Tag: Chinua Achebe

Any deep thinking person who had followed up on the reactions of some Nigerians to Chinua Achebe’s latest book, There was a Country, would easily come to a conclusion that ethnic bigotry has remained the fundamental problem this country is yet to sincerely engage. The unintellectual and jingoistic dismissal of Achebe’s book by many a Yoruba Nigerian was as disappointing as it was laughably sad. Prominent among these sentimentalist criticisms of Achebe’s book was the one written by Mr. Idowu Akinlotan.

Mr Akinlotan’s grouse with Achebe’s book is what he calls the “author’s unrepentant and undisguised partisanship.” He writes thus: “After reading the Guardian (London) excerpt of the book, I concluded this was a book he [Achebe] should not have written, for sometimes, the merit of a book is compromised by just one page, one paragraph, even one sentence. …Achebe should have left unsaid many of the things he wrote in the book. His reputation as a world-renowned writer was already secure, having written one of the 50 most influential books of all time. Why did he feel impelled to write this [fated] book, one which doubtless reinforces the suspicion many hold about his private and public animosities?”

Interestingly, Mr Akinlotan had earlier informed the reader of his column that he had not read the book and would refrain from doing a review of the book. What do we call what he has written above: a pre-review, the type that comes with presumptions, assumptions and illogical judgements perhaps? The sharp-witted columnist was quick to “conclude” that Achebe’s memoir will be of little “value” and perhaps should be disregarded. Achebe’s only crime in the excerpt is that he dared accuse Chief Obafemi Awolowo of genocidal intents against the Igbo through his blockade policies that led to the deaths of many Igbo civilians during the Civil War. Most Yoruba in Nigeria are often quick to throw reason and caution into the air to defend the person and deeds of Awolowo.

Mr. Akinlotan should have waited to read the book before jabbering. In this same book which Awolowo only got about two paragraphs of deserved criticisms that seem to have upset some Yoruba to frenzy, the likes of Ojukwu and Gowon have pages of criticisms on the egotistical roles they played during the Nigerian Civil War. But the typical “unreading” Nigerian who becomes an authority on hearsay would like Palladium shout abuses only to realise they have misjudged their target.

Ethnicity blinds us! I felt my sensibilities assaulted when I read Mr. Akinlotan’s rationalisations of war crimes. All wars have moral question marks on them and I am yet to see a just war. But in his defence of Awolowo, Mr. Akinlotan struggles in vain to rationalise the moral questions he himself found as problems in the excerpt from Achebe’s book. For one, he sees nothing wrong in having millions of Igbo civilians killed in a war the Federal forces claimed was a “police action” intended to keep the country together. Starvation for the columnist suddenly becomes a lofty weapon of war without any “diabolical” intent. Mr. Akinlotan sees nothing morally wicked in a rehabilitation and reconciliation process that saw the Federal Government give £20 to Igbos wanting to convert their Biafran currency back into the Nigerian pounds irrespective of whatever amount of money they had deposited into the banks. Nor did Akinlotan say anything about the policy of indigenisation which at the instigation of Chief Awolowo the Federal Government introduced after the war to further deplete the economic base of the Igbo who mostly relied on the commerce of imported second-hand wares to survive. For the columnist, to maintain the saintly and heroic qualities most Yoruba have constructed and attributed to Awolowo, the aggrieved Igbo and other minority groups in Nigeria must be hushed to silence. Awolowo’s villainous roles during the war, for him, are at best mere “guesswork” and cannot be validated by any form of historical reflection. Suddenly, Ojukwu and Azikiwe have become canonised for their villainies too, all to ensure that Awo’s false reputations are not stained. Not until we come together as a people to acknowledge the heroic as well as villainous deeds of our so-called past heroes, not until we come to terms with the fact that we are not happy with one another, that we are living a lie, we will remain in the doldrums.

For a columnist who is known for his deft analyses of socio-political and historical happenings in Nigeria and beyond to lose his sense of moderation and restraint in discrediting a book he knows nothing about simply because few lines supposedly put Awo (his tribal hero) in a bad light means that ethnicity should be the first of the problems we must engage should we want to be a country. For Akinlotan, the few lines Achebe penned, justified and historically valid indictments on Awolowo’s roles during the war, necessarily mar his book. And since, for him, Achebe lacks the intellectual acumen to interpret human motives and actions, not minding the fact that he (Achebe) has written one of the “50 most influential books of all times,” we should dismiss the old writer as “paranoid”. But let’s humour Mr. Akinlotan a bit since he is a master of human motives: How does one explain that a federal troop that mostly consisted of Northerners, who had earlier carried out a genocidal butchery of the Igbo, would now engage the Igbo in a brotherly and humane war? Or that the great Awolowo whose undisguised ethnic politics and sentiments would be so humane in prosecuting a war against a people whose political representatives proved to stand between him and his ambitions of ruling the country? Why is it so difficult for many Yoruba to accept faults in Awo? Does Palladium expect Achebe to praise Awo for initiating a harsh policy that led to the deaths of his tribesmen?

If after 40 years Achebe still manifests “a disturbing streak of extreme traumatisation” as Mr. Akinlotan would have us believe, it only means that the scars of the war are anything but healed. It means that many more Achebes and other vicarious victims of the war are still pining in the injustices done to them by their fellow compatriots. It means that we are yet to become a country. Palladium believes Achebe has written the book for fame. He writes: “[Achebe’s] reputation as a world-renowned writer was already secure, having written one of the 50 most influential books of all time. Why did he feel impelled to write this [fated] book, one which doubtless reinforces the suspicion many hold about his private and public animosities?” It is only people of little minds and meagre ambitions that will think that a man in the twilight of his life, a man who has won all the fames deserving of his name, would release a book at 81 for fame and reputation. Achebe must remain silent in the face of historical injustice simply because he wants to keep his reputation intact. If Achebe had only blamed Ojukwu or Gowon, the Yoruba critics may not have been enraged this much. But now, his genius is challenged for daring to accuse Awo of genocide.

Mr. Akinlotan must understand that Achebe was only trying to call the attention of the country to the massive injustice it has done to some of its citizens. It is a cautionary book which in my own opinion seeks to draw our attention to the fact that a man who chooses to forget where the rain has begun to beat him will never know when and where it stops. Why do we shy away from our history and yet hope to progress? For Palladium to dismiss Achebe’s call for the Civil War to be included in the teaching curriculum of schools in Nigeria is sad. For us to grow as a nation, we have to be more cautious and tolerant of others’ feelings and opinions. We have to be fair and courageous enough to see faults and strengths alike in the people we uphold as heroes and villains. Nothing should be “left unsaid” if truly we desire reconciliation and progress.

• Anyaduba is a graduate student of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife