Articles by Janet Jagan
Man of the People
by Janet Jagan
March is the month when we pause and reflect on one of the most important men of the 20th century in Guyana. It is the month of Cheddi Jagan’s birth and the month of his death.
Much has been said, both good and bad, about him all through his adult life and after his death. That is to be expected as all truly great men, with new ideas, with a vision of the future, with integrity, complete honesty and with modesty are bound to offend those whose own ideas differ or whose own life styles and attitudes permit jealousy and vindictiveness. We’ve seen enough of it to know that most societies contain people who have failed to succeed in life and put the blame on others, or as Dr Dale Bisnauth put it in a column on this page: “It is as if mediocrity cannot live with greatness unless it reduces it to its own size: mediocrity.”
However, leaving aside the “naysayers”, the reality is that most Guyanese recognize the worth of Cheddi Jagan, and irrespective of ethnic, religious or political considerations, respect and love him as a Man of the People and the man who dedicated his life to their well being.
Before Cheddi Jagan became completely and totally involved in the political life of his homeland, he worked as a professional, a dentist. Those years, also, should be recorded, because they show the measure of the man. I worked as his dental assistant for ten years. He was a perfectionist, a genuine professional who refused to allow any second rate treatment. If a denture, a filling, a bridge, a root canal was not perfect, he did it over. This I witnessed many times. Also, like in politics later, he was an innovator. He refused to extract a tooth before he determined if it could be saved, and if so, he insisted on filling the tooth. Even today we have dentists who just yank out a tooth a patient points out as hurting. He also urged his patients to bring in their children and recommended the best dental care for them, which was not being done in those days. Also, he broke the back of the gold tooth trade, when good teeth were covered with gold crowns for “beauty” purposes. He refused to encourage that practice which destroyed good teeth. Also, he annoyed his dental colleagues by having the lowest fees. He said he was there to help the patients, not exploit them.
His surgery was used for the early political developments. The Political Affairs Committee (PAC) which began in 1946 used to meet at his office on Charlotte Street. His office continued to be our meeting place until an office was later found.
Cheddi’s parents were poor sugar workers. He had ten siblings, still living at Port Mourant when he returned after his studies. Another aspect of his character that is not well known, as he never boasted about it, is that he took over responsibility for the family from the parents. He brought his siblings to Georgetown, one by one, for education and most were sent overseas for training in the fields of medicine, dentistry, law, nursing, technician and optometry.
But his greatest contribution came as he grew closer and closer to the problems of the exploited - the sugar workers, the waterfront and bauxite workers, the small farmers, the unemployed, the plight of women and children. His intellect was challenged to find solutions to these problems. He read voraciously and visited many areas of the then British Guiana. He sought answers and ways and means of tackling the problems.
He consulted with others - soon to become the hallmark of his being. Up to his death, he never ceased consulting people and never stopped searching for the best solutions.
With others, he arrived at the necessity of tackling the larger issue of exploitation - colonialism and as early as 1945, enunciated the need to break from colonial rule. He helped found the Political Affairs Committee which set as its aim, the establishment of a political party and four years later, the People’s Progressive Party was formed with the major objective of achieving independence.
From then on, the struggle he and his Party led was not easy. It was one challenge after another - one hard blow after another. The machinations of the cold warriors led by the USA used every device to frustrate the PPP from holding on to office after legitimately winning it. That process seems to have never stopped - certainly we are witnessing it again and again and frequently fuelled by the old guards of the former cold warriors.
Why is it that today some 60 years after the advent of Cheddi Jagan into the nation’s political life that he is so revered by the people and no matter how virulent the attacks, he still retains the love and respect of most Guyanese as well as an unstained international reputation?
I attended the launching of the 6th edition of The West on Trial last year at the Cheddi Jagan Research Centre. The feature address was given by Kellawan Lall, whom he appointed as his Political Adviser when he became President in 1992, finally restoring democracy to a nation beaten into poverty and hopelessness.
Lall said this and it says a lot: “And so when Dr Jagan came on the scene and later wrote his book, people began to see themselves differently and became more self-confident. Dr Jagan had put them at the center of his world - a world where there was freedom and freedom from want. It was the first time they got that feeling of not being just a statistic and a poor cane cutter or rice farmer. Dr Jagan had now put them on a pedestal and allowed them to see themselves as human beings who can be masters of their destiny.
It was that sense of hope that as a young man I saw all around me. And that is what I consider to be the most lasting impact of The West on Trial. The masses did not have to read it. They knew that this man Jagan for the first time in history saw them as people, went into their shabby homes, ate their plain foods and forever wearing his trade mark smile, and put them as the main players in a book that was being read not only in Guyana but overseas.”
© 2006 Janet Jagan
Mr D’Aguiar has been trying to excuse the violence which he precipitated in February by saying that we started picketing and demonstrations in British Guiana.
At a meeting he held on Sunday last he is quoted in the Chronicle as saying that “in 1951 the PPP picketed and demonstrated against the McDavid budget. Mrs Jagan had led the demonstration. But the imperialists, said to have been in power then did not proclaim the area. The Governor who was President of the Legislative Council and Mr McDavid, Financial Secretary, were booed on their way to the Public Buildings.
“He recalled that Dr Jagan had said in the Council that what had occurred was a `symptom of public opinion’ against the budget.
Boos
“After the meeting, Mr D’Aguiar continued, Dr Jagan was loudly cheered and the Governor and Mr McDavid were booed when they left the Public Buildings.
“Mr D’Aguiar referred to the event as similar to what happened last February, the difference being that Dr Jagan, instead of leaving the front entrance sneaked out through the back door, when the area round the Public Buildings was proclaimed.”
Distortions
Mr D’Aguiar distorts history when he says that the only difference between the 1951 picketing of the Legislative Buildings and the February demonstrations around the Public Buildings was that Dr Jagan left by the back entrance. Some people have short memories indeed!
The great differences between the picketing and demonstrations which we participated in during 1951 and those of D’Aguiar in February 1962 are these:
1. The PPP was demonstrating against colonialism and a budget which did not tax the rich. The PPP was demonstrating against continuance of rule by the Big Business interests which were then in control.
In February last, the demonstrations against a popularly and democratically elected government led by Big Business interests who feared to lose their profits, Mr D’Aguiar being one. The presence of trade unionists and workers did not mean that it was a popular revolt because poor and corrupt leadership carried misguided and misinformed people into the demonstrations.
Also, many of the demonstrators were forced into participation by their employers, who threatened dismissal if they refused. Proof of this is abundant.
It must not be forgotten that the Government in 1951 was not democratically elected, having a suffrage based on ownership of property and income qualifications.
Difference
The Legislature was presided over by the governor and there were elected, nominated and official members sitting in the Council chambers. How different that was today.
2. The picketing and the demonstrations we engaged in then and all during the years of the PPP were never violent. Our people did not carry weapons, they did not carry stones and bottles and sticks. They did not use stones and bottles and sticks and guns. They did not injure anyone. They did not burn buildings. They did not kill policemen. They did not shout at McDavid and the Governor - “We are going to kill you. We are going to burn you down.”
No, our people had leadership, good, sound leadership. What our people said then and say today is that we will end colonialism. We will end the day of the rich exploiting the poor. We will be independent.
None of the PPP picketing of demonstrations ever got out of hand. Sure, the Governor was booed. But his person was not touched. We don’t mind boos. But we do mind when our leader is personally attacked and injured at the Public Buildings.
These, Mr D’Aguiar are the differences between all the picketing and all the demonstrations in which the PPP (myself included) participated from 1950 to the present. And from all of them there was not one building burned, not one person injured, not one person threatened with loss of life and property.
Tear gas too
I am sure that Mr D’Aguiar will add this. He will undoubtedly say - But the Government provoked the people by the Proclamation, by the use of tear gas, by the presence of troops. My answer is simple. We had tear gas thrown at us in 1953 and 1954. I was at our Party Headquarters on Regent Street when we were tear-gassed. We didn’t then call on our people to rise and attack, burn down Government House and all business houses.
We had Proclamations then, but they did not incite us to violence. Dr Jagan broke one of the Proclamations. He went to jail for it, but he did not utilize the opportunity to lead his followers into riots. He could have. Make no mistake about it! But he didn’t, because he was and is a responsible leader. We had troops here then. They did not provoke us to burn down buildings and loot. Those things could have been organized if we thought in those directions. But our minds were directed in different paths.
Struggle
We led the struggle by educating the people of the ills of colonialism and the need for unity to end the exploitation of this country by the dominant clique that wanted only power and profits - profits and power. We attained power by the valid ballot and proved our worth by winning in three successive elections - without benefit of a daily press or foreign finances. We did not attempt to grab power by bloodshed.
That, Mr D’Aguiar, is the difference.
(Thunder, April 14, 1962)
© 2001 Janet Jagan
© 1999 Cheddi Jagan Research Centre. All rights reserved.
