Executive summary: People who live in the failures of the past will always move backwards.
Accusing Gen. Kakungulu of murdering Ugandans is surely historically incorrect as well as it is morally so. When some one is defeated in battle, the terms of settlement are set by the victor, not by the anguished. Property, territory etc are lost. The accusation that Buganda gained under colonialism and that gen. Kakungulu was a traitor are therefore sign of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the authors, for the following few reasons:
1/7). Kakungulu ‘pacified’ the tribes in the East and North-East as part of his job-description. He planted trees, built roads and district centres, forced people not to move naked [the so called ba-Kedi, etc] to stop spirit worship, etc. KAKUNGULU WAS NOT THE colonial POLICY MAKER. He was not at Berlin1884.
2/7). To say he betrayed Ugandans is lack of historical ‘contexity’ (if one can use such word). It is anachronistic. FIRST OF ALL THERE WAS NO SOVREGNN STATE CALLED UGANDA. There was no such citizenship. He was not an employee of the Ugandan state. So, how can he be accused of betraying Ugandans when no Ugandan citizens existed then? Uganda has existed with citizenship only from 1962.
3/7). Even if Kakungulu were a war-lord and killed people [did he?]in the territorial space now called Uganda, he still should not be called a traitor becasue he broke no “non-aggression pact” between him and the peoples he defeated. And, even if he had dis-obeyed his bosses, another commander would have done the same job
4/7). The same goes with blaming Buganda for ‘cooperating’ with the Brits to subjugate Bunyoro: There was no ‘non-aggression treaty/cooperation/ military alliance’ between the two Kingdoms, which had been at war for 300-400 years in advance of the British. SO, HOW DOES BETRAYAL COME INHERE?
5/7). Speaking in terms of military strategy and diplomacy, one can say Buganda was very astitute indeed to ally with a strong force [the super-power of the day] to ‘teach’ the old enemy a lesson. Ford Mirima should instead blame the Bunyoro Kitara government of the time for failure, if not on the military front, certainly on the Diplomatic one. War is politics by other means and therefore it is a high time the Mirimas and the other apologists of failure should revisit history and apportion blame where it should be: Bunyoro’s failure in diplomacy AT THE TIME.
Speaking of betrayal how come that after King Kamurasi’s death, a very tragic succession civil war broke out, where many thousands lost their lives? Shall we therefore blame Prince Kasagama today [if not prince Kabalega in fact], for killing the Banyoro, in equal measure as the British did? Is the death of a Munyoro from a Munyoro spear ‘sweeter’ than the death of a Munyoro fighter from a Muganda warrior?
6/7) Examples: When the Germans marched on the USSR in June 1941; they shipped back everything, including people and even bridges and works of art. BUT, when you loose a war, there is what is called ‘war booty’ or war trophies. Ask the Germans: When the Soviets took Berlin in May ‘45, the carried away anything of value, including research centres and scientists [the Americans did the same in their sector]. Even territory was not spared [Germany was dismembered and parts of her restored to Poland. Part of the former centre of German imperial Glory, PRUSSIA, is now an integral part of the Russian federation called Kaliningrad]. Germany is not claiming it back in 2008!!
7/7). CONCLUSION: It is VERY WRONG FOR UGANDAN REVISIONISTS TO HANKER FOR THE LOSSES THEY SUFFERRED BACK IN HISTORY. It was even a mistake for the British to lay seeds for the referendum of 1964, which Obote fulfilled, in violation of the Agreement between the KY and UPC reached in advance of the Lancaster Conference, in 1961. Worse still, is the recent wave of ‘district and chiefdom creation”, in areas recognised under the Constitution of Uganda to belong to other known entities. Mirima and the other hangers-on [under the cover of the NRMO] should not exploit the ignorance of their people to hide their kingdom’s failure on the diplomatic front in the years past. This is not to say anything abut Kabalega’s ‘foolhardy’ in engaging a much superior enemy {instead of negotiating like the Ghanaian Chiefs, the Buganda Kings, etc, as a politico-military tactic, to save their kingdoms’ integrity] against whom he has no chance [he may have been a good filed-commander but he certainly was no politician. A hare cannot engage a lion without consequences]. The results were a foregone conclusion. We may praise him for bravery and darling, for sentimental and mobelisational reasons. but, at intellectual levels, the gloves have to be removed; otherwise many will continue to mislead their people, with the negative consequences for all of us.
Christopher Muwanga,
