Speaking at a public lecture organized by the Refugee Law Project at Makerere University to mark the 50th anniversary of the expulsion of Asians last week, professors Sylvia Tamale and Samwiri Lwanga-Lunyiigo said that the economic domination and exploitation that caused the expulsion of Asians in 1972 is back in full swing and is attracting the same resentment like in the 1970s.
Prof Tamale, who retired recently as a professor at the Makerere Law School, said that the NRM government through the Departed Asians Custodian Board and the Uganda Investment Authority has been luring back Asians to the country, who have since resumed the same old exploitation of the natives.
Tamale said the people President Yoweri Museveni calls investors have over the years dominated the economy, benefiting from massive government subsidies such as free land and tax holidays among others while the locals have been left out.
Just like Tamale, Prof Lwanga-Lunyiigo, a retired professor of history, said what the government calls investors are people who come with nothing but are instead given a lot of the country’s resources.
Lwanga-Lunyiigo, whose latest book titled ‘Uganda: An Indian Colony’ has solicited a lot of debate, said Ugandans should start believing in themselves and also support native businesspeople. He said no country can develop when its natives have been left out. Lwanga-Lunyiigo also said if Asians don’t change course, he is convinced that what happened in 1972 is likely to reoccur.
“If they haven’t changed, if it is the same thing, if it is the same exploitation then there will be resentment. You never know what happens as that resentment builds up. We ourselves discriminate against our own but I think that is the problem. If it is against fellow Africans we don’t care, but the moment an Indian comes in, it is a different case. I can say it without batting an eyelid the Indians are racist and Prof Yash Tandon the other day when I was launching my book he said it. He said that 99% of Indians in Uganda are racist – from an Indian himself,” said Lwanga-Lunyiigo.
Lwanga-Lunyiigo also disagreed with Prof Mahmood Mamdani who in his lecture, said that Indians must be made native citizens of Uganda. He said this would be impossible because even the Indians don’t see themselves as Ugandans. He added that their failure to integrate with the locals means that they view themselves as a superior race.
“You can integrate into the society, that is was the Baganda were very good at; assimilating people. But Indians could not be assimilated because of the peculiarity of their culture. A few were like; Sugra Visram Namubiru who became a member of the lungfish clan and went and represented Buganda in the parliament…But many were not willing to be integrated. You see, when you have a prosperous minority, it is obvious. If they were poor, we wouldn’t notice them but they are prosperous and their prosperity depended on the exploitation of the natives,” said Lwanga-Lunyiigo.
Adding: “I don’t think that the Indians can change, no. Because they are here to make money, nothing else. In the 50s and early 60s, there was the action group a group of young Indian men…and their objective was to integrate with Africans, to come into the politics so that they can take power together. Many of these fellows went to UPC [Uganda People’s Congress party]…If we had had more action group people, maybe the events of 1972 would not have taken place.”
On his part, Mamdani, a renowned academic and, until February 2022, the executive director of the Makerere Institute of Social Research (MISR), said the situation that led to the 1972 expulsion of Indians and other people of Asian descent shouldn’t be compared to what is happening now. Mamdani said the pertinent question that must be addressed first, is the question of citizenship. He said many Indians like himself have no other place they call home other than Uganda.
“Well, citizenship is not just an Indian question, it is about the many minority groups in this country. I mean, there are the Somali, there are the Banyarwanda, there are the Nubians, there are even the Bafumbira who often face problems. So the citizenship question to me, is the question of indigenous and non-indigenous. If Uganda is going to say that only indigenous Ugandans have citizenship by birth, that means you have closed the door on your citizenship…and you should be prepared for the door to be closed on you also,” said Mamdani.
“In other words, Uganda should be prepared for Britain to say we can’t have any Ugandans who will have any British passport, for the Americans, Austrians to say the same thing, different groups of people to say the same thing. But if Uganda wants to live in the world, then it has to agree to rules applicable to everybody which is Ugandans and others states outside Uganda. It is cannot be a discussion where we just say what we want to hear without what we have there. We have to discuss both…In my sense of view, it makes no sense to talk of indigenous citizenship, none whatsoever. We have to look at the history of this country. All the communities in this country whose history I know, have admitted people from outside and once they have been admitted into the community they have not been defined as non-indigenous. Why define someone as non-indigenous, it means you can’t be assured of their loyalty. It means you’re telling them your stay is temporary. It is better not to have somebody than to have them on those terms,” Mamdani added.
In August 1972 President Amin gave thousands of Asians living in Uganda 90 days to leave the country on grounds that they were milking the economy and impoverishing native Ugandans.
Fifty years later, Mamdani says if the question of citizenship is addressed then dealing with the economic domination by some Indians would be very easy to deal with. He argued that the issue is not that all Indians are extremely rich.
“It’s just that some of the richest people are Indians, so, it’s a question of how to deal with wealth in a few hands when there are people who are extremely poor. It’s not a question about Indians; it’s a question that involves Indians. But we first decide who is a citizen and then we can discuss wealth among the citizens. Discussing wealth among the non-citizens is very difficult because they are to leave any time,” Mamdani said.
He added that in the discussion of the economic question, it’s important that even native businesspeople are involved.
“That question will lead us to a point where we will not be talking about Indians but we’ll be talking about different kinds of Indians. Indians who are Ugandans and Indians who are not Ugandans. Indians who are not Ugandans can be treated the same as any investor who is not a Ugandan. So that is a separate question, it can be discussed separately with the government. How do you protect Ugandan business and how do you invite foreign investment without throwing away Ugandan business?… Once you have identified Indians who are Ugandans, they must be treated like any other Ugandans, they should not accept any privilege. That is part of the responsibility of being local…Being a Ugandan comes with rights and responsibility. Being a non-Ugandan comes with no rights really and the privileges that the state offers or doesn’t offer you,” he added.
Mamdani also compared Museveni’s economics to that of Idi Amin, arguing that when both men assumed power, they realized that they had utopian views about the economy and had to abandon them.
“Amin comes to power and realises within the year that he didn’t have the resources to do what he promised to do. He came to power with the support of Israel and Britain, but he had to ditch them and look for opportunities elsewhere in Libya and Sudan. Museveni also realized that he had no power to do what he wanted, he tried barter trade and it didn’t work; he surrendered to the International Monetary Fund and the Americans,” Mamdani said.
inarticle} inarticle}