David Hinds not fair on Jagan Centre lease revocation

Dear Editor,
In reference to the revocation of the Red House lease, David Hinds is of the view that it “is purely a matter of recovering misappropriated State assets”. If it is so, how come the Government chose to recover this misappropriated State asset and not those affiliated with the PNC and its affiliates? Hinds’ argument holds no water. It is a warped, misleading, biased, unfair argument that is anti-Jagan, a feeling that persists since the WPA’s rejection of Jagan as a Presidential candidate in 1992. Hinds claims that the PPP broke the law in granting the Red House to the Jagan Centre. Didn’t the PNC break the law in revoking the lease and riding roughshod in enforcing the revocation of the lease? Did the PNC not break the law when it sent Government thugs to break down the signs bearing Jagan’s name? Did the President and the AG not violate the law in ejecting the tenants? Has Hinds ever heard of the term “due legal process”? And why is the PNC-led Government going after only misappropriated assets linked to PPPites and not those linked to PNCites? Why hasn’t Hinds condemned the Government? Hinds’ racial bias is showing is also that of the PNC/WPA/AFC regime. Cries of racial discrimination are justified as there is ethnic cleansing of Indians and Amerindians.
So far, not one case pertaining to alleged PNC (APNU/WPA/AFC) corruption has been referred to SARU or SOCU or the Police. Clearly, Hinds’ support for the Government’s action is bigoted. President Granger has not revoked any PNC or AFC linked lease and/or ordered their holders’ removal from office within 48 hours. And Hinds has not condemned the PNC-led regime for this inaction and neither has he condemned the President for his highhandedness. He has not condemned the AG for misleading the Chief Justice that the Government had possession of the property. Should not the President and the AG be held accountable? Where is the fairness in Hinds’ argument and the Government action?
Hinds wrote, “How much more reasonable can you ask for when the President made the most reasonable suggestion that the Red House be used to house the papers of all Guyana’s presidents?” Where was Hinds educated? Not Howard? Has he never heard of fair, balanced and objective commentary? How could it be reasonable to equate two (Burnham and Hoyte) election riggers, dictators, racists, food banners and conspirators with imperialists to a true non-ethnic revolutionary like Dr or Mrs Jagan? Red House is intricately associated with Cheddi and Janet Jagan.
Hinds wrote, “Ethnic politics and ethnic appeals are normal.” Yet he contradicts himself by slamming Jagdeo when he penned that the former President plans “to use the revocation of the Jagan Centre’s lease to appeal to ethnicity”. He incorrectly drew this illogical conclusion from Jagdeo’s statement that “the Coalition regime will pay a heavy price …” which for Hinds is letting “the cat out of the bag”. Isn’t the Government’s action on Red House racist? Isn’t the Government appealing to racial sentiments by its action? So why focus only on Jagdeo’s comment? Many other PNC and AFC supporters are appalled and have disassociated from Granger’s PNC action to storm the Red House.
Hinds claimed that Jagdeo is creating ethnic tension. Is the Coalition not appealing to ethnicity? When Granger revoked the lease without a court order, was he not creating ethnic tension? When armed troops descended on the Red House and broke down the building’s sign, was that not creating ethnic tension? When the PNC supporters, under the leadership of PNC Executive Member and Minister Volda Lawrence, and another PNC Executive counter demonstrated at the Red House was that not creating ethnic tensions? When Ms Lawrence and other PNCites hurled missiles at PPP supporters was that not creating tension? Where is Hinds’ condemnation of their behaviour? The entire response of the Government and of Hinds on the matter has exacerbated ethnic tension.
Hinds conveniently conflates the notion of ethnic support only when it relates to PPP. When the PNC acts or reacts to events, it is considered as nationalist in scope. Where has Hinds ever penned or condemned the PNC (APNU) for acting only for African interest? He never condemned the PNC, but when the PPP acts, he condemns it immediately describing it as racist.
Hinds wrote: “Indians would not look kindly on any Government action.” Why this attitude towards Indians now? Didn’t Hinds and the PNC ask Indians (from AFC) to deliver the 11 per cent (obtained from Indians) to capture the Government with its 40 per cent for a combined 50% plus? Now that Indians have handed the PNC the Government, the Indians are no longer needed! Why this sudden change in attitude on Indian support?

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram