One of the most complicated revolutions to take place on the African continent was the Mau Mau peasant uprising in colonial Kenya. It was one of the first nationalist revolutions in Africa to take place against the modern colonialism of European countries. In contrast to other nationalist uprisings that were to follow in Africa, the Mau Mau movement was almost entirely spearheaded by agricultural laborers. The vast bulk of its supporters were uneducated peasants, and they battled bravely and doggedly against the British military.
Even though the uprising was ultimately crushed militarily by a coalition of British and Loyalist (Home Guard) forces, its influence on the development of African history was enormous notwithstanding this fact. The event marked the beginning of the end of European power in Africa and sped up the process of decolonization at the same time.
The political economy of the colonial government was the source of the uprising. The colonization of Kenya by Britain resulted in the theft of fertile land from peasant farmers in Central Kenya, the traditional homeland of the Kikuyu people, and its subsequent sale to white settlers.
The loss of land, followed by the declaration of “native reserves,” effectively closed off any potential expansion territory for the Kikuyu people. As a result of a severe lack of available land in Central Province, many landless Kikuyu peasants moved to the Rift valley to work and live as squatters on the farms of European settlers. These peasants were of the Kikuyu ethnic group. In the Kikuyu reserve, there were social tensions over land because corrupt chiefs and other landed gentry were attempting to gain land at the expense of various landless peasants. These chiefs and other landed gentry were also committing acts of land grabbing.
Some of these uprooted peasants found their way to the growing urban centers of Nairobi, Nakuru, and other townships in the Central and Rift Valley provinces of Kenya. After the end of World War II, there was widespread unemployment throughout Africa, particularly in the urban regions of Nairobi. There was inflation, as well as a lack of suitable housing.
As a result of the interaction of all of these elements, the economic situation of the African people, who by this time yearned for freedom, self-determination, land, and prosperity, was dire. The failure of the colonial authorities to either grant political reforms or accept the legitimacy of African nationalism contributed to an increase in both the level of frustration and the level of desperation among the African people.
Even Jomo Kenyatta’s moderate Kenya African Union (KAU), which was a part of the Kenyatta government, was unable to convince the colonial authorities to make any changes. The Mau Mau guerillas fought the combined forces of the British military and the Home Guard beginning in October 1952 and continuing until 1956.
Their base of operations was in the forests of Mount Kenya and the Aberdares, and they were armed with only the most basic of contemporary weapons. In addition to relying on traditional symbols for the purposes of politicization and recruitment, the Mau Mau guerillas increasingly came to rely on oaths to promote cohesion within their ranks and also to bind them to the noncombatant “passive wing” in the Kikuyu reserve.
This was done in order to ensure that the guerillas would not betray the noncombatant “passive wing.” Throughout the entirety of the war, the Mau Mau guerillas made it one of their primary objectives to nullify “the impact of the betrayers.” The guerillas placed a significant amount of importance on the “passive wing,” and as a result, they were unable to tolerate actual or hypothetical opponents to their cause.
An extensive “villagization campaign” was implemented by the British military and political authorities to try to stem the tide of influence being extended by the Mau Mau movement. Kikuyu farmers living in the reserve were relocated to neighboring villages and placed under the authority of the Home Guards.
The objective was to cut off the guerillas’ supply lines of knowledge, food, and support as much as possible. The “villagization program” resulted in the Home Guard becoming corrupt and harsh toward the general civilian population. The colonial authorities rarely disputed the Home Guard’s activities as long as they “hunted down Mau Mau.”
The colonial authorities announced at the conclusion of the war that 11,503 Mau Mau and 63 Europeans had been slain throughout the conflict. These official figures are “silent on the question of thousands of civilians who were “shot while attempting to escape,’ or those who perished at the hands of the Home Guards and other sections of the security forces,” according to the Associated Press.
It had been a violent, bruising conflict that was going to have long-term ramifications in Kenyan society. These repercussions were likely to be felt by future generations. In response to the Mau Mau uprising, the British government devised a plan to simultaneously dismantle the political power of resident white settlers while at the same time strategically bolstering the influence of the traditional Kikuyu landed gentry.
This was done in the name of quelling the Mau Mau uprising. This was accomplished through a mix of the process of rehabilitation and the gradual accommodation of African political activities and initiatives. Both of these factors contributed to the success of the endeavor. “Remaking Kenya” through eradicating radicalism was the primary objective of the program to rehabilitate former members of the Mau Mau guerilla movement and their allies. Individuals who were considered to be radical and were detained during the state of emergency were required to denounce the Mau Mau and its goals.
This was accomplished by the brainwashing of the inmates with a specific religious ideology and the psychological coercion of these individuals through a process that was intricate and laborious. After 1955, the British administration in Kenya was obliged to make political and economic changes in response to the Mau Mau uprising, which opened the door for the development of political parties representing African people.
The vast majority of the former guerilla fighters were not in a position to have any influence over the direction that these changes took, nor were they able to derive any significant benefits from them. The traditionalist members of the landed aristocracy who had founded the Home Guard had a tremendous impact on the society that emerged after the emergency.
These conservatives and their kin had been recruited by the police, the army, and the civil service ever since the beginning of the counterinsurgency operations. While the former guerillas and their followers urgently tried to conform to the new social, economic, and political circumstances, they were in the best position to “inherit the state” from the British.
In postcolonial Kenya, the Mau Mau insurrection has continued to be a contentious topic of study and conversation ever since it occurred. Discussions concerning the Mau Mau’s legacy have been made more difficult as a result of the group’s inability to win a military and political victory. Former guerillas have been unable to “guide the country in any way that could come close to honoring the ‘glory of the revolution,'” since they lack the authority and influence to do so in postcolonial society.
It is debatable whether or not the Mau Mau played a significant part in Kenya’s eventual success in achieving political freedom. The ruling class in Kenya has been very cautious to avoid framing the uprising as a significant turning point in the fight for independence from colonial rule. This has been accomplished while making oblique references on a consistent basis to the Mau Mau and the blood that was spilled during the fight for freedom. Related to this is the emotionally charged question of how ex-guerrilla fighters should be treated (and even whether or not they should be eligible for awards).
The legacy of the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya has become politicized as a result of escalating social and economic conflicts in the country after 1963. Former members of guerilla groups have been recruited by the ruling class to take part in postcolonial conflicts for power and preeminence. As a consequence of this, many of the former guerillas have developed a tendency to modify their stances in accordance with the present political climate. Both the conservative ruling class and the radical leftist opposition have used the memory of the uprising to support their own positions.
Also Read: Biafra War That Almost Destroyed A Country , 1967-1970
