Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

UDI

Alan Partridge said:

an elderly Kenyan shouting “Sir! Sir! When will you British come back and free us from this terrible Independence?!”

I met this view on many an occasion, usually by old blokes in greatcoats with a wodge of medals, in villages deep in the hinterlands. And in Jamaica, too - never have I drunk so much Wray & Nephew White Lightnin', and pretended to know so much foot drill as in Negril on that beach.

When I told my men I would be leaving, their response was "why", I had to explain that under independence which was coming in a few months time, we, the Europeans, weren't wanted by the African politicians.
To a man they were unhappy at this saying that tribalism would raise its ugly head and those at the top of the pecking order would immediately favour their tribal brethren and corruption/nepotism would become rife. Any of you who read the book by another NR policeman "No better life", would see his experiences when he stayed for a year or so after independence, show this happening literally weeks after the event.
As for "twentyfirstoffoot", whose knowledge of Africa seems to come from reading the "Guardian" or the beeb, unfounded assertions that Africans had no say in their governance. Actually they did under their own tribal chiefs system which was the only governance they knew. Gradually after more years African members WERE elected to the countries legislature and this would have increased as more Africans became competent until it was felt they had the ability to take over completely. As I said earlier most even the strong liberal element in the civil administration felt that would take at least a few more generations!
This is a review of another book about British rule in NR. The bit bolded & underlined is the reason it was written!!
"Some time ago several senior members of the Administration of Northern Rhodesia, including the late Sir Glyn Jones, decided that something should be written to eounter the denigration of the Colonial Serviee by the media in general and the BBC in particular, though it must be said that it is now possible to detect slightly more favourable comment than there used to be.
The result was the Northern Rhodesia Record, which traces the sixty odd years of development of that colony from nothing to the viable and prosperous state that became Zambia in 1964.
To ensure that the book gives a comprehensive cover of the work of government, offieers from several major departments have contributed ehapters in addition to the major contribution from members of the Provincial Administration, which did after all constitute the framework on which the civil service of the territory was built. The departments covered are Education, Agriculture, Forestry, Medical and Game & Tsetse Control.
The Record starts with an account of the territory as the first administrators found it, little changed from the days of Livingstone. At the turn of the century the slave trade was still active, the last trader being recorded as shot in 1907, the population sickly and sparse and up-to-date forms of communication non-existent. The representatives of government, then the British South Africa Company, were few but by 1924 after only a quarter of a century they could hand over to the Colonial Office the elementary basis on which future administrators could build a modern state. At that time in a country of nearly 300,000 square miles the population, though increased, was still less than a million.
The Record goes on to tell of the life and work of government in rural areas, the picture being one of concern by tbe administrators for the people under their control. The doctrine of indirect rule is well presented to show that as far as possible the administration in the rural areas worked through the traditional African hierarchy, something particularly apparent when it came to dealing with Barotseland which was virtually a state within a state.
At the end of the book there is a well-researched history of the Northern Rhodesia Police by Col. T. M. Wright, himself an ex-police officer. In some ways the book, being a collection of contributions, lacks cohesion and suffers a little from unnecessary repetition. That apart, it gives a fair and interesting picture of the work of the Colonial Service in Northern Rhodesia and presents the case that the objective of the Service was the welfare of the territory in order to bring it up to the point where it could be taken over by the descendants of the tribes living there before the European arrived on the scene. However, it cannot be emphasised too strongly that without the colonial era there would have been precious few descendants and certainly no viable state to become the Republic of Zambia and this too can be gleaned from the record.
The final chapter ‘Conclusions’ sets out in a masterly fashion all that the Record is trying to convey and leaves one with much on which to ponder."


The Northern Rhodesian Record and A history of the Northern Rhodesia Police


by Terence D. Carter
 
tribalism would raise its ugly head and those at the top of the pecking order would immediately favour their tribal brethren and corruption/nepotism would become rife.
As it certainly did in Tanzania. My father had spent his final decade there instructing their nascent trade unions, junior civil servants and university courses on the principles and methods of good industrial relations and various allied subjects. He despaired at the plans which were put into place toward the last days of the remaining British administrators, as did the more enlightened Africans; one of his civil service pupils was employed by me at my mine in Northern Tanzania thirty years later, and his views were decidedly unGuardianlike.
 
Wrong country and wrong police force
Same principal applies.
Zambian police today questioned two Chinese managers over the shooting and wounding of 11 miners protesting over pay and conditions.

and

Global Witness has previously tied ZDI to diamond mining in eastern Zimbabwe through an indirect shareholding in a Chinese company. Mugabe said his government lost large sums to theft from that deposit, and Human Rights Watch in 2009 accused the military of shooting and killing 200 miners there.

Africa. Not for sissies.
 
Same principal applies.
Zambian police today questioned two Chinese managers over the shooting and wounding of 11 miners protesting over pay and conditions.

and

Global Witness has previously tied ZDI to diamond mining in eastern Zimbabwe through an indirect shareholding in a Chinese company. Mugabe said his government lost large sums to theft from that deposit, and Human Rights Watch in 2009 accused the military of shooting and killing 200 miners there.

Africa. Not for sissies.
I don't follow your point
 
I don't follow your point
It's a very apposite point. I conducted a full safety/security due diligence on a major diamond mine in Angola some years ago, after Global Witness, acting mainly on a report by Rafael Marques de Morais, accused the owners and security department of randomly killing garimpeiros:
image001.jpg


in and around its license. It became quite clear that the mine's security department, headed by a fairly rough Irishman, were not to blame; instead, the contract security organisation, Alpha5:
image004.jpg

image006.jpg

which were not under the security manager's control in any real way, were indulging in some very nasty practices indeed. The contract security organisation was under the direct control of one of Angola's large coterie of Generals, staffed by an all-star team of former(?) UNITA army people, and there was no other choice but to use them. The General and his friends, who included most of the Government (also mostly Generals) were very displeased that such a due diligence was taking place, but luckily only found out when I was at 30,000ft and heading for Lisbon.

As the corporate officer responsible for compliance with the Kimberley Process in my previous employment in Zimbabwe (where it had been thoroughly abused by the obvious suspects), I had hoped to see evidence of a Government actually taking it seriously. I'm really such a pure innocent.

(Edit: the garimpeiros were mostly down from the DRC, and wouldn't have been missed by anyone with enough pull to get any sort of investigation going. The Rio Cuango is fast and deep:
A (25).jpg
.)
 
Last edited:
It's a very apposite point.
Comparing apples and oranges though isn't he? Your post is very interesting by the way.

The fact that others do the same as we did does not make us right it just makes the others as wrong as we were. Which, I think you established by investigating the incident you describe thoroughly?
 
apples and oranges
Not really. Powerful people in powerful positions tend to wave their powerful fists about when there's no moral background to their rise to power. Few British Prime Ministers have done that in my memory; Thatcher did it out of a sense of duty, but anyone else would have had their P45 handed to them fairly sharply; think Suez. Blair had to do it treacherously and in secret. None of which applies to the African Big Man, whichever country he's Biggest in.
 
The fact that others do the same as we did does not make us right it just makes the others as wrong as we were. Which, I think you established by investigating the incident you describe thoroughly?
I very much doubt that the British normally carried on in the way I've seen other governments/armies/police forces do, at any time in our history. One-offs (Amritsar...) had consequences for the perpetrators, and politically too. Nobody (including the Guardian) gives much of a toss about the odd hundred or thousand wiped out by the likes of Mugabe and his ilk, because it's wholly expected of them. In mining, fatal incidents in the UK, Europe and US tend to be remembered for centuries, and not just locally. In Africa, they're frequently quite forgotten very quickly.

Every year, after witnessing a flood which killed at least 200 in 1998, I read about many tens of artisanals being killed by asphyxiation or flood underground, and that's just at one particular mining locale in Tanzania - and the subsequent promises by the World Bank to make mining by artisanals as safe as by professional practice. At a number of locations where I've worked, the police were firmly in the pockets of whoever could pay them enough, and that was always the bandits who had the most muscle and were most prepared to use it. That did not happen pre-Independence, anywhere.


Edit: Just noticed that I didn't explain who I was working for in Angola; it wasn't Global Witness. It was the mining company, who may not have realised beforehand that my report would be truthful, and not simply a mercenary effort on their behalf in the face of Global Witness's claims. It burned their fingers a little bit (I found evidence of torture by company people), but the Government and its contractors got the full blowtorch.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Africa should. Small matters of security, medical care, education, law and order etc.
And therein lies your complete failure to understand human beings. They aren't grateful and they never will be. Empires always fall because the conquered eventually get to be able to get rid of the conquerors. China, which is in many ways an empire goes through cycles of strong dictatorial central government and then lapses into civil war as central control breaks down.

Your ancestors came and saw and conquered because they had better guns or shiner beads. Now they don't have better guns and their beads look a bit tawdry, they've been kicked out. As the Germans call it Realpolitik, but to avoid acknowledging your failure you blame someone else.
 
I very much doubt that the British normally carried on in the way I've seen other governments/armies/police forces do, at any time in our history.
Quite possibly not, but that doesn't alter the fact that they still aren't wanted by the locals. I heard a Maori on TV once saying that since his country would have ended up in someones empire he was glad it was the British and not any of the others. The conversation moved on before he could suggest he might still want the pakeha out.
 
Your ancestors came and saw and conquered because they had better guns or shiner beads. Now they don't have better guns and their beads look a bit tawdry, they've been kicked out. As the Germans call it Realpolitik, but to avoid acknowledging your failure you blame someone else.
Now the guns are in the hands of the praetorians, the trappings of the West have been replaced with Chinese imports, and without 'European' input, the once-bountiful farmlands are dust.
Still, the avearge Zimbabwean voter is happy.
 
Ok, this is very much an "IF' thread.
If the colonial masters hadn't left tout suite in the 50s and 60s, and had a 'passing over' period of a few years, maybe Africa wouldn't be such a sh*t hole?
Just upping sticks and leaving behind an infrastructure, but few civil service, army officers, teachers, trained doctors etc was a bad idea.
And got worse when the new governors decided that anybody with an education was athreat. ie civil service, teachers, army officers, trained doctors.

In the defence of the UK that is very much what they wanted to do -

There had been a move since mid late 1800s that colonies were self administrating and defended themselves ( Not with standing much of empire was protectorates rather than empire) With the UK stepping in against large aggressors (and of course new leaders not so keen on the status quo).

Come the 60s and the push for independence - the plan was to increase self governance education and administration along Indian lines and then full Autonomy - then independence - Trouble is realistically they were talking 15- 20 years for Sierra Leone and 40 for somewhere like Kenya which was less developed on the self governing lines. Black Africa* wasn't prepared to wait and insisted on much faster change nor was the UK prepared to fight insurrection hence the rapid handovers.
To the UK credit it did leave behind admin and advisors to help run the country - whether they were ever listened to however….

France on the other hand said Vote to become part of France or vote to leave
- when the vote was leave - they rather petulantly simply left taking with them everything and one required to run the country and said - Youre on your own - you will see nothing from us bonne chance**


*White Africa being another issue

**Spelt F*** You I hope it all collapses round your ears
 
Now the guns are in the hands of the praetorians, the trappings of the West have been replaced with Chinese imports, and without 'European' input, the once-bountiful farmlands are dust.
Still, the average Zimbabwean voter is happy.
Well he's happier than he would be if you were still there telling him what to do. It's good to see you understand, so many can't get their heads around the idea.

It will be the same in the UK after Brexit. The remoaners will go on and on about the good old days and blame whoever they want to blame rather than face the reality that the majority of the UK population don't want to be ruled by foreigners.

To paraphrase
Now the guns are in the hands of the rich, the trappings of Europe have been replaced with US imports, and without EU subsidies, the once-bountiful farmlands are dust.
Still, the average British voter is happy.
 
Come the 60s and the push for independence - the plan was to increase self governance education and administration along Indian lines and then full Autonomy - then independence - Trouble is realistically they

India is an interesting case - despite all the turmoil and problems which still exist, it is about to overtake the UK as the 5th largest economy. Sheer mass of size and scale I suppose.

I was just reading up on it the other day, randomly. India I think was one of the most important part of Britain's empire - the Chief of Staff for the Army and Air force was a Brit till a few years later after their independence.
 
Well he's happier than he would be if you were still there telling him what to do. It's good to see you understand, so many can't get their heads around the idea.

It will be the same in the UK after Brexit. The remoaners will go on and on about the good old days and blame whoever they want to blame rather than face the reality that the majority of the UK population don't want to be ruled by foreigners.

To paraphrase
Now the guns are in the hands of the rich, the trappings of Europe have been replaced with US imports, and without EU subsidies, the once-bountiful farmlands are dust.
Still, the average British voter is happy.
Unfortunately it comes down to a single issue in Africa - starvation.
Was UDI wrong? In many ways yes.
Was apartheid wrong? Definitely.
What have they been replaced with? A kleptocracy, where 'loyal cadres' and 'heroes of the independence struggle' have their snouts in the trough.
I have no problem with majority rule. I do have a problem with corruption, poverty, starvation and a failure of all infrastructure.
Is the majority better off now? Probably not. You cannot eat votes.
 

Latest Threads

Top