. j PAYSITE LONE AUTO BE TET EDITED BY: YOMI AKINYEYEA Nigerian Frontiersman: The Life and Works of Anthony Ijaola Asiwaju by Olufunke Adeboye Born of a colonially partitioned Ketu- Yoruba parentage at Imeko and brought up in Ado-Odo, both prominent (Nigerian) borderlands (Communities), Professor Anthony Asiwaju is a Nigerian fronterizo, who has not only lived through the problems of African boundaries as barriers, he is also acutely aware of the prospects of untapped potentials... as bridges.” Introduction understand his society through a study of its past, himselfis also a product of the society. This dialectical relationship is evident in the manner in which he impacts his society on the one hand, and in the way society fashions and directs his own gazes and emphases, on the other hand. Itis this paradigm that is employed here as we examine the life and works of Anthony Ijaola Asiwaju. His own background, upbringing and experiences in a border community which straddled Nigeria and the Republic of Benin, not only made him keenly aware of the disparity between his community and other ‘mainstream’ societies within the same Yoruba culture area, but also led him to re-conceptualize borders as bridges and not as barriers to communication. [: is a well-known fact that the historian does not only seek to It is, therefore, not surprising that Asiwaju’s academic/research career was devoted to issues pertaining to boundaries and comparative colonialism. The comparative element in his works encapsulates his desire to establish patterns and uncover underlying principles of inter group relations across national boundaries, and variations in the colonial experience in Africa. By this approach, he has been able to challenge existing models and explanations, and in the same breath proffered new models. This is indeed a passion borne out of experience. As a product ofthe famous (but now defunct) Ibadan School of History, he also imbibed the idea of history as a pragmatic tool although he transcended the borders- of the Ibadan school by employing concepts and models in his historical interpretation, and by seeking to directly influence public policy by his writings and advocacy on boundary issues. His numerous engagements with policy-makers in the public arena are testimonies to the relevance of this latter approach. ‘This chapter is divided into six parts. The first examines Anthony Asiwaju’s early life, while the second deals with his university training and academic career. The main thrusts of his scholarship are discussed in the third part. The fourth section examines his service to the nation and to the international community while the fifth part discusses his leadership within his local community and family life. The last segment assesses his impact on the historiography of colonialism and borderlands in Africa. Early Life Tjaola Asiwaju was born on April 27, 1939 to Peter Egbedele Alamu Asiwaju and Maria Solakunmi Ajinni Asiwaju (nee Agbaosi), both peasant farmers, at Ekunkan village, near Imeko in the Meko District of the Ilaro Division in the colonial Abeokuta Province.’ His parents were of Ketu extraction. The ancient Yoruba Kingdom of Ketu had been partitioned by the French and the British at the end of the nineteenth century. While the ‘traditional metropolis’ and heartland of the kingdom remained on the French side as part of the colony administered as Dahomey, their other kith and kin were part of the British colony of Nigeria.’ These included Imeko, Idofa, Iwoye and A fon, all of which were later grouped together as the ‘Meko District’ with the Onimeko designated first as ‘District Headman’, and later as ‘District Chief’ by the British colonial authorities. The distance between Imeko and Ketu was about 20 miles, and there were frequent movements of people across the border as they continued to relate with one another. However, the introduction of forced labour and the forceful conscription of young men into the colonial army in Dahomey in the 1920s had led to the migration of several people from the Ketu and Sabe areas to the Nigerian side The point being made is that Ijaola was born into a community that maintained close ties with their homeland and neighbours across today’s te Nigerian/Benin international boundaries. Tjaola’s parents were devout members of the Roman Catholic Church; hence their son was baptized as Anthony. The second of three siblings, Anthony at the age of eight years accompanied his parents " Oyede 4 4 village, a Ketu-settler community, near Ado-Odo in the same Ilaro Division of Abeokuta Province. Here, inhabitants compared life on the Dahomean side with what subsisted in their own community. Anthony recollects this relocation as a blessing for him because it gave him the opportunity to start school in 1949 albeit at the age of 10 years at St. Joseph’s Catholic School at Ado-Odo. His older brother had started schooling at Ajegunle near Oyede village, and Anthony had been scheduled to be a migrant farmer because his parents could not afford to put both of them in school at the same time.* Reminiscencing about his elementary school years, Professor Asiwaju identified three crucial factors that helped him in his formative years. First, there was the role played by Christian missionaries who nurtured him and supported his education. Principal among these was Monsignor Stephen Adewuyi, the pioneer Roman Catholic Missionary at Ado Odo. According to Asiwaju, it was in Adewuyi’s ‘guiding hands’ that he spent his crucial formative years as a pupil in St. Joseph's R.C.M. School, Ado-Odo. The second factor was more ofa divine intervention. Sometime late in the first year of his primary school education, Anthony was affected by the small pox epidemic, which had broken out in the then Egbado Division now Yewaland, in the early 1950s. This was a time when small pox was still considered a scourge of the Yoruba god, Sonponna, and subjected to local, rather than bio-medical treatment. Anthony was isolated in a small hut in the farm, where the local herbalist visited from time to time to administer several remedies. The impact of the disease on him was so strong that Anthony sometimes became delirious during which time he spoke of visitations from a spiritual persona who taught him several of the difficult areas he had encountered in his schoolwork. The immediate result of this was that after Anthony came out of the sickness, he became intellectually empowered and academic work, which used to be drudgery, now became a delight. His grades improved remarkably, and he rose to the top ofhis class. Over five decades later, Asiwaju alluded to this episode in the ‘Acknowledgements’ page in one of his publications thus: ... [cannot but continue to marvel at God and thank Him for the miracle of a special anointing in late 1949 through early 1950, at age 10-11, when he used a near-fatal small pox infection to sharpen my intellect in a dramatic way.°The third factor was the introduction of Free Education in the Western Region of Nigeria by the Action Group, led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo. By 1955, when Anthony Asiwaju was in Standard Five, he did not have to pay any school fees, and moreover, he was allowed, together with his classmates, to take the Primary School Leaving Examination in that year instead of waiting till the following year when he would be in Standard 6. By this, he saved one year, and was able to proceed immediately to a9~ St. Leo’s Teacher Training College, Abeokuta, another Catholic institution.” Anthony was in the Teacher Training College from 1956 to 1959. His ultimate ambition was to end up as a secondary school principal. He even toyed with the idea of joining the priesthood but probably dropped the idea when he met his ‘heartthrob’. After his graduation from the Teachers’ College, Anthony worked with the Catholic Mission as a teacher in the following schools: St Stephen’s Catholic School, Asokere Village Via Ado-Odo (January to May 1960); St Stephen’s Catholic Modern School, Ado-Odo (May to December 1960); St Augustine’s Catholic School, Adatan, Abeokuta (January 1961 to February 1962), and St. Mark’s Teacher Training College, Iperu-Remo (February 1962 to September 1963).* In September 1963, after he had privately studied to obtain his Advanced Level papers, Anthony got a Mission supported government scholarship, which enabled him to pursue undergraduate studies at the University of Ibadan from 1963-1966. Meanwhile, the realities of growing up in a border community were beginning to make a strong impression on the mind of Anthony as he entered his adult years. He visited Ketu, his ancestral homeland, for the first time in 1957 at the age of 18 years. This was during his days at the Teachers’ College. He described what he experienced in Ketu as a ‘culture shock’.'° Apart from speaking the local Ketu dialect, his cousins spoke French fluently. Before his visit he could not read any of the letters written to his father from their relations in Ketu, as these were also in French. After this visit, he resolved to learn French at the earliest available opportunity. This opportunity came in 1963 at the University of Ibadan. University Training and Career Anthony Asiwaju’s career as a professional historian could be dated from 1966 when he obtained a B.A. Honours degree in History from the University of Ibadan. He later undertook graduate studies in the same University before joining the University of Lagos in 1969 where he taught v and researched continuously for 35 years. The years he spent at the University of Ibadan thus constitute a vital part of his professional training. This training and his ensuing career form the nucleus of this segment. Anthony entered the University of Ibadan in the 1963/64 session, a year after it became a full-fledged university." This was also three years after the Nigerian nation attained independent status and there was talk about making the country’s educational institutions responsive to its needs and aspirations. Ofall the disciplines in the University of Ibadan, History was one of those most amenable to such adaptations. Right from the 1950s the Department of History had vigorously pursued a campaign led by the likes of Kenneth Onwuka Dike (with the active support of the Historical Society of Nigeria) to decolonise African History.'* New courses on African History were introduced, and by 1964, students studying for the honours degree could take a paper in Nigerian history and another in African history, with the option of offering a third also in African history"® The Department of History was staffed with scholars such as K. O. Dike, HEC. (later Abudullahi) Smith, J.F.A. Ajayi, C.C. Tfemesia, J.C. Anene, A.B. Aderibigbe, J.D. Omer-Cooper and E. A. Ayandele, all of whom made significant contributions to the development of what later became knownas the ‘Ibadan School of History’. This historical approach, which was essentially nationalist, emphasised African initiative and agency and sought to present A frican history from an African perspective. Part of the requirements for history honours students was that they should take French or Arabic as a subsidiary subject" (to enable them have access to primary sources in those languages). For Asiwaju, this was an opportunity he had been waiting for, and as was to be expected, he opted for the study of French. Unknown to his teachers, the mastery of French held more than the promise of an access to primary sources, it also became atool for overcoming communication barriers imposed on him by colonial boundaries between Nigeria and Dahomey. He paid special attention to his French studies, and very soon became proficient in the language. He was now relieved that anytime he went home on holidays, he could help his father to read the French letters, which his relations in Ketu had written him.'> Anthony’s study of history in Ibadan also helped in another dimension to give him a deeper understanding and appreciation of his ownenvironment, In the final year, history students were required to take aspecial subject, which was a documentary study of | ‘particular themes in 7African History. Of all the options available, Anthony chose ‘Yorubaland and Dahomey’.'* This study made him more aware of the artificiality of colonial boundaries and buttressed what he already knew from personal experience: the cultural unity of western Yorubaland and their: socio-political relations, which predated colonial times. Anthony enjoyed his undergraduate days at Ibadan. His classmates included Jide Osuntokun, Okon Uya and Saka Balogun. He graduated with a second-class upper degree, and together with Osuntokun, Uya and Balogun, was awarded a University scholarship for the pursuit ofa higher degree. Meanwhile, post-graduate training programmes had been established in Ibadan from the 1961/62 session, and the support of the Federal Government and other external bodies such as American Foundations of Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie made it possible for the Postgraduate College to award scholarships to deserving students."” However, having enjoyed a scholarship from the Catholic Mission, during his undergraduate years Anthony was obligated to fulfill the terms of the bond of service by teaching for some time under the mission. With the intervention of Professors E. A. Ayandele and J. C. Anene, both of the History department, Ibadan, the Right Rev. Anthony Sanusi, Catholic Bishop of Ijebu-Ode, who was then the Catholic Education Secretary for Western Nigeria in 1966, was able to negotiate Asiwaju’s release Bee of service, enabling him to pursue his graduate studies at While Anthony’s Ph.D thesis was supervised by Professor E. A. Ayandele, itwas Professor J. F. Ade Ajayi who suggested the idea ofa comparative study of British and French rule in western Yorubaland to him. Anthony Was at first not willing to embrace the idea of a comparative study because of the potential challenges such an exercise portended such as the need tobe familiar with more than one social system, linguistic challenge inherent in transnational comparisons, consideration of theoretical and conceptual framework to be employed in such comparison and so on." But his own background as a frontiersman helped him to tackle some of these issues. He could now speak French in addition to the local Ketu dialect and English. With these languages, he could obtain information from both sides of the British/French border. His previous study of Dahomey and Yorubaland also ensured that he was not a novice in terms of ‘understanding the two social contexts. Vv The first year of Anthony’s research was devoted partly to addressing issues of methodology and he was tutored in this line by Dr. Ruth Finnegan, who was then with the Department of Sociology, University of Ibadan. Dr. J.A. Ballard of the Department of Political Science, University of Ibadan also assisted in supervising the research at this early stage. These contacts gave Anthony a multidisciplinary perspective, which he brought to bear on his writings. To collect data, he visited archives in Dakar (Archives Nationales du Senegal, Dakar), Paris (Archives Nationales Section Outre-Mer), Dahomey (Archives Nationales du Dahomey, Porto- Novo and Archives de la Sous-Prefecture de Ketou), London (Archives of the Methodist Missionary Society, London). On the Nigerian side he consulted materials at the Egbado Divisional Council Archives, Ilaro; the National Archives, Ibadan, and the Ibadan University Library. Apart from collecting documentary sources, he also conducted extensive interviews in Sabe, Ketu, Ipobe, Ifonyin and Itakete on the French side, and also in the entire Egbado Division on the British side.” The main significance of the thesis was that it sought to account for the differences in British and French administrations in West Africa, not in the variation of local cultural presentations, but in the divergence of colonial administrative theories or principles. Western Yorubaland, which he studied, had arelatively homogenous culture with deep historical ties. However colonial policies of both the British and the French varied, producing different results in an otherwise similar culture area. This type of comparison has been characterised as a ‘variation-finding comparison’ in which different cases (British and French colonial administrations) are presented as variations of one particular phenomenon, which in this case is colonialism.” Asiwaju was awarded the PhD degree of the University of Ibadan in 1971, but before then, he had secured an appointment at the University of Lagos in 1969, as Lecturer Grade II in the History Unit of the Division of Arts of the then College of Education.” The collegiate system that was in operation at the College of Medicine was also adopted in Education. This system has been eulogized as “an ingenious device for reconciling the need for local autonomy with the necessity for overall control by Senate and Council”. It was seen as an attempt to render overall control less irksome. However, the lack of uniformity in administrative systems employed in other branches of knowledge in the university led toduplication of a few disciplines such as History. When Asiwaju joined the staff of the University of Lagos, there were three units of History in the institution, namely, the History Department of the School of Humanities, the History Unit of the Division of Arts in the College of Education, and the History Unit in the School of A frican and Asian Studies.24 However, it was the Department of History, School of Humanities, that moderated examinations and vetted promotions in the History Unit in the College of Education. When Professor J. F. AdeAjayi became the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Lagos in 1972, a lot of reorganization took place in the administrative structure of the institution. The faculty system was gradually applied to the whole university (except the College of Medicine). For instance, the School of Humanities and the School of African and Asian Studies were merged into a Faculty of Arts; while the College of Education became a Faculty of Education in 1975.” This restructuring also saw the merging of the three History units. In October 1975, Asiwaju thus moved to the Department of History of the new Faculty of Arts as Senior Lecturer. The following year, Longman published his Ph.D. thesis as Western Yorubaland under European Rule 1889-1945: A Comparative Analysis of French and British Colonialism under the Ibadan History Series. The book became very popular instantly and was reviewed by leading Africanists such as Richard Rathbone and Godfrey Brown respectively of the School of Oriental and African Studies and Institute oft Ge Education of the University of London, John Flint (Dalhousie University Canada), Raymond F. Betts (University of Kentucky), L. H. Gann (Stanford University), Agneta Pallinder-Law (University of Glasgow), Andrew Porter (King’s College, London), J. D. Y. Peel (SOAS), P. C. Lloyd, A. H. M. Kirk-Greene at Oxford. In fact, it could be said that Western Yorubaland under European Rule was the most reviewed of Asiwaju’s works and one of the best reviewed in the Ibadan History Series, and this immediately shot him into the limelight ofacademic scholarship. In June 1978, Asiwaju became a Professor of | History, and from 1979 to 1982 was Head of the Department of History. From the mid 1970s to the late 1980s, the Department of History, just like the entire University of Lagos, witnessed what has been termed an era of ‘consolidation and growth’.** In History, new courses were introduced, namely “A fro-Islamic 10 Civilization, Economic History of West Africa, International Relations, Latin American History” in addition to already existing courses among which the ‘History of Lagos’ enjoyed a central position.”’ Post-graduate studies also took off in the 1980s and by the 1990s had become well established. By the end of Asiwaju’s second tenure as Head of Department (1999-2001), he had successfully introduced several courses on the historical study of borderlands at the graduate level. His interest in borderland studies was an offshoot of his earlier focus on western Yorubaland, and this interest later became the major focus of his scholarship. The new borderland courses included: Comparative Borderland History, the Evolution and Impact of European Borders, Africa’s International Boundaries, Border Case Studies: Nigerian and U.S./Mexico Borders, and Politics of Regional Integration: A Comparison of the African and European Historical Experience. These courses thus make Borderlands Studies a possible area of specialization for graduate students in history.”* Outside the Department of History, Professor Asiwaju was also involved in university administration. He was Dean of Faculty of Arts from 1983- 1985; Member, Appointment and Promotions Board, 1979-1981; Member, Board of Governors of the College of Medicine, 1981-83; Chairman, Endowment Fund Management Board, 1995-1997; Member, University of Lagos Governing Council, 1996-2000; Chairman, Staff Welfare Advisory Board, 1997-2000; and Chairman, Central Research Committee, 1998-2000. As a professional historian, Asiwaju was also very active in the Historical Society of Nigeria, the umbrella association for historians in Nigeria. He joined the body in 1966 as a graduate student, and since then had played various roles in it. He was ti General Secretary of the Society from 1976-1979, and co-editor (with Michael Crowder) of Tarikh, the society’s Journal of African history for College Students, from 1977-1982. Between 1982 and 1987, he was editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria. This journal has since become moribund as the society gradually became inactive in the 1990s. Inits hey-day, the Journal published the results of cutting-edge research in African History carried out by A fricanists and was circulated beyond Nigeria (in Europe, U.S., Canada, and in other parts of Africa). In 2001, Asiwaju became the founding Director of the Centre for African Regional Integration and Border Studies (CARIBS) established by the llUniversity of Lagos. The centre derived inspiration from the Program on International Cooperation in Africa (PICA) set up by the Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, United States of America.” The focus of CARIBS is on the problems and prospects presented by national boundaries inherited by independent A frican States. The idea is to look into ways of strengthening regional and sub-regional projects by exploiting opportunities inherent in these border presentations. This would further prove the relevance of academics in facilitating regional dialogue and cooperation. Of the different programmes proposed by the centre, it has been successful in hosting national conferences and workshops on boundary-related issues and matters of African regional integration.° Probably due to lack of funds, its other programmes such as Faculty Research and graduate studies, short-term training programmes (for policy executors), interactions and Exchanges (institutional linkages with overseas research institutes), database and specialised research collection (as well as special publications), are yet to materialize. In the area of providing consultancy services and engaging in advocacy, Asiwaju successfillly did that as exemplified in his involvement in the Nigeria-Cameroon Border issue. He was appointed by the Federal Governments the Leader of the Nigerian delegation to the sub-commission on Affected Populations of the UN — Nigeria-Cameroon Mixed Commission on the 2002 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Judgement on the Land and Maritime Boundary Dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon from June 2003 to April 2004. Although this assignment fell within the tenure of, ‘Asiwaju as Director of CARIBS, it appears he was considered for the task more because of his personal antecedents in Border-related scholarship and advocacy than for the institutional popularity of the centre.”' It is however hoped that the centre will mature and live up to the visions of its founding fathers in the not too distant future.** Asiwaju’s Scholarship The task of discussing Asiwaju’s scholarship is not an easy one. This is because he has more than seventy publications to his credit”. However, his main contributions to historical scholarship could be situated within the sub-disciple of comparative history. This branch of historical research employs a methodology that exposes the historian to more than one presentation of the phenomena being examined. While this approach has several advantages among which is the fact that it imposés some degree 12 of broadmindedness on the historian, which in turn enables him to generalize, it is also extremely tasking because it demands of the practitioner competence in, and familiarity with, more than one socio- political context. That Anthony Asiwaju was able, not only to master this genre but also to excel in it, is a testimony of his keen intellect. The two main historical themes to which he has applied this approach are: comparative colonialism, and comparative borderland and boundary politics. Comparative Colonialism Asiwaju’s first love was comparative colonialism, namely, French and British rule in Western Yorubaland. His Ph.D. thesis as indicated in the section above examines the similarities and differences in the colonial policies of these two European powers in Nigeria and Dahomey (later Benin). While he has since published several other works on comparative colonialism, his Western Yorubaland Under European Rule published in 1976, remains a seminal, and in fact, his most outstanding contribution to the subject. Close to the end of his teaching career at the University of Lagos, he also published West African Transformations: Comparative Impacts of French and British Colonialism, ** which was an amplification of some of the issues earlier raised in Western Yorubaland, and it is to the latter that we now tum as we analyse Asiwaju’s views on French and British rule in West Africa. Western Yorubaland could be seen as a contribution to the debate on the degree of differences/similarities between British and French colonialism in Africa. On one side of the debate, Hubert Deschamps had argued that at the grassroots level, the differences in British and French colonial policies ‘were very minimal,** while Michael Crowder on the other hand stressed the contrasts between the two colonial regimes and also between their metropolitan inspiration.** At another level, while one school of thought attributed the differences in British and French modes of colonialism to the variation in the philosophies of the two powers (indirect rule versus direct rule/assimilation), another accounted for it in terms of variations in local circumstances. This was in the 1960s. By 1976 when Asiwaju’s Western Yorubaland came out, the controversy had subsided. His book thus reopened the debate, hence the belief in some quarters that the issues raised by Asiwaju were quite stale.” However, coming from the background of the Ibadan School of History, which already had a 13reputation for sound scholarship, many A fricanists were eager to see what new perspectives Asiwaju had to offer on the issue, and what revisions this might in turn facilitate in the existing knowledge on comparative colonialism of the French and British in West Africa, Asiwaju used the case study of the western Yoruba to highlight the differences in the administrative policies of the British and the French. He also compared the attitudes of the two colonial regimes to local chieftaincy; taxation, forced labour and conscription; agriculture, trade and other aspects of the economy; missionary enterprise, education and the emergence ofan A frican educated elite. His conclusion is that the British were relatively more tolerable than the French as reflected in the reaction of the local people to the policies of the two overlords. Scholars immediately began to identify the strengths and weaknesses in Western Yorubaland in numerous reviews of the book that came out. A major strength of the work is the fact that it successfully contrasted British and French rule within a common culture area unlike previous works, which tended to focus on different cultural zones. In this regard, Asiwaju’s efforts in Western Yorubaland acquired a pioneering status.** However, this same advantage of having to analyse a common cultural backdrop was believed to have been vitiated by Asiwaju’s adoption of an attitude that suggested that he was dealing with a ‘laboratory situation’ in which factors other than the impact of the colonial powers were maximally constant.*’ This approach, according to Pallinder-Law made Asiwaju to understress certain crucial issues such as: the importance of the border itself; and the fact that the British were not so different from the French in terms of their assault on chieftaincy institutions. While opinions may differ as to how much stress should be accorded particular factors, the implicit value of Pallinder-Law’s critique seems to lie in the caution that the adoption ofa ‘laboratory situation’ approach predisposes the author to overlooking or taking for granted certain subtle variations, which might have enriched his study. Again, Asiwaju’s conclusions on the relative ‘superiority’ (or ‘benevolence’) of British policies vis-a-vis the French attracted several reactions. Babatunde A giri, ina very critical review of the book published in 1978, accused Asiwaju of overjustifying British policies. Agiri noted that while a few chiefs on the British side gained additional authority, others suffered considerable loss of prestige, and that the Onimeko 14 _ (Asiwaju’s favourite example), even though promoted by the British, was never regarded as being an equal of the Ooni of Ife or even the Alake of Egbaland. Similarly, Agiri considers Asiwaju’s description of British role inthe economic development of Egbado as exaggerated and misleading. Not only was the colonial economy exploitative, it was also partly responsible for some of the activities of the people such as cross-border smuggling." P. C. Lloyd’s criticisms of Asiwaju on this same score were much more subtle. He suggests that a deeper analysis of social, political and economic changes in the two colonies might in fact expose greater similarity in the “pattems of social change”.*? Other scholars have lamented what they described as the ‘perfunctory’ way in which Asiwaju allegedly handled the closing chapters of the book, which deal with social institutions, education, and religion.” Perhaps, the most virulent ifnot outlandish of the reactions to Asiwaju’s Western Yorubaland is Andrew Porter’s review published in the Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History in 1977“ According to Porter, although Asiwaju tries to contribute to the larger debate on the differences/ similarities between French and British methods of colonial rule, the way inwhich this reviewer joins issues indiscriminately with other authors shows that he is unaware of the different nuances in the historiography of colonialism. Porter acknowledges the fact that different authors focus on different aspects of colonial reality and differ in principle over what they consider ‘fundamental’ in the general debate. However, reading in between the lines, it appears that Porter’s criticism was directed not so much against Western Yorubaland but against a review article earlier published by’ Asiwaju titled “New Trends in Colonial Historiography” in the Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria in which he had criticised, the volume co-edited by Gifford’s and Louis, titled France and Britain in Africa** (Yale University Press, 1971). The purported review of Western Yorubaland by Porter thus turned out to be a rejoinder to the earlier article by Asiwaju. Porter justifies this insidious approach by claiming that Western Yorubaland is a continuation (substantiation) of the general criticisms made by Asiwaju in ‘New Trends in Colonial Historiography”, While Porter’s conclusion seek to denigrate Western Yorubaland, it conceded the fact that it was rich in ‘local and factual material’. However, not all reviews of Western Yorubaland were this hostile. Others commended its revisionist assessment of colonial rule, especially the 15chapters that deal with chieftaincy and civic obligations.*” Unlike other works on African resistance to colonialism which generalize on the local reaction to the colonial powers. Asiwaju identified different patterns in West African reaction to colonial rule—the people first welcomed the French and British, but later as colonial policies began to unfold, that welcome gradually transformed to resistance. Asiwaju also brings together aspects of Anglophone and Francophone West African history hitherto separated by previous scholars. By so doing, he was also able to demonstrate the cultural unity of certain enclaves in West Africa which predated colonial rule.** In addition, his choice of Western Yorubaland brought into academic limelight an area that had long been neglected by scholars.” His generalizations are backed with impressive evidence, which makes the work a thoroughly researched piece.® And, for some reviewers, Western Yorubaland was an example of how a good Ph.D. research should be conducted because of its methodological merit (i.e. the comparative approach) and painstaking analysis.°! In 2001, Asiwaju pooled together most of his other publications on comparative colonialism (which had been scattered in several journals and edited books) as a collection of essays titled: West African Transformations: Comparative Impacts of French and British Colonialism. While many of the issues raised in the collection had been broached in Western Yorubaland, several newer elements were also added such as the extension of the study area to include Benin (the Edo _ Kingdom) and other parts of Nigeria’s Western Provinces, and Borgu, which falls within the Northem Provinces, all in colonial Nigeria. Asiwaju presented this vast region lying between the River Mono and the River Niger as the area of his primary research activities. Also new are cases of protest migrations in Upper Volta (Burkina Faso) and Ivory Coast (Cote d’Ivoire); and the biographical essay on Louis Hunkarin (who had only got a passing reference in Western Yorubaland.’”) On the socio- economic impact of colonial rule, Asiwaju introduces a comparison of the co-operative movement in French West Africa and British Nigeria. The case of the impact of colonial rule on traditional chieftaincies was also emphasised among other things, with the increasing quest for beaded crowns by Yoruba Obas and the way they manipulated oral traditions in their search for legitimacy, Perhaps, the most important contribution of West African v 16 Transformations to the historiography of colonialism in Africa is the way it links its findings to the contemporary situation in post-colonial West Africa. Forinstance, the colonial style of authoritarian government is believed tohave set the pattern for post-colonial states especially in Francophone West Africa “where power has remained centralised and interventioristin the economy, land tenure and rural life to the detriment of traditional institutions and customs”.** Also, the work provides an understanding of the nature and processes of social change in post-colonial West A fricathrough its discussion of the cultural impacts of colonialism, via a comparative analysis of French and British educational policies. In addition, it highlights the institutional antecedents of contemporary attempts at achieving regional and continental integration. Some of these antecedents, described as “functionalist, socio-economic relationships among the various states of the West African region” even predated colonial rule,** and were reinforced by several cross-border or transnational organizations during the colonial period. This concern of Asiwaju for cross-border cooperation is the focus of his second main area of research interest examined below. Comparative Borderlands and Boundary Politics ; u The publication, in 1984, of Partitioned Africans: Ethnic Relations Across African International Boundaries 1. 884-1 984, edited by ‘Anthony \e Asiwaju marked what he calls a ‘watershed’ in his research career, which could be sub-divided into two main phases. The period between 1969 * (and 1984 was devoted to the pursuit of the theme of comparative r U )colonialism while the second phase from 1984 till 2004 was marked by a devotion to the theme of Comparative Borderlands and Boundary Politics, which also dovetailed into analyses of Regional Integration attempts ip ‘Africa, Partitioned Africans is thus a signal publication. In the editor’s \* “Preface”, the book is presented as an attempt to “focus on the human factor in A frican’s international boundaries, which existing studies: of those boundaries have tended to ignore”.* In other words, the book examines the impact of partition on the local peoples. The case studies examined in the collection are thus grassroots micro studies. The edited volume, which was originally conceived as an extension of. ‘Asiwaju’s pioneering works onthe experiences of the Yoruba partitioned by the ‘Nigeria/Benin border and the Akan and related groups split by the boundaries of the Gold Coast (Ghana) with Ivory Coast and Upper Volta, empathizes with the 17plight of the partitioned peoples.* This makes it a book written largely from an African perspective. Another major significance of the book is that it demonstrates clearly that the division of people from the same culture area into two or more states is not peculiar to A frica. This helps to situate the A frican experience within the global context, making it possible to compare developments in different borderlands in the world and to see how measures that proved effective in one area could be adapted for other areas. However, it appears that Asiwaju’s eagerness to distinguish his collection from previous works that dealt with the historical and diplomatic process of boundary-making (in the 19" C), the irredentist policies which the creation of artificial boundaries have fostered in the continent, and the reaction of bodies like the OAU to them, made him gloss over aspects of border management, and “the political realities of such irredentism as may exist or may appear along A frica’s interstate borders”.*’ The eight chapters in the middle section of the book provide interesting case studies written by experts from different regions in A frica (excluding North Africa though). One would have expected Asiwaju’s concluding chapter to summarize and draw out general patterns raised in the main chapters as a follow-up to his ‘Introduction’. Rather, in what Ivor Wilks* considers a “fair approach’, Asiwaju decides to postpone ‘generalization’ and ‘rigorous analysis’ till a time when ‘further research, which the present efforts are hoped to generate’, would have produced enough data.” The concluding chapter, however, incorporates a comparative analysis (which appears to be one of Asiwaju’s strong points) of partitioned peoples in other parts of the world with those in Africa. Ona general note, it seems the debate on what should have constituted rational boundary lines in Africa is one on which there cannot be any consensus. While accusing fingers have been pointed at European statesmen for arbitrarily dividing up Africa with virtually no recourse to the feelings or fate of the peoples concerned, the other side of the coin is to ask that even if the people had been consulted, was there any way that boundary lines would have satisfied all concemed given the incidence of pre-colonial, local imperialism in which certain mega states and empires had encroached on, and appropriated the territories of their militarily weaker neighbours, redrawing as it were several national boundaries? Some of the policy recommendations made by Asiwaju havebeen faulted Vv 18 by other scholars. One is the policy of “giving additional power to the frontier local governments to cope with problems arising from their peculiar position along international boundaries”. This policy, according to Olu Agbi, could tum a frontier Local Government into a state within a state.*' Moreover, the cooperation which such an arrangement is expected to facilitate across the border rests largely on goodwill, which in reality, “cannot, and has never been known to regulate inter-state relations”. Despite the idealist nature of this particular policy recommendation, Partitioned Africans remains a significant contribution of Asiwaju (and not less of the chapter authors) to the study of borderlands in Africa. His desire is that present boundaries be retained (irrespective of their inadequacies), but that they should be converted from “‘hostility-oriented functions as lines of exclusion to more productive, more harmonious, and from the viewpoint of traditional African history, more defensible roles as lines of mutual contact and inclusion”.® This is Asiwaju at his best, a historian with a pragmatic approach to the study of the past i.e. engendering the idea ofa useable past. However, one is tempted to question the level of detachment and objectivity of Asiwaju here, as a historian, given the fact that he is a product of such an environment. Would he have been equally concemed with the ‘localized impact’ of boundaries on indigenous communities ifhe had not been from one of them? Much of what Asiwaju stated in Partitioned Africans was crystallized in his inaugural lecture, published by the University of Lagos in 1984, as Artificial Boundaries. And just as he did on the subject of comparative colonialism, in 2003 Asiwaju packaged twenty of his previous essays on boundary related issues in a single-volume publication titled: Boundaries and African Integration: Essays in Comparative History and Policy Analysis. The essays in this work, according to Asiwaju, “mark a significant departure from the theme of comparative colonialism and a dramatic entry into the interrelated but more policy — explicit field of comparative territorial history and borderlands studies”™ Again, as a pragmatic historian, Asiwaju’s concem for venturing into this field was to find “durable solution to the ever widening and deepening crises that have confronted virtually all of Africa’s post-colonial states presenting mostly as boundary disputes and conflicts within and, more especially, between adjacent states”. He thus explores the linkages between boundary politics on the one hand, and regional peace, security and sustainable development on the other 19hand. The comparative element in the essays also makes it possible for him to draw valuable lessons from European and North American experiences on how to manage vivisected ethnic groups, and from attempts at regional organisations represented by the European Union (EU) and the area of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Asiwaju also examines the main causes of boundary conflicts in Africa and recommends strategies for resolving them, while at the same time drawing attention to the integrative prospects of cross-border trade. His vision is that ofa ‘new’ Africa in which state boundaries would no longer serve as barriers to meaningful intercourse but as bridges and contact points. He desires a reconceptualization and reconstruction of African frontiers as “assets rather than liabilities for the achievement of peace, security and sustainable development for the region.” However, itis sad that often, government does not always heed the policy recommendations of scholars. A case in point is that of the Bakassi Peninsula crisis between Nigeria and Cameroon. Ina paper published in 1998°”, which was later reproduced as chapter 13 of Boundaries and African Integration, Asiwaju had proposed peaceful means of resolving the crisis instead of war and litigation. This was after Cameroon had taken Nigeria to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judicial arm of the United Nations sitting at The Hague, in March 1994. Asiwaju recommended that the solution of the dispute must be in steering the events away from the path of unproductive armed confrontation and vexatious litigation back to the more desirable alternative of transborder cooperation policy promotion, including joint-venture efforts for the optimal exploitation of transboundary resources, especially hydrocarbon deposits and, for the benefit of the local people, fisheries, which are at the heart of the festering dispute over the Bakassi Peninsula’® In other words, Asiwaju preferred an out-of-court settlement, which was in tine with the submissions of other boundary and legal scholars.” It is not unlikely that these recommendations would have been presented to the relevant Nigerian authorities because Asiwaju was the first Commissioner (International Boundaries) of the National Boundary Commission from July 1988 to July 1994. However, these recommendations were not heeded, and Nigerian authorities refused to be ‘cowed’ by Cameroon, a much smaller state (but with French backing). Nigeria thus expended a lot of resources (human and material}, o defend 20 her claims to the Bakassi Peninsula. Eventually in 2002, after eight years of litigation, the ICJ gave its final judgement in favour of Cameroon. It rejected most of the claims made by Nigeria and upheld the land boundaries as they existed between the two states in the colonial period (which was what Cameroon had been pressing for).”' Up till the time of writing this piece, Nigeria is still finding it difficult to cometo terms with its defeat on the Bakassi issue. Not only did Nigeria lose Bakassi, it also lost other advantages/benefits that could have accrued to it if it had toed the line of peace proposed by Asiwaju. Such benefits included: respect and trust for Nigeria from Cameroon and other immediate neighbours, international goodwill; and tremendous material and human resources that could have been channelled into other productive ventures.” There is also the impact of the ICJ judgement on the affected Nigerian populations (about 150,000) in Bakassi, who have legally been turned into Cameroonians overnight. Meanwhile, Asiwaju’s major concern remains that the other potential ‘Bakassis’ on the continent must be prevented from exploding by the various governments: concerned, whose responsibility itis to create institutions that will transform national borders into bridges of cooperation. Failure to do this would result into outbreak of hostilities in which the indigenous populations ultimately become the Other Aspects of Asiwaju’s Scholarship Apart from his emphasis on comparative colonialism and boundary-related issues in Western Yorubaland, Asiwaju also has other publications on the historiography of Westem Yorubaland, which deal with general cultural issues and matters of communal identity. Such works include: “Efe Songs as a Source of Western Yoruba History”; “A Note on the History of Sabe: An Ancient Yoruba Kingdom in Dahomey”; and, The Birth of Yewaland.” His works on general Yoruba history include: “Dynamics of Yoruba Studies” and “Political Motivation and Oral Traditions in Africa: The Case of Yoruba Beaded Crowns, 1900-1960". The publication on the Yoruba crowns was well received, not only by scholars of Yoruba studies, but also by Yoruba traditional authorities for whom it presented a more ‘global’ view of the politics of beaded crowns beyond their individual domains.” In addition to the above are other works by Asiwaju that could be described as miscellaneous because they do not fall into any of the main categories of his research focus. Examples of these are: “The 21Funj Sultanate of Sennar, 1500-1821” and “Localized Impact” (of the University of Lagos).”° Asiwaju is also a frontiersman in another sense, namely, of straddling disciplinary boundaries. Though a historian, he did not restrict himself to the confines of his discipline. Rather he crossed into the social sciences where he freely utilized concepts and theories as interpretative grids for his historical data. This conceptualization of historical discourse really distinguished Asiwaju from his contemporaries; fellow products of the Tbadan School of History, which has been accused ofa lack of theoretical underpinning despite its interdisciplinary bias”. Asiwaju’s rigorous conceptualization is demonstrated in the way he utilizes Western social science theories and concepts such as ‘frontiers’’’, ‘borders’, ‘gateway communities’”, ‘limitrope states’, ‘peace’, “security’**, and the manner in which he adapts these concepts to African situations e.g. his modification of ‘Euregio’ to ‘A fregio”*'. It appears that his commitment to a comparative methodology particularly made him to pay more attention to theoretical issues because comparisons necessitate generalization, which in tum compels an interest in theories. Lhis theoretical perspective is further reinforced by the policy-sensitivity of Asiwaju’s research career. He shares the opinion of Michael Hechter that“‘the writing of history itself requires the use of some kind of intellectual framework, whether ‘implicit’ or ‘explicit’ and that the historian’s decision about topics, units of analysis and theories of social action constitute frameworks for the selection and organization of data’*?. Moreover, it is the belief of Asiwaju that a competent deployment of theories by historians would enable them, not only to make significant contributions to world history, but also to “join issues with their colleagues in the social sciences in the on-going debate about regionalization and globalization processes®. This cross-disciplinary emphasis is also reflected in the way Asiwaju vollaborates with scholars from different disciplinary backgrounds, ranging from the humanities to law, social sciences, and even the physical sciences. Ofthe fourteen books to his credit (monographs excluded), ten of them are collaborative works in which he edited, co-edited, or co-authored with other scholars™. This brings us to Asiwaju’s conception of history. The past to him must necessarily be useable; therefore his view of history is a pragmatic one. is 22 Hesees historical reconstructions as a means to an end. To him, the task ofthe historian is, among other things, “to make more explicit the social relevance of ... [the] discipline”*’. History should help in solving ‘society’s problems by providing illumination that deepen understanding of the past as explanation of the present. The comparative methodology particularly exposes the historian, as well as the society to varieties in socio-political forms. It also, in the same breath, shows that the human experience is basically the same; environmental and cultural variations make for the differences. To drive home the contemporary relevance of | his historical scholarship, Asiwaju always ended his publications with ‘policy recommendations’ and ‘suggestions’, which are meant to assist policy makers. In addition, his focus lately has been more on contemporary issues, which further proves that his idea of history incorporates the recent past. While this makes him unique, it also makes him liable to the chargq of iconoclasm from more conservative historians. National and International Service 21 264 f Atthe national level, Anthony Asiwaju had used, and is still using, his professional skills to serve his country. From 1985 to 1987, he was invited by the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, to participate in their Research Project on Border Defence and Security, * The report on this project, prepared by. Asiwajuhas since been published as Report on the Nigeria-Benin Border: A Comparative, Historical and Policy Analysis, by the NIPSS. In 1997, he was appointed an ‘expert’ member of the Ogun State Boundary Committee, and later in 2003 was made the State’s Boundary Commissioner, a position he still holds till date. Perhaps the most crucial national service rendered, by. ‘Asiwaju was. as th fi pioneer Commissioner (International Boundaries) -of the Nationa] { } Boundary Commission (hereafter NBC) from 1988 to 1994. Before the NBC was created by decree in 1987 under the military regime of General Ibrahim Badamosi Babangida, the national approach to boundary issues was ‘ad hoc and uncoordinated’* The various international boundaries had been placed under the supervision of different federal agencies. The NBC was thus to ensure proper policy coordination, and to promotq “peaceful resolution of existing boundary disputes as well as conflic| prevention through transborder co-operation between government ane development planning authorities as well as communities on both sides of 23borders both within and across the national space”.‘’ The appointment as Boundary Commissioner gave Asiwaju the opportunity to test the practicability of some of his own policy recommendations, particularly the bit about turning borders into bridges of amity. In his own words, his tenure at the NBC exposed his scholarship “to the real world of border policy-making”. Right from its inception, Asiwaju, together with other functionaries and experts designed the NBC as a problet-solving institution with a policy coordinating mandate over both international and internal boundary issues.*” The problem-solving approach of the commission was one that ensured that in the event of any boundary dispute between Nigeria and another state, reconciliation would be sought in producing a ‘win-win’ situation “which holds a greater promise for a more enduring solution” rather than ‘the winner-takes-all’ stance engendered by military confrontations and judicial processes.” In other words, the policy of the NBC was to seek peaceful ways of solving boundary issues instead of contentious litigation or by force of arms. In addition to seeking for harmonious solutions to outstanding border disputes between Nigeria and some ofher neighbours such as Cameroon, the NBC also adopted a proactive approach in dealing with her friendly neighbours to ensure that relations (both at the official and unofficial levels) were not allowed to degenerate. In this respect, several programmes were designed and carried out, while the NBC drew from the European experience presented in the 1980 European Outline Convention in Transfrontier Cooperation between Territorial Communities or Authorities."' The successfully executed programmes included bilateral Transborder Cooperation Workshops between Nigeria and each of the countries with which it shares an international boundary, namely, Republic of Benin (1988), Niger (1989), Cameroon (1992 May), and Equatorial Guinea (1992 November).” There were also Confidence — Building Missions led by the Nigerian Minister of External Affairs to Benin in April 1990, and Cameroon in August 1991. Both the bilateral workshops and the Confidence-Building Missions were aimed at allaying the fears of Nigeria’s neighbours about her territorial ambitions towards them, The main focus was on dialogue among all parties concerned.” In 1989, the NBC had also organised a Vv 24 Planning Conference for the Development of Nigerian Border Lagos, in which the role of Local Governments and States ed in border regions as development agencies has been articulated." efforts were beginning to yield positive results as the countries ed to cooperate, which in turn produced a dramatic reduction in ‘border tensions.”* However, towards the end of Asiwaju’s tenure at the NBC things began to change. The problem-solving approach was jettisoned in late 1993 and this coincided with the ascendancy of General Sani Abacha as the iry ruler of Nigeria. This was epitomized in Nigeria/Cameroon Jations. It was believed that General Abacha, in a bid to divert attention m the problems of legitimacy which confronted him at home, decided ‘a foreign policy of “military adventurism and escapism” in Bakassi.% his culminated in the invasion and subsequent militarisation of Bakassi. here was very little Asiwaju (who was already on his way out of the \C) and other experts could do in the face of the intransigence of ’s authoritarian regime. Nigeria thus went ahead with a belligerent to boundary issues that were already yielding to peaceful on. Asiwaju left the NBC the same year that Cameroon dragged to the ICJ over Bakassi. One would thus imagine the pain of juand his colleagues as the peaceful approach for which they had for six years was disregarded by the military authorities. heless, the significance of Asiwaju’s contribution at the NBC remains « tion of the practicability of his long articulated position, viz, \eed to transform national borders from hostile barriers into bridges tion and regional integration. With the necessary political will sha), it was proven that nation states responded positively to f cooperation that proposed mutually beneficial approaches hostile ones in the management of border crises. Asiwaju’s efforts Jater rewarded by the Federal Government with a national honour \e Order of Member of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (MFR) in ‘Aithe international level, Asiwajuhas also made his mark. He serv 4 tant and expert adviser to several organs of the United Nz the UN. Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa CPDA) Lome, Togo, on the project on the Role of Border Problems 25in African Peace and Security, from 1987 to 1992; the U.N. Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD) Africa Office, Nairobi, Kenya, on the Project on Border Region Development in Eastern and Southern Africa, from 1994-1996; and the U.N. Office for Project Services (UNOPS), New York, on the International Conference on the New and Restored Democracies in 2000.” In addition to these, he also coordinated astudy, sponsored by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in Lagos, 1994, for the creation of Inter-State Free Industrial Zones.'® In 2002, he provided one of the lead participation ina special meeting on strategies for Regional Integration in West Africa under the auspices of the Sahel and West Africa Club of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris. He also served the government of the Republic of Mali as a border expert to elaborate the “Pays Frontieres” policy during a sub-regional seminar in Sikasso in 2002. In addition, Anthony Asiwaju has been active in several international professional associations. In 1983, he Joined the U.S. based Association of Borderland Studies, and in 1986 was appointed into the International Editorial Board of the Association’s Journal of Borderland Studies. In 1992, together with another renowned border scholar, Oscar Martinez (aMexican-American), Asiwaju was conferred by the same Association with an Award for Outstanding International Scholarship and Service; and in April 1999 at Fort Worth, was elected as a member of the Association’s Board of Directors for a term of four years. Also, Asiwaju has been associated with the International Boundaries Research Unit (BRU) of the University of Durham in the United Kingdom. In 1990, he ‘was appointed into its International Board of Advisors. The programme on International Cooperation in Africa (PICA) domiciled inthe Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, U.S.A. also benefited from the expertise of Asiwaju who was appointed as its first Mac Arthur Foundation Senior Scholar in 1989/1990. PICA was originally designed to re-conceptualize A frica boundaries, not as barriers, but as ‘windows ofopportunity’ for international co-operation, drawing its inspiration from the works of Asiwaju, especially his Partitioned. Africans. Itis believed that part of the argument, which made PICA to win its initial grant from the MacArthur Foundation, was the indication of the commitment of Asiwaju to inaugurate the programme. !*! Vv 26 - Onthe African continent, Asiwaju has also been active in projecting the ofthe historical profession. He was elected Vice-President oft the nla of African Historians, with headquarters in Bamako, Mali, in 2001. It was on this platform that he successfully proposed in 2003 an African History panel titled “‘A frican History in Comparative Perspective: New Approaches”, for the International Committee of Historical Sciences Quinquennial Congress, which took place in Sydney, ea inJuly 2005. The acceptance of this panel, which was listed as ‘Special Theme One’ on the Congress schedule is a breakthrough, not just for Asiwaju, but also for African historians generally, because since 1926 when the committe was created, no African History panel has been accepted in the Committee’s Congresses. It is hoped that other A frican scholars would further consolidate this inroad made by African history-thanks to Asiwaju.'” Itis this commitment and unique: contributionis to the discipline of History in the wider context of the Humanities that have won him the professional recognition as Fellow of the Historical Society of Nigeria (FHSN) in 2004 and Fellow of the Nigerian Academy of Letters (FNAL) in 2006. unity Leadership and Family Life tered the enniehiens ofAsiwaju to the local Westem Yoruba Communities were not limited to academic publications and scholarly research; he was also involved with the people at the grassroots, campaigning for their educational development, and championing popular causes. This is evident in the string of chieftaincy titles conferred on himin recognition of his significant contributions to community, development on the Nigerian as well as the Benin side of the border. The titles ag Fimojoye of Ketuland, Ketu, Republic of Benin (January 1983); Bobagunwa of Ado-Odo, Ogun State, Nigeria (April 1983); Jagunmolu of Erinja, Ogun State, Nigeria (December, 1987); Babaoye of, ‘Afon, Ogun State, Nigeria (1997); and Balogun of Imeko, Ogun State, Nigeria uly 2004). Perhaps, the most notable local cause in which Asiwaju participated, and which is worth examining, here in some details is the change ofname of the Western Yoruba ‘Community onthe Nigerian side from ‘Egbado’ to ‘Yewaland’. In this particular episode, the historian in Asiwaju was at his best in the service of the people, carrying out meticulous research and marshalling historical data to support a, popular cause. That, to Asiwaju, was the most enduring of his involvement with his community. 27