Muwanga Doctrine: ‘People who live in the failures of the past will always move backwards’.
Counter-doctrine: ‘PEOPLE WHO BUNDLE AWAY THE PAST BLUNDER THROUGH THE PRESENT AND SQUANDER THE FUTURE’
Mr Muwanga correctly points out the need to avoid REVISIONISM. But he then proceeds to employ revisionism to debunk alleged revisionism…that made feel that it is important to make the following 10 plus 2 observations:
1/12 In order to brush off Mr Miirima’s assertions, Mr Muwanga takes out of the context Germany’s territorial ‘losses’ after the two great wars in order to make Bunyoro’s claims to lost territories sound absurd. The fact is that, Germany was not losing territory, but rather, she was handing back stolen territory that she had acquired during the three Polish Partitions of the 18th century, in 1772, 1793 and 1795 when Poland’s
neighbours (Russia, Hapsburg Austria and Prussia, ‘The Alliance of the Black Eagles’) dismembered the so called Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In the Prussian example that Mr Muwanga provides as a basis of dismissing Mr Miirima’s claims, Bunyoro is comparable to Poland and not to Germany . So Mr Muwanga’s is a false analogy. Restitution in favour of Poland can not be bereavement on part of Germany (loss of Konigsberg – or Kaliningrad – notwithstanding).
2/12 When we put the Prussian case in its proper historical perspective, Germany at the end of the great wars was in a similar position to Buganda now . Mr Muwanga is of course silent on who ‘gained’ what Germany ‘lost’. The fact is that, Poland did not gain. It was being reconstituted, after being cannibalised by the “Alliance of Black Eagles”…..very much akin to the Anglo-ganda alliance. Bunyoro is in a similar position to Poland .. Remember that, Poland was briefly resurrected in 1807 when Napoleon set up what he called the Duchy of Warsaw which itself was undone after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo .
3/12 There was another Polish partition in 1939, the 4th Partition in which Germany and Russia once again shared out Polish territories (as part of implementation of the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). All these were reversed at the end of WWI and WWII. If Germany tried to claim back those territories as Mr Muwanga argues, it would be like a thief trying to ‘resteal’ what he had pilfered in the past. Ermland, Gdansk , Kuyavia and Netze ‘lost’ by Germany were Polish territories…call it war booty if you want. Mubende, Buyaga, Bugerere, Bugangaizi, Bululi are Bunyoro territories yet to be ‘lost’ by Buganda .
4/12 Whereas the treaty of Versailles restored Poland all its territories, and gave it a semblance of independence reversing a process that had started 170+ years before, the 1961 independence conference rejected Bunyoro’s claims for a 65 year old injustice to be addressed fully. To quote Mr Muwanga, ‘…So, Bunyoro is going to claim the ‘Abalega‘ territory from the DR Congo government , because it was under Bunyoro 130 years ago and because Kabalega was born there?’:
5/12 Of course here we have a classical case of the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum: twisting an opponents argument, however weak, to make it sound silly. Mr Muwanga, People do not lay claim to countries or territories just because they were born there! That is appealing to ridicule or substituting mockery with evidence Mr Muwanga. In that case, the Fujimoris of Peru will soon seek to annex Japan , Mr Muwanga would worry. Mao Nobert, born in Mbarara will annex Nkore to the domains of the Rwot, afterall, someone is temporising on restoring Obugabe! Mr Miirima was not looking at things that way, I think.
6/12 But lets us pretend that Mr Muwanga’s reductio ad absurdum ammunition can still fire. We have already seen Poland reclaiming territories lost for over a period of 175 years, although Mr Muwanga elects in his critique of Mr Miirima to de-historicise and obfuscate that fact. In any case, and just for the sake argument, how do the 175 years of Poland ’s deprivation compare with Mr Muwanga’s 130 years in relation to Bulega? But what Mr Muwanga has selectively forgotten also is that, Bunyoro’s claims are not as dated as he has tried to portray them. Uganda ’s (if you may allow me to use the category) oldest political organisation is the Mubende-Bunyoro Committee’ formed in 1921 by Banyoro to reclaim the territory excised by the British and given to Buganda . This was about 25 years after the event. They petitioned in 1943, 1945, 1949, 1954 etc. The problem was not as old as 130 years. So, even Mr Muwanga’s attempt to deploy ‘appeal to ridicule’ ends up being very much a case of a lame duck laying a putrid egg! Just for reference, I have attached for Mr Muwanga and forumists a copy of the memorandum by Uganda ’s oldest political organisation regarding Bunyoro’s appeals to recover her territories.
7/12 Kakungulu’s treachery that Mr Miirima keeps referring to is in the moral, and not in the legal sense of flouting a non-aggression pact. It is the question of an African siding with European invaders and being used as a tool to subjugate his fellow Africans. A traitor is not necessarily a violator of a legal arrangement as Mr Muwanga would want to make us think. Mr Muwanga’s constant references to non-aggression pacts/treaties/alliances is a bit disingenuous. He would want to make us believe that every mutual obligation between individuals and groups has to be codified into a legal document/framework. That is an attempt to whitewash intrigue, subterfuge, underhandedness and opportunism. Mr Muwanga is simply elevating skullduggery to the level of a science by trying to stress that, if there is no pact, anything goes!
8/12 The fact is that, opportunism is a cancer that soon consumes its most ardent exponents. Just look at Mengo between September 1888 and February 1892. When the the so-called readers (converts to the cause of religious fundamentalism), the Baganda subjects of Kabaka Mwanga, turned against him and deposed him, was it because they lacked a non-aggression pact with their King? When a month later, the readers split up into Christians and Moslems and turned on each other bloodily, was that skullduggery or lack of a treaty? When in 1892, the Christians turned against each other leading to the murders of Catholics and vandalism of Lubaga, that was fine – according to Mr Muwanga – because those brothers had no ‘non-aggression treaty/cooperation/ military alliance’. Is that a principled way of looking at our past errors or simple glorification of myopia?
9/12 Mr Muwanga makes a strong point when he states of Kakungulu that, ‘…even if he had disobeyed his bosses, another commander would have done the same job’. However, this serves only to highlight the ferocity of British imperialism. We cannot use that argument as a weapon for attributing moral uprightness to Kakungulu. According to Mr Miirima, Kakungulu was a simple quisling who was willing to implement the unjust orders of his ‘boss’. The trouble with quislings is that, they share the same fate as loo paper. Once they are used, they are flushed. When they insist on floating around, their ‘bosses’ flush them again and force them down the toilet with a plunger and brush. That fate befell Kakungulu, just as it did to Selim Bey. Quislings, scullions, reatiners and lackeys are never allies. Hyenas lark around lions not because they are allies. We know why they do do so.
10/12 ‘Kabalega was ‘fool hardy’ to resist the mighty’: 1893 was not the first time he had engaged the mighty. On 14.5.1872 Samuel Baker declared that he had annexed Bunyoro to Egypt . Kabalega routed him and his contingent of Egyptian troops causing them to retreat ignominiously. To use Mr Muwanga’s words but in a different sense, ‘it was a foregone conclusion’. What was lacking then was a local quisling to stab Kabalega in the back. Kakungulu had not yet been discovered. Yet the same Kabalega refrained from attacking Col Gordon’s garrisons six years later. This does not give the impression of a truculent, tactless, politically naïve ‘suicide spearer’ etc., the picture being paited by Mr Muwanga.
11/12 And by the way, British colonial manoeuvres never received full endorsement from everyone. Just as an example, upon the implementation by Berkley of Colonel Colville’s earlier undertaking to excise all Bunyoro territory south River Kafu and give it to Buganda for sharing out amongst catholic and Protestant chiefs, two British officers who were civil servants in Bunyoro at the time were so outraged by the injustice that they even resigned their posts and went back home. These were William Pulteney and Forster. They were taking a moral stand, compared to local quislings like Kakungulu. May be Mr Muwanga will advise us that Kakungulu had signed a ‘non-disobedience pact’!
12/12 Moreover, or rather, finally, needling Mirima over his references to ‘Ugandans’ at a time when Uganda was not yet a sovereign entity smacks of a tad of pedantry. It is true that there was no de jure ‘ Uganda ’. However, there is a lot more to ‘being’ than merely existing in the juridical sense. The reality of the times that Mr Miirima refers to was that, there was a de facto ‘ Uganda ’, however nascent. That entitles Mr Mirima (or even Mr Muwanga if he chooses), to employ the category ‘Ugandans’ retrospectively.
L/Cpl (rtd) Otto Patrick
PALABEK
