Mass killing: Memo to the vulnerable

…also published in Daily Trust

In the face of the persistent Boko Haram terror attacks against defenceless civilians in the northeast, raids on helpless communities by armed bandits in Zamfara and Kaduna states, recurrent rounds of ethno-religiously motivated mass killing in Taraba, Benue and Plateau states all in northern Nigeria, it’s high time all communities vulnerable to such attacks due to their geographical locations resorted to whatever measures necessary to save their lives no matter the amount of sacrifice involved.
 

   

This is absolutely imperative in a time when the already grossly undermanned, ill-equipped and apparently exhausted Nigerian security agencies appear increasingly incapable of protecting their lives, properties and dignity.

They obviously also can’t afford to keep counting on the elite in positions of authority in the country to be responsible enough to tackle the situation with the amount of commitment required. Because, inasmuch as they (elite) and their immediate families continue to enjoy security in their secure urban neighborhoods in, say, Abuja, Kaduna, Makurdi or elsewhere, they wouldn’t only remain apathetic to the plight of the vulnerable communities and individuals helplessly languishing in the horror of constantly looming attacks, but they would in fact continue to manipulate the situation in pursuit of their respective self-centered agendas thereby sustaining the vicious circles of mass killing and rounds of reprisal mass killing among people in the volatile urban poor communities and rural areas.

Also, it’s a pity that, while the vulnerable continue to endure the horror of imminent attacks at any time, blame game among politicians and allegations of negligence and connivance against some personnel of the security agencies appear to increasingly overshadow concrete efforts to seriously address the root causes of the crises and stop the killings. This is quite observable from the official statements released in the aftermath of every preventable round of mass killing, and also from newspaper columns and comments written by thought leaders on the issue. Of course, this trend is particularly obvious on social media where discussions are largely characterized by blatant prejudice.

Obviously, the vulnerable wouldn’t want to leave their fate to the mercy of the politics and other selfish interests pursued by politicians and others at the expense of their (the vulnerable) very survival. In fact, they can’t afford to do that either.  

       

In the face of this dilemma, there appears no better alternative for the various vulnerable communities in the volatile areas than to embark on systematic relocations to the territories where their respective ethno-religious bonds would guarantee them protection from such killings. Similarly, travellers plying highways through territories where they risk falling victim to such ethno-religious attacks, should equally switch to alternative routes no matter the associated inconvenience of having to travel longer distances to and from their destinations. 

Admittedly, this suggestion may sound rather simplistic in a “civilized” environment where rule of law supposedly prevails. Yet, I believe it’s the most rational move to make under the current circumstances, especially considering how their plight hardly seems any closer to a real solution, at least not anytime soon.

Yet, one bears in mind the sheer amount of sacrifice necessarily involved in considering this suggestion, which some vulnerable individuals may consequently find too much to make. For instance, they may have worries over the repercussions of the relocation on their livelihoods. They would also probably have to cope with the associated emotional repercussion, because no matter what, one would certainly feel humiliated when forced to leave his native or even adopted area. In fact, some people may even choose to keep their pride intact by refusing to relocate even in the face of an immediate threat to their lives.

Nevertheless, realistically speaking, when these and other possible repercussions of the relocation are viewed against the backdrop of the sheer risk involved i.e. the risk of unnecessarily losing life, fleeing remains the most sensible alternative. Man, after all, has always instinctively given absolute priority to his survival over any other need.

Besides, inasmuch as such killings and other ethno-religious conflicts have already greatly damaged the livelihoods of many of such vulnerable communities, which rendered them unable to carry on their already largely petty businesses, I see no reason why they shouldn’t move to relatively safe areas where they can equally pursue their respective livelihoods. This is indeed worth it even if it entails starting over from scratch.

It’s equally important to add that there is nothing shameful about one fleeing for his life in the face of government failure to protect him. On the contrary, the whole shame remains on those responsible for protecting him but refuse to out of sheer unhumanistic insensitivity.