By Aloy Ejimakor<\/p>\n
This piece is intended as a brief excursion into recent history to
\ndetermine how the post-Civil War Biafran idea came into being; the major
\ncharacters who translated the idea into an agitation; the impacts of the
\ndiverse methods and strategies deployed to the agitation, and what might
\nhave now gone wrong with the struggle.<\/p>\n
Most people will agree that, in this present era\u00a0 of IPOB, Radio Biafra and
\nNnamdi Kanu, It has become necessary to travel back in time to examine how
\na piquant idea that died in the battle field in 1970 was later given an
\nimpetus and then an unprecedented degree of consciousness that survived
\nseveral regimes and still endured, but now appears to have been eroded in
\none fell swoop.<\/p>\n
First, rewind back to the immediate era after the end of the war when the
\nformer eastern Nigerian citizens (aka former Biafrans) were scrambling to
\nre-embrace their Nigerian citizenship. The scramble was more profound
\namongst Igbos because they carried the greater burden of having led the war
\nand thus were prone to far more stigmatization (and denial) than their
\nother eastern Nigerian brethren.<\/p>\n
The tempo of this scramble to once again be Nigerians was such that any
\nIgbo that as much mentioned Biafra became a pariah amongst his fellow
\nIgbos; not to talk of the terrible fate that might befall him at the hands
\nof non-Igbo Nigerians. Recall the horrible fate of Sam Rose-Anyaugo, who
\nwas brutalized and summarily jailed by Gowon’s regime in 1971 for writing a
\npiece – Killing Biafra – in the defunct Daily Star newspaper. Fearing
\nreprisals and wishing to belong, Igbos shied away from Anyaugo; and Gowon
\nwas left free to deal with him as he wished.<\/p>\n
That entire era of Igbo collective denial of the Biafran idea became
\nnear-absolute with Shagari’s pardon of Ojukwu; and Ojukwu’s immediate
\nemergence as a major player in the NPN – the ruling party of the time at
\nthe federal level. So, it came to pass that, with Ojukwu’s pardon and
\nre-assimilation into the Nigerian project, Biafra was considered dead and
\ngone, forever. It remained so for many years despite the simmering feelings
\nof neo-marginalization by vast majorities of Igbos.<\/p>\n
Then, came a young man by name of Ralph Uwazurike, a lawyer and a gutsy
\nfellow driven by a sense of mission, yet not then possessing any national
\nor even regional renown. Uwazurike, who did part of his tertiary education
\nin India must have understudied Mahatma Ghandi – the father of the
\nnon-violent approach in the struggle for self-determination. Ghandi’s style
\nwas credited to have been the most effectual factor that ended the British
\nRaj in India without firing a shot. In adopting this strategy, Uwazurike
\nwas in lock-step with Martin Lurher King, who had deployed the same path to
\nending segregation in America.<\/p>\n
So, to the young Uwazurike, the better way to, once again, pursue the
\nBiafran idea was through a non-violent struggle but one that is stubborn
\nand geared to sufficiently raising the consciousness of the people while at
\nthe same time not unnecessarily antagonizing the world around us. Uwazurike
\npursued that goal under the platform of a non-violent, but highly effective
\nMASSOB.<\/p>\n
Yet, from the very beginning, and especially from the IBB era to the
\nYar’Adua era, Uwazurike was to endure a lot of arrests, incarcerations, and
\nprosecutions (plus persecutions) that would’ve worn out the strongest
\nGhandis, Kings, and all the others in history that have led their people
\nthrough a long match to freedom. But the man stayed the course, buoyed by
\nhis abiding fate, millions of followers, a dose of international goodwill,
\na sense of history, and most importantly – an understanding larger Nigerian
\npopulation that respected his approach to the issue.<\/p>\n
All these were not with their pitfalls. Uwazurike paid a huge price. He
\nlost his youth to the struggle, and suffered professional retardation, plus
\nmore. But better yet, Uwazurike became established world-wide as a freedom
\nfighter of renown.<\/p>\n
The net result of Uwazurike’s doggedness was that Igbos no longer felt
\nguilty about Biafra, other Nigerians became less hostile to the idea, and
\noverall, Igbos regained their self-pride, culminating in what Ojukwu aptly
\ncalled ‘Biafra of the mind’. Uwazurike was the architect of all that. In
\ntime, he became the poster-boy for the struggle of an entire people to rise
\nagainst marginalization and rank political injustice. In the end, it
\nindirectly translated to more inclusiveness of Igbos in the federal scheme
\nof things in Nigeria. Igbos became more respected by their Nigerian
\nbrethren; and the international community, for the first time, took
\npositive notice of Biafra since the end of the civil war.<\/p>\n
During all of these, Uwazurike never preached hate against Nigeria, he
\nnever called for the head of Nigerian leaders, he never profaned other
\nNigerians. Why? Because he rightly calculated that turning that path was
\nthe easiest way to court the destruction of the Biafran idea. Like
\nUwazurike, Ghandi never alienated the British with some talk about their
\nleaders being ‘cattle and goats’; and Rev King never called for the head of
\nthe white people in America.<\/p>\n
But what do we have now? We have a situation where a Radio Biafra Uwazurike
\nlegally set up in London and appointed Nnamdi Kanu as Director was later
\nillegally diverted from the ‘lofty’ purposes for which Uwazurike founded
\nit. To be sure,\u00a0 Radio Biafra was founded for the singular goal of
\nemploying civil\/non-violent and intellectual broadcasts to make the case
\nfor Biafra. The later-day incendiary broadcasts purveyed by Nnamdi Kanu
\nwere considered unwise and inimical to any serious efforts to actualize the
\nidea of Biafra. And as it came to pass, the negative trajectory of Radio
\nBiafra and Nnamdi Kanu’s hate speeches combined to erase the decades-old
\ngains made by Uwazurike.<\/p>\n
The fallouts are legion: Igbos are now being killed by security forces
\nwhich was not the case before. Some Igbos are now talking of taking up arms
\nagainst Nigeria which makes no sense, considering the debacle of the civil
\nwar. Nigerian security forces have now been offered an easy excuse to
\nunleash unreasonable force – all thanks to Nnamdi Kanu, who himself has
\nbeen charged for terrorism, thus placing him at par with Shakau of Boko
\nHaram and the leaders of ISIS\/other terrorist organizations. What this
\nmeans is that a Biafran struggle that had gained momentum and an optimum
\nlevel of respect and serious consideration under the stable hands of
\nUwazurike has suddenly turned a negative path to the point that it is now
\nseen as an act of terrorism to stand with Biafra.<\/p>\n
That’s what went wrong. And the truth is that Igbos are worse off for it.<\/p>\n
Aloy Ejimakor, a lawyer wrote in from aejimakor@gmail.com.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":27255,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-54413","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles-opinions"],"yoast_head":"\n