Netters, Its shocking that AM Obote was opposed to Uganda attaining Independence whereas his supporters and himself have always claimed he was a nationalist. Shame. Read on................
LM ======================================================How independence came By Fred Guweddeko, oct 9 - 15, 2003 Nationalists lost the war but received the prize… The road to Uganda’s Independence was drawn by the most unlikely of all parties. It was when Germany’s Adolf Hitler moved to colonise the biggest colonial masters, Britain and France. By resisting Hitler’s colonialism Britain lost the right to occupy Uganda. Britain was committed in the 1941 Pacific Treaty with the USA, to free such imperial territories as Uganda. America’s support to prevent Hitler from colonising Britain was given on condition that the colonies would be freed. After the war, Britain was bound by the UN to free the territories and people under its bondage. The United Nations Organisation also recognised the right of people under imperial bondage to struggle for their freedom. No independence The 1941 Treaty notwithstanding various British government departments, private interests and ideological groups made concerted efforts between 1945 and 1959 to prevent Uganda from becoming independent. Three years from the 1941 Pacific Treaty, a grand imperial ceremony to mark 50 years of British rule in Uganda was held on April 10, 1944. The Governor Sir Charles Dundas declared that Britain would certainly celebrate on April 10, 1994 - a century of its stay in Uganda. British officers, the Hon. A. S. Richardson and Mr M. Birch demanded and predicted that Britain would rule Uganda forever. The Bishop of the Church of England in Uganda, Mr Birch the Chief Secretary and the leader of the British community in Uganda, the Hon. Frasser, repudiated independence. Months later, in January 1945, the colonial government in Uganda used as an excuse, a workers welfare strike, to destroy anti-colonialism. Critical Ugandans, literature on political freedoms and native contacts with the free world were violently suppressed. Natives who first criticised colonial rule in 1945 such as Katikkiro Wamala and Samsom Kisekka were declared to be insane. They were deported to Arua and Bunyoro to ‘protect’ society from anti-colonial ideas. External opposition In immediate post-war Britain, only the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, was committed to the 1941 Pacific Treaty to quickly withdraw from the colonies. Churchill consequently lost elections to the pro-colonies interests. Economic interests in Britain were restructuring colonies to support its post-war reconstruction. The post-war finance minister in Britain, Chancellor Cripps, told the British Africa Governors Conference of 1947 that the whole future of the Pound Sterling and Britain’s economic recovery depended on their resources in Africa. Independence had to wait. When the Colonial Secretary Mr Creech Jones, visited Uganda in 1947, Governor Sir John Hall prevented native leaders from mentioning independence. They instead petitioned for native development under British colonialism. In South Africa, General Smuts, the World War II leader favouring Africa’s independence, lost elections to Dr F. Malan for this reason. Dr Malan conceived the idea of granting independence in British Africa to the local British population. The idea became popular with the British settler community leadership, which sought to unite Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika for independence under their (White) leadership. This delayed the advance to native independence and, in Buganda, caused Kabaka Fredrick Mutesa’s deportation in 1953. For Uganda, the Hon. Col. Ponsonby (MP), the Chairman of Britain’s Joint East African Board, addressed the local British settlers on independence. Col. Ponsonby said that any colonial political changes would involve Africans coming more under European organisation and less under native chiefs. Col. Ponsonby said it would be better for Africa and the world if British colonies there advanced to independence with natives under Europeans. The Colonial Secretary, the Lord Chandos, was supportive. Political repression Between 1945 and 1950, the colonial government in Uganda criminalised native political associations to destroy any connection with anti-colonial mobilisation. Natives could have community associations, commercial companies and agricultural co-operatives but not politics. Agricultural co-operatives were the largest and most popular native associations. They could not organise beyond the county and later the district. The colonial government directly controlled them to bar them from politics. >From 1946, the anti colonial movement titled ‘Bataka Union’ in Buganda and Busoga, operated under the cover of a company called Federation of African Farmers. The Bataka Union and its African cover company were banned in 1949. In Britain the interests opposed to independence for the colonies, at the beginning of the 1950-decade, won control of the colonial office at Whitehall. The colonial office team of O. H. Morris, J. H. Horton and Chesseman conceived an official programme titled ‘Corona’ to mobilise against independence in the colonies, which included Uganda. The ‘Corona’ programme was under Sir Charles Jeffries. In Uganda local agents in each ethnic district executed the campaign against independence. One outstanding local anti-independence campaigner was a chief in Ankole called Lazaro Kamugungunu. Lazaro Kamugungunu was even awarded the colonial service medal of MBE. He traversed Ankole between 1952-1956 praising colonial rule and warning of civil wars if Uganda ever became independent from Britain. Citing the arrogance of Buganda, inter-religious competition, ethnic hostility, and poor leadership, Kamugungunu said it would be a miracle if nationalists do not fight each other within five years of independence. In Bunyoro one Antonio Kalisa of Masindi and A. N. Kamese of Kikindo led the anti-independence campaign. They urged the local people to thank Britain for transforming Bunyoro from wars, slavery, trade and crude leadership to a peaceful progressive region. Rwot Hipolyto Omach, a chief of the Jonam at Pakwach, kept his local people very grateful for being under British colonial rule. Hipolyto predicted that with independence from Britain the natives would resort to witchcraft, human sacrifice, raiding and other vices. At Arua, the Opi called Matteo Wadi Ongwench banned any talk about independence for Uganda among his people. Ongwech cited the numerous pre-colonial conflicts in northern Uganda, and the Buganda versus Bunyoro wars, which had been contained by British rule. Independence would plunge Uganda back into wars, he warned. In Gulu, O. L. Lalobo, an assistant agricultural officer, was the main anti-independence activist. Lalobo said that the only way for the backward northern regions to develop was for Uganda to continue under British colonialism. With independence, the greedy Bantu in the south of Uganda would only develop themselves, their relatives and their home areas. The future of progress in Acholi was therefore only safe under British colonial rule. Busoga’s position In Busoga, the local leaders, Y. K. Mulondo, Wambi, Walukamba and Lubandi opposed independence. Like Lalobo, they preferred the assured development of Busoga under British colonial rule to the uncertainties of independent Uganda. Using the example of the industrial town then under construction in Jinja, the leaders applied the idiom; ‘Gwewalabyeko ye mwana.’ This meant that the bird the Basoga had in hand under colonial rule was better than the anticipated two after independence. In the rest of the eastern province, it was Mr. T. R. Cox, the provincial commissioner, who campaigned against independence. He told the various small ethnic groups that they would become colonies of Buganda. They were reminded that Buganda was always raiding them before the protection of British colonial rule. The campaign was a success. The commissioner used the successes of his campaign to report to the colonial office at the end of 1956 that there was absolutely no local support for Uganda’s independence among people in the eastern province. Buganda’s view In Buganda, the Katikkiro Paulo Kavuma was against Uganda’s independence. Kavuma warned the local chiefs; clan heads and Lukiiko members that if at all Uganda got independence, the savage tribes of the North would descend on Buganda’s civilisation. In Lango, Rwot Oluwa, Rwot Olet and T. K. Otim, the Rwot of Adong worked with district commissioner B. Jacobs against independence. They imprisoned people who they connected to or suspected to be subscribing to the UNC’s campaign for independence. Independence could not be bought, they said. People were paying for anarchy. All those involved in the independence campaign had criminal interests, they said of the UNC and other nationalists. In Lango, even abusive language on Britain was punishable. In November 1957, Yekosofati Engur was sentenced to three years for using the example of Mau Mau to tell a friend that the British were murderers and land thieves. In Toro Katikkiro Rukuba opposed independence for Uganda. He said that before British rule, there was no Uganda and no Toro. If the British leave, Uganda and Toro and the benefits from a common government would end. Divisions spread This anti-independence campaign sharply divided the people of Uganda. The older generation (mostly those above 50) comparing the pre-colonial and colonial eras was opposed to the youths seeking a brighter future after the British. Thus there were several clashes over dependence. In the Ankole Eishengero, the father Marko Kiiza opposed to independence, and the son Basil K. Bataringaya in favour of it, went physical and fought after a heated argument. Under the ‘Corona’ programme to prevent independence, those remote areas where a white person still caused fear in the natives, received fully sponsored British visitors. These white visitors went about the remote villages distributing gifts. The impression was created in the simple minds of the unsophisticated Ugandan peasants that the British were only a compassionate, generous and peaceful people. There was therefore no justification to send them away for independence. Special Branch In 1945 the colonial government in Uganda established the Special Branch to trace, neutralise and punish local opponents. The Special Branch is the equivalent of the State Research under Idi Amin and the CMI under President Museveni. Unlike its post-colonial successors, the colonial Special Branch brought death to very few people. The Special Branch suppressed hundreds of nationalists through up-country deportations, torture, loss of employment and imprisonment. Following the 1949 riots against the colonial regime, hundreds of people became ‘’Abalira kunsiko’’ (living in the bushes) to avoid the wrathful Special Branch. Fenner Brockway, a British Labour MP came to Uganda to save their lives. The Special Branch used to deport their victims to isolated places in the bush in northern Uganda. This action sounds similar to the current incarceration of political opponents in ‘’safe houses’’ by the CMI and other state security agencies. It is a psychological method to break the intellectual resolve and mental capacity of the victim. Torture victims The victims of the Special Branch between 1945 and 1961 are too many to be listed here. When colonial rule ended, the survivors created an association called “Graduates of the University of Self Government.’’ The executive committee of this association included Paulo Muwanga, I. K. Musazi, Festo Kiziiri, Otema-Alimadi, Yekosofati Engur, Peter Oola, Abu Mayanja, Mary Nkata, Augustine Kamya, Godfrey Binaisa and John Bull Kintu. Sir Edward Mutesa was an honorary member. Foreign friends Failing to organise politically for Uganda’s freedom, I. K. Musazi sought assistance from International Anti-Imperialists associations in Europe and the USA. Two anti-imperialism friends from Britain, one from the USA and one from Italy subsequently came to Uganda. Due to their anti-colonial activities, John Stonehouse was soon declared a ‘‘prohibited immigrant’’ and deported by the colonial government. George Shepherd was prevented from re-entering Uganda after a foreign working trip; Roger Carzio was hounded out of Uganda, while Diana Noakes was subverted from one anti-colonial mission. Ethnic nationalism Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones in 1947 ordered the political development of ethnic groups to pre-empt [the struggle for independence]. In Uganda the principles of Ethnic Nationalism brought the demands for ethnic political and social development ahead of nationalism. 1949 - 1957 Instead of Uganda’s independence, ethnic groups preferred to get their own Busoga College, Lango College, Teso College, ethnic co-operative unions, ethnic hospitals, ethnic scholarships and ethnic local administrations. Ethnic nationalism became more fashionable than anti-colonialism. There emerged a strong local campaign to shelve independence calls until backward ethnic groups developed. The young Apollo Milton Obote, before his nationalist eyes were opened, led a campaign publicised in the press against Uganda’s independence [while] Northern Uganda was still backward. Obote’s campaign was that: The UNC (later UPC) has hastened to call for self-government for all the people of Uganda. For areas that were still backward, there were more immediate needs. Thus we will not associate with this self-government because we are not ready. Political school In 1950 the British Colonial ministry went further to establish an institute at Nsamizi in Entebbe to extend their rule over Uganda. The Nsamizi Training Institute was far greater than the post-independence NRM political school at Kyankwanzi - in the seriousness of its mission and professional instruction. It was strategic for every local person in Uganda or any native wishing to progress under the colonial regime to attend the political course at Nsamizi. Like the early NRM cadre courses, Nsamizi ensured that the people who mattered in society understood and supported British colonial rule. Headmasters, civil servants, secondary school teachers, chiefs, job and scholarship applicants, native executives of British companies, aspiring local leaders, native co-operative managers and their wives, attended the political course at Nsamizi. It was the passport to public resources. Beauty and sex The core course at Nsamizi was dressed under the title of ‘citizenship.’ It taught British civilisation, British International [Colonial] history, British culture, British Government and Colonial policy. The course included teaching the participants to read British newspapers, British dancing, British alcohol, British dress codes and even to appreciate the British notion of female beauty. The instructors told the students that : ...the British have over centuries across the world ended wars, stopped savage customs, opened churches, built schools, hospitals, roads, railways, harbours, established law and order, harnessed and developed resources against desperate poverty. “The British have taken nothing but generously given in money, equipment, materials and devoted manpower to their dependencies. “Britain has imposed no tax upon any of its colonial peoples that is not for their good and which is not spent in their country on their needs.’’ The colonial politicisation course went even further to teach against the full-breasted, big-bosom, wide-hipped, big-legged African female figure. To the tutors this was associated with breeding large numbers of children typical of under-development. The British tutors required the Ugandan participants to drop the traditional African concept of serenity and comeliness among women. They were also coached to reject the enormously fat native woman who could scarcely walk and adopt the British feminine concept of feminine beauty. Native Ugandans were known to love women, sex and producing many children. The political course moved to change this social culture to that of the British to ensure their loyalty. The principal of Nsamizi Training Institute, called Mr P. G. Coutts, was the equivalent of the NRM-NPC, Dr Crispus Kiyonga. He also went around the country promoting the ideology of British rule and advising that Britain should never leave Uganda’s leadership. District politics In 1950 the Colonial Government started establishing local district council governments. For one to become a district councillor, an extra-mural course for a Makerere College (University) certificate of competence was required. The Extra-Mural Course served not only district politics. It passed for councillorship those candidates who [supported] the administration of the districts and not self-determination from British rule. The Makerere (University) College Extra-Mural programme for district councils also offered refresher courses and capacity building seminars, which strengthened the colonial base at the district level. This exercise effectively cut the districts off the independence campaign. All the resolutions, save for Lango district, to support Uganda independence by the districts failed. Acholi problem The Kabaka Crisis, which started in June 1953, saw Buganda call for the “neighbouring countries’’ of ‘Toro, Ankole, Teso, Lango and others to demand for an end to colonial rule. The British Government recruited the Acholi immediately to prevent an anti-colonial uprising in Uganda. Early in March 1955, Governor Sir Cohen visited Gulu to open the Sir Samuel Baker College Library. The Governor while meeting Acholi traditional leaders, the district council and prominent locals, raised issues cited in the records as: “...You Acholi are a vigorous people. You have the stuff from which leaders are made...other tribes may have had longer periods of education, but the people of this area have every chance to lead them...’’ Many activities followed to militarise the Acholi to prevent any uprising for independence in Uganda. The Acholi factor as the military power behind the ruling regime in Uganda was thus created to protect the colonial regime. One of those attending Governor Sir Cohen briefings on the role of the ‘Acholi’ in Uganda was young Eric Otema Alimadi (later to become Prime Minister under Obote II). Otema Alimadi would thus become part of the various Acholi paradigms in Ugandan politics. The Acholi factor manifested itself again from 1964, through to the current ‘Acholi’ region crisis, which started under Alimadi’s chairmanship of the rebel Uganda People’s Democratic Movement (UPDM) in 1987. Leadership project Britain’s Colonial Social Science Research Council planned the final assault against Uganda’s independence. The East African Institute of Social Research at Makerere University College executed it. The plan was to develop countervailing leadership to that of anti-colonial nationalists to avoid the India experience of Gandhi. The research was to find and develop leadership types and centres resistant to nationalism. Kings created Under this programme, studies were made on the various ethnic groups (tribes) in Uganda to establish their leadership political culture. Upon establishing the inclusive and exclusive characteristics of the ethnic (tribal) groups in Uganda, leadership models were drawn. This move to undermine national anti-colonial leaders and nationalist organisations created paramount cultural leaders and traditional political institutions where they were non-existent. Where such leaders existed as in Buganda, Toro, etc. they were strengthened and developed to become traditional states within a modern state. The Colonial Government under this Makerere-based programme created several cultural ‘’kings’’: Layolo Maber for Acholi, won Nyaci for Lango, Kingoo for Sebei, Umwami for Kigezi, Senkulu for Bukedi, Umuinga for Bugishu, Emorimor for Teso, Kyabazinga for Busoga, etc. These small ‘kings’, grafted on the leadership culture of each ethnic district and financed by the colonial government, were to compete and counteract the nationalist cause. This they achieved through exploiting the inclusivist and exclusivist values. In Buganda, the existing monarchy was ballooned to become cultural, political and executive at the same time. The three leadership values made Buganda impenetrable to the nationalists and incompatible with other institutional authorities. The leadership project effected a volte-face in Uganda’s independence politics. Instead of searching for national leaders and independence, the people sought for local cultural ‘kings’ and tribal glory. The nationalists The campaign against independence was directed at the nationalists. The colonialists exposed their failures, weakness and scandals with exaggeration. Initially, the nationalists were presented as public criminals creating disorder; destruction of property, production, development and sowing animosity. Their followers were identified as lazy, redundant, poll-tax defaulters, violators of native crop farming and domestic hygiene regulations. The communist label followed. Communism was defined as the politics where people owned nothing, including the clothes they wore. With communism, nationalists were accused of plotting to ban Christianity from Uganda. Uganda Nationalism was described as the child of a frustrated, ungrateful educated minority mobilising people in whom little knowledge had stirred much discontent against order and development. Nationalists were described as less than ordinary peasants but claiming Utopian values and persevering only because the natives had no standards to judge them. Morally, nationalists were exposed as people without a soul, who could utter volumes of lies, perform and abate series of any unprincipled acts towards their selfish ambitions. As a class, the nationalists were described as people who had failed both to succeed as up-country peasants and to climb the ladder of the modern system. The professional nationalists were largely jobless and without property. Socially, nationalists pretended to rub shoulders with the European elite but were actually only comfortable and respected in the slums and by village dwellers. Financially, Uganda nationalists were perpetually dry. On several occasions, Ignatius K. Musazi, Apollo Obote and others failed to pay bills incurred during their independence campaigns. More often than not, nationalists were always nursing financial crisis, fundraising or quarrelling over the use of donations and subscriptions. Some of their political rallies were staged more to collect money from the public than for political purposes. Many fraudsters collecting subscriptions for independence work were arrested. The Colonial Government claimed to protect citizens from nationalists, to demand for genuine receipts and accountability for subscriptions from the nationalists. The outgoing Governor Sir Cohen described Uganda nationalism as a veiled anti-Buganda tribalism. He said that in Uganda, tribalism was stronger and of greater development potential than nationalism. Cohen claimed that in spite of its workload the Colonial Government in Uganda was always ahead of the nationalists in foresight, plans, action and public opinion. There was no future for Uganda nationalists. Successful campaign The campaign against Uganda’s independence was for its architects a success. A referendum on independence would certainly have been in favour of continuing with British colonial rule. On the eve of Uganda’s independence there was a lot of love and respect for Britain. Those who had been fighting for independence were fighting to be in the good books with Britain. The people of Uganda and the pro-independence politicians had become hostile to each other than to Britain. There was no chance that British colonial rule would have left Uganda through the pressure of nationalists or organised popular action. The developments, forces and pressure, which made Britain to grant independence to Uganda - on October 9, 1962 - were beyond the power of the anti-colonial interests of Britain. After holding out against the 1941 Pacific Treaty commitment to leave Uganda, the decision of Britain to leave and their departure lasted only seven months from March to October 1962. Many Uganda politicians of the time have claimed to have fought and won Uganda’s independence. The fact is that they lost the war but received the prize, which was independence. ===== LM __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com -------------------------------------------- This service is hosted on the Infocom network http://www.infocom.co.ug
