By Hamilton Odunze
Remember the no victor, no vanquished speech Yakubu Gowon made at the end of the civil war in 1970? In that speech, Gowon claimed that he had begun a period of healing, reconciliation, rehabilitation and reconstruction that would make Nigeria a stronger nation.
However, it did not turn out to be the case. Maybe Gowon did not realize that war is a curse. But as Robert Southey wrote in 1809, “Curses are like young chickens, they always come home to roost.”
Forty-eight years later, it is now obvious that the war wove into the social fabric of Nigeria a profound sense of the victor and the vanquished. Consider, for example, Femi Adesina, special adviser on media and publicity to President Buhari. In a television interview, Mr. Adesina said that to stop the killings perpetrated by Fulani Herdsmen, Ndi Igbo must be ready to give up their ancestral settlements for livestock grazing. Unless Mr. Adesina does not understand the underlying insinuation in his statement, he could not have been more direct in reminding Ndi Igbo that they are the vanquished.
Beyond Mr. Adesina’s statement, consider also that Ndi Igbo feel deeply marginalized in the current political structure. When the argument is made about marginalization, it is often based on the quota of federal appointments given to Ndi Igbo. In regard to this fact, there is a heightened frustration that the marginalization of Ndi Igbo is acute in the Buhari administration. Whether this is true or false, it has galvanized credible voices in the new agitation for a Biafra nation and the restructuring of Nigeria
On the other hand, very significant voices have argued that Ndi Igbo are their own worst enemies. Take the comments of Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu, for example. When Dr. Kalu was asked about the backwardness and the marginalization of the South East, he said that Ndi Igbo have no one to blame but themselves. He also said that several Igbo elite are not only selfish, but they also get their politics wrong.
For the record, Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu was once the governor of Abia State. During his tenure, Abia State did not fare better than most states in Nigeria. This fact leaves me with the challenge of giving credence to his assertion that Ndi Igbo are their own worst enemies. If it is true, then Dr. Kalu contributed immensely to their marginalization. I do agree that Ndi Igbo have problems, but many of the problems come from leaders such as Dr. Kalu, who realize that Ndi have problems only in hindsight. These leaders only understand the Igbo problems when it is too late.
These problems are compounded for Ndi Igbo because when a new leader emerges among Ndi Igbo, as Dr. Orji Uzor Kalu did in 1999, their first instinct is to see themselves as the only hope for an Igbo presidency. It is because of this frame of mind that they do whatever it takes to appease other ethnic groups and solicit support, even at the expense of a collective Igbo agenda. This is why many of them agreed to a zoning pattern that they think will someday offer Ndi Igbo the presidency of Nigeria on a platter of gold. It is very naïve to believe that in a complex “democratic” society such as Nigeria, power can be relinquished so willingly, based only on a zoning arrangement.
Advocates of zoning argue that zoning is the only strategic way to achieve an Igbo presidency in the shortest possible time. But the argument is flimsy. There are better strategies to achieve an Igbo presidency. For example, Igbo leaders using resources allocated to the development of Igbo land very judiciously is also a strategy that will prove to others that they need an Igbo presidency to move Nigeria forward. In fact, it is a better strategy. Let’s see it for what it really is: zoning as strategy to an Igbo presidency puts the destiny of Ndi Igbo in the hands of others. Besides, it is a constant reminder that Ndi Igbo are not good enough, and it exemplifies a legacy of defeat.
Throughout history, cultures and people who have been defeated in wars experience a legacy of defeat. It is a lasting, unintended consequence of losing a war that manifest as a trinity of woes: economic; political; and psychological. Since the civil war ended, Ndi Igbo have experienced economic and political woes resulting from defeat. The psychological impact of defeat has not been properly explained or explored, yet it is the one factor that allows the other woes to exist
Consider Japan, for instance. The defeat in World War II has remained to this day the most intense shock to the Japanese. Immediately after the war, the Japanese adopted several psychological responses to cope with the defeat. While many committed suicide, others identified with the aggressor, as the most effective defensive mechanism to deal with defeat. The Japanese abandoned their culture because it had become psychologically inferior to the aggressor’s culture.
When you consider also that the intense erosion of Igbo culture started after the civil war, then the psychological impact of the war can be paralleled to that of Japan and other cultures and peoples who have been defeated in wars. For example, it was after the civil war that showing a mastery of other languages, such as Yoruba and Hausa, became a sign of elitism. Now, the Igbo language needs to be saved, even in the South East.
On a larger scale, the civil war left a legacy of the destruction of core Igbo values, including the way leaders emerge among Ndi Igbo. The truth is that until the basics of Igbo culture are restored, all that Ndi Igbo are seeking now as the solution to the Igbo problem may in fact be in vain.
Hamilton Odunze – Writes from Abuja
TheNewsGuru is published by Kingdom Media Network Int’l Nigeria Limited. TheNewsGuru, a multi-media company, started as Nigeria’s first comprehensive, real online newspaper, TheNewsGuru.com [read more]
ISSN: 3026-8362