As a student of history, I have come
to realise that it is only within the
scaffolding of fidelity to its lessons
that individuals and groups can
positively transform socio-political
reality in an enduring and meaningful
way. In otherwords, those who ignore
the lessons of history no matter how
disagreeable they might be are bound
to repeat terrible errors of the past.
Ever since Nigeria was created by
British colonial imperialism in 1914,
efforts have been made to build a
truly Nigerian nation that blends into
a relatively harmonious geopolitical
entity the diverse ethnic nationalities
out of which the colonial amalgam
was founded. Unfortunately, from the
very beginning such attempts,
especially by British colonial
administrators, were largely
disingenuous, biased in favour of the
North and geared towards optimum
exploitation of the newly created
colony for the benefit of imperial
Britain.
The fundamental political philosophy
that guided British imperialism in
relation to the different ethnic
nationalities in Nigeria can be
encapsulated in three words, namely,
subjugate, divide, and exploit. And
even after independence was
achieved, the departing colonial
master left behind an economic
system designed for the continuation
of Britain’s economic exploitation of
the country and a flawed political
architectonic which could not
withstand the weight of deepening
ethnic rivalries and tension already
rearing their ugly heads before
October 1, 1960.
Inspite of the amalgamation carried
out by Lord Fredrick Lugard, the
separatist policies implemented by
him and his successors increased
ethnic and religious cleavages that
eventually snowballed into the
devastating civil war. The separatist
strategy was consonant with the
long-standing secessionist agenda of
several members of the Northern
establishment, notably, Alhaji
Ahmadu Bello, Tafawa Balewa and
Inua Wada. However, at conferences
held in 1953 that midwived the
Lyttleton Constitution of 1954, the
North shifted ground from secession
and advocated instead a political
structure “which would give the
regions the greatest possible freedom
of movement and action; a structure
which would reduce the powers of the
Centre to the absolute minimum.”
This eventually led to what Festus
C.Eze described as “federation by
disaggregation” that, in concrete
terms,meant the formation of largely
ethnic based three regions and three
major political parties along the
same lines.
After independence, efforts to
reengineer and consolidate the
parliamentary democracy inherited
from Britain were rendered ineffective
mainly because the nationalists who
fought for political autarky disliked
domination by compatriots from
other parts of the country much more
than they loathed subjugation by
British colonialists. Moreover, selfish
myopic politicians who appealed to
ethnic and religious sentiments to
win votes during elections or score
cheap political points against rivals
worsened the problem. Thus, by the
time mass slaughter of Ndigbo
particularly in Northern Nigeria
gained escalated in May 1966, the
revenge coup of July 29 that same
year and the civil war in 1967, the
fragile wobbly foundations of the
federation had almost crumbled
completely.
For haters of truth, especially those
from the North and South-West, it is
an abomination, at best an irritating
scratching of old wounds, to revisit
the troublesome issue of pogroms
against Ndigbo from 1966 to 1970,
and the extremely punitive policies
implemented by Gen. Yakubu Gowon,
ChiefObafemi Awolowo and others to
further humiliate them when the civil
war ended. Any Igbo man or woman
who draws attention to the genocide
committed against Igbo people
during the war and to the need for
justice is usually attacked viciously
as “a divisive tribalist who would not
let sleeping dogs lie for the sake of
peace and unity.” But why are
Nigerians from other ethnic groups
uncomfortable and bilious anytime
someone brings up the issue of
genocide and recurrent violence
against Ndigbo if we really belong
equally to one nation? What is the
rationale behind hatred of the Igbo
andrampant Igbophobia in a country
where the people, despite their
temperamental deficiencies, have
contributed to the development of
Nigeria more than any other ethnic
group? Taking a cue from Prof.
Chinua Achebe, the answer to the last
question is ekwolo, that is, jealousy
and petty ethnic rivalries because of
the success of Ndigbo in establishing
themselves as a significant socio-
economic and intellectual force
wherever they live outside Igboland.
The average non-Igbo tend to dislike
and fear the Igbobecause of that very
success. Now, rivalries between
individuals, across ethnic groups and
within countries often trigger
conflicts, with alternating periods of
belligerence and peace of limited
duration. It is within this context that
the problematic interactions between
Ndigbo and Igbophobic Nigerians
from other ethnic groups can be
understood.
It is impossible to build genuine and
sustainable national unity on the
foundation of injustice, deliberate
suppression of unpleasant or
inconvenient facts and self-righteous
accusation of tribalism hurled at
anyone who brings up “the Igbo
problem” as a critical component of
the pending “national question” that
requires dispassionate analysis and
fair resolution. As Usman Dan Fodio
aptly remarked, “conscience is an
open wound; only truth can heal it.”
Although ascertaining the truth about
any complex socio-political question
is always a work-in-progress, it can
be plausibly argued that only if
Nigerians, especially members of the
ruling elite, tackle the “Igbo problem”
with open-mindedness guided by the
desire for fairness and justice, would
the lingering physical and
psychological wounds of the Biafran
war be assuaged. Obdurate refusal to
discuss the war comprehensively as
a very important though tragic
episode of Nigerian history and
unwillingness to teach Nigerians born
from 1960 onwards about it so that
they can learn appropriate lessons
therefrom is, to put it mildly, evidence
of hubris and cowardice. Similarly,
name-calling or hateful
disparagement of any Igbo for alerting
compatriots about the predicament of
Ndigbo and calling for a change of
attitude towards them is a complete
waste of time because the capacity to
speak out against injustice is an
essential component of human nature
that cannot be completely stifled.
It is possible to debate endlessly, with
the benefit of hindsight of
course,whether the decision to secede
was the best option, or even the only
optionfor Ndigbo. I have genuine
misgivings about the secession.
Nevertheless, Generals Gowon and
Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu
bear ultimate responsibility for the
decision to secede and the war that
followed because, misled by
sycophants, “they were blinded by
ego, hindered by a lack of
administrative experience and
obsessed with interpersonal
competition and petty rivalries.” Yet,
it is a universally recognised principle
that a fairly homogenous people with
strong historical and cultural
connections have a right to self-
determination if there are compelling
reasons for them to feel unwanted or
do not have a sense of belonging in
the larger group of whichthey are a
part. Given the pogroms of 1966,
clamour for secession by the Igbo
was justified, although the means
they chose to realise it is
highlyquestionable. Anybody with a
contrary view should answer the
following question: would the Hausa-
Fulani, the Yoruba or any ethnic group
with significant demographic strength
not have seriously considered
secession if their brothers and sisters
living in Eastern region were
slaughtered en masse by their hosts?
Very likely, they would. Besides, as
indicated earlier,Northerners were
obsessed with pulling out of Nigeria,
and Chief Obafemi Awolowo
reportedly told Gen. Ojukwu shortly
before the civil war broke out that if
the East secedes, Western region
would not be far behind. Hence,
although it is probably true that
leaders of Biafra acted too hastily in
pulling Eastern region out of Nigeria
without adequate preparation for war
knowing full well that Gowon and his
cohorts would never allow it, one
must also appreciate the tremendous
pressure they were under to respond
decisively to the senseless massacre
of Ndigbo in the North. Vociferous
andtendentious champions of
“national unity” have not made
serious effort to engage
dispassionately with Nigerian history
from 1914 to the time military regime
was entrenched in the country.
To be concluded.
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/06/ndigbo-and-the-burdens-of-history-1/#sthash.15Zdfx1t.dpuf

Hmmmm.

Updated version of this work is urgently needed, since it didn't address all Igbo's predicament in history of Nigeria and ways to pacify it.
But I think is futile BC Nigerian leaders and some half baked citizens are just clowns.
Is better Igbo's makes their decision. Than all this evidence of history reoccurrence.

They don't wanna face the inconvenient facts of the genocide committed against the Igbos. Until that is treated , Nigeria will know no peace.

warrior01:
They don't wanna face the inconvenient facts of the genocide committed against the Igbos. Until that is treated , Nigeria will know no peace.

they will never know peace