Welcome critiques of writings on Guyanese history

Dear Editor,
The PNC leader Mr. Aubrey Norton claims (June 19) that Prof Ramharack and myself are afraid of discussing the national context of violence (that resulted in the Wismar massacre of Indians) and accuse us of “fabricating and falsifying history”. There is nothing further from the truth. We never shied away from any subject matter if they were relevant to our field of studies or interests. And we always wrote with substantive evidence to buttress our contentions (theses, hypotheses). We are not politicians or propagandists who are noted for avoiding controversial issues and for falsifications. Ramharack and I are serious writers; we don’t need to engage in propaganda or distortions to win political support as we are not seeking elective office. And we welcome valid critiques to improve our writings.
I can’t speak for Dr. Ramharack, but I have known him since 1977 when we were Freshmen at City College of NY and pioneered the struggle against racism in and for the restoration of democracy in Guyana in addition to organizing cultural and spiritual activities. I was earlier involved in such struggle in Port Mourant, village of Dr. Jagan, since my school days in Guyana, and it simply became a continuation in America. Baytoram and I, Vassan Ramracha, Ravi Dev, and a few others dedicated our time to that struggle, spending long hours away from our studies and work and our hard earnings in that struggle that ultimately resulted in free and fair elections in Guyana in October 1992. In addition, Baytoram and I taught history for over three decades, in addition to my teaching economics, politics, English, Chemistry and other sciences, among other subjects. I can vouch for Baytoram as a genuine, non-self-serving activist, scholar of integrity, and an outstanding writer who has conducted exemplary research to substantiate arguments and who introduced polling in Guyana; we both studied polling in NY. He, like myself, for our doctorate degree (s) took courses on historical and scientific methodology to write with integrity. Our writings and oral discussions never avoided national issues, and we never falsified or fabricated documentation of events or made claims that could not be substantiated; these claims have been attested over the last fifty years by our positions or opinions in voluminous writings in the mass media on varied issues, some very controversial for which we were heavily criticized by politicians from both major political parties and their sycophants. Intellectuals and non-sycophants have been known to take our views seriously.
History is not written to please a reader or a politician. A subject or topic (in history) is chosen by a researcher not on the basis of a reader or a politician, but on its importance and the interests of the writer who is in control of the project. Dr. Ramharack chose Wismar Massacre, and he also authored other books as well as other articles (lengthy and short). The declared objective in his latest magnus opus was on one subject, not Sun Chapman, that occurred two months later. Norton stated that he did not read Baytoram’s book, but he (inexplicably) concluded that Ramharack falsified history on the Wismar Massacre of Indians. Had he read the book, he would have known how and why the title came about, and how Baytoram linked it other events. Both Jagan and Burnham (latter according to Hardyal on June 20) made reference to the violence as Wismar Massacre. Norton disputed that the 3,200 plus Indians were uprooted from the area. Sources said that almost everyone was evacuated. Dr. Vincent Adam said his Indian mother had to be hidden to protect her from being a victim. It was a very ugly episode we should not avoid to discuss.
The book is well documented, some 800 plus pages. Every piece of information is substantiated with citations and or attestations from eyewitness accounts. Baytoram employed rigorous methodology akin to forensic analysis, scientific enquiry, and data provenance, skills he and I obtained as university students particularly in doctoral studies. He evaluated the relevance, and reliability of sources before incorporating them into the narrative and analyses. He assessed the veracity of claims and retelling of events by his sources, distilling facts from exaggerations. Baytoram’s writings and my retelling of claims of the victims of Wismar violence were obtained from credible sources, many of which are publicly known; there were reports in respected media houses — New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, newspapers in Guyana, various websites, etc. It is very clear on who is distorting history, and it is clearly not Baytoram or Vishnu.

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram