Mau Mau Insurgency and British Standpoint - Term Paper Example

?Mau Mau Insurgence and British Standpoint Great Britain has a long history of colonial Empire in some significant countries of North America, Africaand Subcontinent. The colonial rule of British Empire starts witnessing a downfall in the eighteenth century when some major North American colonies launched successful insurgencies. After a few years of World War II, Britain left Indian subcontinent to let two sovereign states; India and Pakistan emerged on the globe. This wave of rising against the colonial rule met African coasts in 1950 and the Mau Mau uprising found success in 1952. This historical backdrop provides an important insight into the official standpoint and interpretation of contemporary scenarios by the Britain, “By the early 1950s, Britain had lost India, Palestine and, to a large extent, Malaya. It's now regarded Kenya as its most important colony.” (The Economist) Although, the popular Mau Mau Insurgence was launched formally in 1952 but historically it had started back in 1920 when Kikuyu Tribes and Kikuyu Central Association (KCA) had begun to pose some political strength in the region. KCA later on turned more organized and was named Kenya Land Freedom Army (KLFA). Boulanger (2008) states, “The 1920s were years of growing resistance to colonial rule in Kenya. Kenyans were reacting to the oppressive nature of British rule, and especially to the confining boundaries that British officials had drawn to them in the political, economic, and social spheres.” This paper will initially throw some light on what actually happened in colonial Kenya and how the insurgence movement has built up by the tribesmen. The later part of this research paper will examine the excuses, justifications, descriptions, interpretations, by the Britain about the colonial abuse and the final result that the world has witnessed in Kenya. The British colonial rule in Africa is charged for atrocities that range from mistreatment, unlawful apprehensions, deprivation of local residents from legitimate land ownership, acute violation of the right to live and express with freedom to even severe crimes that includes ruthless killing, burning alive and sexual harassment. Finding a justification for those inhuman barbarities against those who fought for the British Empire in World War I and II is quite difficult. John Maina Kahihu, a representative of the Mau Mau's political wing, states, "In 1942 we had fought for the British. But when we came home from the war they gave us nothing." (Slaughter, 1999). The depravity, poverty and inequality added fuel to the insurgence movement. Kikuyu tribes Led by Dedan Kimathi decided to launch an offensive effort against Britain in the second half of the twentieth century. In order to support this armed resistance, the tribesmen started to gather in Nairobi forest. Law enforcement agencies were given special rights to settle the issue by force and an intense counter insurgence operation was launched by colonial authorities. The colonial majesty restrained British Governor to find a political solution of the problem. Instead, he introduced strict laws to curb the resistance of Kikuyu tribes. This has resulted in misinterpretation of the whole even and the negative effects of this colonial loftiness have impacts beyond the culture and traditions. Moreover, missed opportunities for political solution are not employed while weighing the British justifications and explanations. Alao & Christa (7) observes, “The British military operation has been depicted as triumphant expedition that intimated the rebel into submission. Often ignored had been the political philosophy and the military machines that were deeply rooted in indigenous principles and tradition.” Moreover, the reconciliation efforts by the president of the Kenya African Union, Jomo Kenyatta were not taken seriously by the colonial powers and local British settlers. These misinterpretations were heightened due to lack of Africans in the legislative assembly. All the legislation that was introduced at this stage of the conflict has focused on blocking the rebels and the colonial administration failed to balance it with the inclusion of local voice in the legislative assembly and the legislation that was introduced at this time. Specially, the legislation that was introduced specially again the Mau Mau insurgency defames the British stance on the handling of the revolution. A good example of this legislation can be the motion moved by a so called liberal politician Blundell on 10 July, 1952 which states, “that is council notes the increasing disregard of law and order within the colony and urges the government to take the necessary measures to improve the situation.” (Mungazi, 157). This political stance must have been the most prevalent factor in the political isolation of locals which later on, forced them into a conflict that couldn’t resolve the conflict politically. Moreover, it not only resulted in the misguided legislation but also gave air to the racial prejudice. Clough (26) states, “The construction of a ‘White man’s country’ had drastic effects on Kenyan Africans. Subjected to racial discrimination and restricted in their political rights, Africans faced difficult circumstances throughout the colonial period.” The Britain adopted an oppressive approach to tackle the rebellion and failed to gauge the public anger correctly. The appointment of Sir Evelyn Baring as the new Governor of Kenya in 1952 was another repressive action to target the Kikuyu tribes. However, the imposition of emergency by the new Governor resulted in further aggression by the local tribesmen and gave rise to anti-government sentiments. New more strict laws were introduced by the Kenyan Legislative Council to curtail the rebel but by that time it was perhaps, too late to set it right. As a last resort to stop the aggression against the British Empire, the Armed Forces were called to control the rebellion movement. The British troops adopted an aggressive posture against the rebellions and tried to win the heart of those tribesmen who were not very stringent in their support for the Mau Mau movement. Although, these people were less effective but they did play an important role in changing the minds of local tribesmen and thereby restricted successfully the free move over of Mau Mau gangs. The rest of the tribesmen who posed aggression to the colonial authorities were effectively put off by the Armed Forces. The fight against Mau Mau loyalists was a very challenging task for British troops because the offensive operation against locals of an area is very difficult. The challenge was met by a brutal crush on opposing tribesmen and no negotiations were offered at this stage of the conflict. Secondly, British troops were given unlimited freedom to choose appropriate convictions against insurgents. Making the life painful and difficult for the insurgents was an important objective of British troops to score a psychological superiority. British troops used psychological warfare tactics to gain an edge over insurgents and to bulldoze their demands. Bowcott (2011) while depicting the miserable picture of detained tribesmen in detention Camps states, “detainees were subjected to arbitrary killings, castrations, sexual abuse, forced labor, starvation and violence from camp guards.” It is important that the British government does not accept these blanket charges against its colonial administration and describes the allegations are grossly overstated and the mistreated was not as widespread as it is alleged. However, the fact remains unchanged that a huge crime of this magnitude is very difficult to remain covered for long, Bowcott (2011) states, “While not denying that torture took place, the Foreign Office insists that the UK government retains no residual liability, deploying a range of constitutional precedents.” Keeping the case of residual liability and compensation demands aside, this confession though conditional, brings a lot of moral pressure on Royal authorities to accept the responsibility and set right. On the contrary, the human rights activists claim that the war crimes committed by the British Empire in the colonial era are only little known as compare to the scale at which they were actually committed. As Alexander (31) states, “For a traumatic event to have the status of evil is a matter of its becoming evil. It is a matter of how the trauma is known, how it is coded.” Another, evidence of making the facts more obscure and information cover up are the excuses by the British authorities to justify the limited surrender of confidential files to the Kenyan authorities after independence because they might be embarrassing or difficult to be defended. These justifications only serve the purpose of lip service to portray a false image of the civilian uprising against a colonial dictatorship. Initially in Britain these uprisings were not considered a serious threat against the colonial powers. However, the escalation of hatred among tribes compelled authorities to employ force in the areas where the insurgence was rising. The use of force also shows the lack of interest in a political solution rather an oppressive and tyrannical approach was adopted in the name of paramount native interests. These mere justifications had no real acceptance among the native tribesmen and the conflict was further intensified. People by then have decided safeguard their interest by themselves instead of a foreign settler. This marks the dawn of a new era of liberty and awareness. The lack of political will among colonial powers to find a political solution of the uprising has reduced the chances of the chances of political solution of the problem. Secondly, the legitimacy of the colonial rule was linked to the progress and development of the region and a rebellious and revolutionary movement was the negation of this self assumed mandate of the colonial rule. “Of crucial importance was his recognition that development, already the centerpiece of British colonial self-justification. (Butler, 54). The change was so clearly manifested by the Mau Mau that even after subduing the major rebellion forces and disintegrating Mau Mau powers, “the aristocracy and the upper middle-class predecessor were quicker to learn the central lesson that Mau Mau had definitely exploded settlers’ claims to control the colonial state.” (Butler, 157) This also suggests that higher class in Britain had gauged that the change was bound to happen and Britain will have to forego the colonial rule in Kenya. This clash of local and foreign interest had emerged into a serious and full scale conflict and in the absence of sincere intentions for the resolution of legitimate concerns employment of power and force resulted in increased resistance and bloodshed. However, Mau Mau emerged as the savior of local rights and apparent through an indigenous revolution against the colonial powers. Justifications, explanations and interpretation by the British government and media cannot change the history but they can help us in understanding the Mau Mau conflict in a correct perspective. There is sufficient and irrefutable evidence that the correct political handling of conflict by both the stakeholders and especially by the British government might have avoided a brutal and barbarous chapter from the history of mankind. Yes, the colonial powers might have been challenged in an offensive and offending manner by the local tribes but we need to analyze the situation is correct historical perspective where Britain colonial authority has already faced serious challenges throughout the British Empire and has resulted in the independence of locals. The wave of freedom had set the stage for the decay of British Empire far earlier in the history and Britain could have avoided the tragic loss of human lives with a thoughtful, considered and accommodating political will against the Mau Mau. Works Cited Alao Abiodun, Christa Hook, “Mau-Mau Warrior”, UK: Osprey Publishing Inc. 2006. Print. Alexander C. Jeffrey, “The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology”, USA: Oxford University Press. 2003. Print. Boulanger, Sara. “A Puppet on a String: The Manipulation and Nationalization of the Female Body in the ‘Female Circumcision Crisis’ of Colonial Kenya”, appweb.cortland: n. page. Web. 02 May 2012. Bowcott, Owen. “Kenyans sue UK for alleged colonial human rights abuses”, guardian.co, Web. 04 May 2012. Butler, Lawrence. “Britain and Empire: Adjusting to a Post-Imperial World” UK: I.B.Tauris, 2002. Print. Clough, S. Marshell. “Mau Mau Memoirs: History, Memory, and Politics”. USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998. Print. Mungazi A. Dickson. “The Last British Liberals in Africa: Michael Blundell and Garfield Todd”. USA: Greenwood Publishing Group. 1999. Print. Slaughter, Barbra. “How Britain crushed the Mau Mau rebellion”, wsws.com, World Socialist Web Site: n. page. Web. 03 May 2012. The Economist, “British colonial history Mau Mau and the body snatchers”, economist.com, n. page. Web. 02 May 2012. Read More