Nigeria's Diversity and the South-East/South-South peripheral Inclusions: Biafra's raison d'etre


Table of Contents

The consideration that Southeast/South-South is marginally included in Nigeria's mainstream politics is debatable. This paper argues that the marginalization of the Southeast of Nigeria was the reason for the civil strife that led to the blown-out war.  

Biafra - who are they? 

Historically, the Republic of Biafra was an unrecognized country in West Africa from 1967 –1970. Territorially, it covers over 29,848 square miles of land. It shared boundaries with Nigeria in the north and west, and with Cameroon in the east, and its coast was on the Gulf of Guinea in the south.

Today, former Biafra is made up of the following Nigerian states, namely: Abia, Anambra, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Ebonyi, Enugu, Imo, and Rivers. Delta state wasn’t included during the late Biafran’s leader Odumegwu Ojukwu's decree founding Biafra, however, the Igbo-speaking areas of today’s Delta state fought on the Biafran side.

Some have argued that the development of the spirit of nationhood of Biafra was because of political repercussions following the long-term economic and political marginalization of the southeast, and south-south of current Nigeria’s political map. It arose because of the nonchalance and indifference of Nigerian-northern leaders to the cultural spite and savagery against them that threatens their freedom, liberty, life, property, and health. The bad blood on all sides mechanizes incompatibility.

Nigeria as diverse as it is, Biafrans then were, and the south-east/south-south today are construed as peripheral people. Some blames have been apportioned to the mix-match of 1914 which has been described as a chaotic political montage—a contradiction. Why? Because it was a politics based on convenience and gains, a ‘cut and paste.’  

Nigeria as a country did not have the opportunity to discuss who they were before they were roped up together for economic and political convenience.

Politics of ‘Cut and Paste’

Nigeria as a country can be likened to the allegory of water and oil. Both elements do not mix but they can co-exist. Oil will always be on top and water below. Oil and water cannot and will not revolt against each other because they are elements that can’t make enemies. Water can tolerate the oil being on top and oil can understand the burden water bears by being below. With this understanding and interdependent self-realizations, they can be together not without some compromises.

In Nigeria’s political structure, some geo-political areas have considered themselves as the oil that will always sit on top of the water. Even though, the oil which has been Nigeria’s mainstay since its discovery is produced in the southeast/south-south.

The politics of ‘cut and paste’ or the allegory of ‘water and oil’ as noted above sounds like the method used by the colonialists to create Nigeria. When Lord Lugard was appointed governor in 1912 to replace Walter Egerton, already there was Southern Nigeria, a British protectorate formed in 1900 from the union of the Niger Coast Protectorate. Eventually, Lagos colony was added to it in 1906 giving it the name the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria. At Lugard’s behest in 1914, southern Nigeria and northern Nigeria were merged as one single entity, thereby forming the colony of Nigeria.

The reason for the amalgamation was that the administration wanted to use the budget surpluses in southern Nigeria to support the budget deficit in the north. For sheer economic reasons, and for the administration’s convenience, they overlooked all barriers and warnings of political contentions and incompatibilities for a subtle imperial overture.

Amorphous Amalgamation 

The unification did not go down well because of the different peoples’ ways of seeing reality. The administrators of the southern province saw the amalgamation as an opportunity to expand the empire while those in the northern province construed it as disadvantageous to their interests because they had made less progress than the southern province.

Therefore, they were determined to resist the southern province’s influences and culture in the north. Then, it was tribal affinities. Today, it is the same tribal connections with added outright Machiavellian maneuvers, instead of diversity, equality, and inclusion.

The attitude and mentality did not stop after the independence (1960) of Nigeria from Great Britain. The same culture of resistance towards the South in everything political, economic, and social continued. The South claims that they are left on the periphery and are not recognized nor respected in matters affecting their lives, property, freedom, and liberty.

Consequently, the Biafrans revolted in 1967 seeking autonomy or independence, and were brutally crushed by the Nigerian army. They were known as an unrecognized country in West Africa.

Today, the same cry for freedom and liberty is heard in every nook and cranny of its heartland. They would like to be recognized as an independent country. If the UN really values peacebuilding, this type of cry for freedom is better resolved in peaceful times than when the people have sunk themselves in conflicts and wars. Every cry for freedom and liberty should be investigated by the UN if it holds true to the principle of self-determination. 

Popular posts from this blog

Early Contacts between Christianity and Islam

The Connection between a Personal Name and Name Groups in Shawnee Social Organisation

The Akamba – Concept of the Supreme Being & Totems

Begrudging & Infightings: Aztec’s Theogony & Cosmogony

Nigeria’s Pledge Vs the President’s Mandate: An Antithesis of Patriotism

The Aesir Vs the Vanir – The gods at War

Nigeria’s 2023 Presidential Election - from preparation to verdicts

The Weyekin in Nez Percé Tribe and Catholic Angels

The Conflict between the Deities (Igwe and Amadioha) in Igbo Mythology over a Heat Wave