Lessons from 1990?

“As the Muslimeen held their guns at the throat of the prime minister and cabinet ministers on July 27, 1990, Trinidad and Tobago went into a state of panic, pain and passion. The widespread lawlessness in the society provided a receptive environment for the Muslimeen actions. Law and order must rest on a wider framework of political accountability, judicial efficiency and public morality.”

Those words are written on the front cover of my 1993 book on the 1990 episode, a book used as resource material by the commission of enquiry into the insurrection. (Society Under Siege: A Study of Political Confusion and Legal Mysticism 1993, Ramesh Deosaran, 270 pp. In UWI, UTT library). I appeared twice before the commission.

During the siege many serious questions were publicly raised. Among them the Muslimeen’s motives, the status of the amnesty, protracted trial delays, marginalised black youth, political confusion, legal entanglements, heavy looting, death of innocent persons, the role of the media, political corruption and the need for constitution reform.

Given our current concerns over crime, lawlessness and public accountability, the question is: Has the country and its government learned much from the 1990 insurrection? “Lesson” is described as “an occurrence that serves or should serve to warn.” Any lessons learnt to help reduce gangs and violence?

To help illustrate the social and political climate around 1990, I briefly cite a few excerpts from the book:

1. “Electorates all over the word are now in a cynical and bitter mood and are demanding more than before, that politicians honour their promises, cut down on graft and govern more effectively and purposively. If the new government of Trinidad and Tobago can learn this lesson some good will have come from the Muslimeen’s attack and Dr Deosaran’ labours in recreating those traumatic events of 1990.” (Professor Robin Cohen, Graduate School of Sociology, University of Warwick, UK, 1993, p 10.)

2. “Police Commissioner Jules Bernard was out of the country. UNC Leader Basdeo Panday, PNM Leader Patrick Manning and House Speaker Nizam Mohammed were not in parliament at the time of the Muslimeen attack. President Hassanali was on three weeks’ vacation. At TTT, Bakr said ‘the government was overthrown.’ Estimated 24 killed, 133 injured.” (p.21-51)

3 “An ‘agreement’ was struck. Outside resistance developed. The tension inside the Red House and at TTT grew worse. Rumours spread swiftly. A State of Emergency was declared by Acting President Emmanuel Carter on this Saturday, July 28. Pictures of fire and looting, heavily armed soldiers and a ravaged city occupied television screens around the world.” (p. 21-27)

4. “On Sunday, National Security Minister Herbert Atwell announced ‘the Government in control.’ On Saturday, Abu Bakr released an “amnesty”” written by Acting President Carter.

5. OWTU education officer David Abdullah wrote: "The Jamaat’s politics was not really the politics of a mass movement. The Jamaat’s action derailed the mass movement." Muslimeen member Abdullah Omowale said: “It was not an overnight decision. We simply wanted to make a point, not an attempt to take over the government.’” (p 30)

6. “Two related features continue to form part of our national life and which found themselves very active in the see-saw approach by the central government and City Hall in the Muslimeen Mucurapo land conflict. One was the high-level political tolerance for lawlessness and the government tendency for ambivalence in such illegal practices as squatting, PH taxis, street vending, etc. Such permissiveness helped laid down a culture of lawlessness, subverting society’s legal norms (p 131)

7. “The vacillations by the State and City Corporation again became an obstacle in having the law followed. Such vacillations in state negotiations with the Muslimeen once more subverted the role of the court.” (p 207)

8. Imam Bakr said: “I think the point of no return came when the police and army were ordered by court off the land and they refused. They felt they were a law unto themselves.” (Interview with author. p 250)

9. “This book is a stimulating, pioneering study of judicial politics and social conflict, a commanding grasp of the social sciences. An outstanding analysis of how the present political and legal system are part of the quandary.” (Review, Professor Theodore Becker, LLB, PhD, Head, Dept of Political Science, Auburn University, p 9)

And so, the explosion of July 27 came.