delima francis wrote: >Mervyn Lobo is incorrect in equating Zanzibar's formal 'Protectorate' >status within the British Empire with that of a 'Colony' when he writes >that " ....... which is just a fancy way of saying they ruled through a >puppet Sultan." Clearly, the British were dominant in administering >Zanzibar through the British 'Resident' (note: not 'Governor") and an >Executive Council comprising senior British Civil Servants and >representatives of Zanzibar's racially diverse population (though, >admittedly, the African majority was clearly significantly under >represented). These terms - 'Protectorate' and 'Resident' were not mere >differences in description but represented subtle nuanced differences in >status and role to other colonies.
Francis de Lima, A lot of people who have not been to E. Africa assume that since it was ruled by the British, the administration and its goals in all four countries were homogeneous. To correct this misconception, I pointed out the legal differences in each country. I am surprised that you felt I was trying equate a colony with a protectorate since I was trying to do the exact opposite i.e. show that they were set up differently. Kenya used to be a protectorate and got converted into a colony to ensure that the British would be there forever. As such, the British focused on developing the Kenyan economy and did the bare minimum with Tanganyika, which they knew they had to relinquish someday. Secondly, in 1896, after the worlds shortest war, i.e. of less than an hour, the British installed their man as the Sultan of Zanzibar. The agreement they signed then required any Zanzibari to get the approval of the British Consul before his ascension to the Sultanate. I find it difficult to believe that the 'approved' Sultan was then the person calling the shots and the British the ones doing the obeying. Most people would conclude that a protected Sultan is not really the one in power and hence a puppet or very close to it. >Mervyn's description of Zanzibar's Sultan as a "puppet" is also intensely >misleading and derogatory. He most definitely was no puppet. Whilst, >clearly, the British were dominant in Zanzibar's administration, the >British Resident conducted Government in close consultation with His >Highness the Sultan in all matters, especially with regard to the role of >Islam in Zanzibari society. Again, I still find it difficult to grasp why any 'Sultan' would be under the "protection" of a foreign power. Furthermore, just a few weeks after Britain left Zanzibar, it refused all the begging from the Zanzibari Sultan for Britain to intervene again. >Increasingly, over the decades of British dominance in Zanzibar - the then >Sultan having opted to accept British "protection" upon the seizure of his >mainland "possessions" by Britain (Kenya and Uganda) and Germany >(Tanganyika) the Sultan's role developed more into one of 'Constitutional >Monarch', which was eventually defined in the constitution of the >independent State of Zanzibar (December 1963). So, the status and role of >Zanzibar's Monarch would have been akin that of Britain's Monarch and no >one, I do believe, would describe H. M. Queen Elizabeth as "a puppet", >which clearly she is not. I do also believe that one ought to exercise due >sensitivity and caution in the descriptions, often inadvisedly, we choose >to ascribe to people and posts. Happily, I am no fan of anyone who claims, by divine right, to be Queen or Sultan. I am also not sure exactly what powers she has left in the UK but the influence of the Queen of Canada, is restricted to getting permission from the Canadian Parliament before she can step into Canada. Personally, I associate asking permission to the modus operandi of a beggar and not to someone who wields any power. I will concede that she has the heart and stomach of a Queen but that of a Queen who inherited the greatest empire known and reigns as it fades into oblivion. Personally, I keep my fingers crossed that she reigns long enough to see Scotland break away too. >Mervyn also writes loosely about Zanzibar being "(re-)united with the >mainland ..." after independence. The reality is that (The People's >Republic of) Zanzibar formed a Union with independent Tanganyika four >months after its Revolution. There was no unity with "the mainland" - i.e. >with Kenya and Uganda, whose territories were all, at one time, claimed >loosely as territories of the Sultan of Zanzibar (then, as it happens, an >'outpost' of Oman). The E. African nations, together with Rwanda and Burundi, are making good progress in their quest for first, a common currency and then a full political federation. Perhaps we will see the day when Zanzibar will be re-united with the entire mainland, or even lead a federation of all regions where Kiswahili is spoken. Mervyn
