In Summary
Former dictator Daniel arap Moi must be
smiling all the way to the political bank. His emboldened intellectual
surrogates have dusted off their fimbo ya nyayo pens and are crawling out of the woodwork of political irrelevance.
They
are out to rewrite Moi’s history of corruption and oppression and their
role in it. In the process, they want to redefine the role of the
intellectual into that of an apologist for oppression and misrule.
READ THE LETTER CAREFULLY
Ostensibly
it is an emotive attempt to ask Ngugi wa Thiong’o to return home, but
it soon becomes a record of how Maillu, at each critical turn in Kenyan
history, chose silence and intellectual hypocrisy.
These
critical moments include 1978, when Moi took over power and promised to
follow in Jomo Kenyatta’s footsteps; the 1980s when the Moi
dictatorship was at its most flagrant; and the third during Kenya’s
turbulent transition to democracy in the 2000s.
Maillu
seems very proud of his attempts to recruit Ngugi and others into his
way of silence. His advice to the newly released Ngugi from detention is
that it is better that Ngugi waits out the Moi regime rather than
continue his struggle against the systematic repression of Kenyans.
So
he tells him: “Brother…You are a very special person to Kenyans. Save
yourself for us by diverting from writing raw-nerve books like Ngahika Ndenda in order to buy time for the hostile regime to cool down.”
What Maillu is really saying is that in time of oppression, it is better to be silent.
What
is the lesson here for my generation of intellectuals and writers?
That if the Kenyatta-Ruto regime or any other were to turn oppressive,
that we should remain silent and all will be well?
Look
at his encounter with Ngugi in Stockholm. The contrast is telling.
Ngugi, languishing in exile, is spreading awareness of the intensified
repression at home. But Maillu, well-nourished by silence, asks Ngugi:
“Why do you tell these white people such things about your mother
country when you know too well that even if the white people were
murderers they would keep silent about it to outsiders?”
The
fastest way of silencing intellectuals outside their country is to
accuse them of washing dirty linen in international public. Yet without
international pressure on oppressive regimes, political change would be
slow and more arduous.
Hundreds of European
intellectuals spoke out against Hitler and Franco and Mussolini. Some
even joined the military effort against dictatorship.
The
international pressure that followed, whether through the London-based
committee for the Release Political Prisoners or Amnesty International,
was necessary to procure the release of those detained without trial or
railroaded through kangaroo courts, like Willy Mutunga, Alamin Mazrui,
Edward Oyugi, or Maina wa Kinyatti, to mention a few.
Theirs
was not simply a case of airing dirty linen in public; the
international and internal pressure was crucial to the eventual demise
of the Moi regime. The efforts of Ngugi and Micere Mugo and others in
exile allied with those of Kenyans within, were ultimately successful.
In
his letter, Maillu insidiously attempts to put a wedge between Kenyans
abroad and those at home. So he asks Prof Evan Mwangi of Northwestern
University — Illinois: “Why are you working in America instead of coming
home to help build the nation intellectually?”
But
there are more useful ways of asking the same question. What role can
the Kenyan diaspora play in the intellectual and economic development of
Kenya? Or can Kenyan professors in the West get their institutions to
work with our Kenyan universities? How can Kenyans at home and abroad
start scholarly journals that will contribute to the diaspora and Kenyan
intellectual spaces?
Or even better, since it is no
longer a secret that with immigration laws tightening in the United
States that life is getting harder for Kenyans – why not ask the one
question I have not yet heard anybody ask: What should the Kenyan
government do to ensure that Kenyans abroad are accorded the same
dignity and welcome that our country accords to white European and
American workers and visitors?
So desperate is Maillu
to rewrite himself into relevance that to his five or so followers, he
has taken to calling out Ngugi on twitter.
To Ngugi he
says: “How about starting ‘Intellectual Elders Club?’” I assume he
would be part of it. In another tweet he says: “Ngugi, come, let’s
start ‘Insurance for Creative Writers.’” In another tweet he says
“Ngugi, how about Kamirithu Drama Institute?”
And yet
in another tweet that shows he is getting obsessed with tying to clean
his name through intellectuals who have stood on the right side of
history, he asks Prof. Micere Mugo: “How about setting up something like
Micere Mugo Institute of Gender Studies?”
The better
question is this: Why would intellectuals like Ngugi and Micere, who
have dedicated their lives to fighting against the exploitation and
oppression of the Kenyan people and have suffered detention and exile,
want to align themselves with Moi apologists?
It is
important to make a distinction between Maillu, the writer of popular
fiction to whom I even dedicated my first novel, Nairobi Heat, and
Maillu, the political intellectual apologist.
It is
Maillu the political apologist who needs to first tell Kenyan people why
he was silent as his colleagues were being detained, exiled and even
killed.
Instead of the Moist intellectuals trying to
rewrite themselves into a history of struggle by bringing down those who
fought against Moi and today fight against Moism without Moi, they need
to air their dirty political laundry in public, in our full view.
They need to account for their silence when Kenyans needed them most.
Mukoma
Wa Ngugi is an Assistant Professor of English at Cornell University
(USA), the author of Black Star Nairobi (Melville, 2013) and Nairobi
Heat (EAEP, 2013)
No comments :
Post a Comment