RE: “GURE PEOPLE, PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE: IMPLICATIONS FOR GURE YOUTHS.” A PAPER PRESENTED BY MR SULEIMAN TAMBAYA AT THE GURE NATIONAL YOUTH SUMMIT HELD ON FRIDAY, 30TH MARCH AT SAMINAKA RESORT LERE LGA, KADUNA STATE. BEING A REJOINDER BY VICTOR KWARA NICHOLAS.

Preamble
Anyone with the modest grasp of history has the moral responsibility to allude to the fact that fact-finding is key in human existence and one of its operational principles is to present the past, correct the present and prepare a people for the future. It seeks also to interrogate the foundation stones upon which a peoples culture, tradition, philosophy and ideologies were laid and or documented. Hence the old dictum, “facts are sacred” ought to be instructive to every sane mind/historian. If patriotism is simply the love one has for his/her nation, historians must be commended for their job. A nation that means well for her sons/daughters must unapologetically invest in the youths and empower them socially, morally, academically and economically, especially now that there are clarion calls from all and sundry for youths to be self-reliant. It is on the strength of these premises therefore that Mr Suleiman Tambaya must be commended for making a passionate call on his kinsmen/women to be actively involved in farming, trade etc as captured succinctly in pages two to three of his paper. However, using the lenses of sound reasoning and true history, the paper under interrogation is replete with half truths, incomplete and or misleading part of the history of the people under review, it is a rape to logic as it makes a caricature of scientific research methodology! Hence, the need for this rejoinder is aimed at circumventing Mr Tambaya’s paper and stating the facts as they are because “sincerity is the soul of business.”

The Thrust of the Matter.
To set the ball rolling, let it be known to the world that half truths, changing narratives and consistency in being economical with the truth on history are cancerous to I-Thou retionship at the same time poisonous to the human soul. The social media last year was awashed with war of words on account of a post I made on the concise history of the Anir’Rhaguu (Kahugu) nation, hence, the need for this rejoinder and I wish to state as follows:
1. That it is nearly impossible that the history of a people can be complete without making reference to dates, boundaries and significant events that may have led them to settle in a given area. Mr Tambaya failed in this aspect.

2. That no history is complete without a mention of the people that had lived in an area prior to others’ arrival.

3. That it is a rape of logic if the history of a people is both denied and accepted/endorsed at the same time and at the same respect. It is indeed contradictory in terms, thus a fallacy!
4. Contextually, the history of either the Kahugu (Anir ‘Rhaguu) and Gure cannot be truly complete without the mention of both the tribes in question. Hence, any historical fact that omits either of the nations, in my opinion, is not fair to the underpinnings of history and research.

5. The writer neither quoted previous writers on the history of the Gure people nor cited Kephas Zagir Ibrahim Gure whose work he copied word-to-word. Is it still called plagiarism?

It is on the strength of the foregoing that I wish to make the following observations from Mr Tambaya’s paper. Thus, the subheading “Who are the Gure people?” heightened my curiosity about the people in question. The claim of them being of the Fulani extraction by Mr Tambaya is left for the archeologists and anthropologists to do the needful, because he said the people in question claim of being of the Fulani extraction. Anyone can make a claim anyway. For example, if the Atyap, Takad, Oegworok and Moroa claim to be of the same genealogy, I cannot doubt them because the languages are intelligible. Other examples are some of the tribes in Adamawa most of whose words sound like Fulfulde, they may also claim to be Fulani, but as I posited hitherto, this is left for the anthropologists to go on a research to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of this claim. Mr Tambaya said in parts of the first page that “…the Gure moved to (sic) Niger Republic and settled at a place called Gure/Guri. It is not certain whether this place was called Gure prior to their arrival or it was named so at or during the arrival…” This sentence is indeed misleadingly scandalous to historical facts as the whole chapter two of my book “Cultural Values of the Anir ‘Rhaguu (Kaguu) Nation: A call for National Development” makes allusions to the fact that the Gure came and settled later in Kahugu land from Lazuru based on a research I conducted, it is clearly stated in the book that Ms Griffin a.k.a Majinya prevailed on the Kahugu (Anir’Rhaguu) nation to give her a land for her to build a hospital and school and for the Gure people to settle, the Emirate in Zazzau and Hakimi Wali of Lere were cited to have prevailed on the Kahugu nation and a land was given to them and that place is today called Gure. The sentence by Mr Tambaya that “it is not certain whether this place was called Gure prior to their arrival or it was named so at or during the arrival” is therefore misleading, untrue and a rape of history. The reader may note that if half truths like these go to the public domain without being refuted, or when there are two versions of a particular historical fact, young people may not know the true past events and consequently, that may have the potency to lead to perpetual war of words/pen. Another implication is that it is either one side of the divide is feeding its young people with wrong/false history or it is not sincere and open to history.

In addition, a group of the Gure people distanced themselves from part of this particular history as presented by Mr Tambaya some time last year in Kaduna. Why did Mr Tambaya use the same history for his presentation? The very history those that attended the meeting refuted seem to be the same material Mr Tambaya used, it follows therefore that it is either Mr Tambaya is on his own regarding the history of his people, or the representatives at the Kaduna meeting spoke with both sides of their mouths which is indeed not too good. If the former is the case, I wonder what the writer seeks to gain by his stories, if the latter is to be accepted, I can deduce that there is a lot that meets the eye! One other implication is that, since the writer, in wisdom or lack of it never quoted a source, the public may commit his lines to the flames as it only becomes a story for the kindergarten. Indeed, he may be excused by researchers for cooking the stories from his intellect and supposedly feeding the public with misleading moonlight tales! Mr Tambaya has poisoned the chalice of true research and history and the public is urged not to drink therefrom.

Conclusion
History is to man what water is to the fish and what blood, air and life are to the human person. Mr Tambaya may wish to find out from those that attended the Kaduna meeting last year and hear from the horse’ mouth. Albeit a research is a continuum, facts with dates are key in a research report. The source of the material that Mr Tambaya used ( Kephas Zagir Ibrahim Gure) tried to mention years but for reasons known only to Mr Tambaya, he only stated that “…migrations of Agbiri/Gure people from place to place remain undated…” Therefore, I invite Mr Tambaya to get it right and make wider consultations before writing anything for public consumption in order to avoid critical scrutiny of his tales!

By swansy

We deal in web design, write-ups, selling of Italian Shoes and Suits and also we deal in makeup.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.