Guest column: Same Panday, same struggle

From 1966 and particularly from the event known as "Bloody Tuesday" of 1975 and the subsequent formation of the United Labour Front; from the great movement for unity which eventuated in NAR and the removal of PNM from office after 30 years; the formation of UNC consequent on the Aranguez Mandate of October 16, 1988 and the formation of UNC; the UNC electoral victories that led to good governance under Basdeo Panday; one man has been at the helm of the movement for real change and the creation of a just and fair society where each can enjoy happiness.

This one man is, of course, Basdeo Panday.

Up to 2007, I heard his present day detractors say that he was the best Prime Minister ever. I saw some who are now bitterly opposed to him embracing him on political platforms and shouting his glories.

What has gone wrong? Has Panday changed? Has the struggle changed?

The answers are obvious.

Panday has remained the same. He still speaks the same language. He still insists that we must fight to create the kind of society where all will be treated fairly regardless of race class or creed. He still challenges all to create the kind of society in which every citizen may pursue his goals and enjoy happiness.

These are the things he has struggled for all his life. The struggle has remained the same.

In fact, Panday has been very consistent and his struggle has always been the same. When his present day political enemies attack Panday and say that he must go now, what is it that they are really saying?

They say he is no longer able to attract enough voters to get into government. They say that he is politically unattractive. To whom?

They say that no one will want to unite with him, Who are these people?

When did he become unattractive? After 2007? Before?

Are the people who will not unite the same who have always disregarded the struggle of the common man and who have seen politics only as a means to office for their self advancement?

In 1986 Panday united with everybody save the core PNM members. They all wanted Bas. They sang his praises all over the country until Panday started to press for real change.

Then they ganged up and ensured that he was out of office. They regarded him their political enemy. They said he was racist, indisciplined, breaking up the NAR, not a team player and a host of other things. You name it. They said it.

Some vested interests carried on a vicious campaign against Panday and the former ULF. Some may wish to remember some of the things said then. It is instructive so to do.

Remember, "Indianization of the Goverment of Trinidad and Tobago" and "ULF Grab for Power".

Panday's political detractors and enemies have always spoken the same language. They will continue so to do till doomsday.

Are the people who are Panday’s political enemies prepared for quick fix politics - EXCHANGE rather than Change. Are they power hungry and desperate men and women who feel that time is running out for them.

Is life for them short and political power expedient? Is struggle is a bad word? Is a struggle that began before them and that will continue after them, beyond their comprehension? Is power and office for self advancement everything?

Was it unwise for Gandhi to stay out of government or should he have made a quick fix deal with the British? Perhaps Martin Luther King should not have marched and protested? Should Mandela have come up with a "nice clean" image instead of leading a struggle for change that saw him spend years behind bars as did such great men as Gandhi and Nehru?

It is worth remembering that when Panday was expelled from NAR, Mr Dookeran did not walk with Panday. Dookeran had been brought into political limelight by Panday at the expense of his nephew Vishnu Tikasingh.

But Dookeran stayed in office with Mr Robinson while Panday was pounding the pavement regrouping the forces of change.

Dr Rambachan did not walk with Panday. Kamla Persad-Bissesar did not walk with Panday. True enough they came to UNC when NAR collapsed and UNC was poised for government. They had important roles in the Panday government.

But they remained true to form. When UNC was out of Government, Dookeran came and went to form COP. The likes of Dr Rambachan and Persad-Bissessar, “Gypsy” Peters and Jack Warner continued to sing Panday's glory up to 2007.

Having failed to get to government via UNC in 2007, covert agenda became overt.

The whispers heard in private rooms now became the shouts from political platforms. The man who could do no wrong was now being painted as UNC public enemy number one.

The detractors have forgotten that Panday has built a relationship with people over a period of 40 years. People of the UNC base have loved him and he has loved them in return. They have gone so far as to worship him. He is their leader. He gives them hope.

They are his political strength and he is their support. True, the voices of the loyal supporters are not heard. They do not have access to big money that allows them to purchase costly advertisements and propaganda machines.

These people do not have access to media the way the commentators and political analysts have. They do not seek office. They do not fall out with the leader because they do not get senatorial or board appointments.

They are not at political meetings or in the trenches with their leader for personal material gain. They give their support unconditionally.

Some who read this will never understand.

The loyal long serving members of the UNC base will. They know full well that the UNC is the vehicle that they built with love and sweat.

Twenty years they have trusted Mr Panday at the helm of UNC. These loyal supporters will continue to repose faith in him as long as he wishes to continue.
_________________________________________
Dr Rampersad Parasram, Chairman CLUB 88, first chairman of UNC,
(psychiatrist, pundit and retired Chief Medical Officer)