History of Kenya
Mrs.
Nardi's 9th Grade World History Class
Lenox Memorial High School, Lenox, Massachusetts
KLFA
“Then
nobody noticed it; but looking back we can see that Waiyaki’s
blood contained with it a seed, a grain, which gave birth to a move-
ment…(Ngugi 12)
The first record of The Kenya Land and Freedom Army, KLFA ( known to the British as Mau Mau) was in September of 1948 and was considered a subgroup of the KCA. It had started as the youth wing of the KCA in city of Nyeri and yet was clearly subordinate to its elders. They were given jobs to run errands and keep watch during oathing ceremonies. This quasi-guardian role expanded as their numbers of oath-takers expanded (123). In training the new recruits, group leaders encouraged the dual concepts of “commitment and discipline”. Also to perform their assigned duties a new oath was developed. As historian David Tamarkin points out, “the goat replac[ed] the Bible as one of the main symbols…[and]…the oath included a commitment to steal arms and to kill whenever duty demanded” (Tamarkin 124). This subtle shift in symbolism and tone created an environment that would encourage militancy in the young members; it encouraged the riika warrior spirit of the young and could not be quelled once the oathing increased. This oath was the origin of the batuni or warrior's oath.
With these intensified tactics, the number of recruits escalated. As Caroline Elkins notes in Imperial Reckoning, “On the eve of the Mau Mau war, there were hundreds of thousands of Kikuyu who had taken the oath of unity, pledging their lives for Mau Mau and its demand for land and freedom” (Elkins 28). Although, there are discrepancies in just how many oaths were regularly taken (Otieno, nine, Elkins, seven), there is no doubt that it was widespread. Elkins data from the British colonial administration estimated that the first oath of unity was given to “nearly 1.5 million Kikuyu people” (Elkins 27). Their goal was to drive bwana (the masters) out of Kikuyuland and establish an independent Kenya. From a Western perspective they would be considered terrorists but from the perspective of the poor, alienated, and humiliated squatters and urban lumpenproletariat, they were fighting for suffrage, freedom and most importantly, land.
With such an increase in recruitment, there were bound to be conflicts. From the perspective of the newly empowered KAU, one of the first conflicts occurred between the elders and the youth wing; it focused on the pace and methods of recruiting new members—the elders insisting on “persuasion and social pressure” as the only form of recruitment (Tamarkin 124). The young agitators grew impatient with constitutional maneuverings from within the system; hence, they would prevail against the guidance of the elders. Tabitha Kanogo addresses this issue very succinctly when she notes in her book, "Squatters and the Roots of Mau Mau",
Weary of
the slow and unrewarding strategy that the KCA and KAU had adopted in
their nationalist struggle, these younger members
advocated the use of violence, mostly for the purposes of recruit-
ment of party supporters, but also possibly as a result of the batuni
oath. (Kanogo 130)
With the common sense of the elders rejected (including Kenyatta after 1946), the youth movement of KLFA (Mau Mau) changed the struggle for suffrage and political inclusion from a gradual constitutional effort to one of intense terrorist activities directed at chiefs, loyalists, and white settlers.
At no time did anyone ask the KLFA / Mau Mau why they were rebelling; their demands were not legitimate even though there was obvious justification for rebellion with the visible poverty and desperation of Kikuyu in both the cities and reserves. As Elkins explains,
Colonial
racist orthodoxy refused to allow for independent African
thought, let alone sophisticated social and economic grievances…
While recognizing the depth of Kikuyu anger, they thought it was
the result of Kenyatta’s manipulations and the so-called spell of
the
Mau Mau oath, rather that the outgrowth of legitimate complaints
rooted in individual circumstances. (Elkins 36)
The combination in the western culture of demands for control over African resources and racism blinded British governance in Kenya.
Links to two major leaders of the Kenya Land and Freedom Army
In the early part of the State of Emergency, none of the leaders of Mau Mau, Kubai, Kimathi, Itote, or Mutonyi as well as others, had anticipated the rush of events that occurred in Kenya. They were not, as yet, prepared to fight a guerilla war against the colonial government but it had been in their plan. They had been stockpiling weapons and ammunition yet had not had the opportunity to develop an overall strategy for war. Nevertheless, when Operation Jock Scott was executed, it is estimated that approximately 1000 militants fled to the forests; the most prominent of these was Warahiu Itote more commonly known as General China (Anderson 69). In the next few months, with the help of British repressive tactics, more disgruntled Kikuyu would join them as the colonial administrators harassed, screened, arrested, and detained many innocent Kikuyu. Also, the British forced closing of the Kikuyu Independent Schools because, as Anderson states, the government officials “…believed that the schools were ‘hot-houses of militancy’, that teachers had been instrumental in oathing their pupils and in preaching revolution, and…collect[ing]…money for the rebels” (72). This action was one more foolish administrative move that added to the number of Kikuyu fleeing into the forests.
As was Kikuyu tradition, medicine men accompanied Kikuyu warriors into battle, so Mau Mau had their own “mundu mugo wa ita (the Army’s medicine men)” who advised the group on routes and method which might have even included powerful magic. This particular phenomenon wreaked havoc with certain military operations when unexpected omens, such as animals, would cross a unit’s path and encourage desertion in its ranks. Even with these flaws, Mau Mau forest fighters fought with dedication and tenacity.
(It is estimated that in the final total there would be in the neighborhood of 20,000 men and women forest fighters who would be the core military wing of Mau Mau.)
The Assassinations
In May of 1952, Mau Mau assassinations began in earnest starting with the very unpopular Chief Waruhiu on October 9. This occurred only ten days after the arrival of the new Governor, Evelyn Baring, who, under intense pressure from the “hysterical” white settlers, declared a State of Emergency (Anderson 391).
The killing of whites began with the Bindloss family being beaten and continued on to include the Tullocks, an elderly couple who sustained severe injuries. However, the first European victim claimed by Mau Mau was Eric Bowker. He had retired to Kinangop on his farm after running a rural clothing establishment. He was slaughtered while taking a bath and his servants were killed as well. The next victims were the Meiklejohns who had prepared for an eventual attack by arming themselves but were unable to shoot in time. Both suffered multiple gashes from a panga, the weapon of choice for Mau Mau.
However, the sum total of white settlers murdered by the KLFA was miniscule compared to the numbers of victims of the State of Emergency declared by Governor Baring. Note statistics section on the Post Colonial page.