THE AUTHOR, THE TEXT AND THE QUESTION OF THEORIES: AN EXONERATIST’S APPROACH TO ACHEBE’S THERE WAS A COUNTRY by Onyeji Nnaji

Apart from Things Fall Apart, There Was a Country outweighs all of Achebe’s novels in the number of attention it creates among readers. The emergence of Things Fall Apart in 1958, stirred up certain criticism that Achebe’s predecessors did not receive internationally and within. Perhaps because it emerges as a novel from Africa that chooses to tell the story of the author’s world in a way contrary to readers’ preconceived image of Africa. But Achebe’s personal view may not correspond to some of these criticisms. In an interview, Achebe relates that the reason for which he endeavours to tell the story of Okonkwo and Umuofia’s destruction is because, ‘the European invasion resulted in Africans losing their “grip over history”. It also led to their losing “their memory of Africa”, a massive loss since “the past” is all we have’ (Speech, 63). For him, “the story of the people’s strengths and weaknesses must be told as effectively as possible if the people of Nigeria were to achieve some sort of balance again”. Achebe proceeds with this same battle of self realisation through the cultural conflicts his two novels, Arrow of God and No Longer at Ease dramatise.

When it becomes apparent to him that issues have changed hands, he also changes the old form of storytelling to a new style. After surviving the attack that compels him to rig election in the northern part of Nigeria, at gun point, Achebe sits down to write another novel. This time, A Man of the People, and succeeds it with Anthills of the Savanna. For choosing to tell a new story, Achebe remarks thus:    

A new situation has thus arisen. One of the writer’s main functions has always been to expose and attack injustice.

Should we keep at the old themes… when new injustices have sprouted all around us? I think not. Today literary artist who does not write about his prevailing social and political condition will likely end up becoming irrelevant…. (Burden, 138).

From then hence Achebe becomes concerned with the Nigerian political situation, and in discussing her political situation, he sees Nigeria as a failed state. Achebe’s disappointment can be seen through his vibratory voice in the following way.

My feeling toward Nigeria was one of profound disappointment. Not only because mobs were hunting down and killing innocent civilians in many parts, especially in the North, but because the federal government sat by and let it happen (Country, ).

Reacting to critics’ views towards his text, Achebe remarks that critics usually do not understand his pattern of storytelling even when they too are born into such folkloristic societies. His reaction towards critics’ interpretation of Arrow of God shows this. He complains that “what many critics fail to know and, at times, are not prepared to know is that in Arrow of God, the totality of the society is seen in the eye of one man”. This character probably is Ezeulu. One begins to envisage a fitting interpretation of Achebe’s novels the time he understands him as an observer. Achebe believes that, when the society is bedridden by certain ill in it, it is the observer who bears the pain because to him belongs the moral torture. We see this situation in his key texts; Things Fall Apart, A Man of the People and There Was a Country. As an observer, Achebe believes that he cannot by himself engineer change; all that his power could allow him do is to notify his society by exposing the moral decay, and through the same medium warn his society of the disaster ahead. In There Was a Country he directly intones that all the doom of the Nigeria pasts could have been averted if the individuals concerned have played their parts properly.    

The novel begins diachronically, exposing the landscape of the author’s country home and tribe, Igbo land. He brings his reader to his home town, Ogidi and causes him to repose on the nature of up bring he has. Born of an average Igbo family overtaken by the obsequy for foreign culture and religion, Achebe passed through the training that should put him in his father’s position as the propagator of Christian religion, but for the influence of his uncle, Udo, whose traditional practices even tries to esteem him higher than his father on the area of relating with people outside his religion. From his personal lifestyle, education and attainment in life, he moves to the disheartening issues of Nigeria politics and the civil war. This area raise several altercation among critics; some because the object of their importance is questioned, others because the persons they hold so dear to heart are mentioned. But Achebe remains very explicit and rigid in his story when he begins his story with a personal heading: A Personal History of Biafra. As a personal account, he tells the story his own way.

Three different entities are blamed to have necessitated the civil war. Achebe apportions his first blame to the international community whose personal gain (colonialism) has robed the natives of their long-lived happiness. This robbery begins with the attempt to unite the population through the 1914 Lord Frederick Lugard’s amalgamation of the northern and southern protectorates to form one country, then followed by his wife giving it the name Nigeria. Not until the later days that it begins to become obvious that the amalgamation is intended to promote the course of the imperialists and to gratify the sole motif of enriching the poor north with the wealth carried from the rich south. With its feudal system of emirs, North operates a centralised power system which is familiar to Lord Lugard. In the South, the religions are more diverse, the power systems more prolix. In the North, the missionaries and their Western education are discouraged, unlike the situation in the South where Western education thrives.

The independence Britain grants to Nigeria is merely a statement that physically removes Briton from Nigeria but not from the Nigerian affairs.  This is very true considering the words of Harold Smith as shown below:

The British retreated from West Africa almost in a state of panic. A few African nationalists were making noisy demands for freedom from the Colonial yoke, but the riots and rebellions hardly existed and no blood was shed in Nigeria expelling the forces of Imperialism. The British withdrawal took place in haste,… The vast mass of the African people was indifferent or actually would have preferred the British to stay (Biography, 1).

Initially British resisted any agitation of independence, often by handing out stiff jail term for sedition to the disturbers of peace…. Surely Great Britain had no plans to hand all these riches over without a fight (Country, 47).

Smith is very correct. The North has been very indifferent and completely naïve while the rest of the population was chanting the hymn of freedom. To sustain their fear of being overtaken by the then educationally dominated South and West, they resort to forming ally with the colonial masters who finally give consent to their demand for power as that would help them survive by the rich oil from the South.  To do this, the British colonialists have to rig the first Nigerian election in favour of the North.

I was one of the British officers serving on the headquarters staff in Lagos, chosen by the Governor General, Sir James Robertson, to mastermind the covert action to rig Nigeria's elections. This secret operation hatched in Whitehall was of course a gross betrayal of trust by Prime Ministers Sir Anthony Eden and Mr. Harold Macmillan. The orders which arrived on my desk from the Governor General before the elections for the Western Regional Government in 1956 were quite illegal and in direct contravention of Nigerian and British law (p. 5).

This condition creates the lasting situation that latter orchestrates the Biafra war. For after independence, a vicious regional power struggle ensues. The fear of domination of one region by another was everywhere. Elections were rigged. The government was unpopular. Only six years later a group of army majors carried out a coup and murdered top government officials. In the North the coup was seen as an Igbo coup, a plot by the southern Igbo to gain dominance. It didn’t help that the new head of state, in an awkward attempt to calm the nation, instituted a unitary decree. Instead of regional civil services, Nigeria now had a single civil service. A second coup by northern officers saw Igbo officers hunted down and murdered. Then the murders became massacres. These activities were followed by a civil war.

The second person Achebe blames that he would have aided the avoidance of the civil war in the novel is the Yoruba idol, late Chief Obafomi Awolowo. Unfortunately, he is misconstrued here; even Nnaemeka Meribe who claims to have carried out a deconstruction analysis of this novel could not understand Achebe here. Others in this group are Ayo Adebanjo, Ayinla in his article titled In Dispraise of Achebe published in The Nations Newspaper and others who could not publish their papers. Many of these people directly discredited Achebe’s fame in the bid to exonerating their tribal lord, Awolowo. Ayo Adebanjo particularly states:

His statements, however, are not unfamiliar to those of us who were around during the civil war, and who knew what falsehood and half-truths were bandied around then especially from “Biafra Radio” and supporters of the Biafra cause, notable amongst whom was Professor Chinua Achebe. Some thought they were effusions from supporters of Biafra in order to enlist international support for Ojukwu, but many on the other hand, attributed Achebe’s position to his pathological hatred for Chief Awolowo and the Yoruba race.

Diving into what Adebanjo refers to here would lead us down memory lean to unravel the general animosity that had placed the Igbo and their brother tribe, the Yoruba, at cross roads. To be conclusive about Achebe hating the Yoruba race gives a borrowed interpretation that has no clear relationship with what Achebe has written in There Was a Country. Should one conclude so fast like Adebanjo here, then he will likely misunderstand the whole issue. From the start, Achebe explains Awolowo as a highly respected man who has studied law in England. Now, taking up political issues, Awolowo was generally regionally concerned, compared to Azikiwe who has held to the NCNC political party. Meanwhile the north converge under a common umbrella party: The Northern People Congress (NPC), Awolowo in turn, discovering that NCNC has key Igbo nationalists, chose to establish Action Group (AG) incorporating the former Oduduwa movement. According to Achebe, Awolowo

Over the years had become increasingly concerned about what he saw as the domination of NCNC by the Igbo elite led by Azikiwe. Some believed the formation of Action Group was not influenced by tribal loyalities but a pure tactical political move to regain regional political power influence from the dominant NCNC (p.45).

By this view, Achebe believes that Awolowo with his height of education should not stoop low to regional politics. And to him, by doing so creates rooms for faction. This is where the rain begins to beat the Igbo through Awolowo. From Ojukwu’s views in his 1989 publication, the apparent difference he finds between Awolowo and Azikiwe is that, while the former was consumed by his tribal concern and concentrated regional political intent, the latter has one deterring mindset for one Nigeria, a view point Ojukwu believes affected Zik’s politics in Nigeria. For while the north insists on retaining “Northern” enclave in their political party  instead of “Nigeria” Zik still holds to his advert concept of a Nigeria that is together. This is the issue.

Another issue that critics have ignored from There Was a Country is the revelation of the ally Awolowo formed with the Northern politicians in order to overpower Zik in the first election. From Harold Smith and others we can understand Awolowo’s central position in the then Nigeria politics. Smith notes that:

Abubakar [Tafawa Balewa] dropped in again this morning to report further on the “situation.” He showed me a paper, which recorded the results of his talks with Mr. Akintola and Mr. Rosoji on 16th December. These followed an earlier meeting on 15th December at which the Sardauna and someone else from the Action Group, Mr. Awolowo, were present

In an interview, Achebe states thus, “A true test of integrity is blunt refusal to compromise”. Achebe’s characters down to earth are true reflection of integrity. Awolowo’s desperation for power did not end with the dishonest attitude expressed here, another witness also accounts for the role of Awolowo in a coup attempt. On Monday 7th June 1993, S. G. Ikoku, responding to a question on the civilian coup attempt led by Chief Awolowo in 1962,  remarks thus:

This is what we did. We started preparations for it and the preparations had gone very far and I believe we would have pulled it off. But unfortunately for us, our leader [Chief Awolowo] was so kind to the Nigeria Police that he had a police informant among his planners and so the police knew every move we were making. And so it was easy to trip us up (Inside Nigerian History, 43).

It is apparent from these few citations that Awolowo may have been found wonting before on the area it concerned trust. Ojukwu’s personal statement at Awolowo’s burial also supports this idea. Ojukwu says that “Awolowo was the best president Nigeria never had”. If this is true, then critics’ blames on Achebe for saying what he may have known personally – better than written information – are erroneous. His positive roles towards the Igbo after the war possibly may be to ward off suspicions towards him. Everyone knows that Achebe is such a careful and calculated writer whose integrity is beyond question. He could never forge stories unimaginably, especially when the text is not a fiction.

All these things put together, for a man like Achebe, seeing that the idea of one Nigeria is but a fable, to still undermine ethnic consciousness would be aberration. It is apparent that people read this book, There Was a Country in a haste. Otherwise, someone who has mastered the act of communication in the English language should be able to deduce when a speaker is directly accusing someone, when he is making suggestions and when he is speaking from sources. The bone of contention among Awolowo exorcists of Achebe’s spell is the statement:

It is my impression that Chief Obafemi Awolowo was driven by an overriding ambition forpower, for himself in particular and for the advancement of his Yoruba people in general…. Awolowo saw the dominant Igbos at the time as the obstacle to that goal, and when the opportunity arose – the Nigeria Biafra War – his ambition drove him into a frenzy to go to any length to achieve his dreams (Country, 233).   

The phrase, “It is my impression”, is equivalent to this, “ditto to all these, I wish to conclude that…”. By the way, people fathom the true lifestyle of others through their regular actions. Aristotle even says that “we are what we repeatedly do”. Nobody, having witnessed the actions of Awolowo will feel less than Achebe has felt here. What could be more précised to conclude about Awolowo’s actions reading Jacobs, The Brutality of Nations to uncover that the best advice he could give to Gowon against the Biafra is that “All is fair in war, and starvation is one of the weapons of war. I don’t see why we should feed our enemies fat in order for them to fight harder”. Only someone with no conscience would feel different from Achebe here. It is the attempt to cover his uncovered hatred for the Biafrans that he comes up with the policy that promises hope for the Igbo investors after the war; but all to no avail. No Igbo recovered any of his money as Awolowo made Gowon to promise.   

The third issue Achebe highlights in There Was a country is the struggle for supremacy amidst Ojukwu and his rival Gowon. Achebe is of the opinion that there would be no Biafra war if Ojukwu and Gowon have kept their military quests aside for the interest of the masses. He describes Ojukwu as a promising young man swimming in the father’s wealth. About that time, Louis Odumegwu Ojukwu, father of the Biafra warlord, was the richest in West Africa with investment in different parts of the continent. With the confidence Ojukwu has in his inherited riches it becomes very difficult for him to submit to what he believes is not orderly. Gowon on his part remains determined and strident to hold power on the ground that power belongs to the north. This Ojukwu would not allow. So, as both insist on their individual rights, the masses suffer excruciatingly.

Few things Achebe is not comfortable with about the characters of Ojukwu are his actions during the war. The first thing is on his closeness to Awolowo. Many people argue that Ojukwu was quite wrong in releasing Chief Obafemi Awolowo who was serving a prison sentence in Calabar. That Ojukwu should have held back Awolowo to negotiate the isolation of Gowon in the Western Region. The argument is that Ojukwu’s position, though fragile, at the time should have been justified; after all, Awolowo was serving a sentence passed by a competent court in Nigeria. Ojukwu should have used this to win applause in the East and secure for himself a comfortable platform to negotiate for a confederation or the much sought after secession. If Ojukwu had done this, the Aburi debacle would not have taken place. To Achebe, if his closeness to Awolowo was useful, Awolowo should not have abated the Nigerian government before and during the war. The next point is his blatant refusal to accept British war subsidies, “when”, according to Achebe, “his people need an estimated 20 tons of protein food a day to survive” (pp. 292-293).

Achebe’s blame to the major actors of the Biafra war is that these men have issues they should have sat down to resolve instead of going to war.

They never gave themselves the opportunity to actually sit down and discuss their views on the war, but even if such a conversation had taken place, there would likely have been no positive result. At least one thing becomes clear when their respective point of views are juxtaposed and analysed, in their own minds, both Gowon and Ojukwu saw their own positions non-negotiable (p.288).

 It is amazing to read from Vanguard, October 28, 2012 and hear Gowon fine-tuning his disillusioned leadership roles of the 1960s by saying that “Achebe must have been talking out of ignorance”. To unveil his continuous confusion, he says that "he and the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo had no regrets over their roles in the civil war”. Quoting his exact words, he claims that,

Achebe must have been outside the country during the war and probably did not know what happened during the period otherwise he would not have written on what he was not sure of.    

It is not surprising to hear him speak this way. For a man who denies the Aburi agreement reached before many prominent Nigeria representatives in the meeting and claims that “Ojukwu’s lies led to the civil war”, what good would be expected of such unhealthy elder. Is Gowon trying to say that Achebe was wrong in all the information contained in this text? It is apparent that he will so disbelieve the possibility of his being called by the name Gowon, one day. For as meticulous as Achebe is in this book, he is aware that Gowon is still alive when he puts this text, There Was a Country, together and is also aware that he too would want to hear what is said about him. For precision, Achebe relates that all that are discussed on pages 236-239 have come from the interview he asked Pini Jason to conduct on Gowon. This shows to his readers how tactful and precised he is while writing.

In conclusion, it is pertinent to note here that Achebe suspects earlier that this book would raise dust and has been very careful in his language. His purpose here is very clear; to trace the beginning since the past is all we have in order to tell our story. In doing this, he cannot tell a single story. There Was a Country x-rays every principal actor in the Nigeria affairs knowledgeable to Achebe. The voices of destructive critics about Achebe and this novel are to me useless. The author tells his story from every observable fact made available to him. Where his story moves away from him, he did not forget to acknowledge his sources. I believe the reason for all these is to assist every head-up critic to have materials to cross-check. The Igbo say that, “people do not use light to search for what one wears around his wrist”. There Was a Country is very plane and clear. One sees the scenes changing as the author changes positions from one setting to the other to tell the reader that he is not separate from his story.

The issue raised by Wole Soyinka as cited in Ayila’s papers titled “In Dispraise of Achebe” published in The Nations Newspaper, on Monday, May 27, 2013 is very trivial. In his view, “If you read the book very well, you could see his profuse eulogies for the Flora Nwapas, the Christopher Okigbos, the Cyprain Ekwensis, and none for any other ethnic national. It was as if only the Igbos existed”. This is not true. The book discusses Soyinka practically on pages 52, 107, 109, 110 and others. Amos Tutuola was an earlier writer from Yoruba, and Achebe speaks vividly of his contributions to the emergence of African literature and the work he published during the war.  The case of Achebe’s “profuse eulogies” to the people highlighted by Soyinka could be personal. This apart, the likes of Flora Nwakpa, Okigbo etc. as mentioned are people that share in the same separatists’ fate with him. What is very relevant in Soyinka’s remark is the fact that “Achebe’s ethnic irredentism did not just start with his last book. It was a continuation of his war against Awolowo”.  It is true from the book that no man with his correct brain will look away from his ethnicity, but the interest of the nation as a whole should be respected. That is Achebe’s message here. The text is a mirror to the Nigeria society. The book shows readers that no leader is without certain ambition that discredits him. These ambitions were the never-searched reasons that dragged the nation into civil war.

REFERENCE

Chinua Achebe. There Was a Country: A Personal History of Biafra. London: Penguine Books. Achebe, 2012.

Chinua. The Uses of Africa Literature

Adebabanjo, Ayo. There Was A Country: Adebanjo Replies Achebe. October 12, 2012.

Ayinla, Mukaila (2013). “In Dispraise of Achebe”. The Nations Newspaper Vol. 8, No 2498, Monday, May               27, 2013.

Britwum, Kwabena. “Politics and Literature,” inAfrican Literature Today. V.10. (Edt) Eldred             Jones. New York: African Publishing Company, 1979.

Fish, Stanley.Is There A Text in This Class? Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980.

Freund, Elizabeth. The Return of the Reader: Reader-Response Criticism, 1987

Lynn, Steven. Texts and Conte0xts: Writing About Literature with Critical Theory. 2nd ed.     NY: Longman, 1998.

Richards, I. A. Practical Criticism. New York: Harcourt Brace and Co, 1929.

Richards, I. A. Principles of Literary Criticism. New York: Harcourt Brace and Co, 1930.

Rosenblatt, Louise. Literature as Exploration (First Edition). London: Appleton Century       Company, 1938.

Rosenblatt, Louise. Literature as exploration (4th ed). New York: Modern Language Association. (Originally published, 1938).

Rosenblatt, Louise. “Writing and Reading: The Transactional Theory.” Reader 20 (fall          1988): 7–31.

Rosenblatt, Louise. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary            Work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1994.

Wolfgang Iser. The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from             Bunyan to Beckett, 1974