Maryam Uwais
the insurgency, is considered unpatriotic. The sincerity and patriotism of responsible Nigerians that continue to protest the absence of the girls, is put in question. Nigerians are informed that in other climes such as America, when such calamities befall a nation, citizens would rush out with their flags, demonstrating and drumming up support for their government. They conveniently forget that in those countries, their governments do not hesitate to act swiftly, as proof that it cares for its citizens. Other governments go the extra mile to demonstrate that their citizens, no matter the class, gender, religion or ethnicity, are the heart and soul of the country.
In most of these countries being cited, their presidents usually rush to the scenes of sudden disruption and violence, reaching out to the families of victims and survivors with words of solace, empathy and love. Indeed, there appears to be no limit to the extent that those governments would go to safeguard the rights of, and protect their own citizens. Those governments certainly do not make feeble excuses for their inability to show love or concern. Neither do they attempt to physically (using hired thugs) or verbally (through government agencies and spokesmen) attack those who venture to express solidarity with the victims or survivors of crises.
In Nigeria, we have a government where high-ranking public officials unabashedly inform the world that there is absolutely no benefit to the president visiting Chibok as such a trip would not ‘bring back the girls’. The motives of concerned citizens who remind government and it’s officials that it is their constitutional duty to protect and promote the welfare of citizens are denounced; official channels, sustained by tax payers money are utilised to lambast and discredit caring and conscientious citizens, because, after all, ‘none of them are the biological parents of the missing girls’.
In our clime today, members of the BBOG coalition are condemned and castigated by government officials for standing up for the girls; innocent Nigerian girls whose only ‘offence’ appears to have been their desire to better themselves by acquiring an education. Massive resources are sourced and allocated for the sole purpose of harassing and intimidating perceived enemies of government, whereas the military personnel fighting the insurgency in the field are in dire need of such resources, being bereft of the requisite wherewithal to effectively confront and combat the enemy.
What type of solidarity and support for government can be engendered by such an assault on the natural inclination to support fellow citizens; with alienation and intimidation? What culture are we borrowing from where we are told pointedly that we must not express solidarity and compassion unless we have blood ties or some kinship in common with the victims of violence and injustice? Why is it so inappropriate for a president to reach out to a grieving and apprehensive Nigerian community, even for the purposes of extending sympathies and reassuring those who are on the verge of losing hope, having lost kith and kin, as well as property and a home they can call their own?
Mrs Uwais, MFR, wrote from Abuja