The Chisiza Uprising
Cuthbert Kachale
Introductory theme: The somber atmosphere in Zomba that bound us together BEFORE independence when we, a new nation-to-be, were so glued together that we developed lots of shared dreams, bordering between fantasy and reality, sadly witnessed and experienced that our shared dreams became our shattered dreams AFTER independence. Our hopes and aspirations became doomed throughout the dark period of the 30-year Kamuzu rule after the Cabinet Crisis, when we lost our human rights, our civil liberties or freedoms of speech, expression, freedom of association and partly our freedom of worship. . ……….. Mzee
……………………………..
worship
The stories below are by courtesy of Ba Ephraim Nyondo, a man who belongs to the quill club (journalists) in Malawi.
Ba Ephraim Nyondo is a journalist with Nation Publications Limited.
He interviewed Mr Jiya in December 2013 one of the guerrillas that fought the Liberation War commonly called the Yatuta Chisiza Uprising of October 1967.
Ba Nyondo says that he series of articles “was published in the Nation on Sunday a special inquiry”.
In the past three days, Ba Nyondo and I have had a lot of private exchanges.
Like I promised, I will never let you down on any information that comes my way as we commemorate the Chisiza month, October, will be made available to you.
October ends tomorrow and hence this could be my last contribution. Please rad with open minds.
Though, in my view, there are gaps in the story as told by Ba Jiya, one of the liberators, the story is about the closest so far to WHAT HAPPENED that I have so far come across. This story is his version.
We still have to hear from Ba Kanyanya, a comrade in arms of his.
Unfortunately, the Yatuta Uprising story has so many versions including Mr Theroux’s Bread Van Story, just as there are so many versions to the Du accident.
What matters to me, as you will see from the reports and writings below, is that Malawians are wide awake to the needs for the truth to be told and the correct Malawi History written.
My major observation in the Jiya story is that I differ with him on the number of liberators captured and also the mode of trial.
I was lucky to have attended the trial of the liberators from start to finish at the High Court in Blantyre and saw them sentenced to death. I counted 7 people. Some of them could hardly speak any Malawian language, but Kiswahili. A Swahili translator was brought in and became part of the proceedings of the High Court. They were 7 not 8. They were NOT tried at a kangaroo court in Zomba but by the High Court in Blantyre.
I am giving you all the versions that I have come across so that you the readers should make up your own value judgments.
Nyasanet is the most informed net that I have ever known and is full of the cream of the Malawian intelligentsia, including Ba David Stewart-Mogg who, though British, has Malawian heart.
I would like to than Ba Paliani Chinguwo for given me such a daunting task/assignment, and many thanks to you all for your patience
Over to you.
Thank you once again.
Mzee
COVER STORY
A tale of 20 men who wanted to overthrow Kamuzu
They differed with their leader, Kamuzu Banda, on the ideology that should define Malawi’s future. Expelled from their homes because of what they believed in, labelled as rebels and wanted dead or alive, they never lost their cause. Driven by the power of the cause, in 1967, they returned to Malawi with a mission. EPHRAIM NYONDO tells the story.
They hid for two days in the thickets of the green jungle of Neno, then Mwanza District. They had been trained by Russians and Cubans at their military camp in Tabora, Tanzania. They walked from Tabora, through Zambia, and sneaked into Malawi, through Neno, for a final act of deleting dictatorship.
In the two days, stocked with the world’s best arms, they silently sat in jungle, sometimes sneaking to talk with chiefs, strategising the best form of attack.
Their plan was to launch the attack on day four. But monkeys, for the area had a hundreds of them, started to make a lot of noise. They were disturbed. Villagers became startled and reported to officials. Day three, government soldiers showed up and began to patrol the area.
The combat
One of government soldiers, after noting glimpse of khakis of danger, shouted: Amaliwongo! Then war broke out! And that was around 3 pm.
Two bullets, during the combat, ripped through the flesh of the general and invaded corners of his heart. He swayed like a falling plane searching a final resting ground. The ground was the comforting yet bloody arms of one of his trusted lieutenant.
Surrender and retreat, he told his trusted lieutenant, but don’t give in, he warned. There was one final, wordless cry from him. And then silence. General Yatuta Kaluli Chisiza is dead!
In the drudgery of his last breath, closed eyes and dry heart, chaos spiralled in the hearts of the last 17 fighters on that afternoon of 11 October, 1967 for two more—Mwahimba and Muteghano—had also been killed. He was the general, their leader. They expected victory, not defeat in the thickets of Neno during that cold October afternoon. They expected him to lead, with arms, in ousting Kamuzu Banda from power and, again, lead in planting a new government based on principles of Africanism. They did not expect him to die.
“The image of his closed eyes and dried mouth, his darker skin in khaki-Cuban military gear, his spread arm as my arms cuddled his empty chest, continue to disturb me today,” recalls Frank Chale Jiya, the lieutenant.
So there they were in the jungle, without a general, their head, in the early hours of the combat. Somebody had to lead, and there had to be someone to lead the cause. Jiya took up the mantle. After all, he was the one holding the instruction to withdraw from the departed general.
Shot on the left shoulder and bleeding profusely, he recoiled from the dead general and ordered withdraw. But the process, he recalls, was bloody.
“There was death, death and death. There were so many government soldiers and we came only 20. A number of government soldiers died and we lost five more,” he says.
Jiya, and four others, managed to evade the combat and, successfully, crossed the border to safety. It was in Zambia.
Eight were captured and, together with Chisiza’s body, were taken to Zomba. Under Kamuzu Banda’s orders, Chisiza’s corpse was displayed in public ‘for all to see, despise and spit’. Jiya recalls that some ‘ministers who are still alive today stood and danced on top of Chisiza’s coffin and, joyously, sang songs of victory’.
The captured eight faced a Kangaroo court in Zomba. They, together with the Jiyas in absentia, were charged with treason. Without much ado, the sentence, as expected, was death. They were executed in public ‘for all to see’ on 2 April 1968. Jiya and others had to remain outside Malawi if they wanted to have life. They were dead the moment they stepped into their homeland. But Jiya, at least, stayed in Zambia until 1993 when an asylum was given to all those who went into exile for political reasons.
But what moved Chisiza and 19 others to dare oust an entire Head of State?
Genesis of differences
Jiya, 74, now retired to corner in Chileka, Blantyre, is one of the unsung nationalist heroes and a post-colonial victim of Kamuzu Banda’s vicious regime.
As a young man in the late 50s, he quickly recognised himself with the winds of nationalist movements. He got radicalised after attending a number of political meetings, and at 20, he joined the Nyasaland African Congress (NAC).
“The meetings could always be held in bush right here in Blantyre. John Chinkwa used to organise these meetings. When he died, Aleke Banda took over. He was cunning at organising,” recalls Jiya, adding that: “I was one the boys who were sent on errands of mobilisation”.
It was in these meetings where Jiya first saw Yatuta, an elder brother to Dunduzu Chisiza, who died mysteriously in a car accident in Zomba, 1963. Yatuta, having just returned from Tanzania where he worked as senior police officer, was NAC’s Administrative Secretary.
“He was earmarked to be an Inspector General in Tanzania. Kamuzu Banda, after the return in 1958, relied heavily on Yatuta’s security expertise. Yatuta became more of Kamuzu’s personal bodyguard. They were too close to each other. Banda could not do anything without Yatuta’s approval,” says Jiya.
In fact, Yatuta, Dunduzu and Kamuzu, after the arrest of 3rd March 1959 State of Emergency, were all sent to Gweru Prison in Zimbabwe.
However, though not explicit, Yatuta’s relationship with Kamuzu began entered a different note after Dunduzu’s death, recalls Jiya.
“I heard Yatuta increasingly complaining of Kamuzu being detached from him. That Kamuzu always wanted his point of view to be taken. That Kamuzu was always suspicious of him,” he says.
These differences grew wide after the granting of independence on 6 July 1964.
“What I noted was that Banda started to distance himself from the African struggle which most of us wanted to be recognised with. I mean he did not want to be associated so much with fellow African leaders and, even worse, us, fellow Malawians.
“For instance, a number of ministers, including Yatuta, complained heavily why he was still having more whites in the civil service,” recalls Jiya.
He adds: “Kamuzu, again, begun to associate so much with the Portuguese in Mozambique and the Boers of the apartheid South African regime. This angered a number of his ministers who wanted him to help his fellow African leaders to gain independence.”
The disagreements became protracted and irreconcilable leading to what is known as the 1964 Cabinet Crisis. As a result, on 7 September 1964, Banda dismissed three ministers: Augustine Bwanausi, Kanyama Chiumie and Orton Chirwa; a Rose Chibambo, a parliamentary secretary. The dismissals were followed, on the same day and on 9 September, by the resignations of three more cabinet ministers in sympathy with those dismissed. They were: Yatuta, Willie Chokani and Henry Chipembere. Initially, this only left the President and one other minister in post, although one of those who had resigned, John Msonthi, rescinded his resignation within a few hours.
Things fell apart, the centre could not hold.
Journey into exile
In October 1964, Chokani and Bwanausi, who had refused to re-join the cabinet without their colleagues, left voluntarily for Zambia following Banda’s refusal to negotiate. Fearing for their safety, Chiume and Chisiza, too, crossed into Tanzania on 1st October.
“Tension grew in the country. It was a moment of fear. Everyone seen to have been loyal to those ‘rebel’ ministers who resigned was being targeted,” says Jiya.
And Jiya had his moment.
“I was Blantyre District Governor of MCP. The party had ordered me to organise a rally in Nancholi where Banda would denounce the resigned ministers as rebels and dissidents. I protested.
“I went around the city and told people that I had quit though I did not communicate it with the party. So I advised the people against coming to this rally.
“When party officials came to inspect how many people had turned for the rally they found children playing football. There was no nsanja and some communities stoned party officials. There was chaos leading to riot police firing teargas.
“Banda started going around denouncing me as a rebel. The MYP, as a result, started to look for me.
“I left Blantyre for Lilongwe where I hid for seven days. On 21st October, I left Malawi for Zambia,” he narrates.
Birth of revolution
Jiya says each and every day; people fled Malawi and joined them in Zambia. In a period of a month, we had thousands and thousands of Malawians in our midst. All with shared stories.
“Some joined teaching, some in the mines but some of us our hearts were still at home. We still wanted to help our brothers and sisters attain freedom and democracy,” he says.
So he joined a military wing. With the help of countries like Cuba, Algeria, China and Tanzania, they started to train. After few months of training, they left Zambia for Tabora for excessive training. While at Tabora, they invited Yatuta, then in Tanzania, to be their leader.
“He complained that he did not have military training. So we linked up with the Chinese who financed him to train in their country,” he says.
By September 1967, the revolution was ready. And in the early days October, they left Tabora for Zambia—well armed curtsey of Cubans. They entered Malawi, through Neno, with a mission.
“We wanted to dislodge Banda, the Frelimo style; form a new government based on principles of Africanism. In fact, we had a name of the party in mind: Ufulu Umodzi Malawi Africa (UUMA),” he says.
He adds that though they were only 20, it was the spirit of liberation, not numbers, that moved them.
“We never felt afraid of anything. We just had so much love for our country. Yatuta told us in victory or defeat, the message we wanted to send was that Banda is not ruling Malawians with their consent. We wanted the entire world to know that Banda was imposing himself on Malawi. Malawians wanted democracy and freedom,” he says.
In fact, they even had development policies already written down.
“Our major focus was education. Just after gaining government, we wanted to roll out compulsory education. We wanted to spend every nit of a coin in education. We believed Banda capitalised on people’s ignorance to entrench his tyranny,” he says.
Down but not out
After withdrawing due to the death of Yatuta, Jiya and four others went back to Zambia and, in 1975, they formed Socialist League of Malawi (Lesoma). Married to a Zambian lady, Jiya continued recruiting and training. They were preparing for another attack, a ‘deadly and calculated one’.
“We changed strategy. We adopted the militia style. So we were training each other in small groups so that when we return to attack, we should not be easily spotted,” he says.
Led by Dr Attati Mpakati, in 1979, Lesoma was invited to Lusaka to attend the Afro-Asia People’s Organisation (Apso) conference. Jiya says Lesoma became well known, so much that Banda began to target Dr Mpakati—the reason he was petrol bombed.
In 1991, Lesoma changed its military philosophy and adopted a civil and peaceful campaign. In fact, the organisation changed its name to United for Multi-Party Democracy (UFMD).
And it was UFMD in 1992 which organised a seminar where leaders like Chakufwa Chihana and Bakili Muluzi were invited.
In fact, it was at this seminar, held barely a month after the Catholic Bishops had issued the Pastoral Letter on 8 March 1992, where Chihana condemned MCP as ‘party of death and darkness’ and that he was ‘returning home to face death, for his blood would be the engine of change in Malawi’. Chihana arrived at Kamuzu International Airport on 6 April 1992 and got arrested.
UFMD was also key in influencing the US and the Paris Club to announce sanctions against Banda’s regime in 1992.
“I and George Kanyanya spoke to the Congress in US, and the very same day, the US announced sanction against Banda’s regime. Mekki Mtewa went to the Paris Club, and just after speaking, Europe announced sanctions against Banda,” says.
After the sanctions and increased pressure on Banda regarding the continued arrest of Chihana, Malawi held referendum in 1993 to choose between multi-party and Banda’s one party. Multi-party won. And in 1994, general elections were held and UFMD, led by Kanyanya, partnered with UDF and won. Multi-party democracy, which MCP banned in 1966 and 1971, had returned to Malawi.
Is Yatuta still a ‘rebel’?
As he sits on wooden chair enjoying a breeze of a hazily, sunny afternoon at his home, Jiya is not a happy man.
“For all he sacrificed for Malawi to return to multi-party democracy, Yatuta is not recognised in Malawi. It pains me that he was labelled a ‘rebel’ and died with the label yet he fought for a good cause.
“I am even baffled that people that labelled him so, today, are safe in expensive mausoleums, their marble erected in the Capitals yet they their rule led to the death of a number of innocent Malawians.
“My only wish is that government should remove the label of a ‘rebel’ from Yatuta’s death so that he should be buried and commemorated, as a Martyr, one of Malawi’s liberating giants,” he pleads.
OPINION
Let Malawians know true history
DAVIS CHESTER KATSONGA
GUEST WRITER
During the struggle for freedom from white domination in South Africa, a system that put our brothers and sisters in perpetual servitude, Malawi did not stand side by side with the frontline states (Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Tanzania).
Malawi, then, was, perhaps, the one of the black African countries with diplomatic relations with the apartheid government. The government of Malawi even made a “propaganda” film funded by the apartheid regime featuring the Ngwazi titled ‘I Have Not Changed’.
In the movie, which was circulated in Secondary Schools and I watched it while at Henry Henderson Institute (HHI) Secondary School, among other things, the Ngwazi was shown visiting some Bantustans which the apartheid regime had then created to give credence to its political system. This approach of working with this vile system was supported by the Ngwazi’s philosophy of what he dubbed, “Dialogue & Contact”.
In return for the Malawi Government’s support, the apartheid government funded some development projects in this country, including the construction of office buildings at Capital Hill.
Whilst I agreed with Dr Kamuzu Banda’s Philosophy of “Dialogue and Contact”, I think Malawi went too far in appearing to be a friend of that system when everyone else was boycotting South Africa and everything else the regime represented at the time. Malawi was receiving “blood” money from the apartheid government—a system Nelson Mandela was prepared to lay down his ‘life for if need be’.
Have we as a Nation, my fellow Malawians questioned why the Malawi Embassy buildings in Maputo and Zimbabwe were burned down when Samora Machel died in a mysterious air crash? It was only Malawi, I should underline, which had its embassy burned down by angry citizens of the two countries.
Her Excellency Dr Joyce Banda, the President of the Republic of Malawi, spoke at Mandela’s funeral in December last year as, firstly, the current Chairperson of SADC and, secondly, a current President of Malawi.
As a Malawi leader, I would have grabbed this opportunity to apologise to South Africa and the Frontline States (Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Tanzania) for not standing-up for justice and equality at a time our brothers and sisters needed us the most. We failed them and we have to admit this in the open and start again on a clean slate. We cannot re-write history.
Let Malawians know where we are coming from. They say, “Those who do not remember or know their history, are bound to repeat it”. We do not do Ngwazi Kamuzu Banda justice by simply talking about the positive things he did for this country; he also did things which were not altogether pleasant. Let us tell the truth, the whole truth about him.
When the former President of Zambia Dr Kenneth Kaunda and President Kikwete of Tanzania spoke of the role their countries played and the sacrifices (some in blood) they made on behalf of those brothers and sisters who needed us a lot at the time, it was honest and factual. Sadly, the SADC Chairperson wanted to give the impression we also did a lot for our suffering relatives in South Africa—not so?
I have noticed different governments in this country have not made any reference to the ‘I have not changed’ film which I mentioned earlier. I suspect the reason behind this “secrecy” about a film which was shown nationwide then is a sign of guilt and extreme discomfort of our history.
After his release from prison, Tata Madiba did visit Malawi and met with the founding father of our Nation, Ngwazi Dr Kamuzu Banda, who, at the time was the region’s most senior President both in tenure and age. Despite our failure to assist Mandela, South Africa and our neighbours defeated apartheid, Madiba showed his magnanimity by “dining” with those who had stood on the other side of the river bank during his hour of need—in this case, Malawi. This is the mark of forgiveness.
We cannot be comfortable as a nation until a formal apology is rendered to South Africa and our neighbours. The President, Her Excellency Joyce Banda (Dr), in my opinion, missed an open goal at Tata Mandela’s funeral.
The author is a politician currently a presidential candidate of Chipani Cha Pfuko (CCP).
OPINION
Where is ‘our history’ in Secondary School history?
JAMES KUCHILALA
HISTORY TEACHER
Studying one’s history is essential and worthwhile if it effectively interprets the human past for societal continuity, a prerequisite for understanding existing phenomena and creating a better tomorrow.
This, however, becomes a thriving story if all partakers in the making of history are not alienated or erased from the reader’s memory for one motive or another.
Since the coming of Europeans to Malawi, our history has for long seen some active players in its creation being erased from books, only for others to be glorified as being the fundamental agents of social transformation.
Our history libraries have been flooded with the history of foreign traders, missionaries and colonisers into the once ‘primitive’ Nyasaland with the eventual reaction from the natives. Even our secondary school syllabi have very little to tell on the actual history of Malawians in Malawi. The history student is ultimately left in dilemma as regards to what happened in the years between the triumphant fight for independence and the coming of democracy since they are only taught of the pre-colonial kingdoms followed by the rise of nationalism and self-rule.
For instance, Junior Certificate (JC) history is replete with Africa’s pre-colonial history. In Form One, the students are fed with continuous stories of the rise of Africa’s early kingdoms and also Slave Trade. In Form Two, there is an emphasis in the advent of colonialism and albeit of the rise of independence. It is worth pointing out that much of the topics in JC are more African generic than specific to Malawi.
Nothing is changed in Malawi School Certificate of Education (MSCE) history. In Form Three, they study Central Africa’s history. Being a history of the making of Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe, the focus is to explore a collective memory of these countries through studying how pre-colonial and colonial experience changed. There is also a touch on the rise of nationalism and independence. Again taking a multi-national perspective, there is barely a deliberate attempt to be Malawi specific, especially, post-colonial experiences.
In From Four, history takes global perspective. The students are taught the making of the modern world and its challenges. The emphasis is on the World Wars, Cold War and, on the African side, a touch on the post-colonial challenges of nation building. Again, the focus is on continental outlook not on Malawi.
It is from this state of affairs that a young historian, especially those with interest to understand the history of Malawi, is made to believe that the period stretching from the granting of self-government to the coming of democracy does not have a history worth studying, a situation that takes the student into a drawn out jungle of ignorance. Save for the quite comprehensive analysis of the decolonization process which largely glorified very few individuals while rendering others as ineffectual and mutinous freedom fighters, the Malawian pupil is largely fed with historical topics that are somewhat inappropriate to the core purpose of the subject per se. This, according to my personal experience as a History teacher, has made a considerable number of students lose interest in the subject eventually.
But history is a subject of questions and answers, questions that if not sensibly answered can lead the learner into disarray. In her book titled Political Culture and Nationalism in Malawi: Building Kwacha (2010), Joey Power argues that the post-colonial regime (in Malawi) had tried to expunge form the people’s memory most significant historical events and personalities for other’s convenience. This account undoubtedly entails that our history has had very significant topics worth studying; topics which could apparently help solve some of our present recurring socio-political problems but had been wilfully left to crumble in the concealed shelves due to a few but prominent individuals’ egoism at the expense of the majority.
The more inquisitive young historian has eventually been obliged to rely largely on oral sources of history (or the internet) to hear of the many untold stories of victims of totalitarian leadership in the years preceding egalitarianism. Very regrettable is the fact that such essential information has also been deeply politicized, a horde of historical facts which if presented without any political prejudice would help level our political ground for national benefit.
The alienation of significant personalities in the writing and teaching of Malawian history, with all the uprisings that followed the August to September 1964 Cabinet crisis has nevertheless created an enormous gap in the mind of this young student who, in their form two lessons, is taught that our ancestors’ nationalistic struggle did not primarily start with the gentleman who assumed leadership in the end. This student is even distressed to realise that none of those daring patriots like James Frederick Sangala, Levi Zililo Mumba and MacDonald Lawrence (whom this student is told were the earliest founders of the Nyasaland African Congress) and the lawyer who founded the Malawi Congress Party, Orton Chirwa, are not in the glare of publicity as the nation begins its struggle for democracy towards the 1990s, neither are they part of the ruling front as expected.
Since history is a subject of questions and answers, questions that if not sensibly answered can lead the learner into a world of total disarray, this student, in their native mind, might one day query for this missing link in all these three decades of historical concealment. Certainly I would not be stunned if one smart pupil asks of what happened to the brave patriots like Henry Masauko Chipembere, Kanyama Chiume, Orton Ching’oli Chirwa, Dunduzu Kaluli Chisiza, Yatuta Chisiza, Willie Chokani, Rose Chibambo, Atati Mpakati and many fallen heroes and heroines.
Much as the definition of history is somewhat diverse, it is evident that Malawian history is heavily pregnant with fascinating truths awaiting accurate revelation. There emerges that need to impartially present to our students what is justly theirs in their academic quest for Malawian history. The missing link in the teaching and learning of our stories has obviously had a significant impact on our today’s socio-political problems. History is generally about creation of a better society. Bridging this gap in our student may perhaps help in the attainment of that vision.
The author is a Chancellor College graduate of history currently teaching history at Mpondasi Anglican Secondary School in Mangochi.
JIYA ON MODERN POLITICS
We need to de-Bandaise Malawi—Jiya
EPHRAIM NYONDO
NEWS ANALYST
Unless the ‘Kamuzu Banda mentality’ is emancipated from the minds of both leaders and the people, Malawi will not, in the next 50 years, progress but remain trapped in cycle of retrogress like it has been the case in the past 50 years.
Frank Chale Jiya, one of the country’s unsung nationalist heroes who suffered the worst of Kamuzu Banda’s tyranny, said this during an exclusive interview he gave to Nation on Sunday in December last year.
Currently retired from public service and settled at his home village in Chileka, Blantyre, Jiya said it is appalling that, till date, our politics is still rooted in ‘tyrannical and patrimonial’ philosophies of Kamuzu Banda.
“Since the return of democracy in 1994, you can still see Banda’s politics in all the leadership up to now. Politics where the leaders and those close to them are supreme and the people are just chattels, stuck at the receiving end surviving on what leaders disposes of.
“It was evident in UDF when they ruled. You could see the hangover of Kamuzu Banda all over, and you would just sit and wonder: Is this what we fought for?
“Bingu wa Mutharika started well. In the end, he completely departed from democratic norms. He even said he admired Kamuzu Banda. To what extent? Noooooooooooo! Even the current leader, Joyce Banda, is still aligned to the same Banda philosophy,” he said.
Jiya added that though he understands that Malawi was blinded for so long by Kamuzu Banda, so much that ‘we still struggling to change’, but, ‘by now we should have started to see pattern of political deviation of Banda’s politics’.
“We need a mind-set shift in the way we, the people, relate with those in power. Again, we need a mind-set shift in the way, those we elect in office, relate with the people. Otherwise, the ruling, despite change of government since 1994, looks the same to me,” he said.
Sounding tough and uncompromising, Jiya underlined that ‘as a country we need not fool ourselves that we are progressing as other nations have done’.
“We are stagnant and just moving in circles. Everybody just comes to erase what the other had done and so on. We lack a clear national development plan. What we have been having are presidential initiatives that are temporal and hardly addresses fundamental issues that keep Malawi poor,” he said.
Change, he added, would only come not through elections but when people realise that they have the right to decide what is good for them.
“Changing parties during elections will not transform Malawi. Malawians need to understand the people they vote for, understand their leadership background and get convinced that they really represent the challenges Malawi faces. If we remain blind to this, we will always be fighting and fighting without winning. Malawians should tell leaders what they want, not the other way around,” he said.
On cashgate, Jiya said the entire thing is symptomatic of the Banda political philosophy where those in power, without having a heart of the suffering, can amass wealth pretty sure that they will not be held accountable.
“I just hope the investigations will yield to something tangible so that those involved are duly prosecuted,” he said.
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
‘Malawi needs a body to regulate our history’
In this interview EPHRAIM NYONDO seeks views of lecture of History at Chancellor College, Gift Kayira, on what needs to be done on the writing of Malawi’s post-colonial history.
What is your impression regarding the writing of Malawi’s post-colonial political history in terms of representing all voices.
To say the least, Malawi’s post-colonial history has been overly elitist with much emphasis on the voice of notable people in the society. It has been assumed that it is the elite who are the makers of history. Within this context little effort has been made to tell the story of Malawi’s past from the perspective of the voiceless. Examples are many. Studies on African nationalism usually focus on names as John Chilembwe, Dr. Banda, Kanyama Chiume, etc. Again studies on the recent post-colonial period also focus on names such as Chihana, Muluzi and Bishops of the Pastoral Letter fame. Little effort is made to retrace the voice of the local masses that played a crucial role in all these areas.
How do we explain this bias in the writing of our post-colonial history?
Several factors explain this. The first could be the dominance of scholars trained in the old nationalist school in the writing of history. That school which became dominant in the 1970s attempted to paint a glorious picture of Africa’s past. In this it was looking for individuals who stood up above the rest if only to demonstrate that Africa too had sons and daughters worth venerating. This generation of scholars has contributed a lot towards post-colonial African historiography. The current generation of scholars is slowly departing from the nationalist school having been influenced by revisionist schools that came after it.
Why does it appear that scholarship on Malawi’s post-colonial political history appear to be daunting?
Daunting? Perhaps the word ought to be qualified. It is true that the recent post-colonial period has been marred with poverty of historical works on Malawi’s post-colonial political history. However the problem should not be exaggerated. The only difference is that in the immediate post-colonial period a number of books on the subject could be published given the fact that there was urgent need to reconstruct Malawi’s history which was heavily distorted by colonial masters. With time such urgency disappeared with scholars concentrating much on articles as opposed to books. However, we still have some more recent works on Malawi’s post-colonial political history. The recent works by historians Joey Power and John McCracken attest to this.
How does selective memory affect the course of a nation?
Selective memory has several implications. It has the potential of misrepresenting the country’s history thereby derailing the future of a nation. A nation without history is as good as a car without an engine. Progress in a society is very much dependent on its past experiences. However, it matters so much the kind of history we present. A well-balanced presentation of history is what is desirable. Secondly, selective memory in the writing of history has the potential of negating positive contributions of other segments of the society towards the progress of a nation. For instance, if our history is written in such a way that women’s experiences are not captured, it is doubtful that as a nation we would seriously tap on the contribution of women in various sectors of the political economy.
What do you think could be some of the measures that need to be put in place in an attempt to have a balanced writing of Malawi’s post-colonial political history?
Firstly, we need to ensure that the would-be history scholars have a solid foundation in history. In this, we should begin to give history the seriousness it deserves at both primary and secondary school levels. It is a pity that at the moment history has almost been phased out at primary school level and only made an optional subject in secondary schools. Secondly, there is a need for a gross revision of our secondary school curriculum in light of the current schools of thought that are all inclusive. It is amazing that even with the proliferation of social history approach that completely departs from the nationalist approach by advocating for history from below, our secondary school curriculum is still stuck in the old nationalist school. At present, Form Three history appears quite boring to students and presents no motivation to pursue it at tertiary level. What is more, we need a body of historians that would regulate the writing of Malawian history. After about fifty years of independence, the nation cannot afford to lack such a body—a loose association of historians. It is such a body that could, among other duties, be in the forefront organising workshops and conferences that would grill young scholars. Fortunately, enough one is already in pipeline and we hope it will soon be operational.
Cuthbert Kachale
From: Cuthbert Kachale [mailto:cuthber...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 4:28 PM
To: 'David Stuart-Mogg'; MALAW...@groupspaces.com; NYAS...@listserv.icors.org; civs...@sdnp.org.mw; bwalo-la-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: 'cuthbertkachale'
Subject: The Chisiza Uprising
Introductory theme: The somber atmosphere in Zomba that bound us together BEFORE independence when we, a new nation-to-be, were so glued together that we developed lots of shared dreams, bordering between fantasy and reality, sadly witnessed and experienced that our shared dreams became our shattered dreams AFTER independence. Our hopes and aspirations became doomed throughout the dark period of the 30-year Kamuzu rule after the Cabinet Crisis, when we lost our human rights, our civil liberties or freedoms of speech, expression, freedom of association and partly our freedom of worship. . ……….. Mzee
……………………………..
The stories below are by courtesy of Ba Ephraim Nyondo, a man who belongs to the quill club (journalists) in Malawi.
cuthbertkachale
-------- Original message --------
From: John Lwanda <lwand...@yahoo.co.uk>
Date: 02/11/2015 17:52 (GMT+02:00)
To: civs...@sdnp.org.mw
Cc: cuthbertkachale <cuthber...@gmail.com>,MALAW...@groupspaces.com,NYAS...@listserv.icors.org,David Stuart-Mogg <david.st...@BTINTERNET.COM>,bwalo-la-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Civsoc-mw] The Chisiza Uprising
cuthbertkachale
-------- Original message --------
From: McBride Nkhalamba <mnkha...@southernafricatrust.org>
Date: 02/11/2015 23:56 (GMT+02:00)
To: John Lwanda <lwand...@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: civs...@sdnp.org.mw,cuthbertkachale <cuthber...@gmail.com>,MALAW...@groupspaces.com,NYAS...@listserv.icors.org,David Stuart-Mogg <david.st...@BTINTERNET.COM>,bwalo-la-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Civsoc-mw] The Chisiza Uprising
cuthbertkachale
To: cuthbertkachale <cuthber...@gmail.com>
Cc: John Lwanda <lwand...@yahoo.co.uk>,civs...@sdnp.org.mw,MALAW...@groupspaces.com,NYAS...@listserv.icors.org,David Stuart-Mogg <david.st...@BTINTERNET.COM>,bwalo-la-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Chisiza Uprising
cuthbertkachale
-------- Original message --------
From: cuthbertkachale <cuthber...@gmail.com>
Date: 03/11/2015 09:37 (GMT+02:00)
To: McBride Nkhalamba <mnkha...@southernafricatrust.org>
Cc: Cuthbert Kachale <cuthber...@gmail.com>,John Lwanda <lwand...@yahoo.co.uk>,civs...@sdnp.org.mw,MALAW...@groupspaces.com,NYAS...@listserv.icors.org,David Stuart-Mogg <david.st...@BTINTERNET.COM>,bwalo-la-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The Chisiza Uprising