Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe
The “Igbo Question” is intrinsically linked to the Igbo strategic goal, presently, which is to end the occupation of their Biafran homeland by genocidist Nigeria – imposed since 13 January 1970.
This is a structural facet of phase-IV of the genocide, launched by Nigeria on 29 May 1966. 3.1 million Igbo people or one-quarter of this nation were murdered by Nigeria and Britain. Britain supported the genocide right from conceptualisation to execution – politically, diplomatically, militarily. These were 44 months of uninterrupted, unimaginable carnage and barbarity perpetrated on a people. Pointedly, no single nation or people in Africa has suffered this extent of gruesome and devastating state(s)-premeditated and organised genocide in history.
(George Russell Sextet, “Thoughts” [personnel: Russell, piano; Don Ellis, trumpet; Dave Baker, trombone; Eric Dolphy, bass clarinet; Steve Swallow, bass; Joe Hunt, drums; recorded Riverside Record, New York, US, 28 May 1961])
The genocide continues unabated (as several essays and other recent entries
in re-thinking.blogspot.co.uk demonstrate) and Britain’s support continues
unflinchingly crucial. For Britain, contrary to the often clanking histrionics
of prevailing international politics rhetoric, its strategic alliance here, in
this African region, has always been with the islamist north region
Hausa-Fulani leadership which vociferously opposed the restoration of African
independence from the British occupation. It is Britain’s alliance with this leadership
situated atop the Nigeria constellation-equation that makes up the
Anglo-Nigerian amalgam that executed the Igbo genocide. It is also from groupings
with this same leadership that both Boko Haram (currently the world’s most
ruthless terrorist organisation, according to the Institute for Economics &
Peace, http://re-thinkingafrica.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/institute-for-economics-peace-global.html) and the Fulani militia (see also the IE&P’s study on this militia) were
created and unleashed to murder tens of thousands of Africans and others in
these times.
So, given the critical links between the salient features of the
politics of the Nigerian occupation of Biafra and the overarching architecture
of the genocidal campaign, it is the case that the Igbo termination of the
occupation is at once the beginning of their freedom march from Nigeria and the
implementation of an unprecedentedly expansive socioeconomic programme of
reconstruction. The route remains Igbo freedom from Nigeria, an inalienable Igbo
right with or without the genocide as I have argued severally. If the Scots,
for instance, one-tenth of the Igbo population and without a genocide
antecedent would wish to leave a union they have largely been
exponential beneficiaries for 300 years (“Rights for Scots, Rights for the
Igbo”, http://re-thinkingafrica.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/rights-for-scots-rights-for-igbo.html), the
Igbo, surely, don’t require any agonisingly turgid historical and sociological
treatise to wish to leave Nigeria.
Rarefication
Contrary to the amazingly ahistorical discourses on the nature of the state and its survivability in some circles, particularly in Africa where the prevailing eurocentric conquest social sciences curriculum essentially rarefies the “state”, the state is very much a transient relationship in human history: Kemet, Roman “empire”, Ghana “empire”, Mali “empire”, Czarist “empire”, Austro-Hungarian “empire”, Ottoman “empire”, Portuguese “empire”, Spanish “empire”, British “empire”, French Indo-China, Malaya Federation, Anglo-Egyptian-Sudan, Central African Federation, United Arab Republic, Mali Federation, Senegambia Confederation, West & East Pakistan, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, the Sudan... What has indeed been the grounding feature of the state in world history on this accord, thankfully, has rather been “divisibility”, “dissolubility”, “destructibility”, each the antonym of that 3-headed genocidist mantra mouthed off at random by quite a few spokespersons of especially the genocide-state in Africa.
Contrary to the amazingly ahistorical discourses on the nature of the state and its survivability in some circles, particularly in Africa where the prevailing eurocentric conquest social sciences curriculum essentially rarefies the “state”, the state is very much a transient relationship in human history: Kemet, Roman “empire”, Ghana “empire”, Mali “empire”, Czarist “empire”, Austro-Hungarian “empire”, Ottoman “empire”, Portuguese “empire”, Spanish “empire”, British “empire”, French Indo-China, Malaya Federation, Anglo-Egyptian-Sudan, Central African Federation, United Arab Republic, Mali Federation, Senegambia Confederation, West & East Pakistan, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, the Sudan... What has indeed been the grounding feature of the state in world history on this accord, thankfully, has rather been “divisibility”, “dissolubility”, “destructibility”, each the antonym of that 3-headed genocidist mantra mouthed off at random by quite a few spokespersons of especially the genocide-state in Africa.
It is therefore not surprising that twenty-three
(23) new states have, for example, emerged in Europe since
the end of the 1980s. Even though a population of about 350 million, one-third
of Africa’s, Europeans presently have more states per capita than peoples of Africa! And
as history shows, the catastrophe is not the collapse of the
state; the catastrophe is the attempt to destroy constituent peoples within the state as the Anglo-Nigeria amalgam has sought in Biafra since 29 May 1966. Here
lies the Igbo Question.
Twitter @HerbertEkweEkwe
No comments:
Post a Comment