|
Is Biafra Alive, Dead Or On Life Support? By Okenwa R. Nwosu, M.D.
January 1970 marked the official surrender of Biafran forces to the Nigerian military thereby effectively terminating the existence of the Republic of Biafra which was proclaimed 30 months earlier. The stage for the Nigerian Civil War was finally set when the Federal Government in Lagos, under the leadership of Yakubu Gowon, split the former Eastern Region to provide three of the twelve federating states of his rule without the due consultation with political leaders from the East. The tense atmosphere that had hung over Nigeria since the bloody intervention of the military in January 1966 deteriorated rapidly because the East perceived the move from Lagos as a last straw which must be met decisively with a firm resolve. It became clear that the only real way to prevent the Lagos military junta from implementing the new 12-state federal structure that it arbitrarily created was to exclude the East from such an arrangement before it took root. With the backdrop of nationwide ethnic cleansing that had sent millions of former Easterners fleeing to their ancestral homes for safety from marauding hordes, it was not difficult at all to come to a resolution to declare a sovereign state of Biafra in the East. A bold line was now drawn in the sand between Lagos and Enugu as the point of no return has been breached.
Within weeks, southeastern Nigeria was quickly transformed into a killing field and a theater for playing out complex intrigues in which global powers took special interest for obvious reasons. Whatever development that existed in major population centers of the secessionist Biafrian territory was systematically destroyed, more than half of the population became refugees while millions died of disease, starvation and overwhelming firepower from air, land and sea. The carnage ended abruptly in January 1970 when the military backbone of the Biafran resistance was broken by the more numerous and better supplied federal forces. Possibly acting on wise counsel, the conquering forces minimized recriminations that usually followed such a bitter conflict. Speedy effort was made to repatriate refugees and former Biafrans were encouraged to return to parts of Nigeria from which they had fled during the pre-war pogroms. Imaginative slogans like “no victor, no vanquished” and the three Rs (Rehabilitation, Reconciliation and Reconstruction) persuaded the embattled and famished Biafrans to refocus their hopes in a country they had learned to hate so bitterly. The military stayed in power for almost a decade after the end of Civil War apparently to ensure the irreversibility of outcome of that costly war.
The physical scars of Africa’s most brutal war have virtually been obliterated throughout the Biafran battle theater but mental anguish, stoked by memories of those who survived the mayhem, is deep and widespread amongst the Igbo who played a dominant role in the secessionist struggle. Exit of the military took the lid off frustrations of many who felt shortchanged or marginalized in politics of post-war Nigeria but had to remain dormant until the opportunity for protest presented itself. Movement for Actualization of Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), which has a tangible Igbo following, openly asserts that the outcome of the Civil War does not negate the fact that Biafra still lives. All the paraphernalia of state like the Biafran flag, anthem, currency and other insignia are displayed and used freely by MASSOB members as reaffirmation that re-emergence of the Biafran state could be imminent. This movement’s leadership has smartly opted for a non-violent model of resistance thereby making it extremely difficult for powers that be to justify deployment of overwhelming force to extirpate it. A cat-and-mouse game has been ongoing between MASSOB leadership and Nigerian security forces for the past several years, but the rank and file membership have not been that lucky. There has been a steady toll on lives of MASSOB supporters at the hands of Nigerian security operatives who often deploy deadly force to curtail activities of the pro-Biafran group.
MASSOB has not gotten anticipated support from Igbo intellectual and political elite but its message does have sympathetic audience in a segment of Ndiigbo who find themselves at the receiving end of the hardship that results from dearth of socioeconomic infrastructure and decent livelihood where they live. Some governors and notable politicians of the Southeast as well as Igbo pundits have openly repudiated MASSOB’s mantra as inconsistent with aspirations of mainstream Igbo in today’s Nigeria. The Igbo political leadership cadre is not only unsympathetic to MASSOB’s ideas, but also it has, on occasions, solicited for firm measures to snuff it out of existence as soon as possible. There is a third group of Ndiigbo who are sympathetic enough to MASSOB’s notion of a new Biafra but have stopped short of joining the resistance’s ranks. For this group, MASSOB is just like other nationalist group in Nigeria, like O’odua Peoples Congress (OPC), MOSSOP and Arewa Peoples Congress, for example, who operate relatively free of incessant harassment by Nigerian security forces. MASSOB is also perceived as a potential ace in the complicated poker game of Nigeria geopolitics in which the Igbo could leverage a credible Biafran threat to extract concessions from fellow compatriots and the central government in Abuja.
Amongst the Igbo, therefore, Biafra continues to be a subject that readily elicits profound emotions despite the fact that the Civil War ended more than 35 years ago. On one end of the spectrum, we have those who are willing to bet their lives on the fact that Biafra lives and offers Ndiigbo a clear path to their redemption while on the other end, the Igbo political establishment operates with the mindset that Biafra belongs to history. Middle of the spectrum is occupied by those who feel that, somehow, Biafra is in a state of suspended animation; kept alive on a life support system that ought to be maintained till circumstances become more conducive for its full blown resurgence. In characteristic Igbo doggedness, each camp is well dug in and would not yield an inch without throwing punches if needs be. Fellow Igbo are derisively called “efulefu” or morons by pro-Biafra entities, for example, just because they are perceived to be “one-Nigerianists” who, in turn, are extremely disdainful of antics of later-day Igbo secessionist agitators. This polarization of views is the greatest handicap of the Igbo intellectual and political elite in today’s Nigeria. Before Ndiigbo can begin to secure their legitimate share of political and economic benefits in Nigeria’s competitive environment, they must first answer the crucial question of whether, to the Igbo as a people, Biafra is alive, dead or on life support.
While Oduduwa Republic and Arewa, Ogoni and Ijaw nationalist agitators’ end game is nebulous, to say the least, Biafra is a fact of history which has already brought the Nigerian nation to the brink before. Agitating for a resurgent Biafra, therefore, is not nearly the same thing as a vacuous threat to create a new sovereign entity that has never existed in real life. This is where MASSOB is seen to be entirely different from its look-alikes in other parts of the country. Mention of Biafra conjures concrete memories within and outside the borders of Nigeria to the extent that Oduduwa, Arewa, Ijaw and Ogoni would-be nation states, for example, don’t. To many, the name Biafra has been consecrated in blood and ought not to be toyed with like other entities of convenience, like OPC, MOSSOP, APC and Egbesu, which are, still to a large extent, figments of imagination with which one can jockey for political leverage at will. Ndiigbo, particularly, must be extremely careful about how they invoke the name of Biafra. Its casual mention, at every turn, can actually militate against Igbo strategic interests under certain circumstances. It can, however, be a very potent weapon for all if deployed constructively as a veritable lesson in nation building.
Biafra, just like the osu caste system, is an albatross that shall trail Ndiigbo for a long time to come unless proactive and deliberate effort is made soon to frontally deal with its legacies with a sense of urgency that it deserves. The prevalent Igbo attitude about Biafra and the Civil War appears to be to say little about them and hope that everyone else understands and respects their feelings on the matter. Rather than becoming proactive on issues that relate to Biafra and the Civil War, some Igbo are obviously still content with playing a defensive game decades after the war has been won and lost. There is no meaningful and practical way to keep anyone, including fellow Igbo, from expressing his feelings about Biafra and the Civil War as well as issues that were closely associated with them. Those who advocate that we are better off letting the sleeping dog lie undisturbed are not really saying anything new or overly imaginative. The sleeping dog has been lying for all these years but we have nothing but heartache to show for it. The Igbo apex group, Ohanaeze, has vowed that Nigeria’s next President must come from the Southeast zone. How credible is this assertion amidst Igbo ambivalence on a commitment to a resurgent Biafra?
Besides Igbo presidency, there are very serious issues that confront Alaigbo today which can only be effectively addressed if there is a clear focus and unity of purpose amongst Ndiigbo. Flood erosion, in recent decades, has devastated land and water communications infrastructure and scarified the landscape with gaping gullies that gulp huge chunks of Alaigbo with each rainy season. Urban settlements in the Southeast are choking with mountains of garbage and trash while ill maintained roadways and streets are filled with open sewer. Industrial manufacturing is rudimentary while millions of Igbo youths are made to eke out their survival by hawking cheap goods or operate motorcycle taxis, sometimes, after acquiring their educational qualifications. Igbo politicians have shown no interest in galvanizing local manpower resources and channeling them toward ameliorating the many sociocultural, economic and environmental problems that negate the survival struggles of their own people. The “one-Nigerianist” Abuja politicians readily blame marginalization by the occupant of Aso Rock while the pro-Biafran agitators peddle the new Biafra panacea as a cure-all for the bewildered Igbo. The Igbo intellectual and political elite engage in long-winded arguments, on the Internet and elsewhere, about whom or what else to blame for the diminishing lot of Ndiigbo in current scheme of things.
Ndiigbo, particularly the intellectual and political elite, currently dissipate a lot of time and emotion in tearing each other apart over what to do with Biafra. The Igbo cause shall be the ultimate loser if the cream of Igbo society insist on defining their destiny based on a certain epoch in history which, despite its unique importance, is no longer of great relevance to survival needs of contemporary Igbo. A common ground must be found for accommodating legitimate concerns and fears of various camps to enable Ndiigbo to move forward and begin to address issues of critical import to them within the context of a collective consensus agenda. A segment of Igbo intelligentsia had made a diligent effort in recent past to define that common ground in what they termed “Option 3B”. This option sought to rationalize the central role that Biafra has played in evolving the prevalent Igbo mindset and the reality of sovereign authority of the Nigerian nation as the indubitable outcome of the Civil War. “Option 3B”, when carefully reviewed, shall enable Ndiigbo to effectively deal with realities of the moment without losing sight of a unique experience that was a defining moment in the lives of a gifted people.
Upper Marlboro, Maryland. U.S.A. |