Re: Needless clamour for the abolition of the Kano State Emirates of Bichi, Gaya, Karaye and Rano
By Malam Garba Muhammad
I came across a writeup meant to be a reply to a group, One Kano initiative, clamouring for reversal of balkanization of Kano emirate and the immediate re-installing of Emir of Kano Muhammad Sanusi II on his unified throne. Having read through, the piece that was meant to be a reply but was full of contradictions, inaccuracies and honestly, nonsensical comparisons (apologies for my tone), I felt the need to write this short piece to set that reply in its rightful place, bin!
The reply began with the author/writer(s) questioning the legitimacy of the One Kano Initiative, insinuating that it lacked credible backing. However, it is ironic that the author, or those behind the article, failed to identify themselves. This raises questions about their own credibility and motives, especially when accusing others of being “faceless.” Could it be that they are mere pawns of a political party that recently faced a defeat in the Supreme Court?
In the subsequent paragraph, the author attempted to discredit the One Kano Initiative by suggesting that it aligned itself with certain personalities merely for their informed views. However, these individuals have consistently criticized the divisive and historically questionable balkanization of the Kano Emirate into five entities. The author’s attempt to downplay the importance of unity in Kano is baffling and contradictory, considering they acknowledge the unity of Kano as its greatest asset.
READ ALSO: Kano online journalists elect executives, recommit to ethics
The article further compared Kano to Zamfara and Jigawa states, emphasizing the number of emirs as a point of contention. However, it is essential to consider the socio-economic indicators of these states. Zamfara, with 20 emirs, is described as one of the most backward, economically challenged, and insecure states in Nigeria. The writer conveniently omitted these crucial details, highlighting the flawed nature of the comparison.
The author also attempted to question the historical perspective of the One Kano Initiative, suggesting that pre-jihadi Kano might have been disunited. However, a brief historical overview would reveal the significant role figures like Malam Ibrahim Dabo (1819-1846) played in unifying Kano during and after the jihad. It is perplexing that the writer chose to overlook these historical facts.
In conclusion, the critique lacks substance, relying on half-truths and selective information. The One Kano Initiative remains committed to the unity and progress of Kano, drawing inspiration from its rich historical context. It is imperative to engage in a more nuanced and informed discussion on matters of such historical and cultural significance. Lastly, I will be hoping that the faceless writer(s) is actually a real and intellectual person that can be engaged and not a minion of the mob interested in hunting and bring down the glory of Kano as a united entity which was started by the their leader, the former and hopefully forgotten governor of Kano state.
Garba Muhammad
GarbaeKano@gmail.com
