by Akin Osuntokun

Apparently the ghost of Biafra has not been laid to rest. I should know. I got so carried away about the late Benjamin Adekunle and Alabi Isama’s book on the Nigeria civil war; that I completely forgot myself and failed to dutifully reflect the most pertinent question of the war in my column last week titled Adekunle; Obasanjo and the Civil War – the justification and the meaning. I was given a rude awakening to this lapse by letters pointedly calling to question the propriety of celebrating distinguished combatants of the war as national heroes.

In all honesty, I cannot find fault with this sentiment and would even go further to suggest that on further reflection, proposing a minute silence in Adekunle’s memory at the National Assembly was in error. I think this syndrome of passive insensitivity has gone on for too long. I also see no basis for the comparison with Emeka Ojukwu. The symbolism of Ojukwu for Nigeria is far greater than that of Adekunle. The former was the embodiment of Biafra while the latter was no more than a relatively successful war commander — there is no equivalence between the two.

The logic of the proclamation of no victor no vanquished by General Yakubu Gowon transcends the act of magnanimity and represents the central truism of the war — it was not a war between good and evil, not a contest between right and wrong. The war, for instance, has no correlation to the America civil war fought to overcome a secessionist bid that was predicated on the categorical moral evil of slavery. This (the American precedent) was a just war and it is correct to celebrate its outcome as the victory of good over evil.

I do not subscribe to a similar characterisation and criminalisation of Biafra — to do so will amount to consecrating the motto of the victorious federal government as ‘might is right’-emptied of moral content. Nigeria has been living a lie and the sooner we begin calling a lie by its name the better for us all. A more careful reading and less received wisdom on the civil war raises the issue of the proper place of a historical personality like General JTU Aguiyi in the history of Nigeria. I think it was fairly certain he was not part of the January 1966 coup and that he was a victim of circumstances.

The irony here is that from all the accounts of the coup and counter coup of 1966, he died on account of a stubborn commitment to the unity and integration of Nigeria — the antithesis of secession. This was what Decree 34 was all about — the abolition of the regions and their rearrangement into group of provinces; and the posting of military governors to administer provinces other than their own.

Bereft of guilt conscience and in supreme demonstration of good faith, he practically entrusted his life to a Hausa-Fulani officer, Sani Bello, whom he appointed ADC. For that matter if Ironsi could be linked, no matter how tenuous the linkage, on account of ethnic consanguinity to the January 15th coup, why was it equally necessary to kill his host in Ibadan, Governor Adekunle Fajuyi?

The nationalist predilection of Ironsi is seldom highlighted and completely glossed over because it does not suit the narrative of fostering defensive mentality of aggrandising secessionist aggressors on the Igbo.

Far it be from me to seek to exonerate any guilty party (as the coup plotters of January 1966) of any culpability in the series of mishaps that exploded into the civil war but the idea of constructing a nationalist ideology on the criminalisation of Biafra is at the root of a hypocritical national behavioural pattern that robs Nigeria of authenticity and obstructs development-oriented identification and solidarity by citizens.

Presented with an unambiguous colour projection, Nigerians are apt to choose that moment to be colour-blind. Personally I am beginning to think that maybe it is not too late in the day to convene a truth and reconciliation commission (even if it is at the symbolic level) on the most significant aspect of post independent Nigeria’s history.

I find it most curious and disheartening that the late Chief Ojukwu failed to give us what would have been the most comprehensive account of Biafra. And the more worrisome in all this is that the omission was deliberate; there could be no any other explanation than that, for whatever reason, Ojukwu just did not want to do it. He was adequately equipped to write, write and write.

Why don’t we, for instance, call the bluff of those who say they want to leave Nigeria and call a referendum on the proposal? The presumption that the call for secession if subjected to popular vote will carry the day is mostly not true. If it is put to vote and it is defeated, as it is often the case, you would have achieved a better settled and more resilient society.

He had in abundance, what, in another context, Thurston Veblen called the leisure of the theory class. He had no financial constraints; he studied history at Oxford University and had all the time in the world to mentally exert himself in whatever direction and on whatever cause he chose. He served as military officer in both the Nigeria and Biafra armies; he was intellectually rigorous.

The sad conclusion here is that there is no inference we can make from this abstention that can be interpreted positively for Nigeria. At best, the attitude bespeaks of stoic indifference to the destiny of Nigeria and at worst an anticipation that the country is ultimately fated to doom and disintegration.

I don’t know whether there is in existence a ‘Reader’ on the Nigeria civil war, in the manner that we have a ‘Reader’ on Nigeria federalism (a publication comprising papers contributed by scholars and experts) neither am I aware that a colloquium convened on the specific subject of the Nigeria civil war has been called.

The reason the book (There Was A Country) by the intellectual giant and greatest Africa story teller, Chinua Achebe, provoked so much controversy, was that it seemed more like an afterthought; an incomplete and unnecessarily sensational work, rushed, perhaps in anticipation of death knocking at the door, to fill a vacuum left by the prima donna, Ojukwu. It is striking that the most celebrated effort yet at telling the Biafra story, with the empathy that nobody outside the Biafra mental space can muster, was undertaken by a lady born after the civil war.

My combustible friend (I won’t mention his name) called, in bated breath, the night before the referendum in Scotland, to sound me out on the likely reverberation on Nigeria — were the ayes to carry the day. My thinking was that it would have resonated a lot more were the National Conference delegates to be in session.

Asked a similar question afterwards — what the lessons were. I surmised there are two interrelated take-away (again I say this with the due apologies to Lagos State Governor Babatunde Fashola). One is that it is better to jaw-jaw than to war-war and it is ultimately profitable to subscribe to the principle of voluntary citizenship, because in reality, though it can be delayed but nobody can stop an idea whose time has come.

Why don’t we, for instance, call the bluff of those who say they want to leave Nigeria and call a referendum on the proposal? The presumption that the call for secession if subjected to popular vote will carry the day is mostly not true. If it is put to vote and it is defeated, as it is often the case, you would have achieved a better settled and more resilient society.

Such positive outcome however is contingent upon the willingness to grant more local (regional) autonomy — understood as the moderate version and reconcilable response to agitations for separation. The pledge by Prime Minister David Cameron to support more devolution to the comprising four nationalities of United Kingdom, UK, was the deal that finally sealed the Yes vote.

——————

Op-ed pieces and contributions are the opinions of the writers only and do not represent the opinions of Y!/YNaija.