One of the
propositions of Leftists’ theory of history is that human beings are the makers
of their own history. A corollary to this – that human beings do not make this
history simply as they wish, but that they make it with materials and
circumstances fashioned and transmitted by and from the past – is as important
as the main thesis.
This composite proposition
has remained a pillar of Leftists’ political and social action. And it is one
of the propositions which Leftists bring to the workers’ movement, revolutionary
groups and, indeed, all movements that genuinely wish to change the world or
segments of it for the benefit of the exploited, the dominated, the enslaved,
the deceived, the humiliated and the abandoned.
An injunction that
issues from this proposition is that those who fight for justice, freedom or
equality should not lie, should not falsify history – however strong the
temptation to do so may be. This is not simply a moral injunction. It is a
political and ideological injunction because – as history itself has
demonstrated over and over again - falsification of history ultimately weakens
the falsifiers’ cause.
In late 1990, as a
full-time member of the Editorial Board of The Guardian, I wrote a 10-part
column titled A refutation of official
history. The present article is offered both in anticipation of the appearance
of an updated edition of that essay and as a commentary on the current wave of
“politics-inspired” re-interpretations of our country’s history.
From about 1990 to
2005 there was an intense national media debate on a subject variously called
“the national question”, “the ethnic question” or “the ethnic nationality
question”. The first alternative name is considered the orthodox variant.
Nigerian Leftists not only raised the intellectual level of this debate but
also made it wider and more political by introducing the concept of Sovereign National
Conference (SNC) and demanding for it. I took part in that debate both as a
socialist and as a member of the Editorial Board of The Guardian.
Among the sharpest
and most passionate contributors to this unstructured national dialogue from
the Left were Comrade (Professor) G. G. Darah and the late Comrade (Dr) Bala
Usman. But they entered the “National Question” and “Sovereign National
Conference” debates from diametrically opposite ideological and political
directions. The debate however never degenerated to personal abuses and never
employed “ad hominem” arguments.
The National Question
and Sovereign National Conference debates did not come to a close. Rather, it
went into a lull. It remained that way until a couple of years ago. But when
the debate resumed it did so as something entirely different: it had ceased to
be informed by verifiable historical facts and true sequences of events;
perspectives and methods could no longer be apprehended or characterized; the
language had become simply horrible and the social media – unavailable to the
last generation – had become the main platform for the debate – or rather, the
abuse.
The concrete issues
around which the “national question” debate or abuse is currently being fought
may be grouped into three: One is
the question of “restructuring” or “geopolitical restructuring” of the country.
Positions being canvassed on this question include the retention of the present
structure; “strong” restructuring; “weak” restructuring (if we may borrow the
language of the current Brexit debate in Europe); and the right of any of the
present six geopolitical zones to secede from the federation. The second issue is national political re-alignment
(combinations and dissociations) in preparation for the 2019 general elections.
The third issue is the current
widespread destructions and killings which have been officially classified as
herdsmen – farmers clashes.
We note, sadly,
that there is no issue or sub-issue on the list of issues articulated above
which we can say had been inspired by the Left or the popular-democratic
movement either in its own name or in the name of the masses of Nigeria. Of
course, all the issues affect the masses and their resolutions – one way or
another – will, as usual, carry grave consequences for the masses.
It is, however, not
the aim of this piece to squeeze into this small space explicitly Left demands
such as popular-democratic restructuring and the massive re-deployment of the
nation’s resources in favour of the masses as articulated in my previous
article, Further notes on people’s
manifesto. Rather, I wish to use the space that is left here to draw the
attention of debaters to some elementary facts on the origins of, and political
developments in, Nigeria up to the civil war. These are verifiable simple facts
which you must respect if you intend to use your arguments and positions to
persuade living human beings.
Fact One: In 1977, Professor
Obaro Ikime, one of the earliest and most accomplished Nigerian historians, offered
an important book on Nigerian history to scholars and non-scholars alike. The
book is titled The Fall of Nigeria: The British conquest. It is divided into
two parts. The second part, Episodes
from the British Conquest of Nigeria, tells the stories of the British military
defeat and occupation of 12 selected Nigerian communities: Lagos, Calabar, Oyo,
Ilorin, Brass, Benin, Aro, Tiv, Borno, Zaria, Kano and Sokoto. If you put up a
current map of Nigeria, you will see the spread of just some of the areas where
military battles were fought between the British colonialists and the native
populations between 1885 and 1914. Ikime studied these battles.
My proposition here
is: By 1914 all the present 36 state capitals and the federal capital territory
had British military presence – by conquest. Put differently: The colonialists
decisively won each of the battles listed in the preceding paragraph and
several others not listed, put the conquered territories together and forged a
country they called Nigeria.
When our ancestors
rose to resume the struggle, they rose not as individual communities, but as
Nigerians fighting for the independence of Nigeria. And they won independence
not as members of previously defeated autonomous communities, but as citizens
of Nigeria. This point was made by Bala Usman and conceded by several debaters
including myself. But the point, though a powerful one, did not settle and has
not settled the question of national unity decades after independence. It has,
however, eliminated a large field of arguments.
Fact Two: In 1900,
the British proclaimed their ownership of three territories, namely: the
Protectorate of Northern Nigeria, the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria and the
Colony of Lagos. In 1906, the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria was merged with
the Colony of Lagos. And in 1914, the two protectorates were merged and named
the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria with Lagos as capital. In 1936, the
protectorate of Southern Nigeria was divided into two groups of provinces – the
West and the East. By 1954 Nigeria had become a federation of three regions:
North, East and West and the Federal Capital, Lagos. Independence was won for
Nigeria on October 1, 1960. And in 1963, the fourth region, Mid-West, was
carved out of the West.
Fact Three: On May
30, 1967, the whole of Eastern Region comprising the present southeast
geopolitical zone plus the present Bayelsa, Rivers, Akwa-Ibom and Cross River
States was declared the Republic of Biafra. A 30-month war broke out. On
January 15, 1970, the 1967 declaration was renounced and the status-quo ante
was restored.
These are simple
and verifiable historical facts which must be respected by debaters. They
neither support nor oppose any of the current demands or opposition to any
demand. But a truthful reconstruction of historical experience is a powerful
weapon in any struggle for a just future. And that is why Leftists (socialists
and radical democrats) invest so much energy in self-education and popular
education.
*Edwin Madunagu,
mathematician and journalist, writes from Calabar, Cross River State.
No comments:
Post a Comment