Dear Editor,
In my statement of June 7, 2026, on the disturbances of May 1964 at Wismar and the Son Chapman tragedy of July 6, 1964, I stated that our responsibility is not merely to remember the past but to understand it honestly.
The events of the 1960s remain among the most painful chapters in Guyana’s history. If we are to honour those who suffered and those who lost their lives, we must be guided by facts, evidence, and a sincere commitment to historical truth.
Over a year ago, before issuing that statement last Sunday, I had the opportunity to engage Professor Baytoram Ramharack and Mr. Malcolm Harripaul in a thoughtful discussion on the events that shaped our country during that turbulent period. Professor Ramharack observed that public attention is often focused on the Son Chapman tragedy while the disturbances in Wismar, Christianburg, and Mackenzie in May 1964 are frequently overlooked. He advanced the position that those events should also form part of any honest discussion of our history.
I accepted that observation without hesitation.
The discussion was arranged by Mr. Harripaul, whose commitment to preserving the historical record was made known. We met at Hymara Park overlooking the Demerara River. It was a respectful exchange grounded in a shared interest in understanding the past.
Professor Ramharack indicated that the discussion would assist with his forthcoming book. I recently observed the launch of that work and intend to read it, not only because I enjoy reading, but because any serious contribution to Linden’s history deserves careful examination. I am particularly interested in understanding how Professor Ramharack reconciles the findings of the official Commission of Inquiry with his decision to title his book “The Wismar Massacre: A Case of Ethnic Cleansing Of Indians In Guyana”.[1] Especially, given his acknowledgement during our discussion that the incidents at Wismar in May could not be classified as a massacre.
I will also be interested in seeing how the modern concept of “ethnic cleansing” is applied to events that occurred decades before that term entered common international political and legal discourse. A phrase that gained prominence during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Scholars are entitled to advance interpretations, but those interpretations must ultimately contend with the historical record.
As Regional Chairman, I supported the establishment of a memorial site recognizing those who suffered in the bombing of the Son Chapman. Later, as Mayor, I continued efforts to ensure that commemorative activities were observed at that site. Those actions reflected a simple belief that every community has a responsibility to acknowledge the difficult moments of its history, regardless of how uncomfortable they may be.
The people who suffered during the disturbances of May 1964 deserve to be remembered. The families who experienced loss deserve recognition. Their place in our history should never be ignored, diminished, or forgotten.
At the same time, we have an equally important responsibility to ensure that history is presented accurately and in accordance with the established record while working to ensure that they are never repeated.
Professor Ramharack has noted that the Commission recorded evidence of attacks, displacement, destruction of property, and serious acts of violence. That is true. The Commission heard extensive testimony from eyewitnesses and affected residents. The matters now being advanced were not hidden from the inquiry. They were among the issues placed before the Commissioners, who examined the evidence, weighed the testimony and produced their findings.
It is therefore important to return to what the Commission actually established.
The factual record concerning the fatalities of May 1964 drawing directly from the Commission’s findings in CHAPTER 4 – ACCOUNT OF NUMBER OF DEATHS, EXTENT OF INJURIES, LOSS AND DAMAGE Section (a) Deaths, notes that Richard Khan and Paul Mirgin died on May 25, 1964; Gussie English was shot and died on the same day while Isaac Bridgewater was killed on May 28; and Byron Wharton died from severe burns sustained when he became trapped in a burning building.
The significance of this observation is not to diminish the suffering of any individual, family or community. Rather, it underscores the importance of grounding public discussion in the documented findings of the Commission of Inquiry.
The deaths of Richard Khan, Paul Mirgin, Isaac Bridgewater, Byron Wharton, and Gussie English represent a tragic loss of life. They should be remembered with dignity and respect. Their stories remind us that the disturbances affected Guyanese of different backgrounds and that any honest assessment of those events must be informed by the evidence and conclusions of the Commission. A point made by Leader of the People’s National Congress Reform, Mr. Aubrey Norton, in a letter, he wrote on the 10th of June.
The Commission documented the events in detail. It identified those who died, recorded the dates and circumstances of their deaths, and examined the violence, destruction, displacement, and suffering that occurred.
These findings were not abstract. They were based on sworn testimony and evidence presented before the inquiry.
Importantly, the Commission situated the events within a broader context of civil disturbance marked by political and racial tensions. It documented deaths, injuries, destruction of property, and displacement. It condemned the violence and acknowledged the trauma inflicted upon innocent people.
However, it did not classify the events as a massacre, nor did it conclude that they constituted what is today described as ethnic cleansing.
That distinction matters.
Recognizing that distinction does not minimize suffering. It preserves the integrity of the historical record.
The pain experienced by those who lost homes, livelihoods, loved ones, and a sense of security was real. The displacement of families was real. The fear that gripped communities was real. None of this should ever be denied.
But neither should history be reconstructed on the basis of emotion alone.
Facts matter. Evidence matters. The findings of official inquiries matter.
When one examines Guyana during the early 1960s, it becomes clear that the country was experiencing widespread instability. The years 1962, 1963, and 1964 were marked by labour unrest, political confrontation, violence, and destruction across multiple regions. The disturbances in Wismar, Christianburg, and Mackenzie formed part of that wider national crisis.
Understanding this broader context does not lessen the gravity of what occurred. It allows us to understand it more completely.
As we move closer to July 6, our responsibility is not to compete over tragedy or elevate one community’s suffering above another.
The victims of May 1964 deserve remembrance. The victims of the Son Chapman tragedy deserve remembrance. Arthur Abraham and his seven children deserve remembrance. The many victims of violence throughout Guyana during that era deserve remembrance.
We must rise above partisan interpretations and narrow political narratives. We must adopt a national approach to our history, one that recognizes suffering wherever it occurred and acknowledges grief regardless of who experienced it.
History is not strengthened by selective memory, nor is reconciliation advanced by attempts to rewrite established facts.
Those who seek to revisit history are entitled to do so. Scholars should question, researchers should investigate, and citizens should inquire. But, where interpretations depart from established findings, they should expect those interpretations to be challenged with evidence, facts, and history.
My commitment remains focused on ensuring that the history of Linden and its people is preserved, understood, and presented in its proper context. That requires honesty about suffering, respect for all victims, and discipline in how we describe the events that shaped our nation.
We owe that responsibility to those who lived through those events to those who lost their lives and to future generations who deserve an accurate understanding of their past.
In Part Three, I will turn to the Son Chapman tragedy itself, drawing on the findings of the inquest and official investigations to examine what those records reveal about one of the most tragic and defining moments in our national history.
The truth of our history is not diminished by careful examination. It is strengthened by it.