Commemorating Walter Rodne's 25 Anniversary.

Dr. Prem Misir’s “Disservice to Rodney” is an ugly analysis of an ugly situation, made more ugly by the perspective itself.
Misir has developed a reputation for viewpoints that are supportive of positions of the government but as an academic, I am sure he recognizes that intellectual integrity requires that foremost he be objective.
I respect his intellect, but I am disappointed in that particular viewpoint. I have coined a new word to describe that particular perspective by Misir: propanalysis.
In defending the PPP’s decision to abstain from voting on its own motion in parliament last Wednesday, Misir reminds us that the central bone of contention was the amendment to replace the word, “ assassination” in the original motion.
He asks us to consider the following: “the Misra commission of inquiry into the assassination of Indira Gandhi; the Jain commission of inquiry into the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi; the Shamgar commission of inquiry into the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin; and the UN’s commission of inquiry into Hariri’s assassination.” He went on to state that these commissions all started off with the premise that these murders were assassinations.
Let me edify him so that he no longer embarrasses himself and the party that so often relies on Misir’s analysis for political justification of its actions.
Firstly, the Misra Commission of Inquiry was not established to look into the assassination of Indira Gandhi. The terms of reference of the commission decreed that it inquire into the violence that followed the late Prime Minister’s death. The terms of reference of the Misra Commission of Inquiry were initially as follows:
1) to inquire into the allegations in regard to the incidents of organized violence which took place in Delhi following the assassination of the late Prime Minister, Smt. Indira Gandhi
2) to recommend measures which may be adopted for the prevention of recurrence of such incidents.
The first of the terms of reference was later amended to extend the scope of the inquiry to other areas- Kanpur, Bokaro Tehsil, Chas Tehsil- affected by violence.
Unlike the image that Misir’s is creating, the Misra Commission of Inquiry was not an inquiry into the death of Indira Gandhi. It was an inquiry into the violence that followed the assassination of the Indian Prime Minister. The Jain Commission of Inquiry was also not concerned with determining how Rajiv Gandhi died, but rather with probing the conspiracy aspect of his death and the political ramifications of any conspiracy. This was preceded by the J. S Verma Commission of Inquiry that inquired into whether there were any security lapses during the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.
The Verma Commission was asked to inquire whether the assassination could have been averted and whether there had been any dereliction of duties. Following the return to power of the Congress party, the Jain Commission of Inquiry was established.
In the case of the death of Rajiv Gandhi, as was with his mother, there was no need for a commission of inquiry as to whether Rajiv was assassinated. The institution vested with the powers to investigate these matters already established this fact.
You will recall that in the case of the death of Rajiv, the Special Investigative Team of the Central Bureau of Investigation had found that Rajiv was assassinated and had pronounced on who ordered the assassination. Persons were later indicted for his assassination. Thus, there was no need for the commissions to determine whether the Gandhis were assassinated.
I have not been able to peep into the precise terms of reference of the Shamgar Commission of Inquiry that was established following the death of Yitzak Rabin. But what I do know is that the report of the commission dealt with security arrangements.
The critical distinction that has to be made is in relation to the purposes of the proposed Rodney Inquiry as opposed to the Misra, Jain, Verma and Shamgar inquiries. When the wife of the late Walter Rodney wrote to President Jagdeo asking for closure to her husband’s death, she was in effect asking for a determination by a credible and judicial process as to how her husband died and who were the authors of his death and who else were involved.
She was not asking for herself, her family and the party of her husband to be convinced that Burnham killed him. I think she knows this. But for closure to take place there has to be credible determination of the circumstances of his death by an impartial, independent international commission of inquiry.
While many know how Walter died, the official record is that he died by misadventure, a conclusion drawn from what the WPA described as a “demonstration inquest.” We must also bear in mind that there are some out there who are hiding behind the denial of facts, and there are others whose role in the assassination of Rodney needs to be exposed.
If Misir’s position represents that of the PPP, then the scales are tipping further to the side that the PPP did not know what it was doing when it abstained in the parliamentary motion.
The PPP should not, unlike the Misra, Jain, Verma and Shamgar commissions of inquiry, have voted against the replacement of the word “assassination” in the original motion, because the purpose of the motion was to form the basis of a commission of inquiry to determine how Rodney died and who were involved.
It was therefore prejudicial for the word “assassination” to have remained in the motion as scripted. The amendments moved by Sheila Holder are not a question of changing reality. It is a question of asking for an impartial process into what happened twenty-five years ago.
Walter’s party believes that he was assassinated physically on June 13, 1980. They also believe that he was judicially executed a second time as result of the inquest into his death.
I consider the action of the PPP to the PPP in playing politics on this matter to constitute the third assassination of Rodney, a bloodless one at that.