Why do the Baganda want to secede from Uganda? September 9 - 15,
2007 The Declaration of Arbroath is instructive. Signed by Scottish
Bishops and noblemen on April 6, 1320, and sent to the Pope, it reads in part:
Our nation did indeed live in freedom and peace until that mighty prince the
King of the English, Edward, came in the guise of a friend and ally to harass
them as an enemy. The deeds of cruelty, massacre, violence, pillage, arson,
imprisoning prelates, burning down monasteries, robbing and killing monks and
nuns, besides other outrages without number which he committed against our
people, sparing neither age, sex, religion nor rank.
What has this got to do with the Baganda? A cursory but objective look at
history shows that like the Scots, the Baganda nation did indeed live in
freedom and peace with their neighbours until a succession of mighty rulers
came, disguised as friends and allies, then turned against them.
First, the mighty British came and tricked the Baganda to sign the 1900
agreement, which promised them protection against other invaders. Then they
tricked the Baganda not only to fight their war against the Banyoro, but also
to spread their colonial rule throughout Uganda; thus creating unnecessary
animosity between Baganda and other nations.
In 1953, the British turned against the Baganda, kidnapped and deported their
King to London. He had refused to support their East African Federation plan,
euphemism for greater British East African Colony.
Then came another mighty ruler, Milton Obote who was so disguised that he
stole their daughters heart and seduced the Baganda to sing for him Ye-ye-ka
Obote wafe; kalulu, ka Obote yeka!, literally meaning, Our Obote only, vote
for Obote only.
Within four years, Obote allegedly launched an unprovoked attack on the
Lubiri Palace, but now his former Attorney General Godfrey Binaisa has claimed
that Obote only staged a pre-emptive strike to stop Kabaka Mutesa from
launching a coup against him. What is not debatable is that Obotes forces
overran the Lubiri, forcing the Kabaka to flee to London, an outcome which he
used to abolish the kingdom.
Yet another mighty ruler, Idi Amin came, ostensibly to save the Baganda
from Obote. He even brought back the Kabakas body from London for a state
funeral. Amin soon turned against the Baganda, sparing neither age, sex,
religion nor rank.
The Kabakas former Education Minister Francis Malugembe and Ugandas former
Chief Justice Benedicto Kiwanuka were but two examples of indiscriminate deeds
of cruelty against the Baganda.
Then the current mighty ruler also entered, disguised. The Baganda welcomed
him to stage his rebellion from Luwero, supplied food, more fighters and even
liberated and gave him the rest of Buganda on a silver plate. In return,
President Museveni built a skulls monument for the bush war dead and
restored the kingdom, somewhat.
ragically, not only has he allegedly legalised the 1966 theft of 9,000 sq
miles of the kingdoms land, but split the kingdom into two, with Buruli
becoming a separate entity.
The remaining piece must join a regional tier to be controlled from the centre.
And, like the British, this mighty ruler is calling for accelerated East
African federation, which will make Buganda kingdom irrelevant, eternally.
This catalogue of mighty rulers, who came, disguised as friends and allies,
only to treat the Baganda as an enemy, raises several burning questions.
Should other tribes condemn the Baganda and Gulu District chairman, Norbert
Mao, for calling for Buganda and the north to secede from Uganda, or should we
critically look at the broader issues regarding equity in political
dispensation, allocation of resources and the enjoyment of basic human rights
under the same law?
What alternative remedies are there, given that equity is unachievable
through free and fair elections as long as the ruling National Resistance
Movement party remains legally fused with state institutions including the
army, police, intelligence, the civil service, the central bank and Electoral
Commission?
Why cant all tribes amicably break away from the British colonial creation
called Uganda and negotiate a home-grown Uganda where no one tribe will use
violence to dominate the rest?
The conclusion to the Scottish Declaration of Arbroath makes a sobering
reading for those condemning the Baganda and Mao: As long as but a hundred of
us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English
rule.
Thankfully, on May 5, 2007, almost 700 years after the Declaration, the Scots
took a decisive but peaceful step towards secession from the United Kingdom.
They elected the Scottish National Party (SNP) whose raison detre (reason for
being) is Scottish independence.
So what? Give the Baganda, Mao and the like a fair deal, which inspires them
to remain in Uganda, or they secede. Already, there is a proliferation of
development-orientated tribal associations, a response to a terminal cancer
of marginalisation, leading to Ugandas disintegration.
It is in truth [not] for glory, riches, nor honours that we are making these
demands, but for freedom, for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with
life itself, notes the Declaration of Arbroath
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot
with the All-new Yahoo! Mail _______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
% UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
