Maurice arrived at the University of London in December 1963. He became actively involved in the West Indian Students’ Union, the Standing Conference of West Indian Organisations and was president of the Student’s Association of Holborn College.

As university students, they followed the fortunes of the anti-colonial movements, the disappointing disintegration of the West Indian Federation and the exciting rebirth of newly independent African and Caribbean states from the ashes of colonialism. They discussed the writings of Nkrumah, Franz Fanon, Malcolm X, Fidel Castro and “Che” Guevara. Julius Nyerere’s Ujamaa: Essays on Socialism and the Arusha Declaration of 1967 particularly impressed Maurice.

His experience in England helped him to focus on the question of racism and get a better feel for the problems of the working class. He participated in events like the UK’s West Indian Standing Conference and Campaign Against Racial Discrimination. He felt that the muted response of Britain to the white minority’s unilateral declaration of independence in Rhodesia — in contrast to its rapid deployment of an invasion force to suppress Anguilla’s proclaimed independence in 1967 — exposed him to the hypocrisy of British imperialism. He viewed Fidel and Che as international heroes.

The cultural explosion of the Black Power movement in the United States caused him to think critically about his role as a black man in a white-dominated world. Never mind that, back in the West Indies, he would have been viewed as a privileged, light-skinned member of the middle class. He read Walter Rodney’s The Groundings with my Brothers, which impacted his thinking, outlook and style. He grew a beard, stopped going to church and abandoned western-style suits. Rupert bought his son several suits during one of his trips to London but Maurice never wore any of them. His uncle, Allan La Grenade, said he was not so much a politician as a believer in causes: anti-colonialism and black nationalism in the 60s and anti-Gairyism and socialism in the 70s.

Bernard was at Brandeis when Stokely Carmichael and H Rap Brown were setting America ablaze with fiery oratory. As head tutor for Brandeis’s Summer Programme, ‘Upward Bound’, for ghetto kids, Bernard invited Stokely to address the youth. The progressive white professor who was in charge of the programme was horrified but did not cancel the event.

Bernard would listen to interviews with Malcolm X and Martin Luther King on the radio. King and Bernard’s older brother had both attended Boston University and were friends. He became exposed to the non-violent approach of the civil rights movement. Julius Nyerere and the Cuban revolution were also important influences. It stuck with him when he heard Fidel, during the Angolan crisis with South Africa, describe Cuba as the Latin Africa.

Maurice and Bernard briefly reconnected when Bernard arrived in England in September 1966 to do a masters degree at Sussex. After completing that, he started working full-time while pursuing a PhD in development economics at Sussex. For three and a half years, between the summer of 1967 and December 1970, he ran evening clubs for children from seven schools for the ‘educationally subnormal’ (ESN), and then taught full time at two other ESN schools. This gave him first-hand experience of what was happening in these schools and in the education system. He was outraged when he discovered that ESN schools were used as a convenient dumping ground for black kids who he felt were anything but educationally subnormal. He was invited to present a paper on his findings at a conference featuring West Indian literary heavyweights like Samuel Selvon and Andrew Salkey. It was so well received that he was urged to write a book. Written in the summer of 1970, How the West Indian Child is Made Educationally Sub-normal in the British School System generated serious publicity and unleashed shock waves across the British educational establishment.

Bernard became convinced that for about six months after publication of his book, his phone was tapped and he and his wife followed. The police harassed his young nephew who was visiting.

Eventually, the book went from being denounced to recommended reading. McKie’s boy from the tiny colony had journeyed to the heart of the metropole and given the British educational establishment a slap in the face.

When the Central Committee reconvened on Friday morning, James, as he had done on the previous days, opened the discussions.

What is really required is a cold-blooded, objective and scientific approach to the situation, he stated. The most fundamental problem is the quality of leadership provided by Cde Bishop. He can inspire, win international respect for the revolution and has the charisma to build the confidence of the people inside and outside of Grenada. But these strengths are not enough. The qualities he lacks are precisely those needed to push the revolution forward.

What is needed, he continued, is a Leninist level of organisation and discipline, great depth in ideological clarity and brilliance in strategy and tactics. These are the essential qualities for a Marxist-Leninist leadership which are lacking in the Cde Leader at this time, he bluntly concluded.

Maurice was stunned. He watched as comrade after comrade, like Caesar’s conspiring senators, plunged daggers of criticism into his leadership.

Layne, as seemed to be the pattern, followed right after James, testifying to Bishop’s lack of qualities. Another comrade, Tan Bartholomew, emphasised his tendency to vacillate. Kamau McBarnette, the party’s propagandist, added that he was loose, disorganised and unfocused. Phyllis Coard pointedly accused him of disorganisation and avoiding responsibility for critical areas of work. Comrades, she remarked, had been too scared before to speak up because of the Cde Leader’s hostility to criticism, but now the hard decisions had to be made. Phyllis, the sole female member of the Central Committee, was the acknowledged, unrivalled champion of women’s equality in the PRG.

Maurice had no idea this kind of personal attack would be coming. No heads-up had been given out of deference to his position as prime minister and leader of the revolution. He enjoyed good relations with everyone around the table. No one had even hinted at this kind of acute dissatisfaction with his leadership at the August 26 meeting. Where was this coming from? Was he witnessing a spontaneous reaction by sincere comrades fed up with his leadership style or was it a rehearsed script featuring James in the lead role, Layne and Ventour as supporting actors, Phyllis Coard as leading lady and Bernard Coard directing offstage? Coard, incredibly, would insist that he was only told of the meeting afterwards and that he and Phyllis had a strict rule that work must never be discussed at home.

Conspiracy or not, there appeared to be some merit in their criticisms since both George Louison and Unison Whiteman, staunch allies of Maurice, concurred with the criticisms, though in much more moderate tones. George frankly stated: the number one problem is the quality of Comrade Bishop’s leadership; he loses focus and spends too much time on details and the CC has not been able to help him develop his strengths. We need to find ways and means of doing so. He did not yet realise that the ‘ways and means’ to develop the Cde leader’s strengths might have already been devised. By agreeing with their criticisms he was unwittingly helping to lay the foundation for what was to come.

Copyright 2020 Godfrey Smith. All Rights Reserved. The Assassination of Maurice Bishop is published by Ian Randle Publishers. It is available online at www.ianrandlepublishers.com.amazon.com; bookfusion.com and in retail stores islandwide.