With no attempt at disrespect, I would gently wish that we take a second look at the opprobrium now being heaped on Bas' head for daring to speak somewhat at variance with the many superlatives attached to the passing of ANR Robinson, going further with seeming indelicacy depending on where you stand, to insist that he won't be attending the funeral.But can we even begin to understand Bas' stance on this matter? Beginning with ANR's rejection of Bas in 2001 after the 18/18 tie on the basis of "moral and spiritual values," was he constitutionally and morally right to engage in such subjectivity in deciding on such an important matter as to who should form the government?
How do you measure one's moral and spiritual values, and if you can, what yardstick would you use? Would you use the Christian ethic to do so, and as ANR may well have, how does that fit with the varied ethical positions one should associate with a society which is as multi-religious as ours?Again, against a background of the well-known tensions between the two men between 1986 and 2001, could Bas, as a true, true Hindu, in being a party to that tension, lay claim to responding with the highest moral and religious authority in doing battle with his enemy for a just cause, in keeping with Krishna's advice to Arjuna in the Bhagvadgita?
Further, if ANR's rejection of Bas was a form of payback for Bas' perceived antagonism against him, was ANR not in essence engaging in a form of bias which was cleverly concealed by the lofty motivation of a "lack of moral and spiritual values?"The issue here is whether such a subjective criterion should have been used for such an important matter? Shouldn't there have been instead, a constitutional provision to be decided upon by the Supreme Court of T&T as in the US, rather than by a Head of State which in this country, is more of a figurehead without active participation in matters of government?
Again does the matter of incumbency not count as in similar situations, and further, considering the stewardship of the one chosen against Bas, was there not much to query, before and after, in terms of moral and spiritual values?Should Bas then have much cause to be aggrieved? But I leave that to your better judgement! I would, however, close on this great observation of Antony in the forum speaking on the legacy of men in politics: "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is often interred with their bones." (Julius Caesar Act3 Scene 2.75-76)
Dr Errol Benjamin
via e-mail