I would not have put it any better, thank God there
are the Okello's who can put what many of us think on a screen in writing. It is
a public knowledge that we as Baganda must transform our kingdom from the 1300
era to the 2004 era, many kingdoms have done that and have survived, many have
resisted change and have surely perished.
The question we as Baganda must face, what way do
we have to go?
Yes the Okellos will continue to developed and make
such passionate calls of understanding the situation in our country and in our
kingdom, but as long as we have the Kasangwaawo's the Ssenyange's, the
Kibuuka's and kijomanyi's, the people who think that the only thing we all
must do to support Mengo is to kneel to great Ssabasaja. And the Katikiro's as
Mulwanyamuli, who pleads to all Baganda women to go abroad and marry white men
so that they can pump dollars into Buganda, our children and grand children will
ask what happened to their kingdom, and no one will be able to
answer.
The days are very strange indeed.
Em
Toronto
The Mulindwas Communication Group "With Yoweri Museveni, Uganda is
in
anarchy"
Groupe de communication Mulindwas "avec Yoweri Museveni, l'Ouganda est dans
l'anarchie"
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 11:34
AM
Subject: RE: [Ugnet] The concept of
Federo: A case study - Monitor -October17-23, 2004
Jonah Kasangwawo,
You got some points. But, as long as you stick to the traditional system,
that only cocoon people and put them to a state of slumber, when in fact
people should be engaging, with ferocity, in economic and political hassles of
today's world to have themselves mass awoken, in order to be able to fend off
the growing threats to their land and livelihood, like the turks of the
movement government now pushing off baganda from their land, you are bound to
lose hands down. Politically and economically astute people are the ones who
can secure, and protect whats theirs by birth for posterity. The Kabaka is in
no position to save the baganda; only the baganda can save themselves. And as
long as they, the baganda like you, still continue to traverse the
outdated traditional path of "our King", and look at the world
around them from the spectacles of the Kabaka and his chiefs, because that is
fundamental traditional values to hold religiously, then only waking up one
day and finding your/themselves holder/s of these traditions, but merely
squatters on the land, will make them learn; but, that will be just too
late. The NRA/M put the Kabaka back in his so called chair for god sakes!
What make you think the Kabaka can now turn around and tell the NRA/M what it
can or can not do in Buganda? It is only woken people of Buganda, and Uganda
in general who can stop these turks from the vision of creating a middle class
in Uganda out of an ethnic group, in order to re-engineer the political
direction of the country. Not the Kabaka; not traditions; not even any
ineffective systems, be it a political party or not, in whatever nuances
they may be.
Stick to this ineffective " our King", and you sure are going to
learn the hard way when Uganda finally becomes too small for you to live
in.
Good luck my fellow country man.
jonah kasangwawo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
In
"The concept of Federo : A case study" Kajabago-ka-Rusoke talks about
everything else - colonisation, land, et cetera - except about federo.
Even then, his understanding of mailo land and its origin leaves a lot
to be desired. He thinks that the Kabaka and his chiefs didn't own land
until some Europeans arrived and dished out some as a gift. Nothing can
be further from the truth. Even before the arrival of the colonialists,
the Kabaka was (infact he still is) the largest landowner in what is now
known as Uganda, in that he held in trust most of the land in Buganda.
What the 1900 Agreement did was to reorganize the distribution of land
in Buganda. The colonial authority awarded itself 10550 sq. miles (1500
forests, 9000 uncultivated land and 50 for govt. stations); 350 sq.
miles went to the Kabaka; 8000 sq. miles went to one thousa nd private
landowners who had given great service for Buganda and who were actually
already in possession of these estates (calculated at an average of 8
sq. miles per individual); 320 sq. miles went to Ssaza chiefs and their
official estates; the rest went to Mbogo the moslem chief, Kamuswaga the
chief of Kooki, the Kabaka's relatives, the 3 regents at the time and to
missionary societies. Altogether 19600 sq. miles. Therefore, for
Kajabago to say that the objective of a federal structure is for the
Kabaka to extract money from individuals for personal use, is
preposterous and an insult to our King.
The land in contention is the
afore-mentioned 9000 sq. miles of Buganda land which was transferred
from the colonial authority to the Buganda Land Board in 1962 and then
grabbed by Obote, who declared that it belonged to the Central
Government and moved it to the Uganda Land Commission. What Buganda is
saying is that it should revert to the Buganda Land Board where it
rightly belongs. On the other hand, this government is saying that they
don't know where this land is, although Kiwanuka Ssemakula at the same
time is saying that there are people with leases on it. Instead of
questioning the King's motive, Mr Kajabago should ask the NRM government
to explain to the public, exactly who sold leases to these people and
where this land is, since it is still in the hands of the Central
Government.
The Baganda already had a sophisticated and
well-organized system of land tenure and ownership even before the
arrival of the Europeans. The majority of Buganda land was held as
'bibanja' under customary tenancy. All the bibanja holders had security
of tenure and their payment of 'busuulu' to the landlord tantamounted to
proof of ownership. That meant that a kibanja owner could sell, transfer
or inherit the said land. The bibanja holders were not thrown off the la
nd and were quite happy to keep things as they were. In any case, one
had the option to buy the land outright, thereby turning it into
freehold. Mailo land was therefore not a problem for the Baganda, that
is, until Amin came in with the 1975 Land Decree which took away bibanja
holders' rights.
That said, the obsession of this government,
especially its leader, with Buganda land has not been lost to the keen
observer. This government has tried to grab Buganda land using all sorts
of dubious means and justifications. Instead of revoking Amin's decree,
the NRM government aggravated the problem by legitimizing illegal
settlement and unlawful occupancy by a minority that had used guns and
their positions of influence to occupy the said land. The 1998 Land Act
was directed at Buganda land and was intended to give illegal squatters
the right to attain titles and registrable interests on this land.
Incidentally, the time limit, 12 yea rs, which was specified in the Act
for legitimizing occupancy was exactly the number of years the NRM had
been in power. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out who
profited from this law.
All in all, Kajabago-ka-Rusoke's state of
mind is very typical of so-called cadres who can't imagine that a person
can do something for the good of his people and not just for personal
gain. His standpoint is very telling of NRM ideologues - their driving
motive to join politics is to assert themselves economically. I strongly
doubt that the NRM reflects "the social and economic will of the
majority" as he wants to make us believe, rather the aim, we are told,
is to create a middle class (made up mainly of one ethnic group and
through embezzlement and robbing of state coffers). It is not Uganda
they are thinking about, it is about filling their
stomachs.
Kasangwawo
>From: Omar Kezimbira
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [Ugnet] The
concept of Federo: A case study - Monitor - >October17-23,
2004 >Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:54:21 -0700 (PDT) > >The
concept of Federo: A case study >By Kajabago-ka-Rusoke >Oct 17 -
23, 2004 > > >Federo is a concocted term from the word
Federal by politicians from >Buganda. Buganda is a nationality along
other nationalities in Uganda, >which nationalities were each
conquered by Britain; beginning from 1890 by >a British company
called The Imperial British East Africa Company (IBEA) >authorised by
the then British government. > >This conquest is known in
history as colonisation. Uganda was made up of >these nationalities
and became a British colony. Under colonisation, either >a country or
a group of countries is put together by poli tical ties for >economic
purposes of that colonising power by force. > >The sovereignty
of each nationality is automatically conquered. In the same >way, the
sovereignty of each tribe or nationality in a colonial Uganda
>amalgamation was conquered. > >Eventually, every colony
in the world came to understand how wrong the >colonial arrangement
was. Every colony therefore began struggling for >independence but
without any tribe or nationality doing it on its own to >separate
from the colonial amalgamation. > >When the coloniser was faced
with common, sometimes violent, political >bargaining by the
amalgamation they would give up their colonial >arrangement without
disturbing or disintegrating the boundaries of a given
>colony. > >So colonies became independent with
boundaries, which were established at >the time of being colonised.
In May 1963 in Addis Ababa Ethiopia , the >Organisation of African
Unity (OAU) was formed, to unite all independent >African states and
to support the anti-colonial struggle by African >countries, which
were still under colonial rule. > >But it was also agreed that
boundaries left behind by colonial authorities >should continue being
respected and honoured by post-colonial >administrators. That
simultaneously meant that each tribe or nationality in >a former
colonial amalgamation continued losing its own sovereignty under a
>post independent state. > >However, some nationalities
still feel sad to have lost their sovereignty. >But, unfortunately,
this is very much irreversible. If we tried it, the >former colonies
would find themselves in terrible turmoil. > >Buganda is one of
the nationalities whose sovereignty was conquered. But it >is not
alone in this type of conquest. It is part of a Uganda commonwealth
>and a component of an African union. Society is never static but
dynamic. >There is motion both in nature and society. Buganda, Uganda
and Africa are >all in motion. >There are people in Uganda who
are opposed to Mailo land rent; Mailo land >was a gift to Uganda
Kings and chiefs for accepting and collaborating with >colonial
forces. > >The Kings in Uganda today are descendants of those
Kings – at the time of >colonialism. At the same time they want to
restore what colonialism found >them with plus what colonialism gave
them against the ordinary people. > >Their aspiration for a
federal structure in the superstructure is based on >aspiration for
an economic base; restore Mailo land from which they can >obtain rent
from the ordinary peasants – but not a federal structure for
>development. > >No one can extract money from
individuals for personal use and then say >he/she is extracting money
from them in order to develop them. It is just
>ridiculous. > >Kings in Uganda have no political powers.
So, their social and cultural >position cannot allow them to assert
themselves, as they would have wished >to do so economically. Hence
this explains the demand for political power, >which they can use as
an instrument for attaining economic goals. > >This makes them
ignore the NRM government mechanism of decentralising >political
power through a council system, which goes down from the centre,
>down to the village in the hands of peasants from whom they want
land rent, >claiming that it will be the Federo structure that will
develop the same >peasants. > >Whenever they will fail in
achieving these ends, they will always hate any >government that will
occupy seat of central government in Uganda. They have >no friend.
They only have a permanent interest. > >It is only a Ugandan who
has Uganda at heart who should stand firm for what >he/she thinks is
ideal for Uganda, in whose hands the Uganda state >apparatus should
fall in order to apply the same apparatus: - > >to reflect the
social and economic will of the majority; to implement that >social
and economic will; to suppress the considered incorrect social and
>economic will of the anti-people elements. > >All this
should be done with neither fear nor compromising the ideal. But >all
cadres should undertake educate the population about the extreme
>pre-colonial conservative, neo-colonial tendencies and about those
>individuals who are losing direction in terms of class and social
analysis >so that we can put in place a correct Uganda socio-economic
formation based >on an objective academic anatomy of
society. > > >© 2004 The Monitor
Publications > >--------------------------------- > > > >--------------------------------- >Do
you Yahoo!? >vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote
today! >_______________________________________________ >Ugandanet
mailing
list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet >%
UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM
http://www.infocom.co.ug/
_________________________________________________________________ Express
yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.com/
_______________________________________________ Ugandanet
mailing
list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet %
UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM
http://www.infocom.co.ug/
Post your free ad now! Yahoo!
Canada Personals
_______________________________________________ Ugandanet mailing
list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet %
UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM
http://www.infocom.co.ug/
|