ideologically and politically correct for the
PPP to do so. The fact remains that there are still many unanswered questions
regarding the pre-independence period and the role of some of the leading
political leaders. Pieces of the puzzle are missing, and the entire picture
cannot be captured in totality by an inadequate and uncritical examination of
the available sources and archival records. Clearly, such answers are not
forthcoming through an assessment of information from PPP sources alone. A
closer analysis of Rai’s political contribution and role in the
pre-independence period may not provide answers to all the questions of that
period. There is no question, however, that Balram Singh Rai had a tremendous
impact on the Guyanese population. Many Indians continue to react emotionally to
the mention of his name and will argue that his ideas are relevant to the
political reality of Guyana today, particularly his role in balancing the police
force and as a person who exemplified strong political leadership.
Rai’
s political involvement spanned an important period in the history of the
political development of Guyana. His actions during his ministerial tenure
reflected a genuine concern for the collective good of all members of society.
The formation of the Justice Party, was a direct challenge to the PPP to provide
legitimate representation of the interests of Indians, though without prejudice
to Africans. Clearly, Rai was aware of the implications of racial and ethnic
political mobilization in Guyanese politics and opposed the drift towards
socialism as an alternative vision for the development of an independent Guyana.
In some ways, the continued political instability in Guyana, and more
specifically, the problems facing Indians are linked to the failure of political
leaders to capitalize on Rai’s legacy.
Editor’s
Note:
This
article is extracted from a forthcoming book on Balram Singh Rai.
Ali,
E. 1997. The Rise of the Phoenix in
Guyana’s Turbulent Politics. USA: The author.
Brathwaite,
Edward. 1971. The Development of Creole Society in Jamaica. London: Clarendon.
Burrowes,
Reynold A. 1984. The Wild Coast. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman.
Danns,
G. K. 1982. Domination and Power in Guyana: A Study of the Police in a Third World
Context. New Brunswick: Transaction.
Despres,
L. 1967. Cultural Pluralism and Nationalist Politics in British Guiana. Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Horowitz,
D. L. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. California: University of California
Press.
Jagan,
C. 1980. The West on Trial. London:
Michael Joseph.
Lutchman,
H. A. 1973. Interest Representation in the Public Service: A History of the Guyana
Public Service Association. Guyana: Guyana Public Service Association.
Lutchman,
H.A. 1974. From Colonialism to Co-operative Republic: Aspects of Political
Development in Guyana. Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico: Institute of Caribbean
Studies, University of Puerto Rico.
Mangru,
B. 1996. A History of East Indian Resistance on the Guyana Sugar Estates,
1869-1948. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Manifesto of the
Justice Party (Guyana,
1964).
Ramharack,
B., “Entrepreneurs and managers in plural societies: Indian and African
political elites in the Caribbean,” in Mahin Gosine,
The East Indian Odyssey: Dilemmas of a Migrant People (New York: Windsor
Press, 1994).
Rodney,
W. 1969. The Groundings with my Brothers. London: The Bogle-L’Overture
Publications.
Rodney,
W. 1981. A History of the Guyanese Working People, 1881-94. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press.
Smith,
M. G. 1965. The
Plural Society in the British West Indies. Berkeley: Univ. of California
Press.
Sriram,
A. A. 1999. Recounting the Arya Samaj. Guyana: Guyana Central Arya Samaj.
Information
was also obtained from several interviews, as well as the following articles
written by Balram Singh Rai:
Rai,
“Democracy Betrayed”, (December 7,
1964).
Rai,
“Dharma and Sri Rama”, no date.
Rai,
“Diwali”, no date.
Rai,
“Karma, Justice and Reincarnation”,
no date.
Rai,
“Song of the Soul”, no date.
Author: Dr. Baytoram Ramharrack
Source: Stabroek News 4/20/99
Dear Sir,
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to President Janet Jagan for taking the time to respond to my letter regarding Mr Balram Singh Rai in the interest of "historical accuracy" (4-8-99). I have always felt Mrs. Jagan, who we regard as a pioneer and an outstanding contributor to our political development, can play a meaningful role in helping us appreciate that experience, particularly as she herself continues to be a part of that historic legacy, Please allow me to comment on some of the broader issues she raised.
Contradicting her late husband's statement ("During the 1947 general elections, he (Rai) gave me strong support"), as well as that of Mr. Rai ("it was I who encouraged you to contest the Central Demerara seat in 1947"), Mrs. Jagan, relying upon her memory, would have us believe Rai's contribution was "very slight". She asked, "why did Rai join the PPP?", given his ideological and political opposition to Marxism.
Mr. Rai joined the PPP at a time of need after the multi-racial mass-based nationalist movement disintegrated, and Dr. Jagan, notwithstanding his Marxist-Leninist ideology, made a percipient, conscious and determined effort to strengthen the Indian support base of the PPP. Mr. Rai and many others were part of the influx of Indians who joined the PPP after the split.
In 1956, one year after the split with Mr. Burnham, the remaining influential African leaders in the PPP, Sydney King (Kwayana), Martin Carter and Rory Westmaas, suspicious about Dr. Jagan's tactical move to secure Indian support (among other reasons), left the party. With their exit, a new cadre of young activists joined the party, including among others Moses Bhagwan, Dr. Fenton Ramsahoye, and Balram Singh Rai.
Except for Mr. Rai, none of them had a significant personal following . Increasingly, it became clear to Dr. Jagan (and many who supported him) that he no longer could depend on significant African support after the split in the party. This reality was magnified after 1957 when the reactionary League of Coloured People through its vehicle. the United Democratic Party, brought the African middle class into an alliance with Mr. Burnham's faction. Sydney King's ascension as General Secretary of the PNC in 1958 ensured African workers and farmers support for the PNC.
The strategy to strengthen Indian support behind the PPP was seriously contemplated by Dr. Jagan after the 1953 constitutional suspension but more so after 1955. In his major speech to the 1956 Congress, while answering the question "What is the PPP?", Dr. Jagan described his party as" a broad allegiance of democratic sections - working class. peasantry, middle-class, native businessmen, and capitalists." The lines were drawn, and although both the PNC and PPP would later campaign as nationalist movements, publicly and overtly rejecting appeals to racism, African and Indian loyalty to both parties were maintained covertly through what Professor Ralph Premdas described as a "whispering campaign" at the grass roots level.
Dr. Jagan's strategy for maintaining a loyal Indian following was manifested in at least three important organizational attempts to do so. One, the PPP sought to neutralize urban opposition by consolidating its support among the Indian business class. After the 1957 election, one of Dr. Jagan's first acts as Minister of Trade and Industry was to abolish the Commodity Control Commission and enhance the status of the Junior Chamber of Commerce to allow Indian businessmen to compete on an equal playing field with Portuguese and European businessmen. The second manifestation of this tactical position was demonstrated in an effort to secure majority Indian working class support, namely the sugar workers and rice farmers. The strategy with respect to the sugar workers consisted of promoting labor unrest on the estates and utilizing the PPP apparatus (in association with Janet Jagan's Ministry of Labour) as an unofficial union in opposition to its competitor, the Man Power Citizens' Association. An ambitious 1956-1960 agricultural development program already in place prior to the 1957 election was enhanced to ensure rice farmers loyalty to the PPP. Third. the same thinking permeated the desire to empower Indian teachers when the Government passed the 1961 Education Amendment Bill and assumed direct control and management of 51 denominational schools. Naturally, Mr. Burnham would unjustly describe the PPP administration as a "coolie" government, despite the fact that the PPP was 'in office but not in power".
No one denied Sydney King and Ram Karran played major roles in getting Dr. Jagan elected in 1947. We are concerned about the extent to which the PPP has gone to discredit Mr. Rai and negate his contributions to Dr. Jagan and the PPP. Mrs. Jagan herself must have been acutely aware of Mr. Rai's increasing influence within the PPP as early as 1959 when party faithfuls like Pandit Misir, Bashir Khan, Abdul Cayum, and Karim Juman promoted Mr. Rai as a candidate for senior vice-chairman of her party. Alter this election was held and then declared "null and void", Mrs. Jagan filed charges against Rai's backers involving "racialism" and tampering with election boxes (Leo Despres, 1967). She herself was integrally responsible for Mr. Rai's dismissal from the government and expulsion from the PPP, when, on May 21, 1962, as General Secretary of the PPP, she wrote to Mr. Rai threatening to take "disciplinary action" if his statements about the fraudulent election of April 1962 were not "withdrawn" by May 31, 1962.
Mrs. Jagan bemoans the fact that as Minister of Home Affairs she was helpless in effectuating meaningful changes in the police force and had to rely on alternative methods of accessing information regarding the PNC's attempt to destabilise Dr. Jagan's government (the X-13 plan, et al). Fair enough. But, given this hindsight, and her traumatic experience as Minister of Home Affairs when she wept and resigned in protest on June 1, 1963, why is her government today unwilling to pursue a policy of minimal balance in the police force, which has failed to protect Indians. Are we simply interested in upholding the historical record or learning from past experiences?
Unlike current PPP members who have drifted away from
Dr. Jagan's vision, Dr. Jagan admitted his support came largely from the Indian
community, but sought to empower all Guyanese equally in his national vision.
His political legacy is firmly grounded in the Indian community, particularly
through the various organizations with which he was affiliated: Treasurer of the
Man Power Citizens' Association, Secretary of the British Guiana East Indian
Association (see Jai Narine Singh, Indian Opinion, 1946), President of the Rice
Producers Association, Honorary President of Guyana Agricultural and General
Workers Union, etc. Dr. Jagan, more than anyone else in the PPP, knew that Mr.
Rai recognised and understood his (Jagan's) vision for the Guyanese people.
We hope Mrs. Jagan and members of the PPP will join with us as we continue to celebrate and honor the legacy of Dr. Jagan during Indian Heritage Month (May 1999).