By Mas Damisa
(Guest Columnist)
The history of riots on the Plateau is a fairly long one, given the labor malpractices of the mining companies which came to undermine the indigenous people of old Plateau Province. With their imported laborers from neighboring Provinces, the mining companies detested the local people who were not particularly keen to work for or with the mining companies. Of course, a people reserve the right to choose what occupation to engage in, more especially if they had alternatives and if the one on offer-working in the mine pits-also despoil their soil upon their toil. The few who ventured into the pits were discriminated against in favour of the imported labourers-the latter being made to feel they were special. This attitude was buoyed by the colonial political practice of divide – and – rule and the revenue the government was raking in through the taxes the mining companies were paying.
The mining industries attracted subsidiary concerns involved in the supplies of materials and again, most of the suppliers were also from the same source and stock of the ever-increasing labourers. Again, petty traders in kola nut and cigar rates began to flock into Jos to supply the needs of the mining workers who seemed addicted to nicotine and caffeine-containing chewing nuts. These hawkers, labourers and petty contractors were more in number in the mining industry and constituted a veritable force as against the relatively weak position of the local mining personnel. Moreover, the settlers were of the same religious persuasion and from Islamic Caliphate provinces compared to the pagan Christian Provinces of the indigenes as was classified by the Colonialists.
If the economic and political equation were unbalanced as it were, coupled with the different religious faiths, the differences between the indigenous population and the settlers came out in bold relief – these being the seed of the mutual suspicion and lack of tolerance between Plateau people and their caliphate guests. The mutual intolerance seemed to be actively promoted by military regimes who often posted non-indigenes to Plateau State (like other states) who didn’t understand the prevailing relationship of the populace. Note that it was not the caliphate people alone who went to Jos to work in the mines. There are other Nigerians who arrived there even earlier but who do not exhibit a superior religious or ethnic mentality and so, were able to co-exist in peace with the local people.
It is not clear if security agencies and the various panels of inquiry has ever adverted their minds to the nature and beliefs of the two opposing religions as a causative factor in the endless blood letting on the Plateau. On one hand, Islam is seen and practiced as a universal culture and as a means of organizing a community for common goals and objectives; which is why it is called or described as a way of life. On the other hand, Christianity prepares people for eternity in heaven and teaches them not to indulge in the affairs of this world but to endure as pilgrims since this planet earth is regarded as a pilgrimage. While one faith makes no distinction between politics and religion, the other puts the two in different compartments; and while one brooks no rivalry, the other finds accommodation with other religious beliefs. These are a few differences between these two religious faiths.
Perhaps it is pertinent here to contemplate the culture and customs of the indigenous people of the Plateau to see if they suffer from a persecution complex. If they do, then it appears related to the ‘born-rulership’ mentality of their caliphate guests as such complex finds no expression in their relationship with other Nigerians.
However, one fundamental truth is lost in the practice of religion in Nigeria. This truth is the freedom of the individual to choose and practice a religion without being forced by any one. In this vein, compulsion is ruled out and enclaves can not be justified, but here is where we fail as a country. Certain people from certain area believes so much in living in exclusive enclaves in their own lands as well as wherever they domicile and so, makes integration between the peoples of Nigeria impossible. Where one is not resident in the land of his birth and yet seek to live as if he is at home and abroad at the same time, it poses a challenge to his hosts as their fundamental human rights are being trampled upon. Moreover, it is a fundamental error of judgment to accord oneself the freedom to impose your whims on others while you tolerate no such thing in your own homeland. Universally and from ages past, inter-personal and group relationship is reciprocal and this is why diplomatic relations are established between nations regardless of the size, strength and values of those in the relationship.
Security agencies and panels of inquiry should take time to study the differences in religious practice and see where any group employs compulsion or imposition which infringes on the rights of the other group. Any religious or cultural practice that seeks to isolate others in a cosmopolitan setting has the potential of igniting clashes. And any group that insists on forcing their ways and beliefs on others should be told to desist or return to their homeland of origin. The freedom of citizens to live and work at any where of their choice does not include the license to imposes personal or group whims on others. Human lives are equally valuable and since no religion creates a life, none is permitted to take life under whatever pretence or excuse.
Plateau State is home to some notable army generals such as Domkat Bali, Joshua Dogonyaro, J.T. Useni, John Shagaya and police chiefs like Potter Dabup e.t.c. Yet, their state became a land of occupation by human predators that raids towns of their choice without appropriate response or determent. What else could account for this than the effects of divide-and-rule tactics from colonial times? How the streets and villages did have their names changed from the native names to none-native languages. Why is it that the Hausa language they use as local lingual Franca could not unite them? Who among them is collaborating with outsiders to destabilize the state for selfish gains? When will they realize that an attack on one ethnic group in the state is an attack on others when it is their turn? Does it not occur to them that no such attacks are taking place in Sokoto, Kano or Katsina against indigenes of those towns by their settlers?
It is not too difficult to note that during military regimes, those who claim to own Nigeria used remote control to influence affairs disproportionately in their own favour, and that the advent of democracy empowers the indigenes to rule themselves and terminate such remote control. The civil regimes of Chief Solomon Lar and Joshua Dariye suffered series of challenges to their regimes, not on the basis of their performances or lack of it, but because they are indigenes of Plateau. Jonah David Jang has not fared better, not because he favours Birom above other ethnic groups in the state anymore than Lar and Dariye did for their own, but for the same reason that a Plateau man is governing the state with Plateau interests at heart. Dariye was shoved aside by way of a state of emergency and a sole administrator appointed, not because he was a non-performer-and he did not perform-but because those trouble-makers were uncomfortable with an indigene ruling the state. From all accounts, Jang has been doing a yeoman’s job trying to restore development and peace to the state; yet certain Nigerians resident in the state are uncomfortable with him.
If Jang is stubborn as is being canvassed by detractors and local collaborators, was Dariye also stubborn and unyielding? By the way, to who are they supposed to yield: to the interest and desires of the people of the state or to a select group of self-ordained born rulers? The unfortunate fact is that most institutions of state are colonially oriented and orientated and as such, are mere instruments or tools in the of hands of those remote-controlling them. Or else, why do you think that the Nigerian Army could not do a simple job of peace keeping without becoming partisan? When bombs are being detonated, the Army claimed that they are “improvised explosive devices” and not bombs! Yet, explosives and bombs do the same damage to persons and property!
How come those Army personnel are found escorting raiders and arsonists in Plateau State? Has any tailor been arrested for illegally sewing army or police uniforms? If imported, who are the importers and who awarded them the contract? These questions cannot be truthfully and truly answered by a colonial-oriented army or police. The plague on the Plateau is a miniature of the plague on Nigeria. Those who cannot live in peace in Plateau will do well to relocate back to their state or country of origin and leave Nigeria alone.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
The Face of a New Nigeria
By Sam Onimisi
Nigeria as a geographical expression or political entity has changed size once and in 1961, when the Southern part of the then United Nations Trust Territory elected via plebiscite to join the Republic of Cameroon. Its Northern part later known as the Sardauna Province chose to remain a part of Nigeria through the same plebiscite after a promise by the late Sardauna of Sokoto and Premier of Northern Region of Nigeria that they will be accorded the status of a Province. In effect, the Nigerian map has to be redrawn to reflect the reality of the loss of the Southern part of the trust Territory to Cameroon.
Ironically, and in 2005, Nigeria again lost the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon in the aftermath of a judicial decision by the International Court of Justice at The Hague. One is not sure if the Nigerian map has been adjusted to reflect current realities even as Cameroon was said to have lost some villages to Nigeria, courtesy of the same court rulings. What these implies is that the territorial integrity of Nigeria have twice been assailed albeit, peacefully.
Once when a violent method was adopted to interfere with the country’s territorial map, a bloody civil war ensued and was fought for nearly three years with the loss of over One Million precious lives. Experience has shown that the territorial integrity of Nigeria and indeed any other country could remain inviolate only through internal mutual understanding and agreement. When and where deliberate actions are taken to hold down a people and their territory by force of arms against the wishes of the people (Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union and the Sudan are contemporary examples), what results is either violent or peaceful disintegration.
Through several painstaking constitutional conferences in Lagos and London between 1957 and 1959, Nigeria’s leaders agreed to a federal structure and system of government, which resulted into the three initial regions of pre-1960 independence, until the fourth was created in 1963. Meaning that, the four regions of the first republic were products of dialogue, bargaining, discussion, disagreements ending in agreement! And because the regions reflected to a certain extent, the true wishes of the people and fitted the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nature of the heterogeneity of Nigeria, the country remained in a healthy competition until in 1962 when the federal government embarked on meddlesomeness in regional affairs.
The map of Nigeria has changed internally about seven times since 1960; first in 1961, second in 1963, third in 1967, then followed by the 1976 states creation exercises carried out by fiat of the autocratic military regimes of Generals Yakubu Gowon, Murtala Muhammed, Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha respectively. In effect, the 36 states structure and the unitary system of government which exists today are reflections of the military potentates who arrogated to themselves a monopoly of wisdom, understanding and patriotism of how Nigeria should be.
The peculiar wisdom which the various military regimes pretended they had, which informed the arbitrary creation of the 36 states geopolitical structure and, the entrenchment of a unitary system of government that grants a near absolute power to the individual head of government (either at the national, state or local council level) has been identified as the single most destructive factor that corroded the internal autonomy of the ethnic peoples of Nigeria. No miltary leader has ever admitted to his infallibility in this regard, and none is now expected to so agree. For one thing, their empty pride of phoney valour will not allow them; for another, the beneficiaries of these phantom and arbitrary geopolitical creations will continue to justify their fraudulent gains.
Yet, the deep-seated mistrust among Nigerian ethnic nationalities which often expresses itself via coup detat, sabotage of impotant state policies, and which stifles creativity and invention, has its roots in the artificiality of the states created by fiat, and the monopoly of power (the authority to share resources and dispense patronage) bestowed on individuals by the presidential (executive) system of government. The result? Ethno-religious riots, religious bigotry and unreasoned fundamentalism, economic and public utilities sabotage for personal gains and systemic failure etc.
The only set of people who enjoy the present system of government and the prevailing geo-political structures are: those powers-that-be feasting on the common-wealth of Nigeria without corresponding contribution or productivity. Of course, the system is oiled by consortia of individual vassals and ethno-regional vassalages who, as clients of their self-chosen masters, also desire that the rotten system continues. Without doubt, the percentage of these leeches on the political economy has not been properly estimated. Again without doubt, they are in minute minority!
What is also not in doubt is that the structure and the system cannot propel or sustain a progressively productive Nigeria. It is infact glaring that it has dragged the country beyond stagnation into retrogression. The evidence? When routine and pedestrain role or duty by government is performed and such is hailed as a miracle. Some 25 years ago, Nigeria was the leading frontline state that helped South Africa defeats the aparthied system. Today, Nigeria lags behind her in democratic and economic progress. Ghana is another hitherto beneficiary of Nigeria’s economic largesse but which today, shines brighter than Nigeria in indices of a stable and progressive polity and economy.
The unwillingness of our ex-military rulers to accept blame or admit their mistakes makes them blame their civillian collaborators fo the woes they brought upon their country. One would have thought that the first thing is to agree to your crime, and then you may begin to point fingers at your accomplices. Those who are parading themselves as statesmen today ought to be languishing in jail for their heinous crime against the country. But here is a country where all laws seems designed to work in reverse order and so, those who should stand condemned are celebrated!.
In all autocratic and treason-infected governments, the first casualty is the truth, after which facts are stood on their heads, at which reasons takes flight and whims cum caprices takes full control. In these circumstances, all talks of patriotism is sheer bunkum and all decisions supposedly taken in the interest of the public is a smokescreen, as the benefit of such decisions ends in the tummy and private purses of the decision makers. If this is patriotism, what then is high treason?
Admittedly,our military rulers are Nigerians and would remain so inspite of their crimes against us. Therefore, we cannot continue recrimination over their past criminality and infinitium if we genuinely want to move forward away from the rot. This is with the hope that they too will not obstruct our quest for forward march. However, is their past mistakes and misrule not impediments to our progress today?
The necessary lessons to be learnt from all these are many but two appear to be germane at the moment: one is that if the map of Nigeria has to change in 1961 and after the loss of Bakassi, and if the internal structure had changed five times since 1963, then there is nothing sacrosanct about the map of Nigeria that could not accommodate a new internal restructuring. The second lesson is that the proposed restructuring will come against deeply entrenched interests and privileges from where resistance should naturally be expected. No problem has ever been overcome, until it is confronted. But what is the attitude of the average Nigerian to confrontation? Acquiescence! Is that how to solve problems and overcome challenges? You may ask again!!
(This article was first published in 2008 by Our VISION magazine and is republished with a few additions)
Nigeria as a geographical expression or political entity has changed size once and in 1961, when the Southern part of the then United Nations Trust Territory elected via plebiscite to join the Republic of Cameroon. Its Northern part later known as the Sardauna Province chose to remain a part of Nigeria through the same plebiscite after a promise by the late Sardauna of Sokoto and Premier of Northern Region of Nigeria that they will be accorded the status of a Province. In effect, the Nigerian map has to be redrawn to reflect the reality of the loss of the Southern part of the trust Territory to Cameroon.
Ironically, and in 2005, Nigeria again lost the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon in the aftermath of a judicial decision by the International Court of Justice at The Hague. One is not sure if the Nigerian map has been adjusted to reflect current realities even as Cameroon was said to have lost some villages to Nigeria, courtesy of the same court rulings. What these implies is that the territorial integrity of Nigeria have twice been assailed albeit, peacefully.
Once when a violent method was adopted to interfere with the country’s territorial map, a bloody civil war ensued and was fought for nearly three years with the loss of over One Million precious lives. Experience has shown that the territorial integrity of Nigeria and indeed any other country could remain inviolate only through internal mutual understanding and agreement. When and where deliberate actions are taken to hold down a people and their territory by force of arms against the wishes of the people (Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union and the Sudan are contemporary examples), what results is either violent or peaceful disintegration.
Through several painstaking constitutional conferences in Lagos and London between 1957 and 1959, Nigeria’s leaders agreed to a federal structure and system of government, which resulted into the three initial regions of pre-1960 independence, until the fourth was created in 1963. Meaning that, the four regions of the first republic were products of dialogue, bargaining, discussion, disagreements ending in agreement! And because the regions reflected to a certain extent, the true wishes of the people and fitted the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nature of the heterogeneity of Nigeria, the country remained in a healthy competition until in 1962 when the federal government embarked on meddlesomeness in regional affairs.
The map of Nigeria has changed internally about seven times since 1960; first in 1961, second in 1963, third in 1967, then followed by the 1976 states creation exercises carried out by fiat of the autocratic military regimes of Generals Yakubu Gowon, Murtala Muhammed, Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha respectively. In effect, the 36 states structure and the unitary system of government which exists today are reflections of the military potentates who arrogated to themselves a monopoly of wisdom, understanding and patriotism of how Nigeria should be.
The peculiar wisdom which the various military regimes pretended they had, which informed the arbitrary creation of the 36 states geopolitical structure and, the entrenchment of a unitary system of government that grants a near absolute power to the individual head of government (either at the national, state or local council level) has been identified as the single most destructive factor that corroded the internal autonomy of the ethnic peoples of Nigeria. No miltary leader has ever admitted to his infallibility in this regard, and none is now expected to so agree. For one thing, their empty pride of phoney valour will not allow them; for another, the beneficiaries of these phantom and arbitrary geopolitical creations will continue to justify their fraudulent gains.
Yet, the deep-seated mistrust among Nigerian ethnic nationalities which often expresses itself via coup detat, sabotage of impotant state policies, and which stifles creativity and invention, has its roots in the artificiality of the states created by fiat, and the monopoly of power (the authority to share resources and dispense patronage) bestowed on individuals by the presidential (executive) system of government. The result? Ethno-religious riots, religious bigotry and unreasoned fundamentalism, economic and public utilities sabotage for personal gains and systemic failure etc.
The only set of people who enjoy the present system of government and the prevailing geo-political structures are: those powers-that-be feasting on the common-wealth of Nigeria without corresponding contribution or productivity. Of course, the system is oiled by consortia of individual vassals and ethno-regional vassalages who, as clients of their self-chosen masters, also desire that the rotten system continues. Without doubt, the percentage of these leeches on the political economy has not been properly estimated. Again without doubt, they are in minute minority!
What is also not in doubt is that the structure and the system cannot propel or sustain a progressively productive Nigeria. It is infact glaring that it has dragged the country beyond stagnation into retrogression. The evidence? When routine and pedestrain role or duty by government is performed and such is hailed as a miracle. Some 25 years ago, Nigeria was the leading frontline state that helped South Africa defeats the aparthied system. Today, Nigeria lags behind her in democratic and economic progress. Ghana is another hitherto beneficiary of Nigeria’s economic largesse but which today, shines brighter than Nigeria in indices of a stable and progressive polity and economy.
The unwillingness of our ex-military rulers to accept blame or admit their mistakes makes them blame their civillian collaborators fo the woes they brought upon their country. One would have thought that the first thing is to agree to your crime, and then you may begin to point fingers at your accomplices. Those who are parading themselves as statesmen today ought to be languishing in jail for their heinous crime against the country. But here is a country where all laws seems designed to work in reverse order and so, those who should stand condemned are celebrated!.
In all autocratic and treason-infected governments, the first casualty is the truth, after which facts are stood on their heads, at which reasons takes flight and whims cum caprices takes full control. In these circumstances, all talks of patriotism is sheer bunkum and all decisions supposedly taken in the interest of the public is a smokescreen, as the benefit of such decisions ends in the tummy and private purses of the decision makers. If this is patriotism, what then is high treason?
Admittedly,our military rulers are Nigerians and would remain so inspite of their crimes against us. Therefore, we cannot continue recrimination over their past criminality and infinitium if we genuinely want to move forward away from the rot. This is with the hope that they too will not obstruct our quest for forward march. However, is their past mistakes and misrule not impediments to our progress today?
The necessary lessons to be learnt from all these are many but two appear to be germane at the moment: one is that if the map of Nigeria has to change in 1961 and after the loss of Bakassi, and if the internal structure had changed five times since 1963, then there is nothing sacrosanct about the map of Nigeria that could not accommodate a new internal restructuring. The second lesson is that the proposed restructuring will come against deeply entrenched interests and privileges from where resistance should naturally be expected. No problem has ever been overcome, until it is confronted. But what is the attitude of the average Nigerian to confrontation? Acquiescence! Is that how to solve problems and overcome challenges? You may ask again!!
(This article was first published in 2008 by Our VISION magazine and is republished with a few additions)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
