There are things that make me boil with rage. I simply cannot stomach a chap who finds pleasure in explaining - of course with that visible paternalistic feeling - what s/he knows nothing or little about. Ideally, the line between knowledge and its source must be clear. Likewise, the centrality of people's needs and how they think about the same must stand out for all to see.
But why is this different with respect to nomads? Why do some people, perhaps owing to the fact that they wield power and influence, find it hard to put people at the center of their development discourse?
Distant scholarly arrogance - whether originating from government, NGO or public circles - hurts. Those who think they mean well for the nomads must appreciate the centrality of their demands. Anything outside this is purely anti-people, anti-maendeleo. And we are going to bring it down.
This isn’t just a constitutional construct. It is a moral responsibility we are eternally called upon to carry.
One thing: People aren't so stupid to be relegated to the peripheries of their lives. To do this, I believe, is not only inhuman but also portrays how lopsided and misinformed we - who push this view - are. I think nomads are victims of this view.
There is an inherent belief that to interact with these people, one needs not consult them nor at least take a look at how they lead their lives. Let's first debunk this narrative by looking at some reminders:
One, nomadism is not an archaic way of life of some old-fashioned, 'unintelligent' people keeping cows and goats. It is a way of life like any other. It is neither inferior to, nor a copy-cut of others. It is a civilisation per se. To put it quite clearly, nomadism is a survival strategy to counter the vagaries of nature. It is no adventure-filled escapade.
Two, nomads have brains. They have dreams. They have needs like most of us. And more importantly, they know what these needs are and how they should be responded to.
Let's come down to the basics. Why do nomads move from place to place? What is their collective aspiration? Do they have positive points we can pick to enrich our engagement with them? How possible is our integration agenda?
This is a message to those dismissive NGO-types: Nomadic migratory patterns have more to offer to quicken our pursuits to provide them with water. These people understand well their terrain. Co-opting their knowledge in our plans won't hurt our moves.
Again, those lecturing nomads on the sweetness of adopting a sedentary lifestyle ought to know that nomadic lifestyle is not the culprit. The culprit is our jingoism. Lectures on the goodness of 'immobile' lifestyle must be accompanied by the provision of water resources.
We have said it time and again; if you want to take schools, hospitals, government presence and all the trappings of 'excellence' bestowed upon the self-praising sedentary puritans to the nomads, water must be the conduit. Excluding water from the menu of nomads is akin to convincing a visibly hungry and depressed congregation of heavenly happiness.
Like all people, nomads' lives revolve around water resources. Once they get this, mobility will be a luxury of a few.
Why is it impossible to build dams for the nomads? Where are these politicos taking all the billions of shillings for water provision? Is somebody reducing us to imbeciles?
Hoodwinking the populations with one or two boreholes won't stop them from doubting government commitment.
Real leaders must go beyond boreholes. This water problem is so huge to be cured through piecemeal interventions.
Pour money into dam construction!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your thoughts? thanks for dropping them here...