Ndigbo, the Kolanut and Other Matters

EDIFYING ELUCIDATIONS BY OKEY IKECHUKWU

A few days ago Ohaneze Ndigbo called on the president to release Nnamdi Kanu and grant amnesty to the persons and groups (if any) connected with the Independent People of Biafra. (IPOB). The statement came out with the right decibel of dignity. Then it was promptly followed by an IPOB spokesman, Emma Powerful, who said: “We disagree with the statement of Ohaneze Nigbo president, Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, who was appealing to the Federal Government of Nigeria, led by Ahmed Bola Tinubu, to release Nnami Kanu and grant IPOB Members amnesty’’.

What IPOB wants, instead, is a UN-supervised Biafra Referendum. In other words, that its ultimatum on the irreducible minimum list of demands stands.
Does this then mean that the South East geopolitical zone is still unable to say what it really wants from Nigeria? I think not. Those who think thus should look more closely and think more carefully. The assumption that it is all about discordant voices, with each group appearing more eager to be seen taking up its issues in the public domain, than consulting other stakeholders in order to arrive at a domestic consensus before heading to the Village Square, is open to question today.  

Like the South west, the South East geopolitical zone made one of the most structured presentations during the last national conference. Its initial consultations on how to go about the main conference itself was exemplary in how it took due cognizance of the myriadd of issues and streamlined them all in order to secure some measure of internal consensus. Unfortunately for the geopolitical zone, it entered the arena on d-day with a maximalist position it was unable to drive successfully, or convincingly, before other stakeholders in the Nigerian project.

It is trite to say that the far-reaching positive recommendations of that conference did not see the light of day. Those who blame Buhari today for the stillbirth of conference outcomes overlook a simple fact: Nothing was done about the conference outcomes by President Jonathan. He handed over to Buhari, who declared from the beginning that he was not going to look at the ocument – and he did not.

True, there were very strong political undercurrents that affected the trajectory of some aspects of eh Jonathan Presidency, especially before, during and after the conference. True there was so much a man coul o, when confronte with a collapsing building and renegade acolytes.  But the records have it that he did nothing with the conference outcomes. That is history, as recorded, whether true or not  
It is against the background of the forgoing that the title of this article speaks to some notional, political and socio-cultural phenomena that are relevant to the unfolding events in the South East today.  Native Igbo wisdom tells us that it is the name you give your dog that people will call it, provided that your dog has not been named on your behalf by your enemies without consulting you. It is also native wisdom among Ndigbo to say that a full-bodied man who elects to walk with a limp should not blame anyone if is called a cripple, provided of course that his enemies did not break one of his legs when no one was watching and then made him to step out in public with the damaged leg.

The Igbo also further say that anyone who enters the village square during a wrestling event without being prepared for a fight, and who then finds his back on the ground, will have defeat recorded against his name, provided he was not pushed into the arena against his will – after his hands had been tied by his enemies.  
There are are rules of engagement in all things. Attention to the serious business and implications of breaking the Kolanut in Igbolan has lessons for group cohesion today. There is a process to the breaking of the kolanut. The ‘process’   of dealing with the kolanut is not the same thing as ‘the fact’ of breaking the kolanut in Igboland.  
While some Igbo communities allow the youngest person in a group to break the kolanut, based on the belief that a young person is less contaminated by the evils of this world, those who prefer that elders should break the kolanut submit that the ancestors and the gods are likely to take the offerings of an elder more seriously than that of a younger person who is not initiated into any of the mysteries of life. But the important thing is that the accepted paradigm in any society is usually not violated.
That is why you have the Igbo saying: ‘When an old dibia (native doctor) makes an offering to the gods it is like the handing over of the sacrifice to the spirits by one who is seeing them face to face’.  A cursory look at the core community values encapsulated in the ‘process’ of eating the kolanu may be of some help in resolving the philosophical underpinnings of the crisis of the South East today.
 The person whose breaks the kolanut does not just pick it up and break it for consumption. He may begin by saying: “He who brings kolanut brings life’. To explain this common preface to the kolanut business in Igboland, we need only remember that when kolanut is served, no one eats it without first calling on the gods and the good ancestors for protection and guidance. This means that the presence of the kolanut at a gathering is, first and foremost, an opportunity for prayers. The purpose of prayers is to strengthen life and the living. Therefore, to bring kolanut is to bring an opportunity for prayers, for humble appeal for guidance and for the strengthening of life and the living’.

 Since the living envisaged in the Igbo notion of community is always a ‘living together with one another in goodwill’, the kolanut is also a symbol of communion. That is why the person praying over the kolanut before breaking it says: ‘He Who lives above, the Giver of life, protect us’. He will also say that the river should not dry up and that the fish should not lack water to swim in. This is because the dancing fish enhances the economic value and aesthetic appeal and overall beauty of the river, while the life of the fish depends on the steady flow of the river. What is captured here is the reciprocity in nature. This demands that the fish should not pray for the river to dry up, so that the river does not pray for the death of the fish by simply falling victim to the prayers of the foolish fish.
The point of all this is that the kolanut is not something you eat because you are hungry. It is also not a snack, but a symbol of communion. Since the Igbo man does not eat it in the company of others without calling on all the good forces of nature for protection and guidance, and since the purpose of prayers and supplication is to ensure life more abundant for the living, it follows that the bringing of kolanut is the same as bringing an opportunity to ask the gods for strength and for increased life.

Therefore, ‘he who brings kolanut brings life’. Thus, you have the saying:  “It is only when men no longer have fingernails with which to split the kolanuts into the tiniest possible pieces that we can hope to hear that the kolanut did not go round at a public event”. Denial of kolanut is a statement of ontological exclusion. It is also a very serious matter. Thus the one who says: ‘Elders shall live and the young shall live” while breaking the kolanut, or the one who says: “Our harvest shall be rich and none shall pray for the misfortune of another, lest his farm be the only patch of earth without rain” are basically making the same point about reciprocity and mutual goodwill.

Against  The background of the foregoing, Ndigbo should take a calm, sober look at their Ikenga, as it stands today.  A man’s Ikenga, tells you everything you need to know about him, is usually a carved wooden image on which is etched all the attainments of the owner of the Ikenga; including all his titles. The Ikenga of Ndigbo on display at the moment is being istorte in many ways, from within an without.  Let all remember the virtue of the kolanut ritual for the good of all and restrain themselves from taking domestic matters to the monthly village market.

The position of IPOB on the condition of Nidgbo in Nigeria today is understandable. It is a response to the core challenges of marginalization facing the South East. The question is whether the methods can deliver on the perfectly legitimate aspiration of IPOB towards self-determination. Yes, IPOB Wants a referendum, to determine the Igbo preference in terms of the political future and fortunes of the people. But is it IPOB that will invite the UN into Nigeria? Is it not obvious that the a UN intervention without the invitation of all concerned parties would be the equivalent of violating the sanctity of a sovereign state?
 It was until he was arrested and detained that the late Chief MKO Abiola realized the true meaning of international politics. The painful discovery that the US had no business with the internal affairs of a nation, and that this superpower was also worried about a man who was calling for reparation and raising a lot of dust even without being the president of Africa’s most powerful nation, was Abiolas ultimate undoing.

Are there lessons in all of this to which IPOB is not paying attention? With the South East now everyone in Nigeria to be under the reign of a group that seems to be stifling everything in commerce that the zone needs, will IPOB really attract the international sympathy, empathy an endorsement it craves?
Just asking.