Shah’s article fair enough
THIS is in response to Theodore Lewis’s article in Wednesday’s Express, “Shah’s self-serving revisionism”.
No one writes history. History is what it is. We may try to recall it in writing, but many times lack of intimacy with the events and lack of access to those who shared that intimacy frustrates our efforts to recall it accurately.
Hence my question. Where was Theodore Lewis during the course of those events that he attempted to recall in his writing?
I was a politically conscious high school pupil and, from my discussions with people close to the events and reading the articles and commentaries in the local newspapers at the time, everyone knows Karl Hudson-Phillips was “colonial”, a servant of the State and the author of draconian policy and law.
It would of course require deeper introspection to explain his vaunted ambitions followed by his humble recoil from political grandstanding.
But taking away the subjectivity that Theodore accuses Raffique Shah of, Shah’s account of the context in which Hudson-Phillips arose and the strategies he expounded then (Sunday Express, January 19) still seem a very fair account of the situation to me.
What says Lewis about Lennox Grant’s in the same Sunday Express account which closely reconciles with Shah’s anyway?