By Aloy Ejimakor
This piece is intended as a brief excursion into recent history to
determine how the post-Civil War Biafran idea came into being; the major
characters who translated the idea into an agitation; the impacts of the
diverse methods and strategies deployed to the agitation, and what might
have now gone wrong with the struggle.
Most people will agree that, in this present era of IPOB, Radio Biafra and
Nnamdi Kanu, It has become necessary to travel back in time to examine how
a piquant idea that died in the battle field in 1970 was later given an
impetus and then an unprecedented degree of consciousness that survived
several regimes and still endured, but now appears to have been eroded in
one fell swoop.
First, rewind back to the immediate era after the end of the war when the
former eastern Nigerian citizens (aka former Biafrans) were scrambling to
re-embrace their Nigerian citizenship. The scramble was more profound
amongst Igbos because they carried the greater burden of having led the war
and thus were prone to far more stigmatization (and denial) than their
other eastern Nigerian brethren.
The tempo of this scramble to once again be Nigerians was such that any
Igbo that as much mentioned Biafra became a pariah amongst his fellow
Igbos; not to talk of the terrible fate that might befall him at the hands
of non-Igbo Nigerians. Recall the horrible fate of Sam Rose-Anyaugo, who
was brutalized and summarily jailed by Gowon’s regime in 1971 for writing a
piece – Killing Biafra – in the defunct Daily Star newspaper. Fearing
reprisals and wishing to belong, Igbos shied away from Anyaugo; and Gowon
was left free to deal with him as he wished.
That entire era of Igbo collective denial of the Biafran idea became
near-absolute with Shagari’s pardon of Ojukwu; and Ojukwu’s immediate
emergence as a major player in the NPN – the ruling party of the time at
the federal level. So, it came to pass that, with Ojukwu’s pardon and
re-assimilation into the Nigerian project, Biafra was considered dead and
gone, forever. It remained so for many years despite the simmering feelings
of neo-marginalization by vast majorities of Igbos.
Then, came a young man by name of Ralph Uwazurike, a lawyer and a gutsy
fellow driven by a sense of mission, yet not then possessing any national
or even regional renown. Uwazurike, who did part of his tertiary education
in India must have understudied Mahatma Ghandi – the father of the
non-violent approach in the struggle for self-determination. Ghandi’s style
was credited to have been the most effectual factor that ended the British
Raj in India without firing a shot. In adopting this strategy, Uwazurike
was in lock-step with Martin Lurher King, who had deployed the same path to
ending segregation in America.
So, to the young Uwazurike, the better way to, once again, pursue the
Biafran idea was through a non-violent struggle but one that is stubborn
and geared to sufficiently raising the consciousness of the people while at
the same time not unnecessarily antagonizing the world around us. Uwazurike
pursued that goal under the platform of a non-violent, but highly effective
MASSOB.
Yet, from the very beginning, and especially from the IBB era to the
Yar’Adua era, Uwazurike was to endure a lot of arrests, incarcerations, and
prosecutions (plus persecutions) that would’ve worn out the strongest
Ghandis, Kings, and all the others in history that have led their people
through a long match to freedom. But the man stayed the course, buoyed by
his abiding fate, millions of followers, a dose of international goodwill,
a sense of history, and most importantly – an understanding larger Nigerian
population that respected his approach to the issue.
All these were not with their pitfalls. Uwazurike paid a huge price. He
lost his youth to the struggle, and suffered professional retardation, plus
more. But better yet, Uwazurike became established world-wide as a freedom
fighter of renown.
The net result of Uwazurike’s doggedness was that Igbos no longer felt
guilty about Biafra, other Nigerians became less hostile to the idea, and
overall, Igbos regained their self-pride, culminating in what Ojukwu aptly
called ‘Biafra of the mind’. Uwazurike was the architect of all that. In
time, he became the poster-boy for the struggle of an entire people to rise
against marginalization and rank political injustice. In the end, it
indirectly translated to more inclusiveness of Igbos in the federal scheme
of things in Nigeria. Igbos became more respected by their Nigerian
brethren; and the international community, for the first time, took
positive notice of Biafra since the end of the civil war.
During all of these, Uwazurike never preached hate against Nigeria, he
never called for the head of Nigerian leaders, he never profaned other
Nigerians. Why? Because he rightly calculated that turning that path was
the easiest way to court the destruction of the Biafran idea. Like
Uwazurike, Ghandi never alienated the British with some talk about their
leaders being ‘cattle and goats’; and Rev King never called for the head of
the white people in America.
But what do we have now? We have a situation where a Radio Biafra Uwazurike
legally set up in London and appointed Nnamdi Kanu as Director was later
illegally diverted from the ‘lofty’ purposes for which Uwazurike founded
it. To be sure, Radio Biafra was founded for the singular goal of
employing civil/non-violent and intellectual broadcasts to make the case
for Biafra. The later-day incendiary broadcasts purveyed by Nnamdi Kanu
were considered unwise and inimical to any serious efforts to actualize the
idea of Biafra. And as it came to pass, the negative trajectory of Radio
Biafra and Nnamdi Kanu’s hate speeches combined to erase the decades-old
gains made by Uwazurike.
The fallouts are legion: Igbos are now being killed by security forces
which was not the case before. Some Igbos are now talking of taking up arms
against Nigeria which makes no sense, considering the debacle of the civil
war. Nigerian security forces have now been offered an easy excuse to
unleash unreasonable force – all thanks to Nnamdi Kanu, who himself has
been charged for terrorism, thus placing him at par with Shakau of Boko
Haram and the leaders of ISIS/other terrorist organizations. What this
means is that a Biafran struggle that had gained momentum and an optimum
level of respect and serious consideration under the stable hands of
Uwazurike has suddenly turned a negative path to the point that it is now
seen as an act of terrorism to stand with Biafra.
That’s what went wrong. And the truth is that Igbos are worse off for it.
Aloy Ejimakor, a lawyer wrote in from aejimakor@gmail.com.