Читать книгу Squatters and the Roots of Mau Mau, 1905–1963 - Tabitha Kanogo - Страница 12

Introduction

The nature of the squatter problem is too familiar to require recapitulation. The way in which it should be solved has been a matter of controversy for many years, but in general it is true to say that the policy of evolution towards the cottage labourer has been accepted by both the farmer and the government.¹

Establishing colonial rule in Kenya and attempting to turn the country into a white settlement area had a profound affect on the local African population. Not only did the alienation of African lands (for European settler occupation)² disinherit and dislocate many Africans,³ but the subsequent development of settler plantations and mixed farms created a demand for a large number of wage labourers.⁴ But, since no African labour force was readily forthcoming, the colonial government adopted a combination of financial and political measures to create the required labour supply. Attempts to coerce Africans into seeking wage employment included imposing taxes, creating reserves, disrupting local economies and denying Africans the right to grow major commercial crops.

This is a study of the genesis, evolution, adaptation and subordination of the Kikuyu squatter labourers, who comprised the majority of resident labourers on settler plantations and estates in the Rift Valley Province of the White Highlands. The story of the squatter presence in the White Highlands is essentially the story of the conflicts and contradictions that existed between two agrarian systems, the settler plantation economy and the squatter peasant option. Initially, the latter developed into a viable but much resented sub-system which operated within and, to some extent, in competition with settler agriculture. This study is largely concerned with the dynamics of the squatter presence in the White Highlands and with the initiative, self-assertion and resilience with which they faced their subordinate position as labourers. In their response to the machinations of the colonial system, the squatters were neither passive nor malleable but, on the contrary actively resisted coercion and subordination as they struggled to carve out a living for themselves and their families

In collaboration with the European settlers, the colonial government set out to create a cheap, malleable and readily accessible African labour force.⁵ Most of the settlers were themselves rather poor and could only afford to hire labour if it was cheap and could be paid for mainly in kind, in the form of land for cultivation and grazing. The pioneer Kikuyu squatters, on their part, looked upon the opening up of the White Highlands as an opportunity for expansion. Both the Kikuyu who had lost access to land in their Central Province homeland (the ahoi) and wealthy Kikuyu herders visualised the White Highlands with its vast expanses of unutilised virgin territory as a land of opportunity where the enterprising could make their fortunes and establish permanent residence (utuuro).⁶ There was unlimited land for both cultivation and grazing.⁷ On a more mundane level, the White Highlands offered the squatters an escape from the extortionate authority of the village chief and the opportunity to earn enough to meet tax demands, and their accumulation of wealth, in the form of livestock, was quick. This study looks at how the Kikuyu squatters reacted to the various socio-economic and political pressures that were imposed on them and how their opportunities were frustrated and thwarted by the settlers and colonial government alike.

To a large extent the aspirations of pioneer Kikuyu squatters were similar to those of the early colonial settlers. Both wanted a fresh start in life and both anticipated that their productive ventures would bring them quick returns. But this was where the similarities ended, for the settlers and squatters were locked in an unequal political and economic relationship. As the exclusive owners of the land, the settlers expected, with political backing from the government, to be able to limit the squatters’ role solely to that of providing the necessary labour. The squatters, however, were determined to maintain independent and extensive cultivation and grazing, which put tremendous strains on their relations with the settlers.

Because it was important for the colony to become financially self-sufficient, the colonial government threw all its weight behind settler agriculture providing it with vital services and financial subsidies. More significantly, the government enacted a series of legislative measures intended to create and maintain a constant supply of labour. These included the Hut and Poll Taxes, the Masters and Servants Ordinance and the kipande system, to mention but a few. However, in Kenya, and particularly in the White Highlands, the shortage of labour and the dissatisfaction with what labour was available, became endemic. The labourers and the employers did not always see eye to eye.

While the settlers were wrestling with the novelty of farming in the tropics and trying to cope with unfamiliar crops, animal diseases, insufficient capital and unstable market conditions,⁸ squatter production thrived. The first chapter examines the various factors that pushed Kikuyu squatters from Central Province, as well as those that pulled them to the White Highlands. Perhaps the most important, however, was that during the pioneering stage of settler agriculture, demands imposed on squatter labourers were minimal and, until 1918, squatters were allowed to engage in extensive and unregulated cultivation and grazing which, together with a lucrative trade in livestock and farm produce, enabled them to amass ‘wealth’ through accumulating large herds of goats, sheep and cattle.

By 1918 the golden age had arrived in which squatters were realising their economic aspirations. Unlike the settler economy, theirs was well capitalised, had plenty of labour and land and required no financial outlay. During this period of laissez-faire, the squatters evolved a rewarding socio-economic system, which they sought to protect after 1918. But their independence was short-lived, for the settlers were beginning to emphasise the need to regularise the squatter presence in the White Highlands. After all, they were labourers, not co-owners of the land.

Like that of the squatters, the presence of settlers in the White Highlands was both precipitated and motivated by financial aspirations, the realisation of which largely depended on exploiting the available land and labour. With the wartime boom and profitable commodity prices in the mid 1920s, the settlers sought to diversify from their monocultural maize production into the stock and dairy industries, but were fearful that squatter livestock would spread disease among their expensive grade stock. Hence the call for reducing and/or eliminating squatter stock.

On a more basic level, after World War One, the settlers sought to alter the initial pattern of mutual interdependence with their squatter labour by holding that independent and extensive squatter production in the White Highlands was incompatible with the interests of the settler economy. Chapter Two examines the development of this conflict of interests in the inter-war period. Among other things, the conflict was heralded by the introduction of the 1918 Resident Native Labourers Ordinance (RNLO), which sought to define both the legal status and the labour obligations of the squatter.⁹ Henceforth obliged to give more labour hours in exchange for less cultivation and grazing, the squatter was now envisaged as a resident labourer basically dependent on a wage, but with limited cultivation and grazing providing a small wage supplement. By this time it was becoming clear that the settlers had only tolerated independent squatter production because of the labour it provided. But for the squatters, signing a labour contract was the only way of gaining access to land in the White Highlands.

The chapter also analyses the subtle and sometimes unsubtle strategies that the squatters adopted to resist oppressive labour laws and settler attempts to transform them from independent producers-cum-labourers into proletarians. Tactics such as withdrawal of labour, returning to Central Province, illegal squatting, illegal cultivation and grazing, maiming squatter stock, and strikes were some of the ways in which the squatters made their presence felt in the White Highlands and in which they refused to succumb to coercion. The kifagio assault, however, which drastically reduced squatter wealth, represented a highpoint in the settlers’ campaign against the squatters and cast doubts on the viability of any long-term squatter settlement in the White Highlands.

The squatters endeavoured to make their stay in the White Highlands as comfortable as they possibly could, given the settlers’ attempts to eliminate independent squatter production and to proletarianise the squatter labour force. Chapter Three looks at the social organisation of the squatter community. It examines how disputes and social issues were mediated through the elders’ councils (ciama), how circumcision rites were continued as a basis of social acceptance and, most important, how squatter self-help organisations provided schools for their children. The chapter also highlights the blatant subordination of labour to capital by illustrating how the education of squatter children was seen to interfere with the settlers’ demands for child labour and how the settlers therefore ensured that the squatters’ educational programmes were adjusted to accommodate what they considered their (the settlers’) prior claim to the children’s time.

The colonial government also placed unreasonable obstacles in the path of the squatters’ educational endeavours. Permission to run schools was denied on the grounds that the required standards were not being met, or because they were suspicious of the organisers’ political affiliations. And yet, until the late 1930s, the government made no provisions for the education of squatter children. In their educational endeavours the squatters had to contend with opposition of different kinds from both the settlers and the colonial government.

The settlers constantly pushed the colonial government into enacting more and more legislation to control labour, with a consequent progressive infringement of the squatters’ freedom. But each measure, including the RNLOs of 1918, 1924 and 1925, failed in one form or another to satisfy the settlers who continued to clamour for ever more stringent measures.

The enactment of the 1937 RNLO,¹⁰ however, surpassed all other labour legislation and dealt a deathblow to squatter and settler communities alike by virtually transferring responsibility for squatter labourers from the government to settler-controlled District Councils. It gave settlers extensive powers over squatters and their welfare. As Chapter Three illustrates, this Ordinance had far-reaching effects and its enactment was a clear indication of the government’s abdication of its responsibilities towards the squatters. The Ordinance allowed settlers to restrict or eliminate the number of squatter livestock, the acreage of squatter cultivation and the number of squatters per farm. In effect, it empowered settlers to enforce draconian measures against their squatter labour. The chapter records the subsequent disruption of the squatter economy, with the resultant anger and frustration which led to massive squatter resistance and politicisation.

Squatter politicisation was greatly enhanced by the Olenguruone crisis.¹¹ A direct product of the 1937 RNLO, the Olenguruone scheme accommodated some of the squatters evicted under the provisions of the Ordinance. Olenguruone became a hotbed of Kikuyu squatter opposition to government measures and a rallying point for Kikuyu political mobilisation. Chapter Four tries to evaluate the significance of Olenguruone amidst growing squatter agitation and dissent. It was at Olenguruone that the use of the oath as a tool for massive mobilisation was initiated as squatters and Olenguruone residents accelerated their struggle against ‘the slavery of the White Highlands’. This laid the foundations for the Mau Mau rebellion.

It is a firm conviction of this study that Kikuyu squatters played a crucial role in the initial build-up of the events that led to the outbreak of the Mau Mau war. Pushed to the wall, squatters became easy targets for political mobilisation and by 1950 most Kikuyu squatters in Nakuru District had taken both the Olenguruone oath of unity and the Kikuyu Central Association oath of loyalty. Both oaths demanded a commitment to opposing the government. On settler farms and estates, acts of sabotage, including maiming settler stock, intimidation and killing squatters opposed to anti-settler and anti-government activities, were on the increase prior to the declaration of the state of emergency. Chapter Five, which explains the socio-economic basis of Mau Mau amongst the squatters, argues that there was a strong correlation between a squatter’s socio-economic status (within the farm labour hierarchy) and his or her response to the Mau Mau movement. It also reveals the expansionist aspect of the struggle in that squatter freedom fighters had anticipated appropriating the White Highlands from the European settlers. The squatters were not, however, the only people with a claim to the area, but their prowess, as evidenced in the struggle for the White Highlands, can partly be explained by their custodial attitude towards other groups with a stake in the region.

In the final chapter, a bird’s-eye view of the decolonisation process provides the context in which the squatters experienced their ultimate disinheritance. The terms of the independence settlement were decided at the Lancaster House talks,¹² where it was agreed that land in the White Highlands would be released on a ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ basis. The question of a free distribution of land was covered by the talks only in so far as it could be used as a stop-gap measure to forestall the illegal occupation of settler land. Post Mau Mau political mobilisation among the squatters under the Kenya Land Freedom Army (KLFA) is of special interest because, although decolonisation was orchestrated in London away from the forest battlegrounds, KLFA members were committed to resuming the armed struggle should decolonisation fail to give them free land. Although some may view their stand as evidence of political naivety, it does at least indicate the determination of these people to attain the means with which to acquire a decent livelihood. Their sense of betrayal is well documented by the former freedom fighters.

By and large, this book is about squatters and labour. Oral data collected from former squatters were used extensively in reconstructing the history of the period and were particularly useful in revealing the aspirations, expectations, attitudes, motives and responses of squatters under settler domination. Such insights are obviously lacking in official documents, but these were nevertheless invaluable for establishing government and settler positions on various issues. They were also useful for substantiating some of the squatters’ own accounts and provided sources of quantitative data, which is impossible to retrieve with any precision from oral interviews. Although it was difficult to locate people who had been among the pioneer squatters, once they were located these informants proved invaluable in describing early squatter-settler relations. Former squatters who moved to the White Highlands during and after the First World War were easier to locate and interview. Together, these informants were crucial in the writing of this book – a study of squatter experiences as recounted by the squatters themselves.

Notes

1. KNA, PC RVP 6A/16/4, Minutes of the meeting in the Ministry of Local Government, Health and Housing on 16 November 1955, between Representatives of the Government and Representatives of the Nakuru County Council.

2. For the nature and extent of land alienation see Sorrenson, M.P.K., The Origins of European Settlement in Kenya, London, OUP, 1968.

3. See, for example, Mwangi-Wa-Githumo, Land and Nationalism: The Impact of Land Appropriation and Land Grievances upon the Rise and Development of Nationalist Movements in Kenya, 1885–1939, Washington, D.C., University Press of America, 1981.

4. In general, the establishment of colonial rule in Africa necessitated the generation of labour both for the administration of the colony and for the maintenance of the economy therein. See Sandbrook, R. and Cohen, R. (eds), The Development of an African Working Class, London, Longman, 1975, p. 15. See also Mosley, P., The Settler Economies: Studies in the Economic History of Kenya and Southern Rhodesia 1900–1963, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983.

5. Clayton, A. and Savage, D. C., Government and Labour in Kenya, 1895–1963, London, Frank Cass, 1974, give a full account of the evolution of various categories of labour in the colony. Also, see especially Van Zwanenberg, R. M. A., Colonial Capitalism and Labour in Kenya, 1919–1939, Nairobi, East African Literature Bureau, 1975.

6. Interview, James Mumbu Muya, alias Kinuthia Muya, 14 October 1976, Elburgon.

7. Interview, Arphaxad Kiiru Kuria, 21 September 1976, Elburgon. The abundance of land was constantly mentioned by informants as having been a major determinant of squatter movement to the White Highlands.

8. For the majority of settlers, capital was scarce and farming in the White Highlands difficult. See, for example, Simpson, A., The Land that Never Was, London, Selwyn and Blout, 1937; and Whittaker, E. Dimbilil: The Story of a Kenya Farm, London, Morrison and Gibb, 1956, for an insight into the daily struggles the settlers faced.

9. Ghai, Y.P. and McAuslan, J.P.W.B., Public Law and Political Change in Kenya, Nairobi, OUP, 1971, pp. 83–4. From a previous average of 90 days per year, the squatter was required to do at least 180 days’ work per year after the enactment of the 1918 RNLO.

10. ibid., pp. 95–6.

11. See Rosberg, C. and Nottingham, J., The Myth of Mau Mau: Nationalism in Kenya, Nairobi, EAPH, 1966, pp. 248–59.

12. Among other works, Wasserman, G., The Politics of Decolonization: Kenya Europeans and their Land Use, 1960–1965, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1976 analyses how decolonisation was organised so as to give the upper hand in the deliberations to the settlers and colonial government.