Dear Editor,
In other sections of the media, Tacuma Ogunseye attacked Dr Jagan’s character with unsubstantiated claims. I believe Tacuma is mixing up Jagan’s offers (Prime Ministerial, Finance, Planning all of which were declined) or deliberately obfuscating issues to denigrate characters.
Tacuma wrote that he was privy to “the report” (pertaining to Tacuma’s claimed withdrawal of a Ministerial offer to Dr Clive Thomas) from the WPA delegation that met Dr Roger Luncheon. It is not known when this meeting took place or the report given. Tacuma is now stating unambiguously that there was in fact “no written report” and presumably no memo from Luncheon. It is therefore, nearly impossible, to verify if and when a Ministerial offer (which one) was withdrawn. The timeline of the “withdrawal of the offer” is critical. Thomas and the WPA declined three offers (Prime Minister, Finance Minister, Planning Minister). Jagan could not wait forever for Dr. Thomas to make up his mind on any one of them; he had to move on at some point in time. Thus, a withdrawn offer could be justified. It is not clear if WPA declined the Jagan’s offers because the WPA had rejected Jagan as the PCD Presidential nominee claiming Africans would not vote for him; WPA also rejected Jagan’s compromise for Roger Luncheon or Bishop Randolph George to be the Presidential candidate.
Tacuma claims that President Jagan withdrew the offer of a Ministry to Clive “after the ruling PPP obtained a majority of seats in parliament with the help of the WPA”. There was no connection between the Thomas Ministerial offer and support to win two NCLDO seats – nothing to do with political arithmetic – this is an erroneous allegation not supported by evidence.
It is deceptive to claim that “after Jagan got his political arithmetic (meaning a parliamentary majority), he withdrew the Ministerial offer to Thomas”. Manzoor Nadir and TUF were not offered a cabinet berth for their support. So contrary to what Tacuma alleges, the Ministerial offer to Clive was not for Jagan to obtain a parliamentary majority. Offers were made to Clive and WPA long before the 1992 elections and right after and all were rejected.
Is there a hidden motif from Tacuma? The Planning Ministry remained on the table for months.Dr. Thomas “re-declined” the offer around February 1993 when I visited him at UG. Surely, Tacuma did (does) not expect the Thomas offer to remain for eternity. Jagan must have felt compelled to move on.
Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, who is now a colleague of Tacuma in government, was Information Minister at the time. Nagamootoo and Moses Bhagan as well as Wazir Mohammed could also help to clarify the timeline of any withdrawal of a position and which one.
Tacuma interpreted my magnanimous act (to promote multi-party governance in seeking to get WPA to join the PPP administration) as a defense of the PPP. His shortsightedness causes him to fail to see my involvement as promoting multi-racial governance and power sharing, which he had once advocated but has now shunned.
Tacuma incorrectly restated what I penned regarding my relationship with Jagan. I never penned that PPP elements conveyed politically sensitive information to me. What I stated was Dr Jagan (not the PPP or its elements) asked me to speak with Thomas to accept various offers (PM, Finance, Planning).
On Tacuma’s machination and parsing of language regarding his allegation of “my defense of the PPP”, what I penned was having won free and fair elections, I defended PPP’s right to rule when there was an onslaught of racially tinged violence against it. Tacuma, if he believes in democracy, should have done the same. And “my defense” was in the context of violent elements that sought to overturn the will of the electorate right after democratic elections. The PNC never won a free and fair election; but had it won a democratic election, I would also have defended its right to govern.
Tacuma says “it is exploiting the ethnic card” and “defending the PPP” when writing “there were individuals who threatened … violence against the PPP”. How can those conclusions be logically formed? Was there not violence against the PPP administration?
My advice to Tacuma is to stop denigrating the reputation of others or discrediting Jagan with false information by loosely engaging in polemics and defending the indefensible.
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
