By DAN AMOR
For those who were born during or after the Nigerian Civil War, recent publications, provide an illuminating pathway to the events that led to the war. No nation among the third world countries makes a stronger claim on the interest and sympathy of Africans than Nigeria. What Nigeria has meant to the black continent and to blacks across the world, makes her future a matter of deep concern. Nigeria might be doddering or tottering behind less endowed African countries as a giant with feet of clay, no thanks to the tragedy of irresponsible leadership.
*Displaced South Easterners during the Biafra-Nigeria War
But whatever happens to her usually serves as a huge lesson for other African countries. To view therefore with judgment and comprehension the course of present and future events in Nigerian life and politics, we must possess knowledge and understanding of her past, and to provide such understanding within concise compass, we must consult history. Yet it is an unbiased, disinterested and unprejudiced inquiry into the history of our country that will ensure that we leave a legacy of truth for generations yet unborn.
In fact, the true story of Nigeria must begin with the foundations of the nation-its geographical and economic character; its socio-political and religious influences and the psychology of its peoples.
Besides
the existence of multi-ethnic nationalities before the fusion of the Northern
and Southern Protectorates in 1914 by Lord Fredrick Lugard, a British
imperialist military commander, and the almost 100 years of British colonial
rule, the great period of post-independence crisis – 1960 – 1970 – must be vividly
delineated for posterity.
The death in November 2011 of Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu who has come to symbolise that great epoch of epic struggle brought to the front burner of national discourse, the issues and convergent forces at play in the Nigerian Civil War. But recent developments point to the fact that our leaders who prefer to learn their geology the day after the earthquake would want history to repeat itself.
Unfortunately, rather than telling in bold dramatic relief, the tragic and magnificent story of what brought about the war and its aftermath, some commentators have elected to mislead the reading public on who actually caused the war. Some have even pointedly accused Chief Ojukwu of having masterminded the war in order to divide Nigeria.
What can be more mischievously misleading than the deliberate refusal to allow the historical sense transcend the ephemeral currents of the present and reveal the spirit of a people springing from the deepest traditions of their tragic experience? How could one begin to appreciate a legend who continued to be astonishingly misunderstood even when the realities of the factors that pushed him to rise in defense of his people are damning on the rest of us more than 50 years after his action? Why is it so difficult for us to appreciate the fact that Ojukwu had come to represent, in large and essential measure, not only a signification of heroism but also a courageous attempt to say no to an emerging oligarchy which was bent on annihilating his people from the face of the earth?
No Nigerian in his right senses should support any nebulous
attempt to re-awaken the Biafran experience. But if we believe the time-tested
aphorism that few men are austere or dull-witted enough to scorn the pageantry
and romance of history, then we must ask ourselves why, for God’s sake, would
people become so barren in thought as to hold the view that Ojukwu caused the
Nigerian Civil or what some mischievously call the Biafran War?
Even for those of us who were born during the holocaust that was the war itself, a deep reflection on what brought it about cannot in all sincerity be divorced from the greed and unbridled ambition of Nigerian politicians – the quest to dominate others and the winner-takes-all mentality of the lackeys to whom the colonialists handed over power on a platter of gold.
Why must we forget so soon the blatant rigging of the 1964 Western Region election by the Federal government – controlled Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) in favour of S.A. Akintola at the expense of Chief Obafemi Awolowo of the Action Group who was believed to have won that election in the first place? How can we forget so soon that it was the upheaval that followed that manipulation in the Western Region and the inability of the government at the centre to contain it that orchestrated the January 15, 1996 military coup and its aftermath?
In fact, in all the accounts of the developments that led to the war, both local and international, none particularly mentioned Ojukwu as a key player in either the coup of January 1966 or the July 29, 1966 counter revolutionary coup led by young Hausa/Fulani soldiers. Ojukwu’s response to the wanton killings of Igbo and other nationals of Eastern Nigerian origin was a latter day development which in all practical purposes followed the natural course of history. He was just an uncommon patriot who responded decisively to the issues of the day.
We bow courteously before the mighty personages of other traditions. The appeal of Nigeria’s annals is not that of a success story. The record of our soulless country is strangely somber. Like in France, our earliest heroes might be heroes of defeat. But the story is shot through with episodes of unequaled magnificence. That history is repeating itself just as we recall our ugly past shows that it is the destiny of Nigeria to live dangerously.
Last month, January 15, 2021, Nigerian leaders pretended to have marked the 51st anniversary of the end of the Nigerian Civil War. All of them, including the victims of the war itself who pretend not to know, went to the graves of the "unknown soldiers" to lay wreaths in remembrance of the supreme price they paid for Nigeria to be one. Yet, in the minds of most notoriously undemocratic Nigerians, the war has not yet ended and the country is not yet one. The last administration made an Igboman Chief of Army Staff and brought the Civil War to its knees. He prosecuted the Boko Haram war almost to its logical conclusion.
But another man came and reversed what the last administration did by insisting that an Igbo cannot be Chief of Army Staff; cannot be Chief of Air Staff; cannot be Chief of Naval Staff; cannot be Chief of Defense Staff and cannot even be Inspector General of Police. The current one is saying that the civil war has not ended; that the vice presidency which the South East attained seven years after the war was an error. No. It is not true. The Civil War which ended on January 15, 1970 must be laid to rest. No victor, no vanquished.
Between 1800 and 1945, there have been pockets of civil wars across the world before the Nigerian Civil War which was fought between 1967 and 1970. There was the Castle Hill convict rebellion, 1804; the Gutierrez-Magee Expedition (Texas) 1812-1813; Argentine Civil Wars, 1814-1880; Zulu Civil War, 1817-1819. There was also the Long Expedition (Texas), 1818, 1821; the Greek Civil War, 1824-1825; the Freedom Rebellion (Texas), 1826-1827; Liberal Wars (Portugal), 1828-1834. The American Civil War was fought between April 12, 1861 and May 9, 1865 and the Spanish Civil War was prosecuted between July 17, 1936 and April 1, 1939. All these civil wars ended and the respective countries became more united than before.
If
the Nigerian Civil War has been fought and won or declared "no victor, no
vanquished" by Gen. Yakubu Gowon, then it must have meaning and the end
taken to its logical conclusion. The South East must produce the next Inspector
General of Police and the Service Chiefs, for Nigeria to move forward. God has
endowed this country with all that is needed for it to blossom into one of the
best countries in the world. We must end sectional greed and domineering
postures for Nigeria to get there. The Nigerian Civil War must end without much
ado. Let this country be great again.
*Amor,
a public affairs analyst resides in Abuja
