From its beginnings in 1999 when the Movement for the
Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB)
embodied its goals, and now when the Indigenous People of
Biafra (IPOB) has given it added vibrancy and renewal, the
Biafra concept has refused to be a passing fancy. It is
unlikely to go away anytime soon. Both MASSOB and IPOB,
sometimes now used interchangeably because their goals
converge, are a recrudescence of an idea that took root in
1966, was romanticised in the sanguinary accounts of epic
battles between 1967 and 1970 during the civil war, and
continues to achieve striking relevance because of the dire
failings of an unstructured and distorted federation. Since
2005 when Ralph Uwazuruike gave MASSOB some
ideological and administrative oomph, and since early this
year when Nnamdi Kanu’s Voice of Biafra Radio gave IPOB
resonance and poignancy, the Biafra idea has steadily grown
in scope and appeal in the hearts of southeasterners.
Nigerians and their leaders, including many sceptical
Southeast opponents of the idea, are mistaken to think the
idea will suddenly dissipate because it is denounced or
repressed by force.
Speaking at the launching of the 2016 Armed Forces
Remembrance Emblem at the Presidential Villa last Monday,
President Muhammadu Buhari, who has not really addressed
the ferment in the Southeast, observed that: “Our nation has
recently celebrated 55 years of political independence and
continues to remain as one indivisible entity despite several
grievous challenges. Since independence, Nigeria has
witnessed a lot of internal strife, survived a civil war and has
remained united. This feat achieved by the country is an
eloquent testimony to the determination of our citizens to
remain as one people.” This is perhaps his first real attempt
to speak to the problem that is gradually assuming a
disturbing dimension. Many southeasterners themselves are
ambivalent over the Biafra idea. Biafra died with Emeka
Ojukwu, argue some. Yet others suggest that the economic
imperatives of Nigeria and the so-called Biafra, not to say
the peculiar map and demographics of the country, make the
idea unattractive.
Governors of the Southeast have been more hesitant taking a
position. As elected leaders of the region, they bear the brunt
of the disruptions and agitations for Biafra. Their first major
attempt to address the matter was inconclusive. They will be
reconvening to examine the matter more carefully, perhaps
with more tact, and will doubtless take a stand sooner or
later. The region’s cultural leaders have also been full of
vacillation. They are sensitive about the yearnings and
aspirations of Biafra’s advocates and their own relevance as
traditional and social leaders of the region. They will see
which way the cats are jumping before they take a more
definitive position. Ohaneze Ndigbo has denounced the
Biafra idea as impracticable and useless, hinging its position
inelegantly on a troubling materialistic view of Igbo destiny.
But it acknowledges that Southeast grievances are real and
legitimate. Sundry media commentators have also equally
been less squeamish in taking a position. From the safety of
their media establishments and columns, some have
denounced Biafra as anachronistic, and others have
suggested that the federal government must engage Biafra
advocates to resolve the contentious issues and
controversies predisposing the region to centrifugal
tendencies.
Security and law enforcement agencies have on their own
been very predictable. The police see the matter strictly as
one of law and order, leading to the shooting or detention of
some Biafra advocates during marches. The Department of
State Service (DSS) has similarly been stereotypical in its
approach. The army inexplicably speaks thunder, almost as
if its officers forget the beginnings and the trajectories of the
Boko Haram insurgency in the Northeast and how difficult it
has been to combat the menace. Army commanders, who
still can’t get military rule out of their veins, have spoken of
their readiness to crush the separatist tendencies of Biafra’s
advocates once the order is given. Do they know the
implication of what they are saying? Have they done their
study to find out whether once military muscle is applied, the
problem would invariably yield to superior force? Have they
studied contemporary military campaigns such as the United
States’ Iraq War, the Syrian War, Afghanistan War, and many
others which offers ample examples to militaries to look
beyond the punch they pack?
The restiveness in the Southeast is real and growing. There
is nothing puzzling about it. But so far, neither the
government nor the security agencies have shown any
modicum of understanding of the Biafra phenomenon and
what it presages. Worse, given the way they speak and the
approach they have taken, it is unlikely they will view the
problem with the wisdom and surefootedness needed to
tackle it. Since the presidency of Olusegun Obasanjo, right
through those of Umaru Yar’Adua and Goodluck Jonathan,
the Biafra crisis has steadily grown in scope and worsened in
temper. It would not matter whether the federal government
seems favourable to the Southeast, the Biafra idea will grow
in stridency. And if not Biafra, then other groups, whether
Boko Haram or a hypothetical Yoruba Liberation Group. The
reason is clear. Youths are unemployed and drifting, and a
vast majority of Nigerians are frustrated and alienated. http://thenationonlineng.net/biafras-rising-stridency/

Eediot tribes

Hmmm