Dear Editor,
I write to clarify a remark by Mr Lincoln Lewis in another media (Aug 31) in which he stated that Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow championed adult universal suffrage (meaning, every adult has the right to vote).
The statement needs amplification. During the early part of his years as a trade unionist, Critchlow, as did Indian leaders, championed adult universal franchise; but, later on, he did what Clem Seecharan described as “a volte face” or about face, opposing it.
Dwarka Nath, Cheddi Jagan, Clem Seecharan, Baytoram Ramharack, among others, in acclaimed books, noted that after Critchlow was appointed (nominated on account of his class status) to the National Assembly, he opposed universal franchise. Jagan, Ashton Chase, J Hubbard, JB Singh, Daniel Prabhudas Debidin, JP Lachmansingh, Ayub Edun, among others, consistently championed universal franchise. JB Singh and others called for the franchise since 1919, when Jagan was not even one year old.
As scholars noted, Critchlow was motivated by ‘racial” considerations in opposing universal franchise. Critchlow was worried that Indians would outvote Africans because of their greater numbers.
The British Guiana East Indian Association (BGEIA), from the outset, called for adult universal franchise, and reiterated the position in commemorative ceremonies in 1938, on the centenary of Indian arrival in Guyana. On the demand for universal franchise, a specific commission was appointed to study the issue. JB Singh and Critchlow were on the commission, taking opposing sides, and it was split down the middle. Critchlow and others called for a census and training of people to vote, etc. It was a stalling tactic to deny Indians the right to vote.
In the 1940s, Critchlow went to England and met with members of the League of Coloured People to discuss the issue of universal franchise. Thereafter, he did his volte face on the franchise. During a parliamentary debate, Critchlow championed African political interest and opposed Indians getting the franchise. His position disappointed JB Singh and others who championed the franchise.
Later, Critchlow himself would be alienated from the politics after the franchise was granted, and he lost his exalted position as a nominated member in the Assembly. Even Burnham avoided him at labour rallies. It was Cheddi and Janet who embraced him as he stood on the sidelines of May Day rallies, taking him by his hands and brining him into workers marches.
I also note that Mr Lincoln Lewis opposed the democratic way of choosing a government through free and fair elections on March 2. Many are disappointed in the position taken by Lewis, who abandoned the movement for free and fair elections. He attempted to create a myth surrounding the court challenges and judicial rulings, stretching their meanings and intent to defend electoral fraud. He also saw nothing wrong in the behaviour of Mingo and Lowenfield in engaging in electoral fraud.
Lewis did not condemn, in fact he excused, the electoral fraud that took place in public glare. He went along with Mingo’s and then Lowenfield’s subverting of democracy.
Lewis also speaks of inclusive Government. I agree and support inclusion. There is no better inclusive Government than one elected by the voters in a free and fair election. Lewis ought to know water. The country would never forget that five-month ordeal to respect the will of voters, the epitome of inclusiveness.
Yours truly,
Dr Vishnu Bisram
