₦airaland Forum

okunoba:
http://www.compassnewspaper.com/NG/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66958:aguiyi-ironsi-killed-true-federalism-in-nigeria-says-ishola-williams-&catid=43:news&Itemid=799


CHAIRMAN of Transparency International and Executive Secretary, Pan-African Strategic abd Police Research Group (PANAFSTRAG), Maj-Gen. Ishola Williams (rtd) has blamed the first military Head of State, the late Gen. Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi, for lack of true federalism in the polity, saying his junta’s incursion into governance eroded people-centred political system.

Williams made the comment yesterday at the 11th Mike Okonkwo Annual Lecture, themed: Nigeria at 50: Its Leadership, Development and Future, held at the MUSON Centre, Onikan, Lagos.

He said the promulgation of Decree No. 1 of 1966 by the Ironsi-led regime was unnecessary and uncalled for, saying the military did not have any excuse for taking over the rein of government at that time.

Williams said that after the killing of Sir Tafawa Balewa, Ahmadu Bello, Dr. Okotie Eboh and others by the Kaduna Nzeogu insurgents, the most honourable thing for the military at that time to remedy the situation was to have handed over power to Mallam Bukar Dipcharima as the acting Prime Minister who, according to him, would have been supported by the military to conduct a credible election.

His words: “We adopted rather than adapted the political and socio-economic systems of the West to our history, culture and traditional governance. We started with federalism on the foundation of people-centered political system, but long period of military intervention led to the distortion of our political system and public sector governance.

“The Ironsi-led administration did not have business in government at the time he took over the government. He should have helped to improve the federalism by allowing the most senior politician to take over and conduct a credible election, thereafter.”

The post is arrant nonsense that usually gave rise to an idiotic phrase such as “North are born to Rule” in Nigeria and equally identify the nitwits from the south who helped create such crass utterance.

I wish to lay my hand on the early educational and career formulation of this so-called Maj-Gen. Ishola Williams. Again, it only in Nigeria that such person could become a sergeant in the army.

Nigerian constitution at the era in discuss does not have position of Acting Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister which was the reason the British refused to assist militarily because such request for British military intervention must come from the Prime Minister.

It is still beyond the pale of my imagination why Nigerians, due to tribal pressures, refused to accord respect to historical facts. Instead, they tend to wallow in unfounded conjectures.

It is a known fact that Mallam Zanna Bukar Dipcharima was not a ranking minister in Tafawa Balewa’ government. I can not fathom what informed the opinion among certain Nigerians that one party in a coalition government that could not form a government on its merits at the polls could all of a sudden produce a Prime Minister within a partnership government. Maybe the Kanuri people of Nigeria were born to become Prime Minister of Republic of Nigeria.

NPC and NCNC were the coalition partners in government and jointly agreed to have Tafawa Balewa as the Prime Minister and K O Madiwe the Ranking Minister. Since the Nigerian constitution did not make prevision for the post of Deputy Prime Minister, for all intents and practical purposes, the ranking minister deputizes for the Prime Minister.

In the aftermath of January 15, 1966 coup, both NPC and NCNC could not agree who should become the Prime Minister as the two parties nominated two candidates in the persons of Zipcharima and Mbadiwe. The constitution clearly stated that when coalition partners could not agree on consensus candidate for the post of Prima Minister, the parliament had to be dissolved and a call for fresh election.

It is safe to say that the so-called Maj-Gen. Ishola Williams has wrong grasp of the word-federalism. During the Tafawa Balewa led Nigerian government, the power of the government was still constituted at the center as it is today. What spurred the talk of this ill-informed true federalism in Nigeria is beyond my imagination?  I guess folks are not misconstruing democracy for federalism.

[quote author=~Bluetooth link=topic=594768.msg7627340#msg7627340 date=1296309496]Without unity of purpose,such thing will never happen in the first instance and most especially in a polarized country like Nigeria.

Some ethnic like ibo do not believe in Nigeria,so i don't see them joining in such campaign.the northern would not agree with the south especially the christains.Unlike,tunisia and egypt that looked above ethnicity and religion,i don't see how such thing will happen in nigeria.[/quote]You simply can not eat your cake and have it. The slam dunk betrayal of 1967 is the cardinal reason for your alleged disbelief of Nigeria by Ndigbo. By the way, you wrote “some ethnic like Ibo”; I shall appreciate if you can expatiate since Ndigbo are part of the “some ethnic”.

@Shango Thor

The dissimilarities between southern Sudan and Biafra include the geographical location, culture, tradition, composition of the combatants and sheer determination to continue fighting despite defeats.

In Sudanese civil war, which stated in 1955, the entire southern Sudan united against the northern Sudan. But this scenario is not applicable to Nigerian civil war of 1967 which saw majority of southern Nigeria joined forces with northern Nigeria against eastern Nigeria. It is highly unfathomable to urge Biafrans to join a phantom project such as southern Nigeria which may include former bitter enemies. The civil war had left indelible mark of hostilities on the mentality and spirituality of everyone involved in the war.

The similarities of southern Sudan and Biafra teeter on multiple ethnic groups with cultural proximity that decided to form a country different from the nation state erected by colonial masters. Even though there were saboteurs among certain minority groups of eastern Nigeria during the war, the fence could be amended since most of the determined Biafran fighters were drawn from those groups.

I do not subscribe to the idea of southern Nigeria because it is not mentally and spiritually obtainable.

Kobojunkie:
Actually, I saw exactly what I have seen for the past 20 years at least, and that what I stated there. If you think it is not the case, simply state your point and move on.

Unfortunately for people who think as you do in this, the more you run, the more you find out that you are better off running away from your own selves than trying to run away from people like me.

Again, if you have a reasonable rebuttal, put it forth or shove it already!

Before I let you shove it where you know best, I must congratulate you on the self-acclaimed expertise on Ndigbo. You can not even appraise your worth or see beyond your nose talk less Ndigbo. It will amount to silly endeavor for me to indulge in an empty and childish drivel such as this thread. You have to be met with solemn disappointment if you honestly expect me to deduce a reasonable rebuttal to a subject devoid of any intellectual pedigree.   

It did not occur to me that the position of presidency of Nigeria is the yardstick to measure the caliber of individuals from certain ethnic stocks in the country. Well, what a calibrated prism you have snagged for yourself. I say keep it up. By the way, any person of Igbo stock who hungered for the presidency of the cesspit called Nigeria is a bloody fool.

Kobojunkie:
You mean we should not mention Dora's 2 years as a member of our EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT? 

@Poster, Considering the current stock of Ibo leaders, I don't believe we have anyone I will be willing to vote for. Note: for an Ibo to win the presidency, he/she would need to convince much of Nigeria of his stock, and I don't see anyone who comes close today.

What an unfortunate statement. But in the widest of your inadequate imagination, you saw multitude of qualified individuals from other Nigeria’s ethnic stock to assume the presidency in Nigeria. In fact, I do not blame anybody but Ndigbo who remained docile since the end of the civil war. This type of unfounded political shenanigan spurs many of us to agitate for a separate homeland so we can give the likes of kobojunkie the ample opportunity to tell us “we told you so” as Ndigbo wallow in their political stupor.

This is an insidious and reckless waste of resources to placate their so-called international community masters as a show of compliance to the insanity regarded as“new world order” doctrine.

[quote author=EzeUche_ link=topic=594200.msg7621887#msg7621887 date=1296230665]It is the hypocrisy of the U.S. The U.S. looks out for their own interest.[/quote]Maybe hypocrisy or not, the fact remains politics does not house permanent friend.

@OP

It is painful to say but very true that Africans have tedious journey to the door of maturity.

I could not keep closed eyes to the furious nature of distortion of facts about Nigeria/Biafra war by those individuals whose fathers, uncles, brothers or even their very self fought against Biafra to maintain one of the worse, baseless, rudderless, directionless and intellectually devoid colonial contraptions called Nigeria.

There is no iota of reference where France supported Biafra as Britain or USSR or Egypt supported Nigeria. The distortion has been laced with fallacies and out right falsehood to justify their participation in colossally failed project such as One-Nigeria. When they are not busy concocting conjectures about French and Israeli assistance to Biafra, they are falsely telling the world about South Africa support to Biafra. However, one of the Europeans who fought in Nigeria/Biafra war Boozy Bonzo Bond who flew Air force jets for Nigeria was a South African. 

So-called French assistance to Biafra came as individual or group efforts. It is very funny that all the motorized weaponry captured during the civil war were Nigerian hardware such Corporal Nwafor- a British supplied Saladin, Oguta Boy- a Parhard AML sold to Nigeria by France and Uzuakoli boy- Ferret supplied by British. My question remains that since Nigeria was better armed and equipped than Biafra, how heavy weapons were captured from Biafrans?

I do not subscribe to the idea of southern Nigeria Republic. I would prefer a Republic of Igboland or Igboland in some kind of Confederacy with people of cultural proximity such as Ibibio, Annang, Ogoni, Ekoi, Kalabari and Idoma.

However, the disintegration could lead to fierce battles of territorial expansionism which could come from the northern region aided by forces from Niger and Chad Republics. The strategies that will be put to practical exercise are not subject of public consumption.

Most people who are bent on distortion of recorded events both in the protectorates and Nigeria would want an undiscerning onlooker to believe the pogrom was as a result of the coup precipitated by elements of Nigerian armed forces.

I guess the pogrom in 1956 was also as a result of a coup. Granted the coup was not an exclusive machination of Igbo officers in the Nigerian army, it will take a determine effort and threat of death to their entire family in order to believe otherwise.

It is an endeavor bordering on rascality to query Nigerians about patriotism on a country that was unpatriotically conceived

morpheus24:
Thats Arab/berber Africa bush man.

Correct yourself

Calling the jackass a bushman is an insult to bushmen.

PhysicsMHD:
Israel shipped nothing. I never said they did. How can you ship anything to a blockaded country, anyways? I said they slipped (as in, transferred covertly) captured Soviet weapons – weapons that couldn't be directly claimed as evidence of Israeli military support - to the Biafrans. Or are you suggesting that weapons were not transported into Biafra aerially? That's not even up for debate.
It would only be Israel's best option since they couldn’t engage in direct military support or compete in spending of resources, financial or otherwise, with two larger powers. If you don’t believe they did, fine, but I wouldn't call it revisionism. For example, technically, Israel has [b]no [/b]nuclear weapons, since they deny the existence of such, but nobody would call somebody a revisionist for pointing out that they do indeed have a nuclear weapons program and nuclear weapons.

It is also interesting to read that you preferred the word-slipped instead. Please surmise how you can slip heavy weapons into Biafra when it was totally blockaded? Look pal, most of the weapons Biafra used were captured except light infantry weapons that came into Biafra through clandestine flights in small DC-3s that were bringing medicine and food. Again, these slow flying DC-3s were chased and shutdown by Nigerian MIG-17s, 19s and 21s piloted by Egyptians, Australians and East Germans.

PhysicsMHD:
“A week before the summit, on 7th September, in the Hotel Napoléon, along Avenue de Friedland, a small and discreet hotel in the heart of Paris, a crucial meeting took place. Present were top French officials from Jacques Foccart's office, 'Zik', Michael Okpara, former premier of the Eastern Region and Ojukwu's special political adviser, two top emissaries – Dr. Kenneth Dike, vice-chancellor of Nsukka University, and Francis Nwokedi – and a couple of Biafran officials. It was a long and thorough meeting, the all-absorbing subject being the extent of French military and financial assistance to Biafra in the future. By the time it was over, one thing was crystal clear: French support would be maintained at its current substantial level, which would enable Biafra to survive, given a little luck, but it could not be increased until more states, especially African nations, had recognised Biafra. The Biafran leaders held their own meeting after the French officials had left and decided with one dissenting voice (that of Nwokedi) that the time had come to try and genuinely come to terms with the Nigerians. A cable was drafted and sent off to Ojukwu suggesting that in the light of the limitations of French assistance, the precarious military situation – Aba had just fallen and Owerri was under siege – and the appalling suffering of the Biafran civil population a new initiative was imperative. The course of action they proposed was cautious and tentative. A secret approach, before the Algiers summit began, should be made to Haile Selassie with the hypothesis that if the Biafran government were prepared to give way on sovereignty and accept the principle of 'One Nigeria' what could the Nigerians offer in return in terms of a special arrangement for Biafra. The Emperor, who was known to have a personal interest in bringing the war to an end, should, they suggested, be taken completely into their confidence and the whole matter should be treated with the maximum secrecy. There was also a suggestion that Britain, the U.S.A. And Canada should guarantee any eventual settlement. This was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a revolutionary or treacherous step to take and it committed Biafra to nothing: the proposals amounted to an Aburi-style confederal solution. But Ojukwu's reaction was that of a king who suddenly feels his crown slipping. A furious telegram came back (I have seen it) accusing the group of treason, stressing with an almost hysterical emphasis that Biafra's sovereignty was not negotiable under any circumstances, and peremptorily ordering them all back to Biafra forthwith. Meekly, rather like naughty schoolboys who had been caught talking after lights out, they obeyed – except for 'Zik' who decided that this was the turning point. He went to London and laid low for several months, eventually re-emerging on the federal side. Another leading Biafran, Ralph Uwechue, the Paris envoy, resigned on the same grounds in the following December.” - John de St. Jorre, same book.

Please I hope you could put forward the full and accurate time because by 7th September, 1969 for all intent and practical purposes, the war had ended. Joe Achuzie also commented about the outcome of this summit.

PhysicsMHD:
1. Frederick Forsyth, who made numerous other errors in his books on Biafra/Ojukwu.

Now let's approach this logically:

“At the outbreak of war, the French government, unlike the United States, did not take a formal stand on arms sales. It was only a year later (June 1968) that the foreign minister, Michel Debré, announced an arms embargo. In the meantime, several Panhard armoured cars, already in the pipeline to Nigeria when the war began, had been delivered, and supplies negotiated by private dealers in France had continued either with the explicit permission or the 'blind eye' connivance of the government. Most of these went to Biafra but the occasional planeload was also sold to the Nigerians. The French did, however, refuse Federal requests to buy jet fighters and heavy weapons. The African recognitions charged the emphasis but not the rationale of France's arms policy. From May 1968 until the end of the war, the French government took a direct hand in supplying weapons to Biafra, routing them through the Ivory Coast and Gabon. Until de Gaulle's pro-Biafran statement of September, the supply was an uncertain trickle [The student revolution in France in May 1968 and the subsequent election presumably deflected much of the French government's attention from Biafra and other foreign problems.] but after that it grew to massive proportions, reaching an estimated peak of 200 tons a week in the autumn of 1969. As a simple 'cover' the Ivory Coast and Gabon governments supplied the Biafrans from their own stocks which the French then replenished. On other occasions, weapons destined for French army units based in these two countries were sent to the Biafrans. This helped the French government to maintain the fiction that it was not aiding the Biafrans. Some consignments were paid for, others were gifts. But neither the amount nor the nature of the arms – few heavy weapons were supplied – was adequate to ensure that the Biafrans stood the remotest chance of winning the war. It almost seemed as if the French did not want Biafra to win the war. 'Semi-recognition' and half-hearted assistance hardly reflected total commitment. The truth was that France decided to play the game both ways, partly because of the unexpected solidarity and strength of Nigeria's allies and partly due to innate caution. There were other pressures deterring a complete alienation of the Nigerians. Francophone Africa, France's primary interest in the the continent, was deeply riven by the crisis. Niger and Cameroon, two of Nigeria's French-speaking neighbours were as warmly  pro-Federal as the Ivory Coast and Gabon were pro-Biafran. The General's Arab friends were, to a man, behind the Federal government. The French were beginning to find themselves out on a highly precarious limb, in the bizarre and not entirely congenial company of Portugal, South Africa, Rhodesia, Communist China and - oddest of all – Israel. Biafra's four African friends provided some comfort but as the war dragged on and the expected recognition landslide did not come, France's isolation increased. [De Gaulle's 9th September statement suggested that French recognition of Biafra was possible 'if Africa willed it', implying that more African recognitions would enable France itself to take the plunge.] In the later stages, Federal lobbies at home began to make themselves felt, greatly helped by a marked improvement in the quality of the staff in the Nigerian embassy in Paris. French military intervention in Chad on the side of the government against the Northern rebellion in May 1969 showed signs of being a long-drawn-out, messy affair and pointed up the dangers of  open-ended military commitments in Africa. So, having radiated all sorts of positive vibrations indicating an imminent recognition of Biafra, the French began to pull back and hedge their bets. They were greatly helped in this back-tracking operation by the Nigerians who, throughout this episode, had shown a remarkable sangfroid and refused to be rushed into a hasty or emotional reaction. They took none of the obvious reprisals: breaking off diplomatic relations, confiscating French property, harassing French nationals. The main reason for this was that the Nigerian External Affairs Ministry feared that such a reaction would push France over the brink to full recognition of Biafra. The Nigerians also had a healthy – and possibly exaggerated – respect for the French government's capacity for ruthlessness in pursuing its African policies. The memory of French paratroopers fluttering down over Libreville and swiftly crushing an attempted coup against President Bongo's predecessor in 1964 was never far from their minds. The Chad intervention – this time by the even tougher Foreign Legion – merely confirmed these fears. If France recognized, they argued, there was no knowing what an irascible de Gaulle might do; massive shipments of heavy armaments, jet planes, Legionaires and mercenaries, money and diplomatic support – nothing could be ruled out, everything would be possible. And Nigeria's allies – Britain and Russia – could not be counted on  to match such an escalation. French recognition would also, it was felt, finally break the diplomatic log-jam which the four African recognitions of Biafra had so far failed to do. Another factor was Nigeria's exports to the E.E.C. Countries which are considerable, the latter together representing a larger market than Britain;  France takes almost half of Nigeria's groundnut crop. Therefore, the Federal government limited the expression of its pent-up rage to formal notes of protest to the Quai d'Orsay, the occasional demonstration in Lagos and a lot of wishful thinking. But it worked. The Quai d'Orsay, with some relief since it was fundamentally pro-Federal in politics and sentiment, played the game. This stylish but essentially hypocritical arrangement had the added advantage of leaving a door open for the French if and when they decided to make their peace.“ -  John de St. Jorre, The Nigerian Civil War



Do you actually believe that Gabon and Ivory Coast were/are some kind of weapons manufacturing Meccas, with huge military caches stuffed into some mysterious black box somewhere? It was all French. Step back, drop the emotional sword and shield and think for a minute.  The French were opportunists, just like the Russians, and for a while their opportunism did translate to tangible support (though not nearly enough).

It is wise not to keep blind eyes on illogical stories being perpetrated on this forum. I am still wondering how and through what means France supplied Biafra with Panhard AML-90. There was no motorized weapon in Biafran arsenal except Aba-made converted Bedford dump truck into a fearsome looking gun ship and it did not last long. In fact, the only Panhard Biafra ever used was a captured one at Abagana by a team led by Corporal Nwafor who died in the operation and hence named “Corporal Nwafor”.

Maybe France slipped the weapons into Biafra as you have alleged in one your post.

PhysicsMHD:
?


Israel slipped non-Israeli (Soviet, actually) weaponry to Biafra that they captured during the Six Day War. Don't tell me you didn't know this.


Also, I didn't demarcate into military and non-military support. Otherwise I would have explicitly said or put in parentheses that Ireland didn't support Biafra militarily and I would have done the same for Haiti and Tanzania.


I didn't speak of French support as being on the same scale as British support. There was no way the 1967 French could have afforded to engage in a competition of supplies/resources with Britain. They would lose outright. In addition, there was no way they would go to such lengths over other people's conflicts.

I gave the reason for French support. Quite a different thing than alleging that they were throwing stacks and boatloads of weaponry into Biafran hands.


Where did I say fully?


Are you under the impression that the Israeli military capability could be compared to Soviet military capability? Surely even you don't believe that.

And Haiti, like China, supported in words, not in any major acts, to the best of my knowledge.

This is another attempt on revision of history or outright distortion. There were announced recognition, silent recognition and diplomatic support for Biafra.

The countries that openly recognized Biafra were Tanzania, Zambia, Ivory Coast, Gabon and Haiti. France or China never helped Biafra militarily or otherwise. Israeli government did not help as it has war to fight. However, the some individuals in Israel had tendered good words for Biafra in countries such Czechoslovakia and Romania.

Portugal and Spain were the only western European countries involved in any form of purchase of arms for Biafra. Sweden mounted heated diplomatic flurries in UN on behalf of Biafra and took offence against Nigeria information commissioner Anthony Enahoro on the use of starvation as a weapon of war. Ireland might have diplomatically assisted Biafra in order to spite British politically.

There was no time Israel shipped weapons captured during the 6-day (six) war to Biafra

Mobinga:
Go and read your history books and stop spewing absolute ostrichity all over the forum.
Forced Nigeria to seek what help?
Even the Nigerian blockade was done by foreigners abi? You tribalists fail to think hard about your silly secessionist fantasies.

Why would I read the history books which do not measure up? Especially the books a not-so-smart person such as you have turned into gospel. If anybody has demonstrated inert imbecility on this thread, I must state without equivocation that you are indeed. I wondered why you strayed to blockade of Biafra by Nigeria in this discuss.

If you remember, I did not post this junk “If we are currently in a war (like biafra) the north would wipe out every single southerner under a week!” In fact, you did post it. I posited by suggesting that “Entire Nigeria”, not Northern region, could not subdue divided eastern region in weeks without seeking helps abroad talk less of northern region overwhelming southern region in weeks.

I have no sympathy for idiots such as you as they wallow in inherent stupidity. If you have read your history books as you claimed, the blockade of Biafra would have not been successful without the help of British navy. I shall suggest you seek information from Admirals Soroh and Aduwo, then (Lt Cmdrs), about the British naval officers who assisted them in the execution of the naval blockade of Biafra. The last time I checked though, both Soroh and Aduwo were not from northern region of Nigeria. I am not interest to watch Osaka swine such as you trying to make amend about the sabotage you and your forbearers perpetrated on Biafra.

Mobinga:
And those tribalist animals would be calling for secession. I'm from Rivers State, BTW.

If we are currently in a war (like biafra) the north would wipe out every single southerner under a week!

You are entitled to your opinion but temper your rhetoric with civility. It is unfortunate your mindset is the same as those of Nigerian leaders in 1967 that dubbed the military move against Biafra as “Police Action” that will end in two weeks period. Guess what, the action turned into a fratricidal war that forced Gowon and Nigeria to seek help from all over world.

With prevailing situations in the global economy, people should still have access to 3g network in Nigeria even if the country had slid into depthless socio-political abyss.

Using 3g network has less insignificant bearing on Nigeria’s retrogressive conditions.

buzor:
If nigeria was as bad as these people are painting it to be. Do you think you would be using 3g network browse, To the last poster think before u post,

Some folks are already using 4g network now and Nigeria’s place in the making of 1g, 2g, 3g and 4g networks is hugely irrelevant and in fact none existence. Are you on drugs?

As far as I am concerned, Nigeria does not deserve better anyway.

deleted

@Post

It is a behavior detailing ignorance and diplomatic rascality on part of the so-called Nigerian foreign minister Ajumogobia. If this idiotic minister has any sense of directions, he should advise that Africans must seriously discuss the issue of de facto divided country such as Ivory Coast. These storms of misplaced military posturing by some ECOWAS members are clear indication of severe diplomatic deficiency.

The discussion should border on granting independent status to both southern and northern regions or strictly adhere to the reconciliation of the divided country. I can fathom that Africans have gone silly with the “new world order” manipulative junk clothed in the so-called democracy. In fact, the election in Ivory Coast is a mark of stupidity that can equal the idea of prescribing election in 1967 Nigeria. 

How could anybody with access to free air adjudge that election is possible in a de facto divided country such as Ivory Coast talk less of free and fair? Africans suffer from acute philosophical anemia.

@OP

According to this article, the western media may be doing you and your ilk a favor. It is very unfortunate the village of Gitata is nowhere close to power grid. If the Americans did not invent cellular phone to wipe out you shame of not being able to construct a serviceable line phone, both Nicholas and Moses maybe including you would not have touched a phone receiver talk less of communicating with it.

It appears the only time Africans seemed to get grasp of anything is when the so-called western media instigated them to declare their African leaders as despots, start a tribal tinted massacre and stay in never-do-well colonial contraptions called countries hoping their fortunes will turn for good.

There is no any form of scholastic imprint when one equates tribe with monkey. In fact, it is an indulgence devoid of intellectual pedigree. There are many tribes in Europe, America and Asia as well as Africa. The word, tribe, is not native to Africa and as such was a reference connotation used by the inventors to identify themselves.

In Europe for example, there were Visigoths, Frankish, Angles-Saxons, Slavs, Ostrogoths and Lombards. Fortunately for the Europeans, many of these tribal people grew into powerful nations. However, Africa was unfortunate to have experienced and continues to suffer under the weight of colonialism. If the tribal enclaves were allowed to grow into nations, we should be discussing nationalities instead of tribalism.