The Fulani in History: A response to Critics
By
Sanusi Lamido Sanusi
When
I wrote my article “The Fulani Factor in Nigerian History” I had no doubt it
would be controversial. But even
the truth sometimes, can not escape being so.
I knew I would be the object of harsh comments from non-Fulanis and was
therefore quite prepared for Garba Shehu’s categorisation of my essay as
“racist crap” (Guardian, 29/6/2000). I
may not have been prepared for (but was certainly not shocked by) Kayode
Samuel’s characterisation of the essay as an “exculpatory thesis” along
the lines of “neo-Nazi” “revisionism” (Vanguard 30/6/2000).
Samuel’s repetition of unsubstantiated allegations against Buhari,
Shagari and Umaru Dikko, as well as his crafty attempt to link my essay with the
anniversary of June 12, (a date with which some people are evidently more
obsessed than others can ever be) were also in keeping with an established
trend. I therefore had no intention
of revisiting the essay, since its principal arguments were neither understood
nor intelligently addressed.
I
was however pleasantly surprised to read an excellent rejoinder, written by Dr.
Dan Onyeje in ThisDay of Sunday July 2, 2000 entitled “Fulani History in True
Perspective”. Onyeje wrote in the
most civil of styles, focussed on issues and tried to limit the discussion to
matters of fact, not conjecture. In
the process he did point to some flaws in my thesis, which I should presently
concede and explain, although he also made assertions that I will dispute. Nothing in this disagreement compromises my respect for his
argument, and for his knowledge of
history. It is hoped that at this level, a fruitful dialogue can be held at
last.
Let
me begin by making an important clarification.
Onyeje and myself were not writing on the same subject, even if he was
not hitherto aware of this. My
essay was on the Fulani Factor in Nigerian
history. Onyeje wrote on the
history of the Fulani.
I agree with him completely on his record of early Fulani history.
However the Fulani who were met by Colonial invaders at the turn of the
twentieth century; the Fulani about whom Lord Lugard wrote his words of praise;
the Fulani that were the butt of attack from Okonta, Abati, Ige & Co were
not the “insular”, “backward” Fulani of old but a thoroughly Islamicized
and cosmopolitan breed, who had established a caliphate spanning over most of
northern Nigeria and into present-day Tchad, Cameroun, Niger and Benin.
The
culture of these people was a transformed one which had absorbed and
internalized elements of a clearly advanced Arabo-Islamic civilisation.
This is what Bola Ige pejoratively refers to as having “lost” a
culture to a “so-called” “religious” culture.
Indeed one of the key elements of Pulaku,
ainoldina is a word with Arabic roots.
Dr. Saad Abubakar tells us it probably came from the Arabic ‘ayn
al-din (true religion). My own
sense is that it is from two Arabic words: ‘inayah
(paying attention to, being concerned with) and al-din (the religion). These
two words give a more proximate rendering of the meaning of ainoldina. This slight disagreement notwithstanding, the Arabic source
of the term confirms that the people about whom I wrote (and the culture to
which I referred) had since developed beyond their “insular” and
“backward” stage. Only a cretin
would “take it for granted” that the Fulanis, (or any people for that
matter) were “always cosmopolitan and sophisticated”.
I wish Dr. Onyeje had given a little more credit to my intelligence in
this regard. Having made this clarification, let me now concede (and dispute)
some of Onyeje’s fine points.
The
first flaw which Dr. Onyeje reveals in my thesis is clearly conceptual,
revolving around my use of the term “civilization”.
With the benefit of hindsight, the concept is too broad, too value-loaded
to have been flippantly applied in a comparative context.
A more appropriate term (which would have served the purpose) could be,
say, “political structures”, or “forms of social order or organization”
since, clearly, one of the most attractive features of the caliphate was the
system of administration. While a
basis exists for objective comparative analysis of systems of administration and
for asserting that the caliphate’s was more advanced or more sophisticated
than the others, generalization into “civilizations” immediately introduces
subjectivities and this stands on weaker intellectual ground.
The point was well made by Onyeje, and it is well taken.
The
second point made by Onyeje (and which as I will show I preceded him in making)
is that the interpretation of history in the essay was “rather superficial”.
To borrow a marxist term, I would say it was ahistorical and
amaterialist. But this is a
necessary quality of all attempts to reduce our national problems to ethnicity.
I wrote in my essay as published in full, thankfully, by the editors of
ThisDay: “considering that we have decided to join battle with the champions
of ethnicity in their gutter, we must all the same state that a more intelligent
and respectable analysis of the Nigerian malaise is one which looks at the role
played by a corrupt elite drawn from all over Nigeria …..”.
This disclaimer was placed to protect the writer precisely from the
charge of being superficial and simplistic (although Kayode Samuel seems to have
read it all wrong). Political
groups like Afenifere and Ohanaeze,
along with their mouthpieces like Ike Okonta and Bola Ige have reduced the
Nigerian problem to one of ethnicity. Insulting Fulani people; casting aspersion
on emirs; blaming the “oligarchy” for everything from colonial invasion to
civil war to Obasanjo’s failures; all of these have become the hallmark of
modern-day “progressives”. Bigotry
is a virtue, fabrication of history an art and the Fulani aristocrat has been
made the target of every lampooning mercenary and fake intellectual.
As I made clear, I was forced to join battle with these ethnic champions
on their turf. However, the very
nature of the subject matter is bound to leave room for criticism in terms of
intellectual content and respectability.
Had
these tribalists approached their analysis differently, had they looked at the
political economy of the country, the social relations of production and the
compatibility between the administration of the Caliphate and the desire of
colonialists to perpetuate the institutions of domination, they would find many
among the Fulani who shared their view. They
would find on their side the likes of Aminu Kano, Balarabe Musa, Yusuf Bala
Usman, M.D. Yusufu, Alkassum Abba, Abubakar Rimi and other “northern
radicals”. Indeed a glance at my
article “Religion and Political Economy
of the North” which was published by The
Guardian and Weekly Trust in
May/June last year and which was praised by no less a person than Dr. Edwin
Madunagu, would prove that I am an ideological soul-mate of these “Fulani
radicals”. But to say that the
feudal system is not egalitarian is not to say that the feudal elite are thieves
and incompetents. It also does not
follow from Fulani leadership of the caliphate that the Fulani are in their
totality reactionary. In truth, the
most revolutionary political parties of the North, NEPU and P.R.P. were led by
Aminu Kano with key roles played by the likes of Abubakar Rimi in the Second
Republic. Both Aminu Kano and Rimi
are Fulani. None of this is to suggest, as some have impugned, that every Fulani
man is virtuous or that every non-Fulani is a villain.
Having
conceded these points, I proceed to dispute the assertions relating to my
perception of the essence of leadership and the quality of leadership offered by
the Fulbe. The tragic state of
affairs in the North is not in dispute. However
this state of affairs resulted from mismanagement of the affairs of the North
and the nation by those who were bent on dislodging the “Fulani Oligarchy”.
It is true that Fulani emirs initially resisted western education because
of the tendency of the colonialist to offer, along with his education, his
Christian faith. The children of
Yorubaland who were converted from Islam in school and turned into enemies of
their original faith bear ample testimony to the legitimacy of this fear.
However once the emirs were assured that educational institutions were
not evangelical missions they sent their children and those of their subjects to
school with enthusiasm. The number
of Fulbe at the helm of affairs in Kaduna and Lagos at independence would not
have been there had the Fulani not embraced education.
The government of the Northern region in the First Republic built
teachers’ colleges, elementary and middle-schools, and a university.
It set up generous scholarship schemes to promote education.
The progress of the North in this area was halted by policies pursued by
so-called ‘progressive’ elements, including the abolition of ICSA, the
stoppage of Grade II, the discouragement of remedial studies and the use of JAMB
as an avenue for producing southern graduates from northern universities all in
the name of an integrated nation and of a north
freed from the clutches of the “feudal oligarchs.”
I
agree with Onyeje’s point that
“while the leaders of southern ethnic groups and those of most of the
middle-belt have embraced the virtues of western civilization ….. the
Fulani….. are holding back”. The
truth is that the Fulani see more “virtue” in their Islamic heritage and are
in no hurry to jump on the bandwagon of copy-cats who see the greatest
“virtue” in being ”westernized”. Is
this not itself evidence of their confidence in their tradition and their
conviction about the virtue of their way of life?
Onyeje asks: Are “the Fulani mistrustful of “western” political,
economic and scientific thought….? Of
science no. But of western political thought (secularism) and economic
thought (unbridled materialism) we certainly are, because our God has
given us no reason to want to kick him out of our political and economic life.
One can now understand why the Fulani want Shariah and are proud of it.
Dr. Onyeje wonders in conclusion if the Fulani will “later prove to be latter-day zealots for the modernisation of Nigeria – indeed of West Africa”. The historian in him has obviously been lost in a tunnel of speculation. Why wonder about what the latter-day Fulbes will be when we are yet to fully appreciate a more immediate reality: The Fulbe are present-day zealots, not for the “modernisation”, but for the “Islamisation” of Nigeria and West Africa. The question is not if History will repeat itself in the future. It is if History is already repeating itself as we live.
You can read more about my article from my web page at http://www.gamji.com/sanusi.htm
RETURN TO GAMJI HOMEPAGE