Nawbatt’s irrelevancies on constitutional reform

Dear Editor,
This is a retort to one Mr Harry N Nawbatt’s response to my commentary on constitutional reform in Guyana (Oct 21). Nawbatt penned a snide remark and irrelevancies and extraneous comments that have nothing to do with constitutional reform. He engaged in vilification of me, in the very act he accused me of being against PPP leadership without offering any evidence.
I engaged in objective critiques supported with facts. Nawbatt has not offered any facts to buttress his rebuttal.
I can be equally nasty and vilify Nawbatt, but it has been my nature as per the teachings of Bhagwan to be courteous and respectful to all including those who use disparaging, discourteous and denigrating remarks against my reputation.
Nawbatt states that he did not do a poll and that no one is taking my call for a replacement of the Burnham constitution seriously. If he understood what I penned, the thesis statement was that there would be no constitutional change and that the Burnham constitution will not be replaced because no politician supports its change.
He ridiculed me with, “Bisram self-proclaimed campaign that he is Bhagwan’s (God) gift to be Guyana’s representative in India”. I do not recall penning a letter campaigning to be Guyana’s diplomat in Delhi. On the matter of competence or qualification (Bhagwan’s gift to be a diplomat), I may have written that I earned degrees (emphasis DEGREES) from accredited universities (not bogus degrees like some of his pals) in International Politics and International Relations and studied Diplomacy as well as Foreign Relations; I am also a specialist on India Affairs. I believe those would qualify me to be a diplomat accredited to any country. Offers were made to me to be a diplomat in Delhi, and I politely declined for family and personal reasons. Others were witness to the offers.
Nawbatt referred to Charandas Persaud as “disgraced …”. I would never vilify or derogate Shri Charandas ji. I am not a neemakharam (ingrate). Without Charrandas, PPP would not have been in office in 2020 till now.
Nawbatt stated that I am involved in a crusade against “the Government, PPP, and its leaders”. On the very day of this accusation in the same paper, a commentary under my name said, Irfaan Ali and the PPP would win the 2025 elections. Ali was praised for his leadership. In my missives in August and September respectively, Jagdeo was described as the best political strategist in the country and Irfaan a populist who is on course for re-election. I organised a centenary on Dr Jagan in 2018 in Richmond Hill and attempted same in Delhi. Nawbatt and Ramkarran were speakers glorifying Jagan in Little Guyana. Are the preceding Nawbatt’s definition or illustrations or understanding of the meaning of vilification? I advise he consults a virtuoso or wizard on word meanings.
Nawbatt made reference to the erudite scholar Prof Baytoram Ramharack who he describes as “my pal”, and indeed together we fought for free and fair elections in Guyana of which the PPP was the beneficiary. (I will write on Dr Ramharack’s contribution to the PPP and its leadership later). There is no relevance in invoking Dr Ramaharack’s name on the subject matter as he did not write on constitutional reform, not recently anyway, and was never ever consulted in any of my writings. I did not cite “others of my ilk” in calling for constitutional reform”. I cited the respected ex Speaker Ralph Ramkarran (excommunicated from the PPP), Nawbatt’s pal or ex-pal and cousin, who also called for replacing the Burnham constitution. I also cited SN editorial. Nawbatt did not excoriate or vilify Mr Ramkarran or SN.
Nawbatt stated that he observed rigging that led to the 1980 constitution and that he has no problems with the constitution that arose from the fraud. He stated that invoking ‘morality’ to oppose the Burnham constitution is ‘hogwash’. Moralistic people would disagree. He also stated that parliament approved the constitution in 1980, making it legitimate. It does not trouble him that the parliament itself was the creation of a fraud in the July 1973 election in which Dr Jagan and the PPP were denied their rightful place as the legitimate winner. It is a contradictory position – opposing fraud while also simultaneously supporting it.
Nawbatt said he does not need a poll to tell him that “no one will support me” on advocating constitutional reform. That’s Bhagwan’s gift to him. He has ‘vardaan’ (Lord Krishna and Goddess Durga’s blessings) although he probably never prayed to Bhagwan unlike me who worships Bhagwan regularly and routinely. Nawbatt has a special skill gifted to him by God to know the views of the public without engaging them; I lack that skill. Thus, I opted to conduct surveys and or conversed with others to determine public opinions. Bhagwan blesses him with that power to learn of “opinion” that “he conducts in the confines of his mind, in a secluded space of his habitat, somewhere far removed from Guyana”, down south USA where he thrives under capitalism having walked away from advocating communism in his native place.
He stated no one will take me seriously on championing constitutional reform and that I will have to wage a lonely battle. Yet he found it necessary to pen a long essay slamming my missive. I do agree that Guyanese will not advocate constitutional reform. Most are preoccupied with earning a living; constitutional reform is far removed from their daily experience and that is why politicians don’t care about replacing the constitution. For the record, at a minimum, Ramakrran, Peeping Tom, and Stabroek News are on board. Tony Vieira also penned a letter (Oct 20) calling for constitutional reform. On advice on focused writing, I suggest he emulates Viera and Ramkarran, neither of who introduced extraneous remarks or engaged in personality attacks on constitutional reform.
Nawbatt slams ‘White People”. Yet he makes his home in “a white country” and enjoys first world services of what is essentially “a white country”. The examples he cited on struggle for racial equality has no relevance to my argument that Third World rulers have no interests in reducing their powers in contrast with First World White rulers. And for the record, it was White rulers in Rhodesia and South Africa (and by extension Namibia) that agreed to constitutional reform to shift to (non-White) majority rule that I supported.

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram