Author’s poor bid to revise Kenyan liberation history

By Mbugua Ngunjiri

Reading through RL Collins’ book, Kenya: The Evolution of Independence, one gets the disturbing feeling that the author had a particular audience in mind. This is especially so when it comes to his treatment of the topic of the Mau Mau and the run-up to Kenya’s independence.

While he cannot be faulted for his coverage of other topics like slave trade, the construction of the Kenya/Uganda Railway, and the two world wars (these were largely one-dimensional as the participation of the African was negligible), the author falls woefully short when it comes to the contested chapter of Mau Mau, where the contribution of Africans was massive. Here it was not just a colonial/settler affair.

On the issue of Mau Mau and the struggle for independence the author throws away any pretenses of objectivity. His biases come out clear; it would not come as a surprise if he were accused of revising history. While selectively using records compiled by colonial officials, he holds an extremely dim view of the Mau Mau Movement.

It is his considered view that Mau Mau did not have grievances worth being listened to or acted upon; to him the rebels existed to be destroyed at any cost. He goes ahead to cheer the colonial government’s efforts to exterminate them.

The fact that throughout the narrative he refers to Mau Mau as terrorists is proof of a prejudiced mind.

He, for example, cannot countenance how a ‘terrorist’ like Dedan Kimathi is today celebrated as a hero. “Reviled, with good reason, as a terrorist guilty of unspeakable crimes, Kimathi came to be transmuted into a hero,” writes the author.

“In independent Kenya, he has been given recognition as a freedom fighter, and his name is commemorated by one of modern Nairobi’s most prominent streets.”

On the issue of the Mau Mau it would appear the author was not interested in examining other literature, especially that which would hold contrary views to the official colonial/settlers records he quotes throughout his book. His mind was made up.

He makes great play of the fact that Jomo Kenyatta was the “leader” of Mau Mau in spite of evidence showing that Kenyatta was not in the best of terms with Mau Mau leaders prior to his arrest in 1952.

And while Kenyatta went around Central Kenya denouncing the Mau Mau with the blessings of British authorities, the author reads double entendre in his statements. “His powerful oratory contained subtleties conveying a subversive meaning with innocuous phrases,” he writes. “Aware that his very action was monitored by the authorities, Kenyatta displayed a caution equaled only by his cunning.”

In his book, History of Resistance in Kenya:1884-2002, historian Maina wa Kinyatti holds a different view. He quotes an instance where in August 1952 the Mau Mau Central Committee (MMCC) summoned Kenyatta to their Kiburi House headquarters for censure. “… Before Kenyatta was escorted to the door by General Mathenge he was ominously warned that the MMCC would have no other choice but to order his liquidation if he continued to collaborate with the British in their effort to extinguish the flame of revolution…” writes Kinyatti.

Hola massacre

While it is a well-known fact that Kenyatta was subjected to a sham trial in Kapenguria, the author still defends the tactics used to convict him. “Even if the Crown Case (against Kenyatta) had not been proved, arguably justice was in fact done,” he writes.

“Legal niceties aside, there is little doubt that Kenyatta was the mainspring and guiding light of the Mau Mau movement, for unrest followed in his wake as he moved from one public or private meeting to another, surely as night follows day.”

The author is long on the atrocities perpetrated by the Mau Mau but short on those committed by the colonial forces. He in fact appears to justify the unspeakable violence meted out on Mau Mau detainees. “There were a few shameful acts by the police and the soldiers, especially those who were locally born and therefore more committed…” he quotes an unnamed source.

While what transpired in Hola is generally agreed to be a case of massacre, the author simply calls it ‘a notorious case of abuse’. He adds “Hola was the worst of several cases of abuse, which provided ammunition for those who attacked colonialism.” To him everything was a conspiracy against colonialism.

Rubbishes Elkins

And in an apparent attack on authors Caroline Elkins (Britain’s Gulag: The Brutal End of Empire in Kenya) and David Anderson (Histories of the Hanged: Britain’s Dirty War in Kenya and the End of Empire), Collins is angry that Westerners dared to uncover evidence of torture by the British: “In the USA, anti-colonialism had been a proper and moral cause since the mid-1800s doubtless inspired by their own history, and this was given tacit approval by successful governments,” he says not without some sarcasm.“…It is therefore unsurprising that American academics should be to the fore in books using aspects of Emergency to attack colonialism. These books are too often poorly researched and lack objectivity.”

Given such open disregard for research one wonders whether the author is aware that in June last year William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, apologised to Kenyans for the Mau Mau torture. “The British government sincerely regrets that these abuses took place and that they marred Kenya’s progress to independence. Torture and ill-treatment are abhorrent violations of human dignity which we unreservedly condemn,” Hague told the British Parliament.

Apart from a picture where the author is shown in a British delegation to Jomo Kenyatta’s State House, there is absolutely no biographical data on him, even an Internet search of his name does not yield much. It is likely though that he could have been a colonial officer; the kind of anger and bitterness displayed in the book can only come from a colonial/settler sympathiser.