1.
Aliyu U. Tilde
IS THE SOUTH FINALLY SET TO COLONIZE THE NORTH?
By Dr. Aliyu U. Tilde
I received a text message yesterday that read, "Senate Committee on constitutional Review is collating people's vote via text on replacing state of origin with state of residence. Text 'Yes' or 'No to 20052"."
Then an advice followed in the text:
"Let me advise pls, txt 'NO". Ur vote is important to rescue the North. Circulate this msg to all Northerners. Be warned, a grand agenda is to colonise d North. How many northerners reside outside d North compared with them. Your vote will be processed accordingly. For more visit: www.constitutionreview.org."
I clicked at www.constitutionreview.org naturally as I know you would do now too. This is what came up:
"Welcome! This domain was recently registered at namecheap.com. The domain owner may currently be creating a great site for this domain. Please check back later!"
Naturally, one will be inclined to discard the message and move on with life. But in a country where government has turned into a cult, with policies formulated by groups behind doors in order to gain advantage over others, only a fool would shrug the message off his shoulders. The safest thing, I said to myself, is to hold the content of the message as true and send my vote to the provided number. Of course you know what that vote is: a big NO. The message was replied instantly, saying:
"Senate Committee on Constitution Review appreciates your input. Your vote will be processed accordingly. For more visit: www.constitutionreview.org."
In this discourse, I intend to discuss the reasons behind my NO vote. They are very clear and in the best interest of the nation.
Ordinarily, I would have jumped at the idea because it would allow my nomadic ethnic group the right of belonging to any place in the country including the Niger Delta where it reached during the last two decades. I am not alone though. It would also favour the other highly mobile ethnic groups – Igbo, Hausa, and Yoruba – as they disperse away from their homelands due to desert encroachment, limitation in space or in search of business opportunities. That would not be fair. We belong to a nation of many tribes and so many of them are not spatially mobile. They would be put at a disadvantage or wiped out altogether from our demographic map. The issue is in fact more complex than that.
The whole indigene problem has been brought into sharp focus recently by the ethno-religious crises in Plateau where the native population – mostly those present at the time of colonization in early 20th Century – attempt to exclude other Northerners in the state from claiming 'indigeneship' of the state and enjoying the rights and privileges due to that status. At a point in the beginning of the crises, former Governor Dariye bluntly said that the Hausas would be expelled from Plateau unless they drop their claim to its indigeneship.
The settler indigene issue thus became the bone of contention in the crises and in all proceedings of panels of inquiry set up in their aftermath. Thousands of people have died or injured on this matter, thousands have been displaced and dozens of settlements have been wiped out from the map completely. Yet, we are not any inch closer to resolving it and, true, the country cannot continue to bleed from its wound.
The pain of that recurrent crisis has tempted many to think of removing the concept of indigene completely from our constitution and official matters and replacing it with something more liberal like citizenship or residency. Many would quickly buy the idea thinking that it will solve the problem. It would not. It will only aggravate it by nationalizing it. In the end, every state would turn into a Plateau or worse.
I am of the strong opinion that despite the problem on the Plateau, the status quo should be maintained while we collectively try to help Plateau solve its problems. The indigene concept as we know it is a culmination of a long journey of affirmative policies in various parts of the federation. It started in the former Western Region when it wanted to exclude the Igbo from its civil service and politics. Later, Sardauna would apply it in the defunct northern region as a shield from southerner domination.
Generally, the Igbo have been the foremost proponents of a unitary Nigeria. This flows from their initial numeric advantage in the federal civil service and, perhaps, eagerness to settle in other regions without suffering any political hindrance given their high population density, very limited home space, and aggressive trading culture. The concept of a unitary Nigeria is the single most important goal of the Ironsi administration.
Aguyi Ironsi, it is said, was so ultra-nationalist in his approach to governance that in an attempt to dissolve the bad blood created among Nigerians as a result of regional differences during the First Republic, he even wanted to carry it to where chiefs would be transferred between regions, like where the Sultan of Sokoto would be transferred to Onitsha or Calabar, for example, and the Obi of Onitsha or Oba of Benin brought to Borno or Kano. Others saw things differently. Northerners in particular saw his moves as an attempt to pave the way for Igbo colonization of the North. Whether it was true or not, that fear contributed to the July 1966 coup just as did the brutal killing of top northern politicians and military officers six month earlier.
Ironsi was killed in that coup and he left the North intact, with its vast land accounting for three quarters of the Nigerian map. But traces of his dream would be pursued in another form this time in combination with that of others. The south has always complained of the unequal size of the three regions that formed Nigeria, saying that the arrangement gave the North a clear advantage in political and administrative matters.
So, one thing was settled for, in collaboration with northern minority groups that have been in opposition to the ruling Northern Peoples Congress during the First Republic. If the 'big' North cannot be colonized as per Ironsi's dream, it should be broken into pieces called states. The agenda of state creation has been a long dream of the two groups and the ascension of the pacifist Gowon as the Head of State and the prominent role of clever Awolowo as his chief planning officer offered a golden opportunity for the realization of that dream. How Nigeria now became 36 states does not need any review here. It took only the first step of creating twelve and the strong thirst for each group to have its own state, no matter how unviable it would be, has never been quenched.
The states created carried as their takeoff baggage the virus of indigenisation. Whenever one is partitioned into two or more, assets of the old state are shared among the new ones and its civil servants are redeployed each to his own state of origin. States have undoubtedly brought government closer to the people. Along with federal statutory allocations they have also brought about a more even distribution of physical development in the country.
However, it is very doubtful, even by the mere reading of "them" in the above text message, whether states creation has brought Nigerians closer to one another. The old North/South divide remains and northerners are often reminded of their common name regardless of the state they originate from in the North or the religion they profess. They are made to equitably share the fate that befalls them especially in times of crisis when the axes of OPC and MASSOB are let lose on the streets of Lagos or Aba respectively.
Beyond their inability to dissolve past differences, states have also multiplied corruption and spread unrest to hitherto peaceful areas. The case of Plateau is a good example to cite. All was well during the former Benue-Plateau and Plateau States. Hausas in Jos North then, for example, were enjoying scholarships and other privileges. But as soon as Nasarawa State was created, a new power equation emerged to the disadvantage of the Hausas. Those favoured by that equation decided that it is now time to get rid of "the settlers" from our land.
The issue of indigeneship is therefore entrenched in our psyche and it will be difficult to remove or replace it with the more liberal identity of residency. That idea will definitely not be accepted in any of the Northern states, if I must put it bluntly. We are okay with the status quo. If I will move to Umuahia to stay for any reason, for example, I will be proud to answer my Bauchi origin and under no circumstance would I claim to be an indigene of Abia. I should be contented with my constitutional rights as a citizen. And those rights, mind you, are many.
I have the right to live in anywhere in the country, to run any business, to associate with anyone, to practice any religion, to hold any belief, all without hindrance, says the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. As a tax payer and a statistic in the demography of the state, I am also entitled to any welfare benefit that might accrue to any of its residents, like electricity, water, healthcare, roads and basic education for my children. I do not think there is much contention on these things.
However, if I need any extra-privilege for myself or for my children, I should seek same from my state of origin, which I should be proud to identify with anyway. Come to think of it: What pride is there in a child that would not answer his father's name? I do not think that would hinder my development in any way. In my view, this is the most equitable arrangement that we can arrive at given our antecedents and existing realities. Since the shift of power to the south, there have been so many genuine complaints of marginalization of the docile North in appointments and general affairs of government. State indigeneship is the only remaining domain for the common man to claim a right that is beyond the reach of anyone that would be tempted to use his economic and political power to dominate him. It is also the only way an equitable representation in the management of affairs of this nation could be achieved as envisaged by the provision of the Federal Character in our constitution.
The desire of the south to 'colonize' the North cannot be dismissed just as the fear of that colonization has refused to leave the minds of Northerners. The desire of the south could be innocent and natural, arising form the pressure of limited space and the hope to share in present and future prospects that the region could offer. The North, on its part, is aware of its vulnerability that arises from its heterogeneous composition and of its backwardness in literally every human development index. It has not also lost sight of the fact that the south, though very much smaller in number and landmass, is generations ahead of it in education and economy. It is therefore natural for it to avoid the residency pill. I doubt if for the sake of the Plateau crisis the rest of the north would buy in to this trick.
Therefore, the question of Plateau would still remain. In my previous writings I have clearly stated how it could be resolved amicably. After a long analysis in my series called The Plateau Crucible (available on my blog) where I drew lessons from indigene policy and practices in other northern states, I reasoned that not all Hausa or Fulani living in the state now can claim to be its indigenes just as I dismissed the attempt to disenfranchise all of them of that status by the recent administrations in the state. If I were a party to the conflict, I would have advocated for a Plateau indigeneship based on the following criteria as found in other northern states:
1) All natives inhabiting the area covered by the state now at the onset of colonial rule
2) All northerners – and their progeny down the ladder – who were living in the state, if they choose to remain its indigenes and can prove such residence through documents like tax receipts and land or property ownership, that were resident in the state as at the date when the defunct northern region was disbanded, i.e. 1967
3) Any Nigerian certified in the past as indigene of any local government in the state after following its due process of verification or awarded that status on sympathetic grounds by a local government of the state.
By the above criteria, anyone who migrated to Plateau state after 1967 cannot claim its indigeneship, just as it obtains in other northern states.. However, it takes care of those who were part of the building of modern Plateau, including those who were forcefully transferred there to work in the mines during the colonial era and who cannot even trace back their origins. A situation where every Hausa or Fulani resident in Plateau is considered an indigene is not tenable, as it also does not apply in other northern states.
Today, we have many indigenes of defunct provinces of Kwara, Kabba, Benue, Plateau, etc, who are indigenes of Bauchi, Adamawa, Sokoto, Kano and many northern states. Some are my personal friends since childhood; others we have once served in the same cabinet. Plateau should embrace the same formula for the sake of peace.
However, I cannot claim to be an indigene of Sokoto when I was a lecturer there some two decades ago, even if I had wished, I should not expect more from Plateau were I to stay there any day. An indigene of Wase Local Government in Plateau State who migrated here four years ago yesterday came requesting me to sign an attestation that his children are indigenes of Toro Local Government Area of Bauchi State. I refused and politely advised him to allow his children retain their original identity for a number of reasons. I was glad he left convinced that it was the right thing to do.
What I abhor in the Plateau crisis is the use of violence by the indigenes as a tool of dialogue. Expelling Nigerians of any origin from a state for any reason is not constitutional. It is rather a recipe for unending violence in various ways. Now even the indigenes are feeling the brunt of the violence. Consumed in the prevailing vicious circle of violence nobody is even thinking that an amicable solution is possible.
So the Plateau claims and counterclaims of indigeneship that seem intractable could be resolved amicably without dragging the whole country into the mud. So 'No" to residency and 'Yes' to indigeneship. That is the best choice of Nigerians in the long run. Whether it is an agenda to colonize the North or not, I have sent my vote.
Let me – the North – be left alone. With my illiteracy, poverty, almajiri, ethnic conflicts, etc. Oho dai! Samu ya fi iyawa. I welcome all Nigerians to my vast land and together, under the present arrangement, we will live in peace, free from fear of domination by any.
Long Live Nigeria.
2 January 2012
2.OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU
Interesting.
Thought provoking and informative.
I find striking the effort to proffer a solution to the Jos crisis.
The problem with Tilde and Adamu Adamu,whose writing I admire so much, is that their stance of 'North is under siege mentality' is recurrent in their writings.
He states that the belief that Ironsi wanted to colonise/divide ( I doubt if Tilde distinguishes between these two) the North is conjectural.
He attributes the state creation in Gowon's time to an effort to divide the North by the craft of Awolowo working on the pliability of Gowon.
He makes no reference to the description by historians that state creation was used by Gown to checkmate Ojukwu by giving their own states to minorities and thereby diluting the appeal of Biafra.
He now jumps from that point to attributing a consistent Southern agenda to colonise the South.
Is Tilde a loyal Northerner but belonging to an old school in Nigeria that has difficulty of thinking of the North and South except in terms of conflict?
thanks
toyin
3.Nafata Bamaguje
This is the kind of shortsighted narrow-mindedness that has in recent times fuelled Southern agitation for separation from the North a la South Sudan. Northerner propagandists (particularly core northerners) can't eat their cake and have it – insisting on one Nigeria (because of oil revenues), yet resisting full integration of Nigeria's diverse peoples that would consolidate our oneness as a nation.
If we are to evolve into one truly united prosperous nation where all Nigerians feel at home in whatever part of the country they reside, indigeneship will have to go. The distinction between indigeneship and citizenship is utterly nonsensical and retrogressive. Every citizen (even naturalized ones) ought to be an indigene.
Having said that, I don't think the issue can be easily resolved by simply legislating citizenship to replace indigeneship. It's one thing for National Assembly to pass legislation to that effect, but the deep seated ethno-religious & state biases of Nigerians (and that is what matters) won't change just because of some new law in our statute books. Our people will device ways to circumvent laws that they deem contrary to their conscience.
Methinks integration will happen naturally and the notion of indigeneship will disappear within a generation if our leaders can do the right thing and transform this potentially great nation into a prosperous land of abundant opportunities.
The key word here is "opportunities." Our inordinate preoccupation with indigeneship is largely driven by unhealthy competition for scarce resources and few opportunities in our failed dysfunctional nation. When you have 300 people applying for just 10 job vacancies or university admission places, those in authority will tend to favor their own tribe, co-religionists, state indigenes.
Conversely when opportunities are abundant - in excess of applicants - it becomes pointless to discriminate. You employ whatever applicant is available regardless of ethnicity, religion or state.
Within 2 or 3 decades of such secular detribalized prosperity, a new generation of detribalized Nigerians who know nothing of "indigene" in job applications or school admission, would emerge to consolidate a truly unified Nigeria.
This is not at all high minded speculation. We were close to it during the oil boom of the 1970s when graduates were recruited straight from the universities. I remember the Chief Justice of Borno was a Yoruba Judge.
Back then opportunities abounded and discrimination based state of origin, religion or ethnicity was minimal.
There was no divisive agitation for Sharia, derivation or resource control.
So let's put the horse before the cart and enthrone responsible visionary leadership that can positively transform Nigeria into a land of abundant opportunities. Indigeneship will gradually disappear on its own.
Nafata
4.
Response by maxima1757@yahoo.com on Yan Arewa
Reading AUT's argument, are the following points made the bases for the "NO' vote?:
1. The South is much smaller than the North in land mass?
2. The North is less developed than the South?
3. Indegene problems have plagued the country for a while in the North and South and led to bloodshed and no peace?
4. The West rejected residency because of Igbo domination?
5. The South wants to dominate the North?
6. Nomads are being persecuted by indigenes?
7. The purpose of the creation of States was to weaken the North and make the South dominate?
8. The Fulani are being marginalized by the destruction of Northern unity?
9. The South is at the center of the conspiracy to destroy the North's Unity?
However, these arguments leave a lot of questions.
1. If the creation of states was to make the South dominate the North (especially since it was plotted by the "clever" Yoruba and the "docile" Gowon), why is everyone, the Yoruba and Fulani included, complaining about marginalization? At least, the Yoruba would have achieved their aims and should not be at the forefront of a Sovereign National Conference (SNC).
2. If the Yoruba were afraid of domination by the Igbo and expelled the Igbo from Yoruba governments, why is it that the Igbo get killed in the North, with no history of the same occurring in the West?
3. If the Nomads would claim a specific origin, would it not then be logical, from the arguments above, for them to stay in their states and not move around to other states?
4. If that were the case, how would this support their lifestyle of moving from one place to another in search of "greener pastures" literally?
5. If states were created specifically to weaken the North, why are the Igbo the ones complaining most about it, especially with regard to the ill-fated Biafra? And why have they been the ones most vocal against it?
6. Agreeing that State formation, has brought government closer to the people and made development more evenly distributed, is that the problem? more evenly distributed development and government being closer to the people?
7. If the state have not been able to resolve their past differences, isn't it specifically because of the "indegene" perception? The perception that if I am an indegene elsewhere, I really have no obligation to develop my immediate surroundings because it is not MY land/home?
Isn't this what has informed the basis for the justification of what we all now call corruption? "I hate these people because they are NOT MY people. They are Nigerians but they are aliens, since they don't belong to my ethnic group/origin? If I am Yoruba, I don't have to do anything to develop Kano, because I'm not from Kano, thus, I have no compunction about setting up shop in Kano, so I can make money to go settle down in Oshogbo? If I am Hausa, then I can make sure the money from the oil in Ogoniland comes to me, but I have no obligation to make sure Ogoniland benefits from the oil that comes out of its ground? If I am Igbo, I must make sure nothing I do helps Kontagora because I am not from there? If I am Fulani, all these people talking about me grazing are nothing but uncivilized unbelievers and so they don't deserve any respect? How does this address Kano's, Enugu, Oshogbo, Jos, Kontagora and Bauchi Town's needs for infrastructure, economic and social development?
And how is this mentality different from the british and their United African Company, that they used to exploit the resources of the colony on the Bight of Benin, extending to lake Chad and going North along the banks of the Niger and Benue rivers, and everything around these landmarks? Is this not what made the british empire and impoverished the colonies? Is this not what we are all struggling with, even over one hundred years after?.
The arguments given for a "NO" are actually the same arguments that should be used to look more closely at the "indegene/resident" dichotomy. The emphasis on indegene has been a very destructive thing for "Nigeria" as an entity.
If we want to keep "indegene" and use that to exclude (as AUT's arguments seem to suggest), then there is no real basis for a "Nigeria." If the "North" is so afraid of the "South" that it hires arabs, indians and others to help with its development, why has the north remained so much different from the lands that these people come from by all "development" measures?
They, more than the unsuspecting "Northerner" or "Southerner," recognize the "alienity" of the "Northerner/Southerner" to themselves and so they really have no obligation whatsoever, to develop the "North" or "South;" nor do they recognize the difference we are all so fixated upon. The only obligation they have is to feed their families with the pay they receive from this "North."
The human persona operates by reflection. It reflects itself from its surroundings. That requires identification with that surrounding. Thus a person who does not identify with his/her surroundings will turn out to be a colonizer, just as the europeans have done for the past 1,000 years. This is why the Fulani herders cannot feel at home anywhere, or the Igbo don't respect the customs of the people they live amongst. Thus if the Nigerian does not have the burden of "Indegene" to struggle with, he/she can settle down to identifying with, and developing his/her residence and its surroundings, creating the conditions to make life more liveable, comfortable and abundant where he/she is. A person who feels the opposite of this will spend a lot of time trying to generate resources they will not use in the place they got them from, and then have little time to use the resources acquired to enhance the place they believe they are from and want to develop. Ask Nigerians in diaspora, and Nigerians who, because they carry the "virus" of indegenes, are actually living as displaced refugees in other parts of Nigeria, hoping one day to go back "home", not developing where they are, and having no time left to develop anything back at "home."
The indegene "virus" has prevented us from identifying with one another even before colonialism. More destructively, it has created displaced people, who have no obligation to develop their surroundings. Just as, for example, the Fulani have not been known to work with farmers along their grazing routes (from the Sahel to the Sea), to develop better feed and sell to them. Then Fulani cattle production can feed larger areas and bring more prosperity to the Fulani and the people who support their enterprise as well as their lifestyle. Who would not benefit from such a relationship? More tellingly, we all have the intelligence and the know how to make this and many other wonderful things happen, because, regardless of your ethnic origin, when you left Nigeria or left your "home" for "other places" you have been part and parcel of the development of the places you went after you left. Why then not Nigeria?
We have, because of fear, been held from moving forward to our destiny as prosperous and prospering peoples. It is time to look closely and address our inner fears and see that the only thing we have to fear is the domination of poverty and privation in the lives of our people.
To be sure, others will use what we have to feed their own people and keep us in fear of one another. The europeans and arabs have done it with religion and false education, the chinese are just beginning, with the false promise of poverty reduction.
There is no vacuum in nature.
The above is not an argument for "yes" or "no."
It is a call to reflection, to assess critically
It is a call to free ourselves of fear
it is a call to make the best decisions
It is a call to make our own heaven or hell right here on earth
It is a call for us to boldly go and face our destiny
What our fears have made so far, we can see,
And we all don't like what we see and feel...
Those who have ears ...
O.E.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Ibrahim Abdullah <ibdullah@gmail.com> wrote:
Shina:
E se gan! Thanks for this intervention. Ken's point about chronology
is neither here nor there! I did not set out to map any chronology;
what I did was simply to plot the trajectory of the withering away of
the Nigerian state: from the creation of the mid-west region to the
proleration of states/local government to underline my point about
truncated ethncity. And this has nothing to do with seccurity in West
Africa or with Achille. The issue here is the hisoricity of the
colonial post-colonial state; what Crawford Young dubbed 'bula matari'
in the context of Zaire/Congo. Once more thanks Shina for making this
clear to Ken.
The piont of departure for this investigation is what Basil Davidson,
that tireless africanist, once christined the curse of the
nation-state: how different polities and different peoples were
stitched together by the colonialists through violence. Peter Ekeh
dubbed it the two publics: the civic and the ethnic. And Mahmood in
his trilogy--from citizens to subject, when victims become killers,
and Saviour vs Survivor--it appears as the bifurcated state. This is
what is at issue here!
Why cant Nigerians have a single right that applies in Sokoto, Taraba,
and Yobe as it would apply to my 'home' state of Kogi. This is the
issue. Why would an american pack up from Michigan and settle in
Dakota without questios being asked? Why should this not happen in
'our dear own fatherland'?
To understand why it wont happen is to go back to the original sin:
the stitching of different peoples and the invention of ethnicity and
the restricted civic sphere! Is it any wonder that Cabral recommended
the dismantling of the colonial/post-colonial state?
IB
=========================================
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:47 PM, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <tvade3@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shina,
>
> Deep food for thinking. You have really given flesh to your theory in a way
> that one can recognise in various contexts, including the various Nigreian
> centred listserves.
>
> Could you suggest how this could be done?
>
> "The informal sector, I repeat, was constructed from the deadwoods of
> nation-building.For proper national integration to commence, it must
> commence at this level of informality, paradoxically. It is paradoxical
> because informality is meant to operate beyond the scope of government and
> in opposition. "
>
> thanks
> toyin
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:24 PM, <shina73_1999@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> The informal sector, I repeat, was constructed from the deadwoods of
>> nation-building.
>> For proper national integration to commence, it must commence at this
>> level of informality, paradoxically. It is paradoxical because informality
>> is meant to operate beyond the scope of government and in opposition.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Compcros
> Comparative Cognitive Processes and Systems
> "Exploring Every Corner of the Cosmos in Search of Knowledge"
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa
> Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
> For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
> For previous archives, visit
> http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
> To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
> unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
Compcros
Comparative Cognitive Processes and Systems
"Exploring Every Corner of the Cosmos in Search of Knowledge"
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment