Multiple years after the deaths of two of Guyana’s staunchest patriots, Linden, Forbes, Sampson Burnham, and Dr. Cheddie Jagan, there is still a heated debate over which of these two politicians should be christened ‘Father of the Nation.’
Just a few days ago, as I entered Georgetown from the East Bank of Demerara, I noticed a depiction of Dr. Cheddie Jagan on a huge billboard with the inscription ‘Father of the Nation.’ Undoubtedly, Jagan had dedicated much time and other resources to the development of Guyana. However, the same can be said of LFS Burnham, the man who was at the heart of the struggle before becoming the nation’s first executive President.
Consequently, to single out Dr. Jagan for such an accolade while deliberately ignoring Burnham’s immense contributions, is nothing short of a misnomer, a deliberate attempt at diminishing his contribution, or worse, weighing its value as inconsequential.
There are also quite a few other patriots who fervently served during the period of Dr. Jagan and LFSB and one can fervently argue that political independence would have been deferred beyond 1966 were it not for their input and nationalistic fervor.
Further, there are those other political gurus who valiantly supported the cause. Ashton Chase, Eusi Kwayana, Bosie Ramkarran, and others displayed true courage and tenacity and were a source of inspiration that galvanized the post-independence political leaders. We hover on ingratitude by forgetting Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow, the father of Trade Unionism in the British West Indies. It must be noted that the early mass political movement was birthed by trade unionism.
A nation is not merely a community of people of one or more ethnic groups within a defined territorial space, rather it is a spiritual principle created by two phenomena; joint identification with a broad heritage of memory and the desire to live together and form a cohesive community. Should the truth be told, none of our political leaders can boast of single-handedly building the nation, and therefore, in all fairness, none must be christened ‘Father of the Nation.’
The People’s Progressive Party, Jagan’s political institution, operates under a philosophical mantra that is absolutely foreign to that of Jagan, its founder leader. Those current leaders are most divisive and contrary to Cheddie Jagan’s ideologies, are bent on humiliating, maligning, and marginalizing those whom they perceived to be unsupportive of the policies.
The elevation of Dr. Jagan to the status of ‘Father of the Nation’ even though meritorious to some extent, seems more like a political stunt of the ruling cabal, designed to enforce racial supremacy. For that reason, such a ploy must be condemned by all right-thinking Guyanese. It gives the false impression that no other Guyanese has impacted significantly on the independent movement or the period after independence. Guyanese will not forget the immense contributions of Cheddie since such a stance could be misconstrued as ingratitude, even distorting local history and possibly fueling ethnic division and disunity.
The road to genuine nation-building is long and arduous, it requires genuine consensus on governance at all levels and not the perpetual attempts at dehumanizing specific groups or individuals while elevating others. Those who control the seat of government must act responsibly when evaluating the contributions and achievements of all our national leaders, not primarily those who are affiliated with their party. Such action will not bode well in the promotion of national unity and social cohesion.
The PPP’s obstinacy at an all-inclusive policy has deliberately blotted out the nationalistic fervor of past stalwarts associated with the PNC thus minituarising their achievements. This is untenable and must be denounced in the strongest possible terms since such actions rob this country of valued history. Guyana’s political history has been inked by several stalwarts. To single out any one of them for extra special commendation is tantamount to ingratitude and insensitivity.
Rather than identifying any one contribution as criteria for that esteemed title, our decision-makers should view this honor holistically and give each stalwart deserving merit. This issue should be carefully examined considering the ethnic division within the country and the disenchantment of the masses pertaining to their specific choice of ‘Father of the Nation.’
