Those hurling invectives at Prof. Chinua Achebe for aspects of his latest book which in part, held late elder statesman, Chief Obafemi Awolowo responsible for economic blockade of the civil war era and its debilitating effects on the Biafran side should sheathe their swords. This is because much of those criticisms have been propelled by banal sentiments rather than an objective appraisal of the facts of the matter.
Achebe had in his 335-page book, ‘There was a country’ said when Biafra did not capitulate despite the evil machinations against it, the Nigerian government resorted to starving the people through blockade of food supplies, a plan which he said was hatched by the top echelon of the Nigerian government, especially Awolowo. He said that by the beginning of dry season in 1968, Biafran soldiers and civilians were starving. Bodies lay rotting under hot sun by the road side and the flapping wings of scavengers could be seen circling, waiting patiently nearby. The policy which seemed to say “starve them into submission’ left upwards of 50,000 people, mostly children dying of starvation every month, he further wrote.
Since the book became public knowledge, several loyalists and supporters of the late sage have taken up arms against Achebe such that the erroneous impression is being conveyed that the book is all about Awolowo’s role in the economic blockade of the civil war era.
For Femi Fani-Kayode, Achebe was indulging in historical revisionism and ethnic chauvinism for saying that Awolowo played a key role in inventing that policy. He would also want an apology for the Awolowo family and the Yoruba people. Yet, the same Fani-Kayode admitted that Awolowo publicly defended the policy and told the world that it was perfectly legitimate in war time. The same Fani-Kayode went further to support the policy by citing the blockade imposed on Germany, Japan and Italy by Allied Forces during the Second World War.
One is at a loss therefore to fathom the basis for his anger except perhaps, he does not want Awolowo to share in the blame for the intended outcome of that policy- death of millions of Biafran children and soldiers. Nothing can be more dishonest than this line of argument.
Even then, the issues raised by Achebe are not entirely new as they were strenuously canvassed while Awolowo was alive and he had ample time to address them. That the issue resonated decades after that war from such a highly informed personage, illustrates vividly the feelings of those who bore the brunt of that policy. Perhaps, if those calling for Achebe’s head had taken time to study some of Awolowo’s comments on the matter, their current diatribe would have been absolutely unnecessary.
The transcript of a town hall meeting held in Abeokuta by Awolowo during the campaigns for the 1983 elections on his role in the 30-month civil war, (The Nation October 12,) spoke volumes on the vexed issue. He said among others “the ending of the war itself that I’m accused of, accused of starving the Igbo, I did nothing of the sort”. But he went on to say that when he visited Calabar, Enugu and Port Harcourt after their liberation, he was shocked at the terrible sight of kwashiorkor victims and when he enquired, he found out that the food they were sending were being hijacked by soldiers and was not getting to the civilians. And “I said that was a dangerous policy we didn’t intend the food for the soldiers. So I decided to stop sending the food there. In the process, the civilians would suffer, but the soldiers suffered most” He also spoke on how he almost unilaterally changed the Nigerian currency only letting Gowon know of it a day before the change even as he expressed delight that it was the policy of starvation and currency change that Ojukwu admitted defeated him.
There are salient issues that have been brought to the fore by aspects of the transcript as they relate to the thesis of Achebe’s presentation. First, they corroborate very unambiguously, our earlier assertion that the matter is not new as Awolowo was confronted with them while he lived. Secondly, he did not deny he was privy to that policy. And as can be gleaned from the above, he admitted to have stopped sending food there after his visit so that by starving the soldiers they could easily be defeated. And it came to pass as he recounted Ojukwu admitted. He also admitted that civilians would also suffer for that action ostensibly directed at soldiers. It is also very instructive to note his emphasis on the first person. By that emphasis, he left no body in doubt that he wielded and exercised enormous powers on those policies. So what is there in Achebe’s presentation that is substantially different from what Awolowo said on the issue? Nothing except nobody wanted to take responsibility for the resultant deaths. And where is that blasphemy for which Achebe has to render apology not only to the Awolowo family but the entire Yoruba people?
Awolowo was a national figure who played crucial roles in the evolution of the Nigerian state. Thus, his place in history will continue to attract considerable interest and reviews from researchers, students and commentators. We must therefore exorcise from our psyche that stale African mentality of not permitting of an objective appraisal of the policies and programs of dead compatriots. It would appear to me that much of the attacks are not only misguided but equally guilty of elevating sentiments over and above the substantive issues raised in the book.
That could explain why Dr. Fredrick Fasheun had the comfort of mind to call Achebe a frustrated man. A frustrated man for chronicling what he considers Awolowo’s role in that war? We may as well need an apology from Fasheun on behalf of the Achebe family and the Igbo people for denigrating one of their best. Fasheun must have been speaking for himself when he claimed the Igbo no longer care about such lamentations as they are more concerned on how to be relevant in mainstream Nigerian politics. He is saying that the Igbo should forget their past and they can make real progress in this country without the benefit of their travails. That conclusion is patently puerile as it cannot fly in the face of current realities in the country- realities that have reinforced most poignantly the relevance of that past.
And as Achebe wrote “It is for the sake of the future of Nigeria, for our children and grand children that I feel it is important to tell Nigeria’s story, Biafra story, our story, my story”. It is therefore a matter of immense regret that such a veritable work is being denigrated and viewed solely from the prism of how it purportedly recorded inadequately the roles played by Awolowo during that pogrom. If the truth must be told, the views expressed by Achebe represent the feelings of the average Igbo man on the matter. Those talking of revisionism, must first work hard to erase this feeling from the psyche of the Igbo people. And until they achieve this, they remain the ones to be accused of revisionism. Of course, Awolowo was not the head of state during that period. For that, there is a limit beyond which he cannot take responsibility for events of that war. But if copious explanations by Awolowo while he lived could not resolve the matter in his favour, it is a remote possibility that the antagonism of his army of supporters and sympathizers can pull any magic now.
