\\ > , SOCIO-ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES IN KENYA //

The Case of Rift Valley Province

BY

N. A. GATHERU WANJOHI

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT

FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

IN THE

DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT

UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

OCTOBER 1976 THIS THESIS HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR

A DEGREE IN ANY OTHER UNIVERSITY

THIS THESIS HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR EXAMINATION

WITH OUR APPROVAL AS UNIVERSITY SUPERVISORS

Principal Supervisor.

Second Supervisor Ill -

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to the University of Nairobi, and f ' particularly the Department of Government, for the scholarship which they most kindly allocated to me and made the preparation of this thesis possible.

Right from the beginning of my postgraduate work the one person who has been most associated with my work was Dr, Nicholas Nyangira, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Government, University of

Nairobi, He most kindly accepted tne taxing duty of becoming my supervisor for the second time, the first one having been during my undergraduate preparation for the B,A. Dissertation. It was mainly because of his advice, guidance, and patience that this thesis came to materialize,

I extend my special thanks to him.

Dr, E.t'.K, Dalizu, who was originally my second supervisor, fell victim of the landless- unemployed-workers at the Escarpment while he hurried back to Nairobi from his weekend holiday in order to continue reading my draft. They beat him and caused him great injuries to an extent that he was admitted at Nairobi Hospital, Although he had already made very useful contributions, for which I was very grateful, he could net continue that good work. He asked me to have someone else continue reading my draft and the Chairman of the

Department of Government, Dr. S,W, Rohio, allocated the Job to Professor G,C.M. Mutiso. The latter read through the thesis and also made valuable contributions*

Many people who made contributions in respect of my research at Nakuru District required that I promise never to reveal their names* This was mainly because they feared that the poeerful arm of the petty-bourgeoisie would be applied upon them unfavourably* These included several government officials, private companies* bureaucrats, politicians businessmen and farmers, small-petty-traders, peasants squatters, employed and unemployed-landless workers,

I am greatly indebted to them all.

At various stages of my research the people who assisted me in with typing this thesis included

Miss Joyce Wanjiru lambugu, Miss R, wanjiru Raing’o, my sister Miss Eva wanjiru *anjohi, and Mr* Festus

Geoffrey Gathogo of Department of Government. Miss winifred Kuria, Secretary in the Diplomacy Training

Programme, University of Nairobi, typed the final draft* To them all I am most grateful*

Lastly, may I record the numerous helpful suggestions I received from all members of the

Department of Government and the Department of

English* Of these, I should record that my discussions with Mr, D,H. Kiiru were most useful* • V -

ff„P. g ?, F K T g

Page

Declaration...... II Acknowledgements...... • • III List of Tables....,...... VI List of Abbreviations...... VIII Abstract...... IX Preface...... XII

Chapter I Socio-Economic Inequalities! A Basis of Socio-political

Analysis.1^

Chapter II Land and African Traditional Socio-Economic Structure: The Case of Rift Valley Province,. 90 -

Chapter III European Alienation of Land in Kenya:

The Case of Nakuru District.... . 169 s

Chapter IV Socio-Economic Inequalities and Transfer of "White Highlands" to Africans:

The Case of Kakuru District...... 277 f / Chapter V Consolidation of Capitalism in Kenya...... 404 y Appendix I Additional Tables for Chapter III. 435 Appendix TI Example of Temporary Occupation Lieemce for Africans...... 437 Appendix III Some Background Information on Some Members of The "Big 36"...... 438

Bibliography...... •••••• 444 - VI - L 1 S T OF T A T ! i- £ - CHAPTER TII

Table Pnge

T An Analysis of Land Alienated by Government,...182,A

II Cummulative Acreage of Laftd .alienated

By The Government,...... 214?^

Ill European Population In Kenya By Years # And Districts...... 218^ IV Number of Farmers by Pace and Years,

IS j 1-1948,...... 220 V Furopean Population end African Population By Ethiic Groups (1909-3933) Uuivasha District,...... 222

VI European and African Population,Hut and Poll Tax, 1909-1946,Na kuru District,...... 223. VII Dome of the land Alienated in 1950-62,...... 227-

VIII Number of Africans ard Hut and Poll Tax, 1909-1953,Naivasha District...... 233 .

IX Kikuyu and Other Africans,Hut and Poll r’ax,

1909-1939,Nakuru and Naivesha Districts,...... 234 .

X Mair Squatter Crop Production in ro>uids,

1916-20.Nuivacha District...... 238 . XI Approximeto Value of Main Imported Goode Consumed By Afrleans,1916-1920,

NaiYasha District,...... 239 XII African Population Bv Ethnic Groups Compared with Hut and Poll Tax,1916-1920,

Naivacha Di strict * ...... 240 XIII Employment Sectors By Yearly Percent gee of African Labour Cply,.... 253 XIV African Agricultural Employees, Appendix I. XV African Agricultural Employees Working on Poncas Date,______.dlx I, - VII L I 3 T . OF TABLES - CHAPTER IV.

Table Page

I Statistics of Land Purchase Programme...... 304 II Progress of Land Re-3ettlement,

1963/64 - 1966/67...... 306

III Land Re-settlement: Area Planned and Plots Allocated,

1963 - 1972...... 307 IV Land Re-settlement:

Land Purchased Under Shirika Programme, 1971 - 75...... 310

V Population of Main Ethnic Groups, By Year and Percentage of Increase or Decrease,1962-1969,Nakuru District...... 318 VI Acreage of Farms,Number of Farms by Type of Ownership or Holding,Nakuru District, 1974,...... 320 VII The Source and Amount of Loans Approved by the Agricultural Finance Corporation(AFC), 1971,.... 330

VIII Age of Businessmen by Level of Education.... 340

IX Percentage of Bueinessmentby Years Spent in School...... 340

X Size of Land Owned by Percentage of Businessmen...... 343

XI Size of Stock and size of Land by Percentage of Buslnessmen.Nakuru.District...... 346

XII Source of Business Loans by Percentage

of Loans Received...... 358 - VIII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

IBEAC Imperial British East African Company.

KNFU Kenya National Farmers Union.

KAU Kenya African Union.

KCA Kikuyu Central Association.

KANU Kenya African National Union.

KADU Kenya African Democratic Union.

KPU Kenya People's Union

GEMA Gikuyu Embu and Meru Association.

NAU New Akamba Union.

KCC Kenya Cooperatives Creameries.

KMC Kenya Meat Commission.

AFC Agricultural Finance Corporation.

ADC Agricultural Development Corporation.

KFA Kenya Farmers' Association (Cooperatives Ltd.)

CFC Credit Finance Corporation Ltd.

ICDC Industrial and Commercial Development Corporation. \ DFCK Development Finance Company of Kenya Ltd.

HFCK Housing Finance Company of Kenya Ltd.

HFC Housing Finance Corporation. - IX -

ABSTRACT s This thesis is about the emergence and development of socio-economic inequalities in

Kenya* It mainly deals with the role of land as a factor of economic exploitation by the

European settler capitalism. It also deals with

African cheap labour as the exploited factor of the newly introduced colonial capitalism. The study therefore deals .with the supplanting of the

African traditional socio-economic systems by

European capitalism and related oppressive government machinery. As such, it becomes a study of white settlement and alienation of the

African land owners. Nakuru District in Rift

Valley Province is used as a case study to demonstrate the development of inequalities from the precolonial times to the post-independence period.

The study begins with a brief look at some of the ideas on the subject of socio-economic inequalities. These include the Marxist and

Weberian ideas, and also the more recent ideas on the role of international capital in the so called “Third World".

African traditional socio-economic systems are briefly examined as a prelude to establishment of colonialism which extended capitalist exploitation to foreign lands. These included the Ndorobo (Dorobo), the Masai, the Nandi, and the Kikuyu. All these X

except the Kikuyu were found in or around the

Nakuru District on the eve of European occupation

of the district. The Kikuyu are included as they

constituted the greatest majority of the African

migrants into the area during the colonial (and

to a great extent during the post-independence)

period. The extent to which these societies

were egalitarian and communal is analysed in

relation to the destruction that they later

suffered under colonial capitalist subjugation

and exploitation*

The basis and the process of land alienation

by European settlers under the umbrella of

British Government in Britain and its agents in

Kenya becomes a crucial part of the thesis* This

part coincides with the colonial period* It

includes the various methods used by the European

settlers in order to obtain cheap or free land

and labour for them to exploit* Resistance by

Africans from being converted into wage labourers

for the benefit of the capitalist Europeans is

also observed.

The next part of the thesis deals with the

transfer of the "white Highlands1* to Africans and

it coincides with the independence period* The

role of international capital in the process of

the transfer of land from the European settlors is noted especially in its relationship with the - XI

adoptation of European capitalism by the new African government and the cooperation between the European capitalists and the new African ruling petty-bour- geoisie.

The objective was to involve the new African petty-bourgeoisie in the exploitation of the rest of the Africa masses* The petty-bourgeoisie is in this exercise engaged as an instrument of international capitalist exploitation of the

Kenyan masses. As will be observed this is achieved from two fronts* a) from the foreign aid and grants; b) from foreign investments, especially by the multinationals.

The last part of the study deals with the implications of continued capitalist oppression and exploitation in Kenya after independence. The role of the African petty-bourgeoisie in this oppression and exploitation of the Kenyan masses is further examined, especially in relation to the kind of the struggles that may follow the growing unemployment, inequalities and poverty which may lead to a revolution against pppression and exploitation.

N.A. Gatheru Wanjohi,

October, 1976. - XII

PREFACE

Recent years have witnessed growing efforts by

students of development in the so called "Third florid"

in an attempt to re-examine the root cause of failure

and frustration of attempts towards development in

those countries. Re-analysis of that nature has been

initiated in Kenya by such authors as E,A.Brett and

Colin Leys in their studies on underdevelopment in

Kenya, Foilwing a .similar trend we have tried to trace

the source of Kenya*s underdevelopment from precolonial

period to the post-independence Kenya, In this

endeavour the socio-economic inequalities model of

analysis has been used in relationship to social change.

Land is treated as the central variable in thi3

thesis. As we have attempted to examine the changing

role land has played in the Kenyan socio-economic

structure since the precolonial African egalitarian

communal ism and up to the px*esent day era, we have

selected the Rift Valley Province,and particularly the

Nakuru District, as our study case for demonstration purposes,

The present day Nakuru District was divided into two districts during the colonial period up to 1933.It XIII was composed of Naivasha and Nakuru Districts. The

Btudy of colonial land policies and alienation therefore largely refera to the area covered by those districts. A reference to the two districts will therefore keep recurring throughout the thesis.

Most of the material in the thesis was obtained from the secondary sources of colonial end post—independence official and unofficial documents.

But a great part of the post-independence study was done through interviewstwsid.yob8ervatinns.The people involved in the interviews were government officials, politicians, farm owners and farmers /businessmen, peasants,squatters,and workers in various parte of

Nakuru District. CHAPTER I

bOCIO - ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES

A Basis of Socio-Political Analysis*

In spite of the numerous declarations about the sanctity of the principles of Equality of Man, inequalities of various kinds have, nevertheless, characterized mankind ever since time immemorial*

The students of human society and its development, including the great Greek Philosophers cf antiquity,

Plato and Aristotle, have never escaped to lpok into social, economic and political inequalities as they tried to analyse and explain the various facets of social change and development of mankind* Similarly some scholars, such as Karl Marx and Max Weber, among others, devoted their entire lives to the same kind of social analysis which contributed greatly to the general understanding of social development of man through time up to the present times* In the same vein, this thesis attempts to examine the relationship between socio-economic inequalities and socio-political development in

Kenya from precolonial to post-independence era.

Before we concentrate on Kenya, a brief survey of the literature on socio-economic inequalities might lead us to a working definition of the scope we hope to cover*

One of the ancient Greek Philosphers, Plato, described the society in terms of three main groups • 2 • which were functionally differentiated. There was the philosopher King who had acquired the art of_ruling by being trained in philosophy and mili­ tary art. This v m s the highest rank in the society.

Below that rank, there was the citizen soldier who, after receiving military training, was charged with the duty of defending the state - its people, their land and property. The third category of the society was composed of people who had no special training in terms of philosophy or soldiery. They included the farmers, artisans and traders. They were the group which produced the necessities of life for themselves as well as for the guardians and the soldiers. This vies the economically productive sector of the society and was lablled as the producing or working class.1

In his functional differentiation, Plato empha­ sized the interdependency of the various groups.

Such interdependency never led to exprppriation of property and power by one group for the purpose of exploiting and oppressing the others. Their existence v«as first and foremost mutual and each contributed to the maximum good of the entire community. This view was emphasized by Richard Lewis Neltleship when he wroteI

’’Happiness of one class could not be found

without considering the happiness of entire

community, that ifc, that class plus other - 3 -

classes In the community. Guardians may

be the happiest of men, but the present

point is to fit them for their function in

the community| for it is owing to their

function in the community that they are

what they are, as the eye is made what it 2 is by its function in the body*”

Aristotlet on the other hand, was most probably

the first philosopher to have viewed the state as being composed of economically diverse groups* He

stated*

"Now in all states there are three elementst

one class is very rich, another very poor and 3 a third is a mean" (or moderation).

The very rich were bountious in terms of wealth, beauty, nobility and strength* The very poor, on

the other hand, were very weak and disgraced (perhaps

implying economically deprived and politically oppressed).

Between such groups, Aristotle noted antagonism* As he put it there would be

"a city not of freemen, but of masters and

slaves, the one despising, the other envying «4 •••••• •

Between the very rich and the very poor was the mean or middle class, the members who had "moderate

and sufficient property*" This was the group that - 4 - was meant to keep down the tempers and antagonism between the extremes in the very rich and the very poor sections of the community* Although it is not easy to claim that Aristotle was the original archi- tect of the idea of "class struggle", he no doubt realized that economic diversity leads to bitterness

(perhaps originating out of sheer envy) between the wealthy and the poor* Absence of a moderate group to act as a buffer zone would be disastrous* Thus, he notes,

"When there is no middle class, and the poor

greatly exceed in number, troubles arise, and

the state soon comes to an end*"®

Aristotle, even at that stage of analysis, did not go to the root-cause of class antagonism* He did not explain the origin of "the very rich" and

"the very poor" classes in the society* This was to be explained later on by Karl Marx who studied exploitation and oppression as instruments through which "the very rich" suppressed, and became richer at the expense of "the very poor*"

Virtually all 18th Century students of social change had unquestionably accepted, or were in line with, Hegelian Philosophy of Dialectics* According to that philosophy "the Idea" was seen as "the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world

(was) only the external, phenomenal form of "the 5

7 idea." No wonder, then, these writers too)c for

granted existence of social structure of their time.

They believed it was natural that there should be

wavs, rulers, aristocracy, poverty and even various

social classes within their society. But it was

not long before what was believed to be an infallible

Hegelian philosophy could be questioned and a more

realistic explanation of social structure and change

formulated.

It was the coming of Karl Marx onto the scene

of social and economic study that presented a turning

point. Marx, unlike Hegel, maintained that "the idea

(was) nothing else than the material reflected by

the human mind, and translated into forms of thought."6 IThough he did not originate the Idea of classes or social economic inequalities, he nevertheless clearly

surveyed their development through time. He formu­

lated the idea of exploitation through appropriation

of surplus labour-value by capitalists and also the

idea of class-struggle the aim of which would be to

eliminate all forms of socio-economic inequalities

and oppressJ

Marx traced historical development of classes

from antiquity. He notes that in ancient Rome there

were "Patricians, Knights, Plebians, slaves; in the

Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters,

journeymen, apprentices, serfs," and in almost all - 6 -

q these classes, there were subordinate gradations.

Thus there were freeman and slave, patrician and

plebeian during the ancient times; lord and serf

during the Middle Ages. These classes stood In

constant opposition to one another, In an oppressor

and oppressed relationship.1® The Middle Ages or

feudal era gave way to the epoch of the bourgeoisie,

an era which witnessed simplified class opposition

in the form of bourgeoisie versus proletariat.11

In his theory of historical human development,

Marx did not only stress the antagonistic aspect

of various classes, but also the socio-economic

origin of such antagonism. He showed that " ••••

the multiple productive forces accessible to men

determines the nature of society, hence that the

•history of humanity* must always be studied and

treated in relation to the history of industry 12 and exchange.*' In other words, different epochs

in human development had different modes of production

each of which dictated socio-economic structure

peculiar to it. Thus the ancient era had primitive

mode of production which produced the master and

slave social structure. The feudal era with feudal productive system was characterized by lord-serf

relationship. In like manner, capitalist system of production created the bourgeoisie - proletariat

class relationship. 7

Marx noted that each individual basically tried to satisfy the common human needs of food, clothing and shelter for himself and for his children,*3 In order to achieve this satisfaction a person has not only to produce what he needs and is able to produce, but he must also try and produce what others "cannot” produce and offer it to them in exchange for what he cannot produce. This requirement leads to the

"mode of cooperation" which combines with certain mode of production of certain social and industrial stage to produce social relations peculiar to that age. 14

Thus Marx statedi

"In the social production of their life, men

enter into definite relations that are indis­

pensable and independent of their will, relations

of production which correspond to a definite

stage of development of their material productive

forces ,«••«, The sum total of these relations

of production constitutes the economic structure

of society, the real foundation, on which rises

a legal and political super structure and to

which correspond definite forms of social

consciousness,M*5

The main distinction he makes, therefore, is between social relations: and relations of production. 8

The former depends on the latter and every social interaction, such as government or religion for instance, is founded upon economic structure of a given society*

Marx traced the origin of the capitalist system he was analysing from what he called the history of primitive accumulation. MThe so-called primitive accumulation,” he wrote,

" •••• is nothing else than the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production."*

Before this process was set in motion every member of the society had a right to ownership of the means of production such as land and tools. But when a small section of society had saved some money, it was able to use it to appropriate the entire owner­ ship of means of production and means of subsistence at the expense of the other bulk of the community.

After this appropriation the new sole owners of land, tools and raw materials, eager to increase and expand the sum values of their possession, turned to buying and using other people's labour-power to accomplish such desires. The people from whom ownership of means of production had been expropriated and appro­ priated by the "emerging capitalists" became freed from ownership and independent production and were turned into the bondage of sellers of nothing else 17 except their labour power. Marx takes pains to elaborate on the freedom of labourers.

'’Free labourers, in the double sense that

neither they themselves form part and parcel

of the means of production, as in the case

of slaves, bondsmen and co. , nor do the means

of production belong to them, as in the case

of peasant - proprietors; they are, therefore,

free from,unencumbered by, any means of

production of their own ••••• The capitalist

system presupposes the complete separation i of the labourers from all property in the

means by which they can realize their labour.

As soon as capitalist production is once on

its own legs, it not only maintains this

separation, but reproduces it on a continually

extending scale •••••• It appears as primitive

because it forms the pre-historic stage of . "fs.

capital and of the mode of production corres­

ponding with it."*®

Marx would therefore not accept the idea that nature produces money and commodity owners on the one hand, and propertyless labourers on the other. "This relation has no natural basis, "he declares, "neither is its social basis one that is common to all historical periods." He maintains that such a situation is the result of past revolutions in the mode of social 10

19 production.

In his analysis of class formation and develop­ ment Marx also took pains to show the relationship between capitalist exploitation of the labourer and socio-economic inequalities within a capitalist society* The basis of this exploitation is appropra- tion of surplus labour-value by embroynic capitalist initially, and by a full-fledged capitalist at a later developmental stage. Every worker expends socially necessary labour time which produces commodity, or labour value necessary for his livelihood and that of his family* Labour time expended beyond that limit is called surplus labour time and its product surplus labour value* It is this surplus labour value that a capitalist appropriates not because he needs it for his subsistence, but because he wishes to increase and expand his capital for its . 20 own sake*

It should be noted, of course, that the exploited «------surplus labour power does not actually belong to

Marx does notv however, deny that other forms of exploitation existed during the primitive and

feudal periods of development. His emphasis lies in the fact that the new capitalist relations have left no other nexus between man and man except naked

self-interest and callous cash payment# Naked,

shameless, direct and brutal exploitation sets in completely unveiled by any religious or political 22 Allusions#

The moral approach in Marxian analysis would be worthjf noting. He writes, in Das Capitals

"Within the capitalist system all methods for

raising social productiveness of labour are

brought about at the cost of the individual V labourer| all means for the development of

production transform themselves into means

of domination over, and exploitation of, the

producers; they mutilate the labourer into

a fragment of man, degrade him to a level

of an appendage of a machine, destroy every

remnant of charm in his work, and turn it

into a hated toil, they estrange from him

the intellectual potentialities of the labour-

process in the same proportion as science is

incooporated in it as an independent power;

they distort the conditions under which he

works, subject him during the labouring process to a despotism, the more hateful

for its meanness; they transform his life-

time into working time, and drag his wife

and child beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut

of capital.**23

The bourgeoisie tears away from the family its sentimental veil. It has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation. Every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with awe i3 completely stripped of its halo. The bourgeoisie has converted the physician, the scientist, the lawyer, the po«t 24 and the priest, into its paid wage-labourers*

As capital accumulation is stepped up, the conditions of the workers or labourers, relative to those of their employers continues to deteriorate.

Relative to the capitalist, the labourer becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than 25 population and wealth. The capitalist then turns to rationalizing the existence of the poor class*

He insists that it is a necessary class for the survival of society (no doubt implying the wealthy and capitalist section of the society*) Thus Bernard de Mandeville, for instance, wrote in the beginning of eighteenth century: -

"It would be easier, where property is well

secured, to live without money than without

poor; for who would do the work? As they 13 -

(the poor) ought to be kept from starving,

so they should receive nothing worth

saving it is manifest that in

a free country where slaves are not allowed , I; ■ ■ of, the surest wealth consists in a multitude

of labourious poor; for besides, that they

are the never failing nursery of fleets and tv armies, without them there could be no enjoyment

and no product pf any country could be valuable*

To make the society,” (which of course consists

of non-workers), ''happy and people easier under

the meanest circumstances, it is requisite that ' | f great number of them should be ignorant as well

as poor f

m As early as 1696, John Beller had also observed I 21 that the, poor were the ”mines of the rich”. They performed the most wearisome, the vilest, and the most disgusting functions in the society* The poor I class took on its shoulder all that was disagreeable | and servile in life, and procured thus "for other classes leisure, secuirity of mind and conventional

. dignity of character.To Marx that state If of affairs posed painful reflections especially, as he stressed. [ i r i

"when it is remembered that the poverty

to which they advert is not the deserved

poverty of idleness* In all cases it is 1 f \ . - t. i 14

29 poverty of working populations.”

It therefore becomes clear that the capitalist class lives on exploitation of other classes. As

Sir F.M. Eden wrote in the eighteenth century,

" ••••• persons of independent fortune •••••••

owe their superior advantages by no means to

any superior abilities of their own, but

almost entirely •...« to the industry of

others. It is net the possession of land,

or of money, but the command of labour which

distinguishes the opulent from the labouring 30 part of the community ...... "

j? In order that the capitalist class may be able to subjugate labour to is exploitation, it assumes control of all facets of society*s life. 1$ controls, or manipulates the control of, the bureaucracy, legislative institutions, Judiciary, religion, lite­ rature, news media, and all forms of cultural activities.

The people who occupy various socio-economic and political roles in the society are turned into insru- ments of the bourgeois class. The legislatures make laws which protect and boost up bourgeois interests.

Socio-economic ideas, theories and regulations are produced with the interests of the bourgeois in mind.

Thus, for example, free trade policy in nineteenth 15 - century Britain was portrayed as a policy emanating

from humanitarian considerations concerning cheap corn to feed the increasing poor. But nobody cared to consider that the poor were created and increased as a result of rising capitalist appropriation of means of production and exploitation of the surplus labour value of the bulk of the population by a few individual capital owners. This policy was also not portrayed as a means of the capitalist to obtain duty-free, and hence cheap, coal, iron ij; ore and cotton for their growing factories. Cheap c o m would in the meantime provide cheap food for the factory workers and thus help to keep the wages, and hence production costs, low* As such bourgeois mentality is made to pervade every socio-economic sphere. Religion, for example, becomes the tool at the disposal of the bourgeoisie with which to perpe­ trate its views and beliefs into the entire society.

Hence Marx called it the opium of the people.

Once all aspects of society's life are under the control of the bourgeoisie, the latter becomes the ruling class and its ideas become the ruling 32 ideas. Since its main objective is to subjugate and exploit the masses in the society in order to accumulate and expand its capital, the bourgeoisie of necessity becomes an oppressing class and it assumes the organized feature of the political power.

Through this organization the bourgeoisie oppresses 16

33 the working class and thus exploits it more.

Oppression and exploitation not only alienates the workers from freedom and from sharing fully in the fruits of their labour* It also antagonises them and leads them to seek ways and means of liberating themselves from all forms of insult, oppression and exploitation by the bourgeoisie* Hence the idea of class struggle develops*

One of Marx's greatest contributions to the understanding of social change was the notion of class struggle* Many writers before him had noted the pervading nature of bitterness and antagonism between various sectors of the society* But nearly all of them took these animosities for granted and thus never cared to study their root cause or source*

Such writers as Hegel assumed antagonisms within social groups as being natural and originating from the envious nature of mankind* Marx, however, discarded such an approach as an escapist approach*

He maintained that antagonisms were not natural in all societies, but were a basic characteristic of a society clad with subordination and exploitation of some classes by others*

To him, the history of all hitherto existing 34 society is the history of class struggle* In 4. ancient Rome, he notes, there were the patricians,

Knights, plebians, slaves and in the Middle Ages, there were feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, 17 - journeymen, apprentices, and serfs. In all cases, there were various subordinated gradations which engaged in constant struggle and resistance. It was out of such a struggle that modern bourgeois society emerged after successfully resisting and overthrowing feudal rule of the feudal society.

The bourgeoisie, however, never did away with class antagonisms. It instead reinstituted new classes, new conditions of oppression, and hence new forms of struggle, in place of the old ones.

In the new society, the bourgeoisie merely "simpli­ fied the class antagonisms." It split the society up into two great hostile camps, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat classes.^5 In the process of simplification of class struggle the "transitional" lower strata of the middle class gradually sink into the proletariat. It comprises of the small traders and shopkeepers, the retired tradesmen, the handi­ craftsmen and the peasantry. They are forced to

Join the proletariat partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which modern industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, and partly because their specialized skill is rendered 4 36 worthless by new methods of production.

As in the ancient times when the slave struggled and freed himself from the master, so in the Middle

Ages did the middle class struggle against the 18

aristocracy and feudal lords* This middle class

of manufacturers pushed aside the feudal guild-

masters who had failed to exploit the newly opened

markets in India, China and America* They too, were

unable to carry such exploitation far enough and

were xeplaced by the giant modern industry under the

ownership and direction of the industrial millionaires 37 known as the bourgeoisie. The emergence of the

latter pushed every other classes of the dying feudal

era into the background. The result was the emergence

of a large mass of industrial working class called

the proletariat, which stood poised against the

bourgeoisie. The latter did not only convert every­

one else into a wage-earner, but it also assumed the

control of the reigns of state power and the modern

representative state begin to play in its hand. Marx

therefore viewed the executive of the modern state

as nothing else but "a committee for managing the 38 common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." Exploitation

and oppression of the modern capitalist system was

not only set in motion, but the entire government

machinery also became part and parcel of that system.

The working class was therefore subjected to exploi­

tation and oppression of unprecedented magnitude and

intensity. It was upon this basis that a new class

struggle began.

In every class society, various classes have

their interests to protect. The bourgeoisie, for 19

example,, try to safeguard their ownership of what

they call "private property" and also their social

position as controllers of that property and the

benefits that may come out of it, for example, rent

or profit. The bourgeoisie therefore resorts not

only to controlling state power machinery, but

also other agencies of social, cultural, economic

and political aspects of life as a whole* Through

such agencies, the bourgeoisie is able to institute myths such as "free world," "free trade," "free

labour," "Bill of Rights," "independent judiciary,"

"impersonal and impartial bureaucracy," "freedom of

thought" "freedom of worship," "equal opportunities,"

and of course, "private property*" This myth-making exercise is aimed at nothing else but obscuring the

fact of exploitation and oppression of the working 39 classes by the capitalist class.

The working class, on the other hand, being

subjected to common plight of exploitation and oppression, humiliation and alienation, turns to organizing them­

selves into groups of resistance* Initially they

struggle for increased vtages, reduced number of working hours, better housing and working conditions, medical

A care and insurance* This becomes the first open indicator of class awareness which preceeds class consciousness* Sometimes the two go hand in hand*

The purpose of a worker combination, as Marx viewed it, always has a double aim, that of stopping 20 - the competition among the workers themselves and of bringing about a general competition against the capitalist.^® The first achievement of this level of the struggle is the general increase in wages#

Then comes the short-term alleviation of general economic,moral, psychological and political exploi­ tation and oppression. But still the workers are poised against capital and they are not yet "a class 41 for itself.H In order to get rid of capitalist enemy the association and solidarity of the working class has got to be more consolidated until the entire mass constitute itself «s "a class for itself."

Then the interests it defends become class interests rather than wage jj^areets of Scattered-workers ^ V combinations. At this stage the working class struggle against the capitalist class becomes a political struggle. In order to recapture both economic and political power, the proletariat has to wage an all-out war against the entire capitalist system. Since the bourgeoisie will not willingly give up the economic and political power which they control, the workers have got to use forceful and violent revolution in order to reinstate themselves as the owners and controllers of the means of production A and as the holders of all political power within the society. In this way, violence and revolution, the weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism 43 to the ground, are turned against the bourgeoisie itself. 21

Throughout the history of class struggle, the main trend was the development of the proletariat*

In the many battles with the aristocracy, for instance, the bourgeoisie found itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat for help* The latter was therefore dragged into the political arena where it Mas furnished with political and general education which 44 became important weapons to overthrow feudalism*

When it comes to confrontation with the bourgeoisie, the proletariat is the most experienced and most conscious class, and all other classes dissolve themselves and rally behind it in the interest of victory against capitalism* Being the most revolu­ tionary class, the proletariat leads the struggle in a bid to eliminate the entire bourgeois ruling 45 class* As the revolution assumes glaring violence, a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift and Joins the revolutionary class that holds the future in its hands*4^

Unlike the previous struggles of the ancient and feudal periods during which the struggle of the minorities catered for minority interests only, the proletariat struggle becomes the self-conscious independent struggle "of the immense majority in 47 the interests of the immense majority*" Previous struggles ended up in placing minority classes at dominant positions subjecting the bulk of the society to their conditions of appropriation* The proletariat's 22 - main mission, on the other hand, is to destroy all previous securities for and insurance of, individual property. Its objective is to win political power

and establish a socialist state in which exploitation

and oppression based on private individual property becomes completely eliminated.

A Marxist approach to social analysis, therefore,

requires that one examines the e;xpropriation and

appropriation process in a given society. Marx traced

the origin of capitalism from primitive accumulation

which made it initially possible for a small section

of the society to expropriate and appropriate the

ownership and control of means of production at the

expense of the rest bulk of the population.

As a consequence of this expropriation and

appropriation a change occurs in both productive and

social relations within the society. There emerges

owners and controllers of the means of production

on the one hand, and non-owners on the other. The

former turns to buying and exploiting the latter*s

labour power which he converts into surplus labour

value for his own, selfish appropriation in order

to accumulate capital for its own sake. The latter,

on the other hand, being "free1' of any ownership or

control of means of production, becomes forced to

sell his labour power for money as the only way of

earning a living. The new ownership and non-owner­

ship relationship therefore also affects the social 23 relationship. There emerges an employer-worker relationship which further develops into oppressor- oppressed relationship.

The capitalist society Marx vies examining emerged from the ancient and primitive society, through a feudal society and on to a bourgeois 48 society. Marx expected that from a bourgeois society there would emerge a socialist society. In all these historical systems there were classes and the struggle between them led to emergence of each subsequent system. In the ancient times the slaves struggled against the masters and a feudal system was born. In their turn the feudal serfs struggled against feudal lords and there emerged a capitalist system. The struggle in the capitalist system would be between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and when the victory of the proletariat is realized a socialist system should be established. In each of these systems, the social structure is determined by the economic relations of production. The ancient system had the primitive productive relations which accommodated lord serf social relationship. The feudal economic structure had lord serf social relation­ ship , while the capitalist structure led to employer- worker or bourgeoisie-proletariat social relationship.

The socialist system envisaged by Marx is expected to create a uniform social relationship of workers only. Many social analysts who wrote after Marx had many quarrels with his ideas* While many of them would agree with him with regard to the origin of socio-economic inequalities( most of them rejected the idea of a class struggle which would lead to a socialist revolution* Led by Max weber, these critics adopted a reformist approach whereby the bourgeoisie would adapt itself to various social demands in order to forestall revolution and also in order to assure itself of continued flow of profits or incomes* These critics therefore view

Marxian conception of class antagonism as grossly exaggerated! they prefer to treat the interests of the workers and those of the bourgeoisie to be iden­ tical , that isv increased incomes for all*

Weber viewed classes as social situations which represented possiblef and frequent, basis for social action* People in such situations were members of various classes and they distinguished themselves mainly in possession of goods and opportunities for income, both of which must have some value marketable 49 at commodity and labour markets*

"Property and lack of property are the basic 50 categories of all class situations," says Weber.

But the important thing is that such property should have some exchangeable market value which, if desired could be exchanged for profit* Owners of property could transfer it from the sphere of use as wealth 25 to the sphere pf capital. In this way they become entrepreneurs and have the chance of profit making through market maniputafcion*

The propertied classes differ in the degree of their wealth* Some are wealthy while others are non­ weal thy. The former is much better placed to acquire and monopolise highly valued goods at the expense 51 of the latter* The propertyless on the other hand, are greatly at a disadvantage as they have nothing else to offer in the market except their labour or the resulting products* They are therefore forced to sell their labour or the resulting products to 52 others in order to subsist*

Within these two main classes, the property and the propertyless classes, further differentiation can be done according to the kind of property that is usable for returns on the one hand, and according to the kind of services that can be offered in the markets.

The property classes are divided into the 53 rentiers and the entrepreneurs. The former include the classes that receive Income from slaves, land, mines, installations, such as factories and equipments, ships, creditors and securites. The entrepreneurs, also called commercial classes, include the merchants, shipowners, Industrial and agricultural entrepreneurs, bankers and financiers, professionals such as lawyers, physicians or artists, and workers with monopolistic qualifications and skills (natural or acquired through drill or training)*

The propertyless classes include what Weber calls

"negatively privileged property classes" such as the unfree, the declassed (the proletarii or Antiquity), and the pauper, and also the skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labourers.

Weber also referred to various middle classes

"which also live from their property or acquired skills.

These are mainly found in what he calls "commercial classes." They include the self-employed farmers and craftsmen, private and public officials, and the liberal professionals and the specially qualified 54 labour groups.

According to Weber the market is the decisive moment which presents a common condition for the individuals fate. That is where they offer the property or services or skills for sale. Class situation therefore becomes the result of the market situation and not of sheer possession. Naked possession 55 then, is only a fore-runner of real "class" formation.

"Classes" or class situations are not necessarily identical with social classes, according to Weber.5®

He identifies four types of social classes* (a) the working classes, (b) the lower middle classes or 27 -

petty bourgeoisie, (c) privileged property and educated

classes, (d) propertyless intelligensia and specialists

who include technicians, various kinds of white-collar

employees, civil servants - possibly with considerable

social differences depending on the cost of their

training. As in class situations, social classes

are differentiated according to property, training

and skills. It seems here that Weber tries to make

a separation, though not a complete one, between

productive relations, and social relations. The

former are found in respect of class situations which

are basically determined by economic factors, while

the latter are found in social classes. Unlike Marx,

Weber thinks the two relations do not necessarily overlap.

As it can now be observed, one of the main

differences between Marx and Vaber in their treatment of socio-economic inequalities is that the former

tends to emphasize a bourgeois-proletariat dichotomy,

while the latter, though maintaining this model,

lays great emphasis upon a pluralistic conception of classes. Weber considers that Marx over-simplified

the problem when he lumped all types of ownership

together and all types of non-ownership on the opposite

side.

On development of capitalism, weber partly agrees with Marx that it sprung out of the ruins of feudalism.

But capitalism originated from a religious zeal of 28 protestantism which instilled in its believers values conducive to sacrifice and thrift which ultimately 57 led to capital accumulation and expansion. This is what Weber calls capitalistic enterprise. Those who managed to accumulate some capital were required to employ the labour of the poor in the interest of further capital accumulation. This development was at the same time helped by an advance in science and techno­ logy of the same age. Rationalism also favoured capitalist development by facilitating calculation and prediction necessary for planning strategies for 58 increased productivity and hence for increased profits.

Rationalism further led to institution of a legal order that laid down a basis of a market economy upon 59 which all class situations were founded. According to Weber, legal order and bureaucracy laid down rules and regulations which were necessary in order to create peaceful methods needed in order to engage in profit making activity.60

Like Marx, Weber also looks at the issue of class interests which may be held by Ma certain average of people" subjected to a class situation to which they belong.61 Although individuals may differ among themselves as far as their interests are concerned, they nevertheless realize that at times their indivi­ dual interests could only be satisfied as a result of their association aimed at a combined social action.

But Weber does not accept the Marxian view that beyond 29 this level of class "In itself", members of the same class could maintain the association at a higher level of class "for itself" whereby common interests, rather than individual interests, would be the main objective of the combination*

Association of individuals in the same class situation who also hold common interests may be a beginning of a kind of class struggle to which weber also refers* The association may be a result of differences within the society in respect of property distribution and the structure of the concrete economic 62 order. Then "men in the same class situation could regularly react in mass actions to such tangible situations as economic ones in the direction of those interests that are most adequate to their average 63 number ••••*••" * The peasant and artisan debtor, for example, struggled against the urban creditor in both Antiquity and Middle Ages, During the same periods the propertyless pretested against monopolies, pre-emption, forestalling and withholding of goods from the market in order to raise prices* The capi­ talist era experienced struggles in the commodity market and in the labour market over prices and wages, respectively. But as capitalism develops the struggle over commodity prices subsides and the central issue becomes the determination of the price of labour*®*

The struggle today therefore is one of "price wars," - 30 - whether of commodity or of labour* Weber conceptua­ lised the struggling parties in the following termst

"It is not the rentier, the shareholder, and

the bankers who suffer the ill will of the

worker, but almost exclusively the manufacturer

and the business executives who are the direct

opponents of workers in wage conflicts* This

is so in spite of the fact that it is precisely

the cash boxes of the rentier, the shareholder,

and the banker into which the more or less

unearned gains flow, rather than into the

pockets of the manufacturers or of the business 65 executives*"

In Weber*s conception therefore direct class struggle cannot take place between various labouring classes and the capitalist rentiers, shareholders and bankers* Although they in the end suffer loss of profits as a result of wage increases, for example, the target of the worker is the employer who is usually pefsonalized in the manufacturers and business executives* In this sense the workers are merely interested in wage increases and perhaps better working conditions* But they may not be interested in re-appropriation of ownership of means of production*

In Weberian sense, property ownership is Just one way of earning an income; it is similar to ownership of skills or ability to work in order to earn a living* The former depends on what Weber calls 31

"unearned gains," while the latter lives on worked- for incomes. This, according to Weber, does not constitute an exploitative condition, but a merely functional co-existence and dependency based on capitalistic motivation, talent and ability. Class struggle to pull down capitalism does not therefore become an issue, according to \iteber. Mobility becomes his major concern and the idea of a revolution therefore becomes irrelevant.

The middle class and peasants do not degenerate to pauperism of the working class as visualized by

Marx. Although they no longer can become independent small bourgeois as was the aim of every worker at i an earlier period, they nevertheless become workers who move upwards from generation to another. (They at least degenerate from being independent owners of property to being wage earning workers.) For both skilled and semi-skilled workers advancement exists leading into "the class of technically trained individuals." Money income therefore becomes over- 66 whelmingly decisive.

Weber’s main interest was to show that the

Marxian division of society into two separate camps - the property owners and the workers - did not apply in the real situations. His stress was instead on the fluidity and ease with which an individual could enter a class or move out of one class to another. 32 -

The emphasis was therefore on an individual*s interest and not on class or group interest. As such, unity of social classes or of people within a given class situation would be highly relative and variable. If this were the case, the struggle between an individual's short term interests and class long term interests rendered the idea of a revolution irrelevant.

These views found favour with many western social scientists who not only made further ramifications of classes and found new ways of determining class situations, but also tried to dispel the idea and need of the Marxian socialist revolution. Nearly

•11 of them tend to assume what has been called a post-capitalist society in wh&th the sharp distinctions of classes as seen by Marx tend to fade away.

One of the problems such scholars face is the definition of the concept class as a socio-economic phenomenon. Stanislaw Ossowski for example tried to find a general basis of conceptualizing the idea of class and in this endeavour he offered three 67 assumptions which he thought to be commonly acceptable.

In the first place he saw classes as constituting a system of the most comprehensive groups in the social structure. The two elements in this assumption are,

(a) that classes are the most comprehensive groups, and (b) that classes form a system of such groups.

Thus a "small" number of groups may be differentiated 33 - within a society according to criteria that are important in social lire. They are then treated as members of a certain system of relations* This means that the definition of any class must take into account the relation of this class to the other groups or classes in this system* Karx, for instance, explained who a capitalist was in relation to a proletariat •

People speak of a middle class in relation to upper and lower classes. To those who consider occupational differentiation to be important groups in the social systems, farmers, priests, and warriors will be viewed as classes without at the same time ceasing to be occupational groups. In the same way, says Ossownski, an ethnic or religious group can also in certain cases become a social class*

The second assumption regards class division as dealing with social statuses connected with a system of privileges and discriminations not deter­ mined by biological criteria. By this assumption he refers to groups which may be differentiated by what he calls "absolute division of privileges and discriminations (privileged and under-privileged groups)" and also to groups which may be differentiated by type of privileges and discriminations associated with them. Privileges and discriminations conferred upon a group on basis of sex are not Included in this assumption* 34

The third assumption considers the membership of individuals in a social class as relatively permanent*

Hence transition from one group to another is made by a few individuals only while the majority tend to live in their own groups throughout their life.

Many writers tend to accept Ossowski’s definition of class especially because it incorporates within it the factors of statutes which social theorists like Marx, considered to be a consequence of basic economic structure within a society. Unlike Weber he treats classes as groups of people differentiated

according to the criteria the members of a given

Such criteria could be relationship to the means of production, level of income, occupation, kinship, 68 power and specialised skills. Like Darhendorf,

Ossowski writes of the post-capitalist society which he argues has developed different criteria of class differentiation from the ones conceptualised by Marx*

Thus there are not two sharply distinct classes in post capitalist system but rather a multiplicity of class-groups mainly distinguished by their income level, source of income or occupation, and by style of life and power relationship. This conception comes close to what Parkin regards as the factor of class inequalities - that isyincome or reward derived from either occupational position or from 35 69 property owned. Parkin considers the emphasis given by Marxists on the factor of ownership of property to be accessary in the western societies where he observes that the long-run tendency has been for the share of national income accruing to property steadily to diminish relative to income from employment. He also observes that workers tend to buy shares from the institutions that employ them and so increase their income relative to the one received by the original sole owners of capital* 70

In his reward system approach socio-economic inequa­ lities become closely related to occupation and property ownership inter-relationship.

The same views are held by Darhendorf but he becomes particularly concerned with the Marxian con­ ception of class conflict struggle originating from diversity of property ownership and control on the one side| and deprivation and exploitation of labour on the other* He points out that the industrial societies have changed the structure of their institutions over the past century in many respects*

But that change has all the time retained the values 71 of rationality, achievement and equality* On the lines of Weber he stresses the value of achievement whereby the central place is accorded to individual capacity, effort and success* But here he seems not to take into account Ossowski*s conceotion of the 36

factor of permanence of class constitution. Thus,

Darhendorf, like Weber, disregards the fact that an

individual born in a family of millionaire industria­

lists has more opportunity of becoming an industrialist

even if he does not work as hard as his parents might

have done. They fail to appreciate the point that

the success of an individual could be passed on to his posterity who, if left to themselves, might never be able to realize achievement of his level. This point was held by Parkin who feared that inequalities based on Investments in property originating from

individual income from employment could be passed on to generations and thus make property ownership,

rather than individual achievement, a major factor 72 of class differences.

Darhendorf raises six factors which should make class conflict on the Marxian approach unnecessary, 73 if not impossible. He begins by arguing that through a process of "Decomposition of Capital" role differentiation has occurred in connection with owner­

ship and control of means of production. This has been due to emergence of joint stock companies in which the shareholders or owners of capital go into the background and leave the managers to control and run the capital on their behalf. As such the Marxian view of the capitalist as being the main focus of workers animosities gets reduced. But Darhendorf should no doubt be clearly warned of Leber's remark in this respect* He should note that in case of conflict between the workers and managers especially in regard to wages, it is "the cash boxes of the rentier, the shareholder and the banker •*••••* rather than ••••••• the pockets of the manufacturers or

the business executivesthat suffer the effect of reduced profits and divindeds

The other issue raised by Darhendorf concerns what he calls "Decomposition of Labour*" He maintains that by this process the workers,rather than being thrown out of work by mechanization in industry, acquire new skills and to a large extent become skilled and semi-skilled workers instead of remaining at the unskilled level only* Differences in training and skills have not increased the Marxian homogeneity as expected* Instead differentiation among the workers themselves has increased between lower and upper levels* . But Darhendorf ignores the fact that the more trained or skilled the worker, the more surplus labour value he is able to produce and hence the more exploited he becomes* Owners of capital care about trained and skilled personnel because they realize that the latter will be important in production of greater profits which the former appro­ priates* Homogeneity of the working class has no doubt been difficult to realize as the capitalists has stepped up their side of class struggle and 38 managed to keep the workers divided through the mechanism of differentiated renumeration and privileges and through the "gospel" of individual achievement.

Development of what Darhendorf calls the "New

Middle Class" is supposed to water down any serious antagonisms between the manual workers and the

Shareholders through the managers. He views the

"New Middle Class" as the group of people who fill the so called white-collar or blackcoat Jobs. They mainly include office workers especially the bureau­ crats and also such people as the shop assistants.

To Darhendorf a bureaucrat, whether in the upper or in the lower rungs of the hierarchy, shares in the exercise of authority and thus his position is directly linked to that of the dominant groups in the society. At the same time, the non-manual workers such as shop assistants may feel different but in reality they are very close to manual workers.

Unity of workers against dominant or ruling classes becomes very difficult.

Related to the issue of acquired skills and qualification is the aspect of social mobility which

Darhendorf considers to be on the increase in industrial societies. This mobility is inter and Untra-genera- tional and it tends to diminish class conflict and to stress individual competition for valued occupational positions. Like Weber money incomes become a very important motivator of individual will to get

higher skills and earn oneself promotion or a

better pccupation. But the individual in this

case remains a worker only that he may be more

qualified for increased productivity to make

greater profits for the capitalist to appropriate.

By the stress of individual mobility the society

abdicates its responsibility towards the members

who are incapable of helping themselves.

Over the last one century industrial countries

have undergone a series of changes which have

amounted to what Darhendorf calls "citizenship

rights" or equal rights. These rights include

legal, political and social rights whith tend to

equalize people of different class backgrounds.

Darhendorf becomes really vague when he refers

to legal rights for he assumes that the entire society would agree on what these should include and exclude.

He tends to equate legal rights with equality which

is itself another vague terminology. But he seems

to be clearer when he refers to political rights.

He maintains that universal suffrage and the right

to form political parties and associations involved

the removal of political conflicts from the factory

floor and the street to negotiating bodies and parliaments. He ignores the Marxian view that what­ ever "freedom" may be granted in a capitalist society 40 -

the rules and Ideas guiding such freedom are

bourgeois in origin and are meant to serve bour­

geois ultimate motives of profit making and capital

accumulation by exploiting the surplus labour value

of the entire working classes whatever their levels

of skill or designation. The bourgeoisie therefore

has had to adjust itself so as to protect their property and their productive positions as owners

and not as workers. Efforts towards such adaptation

involved institution of what Darhendorf calls social

rights which he believed completed the process of equalization of status to a point where the differences

and antagonisms of class became affected. The social

rights most recognized in industrial societies include old-age pensionsv unemployment benefits» public health insurance, and legal aid, as well as a minimum wage and minimum standard of living. He believes

that through these rights "absolute" and many milder

forms of privilege and deprivation become excluded

from the society. But Darhendorf no doubt should have recalled that these citizen rightst especially the social rights, were passed on to the industrial

societies only after exploitation of land and people in colonies had produced unprecedented wealth in the hands of the capitalists. The latter could then pass part of this wealth in form of social rights to the rest of the people in their countries mainly in order to hold them from reappropriating ownership 41 of means of production. He does not confess that without colonies the industrial societies would have to appropriate property ownership and profits thereof in order to achieve the same social rights.

Lastly Darhendorf looks at what he calls institutionalization of class conflict in form of recognized procedures of industrial arbitration.

He considers the idea of industrial democracyf which encourages workers* participation in decision making within their firms, as a move towards preventing class conflicts of the type visualized by Marx. This approach had to be introduced as part of bourgeois adaptation exercise but not as a means of reducing diversity of interests between workers and capitalists. They were mere symbolic measures whose effect was to obscure reality of exploitationt degradation and oppression of workers by the bourgeoisie.

Darhendorf further wants to divert our attention from the real source of social economic inequalities within a capitalist society. He suggests that funda­ mental inequality of social structure, and the lasting determinant of social conflict, is the inequality of power and authority which inevitably accompanies social organization. He however does not tell us the source of power and authority inequalities in a capitalist society. Zf he should accept the

Marxian view that inequality of power and authority - 42 -

originates from basic economic inequalities then

he should also accept that the real source of

social inequalities and conflicts are based on

basic economic inequalities. Such basic

economic inequalities would not be possible

withoht appropriation of means of production

by a few capitalists while at the same time

alienating the other bulk of the society from

their real labour value.

This point of power and authority is taken

by Djilas and treated as the basis upon which

"the New Class" appropriates profits of a socialized

production. The new class is considered to include

"the bureaucracy, or some accurately, the political

bureaucracy, which having built on the basis of

party, have assumed special privileges and economic

preferences because of the administrative monopoly 74 they hold." According to Djilas ownership of means of production is not the main basis of exploitation as the control of production and distribution of profits coming out of it. Thus,

for example, in the Soviet Rusiia the means of production is owned by the state. But bureaucracy exercises power of control of means of production to such extent that they manage to appropriate the fruits of production at the expense of the

majority of the population.The extent of control they 43 have also radices them constitute themselves as the most oppressive class of all times* Thus abolition of private property as Marx laid down may not in itself lead to an end of class exploitation and oppression* Djilas suggests that the bourgeoisie may be replaced by bureaucracy which in its turn, institutes rules and regulations, and spreads its control to cover all aspects of society’s life in a bid to maintain itself as the sole appropriators of social production* Rationality viewed by weber (| is also Incorporated in order to increase production and fruits for appropriation and also in order to 75 improve and tighten the mechanism of control*

what Djilas seems to suggest is that classes, class struggle, exploitation and oppression may not be ended by mere socialization of ownership of means of production. Efforts to institute ways and means of socializing profits should be made 76 if a true socialist state is to be realized*

This means that in the study of socio-economic inequalities property ownership should not be the only factor of consideration* Indeed power and authority either to distribute property or profits

Of production may be of great importance* If Marx considered the bourgeoisie as exploiters and oppressors because they appropriated other people’s surplus labour value in form of profits, then those who use the basis of power and authority, other 44 f than the basis of ownership of means of production

to appropriate the same should be treated as 77 exploiting and oppressing classes as well.

Lenin, who was one of the chief architects of the Russian Revolution viewed classes as large

"groups of people one of which can appropriate

the labour of another owing to the different places they occupy in a definite system of social 78 economy. "He accepted and supported Marx’s view h of historical development of classes and the use of a revolution to bring an end to the bourgeois

system upon which was based bourgeoisie exploitation

and oppression of the working classes. In his view the socialist stage of class development was

Just a transitional stage in which efforts would be continued in order to establish a Communist

state in which the dictatorship of the bourgeoise would be replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus nationalization of the means of production which would create a socialist state would have to establish a new socio-political system which would also ensure that the appropriation of

social production would be done by the proletariat and peasants and not by the remnants of the bourgeoi-

sle. 7 9

One of his greatest contributions to the study of national and international social change was the analysis of the motives and consequences of imperia- 45 lism. Talcing over from where Marx leftt Lenin observed that capitalism had extended its exploitative and oppressive hand to foreign countries in order to maximize profits and capital accumulation. He therefore called An imperialism "the highest stage of capitalism'.

Simply put, imperialism was the child of capi- tailst monopolies which were in form of combines, cartels, syndicates and trusts. These monopolies were formed in order to eliminate competition between various capitalists and to maximize their profits by regulating production and maintaining high prices. They seized the most important sources of raw materials, especially for the basic and most highly cartelized industries in the capitalist societies; the coal and iron industries. The effect of this monopolization was an enormous increase of the power of big capital, and the sharpening of antagonism between cartelized and non-cartelized industry. The latter type of industry was usually forced to Join the cartels whose power was further increased always at the expense of the working classes.

According to Lenin monopolies sprung from the banks, the original and main function of which was to act as middlemen in the making of payments.

In this exercise, the banks turned inactive money - 4 6 - capital inti) active capital which actually yielded profits. They collected all kinds of money revenues and placed them at the disposal of the capitalist class who in turn utilized hired labour to earn greater profits and greater capital expansion.

Banks grew from humble middlemen enterprises and became monopolists of finance capital. As this kind of capital was controlled by the banks and employed b* industrialists, Lenin considered that the banker had been indirectly transferred into an industrial capitalist. This kind of situation was brought about by monopolistic concentration of production on the one hand, and the subsequent merging or coalescence of the 81 banks with industry. Through that merger, the finance oligarchy with its monoply of finance capital managed to throw a close network of dependence relationship over all the economic and political institutions of the bourgeois society.

The close relationship and cooperation between industrial bourgeoisie and finance capitalists made possible the exportation of capital as distinguished from the exportation of commodities to foreign 82 countries. As this capital was aimed at facili­ tating exploitation of foreign natural resources and foreign cheap labour, it became necessary to reduce international capitalist competition.

This led to the formation of international monopolist capitalist combines which shared the world among themselves to exploit. They used their various governments to formalize the sharing and in the end the world was divided ✓ into territories called "spheres of influence" under the control of the big capitalist powers.

Exploitation and oppression of the bourgeoisie in the capitalist countries was extended to the colonies.®^

Lenin would not accept the idea of sociali­ zation of production as in the case of public corporation and public companies. He argues that such a situation, mainly advocated by

Marxist Revisionists, would not eliminate exploitation and oppression as it would not lead to socialization of the end products of 84 such a production, that is profit.

As this kind of socialization of both means of production and profits would be resisted by the bourgeoisie, Lenin fully advocated the Marxian revolutionary approach to remove capitalism everywhere in the world. The capitalists, he says, have the power of money and violent oppression through the bureaucracy, the police, and the armies.

To expect that they would be willing to surrender 48 their profits, peacefully would be a merely furlon hope. Like Marx, he suggested that violent revolution was the only means by which capitalism could be brought to an end. After a socialist revolution begins to be won, a change of relations to means of production and also of social relations guiding distribution of profits must be brought about.

A study of socio-political economy in Africa must begin with an analysis of the pre-colonial era if an understanding of the effects of coloni­ zation and neo-colonization has to be clearly established. The entire socio-economic structure of pre-colonial Africa was founded on land as the source of life for human beings, livestock and wild game. Apart from catering for livestock and wild game, land in Africa was largely used for agricultural nnrnnsps. Most of the pfeople mixed agriculture and livestock keeping or pastoralism with some agriculture. Others mixed agriculture and livestock keeping with some hunting and fishing and vice versa. Land was not only the source of food but also of raw materials for making iron- tools and weapons, pottery, basketry, clothing and housing. As such, land was the single most important natural resource in Africa.

Like nearly all natural resources in Africa, 85 land was dominantly communally owned. As far 49

as an individual was concerned, land was not

usually regarded as property but as a natural 86 resource, in control of him who put it to use.

But its ownership was generally vested in the

King, or chief or clan head, all of who held it

in trust for the entire community. As most of

these were linked to the community through some

ties such as marriage or blood, most African

peoples always referred to their ancestral land.

Among the Lozi, for example, "the king is the

land and the land is the King", yet no one there

can call himself a true Lozi unless he can point 87 to the ancestral land in the Plain or nation.

By traditional African customs the individuals

could claim an undisturbed tenure of a holding

in the communal land so long as they needed to ~oo use it. But when they ceased to do so, it

reverted to the community and could be appor­

tioned to others. Thus, for example, under the

Jukun Feudal System where the King is the owner

of all land, any person is free to farm all

unoccupied and uncultivated land without

reference to anyone, not even the King or the 89 • chief. Among the Banyoro and Basoga, the

King and chief respectively, are the owners of

land and they distribute it to the members of

their Kingdoms as desired. In Banyoro the

peasants were free to settle anywhere in the 50 country without asking for permission from the chief to whom the oversight of the district 90 belonged* Among the Luo in Kenya land was held by various lineages but individual household head shared out the land held for cultivation between his wives and between the 91 other women in the house*

The main implication of this kind of communal land ownership was that sale or disposal of land to members outside the land holding community was a very difficult and sometimes an impossible exercise* Transfer within the community was normal and it was considered that the outgoing cultivator could get some good-will commission from the incoming one*

The other implication of communal land ownership was that the relatives lived close together and were able to cooperate in many social and economic activities for the good of all* Among the people mainly concentrating on livestock keeping this cooperation and commu- nalism was demonstrated by having their animals herded and grazed together* Among the cultivators such as the Katab of Northern Nigeria the system of one day's cooperative work (gaya) was there 92 every now and then on an individual's farm*

Farming in one locality fosters such a cooperation 93 especially among relatives* As such the 51

Interests of the community vis-a-vis those of the

Individual became paramount and were based on communal ownership of natural resources, such as rivers, forests, grazing fields, iron ore sources, and in particular land.

Except in feudal Kingdoms where the feudal Kings and chiefs specialized in government activities while the peasants, cattlemen, craftsmen and traders actually engaged in productive activities* most of

Africa, was characterized by specialization of labour 94 based on age and sex. Among the Masai of Kenya, for example, young males were charged with the duty of looking after cattle; the young initiated males with the people's defence and maintenance of order; 95 and the elders with law making and conflict solution.

Among the Tonya of Zambia crafts were primary subject to sexual division of labour, in which woodwork and metal-work was assigned to men while the making of 96 baskets, pots and mats was the work of women. Men also cleared the fields, cut poles for huts, granaries and storage platforms, and built these. They also cared for the cattle, dug the fields, and gave an occasional hand in weeding and harvesting. They hunted and fished, women on the other hand, did the house work, brew beer, planted, weed and harvested.

They gathered firewoodm thatched and plastered the

.houses. 97

Some specialization beyond age and sex, however, - 52 - existed widely in such fields as pottery-making,

iron smelting and smithing, cloth making, priestly, medicine, and trade* Thus in Nigeria for instance metal working and smithing had specialists, with

"mysteries” of their craft concealed from the 98 common people* Not every village possessed its blacksmith group* Some might, therefore, need

to travel some distance to purchase farm implements, and weapons* Some towns in Nigeria became "factory" centres where blacksmiths congregated in cooperative guilds numbering several dozen craftsmen and became known as places where iron products of greater 99 variety and superior workmanship could be obtained*

Among the Kikuyu in Kenya iron work and tool and weapon making was a speciality of sub-clans- mbari

- called Aturi* There were potters called Ombl and professional medicinemen called ago* In most cases, specialized activities were performed in addition to normal activities for day to day subsis­ tence of every family* Nevertheless in places like the Bunyoro Kingdom some groups of peoples specialized in agriculture only for their subsistence, while others specialized in agriculture only for their subsistence, while others specialized in cattle keeping*100 But in many African societies agricul­ ture, livestock keeping, and crafts, were practised side by side by each individual family or homestead*

Technology was on the move towards fast develop- 53 ment when Africa was colonized. Nearly every society had its methods of iron smelting and tool/weapon making, cloth making and building construction. In west Africa, as we have seen, smelting and tool making was highly developed and it attracted custo­ mers from neighbouring lands. But the manufacture of cloth was much more elaborate an industry and the market for it spread throughout the entire West

Africa. European traders purchased cloth from there and resold it elsewhere. Morocco, Mauritania,

Senegambia, Ivory Coast, Benin, Yorubaland and

Loango were all exporters of cloth to other parts of Africa through the European middlemen.Some of the ancient, most glorious cities in the world were in Africa and had been built by Africans. Thus the Western Sudan cities, the central African empire of Zimbambwe, the Eastern African empire of Zinj, the pyramids and temples of Egypt and Ethiopia demonstrate clearly that Africa was not technologi­ cally undeveloped when it came into contact with 102 the Europeans.

Traditional African socio-economic systems have generally been described as egalitarian and communal but this should not imply homogeneity in 103 the whole of Africa. As indicated above feudal

Kingdoms and states were also found in Africa and feudal Kings and chiefs owned land in principle while the peasants and herdsmen utilized it because 54

the former allowed them to do it out of his assumed benevolence* Such states and Kingdoms included

Buganda, Ethiopia, Mali, Ghana, Songhay, the Hausa

and Fulani city states of Western Sudan, the Lozi of Barotseland, the Congo and Lubaland Kingdoms, 104 Bunyoro and Busoga of Uganda* It was in these

feudal states that huge empires were built and

technology highly advanced In terms of gold mining

as in west and Central Africa; iron manufacture as

in Ethiopia and West Africa; and cloth manufacture

as in West Africa* These states also operated very

developed trade with foreigners including fellow

African lands, Europeans, Chinese and Arabs*

In West Africa in particular there were the ruling

class, the peasants, industrialists and traders*

The feudal kings and chiefs normally collected dues

and fees from the other classes and this sometimes

led to animosities between them which was no doubt

an indication of class struggle in Africa before

the coming of Europeans* Thus, for example, the

chief in French Equatorial Africa demanded either

collective work or Mtaxes" from the working peasants

and craftsmen a practice that was usually a source

of trouble* In the same place a form of "domes­

tic slavery" was normal especially among members of

the ruling class* As such, it seems clear that the

form of egalitarianism or communalism that prevailed

in most parts was mainly among the uncentralized societies where ownership of land and seat of authority was vested in the clan or sub-dan and not in the person of the chief or king* In such cases a spokeman for the clan could be appointed but he could not appropriate either land or other propertyt or even power, at the expense of other members*

Contacts between Africa and Europe had been there for many centuries before colonialism set its foot in Africa* This was in form of fair and inde­ pendent trade which was first conducted across the 107 Sahara and later on shifted to the coastal areas.

Africans exported slaves, ivory, gold-dust, palm- products, and groundnuts, while they imported powder and weapons, tobacco, spirits, beads, silk and woven goods* But from_JJ51X-the principal commodity for export was slaves and it became a lucrative trade 108 for Europeans and many African rulers* «ihen this trade was ended, and this was after the American colonies ceased to be the main source of raw material for British fast growing industries, efforts were made to find new colonies elsewhere* In Africa

Slave Trade was stopped by the efforts of Philan­ thropists, but the traders and capitalist industria­ lists and financiers were quick to colonize the continent and to utilize its land and cheap labour at their own profits*

Virtually the entire continent of Africa had 56 been colonized at one time or other, some parts of it are still under colonial rule. If we assume

Lenin's conception of imperialism, then we view imperial conquest as a capitalist conquest in a bid to extend exploitation and oppression to African lands and peoples. The purpose of colonization then becomes to export finance capital which could be utilized to make African land and cheap labour produce profits for the capitalists on the one hand, and also to create markets for capitalist 109 industries, back in the metropolis on the other.

Before the colonial period the European monopoly had stopped at the coast. African states and merchants carried on the trade from there.110

But in order to satisfy the new capitalist search for exploitable land and people, the interior had to be reached. The people in the interior had to be subjugated, their governments and states destroyed, and their economic activities paralysed if the new system had to start operating. It was on the ruins of feudal kingdoms and states and uncentralized egalitarian systems in Africa that a capitalist system was to be set up. This system was not to develop from within the societies of the continent.

It was to be imposed by experienced capitalists from

European countries who were in search of greater profits. The process of conquest in Africa was realized mainly through the efforts of the traders, the administrators and missionaries* Traders, mainly in the nineteenth century signed or made treaties with Africans which were aimed at allowing them to carry out trade and arect trading posts on the latter's territories.1,11 But most of these treaties actually never gave the European traders or govern­ ments any claim to land or any right to rule the people of Africa. It was when the bourgeois controlled European governments started supporting capitalist trading companies, such as the British

Imperial East Africa Company and the East Africa syndicate, that subjugation of African peoples and alienation or exploitation of their lands became 112 a reality. The age of Imperial conquest began after 1800.

After the actual conquest had been achieved through treaties, "bible", or the gun, colonial administrators began to create permanent institutions and structures which would ensure permanent subju­ gation. In this endeavour traditional authorities were eliminated or replaced by colonial officials or their hand-picked representatives. The institution of chieftainship in particular was created in 113 socieites in which it never existed. where it was established, the office was initially adopted by the colonizing officers. In the latter case, stale or uncorporatlve traditional chiefs were 114 replaced with more pliable or docile leaders*

Zn nearly all cases the chiefs were charged with the duty of carrying out government orders which related to the people under them* These were usually in form of communal labour recruitment for government works, tax collection and recruit­ ment of labour for private European employers on farms, plantations and mines. As a kind of rein­ forcement of the institution of chieftainship, the colohial government also instituted courts and tribunals, police and army, and a bureaucracy, all of which aimed at promoting subservience of the

African peoples and also at systematizing oppression and exploitation.

The other agent of colonial domination was the missionary who usually preceded the European govern­ ment agents in the interior* In such cases the missionaries became experts in local African languages customs and traditions and the administrators who followed them turned to them for advice in respect of ways and means of subjugation.**5 As they were closer to the people, the missionaries also gauged the reaction of the common people to the policies of the colonizing powers. Zn this sense, therefore, they served imperial interests.**^

The missionaries were also first in the introduction of education and medicine* They began by selective conversion and education of a section

of any community in which they settled* In many

places this section m b made up of the outcast and

the underprivileged such as slaves, beggars, and 117 criminals. The effect of this approach was the

status inversion whereby the formerly underprivileged

members of the society, on becoming educated, were

able to earn salaries which constituted a new economic

base and also to occupy new positions of power which 118 could not be occupied by the uneducated. The

settlers and missionaries needed clerks and teachers;

the administration needed interpreters, literate

chiefs and minor officials who could work within 119 a bureaucratic system. These could only come

from schools and the missionaries operated such

schools. It therefore followed that under the all- powerful Europeans the first place in the power-

structure of the colonized Africa was filled by 120 Christian Africans. It was they who were to execute the social changes desired by Europeans;

they were to lead the way in developing a culture which would make Africa in some way adapt itself 121 to the forces of change.

while the missionaries concentrated on changing

the values of the Africans through education and

Christianity, European capital engaged itself in

alienating African land for the purposes of mining, 122 farming and land-holding. This meant that, as 60 socio-political structure of the society was being destroyed, economic structure which had been the basis of the former was also being destroyed and a new one was being laid down* In areas where land alienation was directly done, such as in South Africa,

Rhodesia, Kenya and Nyasaland (Malawi), the Africans were deprived of the basis of their independent production and subsistence. In such cases they were expected to become wage labourers in the newly

European acquired mines, farms and plantations* In areas where direct alienation was not the case, such as in most of West Africa, the peaaants were forced to become European agents for the production of raw materials such as rubber, palm oil, and groundnuts, 124 in return for mere token prices* In both cases, the African had been converted into a dependent exploited human being who had to work the land in order to profit the European capitalist in the metropolis and their representatives in the colonies.

New needs and values were introduced into the

African societies with the aim of forcing people to go out and work in European mines, farms or plantations, or on ’'government plantations” as in 125 'West Africa* These included European made commodities such as sugar, salt, pure iron, cloth, spirits, matches, knives, hoes, basins, wire and other metal goods turned out by the expading mass 126 production techniques of the industrial revolution* 61

The effect of this Introduction was dual* In the first place it sounded the death-bell of African manufactured goods, especially cloth and iron goods, and in the second place the new goods required that a person earn some cash money in order to be able 127 to obtain them* By the first implication, new markets for European bourgeois industries were opened, and by the second implication Africans had to seek ways and means of obtaining some cash* Land having been alienated to a great extent, and indus­ tries and crafts having been subverted by European competition, the only alternative most of the Africans had was to work in European enterprises* Wh>ere the Africans retained their shambas they were forced to grow crops which earned them very little money or returns, but which earned great profits for the 128 European capital industrialists.

Initially the colonialists imagined that if they would only create new needs for the Africans, 129 the indigenous people would go out and work*

But this did not in fact become the case, particularly because the people who adopted the new values and needs were very few, especially the educated and new power elites, as compared with the traditional bulk of the population who adamantly resisted conversion into European ways of life* The new elites earned cash salaries and were able to purchase

"European'1 goods* The rest of the population had «* 62 •»

largely ignored the presence of the new goods and

therefore needed only minimum cash which actually

did not require them to go out to work in order to

earn it. With this experience the Europeans resorted

to taxes. These taxes had to he paid in cash money

and working for Europeans was thought to he the only

way of earning it.*®0 The effect was to introduce the 131 hulk of Africans to a modern money economy. Where some Africans chose to pay tax in kind, greater

deprivation followed because the administration would 1 seize goods stored for the taxpayer’s own use. The latter was then converted into a worker in order to pay 133 tax for the next period. Labour therefore became commercialised as the Africans entered the market economy and land had also to become a commercial commodity.European capitalists

benefited from cheap labour which they hired to exploit the natural resources of Africa. The beneficiaries of commercialisation of land were on the one hanc; the

Europeans who bought it from the colonial government after the latter had alienated it from the Africans,and

on the other hand the new African salaried elite who bought and accumulated land at the expense of their fellow Africans.The other effect of money economy was the individualisation of land and property ownership Bj which became possible as the new African elite adopted European values and attitudes and called for the

registration of titles,This shift from the communal , land and property ownership of the traditional systems, - 63 became a basis of new socio-economic structure in African societies.This structure was based on the new socio-political structure of the elite versus the rest of the African population onthe one hand,and of European capitalists versus the entire colonised peoples of Africa on the other. Thus while European capital exploited African land and its peoples, the new African elite under,the protection of capitalism, got a chance ♦ of primitive capital accumulation. They became "primitive capitalists" who linked the other population of the African peoples to European capitalism for oppression and exploitation. The latter degenerated into poor peasants, small-petty-traders, squatters and workers while the new"primitive capitalists" participated,though in a limited way, in cash crop growing, trade, and small- scale property ownership side by side with European capitalists. Like the Europeans, the new African "primitive capitalists" began to employ their fellow Africans as wage labourers. But the real capitalist class,which was composed of Europeans, exploited the entire African people - both "primitive capitalists" and the masses.

For the purposes of European capital accumulation all Africans were subjected to European racism. Whether privileged or not, the Africans were meant to satisfy the raison d ’etre of European colonial capitalists, that is, exploitation of African natural resources through African cheap labour power and increasing and expanding their capital accumulation,1014 Racism was meant to 64 obscure thia hard fact.

The European educated African elite,together with

some members of the new "primitive capitalist" class, were soon to start calling for an end to racism as an end to European colonial domination. Most of them had confused the means with the end. Racism to Europeans was Just a means; profit and capital accumulation was

their end. This had to be more conveniently achieved

through oppression and exploitation hidden under the cover of white-European racism against the black Africans.133 To the majority of the African elite and "primitive

capitalists", the removal of European racial discrimination would open the way for them to participate fully in capitalist profit making on equal terms with European capitalists.To them therefore struggle against colonialism and racism was aimed At endlhg^ Enropeafi capitalist monopoly of land and property appropriation on large-scale and profits thereof. In other words they aimed at sharing in appropriation of the means of production and in exploitation and oppression of the African

masses in order to maximize profits on equal basis with European capitalists.

A few Africans, however, were able to identify the

real enemy of the African struggle for independence.These

included Kwame Nkrumah who viewed exploitation and oppression as the real enemy of the colonised Africans. He considered Pacism to be a means of class exploitation and oppression and therefore came out with race-class struggle model of colonised Africans against European racial and socio-economic capitalist class.He intimated * 66 —

that the strategy for ending colonial capitalist class

exploitation and oppression would he to combat racism

first and then it would he easier to fight and eliminate I the exploiting and oppressing classes later on.

Nkrumah*8 dreams were, however, to he frustrated after the attainment of political formal independence in Africa. Unlike the time of colonisation, the process of

decolonisation was largely not accompanied hy a destruction of

and replacement of the socio-economic structures upon

which colonial capitalist exploitation and oppression 137 were founded. As a result, a higher stage of capitalism

than the one envisaged hy Lenin developed and it has recently been referred to as neo-colonialism or 138 neo-imperialism. In an attempt to preserve itself against being destroyed and replaced hy African communal "egalitarianism", capitalism adopted an international approach and immediately adapted itself to the changing

political envlroment while at the same time it made sure that its original goals of capital accumulation would go ahead unhindered.

The process of adaptation, which normally began seriously Immediately before independence, involved incorporation or cooptation of the colonial made African elite and "primitive capitalists" who took over political and bureaucratic power positions which were formerly occupied by European capitalist government agents. They became coopted into the capitalist exploiting sector of the capitalist economy which they were"persuaded" to maintain, and which continued, as in the colonial days, to stand in sharp contradistinction with the exploited 66- sector mainly made up of the peasants, small-petty-traders and workers classes. This process, as we shall see in

Chapter IV particularly involved and continues to involve the manipulation of the international finance capital through which an African "capltallst"cla68s without capital,and therefore a petty-bouegeoisie,was created mainly from the colonial made African elite and "primitive capitalist" who at the time of independence predominantly occupied political and bureaucratic power positions of the 140 independent country. At the same time the same international capital was wielded to a lesser extent in order to pre-empt and contain the peasants, small-petty- trders,squatters and workers from increasing their demand for an end to exploitation and oppression by 141 European capitalism.

The attainment of political independence by the African countries therefore does not in many cases alter the fundamental class relations or the dominance of colonial made institutions which promoted capitalist interests. The African petty-bourgeolsle become protective of an intensified capitalist sub-system which continues to link the country to metropolitan and

International capitalist system. In the meantime the country and the entire economy become more and more dependent on the metroples. The result is the development of underdevelopment or growth without development.14^ This entailed what Samir Amin calls development or growth generated find maintained from outside without the establishment of a social structure capable of bringing about an automatic transition 67 to the next higher stage, that of internally centred 14:3 and self-regulating growth.

The neo-colony, as in the colonial period, continues to act as a satellite of the metropolis.144 The former continues to supply foreign capitalists, whether locally or foreign "based, with raw materials and foodstuffs whilg the metropolis continues to supply manufactured capital and conspicuous consumption goods.

The metropolis also moves to monopolize all forms of production including material and intellectual production. Nearly all agricultural, industrial, educational, and technological development falls under the control of various agents of international capitalism.146

The main strategy of a neo-colonialist take-over which is achieved through the intrument of foreign capital credit,foreign technology and foreign capital Investment "becomes to create and consolidate an African petty-bourgeoisie through which subservience of the masses is ensured for the purpose of continued capitalist exploitation and oppression. The African petty-bourgeoisie, who really are the national ruling elass,146 and are Incorporated into the system of international capitalism, turn to participating fully in the exploitation of their fellow Africans' labour and land in order to reap some profits by supplying the industries of the metropolis, locally or foreign based, with cheap raw materials and foodstuffs. Meanwhile they, and through them the masses, become the dumping ground for the metropolitan industrial manufactured capital goods and conspicuous consumption goods. 68 -

The original zeal for freedom from European capitalist exploitation and oppression is in reality thwarted. Dependency continues and it is intensified and extended to cover all aspects of the neo-colony including political, social and economic fields.

Many African leaders in post-independent Africa fail to realize this retraction of their Independence through deeper incorporation of their countries into the internationalised capitalism. They believe they are independent entities with equal partnerships with their former masters and international world systems. But they do nbt realize that until they disengage from they capitalist international system they continue to "be ? part of the exploited sub-system of that system.

The symbolic freedom they received on the independence day becomes a myth but no more a reality.

As a result of such an illusionary situation all efforts to develop an endogenous and Independent system becomes absolutely impossible. Instead the colonial developed theory of dualist economy,which in fact served tc obscure the role of the capitalist sector as an instrument of capitalist exploitation and oppression of the so-called small-scale sector, is readopted. The former sector which is made up of foreign bourgeoisie and the ruling African petty-bourgeolsie classes oppresses and exploits the latter sector which is composed of peasants, small-petty-traders, squatters and workers. 69

Given this situation, it therefore becomes

contradictory for the leaders in Kenya to claim and

support continuation and perpetuation of a dualist

development approach and at the same time assert that

there are no classes in Kenya and that efforts would be

1 A C made to ensure that none developed. This amounts to a

claim that Kenyan socio-economic"system" is an independent system and one based on an egalitarian and communal mode of production relations. Such a system as we shall show below in Chapters II and III and IV ceased to exist in Kenya as soon aB various Kenyan peoples became

Incorporated into the capitalist system during colonial and neo-colonial domination. A dualist developmental approach assumes the existence or the emergence of an

exploiting class of the exploiting sector as opposed to 149 an exploited class or classes of the exploited sectbr.

The foregoing survey of classical and modem theories on socio-economic inequalities becomes the basis of

analysis of the origin and development of socio-economic inequalities in Kenya. Like most of the other African countries Kenya fell under colonial capitalist domination which converted her into an exploited sub-system of a wider capitalist system. A study of the formation and consolidation of socio-economic inequalities becomes an important basis of understanding the origins of l

underdevelopment in Kenya from the colonisation period to the present day.lt also suggests how the prevailing - status quo of stagnation and intensified underdevelopment can be terminated and how Kenyans can start their own true development in the place of the Illusory

"development" which in reality only underdevelops them and their country.

In this study we shall assume the centrality of the ownership of the means of production in the determination of the socio-economic and political set up in the Kenyan society. All efforts of both colonial and poet-independence governmental and private bodies up to the present day will be viewed as attempts at

Institutionalisation of capitalist destruction of the traditional Kenya African egalitarian "communalism" in order to replace It with differentiated socio-economic system in which a section of it is exploiting the other section or sections. The role of state in the expropriation and appropriation exercise will be examined in relation to its effect on the formation or consolidation of socio-economic inequalities in colonial and post-independence periods.

Ownership of property alone will not be the only measure of class inequalities in our study. We shall also use the factor of the degree of opportunity to own, or to own more, property,land or any other profit earning means of production.This will be measured in terms of power or Influence which, if he so wished, an individual could wield for the purpose of land, property and wealth appropriation. Thus political, bureaucratic and economic power or influence will be one of our important determinants of socio-economic inequalities. Land,as the main basis of traditional and modern socio-economic and political activities, will be treated as the most Important means of production determinant of both productive and social relations in the country.

Other types of economic ownerships, such as real estates and businesses, will be considered as reinforcing the central importnace of land.

Having established our conceptual framework and the scope of our study,we shall now turn to examine the origins,formation and development of socio-economic inequalities in Kenya. In our second chapter land ownership will be studied in relation to socio-economic and political systems of traditional societies which were generally communal and egalitarian in terms of both ownership and use of all the means of production and livelihood and particularly land. The third chapter will examine the process by which the external forces of European capitalism invaded Kenya and appropriated most of the agricultural and pastoral traditional land under the umbrella of colonial administration and how exploitation of cheap African labour was done in spite of great resistance by Africans. The fourth chapter looks at the process by which European capitalism

introduced and manipulated international finance capital on the issue of land and managed to reassert itself

strongly in the post-independence Kenya in form of what we have called neo-colonialism or neo-imperialism

in Kenya.The fifth and last chapter will examine

socio-political implications of the whole study. • 72 -

This will concentrate on showing how class struggle within the indigenous Africans nay "be intensified as consolidation of international capitalism gets deeper in Kenya, - 73 - FOOT NOTES

X* The Republic of Plat*, Francis M. Cotnford,

p. 63.

2. Richard L. Nettleship, Lectures on Plato's

Republic, (Macmillan, 1968) p. 138.

3. Aristotle, Politics, (N.Y. Modern Library,

1943) p. 190.

4. op. cit. p. 191.

5. Ibid.

6. op. cit. p. 192. It is not yet clear if Vi he also meant that lack of middle-class

moderation wpuld lead to poor-class

revolution and liquidation of state as

Marx later maintained.

7. Karl Marx, Capital, (George Allen & Union

Ltd., 1971) pt. XXX.

8. Ibid.

9. Communist Manifesto, Marx and F. Engels,

p. 81.

10. op. cit. p. 79.

11. op. cit. p. 81.

12. K. Marx and F. Engels, The Germany Ideology

(N.Y. International Pub. 1939). p. 18.

13. op. cit. p. 16.

14. op. cit. p. 16.

15. Quoted from Lenin V.I., Selected Works

(Moscow, 1960) p. 38.

16. Marx, Capital, p. 738. 74

17# Op* cit* p* 737*

Note also that it was at this stage that

labour power per se assumes the nature of

market commodity to be bought and used to

maximize the capitalist's profits just as

capital (tools and machinery) or raw-materials

are used for the same purpose*

18* op* cit* pp* 737— 738*

Also p* 147 ••••••• free in the double sense,

that as a freeman he can dispose of his

labour power as his own commodity, and that

on the other hand he has no other commodity

for sale99

19* Op. cit* pp* 147-148*

20* Surplus labour value is produced by surplus

labour power. Also Lenin, op* cit*

Introduction.

21. Capital

Communist Manifesto.

22* Op. cit* p* 82.

23* Capital, p. 660-661*

24* Communist manifesto, p. 82*

25* Op* cit* p* 93*

26* Capital, pp. 627-628.

27* Op* cit* p. 627*

28* Op* cit p* 663*

29* Op. cit* pp* 673-674*

30* Op* cit* p* 629* 75

31• Marx and Engela, German Ideology.

32. Communist Manifesto, p. 102.

33# Op. cit. p. 106.

34. Op. cit# p. 79.

35. Op. cit. p. 80.

This will however not be taken to imply

that all other classes had been liquidated.

Marx himself constantly referred to such

classes as the peasant proprietors,

’’dangerous" class, lumpen proletariat,

petty-bourgeoisie, the lower-middle class

comprising of the better off part of the

working class and small shopkeepers,

agricultural workers and unemployed industrial

"armies.” Communist Manifesto, pp. 88; and

Capital pp. 659, 675, and 677.

36. Communist Manifesto, p. 88.

37# Op. cit. pp. 80—81.

38. Op. cit. pp* 81—82.

39. Op. cit. p. 92.

40. Marx, K., The Poverty of Philosophy, (N.Y.

International Pub.) p. 145.

41. Op. cit. p. 146.

42. Ibid. ” .... the struggle of class against

class is a political struggle.”

43. Communist Manifesto, p. 87. This same

sentiment is also expressed in pp. 82, 90

and 91#

44. Op. cit. pp. 90-91. 76

45. " ... the proletariat alone is a really

revolutionary class," Ibid*

46. Ibid.

47. Op, cit. p. 92.

48. Marx says that his analysis of primitive

accumulation "does not pretend to do more

than trace the path by which, in Western

Europe, the capitalist order of economy

emerged from the womb of the feudal order

of the economy." He stresses that this

historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism

in Western Europe must not be turned into "an

historic-philosophic theory of the general

path every people is fated to tread, whatever

the historical circumstances in which it

finds itself....."

"MARX TO THE EDITORIAL BOARD OF THE "OETCHES-

TVENNIYE ZAPISKI". Extracted from Africa

Review, pp. 472-79; vol. 4, No. 3, 1974.

49. Marx Weber, Economy and Society (G. Roth &

C. Wittch, ed. Bedminster Press, N.Y. 1968)

p. 927.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid.

52. Ibid.

53. For these and the following categories see

Weber, "Social and Economic Organization"

pp. 425-427; and "Economy and Society" pp. 303-

305 77

54* Weber, Economy and Society, pp. 303-304,

55, Op, cit, p, 928,

56, Op, cit, p, 305; also Social and Economic

Organization, p, 427,

57, Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of

Capitalism,(LOndon,1970). 58, Weber, Economy and Society, p, 1194,

59, Op, cit, p, 1101,

60, Such legal order, bureaucracy, rules and

regulations would be viewed by Marx as

mere mechanisms of bourgeoisie control upon

the working classes so that the latter may

be exploited to the maximum with minimum

costs or naked coercive efforts,

61, Op, cit, p, 928—933,

62, Op, cit, p, 929,

63, Op. cit. 930.

64, Op. cit p, 931.

65, Ibid.

66, Weber, Social and Economic Organization,

p. 427.

67, S. Ossowski, Class Structure in the Social

Consciousness (Routledge & Kegan Paul,

London, 1967),

68, R, Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict,

(Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1969) p, 41,

69, F. Parkin, Class Inequality and Political

Order, (Praeger Pub, N.Y.) p. 24, 78

70. Ibid.

71. Dahrendorf, op. cit. p. 68.

72. Parkin, op. cit.

73. Dahrendorf, op. cit. pp, 36-71,

74. M. Djilas, The New Class (F.A. Praegar,

N.Y., 1962).

75. Op, cit. p. 35.

76. This view taas also held by Lenin, see below.

77. Djilas, op. cit. p. 35.

78. Quoted from N. Gauzner, "Social Effects of i the Scientific and Technological Revolution

Under Capitalism," (Moscow 1973) p. 47.

79. Lenin, op. cit. pp. 707-815.

He would not accept the idea that sociali­

sation of means of production would always

lead to socialisation of profits and hence

to an end to exploitation and oppression of

the working masses. 00 o . Op, cit. P* 707

81. Op. cit. P* 782

82. Ibid.I 83. It was at this Juncture that most writers on

underdevelopment in the so-called "third

World" came in.

84. Ibid.

85. Lord Hailey, An African Survey, (Oxford, 1957)

p. 685.

86. Ajayi, J.F.A. and M. Crowder (ed.) History

of West Africa, (Longman, 1974) p. 385. 79

87* M, Gluckman, The Lozi of Barotseland in

North-Western Rhodesia, (In E. Colson and

M. Gluckman, ed., *Seven Tribes of Central

Africa* Manchester University Press, 1968,

p. 19).

88. Hailey, op. cit. p. 685.

89. C.K. Meek, A Sudanese Kingdom, (Kegan Paul,

London, 1931) p. 405.

90. Roscoe, J. jl*16 Northern Bantu, (Frak-Cass, 1966)p. 18.

91. M. Whisson, Change and Challenge (Christian

Council of Kenya, 1964) pp. 48, 51.

92. C.K. Meek, Tribal Studies in Northern Nigeria,

(Kegan Paul, 1931) p. 45.

93. Meek, A. Sudanese Kingdom, 405.

94. Fallers, L.A, Social Stratification and

Economic Process in Africa (In Bendix and

Lipset, Class Status & Power, Paul Kegan,

1970.)

9 5 . See Chapter II below.

96. Colson and Gluckman, op. cit. p. 103.

97. Op. cit. p. 104.

98. Ajayi and Crowder, op. cit. p. 387.

99. Ibid.

100. Roscoe, op. cit.

101. w. Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa,

(Tanzania Pub. House, 1974).

102. B. Davidson, Old Africa Rediscovered, (Victor

Gollancz Ltd., London, 1970). 80

103. Fallers, Ibid, i G, Arrlghi and John S. Saul, Essays on the

Political Economy of Africa, (EAPH, 1974)

p. 13.

104. R, Oliver, A Short History of Africa, (Penguin)

W. Rodney, op, cit, p, 117,

Colson and Gluckman, op, cit, p, 168,

105. Rodney, op, cit, pp. 117*118.

Samir Amin, Neo-Colonialism in West Africa,

(Penguin, 1973).

106. Great Britain, Naval Intelligence Division

(NID) - Equatorial Africa (1942) p. 217. 107. NID, op, cit.

J J f j ■“ i 108. NID, op. Cit,

Abraham Jerome considers this to have begun

way back in 1444 when the first slave ship

carrying about 350 slaves from Africa arrived

on the East Coast of America. "Racism and

Economics," in National Agrarianism, series,,

vol. 2. (EALB, 1973) p. 37.

109. Brett, E.A., in "Colonialism and Underdevelop­

ment in East Africa" (Heinemann, 1973), He

considers that a search for colonies and

markets, especially for steel goods was

necessitated by the desire of the European

countries to increase and maintain high

employment levels. A, Seidman, Class

Stratification and Economic Development in

Africa, (In Pan-African Journal, vol. V, No. 81 -

1, 1972),

110. S. Amin, op. cit. Introduction.

111. Rodney, op. cit.

112. Itid.

113. This was the case in the uncentralised

societies such as the Masai and Kikuyu of

Kenya. (V. Turner, ed., Colonialism in

Africa, vol. 3, Cambridge, 1971, p. 327.)

114. L.H. Gann and P. Duignan, ed., Colonialism

in Africa, vol. I (Cambridge 1969) p. 173.

115. V. Turner, op. cit. p. 310.

Ajayi and Crowder, op. cit. p. 473.

116. Ibid.

117. Ibid. Also Seidman, op. cit.

118. G.C. Mutiso, Kenya* Politics, Policy and

Society, (EALB) 1975) Fallers, op. cit. p. 148.

M • ••• traditional elites, deriving their

positions from societal and cultural units

that have been absorbed and surperseded by

the new states or proto-states, tend to have

little legitimacy on a national level.M

119. Turner, op. cit. p* 322. Seidman, op. cit. o a 120. Turner, • cit. p* 323. 0 a. 121. Turner, • cit. p* 322. The first real interest of Kikuyu in schools

provided by the Church Missionary Society

was aroused by the discovery of the relatively

high wages paid to clerks on settler farms. (322). This however should be treated cautiously

as he seems to assume that the Kikuyu by

1920 had fully accepted wage employment as

a way of life and therefore sought advancement

via education. It seems more logical to

argue that people sent their children to

school that time in order to save them from

manual labour on European farms and also to

give them a new basis of status distinction.

No doubt wage level consideration was important

as it opened the way to saving and subsequent

appropriation which would reinforce one

status. See also, Ajayi and Crowder, op, cit.

p. 473.

122. As the Kikuyu put it* "One whiteman gets you

on your knees in prayer, while the other

steals your land." Many Africans therefore

viewed Christianity simply as the ritual

aspect of European colonialism. Turner, op.

cit. p. 310.

123. Brett, op. cit., Seidman, op. cit.

124. S. Amin, op. cit.The case of Senegal. Gann and Ouignan, op. cit. p. 184. The

miserable price received by peasants for

their crops were taken away by taxation and

by some of the consumption goods the peasants

managed to buy at high prices, p. 185. 83

125* African peasants in French West Africa could

no longer grow what they wanted and how they

wanted. The colonial government assumed

the right of control and regulation of crops

to be grown. It utilised the coercion of

the district officers (Broussafd) and chiefs,

together with money and European experts to

maximize productivity of such crops for the

benefit of French capitalist industries.

Hence the use of "government plantations."

Gann and DUIGNAN, op. cit. p. 387.

126. Ajayi and Crowder, op. cit. p. 387.

127. Op. cit. p. 387-88.

128. Rodney, op. cit. p. 256., Gann and Duignan,

op. cit. p. 183.

129. Op. cit. p. 171.

130. People turned to selling their crops in

order to earn cash to pay tax rather than

go out to work in European farms and mines.

It should be recalled at this stage that

working in another person's "shamba" for

the latter's sole profits was completely

incomprehensible a practice in African

traditional system. Hence the resistance.

See also, Seidman, op. cit.

131. Gann and Duignan, op. cit. p. 171.

R.M.A. Zwanenberg, Colonial Capitalism and

Labour in Kenya, 1919-39, (EALB, 1975). - 84

H He suggests that taxation as an economic

pressure to obtain cash was negative and men would avoid it if they could, (p, 82).

Among they Luo people of Kenya,a large proportion of taxes was paid with cash derived from the sale of cattle. Hence the Luo called it the Hut and Poll tax "a cattle tax” as they had to dispose of their cattle in almost every Instance to meet the tax. (p.94). But they would not go out to work for wages in European farms until the late years of 1930*8.

132. Gann and Dulgnan, op. clt. p. 185.

133. Nearly all the money from wages or from the

sale of government controlled crops went to the payment of tax. Ibid,

134. Jerome, op.cit, f The peasants and the

small-petty-traders supplemented the lowly paid labourers and squatters with cheap necessary items for survival. The ^primitive capitalist” acted as a means of subjugation of the masses composed of the peasants, small-petty-traders, and all categories of workers or labourers whether employed or not. Indeed it acted as buffer between these masses and the European capitalists. 86

135. Jerome, Ibid.

136. K.Nkrumah, Class Struggle In Africa, ( London, 1970) p. 16.

137. These included the colonial made bureaucratic

structure, western type of parliamentary and republican democracies, law courts,police and

armed forces, educational system, and

class type of socio-economio structure. Nkrumah, other than first restructure

his administrative structure, tried to

utilise the colonial made bureacratic machinery to fight the trading landed class. This became

difficult and in the end he was overthrown instead. 8.Amin, op. cit. p, 249.

138. See Lenin's notion of coldtidlism biing

"the highest stage of capitalism”,cited above.

139. See Chapter IV,below,

140. Unlike the Marxian conception, the colonial made African "primitive capitalist” does not develop into a full capitalist or bourgeois at

independence. This is mainly because of the

international finance capital upon which he

depends to appropriate the means of production

formerly monopolized by the European capitalists on the one hand, and also because of the continued heavy dependence on metropolitan 86 -

bourgeois industries for virtually all t h a

capital goods he requires. Sometimes the

metropolitan industrial bourgeoisie contruct their industrial enclaves in the "neo-colony"

where they cheaply manufacture consumable goods mainly for local consumption and thus maximize on thier own profits and capital accumulation.

But the "primitive capitalist" or the elite who joins the race of appropriation at independence do not build their own ground for capital development free of, or in order to be free from, the metropolitan dependence. They do not therefore develop into "full fledged" capitalists or bourgeoisie. They may have the money, particularly the loan

money* but they have no capital basis in terms of

technology, ideas, drive, and especially capital machinery , other than those of the metropolitan

or international capitalists. We therefore refer to

them as mere petty-capitailsts or petty- bourgeoisie.

141. These are what we have called the masses. They also include the peasants, peasant-workers, small-petty- traders, craftsmen, squatters, workers and the landless-unemployed -workers. - 87

142* Rodney,op.cit, p, 256.

143. S. Amin, op. oit. p. 66.

144. This satellite, which is also charaterized by

metropolis and satellites within it, is then

condemned to a stultified or underdeveloped economic development in its own metropolis and

inevitably to underdevelopment among its

domestic peripheral satellite regions and sectors.

O.A. Frank, " Capitalism and Inderdevelopment in

Latin America," ( Penguin,1969) p. 78.

145. For an example of how this was done in 3enegal,

see 3, Amin, op. cit. p. 20.

1H6. They are a • "national ruliny class" in so far as they control the other masses of the opyrssed classes far exploit at i or. by international capitalists who really make the important economic and political decisions. The latter are the real ruling class. This situation therefore tends to emphasize the petty aspect of the potty-bourgeoisie• The terms ruling petty-bourgecisie and ruling class will be used in the text only ’.'here the role- of the petty-tourgecisie as political and bureaucratic power wielder-s is to fee stressed. Unlike the conception, the Afpic&n ruling pc tty-bouryeci ”ie ry ts o into peer at independence prior tc land and yr•‘•perty large-scale uppropr_atron» Povcr in this case becomes the main tool of that approprration. - 86 -

147, Subjugation of the masses by the "national

bourgeoisie" to enable their exploitation for

accumulation would require imperialist help which would mean the former’s subordination to the International bourgeoisie and the

acceptance of the role of a Junior partner in the international capitalist system,

Shivji, I,Q,, Class Struggles in Tanzania, (Tanzania Publishing House, Dar, 1976),

14 8, Kenyas Sessional Paper No. TO, 1965,

149, See the following chapters. - U ■ sc-c-i c o n n U teucfnr** o* ' I 90

C H A P T E R I I

LAND AND AFRICAN TRADITIONAL

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRUCTURES

The Ca#e of Rift Valley Province

PEOPLE OF NAKURU BEFORE EUROPEAN OCCUPATION

In the last chapter we examined the whole concept of socio-economic inequalities and also attempted to apply such an analysis on precolonial, colonial and post-independence Africa in generals

In this chapter we shall try to examine in a greater detail the socio-economic structure of traditional

Ndorobo, Masai, Nandi, and Kikuyu people of

Kenya. Such a study, we hope will help us to understand the systems that had to be destroyed by colonialism in order to build a capitalist basis

Of exploitation.

The focus of our study will be Nakuru District of the Rift Valley Province, in Kenya. As the case has been in many other parts of the continent of

Africa where European settlement was established, the question of African occupation of Nakuru District has been disputed by colonialists. Some of the

African scholars in Kenya seem to have been diverted from the truthfulness of the situation and have hence turned to supporting the colonialist claim that Nakuru District was "unoccupied", "empty", a

"wasteland” on the eve of European invasion and settlement. It therefore becomes Important that we first establish whether or not Kenyaf and Nakuru

District in particular| was occupied, settled or used, and hence owned, by Africans in the late years of the nineteenth century.

Without having to refer to the enormous archaelogical evidence in such places like the

Kariandusi, Hyrax, and NJoro cave, we shall concentrate on written evidence of some of the European Explorers and surveyors, who at the time of writing their finding did not know that the land they described as being full of people would later on be said to have been unoccupied at the time of colonial occupation.*

Major J.R.L. Macdonald, for example, provides solid evidence showing that Masai people occupied and fully used Nakuru District which was one of the areas they considered to be their traditional home in the

Rift Valley Province. Macdonald and his co-surveyors of the Mombasa-Kisumu railway line reveals that they found Masai people and interacted with them greatly throughout the District from the Kendong River, just below the Aberdare escarpment, and up to NJoro in the western part of Nakuru.

About the situation at Kendong River, near

Longonot and Suswa Hills, Macdonald described their first encounter with the Masai in the area. He wrotet

"About 11.00 p.m. all was safe in camp, and we - 92 -

discussed a possible visit from the Masai,

as numerous fires had been seen ift the

darkness at no great distance. Sure enough,

early next day, before I was out of bed, I

heard the Masai Honqo song echoing through

the camp, and my interpreter rushed in to

say that the Masai were advancing in 2 thousands..... H

These Masai were demanding the traditional dues paid to them by any visitors going through their

territory. At this particular occasion the Masai,

through the supplications of the interpreter, agreed 3 to wave the dues and they retreated to their houses.

Major Macdonald asked Austin, his fellow

surveyor, to continue surveying around Lake Naivasha.

This the latter did successfully, we are told, though he met a good many Masai who also demanded Honqo or 4 dues. He also adds that they required alot of ammunitions in order to penetrate through the Masai occupied territory safely.

Thus he writes*

"Meanwhile we awaited at Naivasha the arrival

of our second food consignment under Pringle,

who had also been warned to bring all our

reserve ammunition. The Masai of Naivasha

were in a very destitute condition, or, rather,

the old men and women were, for the warriors

were for the most part absent raiding, we 93

had no difficult with the few who remained,

except on one occasion when they ammused

themselves by chasing two of our men, who 5 had gone out to purchase milk.”

No doubt, therefore Naivasha was fully occupied

and indeed settled by the Masai who even sold milk

to such visitors as Major Macdonald and the rest of them.

When Pingle, his friend, set for Naivasha,

they confronted the Masai of Kendong who carried off three of his donkeys apparently for refusing

to pay transit dues.6

Joseph Thomson, the Explorer who had travelled

through the Naivasha area before Macdonald and his

surveyors clearly indicates that the area was not only occupied but also in full control of the Masai.

He noted that Naivasha was on the route earlier

followed by Fisher and that it may have been the point at which the latter was forced by the Masai to surrender the great quantities of ivory he had 7 secured. At Naivasha visitors were subjected to

scrutiny by Masai warriors as Thomson revealed.

"They ordered us about", he wrote, "as if we were so many slaves. I had daily to be on exhibition, and perform for their delectation. *Take off your boots.* ’Show your toes.’ 'Let us see your white skin'. •••••••• Such were the orders and exclamations

(anglicized) which greeted me as they turned me - 94 about ••••••• They made us stop for nearly five days, till all the El-moran from far and near should have an opportunity to come and plunder me."

Like Macdonald, Thomson also got considerable quantities of milk from the women, but secretly as they were not allowed to sell the precious fluid, which was being reserved for the young warriors.

After the scrutiny, Thomson met with the elders who were friendly and who "had an admirable g knowledge of the geography of an enormous area.

He was then allowed to travel around and was given some Masai escorts. Thus the whole of Naivasha area was Masai owned and ruled.

At Eburru Hill Thomson confronted Masai morans who demanded what he and his company were doing there* ''Fortunately'1, he says, "a happy idea struck our guide, and he declared he was taking us to bring away some tusks of ivory he had hidden at the bottom of the Hill, This mollified them a little, though if we had been more defenceless, and seemed more afraid, they would not have scrupled to murder us off-hand."10

Of Gilgil and Elementaita area, Macdonald wrote*

"Martin had told us that there were great

numbers of Masai on the Gilgil and towards

Lake Elementaita, and warned us that we must

be careful, or we might lose some loads as had

happened to him .... On the second day we 95 -

encountered the first of these Masai* X was

surveying behind the caravan, when I suddenly

saw a commotion in front, and a fast increasing

line of El-moran forming across the path* It

appeared that they had lost a few goats and

suspected that we had appropriated them* On

discovering that we were not the culprits,

they came to the conclusion that the inhabitants

of a neighbouring kraal were the evil-doers,

and hurried off to retaliate*"*1

Further west, at Kariandusi, he writes of a

small stream by the same name, which flowed into

the South-eastern corner of Lake Elementaita* This

was"a: recognized camping - ground" about which

Macdoliald wrote t

"Before we had pitched our tents, Masai were

swarming round us, but each warrior had the

point of his spear covered with a ball of

cotton wool, a sign of peace ••*•••• Soon

our porters, who had gone to draw water,

came back to camp with the news that the

Masai had occupied the stream, and declined

to allow them near it*"*2

They were later allowed to draw the water, but

one thing was clear, that the area was part and parcel of Masai territory and they were ready to

defend its natural resources, including rivers and

streams, from any intruders* And this was put to Major Macdonald in no uncertain terms* Thus he

tells us,

"I asked the Lagonani to refrain from molesting

our porters, but he said if we came into Masailand

we must put up with Masai customs •••••• "#13

The next day Major Macdonald and his company moved northwards amidst hundreds of Masai who had 14 their Kraals spread all over the land# They

reached Kampi Ambaruk near Nakuru and turned west

for Lake Nakuru# He described the camp of Ambairuk

as once having been the scene of great fight between

the Swahili trading caravan and the "Wakwavi" section

of Masai# All day the Swahili would hold this post

"against repeated attacks until their ammunition gave out, then they bolted, only to be run down and

speared by their foe." This reinforces the fact

that trade route to Uganda via Masailand had to be closed down for a long time. Anybody who wanted

to cross the land had to pay dues# But anybody exploiting their resources and capturing their men

as slaves for sale, had to die#

Major Macdonald’s survey was in the last decade of the nineteenth century and this was the time that

the Masai had just started the work of reconstruction

after their people and herds had been greatly reduced by plague and famine which struck during the last quarter of the century# - 97 -

The great drought of the period led the Masai to

take refuge in areas around lakes and rivers and mountains where water and grass had managed to

survive. But this temporary abandonment of exce­

ssively dry areas in search of safety did not in I any way mean that they had abandoned the claim or right to return when things were normal.

Without going into very great details we want

to note that there is evidence to show that Nakuru

District was not unoccupied when the Europeans alienated that land. Although by that time there might have been greater concentration of the Masai near Naivasha and the Kinangop Plateau, Macdonald’s evidence nevertheless shows that even the other parts of the District were also occupied,16 A,H,

Jacobs points out that the rest of the area may have been sparcely populated, Kraals which accommo­ dated up to fifty people being separated from one 17 another by distances of two to five miles, Masai names therefore "reign" in the whftle District, .18 For„ example!

Present day names Masai Name O z a n i w JgJKBie)

Nakuru Nakurro Bare grassless place Naivasha En-aiposha The lake

Uasin Gishu •L-Uasin- gishu The striped cattle

Laikipia 'L-Aikipyak Subukia O-Supuko Cool and wooded country; dry season pasture

Olenguruone OUenguruone Place of ashes

Kijabe en-KiJape coldness, wind 1

These and such other, names as Longonot, Kinangop,

Rongai, NJoro, Narok and Etouru are some of the Masai names which refer to,and depict,culture, tradition and customs of a people who had occupied that area for quite a long time. Such an evidence would strongly support Hobley who estimated that the Masai had lived in the Rift Valley and Nakuru District in particular 19 from about seventeenth or eighteenth century.

Again, the first lessons on plant ecology and science of livestock keeping was first learnt by the & Europeans from the Masai, or from those who traded with them like the Somalis. Thus, V.M. Carnegie in her book, Kenya Farm Diary, tells us how her servant

Omar, a Somali, dextrously explained how cattle diseases could be avoided by refraining from grazing them on certain grasses at particular seasons of the 20 year. Carnegie found that Omar's formular worked, and she dismissed such a formular as originating from sheer"guess work.” But Omar's point should be taken as a lesson of an expert who, having lived with the Masai and having been engaged in sheep and goat trade with them, could not avoid learning the tradition of livestock keeping and protection in

Nakuru District. This he did; and the lessons had been learnt from the Masai who were traditional owners and occupants, of the larger part of Nakuru

District before they were evicted from thence* It

should also be recalled that the 100,000 acres of land which Lord Delamere got "free" in Nakuru

District was actually the property of the Masai people* This land was in NJoro area* 21

The other people who lived in the Nakuru District until their peace and life was disturbed and disrupted by colonial capitalists were the Ndorobo* These people lived in the mountain and forest areas such as the Eburru Hills, Mau Hills, Bahati forests*

Hence there was much correspondence between the administration in Nakuru and the conservator of forests when the latter alienated their land allegedly 22 for forestry department use* So the Ndorobo had to be moved several times from their homes and as a sign of resistance they would return ’’to their ancestral homes - both from desire to live whether they always had lived but also in order not to live 23 where they were unwelcome by other tribes*"

V*M* Carnegie also found them in Naivasha and enter­ tained a Ndorobo "chief" with her gramaphone, mirror 24 and gut) as a kind of superiority demonstration.

Our study of traditional socio-economic structure in Nakuru District will therefore be focussed on the

Ndorobo, the Masai, the Nandi as some of the people who lived in that district, or had very close association with it, before colonization and alienation by Europeans* r

- 100 -

The Ndorobo, who spoke similar language to Nandi,

and had similar social institutions as those of the

Nandi and the Masai, will be studied as a separate

group especially because of its uniqueness as a

forest people traditionally living mainly on

hunting and honey "making", and on trade with 25 neighbours* The Masai and Nandi will be studied

together as they portray more or less similar systems, ✓ except that the latter has of late adopted cultivation

in addition to livestock keeping, as a means of liveli

hood*

The other group to be studied are some of the

recent migrants into the district and we have chosen

the Kikuyu* They migrated to Nakuru District as

a result of pressure from colonial government in

order to become wage labourers on European farms

there* They were traditionally mixed farmers and

that is why wa shall treat them aeparately* 101 -

NDOROBO

The Ndorobo, who call themselves Okiek, were a forest-dwelling people scattered over the highlands of Kenya and Tanganyika. Twelve groups are recorded, 27 nine of them in Kenya and three of them in Tanzania.

Traditionally they were all hunters and specialist honey collectors, and nearly all spoke dialects 28 of Nandi and Masai. They lived in groups of about

100 males together with their families, and were largely communal in all their activities.

Although a people of distinct identity, the

Ndorobo have been able to adopt and adapt themselves to the neighbouring peoples to an extent that makes 29 their identity appear to be obscure. Thus, for instance, the social structure of the Ndorobo which is based on primarily patrilineal dan-solidarity, utilizes Nandi or Masai clan-names, age-set names, 30 and many of the relationship terms. It is through the media of a clan or Oret that Ndorobo adopt themselves to their neighbours. It is today therefore generally accepted that to the Ndorobo clans were not indigenous, but were adopted from the people near them. Those Ndorobo who lived near the Masai adopted the clan of a Masai ftiend, usually a friendship based on the convenience of trading honey 31 for meat. After the adoption, the Ndorobo could then get assistance to raise food in hard times and also assistance to pay dowry or compensation for 102 various offences, especially murder. They were also protected from attack by the neighbours, as the latter considered them as part of their own society.

As Blackburn puts It, the Oret was used as a gang­ plank by which to cement otherwise ambivalent relations with Individuals of another tribe for their mutual 32 economic benefit. In order to make such a relation­ ship much firmer, the Ndorobo went as far as Inter­ marrying with societies on the fringe of their 33 territory. A kinship relationship was therefore created, thus bringing the Ndorobo to be considered, not as strangers, but as members of the people living near them.

Some writers considered the Ndorobo as members of a lower class of Masai or Nandi societies. S.L.

Hinde, for example, viewed them as living "practically as slaves to the Masai, as hunters and carpenters, 34 making shield and preparing skins, but being paid."

J. Thompson also says that they were "on the whole looked upon as a species of serf, and treated accor- 35 dingly." But they were nowhere near slaves or serfs. Tney were however considered to be members of a lower status, especially because they had very few cattle and were fond of slaughtering them, a 36 practice considered by Masai as mean. They were usually confused with the Masai smiths who were 37 usually not rich in cattle like other Masai.

Indeed anybody who did not fully accord with Masai 103

traditions was referred to as a Ndorobo* Thus,

for example, should one man ask forgiveness of

another with grass in his hand and his request be

not attended to, it was said that the man who

refused to listen to his prayer was a Ndorobo, and 38 that he did not know about cattle* As they were

not Masai, the Ndorobo who had adopted themselves

merely for the sake of convenience were considered 39 to occupy an iferior status*

Through maintaining a close link with the

neighbours, the Ndorobo instituted a kind of an

insurance against starvation or extinction, and

also against being attacked by them* This link

also provided a kind of economic benefit to the neighbours as they made the highly demanded strong buffalo-hide shields for the warriors and also 40 special cooking-pots for women* These items were traded to the neighbours in return for meat and grain* As they were able to meet different ethnic peoples that lived in various border-lines with them, the Ndorobo also acted as middle men traders between such peoples* At a place called 41 by traders Mianzi-ni to the east of Naivasha, the

Ndorobo, for instance, abandoned hunting, established a large village and subsisted entirely by buying vegetable food from the Kikuyu people and selling it again to the Masai of Kinangop or to other traders 42 passing by* This particular group of Ndorobo were therefore immune from attack by the Masai, as • 104 - they were a source of wealth, they attracted and maintained ivory traders from coast, and were a source of vegetable and grain food suply. **

The Ndorobo are also able to link themselves to their neighbours by adopting the latter’s terminologies into their age-set system. The North

TinderetForest Ndorobo, for example, have adopted the seven age-sets and the three age-grades of 44 the Nandi people next to them. They maintain terminologies, but the functional aspect of age-sets may be different. They, for example, have no military functions similar to those of the Nandi or the Masai. Their main function is to keep the society united by the feeling of being of same age and having undergone the same initiation rites and ceremonies, treat all other differences as secondary. Like in many other groups, age set system is an internal social cohensive mechanism to counteract the usually divisive formal kinship system. Huntingford therefore contrasted the two thus i

”As an element in social structure the age-sets

cut across the formal kinship patterns, and

behaviour is not wholly reflected in the kinship

system; when the two elements clash, the age- 45 set pattern prevails.”

As in age set system, clan names may be the same as those of the neighbours but the operation may 105 be different within the Ndorobo* Clan in the Masai, for example, may not be identifiable as its members may be scattered throughout the whole country* But among the Ndorobo, the clan, oret, is the basis of social organisation, and the social aspect of the clan is emphasized by the habit of living in clan settlements, by the clan councils where matters like land boundaries, marriages, and minor offences between clansmen are discussed, and by the stress laid on communal living and mutual responsibility 46 among the members* Thus while the age system maintains an internal cohession within the Ndorobo society, clan system maintains the entire society’s solidarity vis-a-vis external forces* It was, therefore, through clan system that they were able to withstand the many attempts by colonial government aimed at 47 their dislocation as a Ndorobo people*

Most of forest land in Kenya was part of Ndorobo country traditionally. This land was not commonly owned by the Ndorobo as a people but, like in the

Kikuyu land and Nandi land, it was owned by different lineages of Ndorobo* A lineage, Kap. was mainly composed of members of a homestead, the head of which held the ownership of land in trust for the entire group. Every male in a Kap had a hereditary right over a piece of forest, which included hunting, 48 trapping, bee-keeping, and food-gathering* A lineage land was known as a territory, location or ridge and was recognized and protected by clan system, 106 which as we have seen, provided for a clan council of elders to arbitrate over land disputes*

Rules of hunting included respecting other people's territorial rights* Other people who wanted to hunt in an area which was not theirs had to obtain permission to do so from the head or representative 49 of the Kap* If a person chased an animal and it crossed into a neighbouring territory, he too could not follow it out there before obtaining permission

or otherwise the right-holder might kill anyone he found hunting on his area illegally,®^

A piece of territory could be "given" or "sold” to the neighbours in return for meat, grain foods, or iron* Once the sale had been complete, the

Ndorobo "relinquished their hunting rights, the rights over trees deserved for the manufacture of beehives, the monopoly of honey collection, and any 51 other rights over the forest* This sale could be made with the permission of the lineage, kap, the institution which was legally the land-holding unit and which also regulated the day-to-day activities of the society* For example, it also gave girls in marriage, negotiated and paid compensation for offences of its members, and was the unit of resi- 52 dence* Thus while the age-set system regulated the behaviour of the Ndorobo people across the entire land, the Kap under its head, controlled the everyday behaviour of people who lived d o s e together in a - 107 - homestead*

Many of the Ndorobo males were traders of one kind or other* As we have seen, they were the middlemen between the Kikuyu and Masai trade, where the former supplied grain and vegetables and the latter supplied sheep and goats* The Ndorobo were specialist hunters and killers of elephant and they were therefore traders in ivory with the coast 53 Swahili* Sometimes the Masai interfered with this trade by appropriating all the ivory in possession of the Ndorobo, and converting the latter into mere agents, they profited from the ivory sales* 54 They were therefore happy to keep the Ndorobo around them as they attracted the coast traders* Trade in honey collected and treated by the Ndorobo was carried out with all the neighbours, including Masai and

Nandi who exchanged it with cattle, sheep and goats*

The Nandi in particular exchanged iron, grain and implements with Ndorobo honey and wild-life products such as hides and skins for clothing and shields*

Ndorobo women who engaged in trade sold baskets to

Nandi in return for grain and tobacco for their husbands*

Colonial administration declared land in Kenya

Crown Land and all forests became Crown forests*

The latter category of the so-called crown land deprived the Ndorobo of their land and home and converted them overnight into wanderers among other 108

people. Some of them turned into squatters on

European settlers farms or in forest areas owned

by the Department of Forests. Although they were

allowed to live in Nandi or Kipsigis, the majority

of the Ndorobo considered themselves different from

these groups and resented being forced to live

among them.

They were bitterly opposed to being kept out

of their own homes in the forests and as a demons­

tration of their determination, they nearly always

returned back to forest areas from which they had

been removed.^

As their hunting areas were greatly limited

and as they were constantly harassed by the colonial

administration, the Ndorobo adapted themselves

and took over livestock keeping in larger numbers 56 than before and also copied Nandi form of cultivation.

By 1934 the Tinet Ndorobo had 12 cattle and 736

sheep and goats per family before they were removed

to Chepalungu on the recommendation of the Land 57 Commission of 1933. They also turned to growing

some crops such as eleusine, and maize; but most

of millet and tobacco were still bouyht from the 58 Nandi by 1942. They cut down part of the forests

and cultivated the ground close to their own homes,

and a group shared the imbaret or cultivation, each house having its own strip, the whole being surrounded by a thorn fence which all helped to make. Each - 109 - was therefore a family plot and the family was 59 more or less an independent productive unit*

All this development was done within forest homes the Ndorobo were alleged to be occupying illegally* It was development achieved under very severe conditions of police and administration harassment, intimidation and discouragement* It was the development which their removal destroyed*

Yet through the instruments of strict age-set and clan systems the Ndorobo people managed to survive and suffer together* 110

Among the Masai and Nandi, life revolved around cattle, sheep, and goats, but especially cattle.

These constituted the main source of their food which was milk, blood and meat. The Nandi who turned to some agriculture before colonization also grew millet and eleusine for their source of cereals. Food also included honey bought from the Ndorobo in the neigh­ bourhoods, fruits, nuts and roots gathered from the forest and bush areas of their land.

Clan in both Masai and Nandi has very little practical value except one of identification of the members of the groups. Among the Masai therefore clan is not localized but has its members scattered throughout the whole of Masailand and its representatives are to be found in each territorial unit.60 Nandi clans are also spread throughout the Koret or pororiet,

"parish" or "district" respectively, and then have the purpose of maintaining solidarity and mystical brotherhood between the members through the d i n totem identification system.6* As in the case of

Kikuyu, therefore, clans are no more than a means of fostering a feeling of being a member of a given ethnic group via the uniting totemic symbolism.

The most functional institution in the day-to-day interests of the people is the kinship group in form of an extended family, lineage or independent house­ hold. This group is Usually the land holding unit - Ill - among the Nandi and it is the cattle and livestock owning or holding unit among both the Nandi and the 62 Masai* Nandi country, emet. was divided into various '•parishes”, Koret* in which individual families and lineages settled and grazed their cattle*

Olosho was the largest political unit among the Masai and was the only level of territorial organization at which there was an explicit claim . , 63 to territorial ownership* Members of each locality had rights to grazing and water as well as political rights within a specified territory* Each Olosho was informally divided into enkutotoi locality or neighbourhood, in which resided members who called 64 each other neighbours or llatlaritin* Members of the enkutoto. could use grazing and water but they could not exclude other members from such facilities. Masai could move from one locality or enkutoto to another with ease and provided they could find local age-set mates, they could settle anywhere within the Olosho* Enkutoto members therefore did not have absolute and exclusive rights to grazing and water, or territory as such* Yet it was at that stage that elders solved the day to day problems of the members without having to refer small matters to the Olosho elders.

On the eve of colonial invafeion various Olosho units were spread throughout the Rift Valley Province, and in particular in Nakuru, Laikipia and Uasin-Gishu 112 -

Districts.65

Kn-kutoto units were made of several households or extended families which were headed by male age- mates and which lived within common Kraals. Among the Masai kinship relations served the role of identification of members of the society, as true

Masai. But in day to day social control and regulation of production, age-group system was the most used.

Residential Kraal units were therefore not settled according to lineage relations as was the case among the Nandi and Ndorfebo, but according to common age- group of the heads of included households.

Political and military system among the Nandi and Masai centred on age-set system. Among the

Masai both political and military arrangements were made on basis of age-sets. The young males after initiation ceremony became junior warriors and were later promoted to senior warrior grade in a ceremony 67 called B-unoto which was officiated by the lalbonl.

At this stage the warriors elected one among them to become their laiqwenanl or spokesman, leader and

"captain." The senior warriors were the most active soldiers and policemen of the Masailand, defending the people and livestock from enemies, raiding others and capturing their cattle and women, and also enforcing the decisions of the council of elders as regarded maintenance of order and adherence to traditions and customs. These senior warriors passed through 113

another ceremony of promotion called Olnoesher which

made them Junior elders* At this ceremony, also

officiated by the laiboni. they elect another

laiawenani who, together with the one they had

elected at e^noto ceremony, constitute the political

and military spokesmen and leaders of the "sub- 69 territory" called olosho* These were not chiefs

or rulers, but two among "equals" whose wisdom

eloquence, humour, courage, and wealth made them

distinguished as men who could lead or guide the

rest of their age-mates to prosperity and greatness*

Nandi emet , or country, as we have seen, is

divided into "parishes" koret (pi, Korokinwek) which

are political units and regimental districts, pororiet

(pi. pororosiek), which are military organization

units* Each Koret has a "parish" council, Kokwet,

which is an assembly open to all the initiated men

within its area. The members elect one old man,

though not necessarily the oldest, among them to

become their leader, or chairman - the poiyot ap 70 Kokwefc* Such a leader must be experienced and

wise in Nandi traditions and customs} he must be

a man of mature judgement, strong personality and

humour. He must also be a man of wealth in order

to maintain a reasonable standard of hospitality and

generosity* In other words he must be a man with

a strong force of influence. Unlike in the Olosho

or "division" in Masailand, the leadership of the I 114

Koret council is not therefore based on age factor as on other qualifications. The council deals with cattle disputes, compensation cases, offences against traditions and customs of the Nandi people, and methods of combating natural calamities like 72 drought, locusts, and cattle disease. But most of its time is spent on cattle disputes. It is the same body that is responsible for execution of decisions made, and in the maintenance of social cohenslon internally as it includes members of all 73 kinship groups within the Koret.

The military regimental area or district,

EQ.EfiXle.1i.,» has its council, klruoket ap pororlet. which consists of the leaders of parishes, poiisiek 74 ao kokwet. within its area. This resembles the olosho of the Masai in that the council is presided over by two reasonably active old-men called kiruoklk. the senior being the Klruokindet ne oo. the Junior kiruokindet ne minin. Apart from these two elders, two senior warriors are appointed as the military 75 leaders and commanders in the district. Yet other two members, Kaotik. who are the special representatives of the chief-medicine man, orkoivot. also attend and 76 councel the deliberations of the council. The council dealt with matters of war organization and such other related issues like circumcision in which ' warriors were initiated and recruited, and planting on which food production to feed the soldiers and 77 the population depended. The pororlet council 115

therefore made decisions which sometimes overshadowed

the operations of the Kokwet. parish councils. As

a body comprised of parish leaders, district warriors

and priests or medicine-men it was very close to

an administrative institution which aimed at main­

taining a strong and united Nandi people mainly for

the purpose of withstanding attacks from enemies,

and also in order to carry out successful cattle raids against the neighbours. The former aim defended people and their wealth, while the latter increased the people's cattle-wealth. It was because of such a tight and well managed military organization,

that the Nandi were able to withstand several British military expend!tions for more than ten years since

1896,when the first attempts of subjugation were made, 78 up to 1905 when they were made to submit*

On the eve of colonialism in Kenya, prosperity, cohesion and military strength of the Nandi and the

Masai was very much dependent on the personality^ initiative and management ability of the laiboni or 79 Orkoiyot. Among the Nandi the orkoiyot, through his assistants the pororiet maotik or pororiet assistant orkoiyot, was able to control virtually all the affairs of the people. He not only officiated at the saket- ap-eito ceremony that transferred power and authority from warriors of one age to another, but he also advised and greatly influenced the pororiet councils dealing with circumcision and warriors recruitment, war and food production. 116 -

Among the Masai the laiboni held a lot of potential power by virtue of his control over certain age-group

ceremonies* He was the one to open the period of circumcision that started a new age-group; he received

the spokesmen or lajqwenak from the Junior warriors

at ettnotc and from the senior warriors at olnqesher. which promoted the former to senior warriors and the latter to Junior elders, respectively. At these ceremonies the laiboni gives these leaders his ritual

sanction and also raises Junior members to senior 80 status up on the age-grade ladder* As he affects most of people*s life, he therefore becomes the most feared and most obeyed individual in the society*

Yet in spite of his potential power in age group ceremonies and decisions, his office , like that of the Nandi orkoiyot. was ne*er considered as a direct source of power as in the case of a chief or king in some African socieites* Nevertheless, a laiboni called Mbatian had in the second half of the nineteenth century managed to gain control of an absolute nature over a large area of Masailand* 81

He had, for example, managed to send a large number of warriors to subjugate the adjacent Masai and to plunder alien lands from which they captured a large number of cattle. This could be considered as an isolated case, but it could always be repeated under other circumstances. The British colonial officials, 117 for example, decided to exploit laiboni*s potential power and influence in order to subjugate the Masai people and later on in order to make them move from 82 the Rift Valley and make room for European settlement*

They started by recognizing the position of the laiboi\i or the orkoijot as the chief of the people and after replacing the difficult ones with the more docile type, colonial government added them its power as> a new .and additional basis of their authority and influence*

As cattle people, the Nandi and the Masai considered cattle as the centre around which their wealth, culture and power revolved. An owner of many cattle , as we have seen, had a greater chance of being elected a leader than a poorer man* He was highly regarded not merely because of his wealth, but because he was better placed to extend hospitality and generosity to his followers, especially the poor ones. Thus, for instance, if he married a woman from a poor family the cattle, sheep and goats he passes to that family as bridewealth or gift-giving could help raise it to a wealthy one. There was also the system of cattle-passing to friends and relatives who could use such cattle to improve their own breed and as an additional source of food, especially milk* Although such cattle could not be inherited by the children of the person holding them, the system of cattle-passing serves the purpose of promoting egalitarian and communal feeling among

t the members of these societies. That system, by distributing part of one's herd among friends and relatives, makes such a herd potentially safe from being captured by enemies if raids .re carried out in one part of the country, and also potentially safe from disease and drought which effect different areas of the country with different degree of intensity. Thus apart from creating a close social relationship within the society, cattle-passing also eervee ue an economic insurance mechanism.

Cattle wae therefore greatly protected. Apart from cattle-passing and gift-giving,cattie was further protectedby the Masai and Nandi tradition which debarred people fro* slaughtering cattle without a very good reason. Indeed a nan who was fond of cattle meat was derogatorily called a Ndorobo, cr a mean person. The WaeAi in particultr were opposed to selling any good cattle to strangers,^ To tile lfctter» the Masai sold barren cows, ones with little or no milk, and ones which did not care for their calves.

These and old und lean sheep and goats were the only animals the Masai could afford to part with for O f * any price. This particular characteristic eKplains why the colonial administration found it so difficult to reduce the number of livestock, especially cattle, held by the Masai. Attempts were made by the colonial government to charge the Masai some of the highest tax in the country in order to make them sell away most of their cattle. But the general tendency was 119 -

for their livestock to increase and much more so because they were specialist cattle keepers. Education and upbringing of the young was all directed towards the science o f cattle keeping* This included the science of grasses, herbs, soil-chemical composition and salt content, all of which could affect proper 86 cattle development*

Grass among the two societies is one of the most valued natural resource, the other one being water*

Both of them consider grass to be sacred and it becomes a symbol of peace, hope, prayer and of life itself* The Masai express their love for grass in their saying which states -

MGod gave us cattle and grass, we do not 87 separate the things which God has given us*

Whenever Masai women milk their cows, they take some milk from the gourd and pour it away on grass, as 88 a symbol of thanksgiving to God* Grass being the food of cattle remains sacred and will not be cut except by women for thatcht Warriors are not permitted to till the ground, as they would have 89 to kill the grass*

Division of labour is based mainly on age and sex in terms of daily productive activities* The uninitiated male helps his father to look atPter cattle, the warriors conduct cattle raids and defend the people and livestock held, while the elders counsel 120 the warriors, legislate and arbitrate in disputes.

The women on the other hand build the Kraals in Masai, while they do cultivate their plots, in addition to their normal housework. They make simple pottery, 90 baskets, and leather clothing. But greater specia­ lization also exists in areas where greater technolo­ gical and skill advancement is required. This normally takes the nature of specialization by clans. Thus,

for example, the Masai have a clan of smiths called 91 Klpuyonl and most of their smiths belong to it.

They make weapons and implements which they sell to other members of their society* As in most other

African societies, Masai smiths are feared, by the

£ « V rest of the people and they protect the art of their trade by not marrying women from other clans, and by not marrying their women to other clans. This clan therefore tends to be endogamons. Among the Masai,

smiths were also considered to be mean people without luck with cattle. They were not rich people and they were usually confused with the Ndorobo who were also smiths and not wealthy.

The Nandi were specialists in iron smelting.

Iron ore was carried from the river to smelting place by women but ore digging from the river and smelting 92 itself was done by males. Once smelting was finished some of the iron was made into tools and weapons, while the rest was sold to the Ndorobo who valued the Nandi iron greatly. 121

From this analysis it has been noticed that the

Masai and the Nandi had their own socio-political and economic structure which held the society together and helped it to security and prosperity*

Every society knew the limits of its territory and so far we have no evidence to show that Africans in

Kenya ever fought each other because of land issue*

They respected each others territory whether it was immediately under use or not* Virtually all their wars were therefore centred on desire to accumulate cattle| sheep and goats, of each individual group 93 at the expense of others* Sometimes these wars were sparked off by attempts by one group to steal girls from another* But the first wars over land were fought against the European settler administration as it attempted to alienate land and interfere with normal socio-economic welfare of the African peoples*

Trade and good neighbourliness between various

African peoples has been noticed* whether between the Ndorobo and Masai or Nandi, or the Masai and

Kikuyu or Swahili via the middlemanship of the Ndorobof the fact remains that antagonism between African groups was very short lived and cooperation and assistance, especially in tiroes of hardships, was the more accepted type of relationship between them*

The divide and rule system of the colonial government broke this relationship and stressed diversity of interests between Africans* 122

African development in terms of Industries and trade was at an advanced stage on the eve of colonization in Kenya. Thus for instancev the Masai smiths, and some of the Nandi smiths, imported iron bars from outside Kenya through the medium of the coast swahili traders. They made spears, pangas, hoes, and axes, all of which the colonial powers have not yet been able to replace as regards the majority of the population in Kenya. All that was done was to stop the African smiths from manufacturing these items that the European industries may do so and thus profit from subsequent sale to Africans. The

European settlers and traders interfered with

Ndorobo-Masai and Swahili ivory trade and once again reduced the Africans to dependants while they appropriated all the subsequent benefits of that trade

Socio-political institutions such as age sets and orkoiyot and laiboni were taken into control of the European government for the purpose of subjugating the Africans. Warriors, for instance, were turned into govenment warriors and were used to put down resistance of African groups other than their own.

Laiboni and orkoiyot were turned into chiefs and immediately used to control Africans, to move them from one place to another, or m.ake them go out and work for European settlers. \

• 123 -

In spite of these forces, the African communal

system was not easily broken- Resistance was there throughout the colonial period, and some people like

the Masai and Ndorobo changed very little throughout the period* A H these are some of the facts that * » - should be kept in mind as they will recur again in the following analysis of the Kikuyu r socio­ economic structure and also in the subsequent chapters. KIKUYU

Among the other groups, the Kikuyu constituted the largest population in Nakuru District during the colonial days and also during the post colonial era. In terms of migrants we will give the Kikuyu a special prominence to match their greater percentage

Land was the main basis of socio-economic acti­ vities among the Kikuyu. It was owned communally by family or kinship group. In Kikuyu such land 95 holding unit was called Mbarl.

Except for the "mystical" sentiment of a tribal territory, better known as Bururi wa Gikuyu -

Kikuyuland - there was no tribal ownership of land .. .. as such. It is true that similar, but by mo means identical, customs in relations to land were in practice throughout the Kikuyuland. But land owner­ ship was much more localized. Thus initially "qlthaka or estate was acquired by the founder of Mbari - sub-clan or extended family. Acquisition was by

"purchase” or by establishing the first hunting rights 96 over a given area of land. In many respects the individual who first acquired a "qlthaka" had private title to it. But on his death a communal form of title took shape. His offsprings or the members who regarded him as their ancestor became his Mbari unit, which as a whole assumed ownership of his estate.

Such an estate henceforth became communal property, - 125

claimable by the descendants of that person's Mbari, but not by any one individual to the exclusion of

the others*

During his lifetime the Mbari founder retained

complete jurisdiction over his estate some of which, or all of which, he alloted for cultivation purposes

to his wives, married sons and, on occasions, to

"ahoi" or tenants from other Mbari* On his death

the usufruct of his estate passed on to his sons in equal shares of land cultivated by their mother

and any other land left unallocated at the time of

the founder's death* But the authority over "githaka" or >,naundut' passed on to a single heir called

"muramati" or trustee, who was usually the first

son of the senior wife of the founder* The “Muran^t!" was responsible for re-allocation of land within the githaka and had a final veto on the admission of tenants and the alienation of part of the estate to strangers* He did not, however, have greater 97 share of cultivated land than other male heirs.

Sometimes a member of Mbari might want to dispose of his share of the land inherited from the Mbari founder* In this case he had first to make the offer to his fellow Mbari members. If they did not want it or were unable to buy it, he would offer it toooutsiders

and subject to approval by MmuramatlH. the 97 sale could be carried out But some Mbari placed /

- 126 - a total embargo on alienation of Mbari land to strangers. In such respects, therefore, something less than full individual title to land emerged after the death of the Mbari founder, even though land continued to be utilized on the basis of individual households.

Livestock (sheep, goats and cattle) was also considered as real wealth. Apart from supplying meat and milk livestock also supplied hides for cloth­ making. They also served as currency in cases of land purchases, grain food deals, and other payments, and compensations. Ownership of livestock was both individual and communal. Once an individual was married and had a family his property, especially land and livestock, became communal property.

Ownership of livestock, however, was more bent to individual ownership. This was more restricted to an individual family and not necessarily to Mbari, for instance, as the latter could be composed of a large number of families.

With regard to wealth accumulation, individual achievement was regarded very highly as a major contribution to societal wealth. An industriuos individual could, for instance, add the size of his piece of land inherited from the Mbari founder by accepting sale offers from his fellow Mbari members wishing to sell their holdings. He could purchase more land outside his Mbari. Likewise in case of • 127 - livestock individual accumulation was highly honoured.

This was particularly important as the individual who managed to increase his livestock could become a Mbari founder. Thus the primary target of many people was to raise as large herd of sheep and goats as possible in order that they could buy land and marry many wives. Men of special skills followed such a pattern of property accumulation. Shus the potter, the smiths, priests or the circumcisors * sold services or products of their skills for several heads of sheep and goats and cattle with which they later bought huge tracts of land and became wealthy.

Kimani wa Nyaga of Kiambu, for instance, was a

Mmuturi" or smith who sold one spear or sword for one sheep or goat. Since there was great demand for weapons with which to fight and protect their families and livestock from the Masai, Kimani wa

Nyaga made a great fortune. He amassed huge flocks and a big herd of cattle. He used some of these to purchase the several thousand acres of land that

Mbari ya Nyaga was later to occupy.

But this apparent individualism must not be overemphasized. Once a person had established himself as a landowner he normally became a Mbari founder and hence his property became communal property.

Again another aspect of communal ownership was demon­ strated in the "Muhoi" and "ndungata" systems in

Kikuyuland. Under muhoi system (tenant systam) a 128

Gltonga - rich roan - could be requested to let rauhoi cultivate part of his usable land* Muhoi In hiB case was a roan with insufficient land for his needs and one who could not obtain his requirements by purchase* Muhoi's request was normally granted, and no rent was charged* In practice a man qould generally have been a muhoi to more than one Gltonga or average man In order to get all the land to

satisfy his needs* As Humphrey put it, he was not bound to pay any kind of tribute to the man from whom he obtained cultivation rights, but it was customary for him to take beer annually and also

some of the first fruits of the harvest in recognition 98 of the fact that he was only a Muhoi* He also assisted Gitonga In digging, planting, harvesting 90 and forest clearing work* Again this was not compulsory but was done on normal mutual assistance of relatives and neighbours during peak times*

As long as muhoi cultivated the piece of land given to him, his position was not endangered. However, he could be turned off the land if the owner needed to use it himself. That could be done under a notice and after the crop then growing was harvested* That was

perhaps ?s why muhoi was not permitted to plant perenial crops on land let to him under the system*

Land held under muhoi system was not inheritable*

After his death, muhoi's cultivation rights immediately reverted to the landowner and could only be re-granted 129 to his wife, or children under a fresh deal or agreement#

Ndunqata system is one aspect of Kikuyu socio­ economic system that would very easily be misconceived*

This is so because of the pseudo-capitalist relation­ ship of Gitonqa and Ndunqata. There were two types of ndungata - servants* There was the ndunqata proper who has been referred to as voluntary servant.

There was also the despised type of ndunqata better known as "nlaquti" or roving servant*

Ndungata proper was a person who attached himself to a rich man’s homestead and land as a permanent voluntary servant* He hence became "as the man’s own child", as the Kikuyu put it, and took part in all the activities of the family receiving in return, all that he needed, including a wife. He would,for example,receive some livestock and land which was inheritable just like the Gitonga's own son* He could even marry the rich man’s own daughter. Such type of ndungata is said to have composed a very significant part of Kiambu population in the early years of the twentieth century.10®

Njaguti on the other hand was a mere roving servant and the fact that he was a man of no fixed abode made it difficult for him to be given land that could be inheritable* Even the other benefits and privileges, except food, were hardly extended to a person who was not ready to settle down and help in - 130 -

Gitonga's homestead and land in productive activities.

Unlike ndungata he could not be wholly adopted into

Gitonga's home system. He was considered to be

always in transit to some other home.

Such persons as Njaguti were therefore hardly

able to acquire any property of their own in form of either land or livestock. Although they were able bodied people, they could very easily fall to the

lowest Kikuyu economic category of "nqia1* or beggars.

Happily they constituted only a very small portion of the society. The greatest number of njaguti soon became attached to some Gitonga's economic system and therefore began to work their way up to prosperity.

Ndungata therefore was a worker wholly adopted into a rich man's socio-economic system and was

supposed to participate and share in it without discrimination whatsoever. In other words, he was w treated as one of the sons of the home to which he was attached. As such what would appear to be a capitalist arrangement of employer and worker was far from real. Individualism in land or livestock ownership ended up in being communalism in one way or another largely because of the various real distributive mechanisms that existed within the society. A rich man who did not marry many wives and feed a large team of ndungata and njsguti was hardly recognized or respected within the Kikuyu 131

society* In other words, wealth oriented

to satisfying an individual and not the society

was considered wasted*

Uncultivated land was communally owned

and used mainly for grazing purposes* Such

land also provided source of firewood, water,

salt-licks, markets, sport and holy grounds*

Division of labour was based on sex, age

and kinship* Men looked after livestock and n cleared land for planting, while women, in

addition to their house responsibilities, did

the rest of the work of sowing, weeding,

harvesting and pottery making* Men, especially

the warrirors, were also charged with the duty of defending the people and their property*

Such a duty included training and recruiting

the warriors, scouting and war planning, making and purchasing weapons and consulting with medicine men for advice and guidance*

Specialization based on age was very refined in Kikuyu especially under the "Matllka system'1 - age set system* This was very similar to the age

system in Masai society seen above. Thus "anake'♦ or unmarried initiated males manned military expeditions, - 132 -

enforced law and decisions made by elders councils.

They were, therefore, the soldiers and the "executives”

in the society.

The elders group, called "Klama." were usually

the married males who had paid their fees to Join

that rank. Their social, role was to legislate and

make Judicial decisions for the society. "Priests"

and medicinemen were also recruited from that age

grade which was considered to have acquired adequate

maturity and responsibility to be entrusted with

society*s spiritual and life matters.

Young uninitiated males assisted their fathers

in looking after cattle and they were also charged

with the role of spying against the enemy. If they

noticed an approaching enemy they were expected to

call the attention of the anake and athuri (elders)

immediately. They also assisted the elders in planting

sugar-cane, yams, and bananas, and in tool and weapon

making especially if they belonged to the kinship of

blacksmiths. But the main duty of the young uninitia­

ted was to learn from the environments and from the I elders.

Division of labour based on kinship relations

was a main feature in most African societies. In

Kikuyu society, there were clans and Mbari*s charged

with pottery making (Ombi), blacksmiths (aturi), priests (ago), medicinemen and foretellers (arathi), - 133 - rainmakers (ahuhi a mbura) and circumcisors (aruithia).

This aspect of specialization sometimes produced very wealthy mbari and these especially included ones concerned with pottery making, blacksmithery and cir­ cumcisors, all of whom received huge fees in terms of sheep and goats in return for services or products sold. Some of these mbari became jealous and resorted to boundary maintenance activities to protect secrets of their trades and also to keep out other mbari, espe­ cially the poorer ones, from sharing in their acquired wealth.

They formally despised the poor from other mbari and would stop at nothing in trying to exploit the labour of nlagufcl from such mbari* They would not accept permanent ndungata from other mbari as these would expect inheritable land and livestock and perhaps also a wife from them. Njaguti from other mbari would, for example, be used in military expe­ ditions to capture some cattle from the Kasai and would find themselves later on expelled from the vicinity of their "employer*."

Such activities led to antagonism within the society similar to class type of struggle. Thus mbari ya Munyori in Kiambu was wealthy and powerful, and it became very antagonistic towards the poorer and weaker mbari ya Mbuu. The Mbari system has been described as the single most divisive aspect of Kikuyu 134

social and economic system. In many cases marriages

between such antagonistic mbari were completely

barred and this further served as a disintegrative

force. A H this is said to have originated from

specialization of labour according to skills monopolized

by various mbari.

A word of caution perhaps is in order. In the

first place division of labour or specialization of

labour by mbari kinship groups should not be assumed

to imply differentiation of the society into employers

and workers. Indeed everybody in the society, except

a very few wealthy and arrogant individuals, partici­

pated in real productive activities within his family.

Every household was a productive unit and any specialized

skill was practised in addition to, and not to the

exclusion of, normal production aimed at satisfying the

day to day family requirement of food, shelter, clothing

and security. There were no families of producers and

of non-producers. Help could no doubt be requested

or received from relatives or from ndungata and njaguti, but this was only additional to the family's efforts,

however wealthy such a family was. In that sense

the entire Kikiyu society was composed of workers or producers.

In the second place the effect of antagonism between various mbari was largely offset by the mariika

system. Apart from age, no other form of discrimination, 135 economic or otherwise, could prevent an Individual from Joining his age mates as they climbed into higher age-grades* One could not, for instance, be prevented from going through initiation rights because he was of a poor family and could probably not afford to meet required fees* In such a case his wealthier relatives - clanwise or kinshipwise - came to his aid by paying such a fee and making the ceremony a success. Poor or wealthy, the entire age-group was regarded as one and within it the members regarded themselves as absolute equals who could, and in fact did,share everything including wives* Under the leadership of their spokesman, nlamba , they took themselves to be like brothers. They were organized in terms of ridges or locations, rugongo (p* n'gongo) which could sometimes comprise several mbarl land areas and villages ltura (pi* matura).

In like manner, transition from anake to kiama age-grade required a payment of fees of several sheep and goats* But this practice was not by any means aimed at putting a barrier excluding the poorer members from joining the elders grade* The fee so paid after one had got married merely represented a

show of good-will and readiness to carry out duties and responsibilities of the Kiama grade in cooperation with fellow kiama members. Indeed the fee was a kind of sysmbol of rededication to communalism and

spirit of egalitarianism. 136 -

Mariika system, therefore, was the most equalizing and levelling system within the Kikuyu socio-economic structure,1®1 Counterpoised against the disintegrative mbari-kinship - system, age set system was given a lot of emphasis in order to hold the society together especially in times of war. It was probably the one feauture that spelt off formation of solid socio-economic inequalities within the Kikuyu society. The system prevented emergence of powerful centralized authority as the Kiama, or council of elders, was composed of members of same age-set and every individual belonging to such an age-set could sit in the council.

In the third place an individual born in a particular mbari was not guaranteed of subsequently being wealthy or poor if such a mbari was wealthy or poor respectively. Birth did not determine the life role an individual would play in terms of land and property one owned or controlled. People were born in affluent conditions but ended up becoming

"nala** or destitute beggars. Others were born in

>,ngiatl families and yet they turned out to be wealthy and influential. All this depended largely on one's initiative (kio), hard work and good husbandry.

Normally the wealthy mbari had very large families and permanent ndungata and when the founder died and his property equally shared among his sons and permanent ndungata, each usually got only a small portion compared to that of his father. Again it - 137 - was not one's birth but one's Initiative and hard work that would maintain an individual at a high social status by himself becoming wealthy. The values of the society therefore did not pay much respect to the man who was prosperous only by the sheer accident of birth; he was scornfully said to have got his wealth from his parents’bed. His father's wealth was an achievement to emulate by one's own 102 efforts, not a start of life. But whatever one did to become wealthy, he had to cooperate with other members of society especially his fellow mbari members and his age mates. Such cooperation included mutual assistance In such activities as forest clearing and virgin land breaking. He was expected to extend hospitality and generosity to travellers, his relatives and his age-mates. He had to assume a great share in feeding and settling of the poor, ahpj. and infirm. In other words, he had to accept being wealthy within a communal and egalitarian system.

In all, Gitonga (rich manl; mwihoti (average man), muhoi (tenant at will) ndungata (voluntary servant) and ngla (destitute beggar) could all belong to one and same Mbari (kinship group) or riika (age-set).

Alienation from Mbari, while possible via re-birth ceremony (guciarwo na mburi), was minimal. Alienation from riika was impossible. Hence the saying, "riika rltlumaawoM or there is no alienation or removal from 138 one’s age set*1®^ That means that the members of a given Mbari or rlika considered themselves to be part and parcel of wealth or poverty of their mbari or riika* In such a situation the poorer members were comforted and encouraged to increase their wealth as they already had the feeling that they 104 too belonged to the mbari or riika ownership groups.

As such individual initiative was boosted by communal reassurance* M - ^ A L .ysj£

An analysis of Masai, Ndorobo, Nandi and Kikuyu traditional African socio-economic systems would indicate some similarities and some differences*

In the first place it has been noticed that the role of the clan was to unite or hold together a people or join together different peoples as in the case of Ndorobo and Nandi and Masai* The people who recognized the same system of clans, and identified themselves as members of such clans, shared common identity in a wider sense and prolonged conflicts or diversity of interests were as far as possible non-existent* Thus, for example, although the

Ndorobo and the Masai were different people, the fact that they shared common clan names (and also age-set terminologies) led them to view each other as "cousins" other than as "strangers*" This close­ ness of the relationship especially between the

Ndorobo and the Nandi was later on to be used by the colonial government as a basis of removing the

Ndorobo into Nandi and Kipsigia land areas* But both the Ndorobo and the Nandi protested that, although they were cousins, they nevertheless were different people. The Ndorobo insisted that the forest areas in Mau, Eburu, Bahati and Tinet, for example, were the only homelands they ever knew and they would willingly live in. The colonial government however, ignored such a fact and in the interest of • 140 -

capitalist European settlers, it forcebily removed

the Ndorobo in what they considered to be alien land*

In almost all cases, except in Masailand,

residential unit was based on Kinship relations*

Thus among the Nandi, Ndorobo and Kikuyu a homestead

was made of related families who recognized a common

ancestor* Among the Masai, however, residential

Krakl units were settled according to common age-

group of the heads of respective families* This

was mainly because among the Masai, age-set system

was much more stressed than in other cases* Thus,

it was considered that age-mates within a given

Olosho could live together as brothers. Mutual

assistance and responsibility, therefore, was stressed

among members of the same age-set and not among the

clan members. This system tended to tie the members

of the Olosho in terms of age-sets which were not in

any way antagonistic as each of them was recognized

and respected by the others and vice versa*

Age set system among the Ndorobo, Nandi and

Kikuyu was ona of the two main features of the social

structure that were of vital importance to all members

of each society* The other feature was the Kap,

lineage;)among the Ndorobo; extended family, among the

Nandi; and the Mbari, among the Kikuyu* In these

societies antagonism tended to build between various kinship groups which held diverse amounts of land

and livestock. But such antagonism was in most cases 141 kept at the lowest ebb due to the presence of age- set system which cut across all kinship groups.

Although kinship groups tended to stress differences between them, age-set structure tended to stress equality of members, respect and mutual responsibi­ lity at all costs. This apparent contradictory arrangement is best demonstrated by the Kikuyu saying that “Nyumba na riika itiumagwo.'* Thus, while the colonial government exploited the role of Masai Laibon and laiowenanl in controlling the

Masai people through their age-sets, it used the

Mbari animosity to subjugate the Kikuyu. It appointed chiefs from some of the Mbari who would be used to subjugate the other Mbari, for example,.KinyanJui,

Koinange and Karuri. In other words, the colonial government chose the divisive aspects of the African traditional systems and exploited them in order to subjugate and control the Africans.

Similarities between all the three sets of groups was greater in the system of division of labour. In all cases housework, cultivation, pottery making, and care for the children were some of the duties relegated to women. Young girls helped their mothers in these jobs and learnt how to become future mothers.

Men ofi the other hand had the duty of keeping cattle and other livestock, hunting and honey collecting, tool and weapon making, building and trading. Among the Masai, however, Kraal building was done by women, 142 and among the Ndorobo basket making and selling in exchange for grain foods was done by women* Men usually traded in livestock, tobacco, ivory, iron-ore and iron bars, tools and weapons* In all the groups, v*ar making was the duty of the warriors who also

acted as policemen of their various societies*

Legislation and mediation was done by council of elders, normally under the guardianship of an elected

spokesman* Thus while the day to day productive

activities were allocated according to sex, war making maintenance of order, legislation and arbitration duties were allocated according to both age and sex*

Specialization by age and sex alone could not

fully cater for all the needs of traditional societies especially because some jobs required much more specia

lized skills* These included iron-ore digging and

smelting, smithing, shield making, and complicated

long range trading* Such jobs were, therefore, performed by clans or sections of the societies who

specialized in them* Among the Kikuyu Mbari of aturi were the specialist smiths; the Masai called them

Kipuyoni clan; and the Nandi knew them as Kitongik*

Some sections of the Ndorobo people specialized

in buffalo skin shield-making, an industry that earned them good trade with Masai who valued such

shields very highly. Some sections of the Nandi

specialized in iron smelting and selling it to

their Ndorobo neighbours for making spears,knives 143 and arrow-heads# The clans of iron smelters and smiths were same and this tends to explain further the close relations between the Nandi and the Ndorobo# •!>

In case of complicated long range trade, we have observed that the Ndorobo were the main specialists. They vtelcomed the coast ivory traders and sold them ivory in return for iron-bars, iron and copper wire, and beads# When the Masai were involved in that trade, the Ndorobo acted as the middle-man. Indeed they were so experienced that by the late years of nineteenth century, the Ndorobo refrained from selling ivory in exchange of poor quality beads and wire# As we have noted, the

Ndorobo also acted as the middlemen in trade between the Kikuyu who exchanged grain and vegetable foods for Masai sheep and goats.

One important point to be noted is the good- neighbourliness that prevailed the pre-colonial

African peoples in Kenya quite contrary to the over­ exaggerated ethnic or so called "tribal wars"# Indeed each African group tended to specialize in economic productivity that would be capable of being maximized within the peculiar ecological conditions in whieh such a group lived. The Masai and Nandi specialized in cattle keeping; the Ndorobo in hunting and honey making; and the

Kikuyu in cultivation and some livestock keeping# • 144 -

But the thing to be emphasised is that such a specialization led to a healthy situation for all as free movement of goods could take place from one area to another* Thus, for example, although the Masai were cattle people, they were properly supplied with grain and vegetable foods from the

Kikuyuland* This was one area where grave destruction was done by European colonization* To the European government in Kenya, any land that was not actually cultivated was considered to be unoccupied, let alone unused, and therefore alienable* Thus the entire land of Ndorobo and Masai in the Rift Valley was alienated on such grounds* The most spersely populated areas were marked by homesteads ehich were between two or five miles apart* When the

Europeans occupied the same areas, their homesteads were normally between ten and thirty miles apart*

Common sense shows that such areas became less occupied under European possession than they were under Masai or Ndorobo possession* Leys states clearly that there were less number of cattle in the area when it fell in the European handd than before*v * 105

Cne of the aims of European land alienation was to replace African production for their own*

They expected to reduce Kasai cattle, sheep and goats, to a point where the Masai would convert into wage labourers in European farms. They also 145 - aimed at replacing Masai livestock keeping with their own in order to monopolise the profits and basis of capital accumulation* Among the Kikuyu land alienation led to shortages in food, and trading v/ith the Masai having been made very difficult especially after they had moved to the so-called southern Reserve, the

Kikuyu turned into squatters and wage labourers in

European farms and plantations* Free trade was removed and production restrictions were instituted*

This created a situation where productivity could be enough for all societies, but due to restricted trade, some areas became famine areas while food was plenty in others*InAfrican traditional systems, if any

African group had much food, the other groups shared in it and therefore traditional exclusive famine areas were non-existent*

with restrictions on trade among the African peoples and also between them and the outside world via coastal traders, a great part of economic acti­ vities of Africans, especially the Ndorobo who were also specialists in trade routes and meeting places, was adversely affected. As we have seen, Europeans, led by such people like Dr. Fisher, J* Thomson,

Dr. Atkinson and Lord Delamere, forced the Masai and and Ndorobo out of trade in ivory. They also put a stop on iron trade between coastal traders and the

Nandi. The latter therefore reduced the size of their manufacture of tools and weapons for export to the - 146 - neighbours, especially the Ndorobo* As a result of curtailment of trade in iron most of the African manufactures, like spears, swords and pangas, hoes and axes were greatly affected. At the same time

Africans were encouraged to continue using these same tools even after colonization. The only diffe­ rences instituted were (a) in the source of manufacture and supply which became European industries, and

(b) in the middleman trader who became the European merchant replacing coast traders and African middle­ men, such as Ndorobo.

In the field of medicine, education, spiritual matters and entertainment destruction and underdevelop­ ment was as great as in other areas. African medicine­ men and herbs specialists treated many diseases, although, like all medicinemen, including the Western or Eastern ones, they never managed to treat all of them. African system of "technical and practical” approach to education in the fields of animal husbandry and cultivation was quite in keeping with the ecolo­ gical situation they had studied over the centuries.

Thus, for instance, up to 1917 Africans were the only people who managed to grow maize in Naivasha

District while the Europeans, with all their claim of technical knowhow, could not do it. As already noted Europeans were educated and trained on how to make Nakuru District economically productive by

Africans. 147

The coining of European capitalism in Kenya, as will be more revealed in the subsequent chapters,

Rot only undermined and closed down African socio­ economic activities* It also initiated an era of underdevelopment| exploitation and dependence never witnessed before in the history of Kenya* 148

FOOT NOTES CHAPTER II

1* For Archaelogical evidence see Sonia Cole,

The Prehistory of East Africa (New American Lib*,

1965).

2. Major J.R.L. Macdonald, a .E. - Soldiering and

Surveying in British East Africa (Edward Arnold, London 1897, p. 58).

3. Ibid. - p. 58-59,

4. Ibid. - p. 61-62.

5. Ibid. - p. 63.

6 . Ibid.

7. J. Thomson - Through Masai land (Frank Cass 1968), p. 194.

8 . Ibid.

9. Ibid. p. 195.

1 0 . Ibid. p. 198.

1 1 . Macdonald - Op. cit. p. 6 8 .

1 2 . Ibid. p. 70.

13. Ibid.

14. Ibid p. 71.

15. Ibid. p. 71-72.

16. F. Jackson - Early Days in East Africa (Dawsons of Paul Maul 1969), p. 293.

Also Lord Cranworth, Kenya Chronicles, p. 329,

He says, "when our Administration commenced, the

whole of the plateau known an the Highlands was

under the domination of the Masai tribe 149

17. Jacobs A.H. - Masai Age Groups and some functional

Tasks (EAUSRC Kampala, 1958).

18. These examples are derived from Hollis, A.c. -

The Masai, Their Language and Folkhore (Oxford

1905) Introduction. Tucker A.N. and J.T. Ole

Mpaayei - A Masai Grammar with Vocabularly

(Longmans 1955) and J. Thompson — op. cit.

19. Hobley, C.rt* - Kenya - From chartered Company

to Crown Colony (Frank Cass, 1970), p. 204.

He writes of most of Masai cattle which moved

from one grazing ground to another around Mau

Forests, and which cut deeper and wider route

which were thought to have been originally

elephant routes. This they did during the one

hundred years before 1929 when Hobley wrote his

book.

20. V.M. Carnegie - Kenya Farm Diary (London 1930)

Dated 7th January 1920.

21. N. Leys - Kenya (Frank Cass) p. 135.

22. Nakuru District Annual Reports 1910-1939.

23. Blackburn R.H, - Honey in Okiek Personality,

culture and society (Ph. D Thesis Nairobi) p. 16-17.

Also Spencer, P. - Nomands in Alliance (Oxford

N. Press 1973) p. 205.

24. Carnegie - op. cit. Dated 3rd November 1919.

25. Huntingford, G.w'.B. - The Social Organization

of the Ndorobo - in African Studies 1942 vol. I

p. 191 & 193. 150 -

Blackburn, R.H. - Honey in Okiek Personality,

Culture and Society (Ph. D Thesis Nairobi 1975).

26. See below - they cultivated land and kept cattle ,

sheep and goats#

27. Huntingford - op. cit - p. 183

In Nakuru District they lived in areas like

Eburu Hills, Han Hills, Bahati Forest, and

Tinderet Forest.

28. Ibid -

Also Blackburn - op. cit.

and Joseph Thompson, Through Masailand (Fran Cass)

1966, p. 262

29. Hollis, A.C. - The Wandi (Oxford 1969) p. 2.

30. Huntingford - op. cit. p* 184.

Blackburn op. cit.

31. Blackburn - op, cit - p. 48

32. Ibid. - p. 49

33. Spencer, P. - Nomads in Alliance (Oxford U. Press,

1973) p. 205.

34. Blackburn - op. cit. <• p* 4

Also Hinde S.L. - The last of the Masai (London

1901).

35. J. Thompson - op. cit. p. 262.

36. Hollis, A.C. The Masai - Their Language and

Folklore (Oxford 19C5) p. 317.

37. Spencer - op. cit. p. 206

Also Hollis - The Masai - p. 331.

38. Hollis ibid - p. 269. - 151 -

39* Blacksmiths were generally despised in traditional

African peoples of Kenya and since the Ndorobo

sold some spears and shields to Masai, they were

looked down upon by them. Sometimes they were

confused with the clan of smiths - the Kipunvoni.

40. J. Thompson - op. cit. p. 262.

41. Thompson Ibid - This area should be Jabini,

Kinangop, where many Masai lived.

42. Ibid. * 43. Ibid. The Ndorobo were specialists in elephant

hunting - Thompson p. 262. Masai took trading

commission and hongo or transit dues from traders. See above.

44. Huntingford - op, cit. p. 188-189.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid - p. 190

47. Ibid - p. 192 00 • Ibid - p. 193.

49. Ibid - Also interview with two Ndorobo of Olengu-

ruone.

50. Ibid - . «*"

51* Hobley C.W. - Kenya - From chartered Company

to Crown Colony - (Frank Cass, 1970) P* 184. 52. Blackburn - op. cit. p. 48.

53. J. Thompson op. cit. p. 262

Also - R.w. Beachy - East African Ivory Trade

in 19th Century - (in Journal of African History,

Vol III, 2 (1967) p. 273. I

* 152 -

54* The Ndorobo had therefore turned to be very

secretive people in an attempt to protect this

"industiresM, honey reserves, and trade*

55* Blackburn op* cit* - pp* 16-17*

Also District Annual Report Nakuru - 10

where administration claimed that Kipsigis had

infiltrated into forest reserves and farms

nearby without special passes as required by

regulations* But these people were actually

not Kipsigis but some of the Ndorobo who

refused to live in Lumbwa (Kipsigis) and were

returning to what they considered their tradi­

tional homes. 56* District Annual Reportsm Nakuru* 19 •••

57* See next chapter.

58* Huntingford - op* cit* - p* 193*

59* Ibid - pp. 193-194.

60* Jacobs, op* cit*

61* Ibid*

62. Hollis - The Nandi - p. 86

- The Masai - p* 309.

63* Berntsen, J*L* - Masai and Iloikop, Ritual Experts

and Their Followers (M*A. Thesis Wisconsin 1973)

p* 9*

64* Ibid* p. 11.

65* The greatest of Masai shrines and ceremonial

ground was in Kinangop Plateau* See Nakuru and

Naivasha District Annual Reports 1910 - 1930,

and Land Commission, Kenya, 1934 - - 153 -

6 6 . Jacobs, op* cit*

67. Ibid -

Hollis considers that at Eu-noto a chief was

selected* He erroneously equates the position

of a spokesman with that of a chief - (The Masai

- p. 299)*

6 8 . Ibid -

69* Ibid -

A.N* Tucker and J.T. Ole Mppayei refer to it

as country or tribal section* A Masai Grammar

Vocabularly - Longmans 1955.

70* Huntingford G*w*B* The Nandi of Kenya (Rontledge

and Kenya, 195)) p* 26

Poiyot ap Kokwet has been described as "the elder

of the Council", or "the most important old man

who takes counsel, and leads the business with

the other people in the Kokwet*" P. 24-25.

71. Ibid. - p. 28.

72. Ibid - p. 32

73* Warriors would be used to course conformity on

recolcitrant members of the Nandi Society - Interview*

74. Ibid. - p. 34

75. Ibdi - p. 35

76. Ibid - p. 35.

Orkoiyot is said to have originated from the

Masai - hence the Nandi also call him Laibon -

He was the paramount medicine-man or priest.

See below for the extent of his power. - 154 -

Also - Hollis A.C, - The Nandi - p. 48*

77, Huntingford - The Nandi of Kenya - p. 34-35,

78, Ibid, p, 3.

79, Laibon is derived from the Masai ol-oiboni of

which brkoiyot is the Nandi equivalent -

Huntingford - ibid, p, 39 Footnote,

80, Jacobs - op, cit.

81, Ibid,

82, Masai Laiboni were manipulated, sometimes

blackmailed, into surrendering to the Government

officials and not resisting the removal of their

people from the Rift Valley — See chapter III.

83, Hollis A,C, The Masai - p. 317.

84, Ibid - p, 317, Indeed cattle inherited from

an ancestor could nbt be soldj they were usually

kept for breeding and herd increasing purposes,

85, Ibid, - p. 318,

8 6 , Masai knew plant ecology of Nakuru to an extent

that they had been able to train the Somalis

who traded with them in livestock in order that

the latter could; prevent their animals from

dying. One Somali, Omar taught, one European

settler, Mrs. V.M. Carnegie, how cattle disease

could be avoided by refraining from grazing

them on certain grasses at particular seasons

of the year,

V.M. Carnegie - Kenya Farm Diary (London, 1930)

Dated 7th January, 1920,

87, Hollis - The Masai - p. 290. 155

8 8 . Ibid.

89. Hollis - The Nandi - p. 78.

90. The rest of pottery was purchased from outsiders

such as the Ndorobo.

91. Hollis - The Masai - p. 330.

92. Hollis - The Nandi - p. 37.

93. "The Main resons for which the Nandi fought”

for example, "were cattle and sport, with vengeance

probably added from time to time, and also to

defend themselves from the Masai ••••

(these wars) may therefore be called akinetic,

as opposed to Kinetic warfare in which land

or slaves were the objectives, and where there

was in consequence actual displacement and a

considerable disturbance of tribal life.”

Huntingford, The Nandi of Kenya - pp. 77 - 38.

94. Lord Delamcre, for example, with the assistance

of his medical officer Dr. Atkinson, shot

several elephants and extracted ivory. In

1899 he left Nakury District, then part of

Eastern Province of Uganda, with £14,000 worth

of ivory, (perhaps much worthier than that) after

having paid a custom duty of £800 at the Eldama

Ravine Station.

95. Muriuki, G. - A History of the Kikuyu 1500-1900

(Oxford U. Press 1975) p. 34-35.

Xorrenson, M.P.K. - Land Reform in the Kikuyu

country (Nairobi, 1967) p. 9. 156 -

96. The first purchase of land in Kikuyuland was

made from the Ndorobo. These were the former

occupants of the present Central Province of

Kenya. The purchase price •••••••••••• was

paid in form of meat, beer, sheep and goats.

But some Kikuyu people merely managed to be

adopted into Ndorobo society and way of life

and were given land like other Ndorobo.

Such a case was the former Gathirimu, formerly

known as Wa* Nugu for hunting and eating nugu or monkeys.

It should also be noted that some people

copied Ndorobo method of laying first claim upon

a given area of land. So they transcended the

already claimed land, especially, beyond Ndorobo

occupied areas, and planted itoka or lillies to

indicate the extent to which they had sole right

to hunt wild animals for food. Such land was

called ,tNq*undu>t which referred to land claimable

by any other right except by purchase and

inheritance.

Cases of some Kikuyu having got land by

killing all the Ndorobo claimants of a given

estate cannot be ruled out. toangengi of Mbari

ya Kihora in Kiambu is said to have killed the

Ndorobo woman owner of the land upon which Mbari

ya Kihora was latter to be settled. 157

97* Muramati was the trustee, guardian or custodian

of Mbari land. He was also charged with regu­

lating day to day affairs of Mbari, such as

mediating or acting as its spokesman in intra-

Mbari affairs.

Muriukl - op. cit. p. 116.

The Mbari system of land tenure was a safeguard

against exploitation as any one member of the

clan, however, strong or influential he might

have been. Muriukl - op. cit. p. 35.

98. H. Humphrey - The Kikuyu lands (Nairobi, 1945)

p. 23 •

99. Muriuki, G. - A History of the Kikuyu 1500-1900

(Oxford U, Press 1975) p. 78.

Also Humphrey - op. cit.

100. On the eve of colonial occupation in Kenya many

people who had migrated from Murang*a to Kiambu

had not yet managed to acquire land for themselves.

Most of them were either ahoi-4enants or ndungata -

voluntary servants especially of the lower

category, the NJaguti - ‘roving servants.• At

the last quarter of the nineteenth century the

entire country was struck by plague and famine

and many people in Kiambu district that time

returned to their relatives in Murang*a in order

to escape death. When they returned to the

district after the threat of their lives had

gone, (and this was at the turn of the century), - 158 -

they found land alienated by Europeans and even

those who had land before departure had to Join

the rest of the "army" of ahol and ndungata, especially the latter.

101. Muriuki, G. IDS Discussion Paper 1973.

102. Marris, P. and Somerset, A. - African Businessmen (Nairobi 1971) p. 28.

103. Muriuki G, - A History of the Kikuyu - p. 133.

"Myunba na rllka itlumaqwo" - one cannot contract

out of one's family or age set."

104. Ownership by riika, age-set, did not really

exist, but poorer people identified themselves

with the wealth of their fellow riika mates.

105. N.Leys, op. cit-. - 159

CHAPTER III

EUROPEAN ALIENATION OF LAND IN KENYA;

1ft? c*gy aLJteKMfM. pi.strict

'aHITE h i g h l a n d s p o l i c y *

British colonization of Kenya was complete by the year 1895 when the British Government decided to build a railway to Uganda through that territory, then termed as the British East Africa, what remained undone was the settlement of colonization in terms of completion of subjugation of the Africans in that land and in terms of deciding the means by which exploitation of the colonized land and people would be best maximized. The latter becomes the theme of this chapter.

In 1888, Sir William Mackinon's Imperial

British East Africa Company had been granted a royal charter empowering it to penetrate, open and administer

East Africa from the coast inland through Uganda.

The company also received full authority from Britain to exploit the economic resources of that territory to the maximum through the use of British capital.

Thus Imperial British East Africa Company (IBEAC) became the sole agent of British capital in colonizing and exploiting that territory.

But in 1894 the IBEAC realized that it did not \ have sufficient finances to effectively continue to - 160 -

carry out the duty entrusted to it by the British

Government* In 1895 the company was accused of

mismanaging finances and was nationalised and

compensated at £200f000. All duties and "benefits"

or "profits" granted to it under the charter reverted

to the British Government which from then on

undertook to run and direct the affairs of the Cast

African territory*

Mere mismanagement of finances would normally

call for a change in management but not for a take-over

by the Government* The "crimes" of the company must

have been far greater than officially expressed. It

had failed to firmly subjugate all the African peoples

in the interior! firm penetration into the interior

was still questionable; and it did not show

substantial fruits of exploitation of the territory

either in terms of raw materials to feed industries

back in Britain or in terms of substantial market for

British industries* As such, the company was failing

to promote capital interests and the latter agitated

for its take-over by the Government* It was

therefore, because of retarding development and

subsequent accumulation of capital that the company

had to go, for the interests of capital and those of

the British people were viewed to be one and the same*

The take-over was also necessitated by another, related reason* Since the Berlin Conference of

1884-85 recognized East Africa as part of British 161

sphere of influence or "sphere of esqploitation", no

tangible symbol of such influence could be referred to

by Britain# Although subjugation of Zanzibar and the

coast Arab-Swahili areas was realized in the 1890*s,

similar success could not be said to have prevailed

in the interior# There was no administration, and

occupation by British people was minimal#

In order to open the interior for exploitation

by British capital, the British decided to build

a railway to Uganda which the company had began and

abandoned# Apart from opening up the interior

some of its proponents thought of its strategic

importance in controlling the headwaters of the

Nile then considered to be vital in controlling

Egypt and the Suez Canal. Others thought of tapping

the wealthy resources of Buganda Kingdom and establishing trade with it# But there seems to be

little or no evidence to show that any of these reasons were behind the building of what came to be 2 known as the Uganda Railway# Perhaps the main reason was to boost up the iron and steel industry in

Britain by exporting it abroad, and hence increase employment facilities there# It could also be that

finance capitalists pressurized Britain to engage in

such a venture with a hope that they might later invest their money in land and other feasible resources in the territory in return for a profit. But the most 162 - prevalent season behind the construction of the railway was its symbolic demonstration of the claim of sphere of influence by Britain.

Construction work began in 1895 and the railway reached Kisimu, or Port Florence, as it was then called, in 1901. The British Government and the administration in Kenya then realised that there was great shortage of commodities to be transported by the railway and hence its construction was hard to justify in real terms. After it had spent about

£5,500,000 in construction, the British Government found it difficult to continue running that railway 3 from the coffers of the British Treasury. It therefore wondered if the territory could not be made productive in order to meet the costs of running the railway in the main, and if possible also meet the maintenance cost of the administration and defence.

Meanwhile, "the man on the spot” in the person of Sir Charles Elliot who had become the Protectorate's new Commissioner in 1900, wrote several dispatches to the Foreign Secretary regarding agricultural potentialities of the great mass of land th^t appeared unused and empty. He referred to the Kikuyu who had fertile land but preferred cattle raiding to agriculture for their livelihood. He also referred to the Kavirondo cultivators as too fond of alcohol and leisure to be able to maintain a proper productive activity. The Masai were seen as wasteful as far - 163 as land use was concerned and Eliot demanded that they be barred from roaming in areas they would 4 not usefully cultivate. Thus, to Eliot, no

Africans in Kenya could be made to develop Kenya1s economy to a point of making the railway pay. This became the official view of the colonial government up to 1963,

The best of land being available, and a railway cutting across it, and in the absence of

Africans capable (in the eyes of Eliot) of developing the economy of the territory, the next logical step seemed to begin a search for people to come and do that job. Ever since the ora of

IBEAC the Indian community had been regarded as the right people to develop the Protectorate, Some officials argued strongly in favour of assigning the Indians the function of managing economic development along lines to be established by British authorities. In 1901 Commissioner Eliot, reacting to mounting pressure for concrete steps towards economic development, approved the immigration of Indian 5 agricultural settlers. Sir Clement Hill, head of the African Development at the Foreign Office, supported

Eliot on the issue, "We are looking to India," he said "for our East African system and for development."^

In 1902 Eliot supported land grants, free seed distribution, and agricultural loans to India settlers in the Highlands Cf the Protectorate and up to as 164 - late as 1906 official missions to Punjab had tried 7 to recruit Indian settlers. The project, however, met with minimal success*

As the British officials tried to persuade the

Indians to take up and develop the Kenya Highlands, private British people who had visited the country started compaigning to have the highlands preserved for European settlement and exploitation* Such men included Lord Delamere and Dr. Atkinson who had

Q visited Kenya in 1898 and decided to settle there*

In 1893 the influential Governor of Uganda Sir

Frederick D* Lugard had reported about the Rift

Valley highlands. He wrote: -

MA gentle rise along the line taken for the

projected railway brings the traveller from

the level of the Masai plain (6,000 ft*) to

the tope of the plateau (7,700 ft*)* This

area is uninhabited, and of great extent; it

consequently offers unlimited room for the

location of agricultural settlements or

stock-rearing farms. Here if anywhere In

Central Africa, in ray opinion, would be the

site upon which to attempt the experiment of

European settlements* The soil is rich, and is

covered with an excellent and luxuriant pasture

throughout the year, with which is mixed white

clover and trefoil* The country is intersected

by small streams, the rainfall is abundant, 165

patches of forest supply bamboos and timber

for building and fuel* Game roams over the

acres of undulating grass, and the climate is

cold and bracing* By day it is often uncomfortably

cold, by night the temperature is almost that of

an English winter*

.... * It is here that I have advocated the

formation of colonies of Asiatics and

freed slaves, v#ho should cultivate the soil

and supply a free labour market* Here also I

would suggest the experiment of a model farm

like those established in South Africa by

Mr* Rhodes •••• The new industries in coffee,

tea, indigo, fibre, tobacco, wheat, cotton and

a hundred other tropical and sub-tropical

products could be inaugurated here, with every

advantage of soil and climate, and their

success should rival or eclipse that of the

Shire highlands*

Another Governor of Uganda, Sir Harry Johnston, later made a similar report to the British Government*

He wrote*-

"In the Eastern part of the Uganda Protectorate

there is a tract of country almost without parallel in tropical Africa* a region of perhaps

1 2 ,0 0 0 square miles, admirably well watered,

with a fertile soil, cool and perfectly healthy,

climate, covered with noble forests and, to a 166 -

very great extent, uninhabited by any native

races# This area lies at an altitude not less

than 6 ,0 0 0 feet, and not more than 1 0 ,0 0 0 feet#

It is as healthy for European settlers as the

United Kingdom, British Columbia, or

temperate South Africa I am able to

say decidedly that here we have a territory

(now that the Uganda Railway is built)

admirably suited for a white roan’s country# 1,10

In 1902 the few Europeans who were already In

Kenya formed the Colonists' Association which aimed at fighting to preserve the highlands for white settlement only. In this struggle they were assisted by big financies and memb rs of the aristocracy back in Britain who pressed the British Government to succumb to Europeanization of the Kenya Highlands. 11

Their first major success in the struggle was have the border of Kenya altered on April 1, 1902, include the former Eastern Province of Uganda, The territory involved ran from Naivasha to Kisumu and

Included all the land described by both Lugard and 12 Johnston in their dispatches to London# It was no j wonder that the first beneficiaries of the border \ changes were the East African syndicate, Lord

Delamere, Messrs Chambolain and Flemmer, all of whom got big chunks of land in the present Nakuru District. 13

Most of these land grants were directly made by the

Foreign Office in London, they were roughtly defined on - 167 -

an Imperfect map, and all this was done without prior 14 knowledge of the Governor in Kenya, By these grants

the British Government had demonstrated that it could

be influenced by men of wealthy and aristocratic

backgrounds, and from then onwards, it kept yielding

to their demands.

When the border alterations were done, only a

few Europeans were in Kenya with an intention to

settle. By 1903 the British Government seems to have

accepted the idea of using the European settlers to obtain economic exploitation of the country. The

Governor (Commissioner) of Kenya Sir Charles Eliot was now converting from the idea of Indian settlement

to that of European settlement. He was now able to write with confidence declaring that*

"the interior of the Protectorate is a

Whiteman’s country, and it is mere

hypocrisy not to admit that white interests

must be paramount, and the main object of our

policy and legislation should be to found a

white country,"15

The policy of European settlement was based on the assumption that the settlers would increase rapidly, take up all pressumed empty land, and become employers of the African populations to exploit it. This basic assumption was made with reference to South African policy which the Europeans in Kenya hoped would be emulated,1^ It was no wonder then - 168 - that In 1903 Eliot sent his Chief of Customs,

Mr. A, Marsden, "on a tour through South Africa to make known to responsible persons in that land the 17 possibilities of East Africa for European settlement,"

That was the first serious advertising and recruitment mission for white settlement in Kenya, Its success 18 was tremendous*

Meanwhile more search continued to fill Kenya with European settlers. Some British officials suggested settlement of Finns, but nothing came o*t of the proposal, Joseph Chamberlain, after he had visited Kenya in 1903, then suggested establishment of a Jewish National Home in Kenya’s Uasin Gishu

Plateau, **hen it appeared that the British

Government was determined to effect that proposal^ the Farmers and Planters Association, launched protests of unprecedented magnitude. Led by Lord Delamere, its president, Dr. Artkinson, and Dr. Scott, the co-vice presidents, the association strongly protested to the Government in Kenya. Lord Delamere, who had himself applied for land in the area proposed for

Jewish settlement, wrote and published a pamphlet of protest and also cabled Britain to stress the anger.

He saidi -

"Feeling here very strong against

introduction of alien Jews, Railway frontage

fit for British colonization 260 miles. Foreign 169

Office proposes give 200 miles best to

undesirable aliens* Is it for this that the

expensive railway was built and large sums

spent on country? Flood of people that class

sure to lead to trouble with half-tamed

native jealous of their rights* Means extra

staff to control them* Is British Taxpayer,

proprietor East Africa, content that beautify

and valuable country be handed to aliens? Have

we no colonists of our own race? Country

being settled slowly surely by desirable

British settlers. Englishmen here appeal

public opinion, especially those who know this

country, against this arbitrary proceeding and 19 consequent swamping bright future of country*"

The idea was abandoned after the Jewish leadership decided not to settle in Kenya* It was said that the Zionists Congress merely found the place unsuitable for them, but it was much more so because they feared that their interests and those of the Euroepean settlers might never be compatible*

They therefore opted to avoid attempting to settle in a land where they would live in permanent confrontations with British capitalists and aristocrats*

Although the Farmers and Planters Association had managed to exclude the Jews from getting a share in the highlands, they had not yet managed to do the same with the Indians* The settlers pressed for legal - 170 -

exdussion of Aslans from owning land in the highlands

and part of it was won in 1905* In that year an

Ordinance gave the Governor authority and power to

veto the sale or transfer of land in the highlands

to Asians or Africans - that isf to any other races

but Europeans. This success was followed by the

colonial secretary, Lord Elgin, accepting, in 1906,

that the highlands were to be settled by Europeans only* He wrote*-

MIt would not be in accordance with the policy

of His Majesty*s Government tc exclude any

class of His subjects from holding land in any

part of a British Protectorate, but in view of the comparatively limited area in the

Protectorate suitable for European colonists, a

reasonable discretion will be exercised in

dealing with applications for land on the part

of natives of India and other norwEuropeans ***•

I approve of your adhering to the principle

acted on by your predecessors, viz* that land

outside municipal limits, roughly lying

between Kiu and Fort Ternan, should be granted 20 only to European settlers*M

In 1908 he repeated this ruling and insisted

that, while no legal restrictions would be imposed, grants of land in the uplands should not be made to

Indians, and grants in the lowlands should be 21 restricted to agriculturalists* Thus the Government - 171 -

In both Britain and Kenya, formally accepted the principle of "White Highlands"• What remained was to forge a "white man*s country" in Kenya.^ - 172 -

THE BASIS OF EUROPEAN LAND ALIENATION!

when the British Government took over the IBEA

Compapy, Uganda and East Africa Protectorate were not differentiated by the company. In 1896 the Government issued an order to the effect that the territory between River Juba and Naivasha become East Africa 23 Protectorate.

On the date of the take over, the company had made 97 treaties with people supposed to be African chiefs but none of those treaties had given the company any rights to the land in Kenya, when the railway building commenced in 1895 the British realised this problem and quickly began to find a way of acquiring "private** land for railway construction.

They resorted to the India Land Acquisition Act of

1894 and applied it to the East Africa Protectorate.

This Act had given the government powers to acquire land for railways and roads in India, but it never gave the government the power to sell or give away the surplus land. Realizing this, the Government in Kenya sought another order in council which would enable it to dispose of excess land after the railway line had 24 been laid. Such an order was issued in 1898.

Meanwhile the Company's Land Regulation of

July 4, 1894 were still in force. These regulations were based on the realization that there existed some vacant land which the company thought should be let, but not sold. Those rules were as follows! - 173 -

(They) allowed for "country lots", on lease not

exceeding 21 years, but renewable, no fixed rent

being specified. For grazing leases, not more

than 2 0 ,0 0 0 acres could be had in one block,

and the annual rent was Jjd, an acre. On

agricultural land, leases of not more than 2 ,0 0 0

acres might be had at a rent of Jjd, an acre for

the first five years, and then rising in a

graduated scale. Homesteads were of 100 acres

at a rent of 4d. an acre for the first five years

during which occupation was compulsory. Thereafter,

if the farmer had spent 5d, an acre in permanent

improvements, the fee-simple would be conveyed to

him, 25

These regulations were adopted by the British

Government when it took over the running of the country and they were given fresh "validity", and power to carry them out vested in the Protectorate's Commissioner, by the order in Council, 1897, The first clause of the

"new" land Regulations stated*

"The Commissioner may, if he thinks fit, grant to

any person a certificate authorizing him to hold

and occupy the portion of land described in the

certificate for a term not exceeding ninety-nine „26 years."

Such certificate would contain any terms the

Commissioner chose to include, but he would avoid making grants in respect of land held and occupied 174

lawfully by any person "whether a native or not a

native" provided that such a person held a documentary

title to that land and provided also that the Commissioner 27 recognized such a title to be valid*

It was the last requirement of the regulations of 1897 that did one of the greates damages to African

land rights in Kenya* Most of the African peoples did not have the said documentary title, let alone one which the Commissioner had the discretion to recognize or not* As such they were assumed to have no "legal" rights to their lands and that was the 2fi situation that was to prevail until 1926*

But the order of 1897 did not yet say how the land could be legally acquired by the Government*

Initially the Foreign Office tried to suggest that

Africans had no land ownership* All they had in respect of land was the right to use it in terms of crop or grass cultivation and livestock keeping* Still the office realized they had no legal claim to land, even though they already had issued an order for its allocation* So they turned to the notion of "waste",

"empty", or "unoccupied" land* On consulting the

British law officers the Foreign Office was advised that such land could acrue "to Her Majesty by virtue of her right to the Protectorate ------(and) Her

Majesty might if she pleased declare them to be

Crown Lands, or make grants of them to individuals in 29 fee simple or for any term*" Any individual who would receive such a grant would be recognized by the - 175 -

British Government and law as the rightful occupier*

Although he was not an owner, it was argued, he could

act as such, and British courts would protect him

against anyone who wanted to turn him off the land* 30

With such an assurance the Foreign Office

obtained the East Africa (lands) Order in Council of

1901 which declared as Crown Lands,

"all public lands within the East Africa

Protectorate which for the time being are subject

to the control of His Majesty by virtue of any

treaty, convention or agreement, or His Majesty’s

Protectorate, and all lands which have been or

may hereafter be acquired by His Majesty under

the Lands Acquisition Act, 1894, or otherwise

howsoever* 1'31

Thus all land in Kenya became either Crown Land or

potential Crown land* In only two occasions, did the

Government care to obtain or force "agreement" before 32 land was officially acquired. All other land was

largely assumed to be "empty" or "waste" or "unoccupied"

and therefore naturally Crown land and disposable

at the discretion of the Commissioner or his represen­

tative, 33

with that order the colonial Government created a

situation in which a rapture of the old socio-econmic

structure could be effected and a new one created under the aegis of state supervision and direction* This no doubt amounted to a kind of land "nationalization", 176 - depriving the old owners and redistributing It to new ones who this time happened to be Europeans and a few

Asians. Zt marked the end of an era of general

African egalitarianism and communalism, and also the beginning of an age of exploitation and oppression of African people as labourers, by the European settlers as the new owners of land, the means of production, and as the new ruling class in the country.

It marked also the beginning of intensive efforts to underdevelop African people and land in Kenya which in turn served to develop the Europeans in Kenya and in particular British capital. *■? The order of 1901 never legalized£and alienation in Kenya. It only gave legal protection for an illegal action manifested by the Commissioner for and on behalf of the British Crown. Nevertheless this order led to the passing of Crown lands Ordinance, 1902, which prescribed the manner in which the alienated Crown lands could be shared out among the settlers. The ordinance itself was drafted by the Foreign Office in London and was sent to Kenya to be rubber-stamped by the Governor and his advisory 34 council. The same forces that i&fluenced the

British Government on the issues of border alteration

(1902) and "white highlands", were also at work 35 with regard to the ordinance.

The Ordinance allowed Crown Lands to be sold, leased, or occupied under temporary occupation 177 licence. It stated that "the Commissioner might not

sell more than lf000 acres of Crown Land in one lot without the approval of the Secretary of State

No land might be leased for a longer term than 99 years. ” 36 Temporary occupation licences could be issued. For Africans and Asians, occupation under temporary licences might not be for more than one 37 year or for more than five *cres, Land sold under the Ordinance might revert to the Crown if it was not occupied or developed within eighteen months since the date of the sale. In all cases, rent and taxes must be paid by the occupier, building and development must be done, and land for roads and other infrastructural constructions must be provided.

Although the order of 1901 required that the

Commissioner should "respect existing native laws and customs except so far as the same may be opposed to 38 justice and morality,” the ordinance of 1902 ironically made it possible for land held and occupied by Africans under their "native laws and customs" to be granted to the new settlers. Ironically, the ordinance only forbade the new "occupier" to interfere with African houses or villages which he found on the land he occupied. But it never forbade him to interfere with their cultivated fields, their grazing areas, their source of firewood and fuel - the forests, their exhausted land that now lay farrow, their sacred shrines, their craft centres, industries or boundaries.

All these African possessions and bases of their 178 livelihood both material and spiritual, were assumed non-existent in order that the expendience of capitalist accumulation may be served. The

Ordinance did not only allow expropriation of African land and its subsequent appropriation by the

European capitalist. It also laid the basis of conversion of the African into a worker or labourer to be exploited together with the land that used to be his own, and to be underdeveloped in order to develop accumulation of European capital, British in particular. In other words, the British capital which could no longer be significantly accumulated if invested in Britain, had to be exported to Kenya, inter alia, where it could utilize cheap land and cheap African labour to make greater profits, and thus expand. The ordinance of 1902 made that possible.

The Ordinance, generous as it may sound, was regarded not to be good enough by the Europeans. In particular they objected to 1 ,0 0 0 acres limitation to an individual’s holding and also to the 99 year lease- term which they considered to be inadequate. In respect of ‘occupied* land or ‘native' houses or

'villages', the settlers found a wide loophole, Thus, if an African was absent from his land for a night or two, he would return to find his land assumed to be

•empty' and 'unoccupied* and thereby automatically alienated. In case the owners never left the land, the European settlers turned to harrassment. Thus

African houses and villages were 'closely surrounded by 179 - or actually Included in allotments to Europeans*

In doing this the settlers found safety in section 31 of the Ordinance, which read*-

•The Commissioner may grant leases of areas of

land containing native villages or settlements

without specifically excluding such villages or

settlements, but land in the actual occupation

of natives at the date of the lease shall, so

long as it is actually occupied by them, be

deemed to be excluded from the lease •••••

And land i+ithin an area leased which has been

in the occupation of natives shall, on ceasing 39 to be so occupied, pass to the lessees* *

In 1902 only about a dozen European settlers were in Kenya* By 1903 their number had increased to about 1 0 0 , most of them having received free hold homesteads of 649 acres, or 1 square mile each, around the growing railway camp of Nairobi* In the same year, as already noted, the London find Johannesburg group of influential people under the title of East

Africa Syndicate received, directly from the Foreign

Office in London, the first land grant in the Nakuru 40 District of Rift Valley. This grant amounted to 41 329,000 acres or 500 square miles. The other people who received similar grants directly from London were the Uplands of East Africa Syndicate who got 350,000 acres, Grogan Forest concessions got 200,000 acres,

Lord Delamere who got 100,000 acrfcs or 156 square 180 milesf Messrs Chamberlain and Fleramer who got 32,000 acres each, all in the Masai occupied Nakuru District of Rift Valley. 42

These recipients of ’large scale* grants insisted upon the Commissioner, Sir Charles Eliot that grant# of similar sizes should only serve ’to encourage persons of position and capital to settle or take an interest in East Africa,’ and should not be alienated *!to persons who were not specially fitted L 43 or able to develop them ••••••' Led by Lord Delamere, these men demanded that capital be allowed to float to Kenya where it would, upon exploiting people and land, accumulate and expand faster.

In order to attract men of capital to exploit the country, monetary terms were the most generous in the world. The most fertile land in Kikuyuland was sold by the Government at 2s. 8 d. per acre, while as much less price was paid for poorer, yet good, areas.

If taken on lease for terms of up to 99 years, the rent was Rs 15 or £1 per 100 acres per annum. Land in the Rift Valley was leased at )jd. per acre per annum. 44

With such a degree of generosity, many settlers were attracted, some of them being men of lesser capital than Delamere would have expected. The population of Europeans grew from 156 in 1903, to

8 8 6 in 1904, to 954 in 1905 and to 1814 in 1906,

(se Table III.) The amount of land alienated by the 181

Government locally rose from 4,991 acres to 420,343 * 45 acres In 1903 and 1904, respectively, (see Table I),

Such extensive and intensive land alienation continued until a total of more than 5,275,116 acres were given out by 1915, the year in which the next Crown

Lands Ordinance was enacted, (see Table I*)4** That

acreage represented more than half of the total

amount of land registered as alienated throughout the colonial era. 47 - 182 -

TABLE I : AN ANALYSIS OP LAND ALIENATED BY GOVERNMENT

Yearly Period •Total Acres , Yearly Period . : Total Acres ;l

1-5-03 to 31-12-03 4,9 9 1 1-1-15 to 31-12-15 246,979 i 1-1-04 to 31-12-04 420 ,343 1-1-16 to 31-12-27 1,795,851

1-1-05 to 31-12-05 368,165 1-1-28 to 31-12-28 25,826

1-1-06 to 31-12-06 292,741 1-1-29 to 31-12-29 76,962 *

1-1-07 to 31-12-07 571,368 1-1-30 to 31-12-30 84,480 *

1-1-08 to 31-12rr08 448,782 1-1-31 to 31-12-31 -2 6 ,8 8 0 *

1-1-09 to 31-12-09 373,570 1-1-32 to 31-12-32 -101,760 *

1-1-10 to 31-12-10 389,598 1-1-33 to 31-12-33 -8 ,3 2 0 *

1-1-11 to 31-12-11 608,752 1-1-34 to 31-12-34 -2 1 ,8 6 1 •

1-1-12 to 31-12-12 338,033 1-1-35 to 31-12-35 -6 ,9 3 9 *

1-1-13 to 31-12-13 572,159 1-1-36 to 31-12-36 78,798 *

1-1-14 to 31-12-14 639,640 1-1-37 to 31-12-37 87,580 *

1-1-38 to 31-12-38 71,836 *

*-......

•Allowances have "been made fo r surrenders,reversions,also

alteration of township areas and relinquishment of Government

reservations, etc.

Total Alienated Land to 31st December, 1938...... 7 ,063,814

Total Government and Township Reserves

at 31st December, 1938...... 271,360

T o t a l...... 7 ,3 3 0 ,6 9 4

SOURCE: Department of Lands and Settlement,

A n n u a l Report,1938. 183

EUROPEAN LAND ALIENATION AND AFRICAN REMOVALS*

Before surveying how European settlement was

manifested, It would be Important first to examine

the various methods utilized in order to acquire land

from Africans for the purpose* One of the earliest

methods used by various Europeans who first came to

Kenya was open occupation and assumption of ownership

irrespective of presence of Africans within a piece

of land* Many such occupations were later on confirmed

by the Government and certificates of occupation

issued as required by the various regulations* Thus

in 1899, for example, Mr* Krieger did not care to

know if the land he intended to occupy had an owner

or not* He just ’took up a holding and became owner of , 48 Thimbigwa Estate, which was then heavy forest *•*•*

The land so acquired and occupied b* Mr* Krieger was

part of Kikuyuland which Francis G* Hall, an

administrative agent of the IBEA Company in the

interior had described thus;

' ••••• every available piece of ground is under

cultivation, and the district may be described 49 as one vast garden.'

Earlier on Captain Lugard had portrayed the same image of that land. 'The cultivation in Kikuyu,' he reported,' is prodigiously intensive, indeed the whole

country may be said to be under tillage.'

Such was the land which, during the greatest

famine in the history of Kikuyu, coupled with drought 184

and plague, had to be temporarily vacated by the

majority of the people. A few of them were left

behind to take charge of it until threat to the

survival of the entire people had subsided* Thus

when some of the Europeans, who had come to that land

when the owners took refuge to safer areas, described

such land as being 'empty', 'waste' or 'unoccupied',

they had not been intent on finding out the owners*

Their main aim was to find land they would be able to

describe as empty or unoccupied and lay claim on it

in order to obtain certificate of title to it with

greater ease. To such Europeans land was empty and

unoccupied unless it was occupied by some European

or unless somebody else came out with acceptable

document to prove his claim, a thing that was rare

among Kenya African ethnic groups*

Right from the period of the IBEA Company,

unfair deals by individual land-hungry European

speculators had been going on in Kenya* This was

first the case at the coastal areas, but it later

spread into the interior especially after the rfcilway

was built* Thus, as far back as April 1891, for

example, Sir Francis de winton^ the Company's

administrator, had issued a proclamation forbidding, outside the Zanzibar Dominions, 'all dealings in land between Europeans of v*hatever nationality and the

natives'. Three years later the rule applied to 185 -

Zanzibar itself* In July 4, 1894 the Company issued land regulations indicating how it would make land 52 grants on leasehold only* By these regulations, the company intended to forestall and curb land speculators who would otherwise assume large tracts of land mainly for the purpose of ’floating land companies, or claiming land on the line of the railway, .... .53

Thus when the Foreign Office took over from the

IBEA Company, land grabbing was already in progress in Kenya* On April 26th, and August 31st, 1897,

Government Notices warned that ’certain evil disposed persons* had been acquiring land from ’native women* at inadequate prices owing to the ignorance of the 54 owners as to its true value* The same notices also warned that some other Europeans had laid claim to land at the coast which they claimed was ’easte**

In most cases true owners were not involved in the purported land transactions* This was mainly because most of land in Kenya was generally held and owned communally by various African groups under their traditional systems* As such, authority to sell land by any one individual, without group concensus, was largely absent*

Most of the land said to have been sold to

Europeans had merely been passed to them for use on temporary tenancy basis, with a small price as a token of goodwill* Irredeemable land sales, as were 186 - said to have been made by the Kikuyu, were virtually impossible particularly because they would entail a process that would in many cases take several years to consumate. The Kikuyu expressed disappointment at what they vievted as European bad faith* In 1924 they wrote in a memorandum to the Parliamentary Commission*

•when the whitemen first came we did not

understand that we were to be deprived of any

of our land, nor that they had really come to stay*

They assumed the Europeans were in transit to some other places and thus offered him hospitality by making avail­ able for him some land An *muhoi’, or tenant at will basis* The memorandum went on to state*

•Then from about the year 1902 increasing numbers

of whitemen arrived, and portions of our land

began to be given out to them for farms, until

large areas in Kiambu, Limuru, Kikuyu, Mbagathi,

about Nairobi, and at Ruiru and beyond, had been

disposed of in this way* These lands were not 56 bought from their Kikuyu owners ...... **•

The other method used by the colonial Government to acquire land for European settlement was by governmental declaration of public land under the Indian

Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In Kenya the government had invoked that Act in order to acquire land, one mile on each side of the projected railway line* After the railway construction was completed, the surplus land was disposed of to European settlers and land speculators 187 for frde and/or for some token price.

The most common method of alienating land v;as to declare it Crown Land under the Order of 1901 and then share it out under the provisions of Crown Lands

Ordinance 1902. As seen above, none of the 97 so-called treaties ceded land rights to the IBEA Company, and therefore the B ritish Government did not •’in h erit” any land in Kenya from the Company, Realizing this

’’discrepancy”, the B ritish Foreign Office resorted to in stituting the myth of empty and unoccupied land, and went ahead "ille g a lly ” declaring Crown Lands under what they pretentiously claimed to be Her Majesty’s ’’right to the Protectorate.”

In this way several thousand -indeed several m illion - acres of land became Crown Land and the way was now paved for massive European settlement. The ranches of Kambaland and the fe rtile agricultural land of the great part of Kikuyulund were lost to the

Government, and from its hand to European settlers.

The greatest losers were the Masai of the R ift

Valley who lost the Uasin Gishu, Trans Nzoia, Laikipia, and Nakuru D istricts which used to be their traditional homelands. More than half of land alienated for

European settlement was contained in these major 57 d istricts, and was therefore a ll Masailand.

The firs t land gr

500 square miles made by the Foreign O ffice to the

E a s t A f r ic a S y n d ic a te , The second one was made to 188

Lord Delamere and amounted to some 156 square miles.

Many more grants of smaller amounts were made in respect of the same area. All of these were initially in

Nakuru District and hardly was any of them "empty", 58 "waste*4 or "unoccupied". The Masai and their livestock pervaded the entire area. They soon began to complain when they found Europeans laying claim to the ownership of land in the Rift Valley, their favourite home in the very centre of their country.

But no real heed was taken as the financial and class influence was much more reckoned with than any humanitarian or moral considerations. Demonstrating the irresistible power of capital, Leys wrotei

"The consequent publication of dispatches

revealed a situation that shocked public opinion.

The Foreign Office even suggested to the new

Governor (Sir Donald Stewart) that all the grants

in the Rift Valley should be annulled and the

Masai allowed to occupy it in peace. But

interested parties both in London and in Africa

proved, not for the last time, too strong for

ill-organized public opinion. Both sets of

grants were confirmed. The Masai were thus left

with no more than patches here and there in the

Rift V a l l e y ...... 4,59

One of the dispatches referred to was written by

Sir Frederick Jackson, the Sub-Commissioner for Rowine, in February 1904. This was six months before the long pressed for removal of the Masai was allowed. The 189

dispatch maintained that the Masai would never give the

British serious trouble so long as they were treated

fairly and not deprived of their best and favourite

grazing grounds* The dispatch continued!

"Up to the time I left Mombasa the large

grazing areas applied for in the Naivasha

district were 320,000 acres by the East Africa

Syndicate, 100,000 acres by Lord Delamere and

32,000 acres each by Messrs Chamberlain and

Flemmer, and I pointed out to Sir C. Eliot that

these areas not only embraced the best and most

favoured grazing grounds of the Masai between

lakes Nakuru and Naivasha, but also embraced

both banks of the only four rivers in the

vicinity* £ In spite of such prote^s (some of which cost

some people their jobs or careers), Masailand in the

Rift Valley was alienated* Eventually the Masai

themselves were removed and alienated from their own

country. Before the removal order was made the

Foreign Office in 1904 demanded that the Masai should

first voluntarily sign an agreement to that effect*

In an attempt to persuade them to sign the required

agreement, necessary to silence the public opinion in

Britain, the Masai were deceived that they would be moved to land of evergreen grass, with plenty of water, a land where rain would never fail and where their cattle would no longer die* 190

The Masai, however, knowing the land around them so well, refused to sign the deal until they were harrassed and made to understand that there was no other way out* While all other Masai would have nothing to do with the agreement, the power-hungry

Laibon acceeded to the wish of the Government, upon which his power lay* Together with his hand picked so-called clan heads, Laibon treacherously agreed to sign the treaty committing all the Masai, including those outside his sphere of authority, whatever the description* The Masai, therefore, allegedly agreed to move and "to vacate the whole of the Rift Valley to be used by the Government for the purposes of

European settlement

Many undertakings were promised in the agreement by both the Government and the Masai* But the

Government was not intent on honouring any of them* / Its main aim of making room for European settlers being now allowable, the rest of the agreement became a useless piece of paper* Thus one retired senior official viewed it "monstrous to say the Masai failed to carry out the treaty. The failure was all on the 62 part of the Government." As stated again, the agreement on the part of the Government was Just a symbol of voluntary consent by the Masai to move, but not one to be honoured by it* Not a single European, official or non-official, could believe that the Masai had agreed to move* Negotiations to obtain their consent took many months and it was clear they would 191 never be persuaded to move voluntarily* The only alternative the Government had was to force the issue through bribery and false promises* The alleged "best interests” of the Masai people "themselves" in the move were pure falsifications* The move, as the Blue Book put it, "was undoubtedly made in the interest of the 63 European settlers*"

When the move orders were given the so-called clan heads could not persuade their people to move together with their livestock* The majority of them, being unaware of the existence of the agreement, and having not been consulted by the alleged clan heads, refused to move to either southern or northern reserves - that is, Narok or Laikipia respectively* i A lot of force had to be used to get the majority of them to move. Many of those that did not move immediately had never known their land was claimed by some European settlers, and therefore they continued to graze their cattle, sheep and goats and donkeys as usual* The ones who had gone to the "reserves" found them most unsatisfactory and dry* Some encroached on the land and grazing grounds such as pokwot, the suk, the El Molo* Others simply began returning to their former land in Nakuru and Naivasha, grazing on every 64 land, alienated or not* Eventually the Masai moved at gun point and harassment by the entire administrative machinery which was fully mobilized to carry out the move# - 192 -

But as the agreement of 1904 was being signed, the / 7 . , L European settlers had already cast their eyes on / / Laikipia and envied the plateau* Governor Donald

$tewart had noticed this and adequately forewarned the f | Foreign Office. 65 By 1909 several Europeans had

received promises from the Government in respect of

land in the plateau. Under much local pressure by

Europeans, and intent to keep his promises to them,

. the Governor, Sir Percy Girouard requested the i' 1 Colonial Office (which was now responsible for the

territory) to allow yet another removal of the Masai

to an extended southern reserve. The Colonial Office

ruled that it would not allow an alteration or

rescision of the agreement of 1904, unless such a

request was voluntarily made by the Masai themselves

in yet another agreement.

In an attempt to Justify his request, and

"convince" the Colonial Office to allow the move,

Sir P. Girouard sent two of his officers to survey

and report on the proposed southern reserve extension.

The report, which was side stepped by the Land

Commission later on in 1933, described the land as

comprising!

"some 2300 square miles, of which 1300 were

waterless. The Masai already on it numbered

2270 souls. The land as a whole unsuitable for

European settlement, though several areas might

be regarded as good farming land, but these were 193 -

so disconnected as to render Impossible their

proper supervision. Further, permanent streams

were so fat apart as to preclude the possibility

of allotlng such farms on a continuous systeqp.

The land was generally suited to the requirements

of a nomadic and pastoral tribe such as the

Masai."6®

The report did Just what the Governor had in' mind. U ft It suggested, contrary to all other believes , that the projected extension was suitable for the Masai. But it never claimed that the Masai preferred it to

Laikipia or to the land they had already lost in

Nakuru. Unlike the 1933 Commission which referred to the proposed extension as the "promised land", Sir

Ffederick Jackson reported that "no sane European would accept a free gift of 500,000 acres in such a place. " 67 i i In Laikipia Reserve Mr. Collyer the D.C. for

Rumuruti estimated that in 1907 the number of cattle there was 70,000, while that of sheep and goats 68 was 1,710,00. Within the following four or five f / j years, the dates of the official move, the number of cattle must have increased to approximately 150,000 while that of sheep and goats was approximately 69 2,500,000. The number of people at the time of the 70 move approximated 10,000. This size of the population, men, women and children, together with nearly 3,000,000 assorted herd of cattle, sheep and 194

goats, was the one to be added to an already crowded

"reserve" in the south where in reality "not a single 71 perenial river traversed."

Anticipating Colonial Office permission to move

the Masai, the administration in Kenya unofficially

began to execute it in 1909. It was interrupted by

1?he Colonial Office insistence on having a signed

agreement from the Masai. One was dextrously extracted

from them in 1911 and the move officially began. As

in previous occasions, all promises about food and

accommodation while in transit were discarded. As a

result several thousand men,old and sick, women and

children, together with nearly half the size of their

livestock, died on the way from starvation, fatigue and 72 disease. Heavily guarded by armed troops, the Masai

had no way out, but move.

It cannot be overemphasized that in none of the H two removals were the Masai people freely willing to

move. On both occasions they were ordered out of

their land by the Government at the point of the gun.

In May 1910, after it was clear that the Laikipia

Masia would certainly be removed, a subordinate

official protested to the Governor. He recalled that

in 1904 "the Masai left the Rift Valley ..... in

obedience to the wish of the Government, §nd in

'■ return for that surrender of their best land they were

given by Government a promise never again to be

disturbed." He Objected to the manner in which the - 195 -

Government had always bowed to the wishes of

European settlers* urge for land, thus creating mistrust in the eyes of the Africans, He explained at length that "the great bulk of the natives who have ii \ experience of the nature and working of our occupation ' \ of the country believe that it is designed for the advantage and profit of officials and their fellow- * countrymen. If one tries to explain the contrary one is met with almost universal incredulity, though it , 7 3 is often hidden by assent fort, civility * s sake." \ ' \’0 In the same tone Mr. Collyer, D.C. for Rumuruti, A reported in 1910 that the Masai in Laikipia were reedy * 4 to go if the Government ordered them to do so, but 74 that they did not wish to leave Laikipia, "because of that remark, which no doubt embarrassed a government which had declared the opposite, Mr. Collyer was i. f v "fijred". He had attempted to prevent capital from extending its hand of exploitation to Laikipia. Another person who made a similar revelati(fo was

Sir Frederick Jackson, one of the interpreters 1 ' 1 during the Government - Masai negotiation? about the proposed removal. He wanted to save his job ,an^ therefore never made the confession until he had \ retired.

l I am, however, thankful that I had nothing fl I v whatsoever to do with the negotiations that

led to it, or to the move itself. I should 4. \ certainly not have interpreted Laigulishu's ; - 196 -

last sentence when he would up the debate!

HXf you wish us to go, we will go, but we

do not want to go," into "quite willing," 75 as was cabled hone.

F. Jackson further notes that his two co-

interpreters, Mr. Collyer and Mr. Maclure, were later

shamefully dismissed from the service for giving

the true version of L»igulishu*s unwillingness to move. He also reveals that he informed Mr. Alfred

Lyttelton *of all the facts and details of it, when

he arrived in Uganda and stayed with us. He told me that he might be placed in an unpleasant position on his return home, as he would have to say what he knew, as a Privy Councillor, and not as an 76 ex-Colonial Secretary.*

Thus the entire colonial government machinery, including the colonial secretary himself, feared and

supported the power of capital. Throughout the history of colonial Kenya, and perhaps post colonial

Kenya, no official, whatever his rank, was willing to utter a word that would alienate him from capital.

On the contrary, they were expected to champion those endeavours that would promote capital accumulation.

The entire colonial administration, and the notion of colonialism itself, was nothing else but an instrument of the capitalist class whose ultimate aim was to extend its exploitation to the farthest corners of the world. 197

Masai removals from the Rift Valley and Laikipia plateau were not the last In the series of removals.

Ever since 1904, when large tracts Of land in the

Ravine District were being alienated to Europeans, the then District Commissioner for the area advised the Government that great injustice was being done to 77 the Uasin Gishu Masai. Some token piece of land,

14 square miles, was reserved for them as a result of that intervention. But again this was only a temporary measure as the settlers pressed for alienation of that portion as well. In 1933, therefore, the land commission recommended the removal of these Masai to be dumped together with the rest of them in the 78 desert and semi desert region called Trans-Mara.

After the Masai, the Dorobo who occupied some of the most fertile and most coveted forest land in the Rift Valley became the next target of removal.

The Conservator of Forests claimed that the Dorobo in

Eburu, Tinet and Mau forests were a danger to the forests and therefore incessantly called for their removal. Most of these Dorobo had accumulated a lot of wealth, especially livestock. In Tinet Forest, for instance, lived about l i t Dorobo who possessed about 79 2,000 cattle, 16,000 sheep, and 2,500 goats.

This wealth represented 12 cattle and 736 sheep and goats for each member of the Dorobo in Tinet. In spite of such a clear occupation and settlement, the land commission, 1933, recommended their removal. 198

It was realized that such a move would lead to a great loss of life, especially that of livestock, 80 but removal was nevertheless ordered* They were to be dumped into strange societies with which they had never shared any common interests at all*

While the Conservator of Forests pressed for the removal of the Masai, Dorobo, Kamasia and Pokot,

the European settlers in the neighbourhood, also made the same demand. It was believed that cattle owned by Africans infested the area with disease carrying ticks which were later picked by European owned cattle* The settlers therefore sought removal of Africans in the neighbourhoods in order to protect 81 their cattle from tick borne diseases* They also expected to extend their holdings at the expense of the forests once no Africans lived in them. The

Dorobo in the entire Mau region had to be removed in the interest of the European settlers in Molo-Mau

summit area; the Masai in Nakuru, Laikipia and

Uasin-Gishu areas had to move and make way for

settler occupation and reduce the occurrence of livestock diseases. To serve similar purposes, the land commission recommended that "a fence should be erected to prevent trepass by the Pokwot in the 82 direction of the Laikipia settled area," In nearly all occasions of removal, the interests of the settlers, especially economic interests, became 199

the basis of decision making. In virtually no occasion did the interests of African populations receive consideration. Whether they were ordered

to move out of the so-called Crown Lands or Crown

Forests, or any other land, the African populations had come to realize it was all aimed at replacing

them with European interests. This became true even after African reserves had been recognized generally.

In 1926 African reserves were proclaimed for

all African populations after Ormsby-Gore Parliamentar;

Commission had visited Kenya in 1924. This was

followed by the Hilton Young Commission which was

appointed in 1927 to look into the possibilities of

East and central African Union. This commission

requested the Native Lands Trust Bill introduced in

1928 to be suspended until it had made its recommendations. The Commission recommended creation of permanent African reserves with fixed boundaries,

so that no further land alienation to Europeans could be made. In the words of the Commission,

"no substantial alienation of land within them

to non-natives must be permitted until the

whole body of natives has so advanced in

education as to be able to express a responsible

corporate opinion, except where alienation, • 200 -

in the view of Secretary of State, is to the 83 clear and undoubted advantage of the natives."

The report of the Commission culminated in the passing of Native Lands Trust Ordinance in 1930. The

Ordinance set aside what was considered to be adequate

land reserves "for the use and benefit of the native

tribes •••••• for ever." This Ordinance was to be

administered by a Central Trust Board which would consist of five officials, four unofficials and possibly one African if an acceptable one could be

found as far as the European* were concerned*

When tested, the Ordinance, which had committed the Government "for ever" never to interfere with the remaining African held land, could not resist the power of capital# In 1932 gold was discovered in

Kakamega within the Kavirondo Reserve# Although the

Ordinance had reserved mineral rights to the Government, it was ironically considered desirable to cut out the gold bearing area and alienate it to European capital for exploitation# Some of the European settlers sold or deserted their farms to try their luck in gold mining# Thus European population declined in Nakuru District in 1932 and 1933,

(Table VI). In 4>rder to make it legally possible: to alienate that land, Secretary of State Cunliffe- 85 Lister allowed an amendment on the 1930 Ordinance#

The African occupants were to be compensated for disturbance but land of equal value was not provided as required by the Ordinance.

Once again the colonial Government had demonstrated it had no policy of its own except that of capital interests which had to be changed every now and then in order to fit various requirements of capital accumulation and expansion.

Meanwhile the Carter Commission had been appointed under the chairmanship of Sir William Morris Carter,

Chief Justice of Uganda. It was aimed at inquiring into African grievances over land especially as regarded relationship between land size and populations in various reserves. Its report, ironically enough, added some 2,600 square miles of dry and hardly productive land to the native reserves in exchange of some 275 square miles of the best land. It declared the African reserves to be about 52,000 square miles, but it failed to point out clearly that the greatest part of it was arid and hardly productive. It fixed both African reserves and white highlands boundaries. The latter enclosed some 16,700 square miles (including 3950 square 86 miles of forest reserve).

What the Carter Commission did in the main was to vindicate whatever alienations had been done.

It indeed extended the alienated area. But it never looked seriously into the rights of Africans upon land alienated from them with an aim of having it restored. As such the commission merely confirmed 202 the European occupation and indeed went far in protecting it* Like all previous commissions, therefore, the Carter Commission ended up in safeguarding British capital interests in Kenya while at the same time confirming deprivation, denigration and exploitation of the African by

European bourgeoisie and their allies*

So far a detailed look has been made into the various methods and means by which land in Kenya was alienated by Europeans under the agency of the colonial government* It now becomes necessary to survey the way in which that alienation was supported and made permanent through the agency of the same government* 203

CONSOLIDATION OF EUROPEAN SETTLERS TENURE;

The other factor that was vital in the early

days of European settlement in Kenya was the system

of land tenure. The Land Regulations issued by

the IBEA Company in 1894f and later confirmed and

favourably improved by the Land Regulations of 1897

and Crowned Land Ordinance 1902t all aimed at making

it easy for willing settlers to come to Kenya. The

requirements of sale, lease or temporary occupation

under Crown Land Ordinance, 1902, were all the

easiest ever. Thus the price for a freehold was

two rupees (2s. 8 d.) per acre. If taken on lease

for terms up to 99 years, the rent was to be Rs.15

(£1} per 100 acres per annum. These rates concerned

the choicest of land for agricultural and pastoral

purposes. Land of poorer quality was sold or leased

at much reduced rates at the discretion of Lands

Department according to its value. No specific

development conditions were laid down except the

proviso that the leseee would use and develop the

natural resources of the land leased with all reason­

able speed having regard to all the circumstances 88 of the case. As regarded temporary occupation,

licences to occupy Crown Land might be issued to

Africans and Asians for not more than one year and

for not more than five acres. This decision angered many Indians who saw the measure as discriminatory, 204 but had later on to accept the only available alternative, that is, to grow cotton and sugar in the hotter parts of the country at the coast and

Nyanza areas. The Indians then came to realize that the best land available, and other facilities for its exploitation, had been reserved for the

Europeans, with all these protections and persuasive conditions of land occupation by Europeans it was not surprising for a local newspaper to declare in

June 1903 that "the Land Laws here are about the 89 most liberal in the world."

Be that as it may, one small issue interfered with the smooth running of the scheme, that was, lack of preparation for the incoming settlers. As

Sir Charles Eliot put it, no financial provision was made for meeting any of the requirements resulting from the arrival of settlers until each contingency 90 in turn actually arose. Little of the land had been surveyed and the Lands Department was understaffed and disorganized. Many settlers had to spend several days in tents and huts erected in a receiving camp in Nairobi while they waited the Lands Department to allocate them with their portions of land. This state of affairs no doubt annoyed many settlers who were eager to begin exploiting the land. But that problem was tackled in the subsequent years and greatly reduced.

The other struggle of the European settlers,

« — 205 — led by Lord Delamere, was launched against the provisions of the Crown Lands, 1902, which limited the size of land to be held by one individual to

1 ,0 0 0 acres and which also restricted freedom of transfers even within the European community. This % complaint led the Commissioner, Sir Donald Stewart, td appoint a Land Committee in 1904 to examine the problems led by Lord Delamere, the committee highly recommended an end to limitation of land sixe in 91 order to attract capital into the country. It further argued that land within the highlands should be reserved for support and maintenance of a white population and that Asians should be kept out of it. Some of the witnesses before it had suggested that land in other areas equally suitable for agriculture should be reserved for Asians. But the committee argued that "while in practice it might be possible to exclude Asiatics from the areas reserved for Europeans, it would not be possible, nor would it be politic, to restrain the energies and capital of European planters within limited bounds, and not to permit them to be used for the development of the country outside those bounds 92 ••••••" This recommendation became necessary as there was still no formal commitment on the side of

Government with regard to keeping Asians out of the highlands. The other recommendation concerned extension of the term of leases from 99 to 999 years. - 206 -

while the committee was still sitting* the

territory passed from Foreign Office to Colonial 93 Office control in 1905. This gave hope to the

settlers who now could expect to be granted self-

government as soon as they were many* But the

Secretary for colonies, Lord Elgin, opposed nearly

all recommendations made by Lord Delamere’s committee*

He opposed the idea of large European estates, holding

of land for speculative purposes, and even proposed

to reduce the maximum lease from 99 to 21 years,

continue restricting land transfers, and stopping

of "dummying" - that is, a trick to increase a

family’s holding of land beyond the legal maximum

by holding some plots or grants under the names of 94 one’s wife or children. But Sir James Hayes Sadler,

who had become commissioner in October 1905, and who

wholly supported the idea of European supremacy in

Kenya, strongly protested to the Secretary of State

especially on the question of reducing the term of

tne leases from 99 to 21 years, Lord Elgin yielded

and granted that the lease should remain at 99 years

provided that the rent was increased after 33 and

after 66 years respectively* But this proposal was

also rejected by the settlers who instead suggested

and pressed for ’’perpetual guit-rent title", - that

is, a tenure under which the land could be held under

constant rent, so long as rents were duly paid, in perpetuity. The Colonial Office rejected that

suggestion and there was a stalemate until 1912* 207 -

Meanwhile the Colonists' Association had grown

in power and had in 1905 demanded representation in

the Legislative Council of Kenya. This they achieved

in 1907 when the first meeting of the Council met.

Five of the members were officials while three were non-official nominated members. In this same year,

the Association became riddled with splits and when

Sir Winston Churchill visited Kenya in October various groups presented him with memoranda. The main Colonists'sAssociation led by Lord Delamere demanded increased representation to five members in Legislative Council, and Lord Delamere himself demanded that the settlers should be given self government immediately. The former demand was granted but the latter was not possible in the foreseeable future, Churchill told them.

Thus the Colonists' Association which originally aimed at promoting European farming in Kenya, turned out to be a political body. It was this new role i together with the fact that settlers now had a voice in Legislative Council, that led many farmers to feel dissatisfied and split into local associations able to handle their day to day interests of marketing, labour, roads, and postal services problems. But through the personality of Lord Delamere another association, the Convention of Associations, or

"Settlers' Parliament" as it came to be generally known, was formed in 1911. This was the body that had a loud voice enough to over shadow the others 208 and it was the body that the new Governor, Sir

Edward Northey, came to recognize as "people's" representative. Addressing the Legislative Council the first time in 1919, he said:

"The Convention of Association seems to be your most representative body and I shall hope to be invited to attend its future meetings, with my

Heads of Departments or others desired, to advise 95 and discuss, hear and put forward reasonable view". % The Governor's remark only points the extent to which he had been taken in by this body and although indeed it was not a representative body, it nevertheless was the most powerful pressure group in the protectorate. When it was formed, the Colonists'

Association which had been overthrown, but did not fully accept defeat, changed to become the Nairobi

Colonists' Association, a Nairobi branch of the

Convention and continued to exert great influence 96 on the Convention and on the Government itself.

With this background it becomes much easier to see why the government policies on land, and most of other issues, were full of what would appear to be gross contradictions. But this should not be viewed to be strange, for when the so-called free capitalist economy is accepted by the Government in principle, the latter merely becomes an agent serving changing interests of the capitalists whose final bid is to 209 - maximize profit and accumulate capital• In the early days of the twentieth century, the main concern of the capitalist was to obtain from the

Government an assurance that land, in secure tenure, could actually be alienated from the rightful African owners and granted to capitalists for exploitation.

It was only alter that had been accepted in principle that the question of the size of estates and extension of lease from 99 to 999 years actually came to be raised. Again it will be recalled that the time the issue was raised in 1905, there were already about 954 Europeans in Kenya and 700 of them had come from South Africa where the pressure of the whiteman upon the Government had been firmly established. The number of the settlers was, there-

\ fore, now big enough to begin demanding revisions of previous legislations and regulations in their favour. This they were also able to do as the

Government still looked upon them to develop the country so that they could contribute to maintaining the colonial administration and defence and also in order that they could help the railway pay interest on capital used during its construction.

Committed to the policy of white settlement and economic development, the Government virtually found itself in a situation where it could not go back, but had rather to keep on succumbing to the settlers' demands. It is in this light that Secretary Lewis 210

Harcourt’s virtual surrender to all the demands

which Lord Elgin had refused to grant for more than 9? six years should be viewed.

The concessions which the Government had granted

to the settlers were announced by the Governor at go the Nakuru Agricultural Show on December,27, 1912,

They included the following*

(a) Crow’n Lands or lease could be mortgaged

without prior consent of the Governor;

(b) Land was no longer to be allotted on basis

of priority of application, but was to be sold by auction;

(c) Free transfer and mortgage was to be allowed;

and 2,500 acres for plantations and 5,000

and 7,500 acres for farms;

(e) Leases were to remain at 99 years with rents

on unimproved land being 1% of its value

after 33rd year and 2% at 6 6 th year.

(f) Provision to prevent accumulation of larid

in the hands of one individual was abolished,

V-hat now remained was the issue of "quit-rent" leases for a period of 999 years. This, too, was achieved in

1915 under the provisions of Crown Lands Ordinance of that year. The Ordinance did not alter the conditions of freehold. It provided the following conditions of ordinary farm leases*

(a) The term of lease would be 999 years from - 211

the date of the grant*

(b) The rent of 10 cents per acre per annum

would be paid for the first 30 years

period, revisable in 1945, and every

30th year thereafter, at the following rates*

(i) 1% of the unimproved value of the

land for the second period,

(ii) 2% of the value of such land for

the third period,

Ciii) 3% of the value of unimproved land

for the fourth and each subsequent

period*

The Ordinance provided for easy development conditions for the benefit and profit of the settlers* The

Ordinance thus gave the European settlers exactly what they, or perhaps more than they, expected* As regards the African, it had the opposite benefit*

It provided that "all lands occupied by native tribes of the Protectorate and all lands reserved for the use of any members of any native tribes" became Crown 99 Land* This provision cleared the vagueness in the

1902 Ordinance whereby the African occupied land was not given a clear position* The vagueness had raised severe criticisms when land occupied by Africans was alienated, and especially in case of the two main

Masai removals from their land in Rift Valley in order to settle the Europeans* Some members in the House of Commons objected to such slashing of Africans* 212

rights to their land, but the land committee which

had made that recommendation retorted that the ordinance gave "the Crown power to afford the natives

" 100 protection in their possession of such lands.

I t s f u l l meaning, however, became c le a r e r s ix years

later when the chieft Justice of Kenya declared that

"th e n a tiv e s in o ccu p a tio n o f Crown la n d had become

tenants at w ill of the Crown of the land actually occupied."101 Legally, therefore, no Africans owned

land in Ken^a any more, and they could be legally kicked out of land they occupied and have it granted

to European settlers. Once again immorality of a cap italist committed government cannot be overstated.

The s e t t le r s s t i l l pressed fo r more co n ce ssion s concerning land, and forced the Governor Sir Edward

Northey to appoint a Land Tenure Commission, on

August 6, 1920. The Commission consisted of 4 o fficia ls, 8 prominent European landholders and 2

Indian lawyers one of whom resigned ten days later.

The Commissions re p o rt came out in 1922 and recommended that five years after the lease of any land was issued., it should be convertible to freehold if laid down development conditions had been complied with. The purchase price in such a case would be between Is.

3d. and 4s. per acre. The Commission argued that such conversion would lead to a reduced size of staff at the Land Office as there would be very little rent to collect. Periodical revision of rents of unconverted - 213 - leases would well be discarded as, in the view of

the Commission, they would contribute negligibly to

the c o u n try ’ s revenue# The Commission recommended

introduction of a Land Bank to advance money to

farms in order that revenue derived from land would go back to the land# In particular they expected

that the capital for such a bank could be raised from the money accruing from conversion of leases to freeholds. Although these recommendations were not immediately adopted by the Colonial Office it was just a matter of time before that could be done#

What the European were calling for by these demands was an assurance that they were the legal owners of land they held and that such land was to be inherited by, and thus be of benefit to, their future generations. Their main aim was to ensure that the profits coming out of capital they had invested in land would keep flowing through generations#

Through the myth of legality and civilization, the settlers with the co-operation and assistance of the colonial government v:ould be guaranteed of security of tenure of land they had appropriated from the hand of government which had in turn expropriated it from the Africans#

By 1914, the year World War I broke out, a total of 5,028,145 acres of land had been o fficia lly alienated by the Government and virtually a ll allotted to European settlers as seen in Table II. In these TABLE II: CUMULATIVE ACREAGE OP LAND ALIENATED BY

THE GOVERNMENT.

CummUlative Year Summary Totals For Years Acreages 1905-1914 & 1915-1927 31-12-■03 4,991 J

1904 425,334 )

1905 793,499 )

1906 1,086,240 )

1907 1,657,608 )

1908 2,106,390 )

1909 2,479,960 J 5,028,142 Acres in

1910 2,869,558 ) 11 Years.

1911 3,478,310 )

1912 3,816,343 )

1913 4,388,502 )

1914 5,028,142__)

1915 5,275,121

1916j 2,042,830 Acres in

TO > 7,070,972 13 Years.

1927 ; - ■

1928 7,096,798

1929 7,173,760

1930 7,258,240

SOURCE: D erived Prom TABLE I 215

11 years, since 1904 when serious alienation really s ta r te d , more than double o f the acreage th a t was to be a lie n a te d in the fo llo w in g 13 years was in the hands of Europeans. About 2,042,830 acres were alienated between 1915 and 1927. The momentum of alienation was temporarily interfered with in the war years but resumed after the war.

The demand from the settlers that the government should further step up recruitment of new European settlers in order to increase their number in Kenya, was given a new regard after the war in the soldier se ttle m e n t scheme. T h is scheme was championed by

Sir Edward Northey, the firs t post-war Governor, a 102 South African and a strong settler supporter.

As a government pam phlet d e s crib e d the scheme there were two classes, "A” and MBM. The grants were governed by "The Discharged Soldiers Settlement

Ordinance, 1919” , which was a subsidiary to the

Crown Lands Ordinance 1915. C la ss "A" o f the scheme comprised of free land grants of from 160 to 300 acres each, most of them going to exservice officers and men, especially the former. The pamphlet states that this class involved only a small portion of land, but no doubt it could have involved a greater number of population considering the small size of the grants. Class "B" involved land surveyed into farms ran gin g from 300 to 500 acres each, the leases of which were sold to allottees at from 3s. to 5Cs. 216 - per acre, according to the type and situation of the land* Some of the exservice men had both alternatives. To those who got the leases, the purchase p r ic e was to be spread over 10 years fre e of interest, or over 30 years with interest at 5 per cent per annum on the outstanding balance.

When, however, the in itia l stage of development laid down by the Ordinance for the first three years of holding had been completed, the allottee could apply for complete remission of the purchase price. The grants in both classes were for 999 y e a rs. In o rd e r to make the scheme a su ccess, everything possible was done to assist the new settlers. As Leys put it, their machinery was imported free of duty, their produce carried on the state railway at less than cost, for example.

In spite of the encouragement and assistance, most of these farms were abandoned and some of the beneficiaries never even came to Kenya to see their grants. Of those who came, many sold up their pieces and returned to Europe. Others tried to work in the farms, with the help of African labourers, but nevertheless failed and went back home bankrupt.

••Some of them had to be given free passages home again, by Government or by the Charitable". Most o f those who s t i l l remained had o th e r means o f support than work on the land.^^

The whole scheme in v o lv e d about 1,000 farm 217 - allotments but it must have been a big disappointment to the government which had so much committed its e lf to u tilizin g this opportunity to boost up the number of Europeans in the country* At the same time it must be recalled that the settlers already established in the country were struggling to enlarge the sizes of their farms by purchases from other farmers or by obtaining new grants from the Government* This was the kind of situation the imperial government back in Britain at first aimed at restricting* The implication was always clear, that the larger the estates under one individual’s hand, the less the number of European settlers could be accommodated in Kenya at any one moment* So the fact that many of the farms granted since 1914 were granted "to men who had large estates already", explains why the number of farmers grew so slowly, in spite of the s o ld ie r se ttle m e n t scheme made up o f about 104 1000 beneficiaries* This would imply some development of resistance by the established farmers to the presence of new settlers. Thus any available land was, since the concessions of 1912, given out to enlarge acreages of the already existing numbers* Table III and IV clearly indicate t h is phenomenon* The percentage o f farm ers to the entire European population in the years 1911, 1921,

1926, 1931 and 1948 were 14.5% 20%, 17*6% 15%, 20%.

This shows that in both soldier settlement schemes after World War I and II, there was a slight increase 218 a! ta o T soia N Trans hr d i r t s i D ther O Gishu sin a U Haivasha ki ia ip ik a L Nakuru Ravine SOURCE: N stri s t ic r t is D t al ta -to h u S uadF,Da adt in British Africa,op.cit.Tropical p.324 Dual Mandate Lugard,F., Wolff,R.D., Ihid.p.53 Wolff,R.D., 0 n-Native Censuses,1911-1948 n-Native TABLE. Ill rEUROPEANIN DISTRICTSBY POPULATION KENYA AND YEARS bs 56 . 506 . 1902 — — — — — -- - — 1903 9 . 596 — — — _ •■ — m m - 1904 8 ^ 886 — — — _ — Y 94 . 954 - 1905 a e — — — _ - - - . - ,1 . 1,814 1906 — s r _ _ — — -- - ,7 . 3,175 2,255 1911 448 279 920 163 27 3 ,7 . 4,571 — 191§/ _ — - - ... - ,5 . 9,651 6,568 3,083 1,140 1921 395 245 381 784 138

259 . 12,529 4,445 8,084 1,721 1,206 1926 738 428 257 95 16,812 11,040 5,772 1,116 1,997 1,700 1931 618 262 80 29,660 21,337 3,925 8,323 1,281 2,433 1948 628 56 219 -

of the proportion of farmers upon the European

population. In the figures above it appears that

in both cases the increase was by 5% of the population.

Again the rate of European population increase in

Kenya was much higher than that of farmers since

1921. There was also a decline in the proportion

of farmers to the whole European population between

the years 1921 and 1931. In both case the implication

appears to be that many newly granted land pieces

were bought up by the already existing farmers.

This meant that although the European population

was increasing at a very fast rate the ownership

and control of land passed to a much smaller propor­

tion of that population. In a ll the years seen,

it is clear that about one third of the population

was always resident in the R ift Valley Province.

No wonder then this was the area that attracted

most governmental attention during the colonial

era. It was also the source of the most powerful

European politics and also a source of great

conflicts between the Africans and the Europeans.

In Nakuru D istrict formerly composed of

Nakuru and Naivasha D istricts up to 1933, the

European population growth was very slow up to

about 1920, (see Table V and Table VI). This

tends to indicate that the beneficiaries of Masai

rem ovals in 1904 and 1911 were very few and they must also have got large tracts of land. The - 220 -

y i TABLE IV: NUMBER OF FARMERS BY RACE AND YEARS,

1911-1948

___Number farm ers by y e a r______Race 1911 1921 1926 1931 1948

Europeans 428 2,893 2,199 2,522 3,252

A sia n s 120 148 220 319 J '

Arabs 370 565 405 847

■! O thers 8 42 15 39

SOURCE* Non-Native Censuses, 1911-1948* 221 effect of the soldier settlement scheme of 1919 onwards is more pronounced In Nakuru section where the population more than doubled in 1920-21* In the same district the effect is much more viewed in 1926 the year in which the population recorded was about four times that of 1919-20, (see Table

VI)* The Naivasha section had an increase of about

50% during the same period, (Table V), Naivasha being largely a dry area where most of the land was devoted to livestock, there was never a very high rate of population increase and land tracts tended to be very large indeed* In Nakuru section, the rise of population from 335 in 1919-20 to 1700 in 1931 would imply greater number of subdivisions, hence smaller pieces on the average* This becomes clearer when it is realized that after 1927 the land area alienated by the Government for allocation to Europeans was growing smaller every year, until after World War II, (see Table I)* Such a trend had begun in 1915 when the smallest yearly total acreage of 246,979 was alienated ever since active recorded government alienation begun in 1904* After

1915 the average alienated acreage was 149,654 up to 1927* In 1928, only 25,826 acres were alienated*

From that year up to the close of the colonial period substantial land alienation of the type that charac­ terized the 1904 to 1915 period was an unusual rarity*

What appears to come out of such a situation - 222 - TABLE V: EUROPEAN POPULATION AND AFRICAN POPULATION BY

ETHNIC GROUPS (^909-1933)NAIVASHA DISTRICT

Year European African Population T0t a lA f r ic populati

1909-10

1910- 11 160 1911- 12 235 1912- 13 1913- 14 1914- 15 167 2,650 1915- 16 147 3,289 1916- 17 183 3.300 35 249 3.584 1917- 18 193 3.300 35 249 3.584 1918- 19 194 6,787 50 224 7, 061 1919- 20 215 7,630 756 730 9,116 1920- 21 262 9,000 900 500 10,400 1922 319 10,500 700 350 11,550 1923 322 16,045 650 350 17,055 1924 313 15,040 620 250 15,910 1925 15,012 15,377 1926 380 15,500 1927 437 16,360 1928 510 1929 443 20,629 1930 443 22,174 1931 611 19,515 1932 677 16,485 2,000 1,184 19,669 1933 753 16,386 867 578 17,831

SOURCE: Annual Reports fo r Naivasha D is tric t,1910-1933 - 223 - TABLE VI: . EUROPEAN AND AFRICAN POPULATION,HUT & POLL TAX

1909-1948,NAKURU DISTRICT

Year European A fr ic a n Hut & P o ll Tax p o p u la tio n p o p u la tio n in Sh.

1909-10 1910-11 428 1911-12 279 308 1912-13

3.913-14 ■MM _ 1,276 1914-15 354 5,348 720 1915-16 5,660 1916-17 - . - 11,200 1917-18 mmmm 4,650 17,000 1918-19 305 8,000 18,820 1919-20 335 9,200 24,688 1920-21 784 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1,206 19,024 1927 1928 _ 86,100 1929 1,256 28,346 88,824

1930 1,694 mmmam 104,607 1931 1,700 18,700 136,656 1932 1,474 18,192 32:4,088 1933 1,340 23,325 125,664 1934 1,991* 41,286* 183,516* 1935 2,008* 38,198* 188,880* 1936 2,066* 29,903* 210,637* 1937 2,027* 43,232* 227,280* 1938 2,155*’ 53,792*’ 322,400** 1939 2,124** 56,180*' 298,108*' 1948 3,925** ♦ These figures include those of fromer Naivasha D istrict *' These include Naivasha and Ravine former districts. The broken line represents the time when Naivasha became part of Nakuru D istrict. SOURCE;Annual Labour Bureau Commission R e p o rt,1921 - 224 is that the big land holders wanted to have more land mainly for two reasons: one, to hold it for speculative purposes} two, to increase their profits by farming. It would also appear that pressure on government to increase number of Europeans on the country and at the same time to make them farmers was in the first place meant to increase demand for land and thus raise the price for the benefit of speculators. Once the Government accepted such a policy, it implicitly accepted to give credit to willing buyers, or at least guarantee such a credit.

Availability of such e^acn credit facilities made it possible for the land holders particularly the speculators, to make quick profits. In this way the colonial government was manipulated by the land holders under the pretence of economic development while in the actual fact of the situation the rate of farming or economic development was very low indeed, given the land available, 105 Thus the so called development conditions required of new land owners or lessees, were seen by farmers as yet another means of raising land prices. It should be mentioned that most of these conditions were made possible through the assistance of the government.

Improvements such as railway lines to Nanyuki,

Thompson Falls, and Solai should be viewed as having this ulterial motive very much in the background.

It had already become clear that land near the 225 -

railway was pretty costly and profitable to the

settlers*

Big settlers campaign to increase the number of

Europeans, especially ones involved in farming, however small, was aimed also at increasing the volte of the people who could claim to be farmers or settlers.

Such a voice would induce the government to carry out developments of road, railway, postal services, electricity, water and urban general conditions, mainly for the gain of those big farms. They also, wanted the government to be involved in championing

farming by initiating projects such as Kenya

Cooperative Creameries, Kenya Meat Commission, Wheat

Board of Kenya, Kenya Farmers Cooperative and others, most of which were in the final analysis to lower the processing or marketing of the farm products mainly from the big farmers. The government was therefore persuaded through such manouvres to run a plant research station at Njoro which experimented on wheat growing, pyrethrum, and maize growing and in a variety of other grops in order to advise the farmers on how best to increase their productivity and hence their profits. It also developed seeds for farmers. At

Naivasha a livestock experimental station was run by the Government, in addition to government livestock laboratories in Naivasha, Gilgil and Nakuru, all meant to benefit the farmers. In this way, the settlers, especially the big ones, saved themselves much money 226

which they could always turn into capital or profits or

both. Some of the other benefits enjoyed by the

farming European community included reduced railway

rates in transporting both their labour and their

products or even their farm machineries; exceptions

from customs duties and taxes where farm interests

were concerned; and also full mobilization of the

entire government machinery for the purpose of

recruitment of labour for European settlers, labour

inspection, agricultural and veterinary extension

services. The government also helped in training the

farmers in the basics ofagricultural approaches, especially when most of them had never been involved

in any kind of farming before as in the cases of

soldier settlement schemes after World War I and 106 II.

European settlement continued until the very

last days of colonial rule in Kenya and for some time

continued into post-independence era. Throughout the period the government and its entire bureaucratic machinery had virtually become a mere tool of capital

accumulation. As seen in Table VII, the interests of

capital knew no bounds in their search for new grounds

to exploit. They therefore encroached on the forest

reserves, formerly excluded from European occupation.

Excisions were made by the Government and granted to

Europeans for settlement. The Government was powerless vis-a-vis capital interests. / . 4 TABLE TII ; SOME OP THE LAND ALIENATED IN 1950 - 1962

t ~" ...... :----- By European Under Recorded as Number o f Recorded*acreag€ Year By Land Agricultural Temporary Agricultural Fo re st o f fo r e s t Board Settlem ent Occupation Excisions^ e x c is io n s Land Board. Lice n ce s Recorded * In Acres In Acres In Acres In Acres A lie n a te d In Acres

1950-51 420,00 17,600 38,700

1952 315,195 10,301 52,764 — 40 -

1953 100,317 29,229 47,629 23 4,300

1954 30,237 22,004 1,982 - 14 4,858

1955 52,828 8,745 - - MW 5 1,548 1956 2,824 3,441 1,667 14,312 13 14,488

1957 2,198 2817 9,642 15,278 3 796

1958 8,540 m^mm 10,157 11,556 4 2,205

1959 4,774 - - - - 55,859 3 630

1960 5,329 •MM -- —

1961 17,679 ■■MB 11,796 - -

1962 14,312 — — — — —

* The Word ’’Recorded*' refers to the data which could "be derived from the government published a n n u a l reports for varios years.

SOURCE: Department of* lands and Settlement,

Axusoata. R o a o rto » ___ 1 ^ ___ ^ .o 228

EUROPEAN SETTLEMENT AND AFRICAN LABOUR:

The Colonial Government both in Kenya and in

Britain, was made to believe by local settler controlled administration that after availability of land, the next factor necessary in order to attract a large number of European settlers was availability of cheap African labour. The government therefore turned to legislating, always under direct settler influence, for the purpose of raising labour and making it permanent and cheap for the settlers willing to make profits from farming.

The first attempts to recruit labour was done by the IBEA Company in their endeavour to raise enough men to become posters for the company's officers. This was followed by the British Government Officers doing the same in order to obtain people to transport their luggages to various stations. But the first big labour problem occurred during the construction of the Uganda (t railway when the Africans were recruited as posters, but in all semi skilled jobs Indian indentured labour was imported.

As far as massive labour demands for the purpose of directly exploiting the soil and other resources in

Kenya was concerned, virtually no efforts were done before the principle of "White Highlands" was at least unofficially adopted. As viewed in Table III only about 596 Europeans had come to Kenya by 1903 and of these only about 100 were settlers who were just trying 229 to start farming of crops or livestock yet to be decided well after a few years of trial and experimentation* As more and more European settlers poured in,the basic condition for availability of labour was everyday being set - that was, alienation of Africans from ownership of means of production and thus making them "free", in the capitalist conception, to supply their labour in the market*

The basic factor of production from which many

Africans were alienated was land. This was done through mystifications of the situation in Africa where it was hypocritically alleged that most of the land was "ownerless”, "empty", "waste" and/or

"unoccupied". Most of the land alienated was assumed "empty" or "unoccupied" and the Africans in it were expected to leave it or stay in it and become labourers,initially for payment in kind.

After alienation the Africans would initially move out and join the army of "ahoi" in Kikuyu area or re-join their relatives and become temporary residents before they could move on to new land or to new landholders willing to grant them residence rights.

This created a state of uncertainty and insecurity.

When other demands such as taxation and restriction on growing cash crops were introduced the alienated

Africans became more inclined to move to European farms and work for pay in cash or in kind. In many cases the Africans remained in the alienated - 230

land as "squatters", as the Europeans conceived them, until they were no more desirable and were forced 107 out.

But it was not until 1905 when the number of

Europeans in Kenya grew to 954, and after about

793,499 acres of land had been alienated, that demand

for labour became a problem. Such demand and apparent unavailability or shortage of labour was implied in

the report of land committee, 1905. The report stated*

"There is no doubt that the future success or

failure of the country depends entirely on the

methods that will be employed in dealing with

native labour. The country must look for its

development to the labour of the natives and „

if proper steps are not taken, with due care

and forethought, to render the natives contented

and their labour easily available, and if the

laws dealing with the natives are not framed in

a wise and liberal spirit and enforced with a

firm hand, the future prospects of the country

may be irretrievably damaged."

Meanwhile, in January 1905, a Colonists'

Association sub-committee was appointed with a view of considering some labour legislation to make labour contracts more binding. Up till that time, many of the Africans who turned up for work did so normally to earn more cash to pay Hut Tax which was 1 rupee in

1901 and 2 rupees in 1902 at the coast; and 3 rupees - 231 - in 1903 in Kisumu and Naivasha areas; and also 3 rupees in 1905 at Mombasa and in 1906 at Kikuyuland and Uka. ba.. In addition to getting cash to pay taxv the labourers also got some blankets and some cash to buy simple newly introduced commodities, and after about one month or two they disappeared from the farms.

On the recommendations of the Land Committee and Colonists' Association, labour legislation of

1906, "The Master and Servants Ordinance", was passed. Largely modelled on South African lines, the Ordinance provided for a three years agreement and heavy fines or irpfisonment for breach by workers.

It also allowed payment in kind for work done and blankets and food were reckoned as part of wages.

Although the Ordinance was supposedly meant to protect the interests of the Africans, it in the end gave the

European employer governmental support in effecting the agreement between him and his labourers and also left him a wide room for manouvre as far as payment was concerned. No minimum wages were fixed. This

Ordinance in addition reassured the settlers of small capital who had spent most of it buying the farm from the government or laying down basic requirements in a farm such as houses, some fence and buying some livestock from the Africans around. The cheaper, and unbinding on his side, the labour was the better for the settler. 232 -

Still labour was not forth coining in large numbers and breach of contracts continued* In 1906, under the pressure of settlers, tax in Kikuyuland and

Ukambaland was raised to 3 rupees per hut. Although taxation had so far been viewed as primarily necessitated by requirement for government revenue, the increase of 1906 was in direct relation to desire to raise a 109 greater number of labourers. In 1915 it was raised to 5 rupees and to 8 rupees in 1920* These too were in direct connection with the 5,275,116 acres of land already alienated by 1915 and with the extra demand created by Soldier Settlement Scheme of 1919 onwards.

The 1920 rise from 5 rupees (or 7/-) to 8 rupees

(or 11/-) was made possible by the first post war governor Sir Edward Northey, whose experience in

South Africa influenced most of his views towards settlers on the one hand and Africans on the other.

The effect of these two tax increments can be viewed in

Tables VI,VIII,and IX. In Table VIII the effect of

1915 increment is realized in 1916-17 year. Though it did not have a significant effect on population drifting into that district in search of work, this was later to be fulfilled In 1918-19 when the popu­ lation of Africans nearly doubled as compared with that of the past two years. 110 In 1914-15, the greatest number of Africans in the district must have paid their tax in their ’’reserves" and hence the low collection of 704/- only from 2650 people as compared to 3184/- from 3289 people. The ratio TABLE VI31: NUMBER OP AFRICANS AND HUT & POLL TAX

1909-1933,NAIVASHA DISTRICT

Year Nuinber of Africans Hut & Poll Tax in Sh.

1909-10 1,136 1910-11 m ^ 1,980 1911-12 1,916 1912-13 104 1913-14 328 1914-15 2,650 704 IS15-16 3,289 3,184 1916-17 3,584 8,244 1917-18 3,584 9,028 1918-19 7,061 15,228 1919-20 9,116 17,012 1920-21 10,400 48,656 1922 11,550 47,000 1923 17,055 64,140 1924 15,910 70,536 1925 15,377 73,260 1926 15,500 79,872 1927 16,360 80,700 1928 mmmmm 75,660 1929 20,629 69,792 1930 22,174 70,632 1931 19518 80,240 1932 19,669 60,912 1933 17,831 68,296

SOURCE: Annual Reports for Naivasha District ,1910-1933 - 234 TABLE IX:KIKUYU AND OTHER AFRICANS,HUT & POLL TAX IN 1909-1939 NAKURU AND NAIVASHA DISTRICTS

Year Kikuyu Others Total African Hut & Poll population Tax in Sh.

1909-10 1910-11 2,408 1911-12 2,224 1912-13 1913-14 1,604 1914-15 7,998 1,724 1915-16 MM- -MM mmmmm 8,844 1916-17 ..... — mmmmm 19,444 1917-18 — — 8,234 26,028 1918-19 15,061 34,048 1919-20 __ 18,316 41,700 1920-21 1922 19L23 1924 1925 1926 34,524 1927 1928 161,760 1929 48,975 158,616 1930 175,239 1931 — 38,215 216,896 1932 32,647 5,214 37,861 195,000 1933 34,166 6,990 41,156 193,960 1934 35,338 5,948 41,286 183,516 1935 33,027 5,171 38,198 188,880 1936 mamm 29,903 210,637 1937 - - 4.3, 232 227,280 1938 __ 53,792* 322,400* 1939 56,180* 298,108*

* Includes Ravine District.

SOURCE: Annual Reports for Nakuru and Naivasha Districts,1909-1939 Non-Native Censuses,1911-1948 235 between the number of Africans in Naivasha district and Hut and Poll Tax collected kept on rising and this tended to imply that more and more population was becoming permanent in the district and therefore paid tax there rather than in their districts of origin*

The increment of 1920 from 7/- to 11/- had significant effect not only of making tax collection tripple, but also of making a population increase due to migration* This mostly affected other groups than the Kikuyu* In Table V for instance the Luo/

Luyia (Kavirondo) population in Naivasha rose from

50 in 1918-19 to 756 in 1919-20 and to 900 in 1920-21.

Under the category "other", it is realized that the rise was from 249 in 1918-1919 to 730 in 1919-20.111

But in nearly all cases the instrument of taxatidn aimed at increasing labour supply was of little effect in itself* This was much more the case as far as the Kavirondo and Kipsigis were concerned.

They sold their cattle and some land, to pay tax rather than go to work in European.* farms for the 112 same purpose. Thus until the Ainsworth's circular of 1919, which increased the effectiveness of the entire government machinery in labour recruitment, taxation Itself did not persuade Africans to go out to work* In Table V the case of the Luo/Luyia is straight-forward, while the case of the "other" groups except Kikuyu is also very significant. This would - 236

no doubt suggest African resistance from being converted from tfcheir socio-economic systems of egalitarian - communalism and mutual responsibility, to the capitalist system of exploitation based on employer - labourer relationship* Africans resisted being turned to wage workers over-night whereby their surplus labour value would be exploited*

The Kikuyu, most of whom were Msquatters", had most of their land taken by the Europeans and as pressure of population in Kikuyuland increased the only alternative was to turn up for work in European farms* A Kikuyu needed to raise money for tax and again he had found that the Europeans allowed him to cultivate part of the land they never used* This kind of squatting life was to a Kikuyu of greater economic benefit than the wages he got from the farmers* As he was not required to work on the farm everyday,and as evasion of work was possible, the squatters concentrated on crop growing and livestock rearing within the European owned farms*

Many of them became wealthy and persisted in resisting more wage labour without any other source of livelihood* / In Naivasha district they grew' maize in areas and conditions that no European farmer could* The other crops included beans, and potatoes* Maize was normally sold to European farm owner while beans and potatoes were sold to the Asian traders* The - 237

money so raised was used to buy m o t e livestock as this was the main means of saving they had. As a result the population of livestock increased at a rate that scared the European farmers who, fearing the African would become too wealthy and therefore refuse to work for them, began to seek legislative and administrative methods of reducing it.

As regard the crop cultivation Tables X, XI and

XII indicate that the Kikuyu were not entirely dependent on wages to pay tax. They were very much dependent on wealth got from crop (and animal) husbandry within the European farmers* land. Thus the crop of 1916-17 and of 1917-18, coupled with not too low prices led, not only to high consumption of imported goods in 1917-18, but also to an increase in the tax collected. In the following year, 1918-19 there was a crop failure, and in spite of very high prices and the doubling of the population in the district, the total consumption of imported goods was reduced by about 60% while the tax collected was not double that of the previous year* In spite of a better crop and not too bad prices in

1919-20, and also in spite of yet another increase in population, consumption of imported goods remained the same as 1918-19 while tax collected still did not double that of 1917-18. It can be argued that tax collected in 1918-19 could not double because 238 Potatoes Maize ORE Niah ititAna eot, 1916-1920. Reports, Annual District Naivasha SOURCE: Beans Crops TABLE X: MAIN SQUATTER CROP PRODUCTION IN POUNDS INPOUNDS DISTRICT. PRODUCTION CROPNAIVASHA , 1916-20, SQUATTER MAIN X: TABLE 448,000 448,000 403,200 403,200 89,600 89,600 961 1 1916-17 ~ / X 9 9 9 —5 MM —/50 p601b.l/« HM 000 0 ,0 2 1 1 448,000 1917-*18 560,000

9 m / 9 9 / "" /« /«p601b. M" 1918-19 960@/0 "" @3/50 89,600 22,400 @4/50 p601b< @4/50 22,400 ,8 /5 »• 4/75 @ 4,480 _ _ _ _ 1919-20 8,0 15 "M @1/50 180,000 210,000 9 1/50 p601b.1/50 9 210,000 24,000 @1/75 24,000

- 239 -

TABLE XIl APPROXIMATE VALUE OF MAIN IMPORTED GOODS

CONSUMED BY AFRICANS, 1916-20, NAIVASHA

DISTRICTS

Main imported 1916-17 1917-18 1918-19 1919-20

Goods Rs* Rs* Rs* Rs*

Sugar 12,075 25,200 1 2 ,0 0 0 13,000

Rice 6,300 12,600 1 0 ,0 0 0 10,500

Flour 6,130 15,750 5,000 5,000

Blankets 6,160 15,400 5,000 5,000

Piece Goods 13,000 17,800 7,000 8 ,0 0 0

Tobacco, Cigarettes, Salt, & co* 9,650 1 0 ,2 0 0 5,000 7,000

SOURCES Nalvasha District Annual Report, 1916-20* - 240 -

TABLK XII* AFRICAN POPULATION BY ETHNIC GROUPS COMPARED

WITH HUT 8 POLL TAX, 1916-20, NAIVASHA DISTRICT.

Ethtic 1916-17 1915-18 1918-19 1919-20 Groups

Kikuyu 3,300 3,300 6,787 7,630

Luo/Luyia 35 35 50 756

Others 249 249 224 730

Totals 3,584 3,584 7,061 9,116 tsCBsscssssas&s:

Hut & Poll

Tax in shs. 8,244 9,028 15,228 17,012

SOURCE: Naivasha District Annual Reports, 1916-20* 241 - probably the migrants had already paid tax back in their areas of origin, primarily in Central Province.

But the question as to why they moved to the Rift

Valley then becomes one of other economic benefits to be derived from moving than toerely to earn money wages. It appears, therefore, that the bumper crops of 1916-17 and 1917-18 was instrumental in the doubling of the population in Naivasha District in 1918-19. Perhaps also the return of men from carrier corps service in search of some land to cultivate was also a factor. This was mainly Kikuyu population which rose from 3,300 in 1917-18 to

6787 in 1918-19. If this be the case, the Kikuyu used the agreement to work for the European as a means to get a piece of land on which to cultivate his crop and keep his livestock on the same basis

as the "muhoi" - tenant at will-in the traditional

system. The only difference was that the European required that the "squatters" work for him for some part of the year in return of his "hospitality" and

that the maize crop grown must be sold to him. But the greatest divergence with the traditional system occurred when the European turned to expelling the

"squatters" even if they had not ceased utilizing

the land. Again in terms of attitude the Europeans viewed the squatters just as workers who were being partially compensated for work done for him in terms 242 of land plots to cultivate. In such a case the

squatter merely provided cheap labour, intensely exploited to maximize the profits of the mean

European capitalist in Kenya.

But in spite of presence of large numbers of

Africans in the Rift Valley shortages of labour were

commonly reported. There had been several attempts

to persuade or "encourage" men to go to work. The

District Commissioner formerly known as labour

recruiting officer, together with the chiefs were

all recruiting labour, not without some coercion,

for both the government and private purposes. When

the practice was discouraged private employers and

professional labour recruiters, with the assistance

of the power of the chiefs,did the Job of recruiting

labour. Promises of land to cultivate, beautiful

houses, and allowance to keep livestock were all made

to Africans before they agreed to be recruited. In

1907 the Colonial Office had ruled against compulsory

labour which the settlers had demanded and in 1908

a Labour Commission recommended abolition of

professional labour recruitor who were costly to

farmers and replacement by District Officers and

Chiefs. They also recommended registration of, and

issuing of identification cards to, Africans. Nearly

all recommendations were rejected by the Government.

Only the last one of registration and identification

cards was adopted later on calminating in Native 243

113 Registration Ordinance, 1915,

The governors in Kenya and the colonial secretaries had in succession repeatedly denied that tax was an instrument to force Africans to go out and work in European farms -• They also denied that the government should directly recruit labour for settlers. These two approaches were severely criticized by the settlers who forced another Native

Labour Commission to be appointed. This Commission gave its report in 1912 demanding an increase in

African taxes, cutting down of reserves and the use of government officers to compel Africans out to work. As the report came out, Governor Girouard who had openly supported the settlers* interests 114 resigned at the pressure of Colonial Office. His successor H.C. Belfield also did not have very divergent views and he insisted in November 1912 that the African should "contribute something either by means of labour or precuniary equivalent towards the development of the Protectorate". In

1913 Belfieffid declared: "vie consider that taxation is the only possible method of compelling the native to leave his reserve for the purpose of seeking work •••• Only in this way can the cost of living be increased for the native." This was basically the view of the government right from beginning, only

that it was previously hypocritically denied. On 244 - the same basis and upon other pressure from the

Colonists' Association and Convention of Associations, the government raised the tax from 3 rupees (4/- to

5 rupees (7/-) in 1915* It is highly doubtful, as already pointed out, whether this was the cause of doubling of Kikuyu population in Naivasah and Nakuru

Districts in 1918-19. The raising of tax in 1920 from 5 rupees to 8 rupees was based on views similar to those of Belfield.

When no other source of income was available the

African was forced to work for the European in order to be able to pay his tax. But so long as this could be avoided, the African refused to work in the

European farms. Squatters in particular offered this resistance so long as they had other means of livelihood in the European settled areas. The District

Commissioner for Naivasha prompted by a big rise in

Kikuyu population in 1923 (see Table V) and also by complaints of shortage of labour issued a '‘special

Report" stating that the owners of large farms could not keep off the squatters. He explained it thus*

"They creep on all unbeknown, first of all

living with a friend or a relation then

occupying the hut of a deceased person.

Later a wife appears and a few handfuls of

maize are planted. If inquiries are made it

is stated by all that the person concerned is 245 -

only on a short visit and was kind enough to

give a hand in the hosts garden • •••• Nothing

exists in the law which prevents a native from

going on to a European farm cultivating a crop

and later when he is called upon to work

simply sliding off that farm having sold the

crop and turning up on another a few miles off

and doing exactly the same thing# He gets

virgin soily the price of a good crop, and no

work ••••• Again it has been noted that squatters

lease their '•landlords’* grazing to their friends

in Kikuyu ••••••• Unoccupied farms are simply

overrun with goats and sheep the property not

only of those living on the farm but of their 115 friends and relations in Kikuyu."

The District Commissioner for Nakuru had written in

1918-19 that only a few Europeans had managed to exploit their native squatters with success# Yet the number of squatters was always very high and many times much higher than would be required if they worked for the settlers. In one farm at Njoro in

Nakuru there were over 400 squatters in 1917-18 which was in excess of the settler’s requirements#

But on this farm and the others, the presence of large number of squatters did not imply absence of labour shortage# Resistance to work for wages for the benefit of other persons was permanently there throughout the colonial period# More so in the 246 -

European settled areas.

Such a situation made every attempt to recruit and increase labour out of "reserves" to settled areas meaningless. Thus taxation, force, and indirect force as contained in Ainsworth’s Circulars 6 £ 1919 may have managed to send people to European farms but not to make them work.^^ So long as there were other means of livelihood, either in the farms or outside, the Africans could only consider working in European farms for wages as secondary.

On understanding thi3 the settlers pressed for more methods for impoverishment of the Africans so that they could agree to work for wages. Without going into details, such methods included encouraging and forcing Africans, especially the Masai, the Nandi,

Kipsigis, Kamasia, Pokwot, and the Kamba to sell or surrender their cattle and other livestock to the veterinary department for slaughter. Among these groups taxation rate was the highest throughout the colonial period as a means of making them sell their livestock and turn to wage earning. Such livestock were also bought cheaply by Europeans in order to boost up the size of their animals. Fines for tax evasion and other crimes led to severe loss of livestock confiscated by the Government and later on sold to the European settlers at half the market price. The same thing happened to squatters after their stock had increased greatly. Restrictions were 247 imposed on the number of livestock each family could have in the farm while the rest had to be removed and usually sold to the settlers.

The other weapon was rules prohibiting and restricting growing of cash crops by Africans. This was primarily intended to prevent competition between the settlers and Africans for.’ the limited "world market". Absence of such a restriction would mean that the Africans would grow such crops as tea, coffee, pyrethrum, cotton, wheat, maize, and also keep diary cattle, in a ssiall scale in which case they would be able to care for them much better and hence also raise the standard of the products in the market.

It would also mean that the African would never go out and work for the European settlers, and therefore the latter’s raison de*tre would cease to be. This situation had been realized in Naivasha and Nakuru areas right from the beginning of colonial era and

European settlement there. The Africans remained free of European employers by growing maize, potatoes and beans and keeping good livestock on competitive basis with the supposed employers. Fear of competition, especially in crop cultivation, led to restriction of plots allowed to squatters and also to institution of marketing control boards whose main duty was to keep the prices of African grown crops down and also act as a middle-man between Afriean growers and

European and Asian settlers and traders who bought - 248

those crops at small prices and latter made big

profits on them* Thus, the Native Crop Control

Board, and others,acted as means of exploitation

of the African by the European and Asian, settler

and trader respectively.

A permanent conflict therefore existed between

the Africans and Europeans. The latter, after

dominating the former politically, also attempted

to make them economically subjugated. But the

Africans resisted from being a permanent class

of wage earners. The desire of Africans to have

their economic freedom, and thus cease being

wage workers was witnessed when the Olenguruone

Special Settlement Areawwas opened for the

landless and squatters unwilling to be employed

by the Europeans,given an alternative. The area

was opened in 1940 and by 1946 the District Officer for the area reported that there were some 9,000

people, 4000 of whom were male adults. Most of

these occupiers were former squatters, mainly

Kikuyu, who saw Olenguruone as a new ground upon

which to build their economic base - free from

exploitation. The government, which had allowed

them to occupy that area under Temporary Occupation

Licence until requested to leave, tried to impose

prohibitions and restrictions on what to grow and 117 how much, and on the size of livestock to keep.

This was strongly resisted by the Kikuyu who also

protested that 12 acres of land was too small for 249 one family# As the pressure of the government increased upon them to the effect that they should abide with the rules of occupation or leave, the majority of the Kikuyu turned to increasing their resistance and in 1948 they took oath of solidarity among themselves# The gist of resistance was that they had a right to be independent producers and would resifct being turned into poor and hence permanent

"slaves" for the Europeans# The group that took oath, was insultingly called by their opponents

"Mau Mau"# This meant that it was the group that ate the meat of oathing ceremony hurriedly and leaving no trace at all# They in turn called their opponents "Irugi" - "hoppers", who jumped into conclusion without evidence# The latter reported the matter to the government which in 1949 decided to remove all disloyal Kikuyu from the area# The reason for this removal was that they had wanted freedom to operate their own economic affairs unrestricted# This was resisted by the government and the entire European population in Nakuru District#

To them the Africans there had to act as a pool of labour near the farms which was easier to recruit#

But the resistance turned to be the most serious one ever encountered by the government# This resistance later on escalated into what came to be called "Mau

Mau" revolt# It had the effect on the government as - 250 - it was after the Olenguruone Mau Mau revolt that the

Europeans considered allowing Africans to grow crops 118 formerly grown by Europeans only*

The other methods aimed at sending the Africans out of their areas into settled areas were compulsion oppression and repression* Right from the early years of colonial rule the rule of the chief, largely a new invention in Kenya, was the most severe the

Africans had ever seen* Under the protection of the

British Government and their agents in Kenya, the chief used ruthless measures to make people pay tax I and go out to work for Europeans, who were to the

African, one and same with the Government* They were also enthusiastic in enforcing Labour* Regulations and also in enforcing the Pass Laws* Both the pass laws and the kipande were meant to keep the Africans out of towns and reserves so that they could go to work in farms* Failure to pay tax or to keep contract for work, or failure to carry properly endorsed pass book or kipande, would lead to confiscation of one’s herd if he had any, or imprisonment* This was usually accompanied by a lot of physical harassment and beating*

Failure to turn up for what was called communal labour, mainly in road-making, meant receiving the same or worse torture and punishment. In short, chief's rule was severe enough to send- people out of their "reserves"

Compulsory labour was initially obtained by the 251 government both for public and private projects.

Later on the government officially used indirect methods to obtain the same ends# But in the 1920*s

the building of Uasin Gishu and Thika-N$nyuki railway lines required large labour which the

government thought might not be forthcoming without compulsion# Although the Colonial Office had previously ruled against compulsory labour, they granted permission

for this requirement# But although the railway was categorized under public interest, the purpose which 119 these two lines served were private# Thus they made the land exploitable at cheaper costs and

transportation of products thereof cheaper, while

at the same time making the land near these lines earn very high value for profit of private land

speculators# The other aspect of compulsion came during World War II when the government legislated

in favour of compulsory conscription labour# Although

this was meant to serve public interests and help maintain what was called essential industries, it was very much used to the benefit and profit of

settlers in the main. Compulsory labour, being free

labour, was the most exploited#

Having gone into areas of work, whatever method of recruitment was used, the African worker nearly always resisted being exploited whenever he had the chance to do so# He could simply decide not to do work as instructed, he could defect to other farms, 252 he could stay on the farm and attend to his ov;n interests as a squatter cultivator, livestock trader or any other kind of trader. The aim was always one - of resistance against exploitation.

As can be seen from Table XIII the public service between 1943 and 1954 had never employed more than

30% of recorded labour force. This table also indicates that of the remaining 70% more than half was always employed in agricultural concerns. It was this industry that had always aimed at exploiting the greatest number of Africans to the maximum, and it was in that industry that permanent resistance was met with. The main basis of resistance was the incongruence between traditional egalitarianism, which the Africans were determined to keep, and the 120 new capitalist system of man exploiting man. 253 Domesti Service & Mining Quarrying Building Building Agriculture Sectors Employment Construction Industry ServicPublie Commerce ORE Lbu Dprmn,nulRprs 1943-1957; Reports Department,Annual Labour SOURCE: Ynnva.tAnnviaX repor*ta,194« & TABLE XIII:EMPLOYMENT SECTORS BY YEARLY PERCENTAGES OP OP ONLY. PERCENTAGES AFRICAN SECTORS LABOUR BY YEARLY XIII:EMPLOYMENT TABLE 25.45 e 93 94 1945 1944 1943 39.96 11.96 4.52 8.51 2.99 6.61 36.50 11.05 26.66 4.38 8.68 2.80 9.93 1946 37.81 28.84 4.56 8.59 3.17 7.47 9.74 1947 37.36 28.93 5.88 7.72 8.33 2.90 9.88 1948 37.36 28.93 7.72 5.88 8.33 9.88 2.90 1949 36.40 29.89 5.71 6.46 9.79 8.80 2.95 1950 49.26 22.64 8.38 3.36 5.73 1.34 9.29 1951 46.64 23.37 9.19 3.90 5.91 9.64 1.35 1952 51.00 26.00 5.00 3.00 1.00 8.00 6.00 1953 44.80 26.50 9.50 4.00 5.80 1.10 8.30 1954 42.80 28.00 8.20 4.60 8.50 1.60 6.30 1955 45.30 26.50 8.30 3.60 1.40 6.40 8.50 195 6 45.30 26.50 8.30 3.60 8.50 6.40 1.40 195 7 254

TRADE AND INDUSTRY IN THE WHITE HIGHLANDSJ * ______NAKURU DISTRICT______

Trade, Commerce and Industry made very slow

development in the early years of colonization in

Kenya, and even at later days its role in the economic

activity in the country remained very small* As can

be seen in Table XIII the labour force they employed

was very small compared to agriculture, a clear

indication of government's commitment to agricultural

development and virtual lack of industrial development,

especially if it was not going to serve agricultural

interests. Commerce and trade was dominated by

Asians while the Africans normally dealt only in

petty trade*

In Naivasha and Nakuru districts some of the

earliest industrial concerns were timber saw mills

and maize flour mills* These seem to have been started

after 1910* In 1910-11 annual report for Naivasha

District, the District Commissioner reported that

there were no manufactures. But in the year 1912-13

he reported that Messrs Allidina Visram had shown

considerable enterprise in purchasing a 15 H*P* oil

engine and 4 flour mills at Naivasha. 121 In 1914-15

Mr* Pike the butcher also had a maize mill at Naivasha

while Mr. Colvile had a saw mill* In the same year

there were 2 timber saw mills and 4 flour mills in

Nakuru District. In 1938 the District Commissioner

reported that there were 6 saw mills in the District. • 255 -

Lord Delamere had a flour mill called Unga Limited

and also a Wattle Bark factory at Njoro. This short

account aims at showing the kind of industrialization

that existed in the early years of colonization. They

were small industries, indeed factories, bent on

exploiting natural resources such as forests and woods,

and also at boosting up the farmers by milling or

processing their grains or cereals - wheat and maize

being the main ones. The tiaAber mills were boosted

up by the increasing number of building constructions

that went on in Nakuru and Naivasha for both Government

and the settlers. The townships, Nakuru, Naivasha,

Gilgil, and Njoro were also being constructed and

timber was therefore in high demand. Maize mills

were also the natural requirements as the settlers

needed a lot of flour to feed their labourers as

required by law. Wheat flour mill was mainly boosted / up by the demands of war in order to feed the army.

The other factories that followed were flax and sisal

factories at Naivasha, Gilgil and Njoro. Timber mills

were owned mainly by Europeans with only a few being

in the hands of Indians. This was also the case with maize mills. But wheat mills, flax and sisal factories were all in the ownership of Europeans.

With the advice of Australian dairy experts a creameries factory was erected at Naivasha on the

Morendart River, situated about five miles from the

township. It was opened in May, 1926. The Creamery 256

was to process farmers* milk and manufacture butter for export# Most of the butter and ghee, cheese and bacon was previously manufactured by individual farmers and was consumed locally# Once again this factory aimed at boosting up the settler profit and reducing the costs. Another privately owned creamery, the South

Kinangop Dairy, which had been started earlier served the same purpose and its ownership was later assumed by the Kenya Creamery Cooperative#

The National Bank of India had opened in March

1911 and was later on followed by the Barclays Bank

D#C#0. and the Standard Bank of South Africa# These mainly catered for the settlers but they later on helped Indian traders#

On the part of commerce and trade the Europeans mainly concentrated in services oriented towards the demands and satisfaction of European settlers and officials in the districts. They concentrated on hotels, bakeries, butcheries and groceries located close to the railway stations, and post offices#

'They were therefore located near European meeting places at Naivasha, Gilgil, Nakuru, Njoro, Molo, and Rongai. a s seen from Table IV and VI, European population in Naivasha and Nakuru remained low and thus required only few supply centres. Postal services were run by the government with a Post Master at

Nakuru and sub-post masters at Naivasha and Njoro# - 257

Other areas had postal services rendered by the railway

masters and in some cases, for example Milton Siding,

the services were rendered by private individuals at

a profit* The Kenya Farmers Association (Ltd),

operated on cooperative basis, handled roost of other

farmers* products and in turn supplied the farmer

with implements and other farm requirements. In

short, trade was very much meant to serve a small

European population, especially the settlers.

Asians predominated in trade. Right from the

beginning, after they had finished building the

railway, the Asians began to operate small family

shops where they traded with the Africans. In

Naivasha they purchased maize, beans and potatoes

from the African squatters and in return sold them

sugar, rice, wheat flour, cheap clothing hardware,

blankets, tobacco, cigarettes, salt, beads, meat,

and calico sheats from India. The volume of trade

in these items consumed by Africans can be viewed

in Tables X and XI for years 1916 to 1920. Trade

and life for them was very difficult as the settlers

and the administration took long before they could allow Asians to trade in permanent buildings. Until

about 1920, most of their trading premises were

temporary and the areas on which they were built

were also leased or allotted on temporary basis.

They concentrated mainly in townships at Naivasha,

Nakuru, Gilgil, Molo, NJoro, Elburgon and Rongai.

The greatest volume of trade went on among - 258 -

Africans especially in livestock and agricultural products. On the eve of colonialism in Kenya the

Masai and Somalis were trading in cattlet sheep and goatst and donkeys, when settlement began in

Naivasha and Nakuru this was the common feature and it continued for a long time throughout the period. After the livestock had been bought from the Masai from the Southern Reserve, the Somalis sold them through auctions operated by Messrs Newland,

Toriton and Company and Messrs Thompson and Company at which good incomes were fetched. Some of the cattle sold and traded was owned by Europeans and the latter felt they should be protected by the

Government against competition from the Somalis.

By 1914-15 the population of Somalis had risen sharply due to the establishment of a livestock department for war purposes under the control of 122 Farrier Sergeant Draper E.A.V.C. The supply of sheep for this department was maintained by Somalis who were given permits to take heifers into the

Masai Reserves which were exchanged for sheep. In

1914-15 between 12,000 and 14,000 sheep were purchased and dispatched to various military camps every month.

Fear of competition between Somalis and

Europeans in this trade led the latter to insist that the former be removed to Rumuruti which was far from

Naivasha and which would make it difficult for Somalis to go on with fchat trade. Meanwhile they were given - 259 » a few plots to rent on Temporary Occupation Licences at Naivasha but away from European claimed areas of the township*

The livestock trade was soon Joined by the ♦ Kikuyu who nearly dominated it in the 1930's* Right from the early years of the century trade between

Kikuyu and Masai seems to have increased greatly.

When the Indians came they joined that trade and by

1912 the District Commissioner for Naivasha reported the Mlarge quantities of maize have been brought from the Kenya Province to Naivasha during the year and bought up the Indian storekeepers here.”* In return the

Kikuyu purchased some cattle, sheep and goats which were later sold in the Kikuyuland. In 1932 most of

such traders who brought into Naivasha agricultural produce had come from Murang'a and Nyeri and some from Kiambu* After disposing of their produce they normally would proceed to Masai reserve to buy livestock for sale back in Kikuyuland. Some professional

Kikuyu traders acted as middlemen between Masai

Reserve and other Kikuyu traders from Kikuyuland.

They would buy livestock from Masai, stock it at

Naivasha and Kijabe and later on at Masai Gorge, from where it would be bought and transported to Kiambu,

Murang'a and Nyeri. In 1933 the District Commissioner reported that ”the Kikuyu (were) gradually surplanting the Somali and the stock (proceeded) without undue delay to its proper destination in the Kikuyu Reserve.” 260

In other areas, espcially in Nakuru, trade was mainly limited to urbhn centres where segregated

European, Asian, and African areas were maintained*

The African shopping quarters were always temporary in construction as their permanent stay in these areas was not contemplated or encouraged* Thus they could be moved from one area to another as the settlers who constituted the urban area councils and boards would deem fit* The traders in such areas purchased their items from the Indian shopkeepers who left them very small profit margin* Most of such traders were experienced men in agricultural produce and livestock trade and had been able to accumulate some capital to make them settle as shopkeepers* As they were not allowed to construct stone buildings, they were permanently harassed by the administration and health inspectors on grounds that their premises were a health hazard* They dealt with foods, sugar, cigarettes, salt, flour, cheap clothing, paraffin and tin-wear utensils* Some had liquor clubs which were the main recreation centres for the African workers* But all of them operated under very difficult conditions and their capital development and accumulation was very slow indeed* Up to the end of colonial era the

Africans in Nakuru District were still at the level 123 of primitive capital accumulation* 261

CONCLUSION

As already noticed, the power of the capitalist class was nearly always the driving force in socio­ economic and political activities throughout the colonial era in Kenya* The policy that reigned supreme was based on one class attempting to subjugate and exploit another class or classes* The

British and European capitalist class had extended its hand into Kenya where it invested its capital with an aim to exploit both land and people* In order to do this it had supported the institution of, and granting of charter to* to Imperial British

East Africa Company (IBEAC)• When this company failed to champion the interests of capital with required speed and momentum, it was taken over by the British

Government at the request and pressure of capitalist interests* The Government served the capital interests with full devotion, while it permanently paid lip service to the notion of the supremacy of African interests*

Prom the time of Sir Charles Eliot, racism was instituted and perpetuated as a cover of the oppressive and exploitative relationship between the European capitalists and African peoples* MPacificationM, the bourgeois term for subjugation and oppression of

Africans, opened way for alienation of African land and destruction of socio-economic, political and - 262 - cultural basis of African societies in Kenya* Thus colonial administration was set up and soon engaged in alienating land and granting it to the settler capitalists* In the same process African industries and boundaries, art and crafts, homes and villages, laws and government, gods and shrines, were all destroyed* African cultivation and grazing fields, forests and rivers were alienated for exploitation by the Europeans* All this alienation, dislocation and destruction was done under the cover of such ethnocentric pretexts as christianizing, civilizing, and protecting fche African "races"* But it all boiled down to racism being used to obscure the evils of capitalist exploitation and oppression*

Most Africans fell victims of this racial obscurantism* They thought they were deprived of land and required to work for the Europeans simply because they were black and African* To make the picture more obscure racial discrimination was extended to cover all spheres of colonial life, church, schools, clubs, hotels, residential houses and areas, bus and railway transport classes, salary structure, among others. Africans were initially forbidden to plant cash crops reserved for European, cultivation, their trading and other economic activities were severely limited and restricted* Yet they, too, were led to believe that discrimination was an end in itself* They therefore failed to see it as a means 263

of alienating them from their land and thus "freeing"

them from means of production and from their socio­ political systems and therefore converting them into

workers or labourers, or potential labourers whose

surplus labour value would be expropriated and

appropriated by the European capitalist settlers

with the backing of political institutions of the

colonial government* Whey they struggled for

independence therefore, they aimed at obtaining

political power with which to destroy what they

conceived as their main enemy. They ended up in

destroying racism as a means of exploitation and

oppression* But the real enemies, exploitation and

oppression, remained under newly instituted mechanisms

which in the final analysis perpetuate the same

enemies. A neo-colonial era of exploitation and

oppression through new systems of mystifications,

such as foreign aid, foreign capital investments,

foreign experts and technical aid, takes over from

the colonial era. 264

FOOT NOTES

CHAPTER THREE la The I BE A Company had surveyed the proposed railway

line under Major Macdonald and the building of

such a line had started in 1894* When the

company negotiated with the British Government

for the take-over of the running of the territory,

the company abandoned the construction which

had to be re-started and completed by the

British Government.

2. Sir Charles Eliot confessed in 1905 that he did

not know why the railway was built for he found

it hard to believe that it was solely to

suppress slave trade, and strategic advantages

were not obvious since no attempt was made to

link it through to the Nile. He concluded that

it was done because of an exaggerated opinion

of the value of Uganda.

(Dilley, M.R., British Policy in Kenya Colony

1st ed* 1937, reprinted at London* Cass, 1966,

p. 16.)

3. Hill, M.F. Permanent Way, ¥ol. I* The Story of

the Kenya and Uganda Railway, (Nairobi 1950)

pt. ii. 4. Wolff, R.D. Britain and Kenya 1870-1930

(Transfrica Pub. 1974) pp. 47-48.

5. Wolff, op. cit. p. 51

6 . Ibid., pp. 51-52. 265

7, Ibid, p, §2*

Sir Winston Churchill had also supported the

idea, "The Government welcomed their entry into

the country", he said on his return from his

visit to East Africa as an Under-Secretary in

1906, It was hoped by the Colonial Office

"that Equatorial Africa might offer a compen­

sating field for the colonising enterprise of

our fellow-subjects in India" to ease the

Transvaal difficulty,

Mandate in British Tropical Africa,* Frank &

Cass 1965, p, 320), Most of the incoming Indians

settled mainly at the coast and at Kisumu,

while some of them acquired building plots in

Nairobi area,

8 , "Lord Delamere had come to Kenya through

Jubaland and Tanaland by camel and porter

caravans

Ross, M.G, Kenya From Within (Frank & Cass

1968) p. 59,

9, Lugard, F,D, The Rise of Our East Africa

Empire (London, 1893) pp, 419-421

10, Quoted from Ross, op, cit, pp, 46-47,

11, East Africa Syndicate composed of "titled

people and financiers," together with such

people like Lord Delamere and Dr. Scott,

played a big role on the negotiations. Note

that they were the first beneficiaries of large

scale land grants in the highlands, \ - 266 - i

X2. Ross,op. cit. p. 4 5 . 13. Leys, N. Kenya (Prank & Cass 1973) p. 117,

Also Hobley, C.w. Kenya, From Chartered Company

to Crown Colony (Prank 7 Cass, 1970) p. 139*

14. Leys, op. cit. p. 116. 15. Quoted from Lugard, The Dual Mandate in British

Tropical Africa, p. 324.

16. Ibid. Europeans were 21.93 of the whole

population, p. 324.

17. Hobley, op. cit. p. 139.

18. Of 954 Europeans in Kenya in 1905, 700 were

South Africans, (Wolff, op. cit., p. 53), while

in 1921, 1878 out of 9651 Europeans were born

in South Africa, (Non-Native Census, K^nya,

1921).

19. Quoted from Ross, op. cit. p. 6 6 .

Pamphlet published by Lord Delamere on the

issue was MThe Grant of Land to the Zionist

Congress and Land Settlement in British East

Africa.” (Harrison & Sons, London, 1903).

20. Quoted from Ward, W.E.F. and White L.W., "East

Africai a century of change 1870—1970, (Africans

Pub. Corporation, N.Y. 1972) p. 104.

21. Lugard, The Dual Mandate, p. 320.

22. Although the highlands were now (1903 onwards)

heavily populated with Africans, they were convenie­ ntly assumed to be non-existent and their land

therefore assumed to be empty. This was aimed 267

at allowing European settlement mainly to save

the face of the government officials and other

influential people who had persistently

championed settler occupation*

23% Ross, op* cit* p* 45*

24* Sward and white, op* cit. p* 97.

25* Ross, op* cit* p* 44*

It was on the bases of these regulations that

one of earliest land grants in Kenya, the 100

square miles for Church of Scotland Mission

at Kibwezi, was made in 1894*

26* Ross, op* cit* p. 47. Note that the term of

ooccupation was increased from 21 to 99 years,

thus rendering such occupation more permanent,

27. Ibid. 28* It was in 1926 that African reserves were generally

proclaimed*

29* Ward and white, op* cit*, p* 98*

30* Ibid.

31. Ibid* 32* Masai Agreements of 1904 and 1911,see below.

33* It should be noted at this Juncture that the

terms "empty* "waste" and Sunoccupied" were

innovated in order to serve the expediency of

the land-hungry Europeans. Most of the so-called

empty, waste or unoccupied land was indeed settled

and intensily cultivated by Africans who had

to be removed at the barrel of the rifle in

order to curve “empty" lands* • 268 -

See also Lugard»s description of the Kikuyu

land later on said to be '’empty*' and "unoccupied",

refereed to below#

3 4 # Ward and white, op# cit#

35# See below* The power of British capitalist class had it

waves felt in Kenya by every African peoples

ever since.

36# Quoted from Ross, op# cit# p# 52#

37# Ward and White, op# cit# p# 100#

Ross, op# cit#, p# 54#

38# Quoted from Ross, Ibid#

39# Op# cit# p# 51# 40# V# Harlow (et.al) ed*, History of Bast Africa,

(Oxford, 1965) p, 211#

41# Leys, op# cit# p# 117#

42, Ibid. A, Seidman, Comparative Development Strategies

in East Africa, (EAPH, 1972) p. 14.

43, This was manly pressed by Lord Delamere, himself

a wealthy member of British Aristocracy#

Quoted from Ross, op# cit# p# 63#

44, A Land Notice in the Official Gazette of

August 1, 1902| referred to in Ross, op# cit,

p# 63# 45# The 484,000 acres granted directly by the

Foreign Office, to the Syndicate, Delamere,

Chamberlain, Flemmer and others, were not - 269 -

recorded or registered in Kenya in 1903, the

year of the grant*

46. Lugard referred to approximately 5,204,830

acres as having been alienated by 1911, about

4,550,065 acres being under lease and 654,765

being freehold. Apart from Lord Delamere*s

1 0 0 .0 0 0 acres grant, there were other three

grants of 64,000 acres or 100 square miles

each, also supposedly made by the Foreign

Office in London. (Dual Mandate, p. 329).

If his estimation was right, as it most

probably was, then there must have been a

lot of alienated land that was not registered

with the government’s department of Lands.

47. Total registered alienated land at the close

of the colonial period in Kenya was about

14.000 square miles or about 8,960,000 acres.

About 25,000 square miles or 16,000,000 acres

were earmarked as potential land for alienation.

(Kenya* Annual Report, 1954).

48. The Carter Commission, Report of the Kenya

Land Commission, 1934, Cmd* 4556, (Printed in

Kenya, 1934), p. 54 section 163.

49. Quoted from Ross, op. cit., p. 41.

50. Ibid.

51. Op. cit., p. 43.

52. See above.

53. Ibid. - 270 -

54, This was the one time that the government openly

accepted that land in Kenya had been owned by

Africans prior to alienation#

55# Memorandum presented to the Parliamentary

Commission in November 1924, by the Kikuyu

(Native) Association. Quoted front Ross, &p.

clt», p# 56# ( 2 The same thing happended to the Kasai land,

Ndorcbo land, Kamba land, and many other African

land in Kenya#

56. Ibid.

57. Leys, op. cit., p. 83.

I \ 58. Up to 19?4, the 500 square miles estate of East I V Africa Syndicate was more thinly populated by v \ S both men and livestock than when the Majfaileft I it in 1904. Leys, op. cit., p. 116. i

59. Leys considers that financiers and other:capitalists succeeded because of "ill organised public

opinion"• But that seems to side-step the

real issue. The point was that the British

class struggle had been sabbotaged by the

bourgeoisie and Liberal-bourgeoisie and thus

rendered the proletariat there completely I V incapable of holding that capitalist class

from extending its exploitation and wanton

oppression to other peoples, including the

Masai of Kenya. Op. cit., p. 116. Note that

the remaining patches of the Masai in the Rift - 271

Valley were later to be removed to Narok and

Trans-Mara Districts in order to make room

for more European settlements* See below*

60* Quoted from Leys, op* cit*f p* 117*

61* See Land Commission, Appendix VIII for a full

text of Masai Agreements, 1904 and 1911*

62* Leys, op* cit* p* 118*

63* Op* cit* Quoted from p* 119* 64, According to the agreement a half-a-mile road,

including access to water, was to be set aside

to allow the Masai to keep communications

between the two reserved areas* This was not

done and the Masai therefore moved their cattle,

through the European farms* The Europeans

viewed this as trespass and they also complained

that Masai cattle dropped ticks as they moved

across* The idea of the road was unilaterally

withdrawn by the government, again to protect

and perpetuate European settler interests*

65* Blue Book! Quoted from Leys, op* cit*, p* 119*

6 6 * Ibid*

67* Kenya Land Commission, p* 188*

Leys, op* cit*, p* 159*

6 8 . Kenya Land Commission, p* 188*

69. Ward and white, op. cit*, p* 108. They estimated

2 0 0 ,0 0 0 cattle

70* Ibid.

71* Leys, op* cit* 272

72* Ward and White, op. cit. 9 p. 108.

73. Leys, op. cit., quoted from pp. 124-125.

74. Ibid. 75. F. Jackson, Early Days in East Africa, (Dawsons

of Paul & Maul, 1969) p. 330.

76. Ibid. 77. Kenya Land Commission, p. 247.

78. Op. cit., pp. 248-249.

79. Annual Reports, Naivasha and Nakuru Districts,

1934.

80. Annual Report, Nakuru District, 1938.

81. Ibid.

82. Kdnya Land Commission, p. 250.

83. Harlow (et.al.) op. cit. p. 6 8 6 .

84. Ibid. 85. Op. cit.. p. 687.

8 6 . Kenya Land Commission. Apart from minor modifications, the boundaries

were the ones proposed by a 1928 sub—committee

of the Kenya Executive Council. That committee \ had included Mr. G.V. Maxwell and Mr. C. Harvey,

Chief Native Commissioner and settler representative

respectively. Haelow (et.al.) p. 6 8 8 .

87. Ross, op. cit., p. 53. Note that these were not prices paid to African

owners of the land; they were paid to the

government which had assumed ownership under

Land Regulations of 1897 and Crown Lands 1 Ordinance of 1902. 273

8 8 * Department of Land* Report, J.927*

89. Ross, op* cit*, p* 63*

90* Ibid*

91* This argument became the basis of colonial

socio-economic policy and also of post­

independence government policy. In this

view,he was supported by Sir Charles Eliot

and Sir Donald Stewart*

92* The question of Indians has been discussed

above*

93. This is also said to have been urged by

settlers.

94. Sur Tax for large scale unused land was proposed,

although it was never adopted by the Colonial

. Office* 95. Definitely they were not representative of all

other European interests; not even with the

Legislative Council itself* If they represented

the farmers at all, they represented about 13%

of the European population in 1911* But they

did not represent all the settlers and in fact

most of its activities did not interest settlers*

Ross, op* cit*, p* 173* See also Tables III

and IV*

96* Ross, op* cit* 97* Under the same pressure, the Uasin Gishu Plateau

was open for European settlement; Mua Hills

became Crown Land ready for alienation after

l 274 -

the Kamba people were removed; and the Masai \ii were moved to make room for European settlement

in Laikipia*

98* This was indicative of direct and unconditional

surrender to the settler influence, much more

so because Nakuru was the heart of settler power*

99* Ward and white, op* cit*, p* 106.

100* Ross* op. cit., p. 76*

101* Op* cit*, p* 106*

102. E.A. Brett, Colonialism and Underdevelopment

in East Africa 1919-39, (Heinemann, 1973)

p* 177* Leys op. cit*, pi 160.

103* Op* cit*, p* 161*

104. Op. cit., p* 160

105. This also appears to be the case after independence

in Kenya.

106. The main training school was Egerton College,

Njoro, but others were opened later on at

Eldoret, Baringo, and Thompson’s Falls*

107. Right from 1903 the government and the settlers

had realised the need to reduce the size of

land held by Africans as a means of raising

enough or sufficient labour. Some officials

like Sir Charles Eliot, suggested creation of

African Labour Enclaves within the European

settled areas in order to constitute cheap v and easily available labour.

Lugard, The Dual Mandate, p. 325.

108* Ward and White, op. cit*, p. Ill* 275

109* A. Clayton and D.C. Savage, Government and

Labour in Kenya (Prank & Cass, 1974) p. 32*

110* Some of them were also escaping from being

recruited into carrier corps during the War

in the early part of 1918,

111. This could have been affected by Ainsworth*s

Circulars of 1919, but the effect was not

: fully realized until 1923,

112* R.M.A. Zwanenberg, Colonial Capitalism and

Labour in Kenya, 1919-1939, (EAPH, 1975)

pp. 93-94,

113. This was not enforced until 1921.

114. See above,

115. Annual Report, Naivasha District, 1923.

116. See Ros8,op.clt..for detailed extrcts of AineworthSs Circulars. 117. For an example of a Temporary Occupation

Licence, see appendex.

118. KAU and KCA were not very active in Nakuru, at

least not openly. They mainly operated secretly

and later on under the cover of Independent

Church and Schools which KAU in fact operated.

119. They boosted up the steel and cotton industry

and hence profits of the capitalist owners,

Brett, op. cit., pp, 129-130.

120. For the number of men, women and children recorded

as having been employed in European Agricultural

and Settled areas see Tables XIV and XV in the

appendix. It will be noticed that the number 276

of women and children exployed either on

monthly or daily casual basis increased

steadily from 1936* This was the time when

pyrethrum industry was on the increase and

European farmers encouraged presence of full

families on their farms. The purpose of this

encouragement was to be able to exploit the

man on normal farm work, while women and

children were employed (exploited) in pyrethrum

picking. Women and children were also employed

in tea and coffee picking, maize planting and

harvesting, and in general weeding. Agricultural

industry therefore exploited the entire family

directly.

121. Annual Report, Naivasha, 1912-13.

Very little is written on trade, commerce and

industry in Nakuru District. As such most of

this section will be based on data obtained

from various reports by district commissioners

for Naivasha and Nakuru Districts, 1909-33

and 1909-39 respectively.

122. Farrier Sergeant Draper East African Veterinary Consultants.

123. ./e have referred to them as ‘’primitive capitalists" in Chapter I. - 277

CHAPTER IV

SOCIO-ECONOMIC INEQUALITIES AND TRANSFER

OF .vHITE HIGHLANDS TO AFRICANS*

The case of Nakuru District.

FROM COLONIALISM TO NEO-COLONIALISKt

!■ ■■ \ * Dualism has been adopted as the basis of

/ economic and social development in Kenya since the

inception of colonial period. The main characteristics

of this principle are development of capitalist

exploiting export enclave on the one hand and capitalist

exploited enclave on the other. The export enclave

is characterized by the production of a few raw

materials for export and processing in the factories

of the developed countries.^ Some of this processing

could be done by representatives of metropolitan

manufacturing based in the colonial country. In

Kenya, as it has been noticed, the prime factor in

development of this European settler enclave was

availability of good and very fertile land and climate.

It was that land that attracted foreign, especially t British capital into Kenya in its bid to make profit

and accumulate and expand.

The exploited enclave in Kenya includes the

African reserves where the majority of the population

lived and worked in the traditional agrarian and 2 largely subsistence economy. Its main contribution

on the export enclave was a flow of cheap, unskilled 278

migrant labour. It also, through tax, contributed

to the revenue of the country which was utilized in

infrastructural development in the export enclave.

This development further promoted the development

of capital exploitation of land and people in the

c o u n try .3

In both sectors of the dual economy, the main

characteristic is that they are both parts of the

same capitalist system. Thus one part is the exploiting

and oppressing sector. This, as it has been seen

in the previous chapter, was the situation in the

colonial days. It also became the situation in the

post-independence, Kenya. The adoption of dualism by

the independent Kenya government in pursuing her land policies becomes the theme of the first part of this

chapter. The second part of the chapter looks at

how such policies were systematically developed in order to suit the needs of the capitalist exploiting

sector at the expense of the peasant and squatter and

labour supplying sector.

In the aspect of land and business the terminologies

"large scale" and "small scale" will be assumed to be part of the dualism which aims at obscuring the existence of exploitation in the Kenyan socio-economic system.

As such these terminologies will be understood to imply existence of a capitalist exploiting sector on the one hand and an exploited sector composed of peasant,

squatters, workers and landless-unemployed classes on - 279 - the other. This also becomes important in order to understand how obscuratism becomes part of dualism with an aim of diverting the otherwise would be class struggle.

In order to understand how the African enclave came to be the exploited sector a few observations need be noted. One of these is the new social and economic relationship that was introduced by the needs 4 of colonialism. This in the first place meant creation of new power institutions in the persons of the chiefs and their aides, especially the court elders. These were mainly appointed to replace the traditional African authority system which was usually not compatible with the demands of the colonial system especially in respect of subjugation and subsequent exploitation of the African peoples by the colonial government-protected European settlers.

As such the appointees were required to be pliable people who, with the backing of the colonial system, could influence their fellow Africans, sometimes with unprecedented ruthlessness, to bend to the demands of the government. These demands included contribution to government tax, communal compulsory labour for the government and also labour for the

European settlers. Thus both the chiefs and the court elders were vested with wide administrative, legislative and judicial powers within the African reserves. They were later to be Joined by African A 280

District Councillors, headmen, and labour assistant inspectors* All these people were in the first place able to earn a salary which they normally used to purchase land and other property, especially livestock*

In addition, they were able to exercise the powers vested in them, together with involving themselves in corruption and general harassment, in order to appropriate land and property from their fellow

Africans# Although they were reluctant at first, these new power holders later on accepted to send their children to school which would prepare them for salaried Jobs and possibly, as the European

Government then imagined,would prepare them to inherit their fathers* chiefly positions* Thus, these new power holders bacame the first African power elites during the colonial era*

The other move to change the traditional socio­ economic system in Kenya was the introduction of the formal western education* This was initially began by missionaries, who were later on given financial and moral support by the government* Initially the chiefs and wealthy Africans were reluctant to send their children to missionary schools* So children o f low background, especially of the poor, were recruited for these schools* They thus became the first educated elite employed for a salary in such jobs as teaching, clerical jobs, and later on became

Assistant labour inspectors* Some of them even became 281 chiefs* It was at this stage that the chiefs in general realized that education, and not power alone, was also a source of prestige and income earning employment* It could also be a basis of acquiring more power* So they sent their children to school*

In this exercise they were joined by some of the traditional wealthy Africans. Initially they aimed at giving their children a new source of prestige.

But later on when the effect of the money economy became more felt, their aim became to get their children a source of salary income which could be used to purchase, or influence in acquisition of, land and livestock*

This new group of an African elite, composed of a mixture of powerful, wealthy and educated people, was the first to become conscious of the harshness of colonial rule and discrimination based on European racism* Thus, Harry Thuku, for instance led the first major protest against colonial rule and exploitation back in 1922, as a result of which Hut and Poll Tax was reduced from Rs Q/» to Rs 6/». This new elite also became the founders of such political organizations as the Kavirondo Taxpayers Welfare Association, the

Kikuyu (Native) Association, Kikuyu Central Association,

Kenya African Union, and to some extent it was the group that partly led the Mau Mau Revolt* As it was the group capable of becoming dangerous to the colonial system, it became the target of systematic indoctrination in the rationalized benefits of the European colonial - 262 -

government and European settler economy as buttressed

by the African enclaves* They were therefore expected

to foster what was called cooperation through a

better appreciation of the efforts made for African

betterment by the colonial government*6 Though they

differed amongst themselves on basis of approach, / this group, in spite of colonial indoctrination,

began to call for restoration of lost land, an end

to racial discrimination, and an end to restrictions

on the African in respect of growing "cash crops"

on the equal basis with European settlers*

The Europeans and the government had come to

realize the mounting pressure from Africans and by

1946 an African Land Development (ALDEV) project was

begun*6 This project was meant to improve agriculture

in African reserves so that land there could become

more productive in order to cope with the African

ex-service men returning from the World War II and

also the squatters being repatriated from European

farms in the Rift Valley as a result of massive 7 mechanization of agricultural industry there. In

1944 an African, Mr. Eliud W. Mathu, was appointed

to represent African interests in the Legislative

Council* In the following years European agricultural and industrial groups held what they called the

Summer Conference, 1948, in which it was resolved to embark on coopting educated Africans into the

European company in what was viewed as a self­ • 283 -

8 preservation precaution by the European Community.

So in 1950 the Kenya National Farmers Union (KNFU) which catered mainly for the interests of the European mixed farming, suggested the formation of a multi­ racial cooperative society for marketing of horticultural 9 products. ) But none of these efforts was capable of preventing an erruption of the Mau Mau Revolt in

1949 and later its spread into the Central Province,

Nakuru, Laikipia and Naivasha Districts of the Rift

Valley Province.10 The original source of the revolt was the claim by Africans, Kikuyu in particular, that they had a. right to the land and a right to use it in the way they thought most beneficial to them, and that they had not been destined to become permanent

“slaves" of the European settlers.11 In other words, they revolted against being alienated from land under the claim that they were merely temporary occupants.

They also objected to restrictions as to what to grow and how, or the kind and the number of livestock 12 they could keep. Having claimed their right to land and property they also protested against being co*verted into wage labourers in European farms to be exploited 13 by European capital.

That revolt scared many European settlers and many of them called for urgent improvements in African reserves in order to calm down the revolt and prevent 14 similar revolts in other African reserves in Kenya. 284

Such improvements were mere urgently needed in the

Central Province where the revolt was mainly concentrated

and where the population had suddenly increased as

a result of repatriation of Kikuyu squatters from the

Rift Valley, the urban areas and from neighbouring

territories, especially Tanganyika. The strategy

for the improvement was included in what came to be known as the Swynnerton Plan of 1954. This plan

suggested consolidation of land ownership in the hands of a few people who would develop into what

the Europeans viewed to be an "African middle class" which would in turn become employers of the bulk of

the population.^5 By so doing an end would be brought

to the long lingering communal ownership of land.

It would create what were expected to become economic

individual landholdings. As this would involve a

new alienation of a big proportion of land owners,

* it was expected that, like after the European land

alienation of the early years in the country, many

Africans would become "free" people with no other means of livelihood except by becoming wage earners.

In this way landlessness was expected to become a

normal phenomenon and people would therefore stop

clatoouring for land, or for more land. A portion

of the emerging landless was expected to become rural

craftsmen and small scale industrialists, dependent

on money incomes which the people they would serve

earned from the emerging '•primitive capitalists." 285 -

According to the European architects of the plan, state power and influence would be mobilized

to create the three classes within the African

society* On the one hand there would emerge the

landed "primitive capitalist" class, and the landless

labourer and craftsmen-trader classes on the other*

Meanwhile the Europeans were going to remain as the

"farming capitalist" class, while the Asians were

fast building into a "commercial capitalist" class*

In this case, class divisions in Kenya were largely

coinciding with racial differences*

Although the Swynnerton Plan never went as far

as creating the three classes within the African

society, (at least not immediately), some success

in that direction was however, realized* A substantial

number of landed "primitive capitalists", for

example, emerged, while the number of landless workers

increased .The traditional system of land tenure was

largely changed and tenancy under "muhoi" system, for

instance, virtually came to an end* The plan was

first experimented within Central Province but it was expected to be replicated in other African

reserves later on*

The theory behind the Swynnerton Plan was that

a landed "primitive capitalist" class would act as

a buffer between the bulk of African exploited population and the capitalist, exploiting and oppressing

European settler class* It was believed that such a

class, as was normal with a peasant class, would 266 become conservative and thus resist any change that would affect their newly consolidated wealth, especially land* This would become much more so as the same class which was composed mainly of chiefs, teachers, councillors, court elders, cooks and government employees, was given the privileges of growing cash crops formerly reserved for Europeans only, such as coffee, tea, pyrethrum, and sisal* They were therefore expected to jealously guard against any change that would affect this privilege.

Land consolidation under the Swynnerton Blan did not however lead to emergence of the three expected classes but rather of four classes* The process of land alienation from the majority of peasants did not take place on the expected scale* As a result land ownership did not become the exclusive preserve of the "primitive capitalist*1 class* A large portion of it remained in the hands of peasants some of who remained free of being hired as labourers* Most of the peasants, however, managed to secure recognition of ownership of only sraally pieces of land ranging 16 from 0*25 to 3 acres* The independent peasants who managed to remain free of being hired out constituted the peasant class, while those owning only small pieces of land and thus requiring to hire themselves out as workers made up the peasant-worker class. As the consolidation came to an end in some areas in Central Province, it became clear that the * 287 - peasant-worker class was being reduced into the lower classes of the landless labourers as more and more of their small pieces of land were bought up by the 17 member^ of the "primitive capitalist" class.

Landlessness was increasingly becoming a big problem.

In 1959 it became clear that Kenya, like other

British African (especially East African) colonies,

would become independent soon. This became more

evident with the abolition of racial harries in 18 land ownership in the highlands. Although the

KNFU had started the campaign of trying to assuage

the attitude of Africans towards the Europeans earlier on, it had now become more important than ever before

to take extra immediate steps to safeguard the interests 19 of its members and of capital in general.

In April 1960, the KNFU dispatched its mission

to London in order to canvass for terms agreeable to 20 them at the First Lancaster House Conference. Their

main demand from the British Government was that it

should shoulder the responsibility of safeguarding

the European farmers it had encouraged to settle

in Kenya. They demanded that if land and other

property was to be appropriated from them in the

interest of redistribution to Africans, they should

be guaranteed of what they called fair and acceptable

prices. In other words they were demanding to be

assured that their land and other property would not

be appropriated by Africans without compensation. They 288

also sought to be guaranteed that European farmers

who wished to remain in country after independence

would be safe in terras of their lives and freedom

of appropriation of their property especially land,

without what they called "fair and acceptable" prices

being paid to them. During the seme mission the

KNFU advised and urged the B ritish Government to

in itiate a crush settlement programme for Africans

in order to soften the latter's clamour for the return 21 of stolen land. They intimated the British

Government that such settlement programme should be

conducted on a lim ited scale and at a gradual rate

in order, as they argued, to allow for an extended

stay of European farmers in Kenya to help maintain

the economy and pretentiously save it from crumbling 22 as a result of a hurried transfer.

The b ig problem became one o f com pensation o f

the European farmers whose land would be taken for

the new settlement programme for Africans or who

would want to sell their land and leave the country.

The core of the problem was who was to meet the cost.

The European leaders in the KNFU mission came out

with a solution which would have guaranteed them of

virtually a ll the demands they had made to the British

Government, They advised and urged the British

Government to give credit to Kenya (without pointing

out whether it would be colonial of post-independent

Kenya) through a body they would set up for the purpose 289 23 of managing such a credit. Through that body

European farmers would be assured of getting what they viewed to be Mfair and acceptable” prices for their land. They body would also manage the settlement programme. As this body would be composed of

"independent” trustees, "separate from the Kenya

Government" but under the direct control of the 24 KNFU, it had to carry out selective and limited settlement and at the same time find a way of making the settled Africans commit themselves to repaying the loans which were to be extended to them from the original British loan.

The other job was to get a way of commiting whatever African Government took over in Kenya to repaying the British loan. This became much more important as the British Government insisted on being assured that any loans given for the purpose of buying

European farms would actually be repaid. It was at this Juncture that the future of Kenya was to be firmly tied in the maze of foreign aid/debt dependence.

It was at the same Juncture that the transformation of Kenya from a colony to a neo-colony was to be decided.

The K.N.F.U. was once again to manouvre the plot of instituting the weapon of the blackmail. Its president, Mr. Peter Marrion, had the president of the World Bank, Mr Eugene Black, as his family friend. On May 13, I960, Mr. Black paid a visit to Kenya apparently at the personal invitation of Mr. Marrion.

In the following year, the British Government had been persuaded to accept to involve the world Bank in land transfers. In March 1961, an Assistant Under

Secretary of State in Colonial Office received one of the men involved in getting a way of bringing the

World Bank into the deal of buying out European farmers through a loan to the Kenya Government. This visitor intimated the under-secretary with the progress of the negotiations. He told him -

HIn my preliminary discussions with Galsworthy

it soon became apparent that in his mind the

negotiations with the World Bank influenced

much of his thinking. He explained that there

was no government in the world which has yet

dared to offend this institution and, therefore,

it is most important that, with independence

on the way, the Bank should be linked with

Kenya’s development. It would constitute a 26 most potent stabilising factor.M

Negotiations were thus conducted by European farmers and under secrecy that ensured complete ignorance on the part of the African nationalists as to what was entailed in the deal.

As the world Bank was only allowed to lend money for development, the British Government included the buying of European farms and settlement programmes 291 as part of Kenya's development programme. With this deal the future African Government in Kenya was indirectly blackmailed into accepting the responsibility of repaying loans which were used to buy out European farmers who had exploited the country for more than 27 half a century. Repayment of such loans would go a long way to satisfying one of the reasons of the presence of British and European capital in Kenya, that is, speculating on land and thus making profits and helping to accumulate capital.

The basis for a neo-colonial exploitation was set and internationalized.

In order to reinforce the intrigue of making the post-independent African Government repay the British and international land purchase-loans, the settlement schemes ware converted into a means of ’’promoting” the colonial-made African elite and ’’primitive capitalists” to become large-scale and medium-scale land owners. The greatest part of the loan was to be used as a land-purchase capital by both the African elite (who joined the high salaried positions formerly held by Europeans) and the ”primitive capitalists”.

The African colonial made elite and ’’primitive capitalists” became petty capitalists or petty bourgeoisie by virtue of foreign international capital upon which they depended in order to appropriate large and medium scale farms and which they utilised to apply capitalist methods of production in order to make profits. 292 l

The rationale of creating or reinforcing the strength of the African petty-bourgeoisie was to make them capable of utilising the former European farms to increase "prifitable" productivity and hence make them capable of repaying the British and international loans to Kenya. This became the foundation of large-scale farm and Low Density settlement programmes which were to be supported by Britain and the World Bank immediately before, and long after, independence in Kenya.

The petty-bourgeoisie, having been created by foreign international capital, especially British, would become the chief worshipers of that capital.

They would turn to protecting its interests in Kenya and also act as a buffer between international capitalists and the Kenyan peasants and workers in the same way as the ’’primitive capitalists” had done during the colonial days. Thus, the preservation of international capitalist interests, Just like the need to create a class capable of repaying the land-purchase international loans to Kenya became the basis of encouragement of large and medium scale farming largely under the private ownership of the pefety-bourgeoisie.

It therefore happened that European capitalism was going to dictate the terms of independence and future development in Kenya. But things were not made as clear as that to African nationalists. In 293 -

I960, both KANU and Ka d u parties had backed the

European operated settlement programmes. By this

support the Africans had been got in the trap of accepting settlement schemes based on prior purchase of the European held farms with a loan from Britain or other sources which would be repayable by the

Africans settled on such schemes. In the meantime the African nationalists tried to postpone any agreements about land until after independence had 28 been attained. Thus, for example, the Lodwar

Group of the Lowdar Conference of 23rd March, 1961, to try and unify KANU and KADU issued their policy statement on several issues. This group which was composed of Jomo Kenyatta, B.M. Kaggia, P. Ngei and

Peter Kigondu and the statement on land m a s -s

•'The land in Kenya is the property of the

Africans and therefore the future land pftlicy

must be decided upon by the future African 29 sovereign government."

This approach was much more emphasized by KANU. But they had failed to realise that by supporting the settlement programmes as laid down by the European settlers and their government agents, the African nationalists were not only accepting to repaying international loans utilised to satisfy capitalist interests but they were also accepting the future land policy a n initiated and planned by the agents of international capital. 294

No mention was made to the effect that the

British Government had alienated land in Kenya from

Africans without any compensation at all* Nor was it recalled that it had sold that land to European settlers, and had utilized that money to develop the infrastructure in European scheduled areas in order that these settlers may maximize exploitation of Kenya's land and its peoples* Indeed most KADU and KANU leaders could not see the entire deal as a capitalist manouvre aimed at safeguarding capitalist interests in Kenya at the expense of the greatest bulk of the Kenyan peoples* This group of African representatives at the two Lancaster House Conferences were, as we have seen,attitudinally part end parcel of exploiting capitalist system. This was crucial in order to attain their quick appreciation and identification with the new approach of capitalist exploitation which tended to incorporate them as partners of neo-colonialism.

By the beginning of the second Lancaster House

Conference both KADU and KANU leaders had been persuaded to accept the principle of security of land titles ( and compensation for any take overs* As Wasserman put it, KANU's position in particular had shifted close to that of the European farmers in a sense that they agreed that any compensation for the Europeans 30 was the responsibility of the British Government*

What KANU again did not realize was that the compensation 295 referred to only meant Immediate cash payment to the farmers by the British Government provided the new

Kenya Government was going to accept, willingly or unwillingly, to treat that money as a loan given to the purchasers through it* It was therefore expected to repay it back to the British Government.

Initially this issue was not as clear as that* But even if It was, the KANU and KADU leaders had gone weary of talks about independence which the British

Government belatedly kept holding back mainly because of the issue of security of European farms in Kenya*

KANU therefore gave way. In its policy statement on land prior to the Conference it promised ’'maximum security", regardless of race, to those who developed their land, tnat security of title should be enshrined in the Constitution, and that settlement schemes should be aimed at the landless while increasing overall agricultural production* KANU also feared that failure to compromise on this issue might lead to a KADU government in Kenya* It was then believed, and this became true later on, that whichever party first got the reigns of an independent government was going to eliminate the others with all force within its reach* Thus KANU had also to compromise on adopting Regionalism in order that KADU may open the way for it to form the independent government* KANU therefore sought independence at all costs. In its manifesto of 1963, it was unequivocally stated that - - 296 -

"KANU will recognise and respect rights 31 in private property."

And two months before independence in the same year,

the Acting President Joseph Murumbi speaking at

the Royal Show reassured the European farmers when he declared* -

"The hard working and skilled large-scale mixed

farmer is one of Kenya's greatest economic

assets, and it is my belief that this will 32 always be so#"

The new independent Government had therefore

adopted the principle of private property and also

the principle of large-scale capitalist farming as 33 a basis of Kenya's economic set-up# This implied

that they had accepted to safeguard a capitalist socio­ economic structure and, as a corrolary, they also

accepted capitalist exploitation and oppression of

the Kenyan peoples and their land, KANU Government

therefore identified itself fully with the ideals of capitalism, locally or internationally based. As

a result of this commitment it became possible in

1964 to pass a bill in parliament to the effect that -

"all estates, interests and rights in or over

land previously granted, created or recognized

had been validly created, granted or recognized#

Also that any claim to land made under the Land - 297 -

Titles Act should be deemed to have 34 continued unabated •••••«•" - 298 -

SELECTIVE AND LIMITED SETTLEMENT SCHEMES IN THE

______HIGHLANDS?______

After the First Lancaster House Conference, the settlement programme which was so far very limited in scale became formalised* In May, I960 the Land and Settlement Board of the Ministry of Agriculture undertook to step up the settlement schemes as advised by the KNFU*^* Some of the European settlers were encourage to subdivide parts of their farms and allocate them to their African employees, particularly the squatters* Under the initial programme,settlement would involve land plots ranging from 30 to 100 acres. Most of them were to be allocated to members of other ethnic groups except the Kikuyu* They were especially allocated to the Kalenjin members who, it was expected, would assist the Europeans in preventing a mass take over of the highlands by the Kikuyu amongst who landlessness and poverty was very high at that time*

In 1961 the programme was considered toot to be effective enough in lowering the clamour for the return of the stolen land* A new scheme had therefore to be tried. This was to involve smaller land plots and would accommodate a greater number of

Africans than the previous ones. A higher density

settlement board was formed and it comprised largely 299

of settlers and colonial government officials all of who would manage and run the new scheme as a part-time occupation.3® By the end of the Second

Lancaster House Conference this scheme was also found to be too slow in settling as large number of Africans as possible. This was mainly because it also concentrated on low density settlement which would not cater for mass settlement as the independence fever called for* A new scheme therefore became 37 necessary. This came to be known as the "Million

Acre Settlement Scheme" and was to be administered by the Central Land Board which, like the previous boards, was to be composed of European settlers and colonial government officials who would run it on 38 part-time basis. This scheme began in 1962.

In 1962 settlement schemes became more clearly patterned with the involvement of the British

Commonwealth (Colonial) Development Corporation,

West Germany Government and the World Bank. Three types of settlement were planned.

(a) Assisted Owner Scheme for experienced farmers

with substantial capital; each holding to be

sufficiently large to provide the settler and

his family with subsistence, the means of

meeting his financial obligations and a

minimum annual net income of £250. This

was a large-scale farmers scheme. 300

(b) Small-holder Settlement Scheme for experienced

farmers with some capital) each holding to

provide for subsistence, financial obligations

and a minimum annual net income of £100 (the

target under the Swynnerton Plan in the non-

scheduled areas)* This was Low Density Scheme*

(c) Small-holder Settlement Scheme for Africans with

limited capital and agricultural knowledge; to

provide subsistence plus a minimum annual net

income of £25-40. This was High Density Scheme.

Under all these schemes the settlers would be required to pay 10 per cent of the price of the land and the remainder would be paid through long-term loans* This requirement was not clearly put to the

Africans who took plots in the schemes, particularly those in the High Density Scheme. The money they were asked to pay was said to be the cost of surveying 39 and subdividing the farms into smaller plots*

Meanwhile about 1,000 Africans .vould be allocated land under the Assisted Owner Scheme, 6,000 under the

Small-holder experienced settlement scheme, and about

12,000 under the Small-holder Settlement Scheme for

Africans with limited capital and agricultural knowledge*

By the end of 1961 only about one dozen Africans had been settled under Assisted Ownership, and about 40 150 under Small-holder schemes. with the fresh aoi

impetus put on the settlement programme in 1962, the World Bank and the British Commonwealth (Colonial)

Development Corporation were to finance the stepping up of the Assisted Owner Scheme for experienced farmers and the Small-holder Settlement Scheme for experienced farmers. The West Germany Government undertook the promotion of the Small-holder Settlement

Scheme for Africans who were poor and inexperienced in farming. This scheme was incorporated in the

•'Million Acre Settlement Scheme" which had just been started by the British Government, In all cases therefore the scheme had been internationalised with an aim of making the future independent Kenya

Government accept to repaying the loans from various

"donors'* particularly the British Government, In all these cases the Land Bank and the Agricultural

Finance Corporation (MC) would handle the purchasing of European farms on behalf of the Kenya Government, while the latter would meet administrative costs of ^ 41 the programme.

As it can be observed from the settlement programme as seen above, the central concern of the international finance capital agencies was to perpetuate the capitalist socio-economic structure 9 which had prevailed in Kenya during the colonial days. Only about 1,000 Africans would be wholly incorporated in the capitalist large-scale farm 302

ownership and farming which was formerly monopolised by Europeans only* About 6,000 people would become \ part of the African “primitive capitalists'* as planned under Swynnerton in 1954. Under these two schemes the very same ciafes of colonial made

"primitive capitalists" together with the colonial made African elite who had now come to join the high salaried positions in the government would become capitalists without capital* They became petty-bourgeoisie* Meanwhile the greatest bulk of the people to be settled in the highlands under the programme would become part of what we have called peasant class which Swynnerton Plan had aimed at 42 getting rid of* 303

Many of the schemes were concentrated in selected ares of the highlands. See Table I. As the IBRD mission reported only part of the former

•'white highlands" was contemplated to be subject to the scheme. The mission reported -

The area chosen is contiguous with non-scheduled

areas and is largely devoted to mixed farming.

The areas around Kitale and Nakuru have been

excluded, at least for the first five yearsv

with the aim that they would continue to

produce grain and daily products necessary

to feed the non-farming population* In these

excluded areas it is contemplated that suitable

Africans, and also Europeans from the settlement

areas, would have tne opportunity to borrow

from tho Land Bank to buy farms from European 43 farmers who may decide to sell*

Some of the bought out European farmers in Nyandarua

District shifted to Nakuru and other districts where they purchased new land* Sometimes they sold their land at high prices for allocation to Africans on loan, and after depositing a large part of the income in their banks abroad, they used part of it together vtith a subsidizing loan from the Land Bank to purchase 44 the new land at much lower prices* By 1963 only

39% of approved loan applications were from Africans, the other 61% being mainly European and a few Asian 304 Nandi Valley Western Salient Lisj1st Region Central Rift ionate Region Compass­ 2ndLis; ionate Compass Region Nyanza Region Eastern Region Tenme aoe h ucaepiefrec eradfrttl 1961/5totals indicateseach yearand price above thefor for purchase ♦Thenumber Total

ORE KNA ETA LN BAD.NUL EOT 1963/64 REPORT .ANNUAL BOARD LAND CENTRAL KENYA t SOURCE i — TABLE I : STATISTICS OF LAND PURCHASE PROGRAMME * : PURCHASE PROGRAMME LAND OF STATISTICS I TABLE FarmsAcres 62 13 29 15 4 PURCHASED LAND 1 182669£1027047 1961/62 28962 23266 99010 12054 19377 — 380345 216613 241051 114038 75000 (l0) ( (4) (13) <2.3 — £ 0 1 ) am Acres Farms 213 — 57 89 25 11 23 LANDPURCHASED 8 291731£2720571 127672 41757 44903 43679 1962/63 14180 19540 — 1407220 498843 281236 291141 179400 62731 (11) ( 3) (l 1) (13) (7) ( ?) — £

am Acres Farms 417 103 187 49 19 23 23 13 LANDPURCHASED 406821 £4570588 406821 149351 84846 31534 33505 14701 1963/64 32529 60355 2051530 160063 886991 397979 264924 616509 192592 (10.6) (10.4) (13.1) (6.1) ( 8) ( (12) £ 0 1 )

217 113 am Ars £ Acres Farms — 47 33 21 (Purchasene- under 3 gotiation-f ig.pro-v 306261 144193 51416 71066 28267 11319 — 1964/65 £3082000 1461320 514160 710660 282670 113190 (lO.l! e g a r e v a do) (11) (10) do) —

909 418 103 134 i.) am Acres Farms 57 39 19 71 68 pie inprice £s 1187482 £11400206 450178 162398 196444 147977 44903 84846 86035 14701 oas 1961/5Totals 5300415 1849456 1145225 , e r c a r e p 160063 886991 498843 585126 974087 (10.6) (u.o) (11.8) (11.3) ( 9.4) (10.4) (3.6) (8.0) £

305

45 approved applications. Among the Africans who

bought land in Nakuru in 1963, only very few had

capital to buy an ’’economic unit”. 8 Most of the

purchasing was therefore done by Europeans who wanted

to farm or to continue farming in Kenya. Others 47 wanted to hold it for speculative reasons.

Another land transfer project that was also

largely negotiated by the KNKU was the compassionate

Scheme which began to operate in 1962*48 Under the

scheme the Europeans who wanted to seil their land

and leave the country on "humanitarian or security

reasons” could sell it to, or through, the Agricultural

Development Corporation (ADC) which would act as an

agent between the outgoing Europeans and the buying

African farmers. Sometimes the ADC merely purchased

the land and held it until what it called suitable

Africans were available to buy and take it over.

Most of land under this scheme was acquired by

individuals rather than settlement schemes which would lead to subdivision. Table I shows that in

the year 1962/63, 57 farms including some 44,903

acres were purchased for £498,843 under phase I,

while in the following year 103 farms making up

84,846 acres were bought for £886,991 in phase II, of the scheme.

As it can be seen from Table II and Table III, 306

TABLE lit Progress of Land Re-settlement, 1963/64 -

______1966/67______

Year Schemes Acres Plot Settled

Up to 1963 29 178,198 5,200

1963/64 36 426,125 10,482

1964/65 24 231,648 ‘ 8,235

1965/66 18 186,811 4,343

1966/67 9 61,526 1,071

1967/68 7 40,883 1,750

Total 123 1125,191 31,081

High Density Schemes 26,872

Low Density Schemes 4,817

The figures included refer only to holdings allocated to individuals after the sub-division of the former

European owned farms. The few co-operatives which are part of the land re-settlement programme are not included. All the figures are for the year ending 30th June.

SOURCES REPUBLIC OF KENYA* Five-year Review and

Annual Report 1967/68, p. 32. TABLE III LAND RE-SETTLEMENT

Area Planned and P lo ts A llo c a te d , 1963 - 1972 ♦

1963-69 1969 / 70 1970 / 71 1971 / 72 Total to Date Province and No. of Plots No. of Plots No. of Plots No. of Plots No. of Plots Type o f Scheme hectares alio- hectares alio- hectares alio- hectares alio- hectares allo- planned cated planned cated planned cated planned cated planned cated

EASTERN High Density 13346 769 13345 770 Low D e n sity T o ta l 13345 '769 13345 770

CENTRAL High Density 153312 13297 12 2 4 153312 13315 Low D e n sity 26655 1414 26655 1414 T o ta l 179967 14711 12 "2 '4 179967 14729

R ift Valley High Density 95675 5280 7863 699 172 234 103538 6385 Low Density 19656 1129 _ 19656 1129 T o ta l 115331 6409 7863 699 172 234 123194 7514

NYANZA High Density 18733 1760 3 6 5 18733 1774 Low Density 17695 1933 1 4 17695 1938 T o ta l 36428 3693 "3 7 9 36428 3712

WESTERN High Density 67716 6922 6 7 67716 6947 Low Density 8542 503 8542 505 T o ta l 76258 7427 ‘6 '7 76258 7452

TOTAL 421329 33009 7863 729 188 255 429192 34177

♦The figures included refer only "to holdings allocated to individuals after the sub—divisions of*J t ‘the . . w former European owned farms.The______r m ______system______of*. r » sub—division 1 — ______J- 1 these — „ 1 M ura c t — __a.a______.— -y r»rr -i n r>p>r) "hv the Hhi S. ___ in cti.cai ta d — 308 serious land settlement on a ’’massive” scale in

Kenya was virtually terminated in 1965/66 when about

28,260 plots, though not necessarily families, had been settled on about 1,022,782 acres. Although

Kenyatta had announced in August 1964 that a new

’•Two Million Acre” scheme would be started to settle another 200,000 families on 10-15 acre plots, the

Development Plan 1966/70 ignored that statement and asserted that the declared objectives of settlement been largely attained and it provided 49 no more settlement programmes* Before the

Development Plan came out, a new and cheapter scheme, the Squatter Settlement Programme, was introduced in 1965* This scheme was expected to cater for about 46,000 registered squatters, of 50 whom 12,000 were urban squatters* They would be settled on much smaller plots just enough to give them some means of livelihood or subsistence*

The project was to be much cheaper to organize

as no money would be spent on buying land* They would be settled on donated land, mismanaged and

acquired farms, and on land from forest excisions*

By 1967/68 some 13,000 squatters had been settled on 147,000 acres of land* In 1970/71 some 18,000

squatters were settled in various parts of the country*

While the squatter scheme went on, other schemes

similar to it, the Harambee and Haraka were initiated 309

52 in 1968* These were supposed to be smaller low density schemes to operate for three years and

settling a few Africans on 15 hectares plot each*

The schemes would involve 20,000 acres per year and

the estimated income per family was $40-75 p,a.

But these were also abandoned and replaced with cooperatives in which members were supposed to

farm their plots and market their products coopera­

tively, They were initially expected to farm

cooperatively in order to maximize on the economy of scale; but this approach failed* By 1970 some

4,429 families were settled on 16 cooperative farms 53 and ranches comprising 76,156 hectares. The

d ' - __ i , failure of cooperative farming having been noted,

the Ministry of Lands and Settlement in 1971 changed the policy of sub-dividing large-scale farms* They instead opted for what they called 54 Shirika Scheme* Under this programme, entire

farms including livestock, loose assets and standing crops were taken over as intact running concerns*

These were then run and managed by qualified farm managers supplied by the Settlement Fund Trustees on a commercial basis on behalf of the shirika members. Each member was allocated about one hectare, or 2*5 acres, for his homestead and

subsistence requirements and also worked on the rest of the farm for a regular wage* By thus avoiding sub-division of the large farm units, it I I 310 ORE SABTCLASRC, EY, 95 p 104 p* 1975, KENYA, ABSTRACT, STATBSTICAL SOURCE: settlers of number final Estimated (Hectares) Area farms of Number Number of Number Settlers to—Date Settlers Cost (K£) Cost TABLE IV* TABLE Acrigt hspormeetr am (nldn l ast) r taken are assets)all (including farms entire programme this to •According over wholly and managed by qualified personnel supplied by the Settlement the by supplied personnel qualified by managed and wholly over Fund Trustees, on behalf of the Shirika members* Shirika the of behalf on Trustees, Fund Land Purchased under Shirika Programme Programme Shirika under t 1971-1975* Purchased Land LAND RE-SETTLEMENT LAND 1,083,793 22,029 2,244 2,244 1971/72 16: 1,032,627 21,945 3,161 2,044 1972/73 22 1,570,628 30,471 2,859 1973/74 233 25 606,450 1974/75 5,056 7,843 400 13 5,271,067 10,000 93,081 1975 May, to Total 9,577 91

was hoped that considerable economies of scale could be realized* By May 1975, as it can be seen in

Table XV, some 9,577 settlers were accommodated on

93,081 hectares on shlrika basis*

In 1965 Stamp Commission visited Kenya and

strongly opposed the way subdivision of land for

settlement schemes had been done* It therefore recommended that in future land should be bought

as whole farms and must be maintained as such, perhaps until the British loans were repaid.^5 As

such subdivision of land was discarded, even though

the Kenya Government had initially rejected the report* Thus the policy of settling people on

subdivided farms was distontinued* Indeed people were * asked to form groups through which they would purchase land; after that they were urged not to

subdivide it and instead they were advised to farm

it cooperatively* Hence there was a proliferation • ■ of mass-companies and cooperatives all aiming at buying land, but not at farming it cooperatively*^ 312

SETTLEMENT AND LAND DISTRIBUTION IN NAKURU DISTRICTS

In Nakuru District, as in many other parts of

the country, land purchasing by groups was fifst largely

done on cooperative basis. This was very much

influenced by Kenya Peoples' Union (KPU), and

B.M. Kaggia in particular, demanding that sale of j c7 land to individual Africans should cease forthwith.

It was also in keeping with the governments declared

policy of not helping those who were incapable of

helping themselves. Thus the government advised

people to form groups to purchase land. The rules

of cooperative groups became hard on the new groups

as they were strictly not allowed to subdivide the

farms under any conditions. But members had never

aimed at contributing money to buy land they could

not subdivide into individual and freehold plots.

So many complaints were launched usually against

the leaders for leading members into purchasing land that could not be subdivided. As the cooperative

Department had also to inspect the running of such

farms, especially their accounts, the members,

particularly the leaders, felt nauseated by constant 58 checks. Confusion occurred in many farms and

farm management was usually of low quality and

therefore productivity went low* To avoid this

control of the Cooperative Department, the new

cooperative groups resorted to building themselves - 313 - into companies which were usually limited Companies*

As suchv control of any type was minimal*

In both types of farm owning and operation, no significant difference is perceivable* (They could even be likened to Shirika squatter settlements discussed above)* Thus* for example* in Jumatatu

Cooperative Society in Subukia, Nakuru, there are

383 members and the Cooperative has managed over a number of years since 1966 to buy about 2*000 acres 59 of land. This has been done from membership share contribution of l*880/« per six shares* the minimum number each member must buy at 300/» per share*

These forms were bought at £51*550* Of this price

£33*600 was partly share contribution and partly some of the profit obtained from farms bought and cultivated first; £12*950 came from a Standard

Bank loan; while £5*000 was a land purchase loan from the Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC)*

Of the 2,000 acres, about 1,050 acres have been allotted to members* Each member gets a total of three acres which could be scattered all around the farm in about two to four plots* Some of such plots are only h acre big and may be located about three miles from the allottee*s house. Of the three acres, \ acre is a building plot and the remaining

2*s acres can be cultivated* One building plot could accommodate as many as four families and all 314 these families expect to live and subsist on the other 2*j acres for food and a greater part of their income* Many males normally go out to look for employment outside the farm, as this farm employs only about 50 people, some of who are not members of the Cooperative*

The rest 950 acres of Jumatatu Farmers

Cooperative Society farm is cultivated on large scale but not cooperatively, as purported in theory*

Nor is the produce got from individual plots sold or marketed cooperatively* Thus the chief aim for grouping into cooperatives or companies is normally to make members buy a farm they would not be able to buy individually* But they have no intention of actually benefiting from the cooperation in terms of Joint farming or Joint marketing* Indeed many of the members constantly insist that the farm should be subdivided immediately* Any area farmed by the cooperative or Company on large-scale basis is nor«ally considered by the members as stolen land being farmed for the immediate interests of the leaders* Some members complain about leaders who rent part of the farm or the buildings the cooperative/ company may have bought with contributions or profits from the farm*

This kind of organization is mainly found in farms bought by the Kikuyu* The organization for the

Cooperatives, Companies or Shirika farms is more or V

• 315 -

less the same* The main exception is that, unlike the Shirika, a cooperative/company can expand on land or assets such as buildings bought out of profits earned from the farm,®0 This is the most preferred approach by the leaders* The main reason is that once a business premises is bought a leader or his friend can rent it at very low rates, sometimes at 1/3 of the market rent value.Again the farms bought are exploited by the leaders before they are put on proper running which can be audited with meaningful conclusions* The other method of escaping being noticed when they appropriate gains from the group is for the leaders to maintain poor records and to try to adjust their accounts to suit their conveniences*^

The 89 members who were randomly interviewed from some of these farms expressed grave dissatisfaction with the fact that they were not allotted with more than 2*5 acres of land* All of them said it was virtually impossible for members to control their leaders and only external influence could save the members from being exploited* 22 of them or 24.7% of members replied that they had some land (ranging from *25 acre to 2 acres) which they sold in order to buy land in the Nakuru District* About 33*7% of the members had shares in more than one cooperative or company and they said that was the only way of 316

obtaining more than 2«5 acres of land distributed*

Again they noted that some cooperatives and companies made their allotment of 2*5 acres sooner than others9

some of which might delay for more than five or ten

years before allotments are made. The majority of them thought they were better off than before

they went to Nakuru especially because they normally had fertile and productive land plots to cultivate.

Nevertheless they expressed great concern for continued shortage of money, particularly to pay

school fees. To many of them the idea of land title was immaterial for the moment. Their main concern 63 was to get a place to live, settle, build a home.

As already pointed out men will usually leave the family at the home in the cooper a tive/compan|r farm and get a Job on monthly or casual basis in order to supplement the product from his plot with some cash income. Some could be doing some petty trade, a few are employed in the area farmed on large-scale basis by the cooperative/company. About 39% were very much like squatters only that they had bought shares in the cooperative/company. About 41% thought they were peasants and they were the owners of the farms, although the title was Jointly owned. The ones who had some education insisted that they were more of subsistence peasants who had also to depend on wage employment when available. The rest, 20% thought they were neither squatters nor peasants. - 3X7 -

They pointed out the they could not compare with any of the two when the normal 2.5 acres of land was expected to be farmed by about three or four families who normally had no other source of revenue.

•• This kind of interview tends to indicate that the members of the cooperatives and companies, and to a great extent those of the shirika squatter

settlement schemes in particular, realize that they actually belong to a class which could be called peasant/squatter/worker class. In all cases, they would avoid being wage workers and they prefer to engage in independent productive activities as peasants, and to a lesser extent as peasant-workers.

The population in this group could be well over 60% of the entire population in Nakuru District alone.

As Table V indicates, the Kikuyu increased by

65.2% between 1962 and 1969 in Nakuru District. These

are mainly in the cooperatives and companies. The

Kipsigis and Nandi are relatively a low number compared to the amount of land the Kalenjin 64 Enterprises Limited appear to possess. It was noted that most of the farms belonging to Kalenjin

Enterprise were farmed on large scale basis and only 65 the farm labourers lived there. As such the members of the company do not normally live in those farms.

Many of them are in their former traditional villages or in towns, especially Nakuru Town. The Luo and the 318 Lain Ethnic Group Ethnic Lain 1962 have been left out in this table for comparative purposes* comparative for table this in out left been have 1962 1969.1962, Censuses Population Kenya SOURCE: •Some areas like Londian and Dundori and Ravine, included as part of Nakuru in Nakuru of part as included Ravine, and Dundori and Londian like areas •Some TABLE Vs POPULATION OF MAIN ETHNIC GROUPS, BY YEAR, AND PERCENTAGE OF PERCENTAGE AND YEAR, BY GROUPS, ETHNIC MAIN OF POPULATION VsTABLE Ndorobo Luo Luhya Nandi European Kipsigis Kikuyu ______INCREASE 1962-1969. NAKURU DISTRICT* NAKURU 1962-1969. INCREASE 102,477 16,178 18,553 20,725] 5,943 5,519 2,470] 1962 ]23,195 169,363 10,636 20,606 *4,154 26,109] 2,102 $,671] 1969 31,780] ______Percentage Percentage nrae &Decrease Increase - 64.4% - +80.0% 27.1% + 26.0% + 35.0% ♦ ♦65.2%

f o

319

Luhya do not normally buy land in Nakuru District.

The majority of them live as labourers in various sisal estates in the district. Others mainly live in Nakuru Town. The great rise in the population of the Ndorobo may have been due to wrong counting in

1962 census or to a return of many of them who lived in exile among other groups even since they were removed by the settler government.The number of Europeans reduced from 5,519 to 2,102, a reduction of 64.4%; and it was growing smaller* This was obviously due to the take over of land by Africans.

The present day estimate of the Kikuyu population in

Nakuru District is 358,000. About 60% of this are the ones in the peasant/squatter/worker classes.

Individual ownership is almost straight-forward from Table VI. Of the 190 individual plots of less than 50 hectares or 125 acres, about 35% are less than 10 hectares or 25 acres, and 60% are less than

12.6 hectares or 50 acres. About 40% therefore are over 50 acres. Those in this category of less than

50 hectares are usually the ones covered in the settlement schemes both low and high Density. In

Nakuru District, except on very rare occasions, these were mixed in the same farms. There were no separate areas for High and for Low Density settlements.

i * The rest of the individual ownership are mainly concentrated in categories of 51 to 400 hectares or 321

125 to lv000 acres. Most of them were below 200 hectares or 500 acres, This was so mainly because many Africans who bought land from Europeans could only buy portions of the original farms* This restriction was caused by capital available and

ability to buy* Most of the civil servants, members of Parliament, Coubty and Municipal Councillors,

and businessmen who have land in Nakuru District, possess below 400 hectares or 1,000 acres* To have land bigger than 1,000 acres requires a mixture of political power position and influence, but not necessarily much capital* This means that a person with power and political influence can manipulate credit giving institutions, sometimes with the help of more powerful/influential persons, and obtain a 67 credit of 100% the price of the farm* This could be raised partly from the Commercial banks, the

AFC, or some other credit Institutions*

This general pattern also applies to the partnerships and normal company farms* What should be noted is that by the end of 1972 there were many partnerships in the categories beyond 100 hectares or 250 acres* But in 1974 most of these, which included the partnership between senior civil servants and senior politicians, especially ministers and assistant ministers, were converted into Limited

Companies. New names were invented or the initials 322

of the partners were combined to make up new names.

Thus, for example, the partnership between Wanjigi

J.M. and G.E. Karanu in 1972 was changed to become

waka Limited. Moi D.T., Kanyottu J., and S. Muriithi partnership became Mokamu Limited. Some farms made

combinations to remove the individual image. Thus

a farm which was known under Mbiyu Koinange in 1972

combined with another one called Gicheha Farm and 68 they jointly operated from that name. What this

seems to imply is that after acquiring the farms

owners sought for ways and means of obscuring thei

identity as a result of fear very much close to

the one Europeans had at the time of independence.

That is, they seem to fear living in plenty amidst poverty of the peasant/squatter/worker classes.

They too seem to fear the lowest class of the landless 69 and unemployed.

Zt would be of interest to note again that majority of these farms are owned by Kikuyu, mainly civil servants, politicians of various categories, including senior army and police officers, bureaucrats in private companies, and a few businessmen. Zn most cases close ties with influential people in such associations as the Gikuyu, Embu and Meru

Association (GEMA), would be a great advantage. One would then be assured of getting in touch with chairmen in Banks including Kenya Commercial Bank, 70 Barclays Bank, Standard Bank and Kenya Central Bank. 323

He would also be linked to the AFC, and, of course, one gets linked with the Office of the President, the Finance and Agricultural Ministries without much difficulty. Being a leading member of

Kalenjin association would link one to the Vice

President, Mr. Moi, whose Influences is t m k small.

Thus in order to buy a substantial amount of land, especially more than 1,000 acres, one needs to have not only the money but also the power or influence.

No wonder, President Kenyatta himself had on several occasions to intervene in many land purchase disputes particularly in the former scheduled area or white

Highlands.

A closer look at large scale farming would indicate that the bigger the farm the more likely that it will be European owned or farmed. Thus, for instance, about 20% of farms of less than 100 hectares or 250 acres, both in individual and partnership ownership are registered as being European farms.

These are normally the Europeans who sold their large farms to Africans and resorted to "smaller” holdings.

They also include some of the retired Europeans who have served in the independent Kenya Government in various fields. This implies that Africans tended to purchase more of the small farms mainly because 72 of limited capital. But it should also be noted that a great percentage of Africans in this category obtained their holdings under settlement schemes 324

of one kind or another and more than 90% of them are

Kikuyu* Of the farms which are 101 hectares, or 250

acres, and over, under individual ownership, 30% are

in European hands, while for those under partnership

about 10% are Europeans lands* Thus, about 90% of

partnerships are African and this also reinforces

the aspect of limited capital as being behind

tendency to share the burden of the cost of the

land*

Most of the European ownid large-scale farms are

managed by the owners personally most of whom are

very qualified and experienced agriculturalists*

These include the Kerma Ltd*, Sasumua Ltd*, Gogar Farm, Piave Ltd., Deloraine Ltd*, and Maryland Estate.

These are all mixed farms mainly producing wheat,

maize, barley, dairy products, beef, mutton and wool*

Most of the sisal estates and plantations in the

district are still owned by Europeans* These include

Lomolo Sisal Estate (13,810 acres), Solai Sisal

Estate (7,210 acres), Athinai Sisal Estate (10,633

acres), Banita Sisal Estates (15,705 acres) and Majani

Mingi Sisal Estate (5,740 acres) all of which are owned by H. Horn and E. Spiropolous, both of whom

are Greeks* Tt>e ranches are also mainly owned by

Europeans or by a few Africans in political and bureaucratic power positions. These include Marula

Estates (42,000 acres), Lerematesho Ltd*, (43,600 acres), Kedong Ranch Company - Maiela Ltd*, (146,925 - 325 - acres), Arthur Cole Ltd., (34,300 acres) and

Delamere Estate 50,760 acres).

Harftly do the African owners of farms actually manage their farms. Being public or private companies' senior bureaucrats and politicians, most of whom have land and business located elsewhere in the country, personal farm management becomes difficult.

About 90% of African owned large farms in NaJcuru are owned on absentee landlord basis. They have generally been referred to as Telephone Farmers.

In Nakuru District about 53% of all farms under individual, partnership or company ownership are 51 hectares, or 121 acres,and over. It is estimated that such farms constitute more than 60% of the total farming acreage in the district. Assuming that every company and partnership have a membership of 5 and 3 people, respectively, the total number of people constituting ownership of land under individual, partnership and company categories, should be about 1,156 only. Assuming the same for the category below 50 hectares, «e find approximately

313 owners. There is an average membership of

300 for every mass company and 200 for every cooperative except the Ndefo, Ngwataniro and Kalenjin Enterprises, and we get about 26,000 members. For Ndefo, Ngwataniro and Kalenjin Enterprises the membership is about

60,000. We call these categories the peasants/squatters and they are made up of about 86,000 members. When 326

the 1,156 large scale farms are added to 313 "small" scale farms, and then to the 86,000 peasants/squatter, we get about 87,469 •'farmers*" The large scale farms J/ ■ f constitute, about 1*3%, the intermediary "small" / A scale farms 0*4% and the peasant/squatters about / /

98*3%* •!

The large scale and "small" sclae farmers in h l.f * this analysis are employers of labour* The former employs many more labourer#, and is more highly / I mechanized, than the latter* But peasants/squatters, as we have seen above, find it hard to live without being employed to supplement their plot-products in family needs* They are not therefore independent subsistence peasants* They are in addition, workers to be exploited in farms or in businesses and industries of the capitalist large scale farmers in the main, and of "small" scale intermediary farmers*

As such, the notion of peasantization of the landless in Kenya must be viewed with a lot of reservations*

This becomes much more so not only because of the small sizes of the plots the members of cooperatives and mass companies manage to acquire, but also because of the fact that many of them are actually being bought up at attractive prices by the members of the petty-bourgeoisie* The latter phenomenon is not restricted to cooperatives and mass-companies* It also applies to the High Density Schemes where individuals - 327 - have been allotted with }lots. In this case plot owners are paid for their plots in two forms; the

♦’seller" is either paid cash or has a share bought for him by the "buyer" in one of the cooperatives or mass-companies, or both* As plots in High Density

Schemes are bigger than those in cooperatives and mass-companies, it follows that the "sellers" who

sell their plots in the formerareas become poorer in the latter areas. The tendency therefore is for the small number of peasants created under the colonial initiated settlement schemes to become

smaller and smaller, while those members who fall off from these schemes actually become poorer

than before. The latter category swells the class we have called peasants/squatters/workers classes.

Like European settlers, the new African large-

scale farmers, themselves members of KNFU, concentrated on production of products whose prices they actually manipulate locally for their own profits. These included, maize, wheat, sugar, dairy and beef cattle.

These products have their local prices rocketing higher than those of other products, while at the

same time production costs remain low. When exported they make a loss but are adequately subsidized by the government at the expense of the peasants and workers but to the benefit of the petty-bourgeoisie.

Again they are the most subsidized and profit guaranteed products. Farm machinery and fertilizers 328 are imported at low or no customs duties* They 4 $ take a big portion of national foreign reserves, yet they profit only a handful of individuals*

Maize and wheat, milk and meat, for example, are always guaranteed of market at KFA, Maize and

Produce Board, KCC and KMC at prices dictated by the farm owing and farming petty-bourgeoisie itself*

They also benefit from loans which come from

World Bank, Commonwealth (Colonial) Development

Corporation and other capitalist financial agencies, all intent, secretly if not openly, to build a capitalist oriented class among Africans that would strongly defend international capitalist exploitation of the country's masses of peasants, small-petty traders, squatters and workers* Although it is only a small class, the members of the petty-bourgeoisie who are large-scale farmers have therefore been the main beneficiaries of national and international farming credit system. In 1971, for example, they received two thirds of the entire amount of the 73 Guaranteed Minimum Return',' (GMR) loans* Although some of such loans could have been given to mass companies, cooperatives and shirika settlement schemes, the benefits of the profits that could follow were nowhere to be realized by the members themselves.

The amount these groups receive for land purchase purposes is very small compared to individual 74 partnership and company purchasers* Taking the - 329 - total amount of credit advanced by AFC in 1971 in the whole country, we find the large-scale farming members of the petty bourgeoisie got about £5,335,199 out of the total AFC loan of £7,210,747 granted for all farmers* Thus, they got more than 74% of the total farming credit. See Table VIZ.

When it became clear that KANU might in the end form the first government of independent Kenya, the

European settlers under the umbrella of KNFU turned to coopting some Kikuyu into land ownership in the

Highlands in order to forstall and block what was expected to become a mass-1and-take-over by them at independence* The Kalenjin had began buying land on the western parts of the Nakuru District, and the

Kikuyu, especially under the million acre scheme, were to be settled on the eastern part of the district* The Europeans would remain at the centre, presumably to prevent a tribal clash*

But such a myth was rendered false by the actual situation after land ownership in the central parts of Nakuru was open to Africans of all ethnic back­ grounds* Except for the one isolated incident at

"Rhoda" area near Lake Nakuru, the so-called "tribal" clashes were a crude rarelity* Class conflict however, became the order of the day.

Competition for land between the entire petty bourgeoisie and the rest of the masses began after - 330 -

TABLE V I I t THE SOURCE AND AMOUNT OF LOANS APPROVED BY THE AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION,

1271*------

TYPE OF LOAN AMOUNT OF LOAN ______K£______

IDA small scale ••••••••••• 427,784 IDA tractor...... 13,375 IDA/SID A r a n c h ...... 1,305,798 KFW small-holder • •'•••••••• 60,945 KFw large scale ••••••••••• 33,665 AFC small scale ••••••••«•• 3,700 AFC land purchase and development ••••••••*•••••• 1,218,139 Vihiga SRDP ...... 1,067 GMR (1) W h e a t ...... 2,360,980 Hybrid Maize ..... 1.785.234 T°t a i ......

SOURCE} Economic Survey 1972*

•Approximate Large-Scale Farmers* Share of AFC Loans, 1971 :

Type of Loan Amount in K£

IDA tractor •• 13,375 IDA/SIDA ranch 1,305,798 (nearly all of this goes to large-scale - 50 acres +) KFW ...... 33,665 AFC land purchase and development 1,218,139 (nearly all of this goes to large scale - 50 acres +) 2/3 GMRs Wheat and Maize 2,764,142

5,335,119 - 331

the landless and workers realized that as time passed

no land was being allocated to them. In 1966v Kenyan

landless were assured that they would not get back

the land they had lost to Europeans unless they paid

for it. They were further assured that the government

would come to their aid in purchasing back that land

only if they helped themselves. Anyone who could

not raise part of the land#purchase price was at no

time to be helped by the Government, for example,

in terms of getting some piece of land to cultivate

and therefore earn himsfclf a subsistence.

Given this situation, which was primarily

prompted by Kenyatta-Kaggia controversy over the

purchase of the European farms which Africans had

never sold, many Africans formed themselves into

groups, companies or cooperatives, in order to

collect money enough to buy farms or portions of 75 farms.

The consequence of this policy was increased

competition for land. Leaders of these land*

purchasing groups who were normally themselves members

of the nascent petty-bourgeoisie viewed the new

policy as a good chance for their own aggrandisement.

' A lot of the money collected for this purpose was

squandered or openly appropriated by individual

leaders. Where land purchase was effected the

registration of the titles were sometimes made in

the personal names of the leaders and not in the * 332 - names of the companies orccooperatives*^® When a leader failed to raise money for some land purchase on his own, he resorted to organizing a land purchasing group which contributed money that he used as a subsidy to the payment of part of the purchase price he could not raise* In this way a leader usually obtained what came to be known as Msee Plot” which included not less than 100 acres around and including the main buildings - residential houses, stores and machinery*

Meanwhile many leaders, who included politicians and civil servants, or persons associated with power positions, used such groups as a basis of negotiating power when they wanted to buy some piece of land*

After the negotiation was completed, these leaders side stepped the groups they led and having negotiated credits, they bought the farms for their ownselves*

Others who were approached by the willing purchase groups, in order that they may assist these groups in identifying good land for buying and in negotiating the price and the credit, turned these groups out and immediately bought the land* All these tricks against the mass-land-purchase-companies or cooperatives were possible mainly because the politicians and civil servants were well placed to acquire credit for AFC or Commercial Bank as soon as they needed it, and also because other members of the petty-bourgeoisie would come to their aid in case of 333

confrontation with the masses* It should be noted

that while the petty-bourgeoisie usually united

within itself, except in very few cases, the masses

remained divided and hence very weak* It resorted

to the principal of "KANGI TAKO" or "ANOTHER LIKE

IT" in order to accumulate land and property without 77 consideration of the masses at all*

This became clear in the extreme case of the

Ndefo Company in Nakuru* A few influential individuals

who included senior police officers led by J*J* Mungai,

the Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police for Rift

Valley Province, Senior Bankers led by Mr* Duncaa

Ndegwa, the Governor of Central Bank of Kenya, and

senior party members Kihika Kimani, MP for Nakuru

North, KANU National Organizing Secretary and GEMA

Nakuru District Chairman, planned to oust the Ndefo

Company from the Lusiro and Engoshura Farms in

particular in order that they might buy these farms

for themselves* The plan was to create chaos within

the company and do everything possible to have the

company dissolved and its properties, especially land,

sold cheaply at an auction. Mr* J*J* Mungai was

assigned the Job of creating confusion and rendering 78 the company dissolved*

The first thing he did was to block 1975 yearly

general elections in the company by ordering that no policemen should be supplied to maintain peace at electoral gatherings as required by practice* Thus 334

anytime such elections were planned by the Provincial

Administration, they had to be called off at the

last minute because no policemen were in attendance.

Although a ll these meetings had been arranged with

Mr. J.J. Mungai’s participation, he was decided to

have them fail and thus antagonize the Registrar

of Companies who had written several memo’s calling 79 for elections immediately.

while elections wdre blocked, Mr. J.J. Mungai i took it to himself to organize the affairs of the

company. Against a chief’s order, for example,

which barred all meetings in the Ndefo Farms until

further notice, Mr. Mungai held a series of meetings

at both Engushura and Lusiro Farms. During these

meetings he advised people who had failed to raise

money for the full share of l,340/*> not to pay

additional money. This was in spite of the fact

that they had been allowed time since 1956, during

which to complete payment of one full share. In

addition to that duration, these part-fchare holders

who were also known as "m'ithare section”, o%t of

generosity, had been allocated with some building

and cultivation plots within the farms in order

that they may grow crops from which they would

raise that money. But many of them refused to

complete paying the balance for the full share.

Instead, they went ahead to buy shares in other

mass-farm companies especially Ngwataniro Company which bought its first farm at Njoro in 1971. - 335 -

Other than advise them to complete their share payment, Mr* Mungai admonished them to take to violence and eliminate the leaders of the company who had insisted that all people must pay in full for one complete share*

As it can be realized the strategy of the struggle was typical of Marxian description. These members of petty-bourgeoisie who wanted to sabottage the

Ndefo Company utilized some of its members in order to create confusion and have the company itself dissolved* Thus they used some members of the peasant/ squatter/workers class in order to perpetuate their interests against this class*

The ensuing development was armed conflict in which at least five people, including the company’s 80 chairman Mr. Simon Wachira, were killed with “panggs.”

Although the police were aware or were informed of the “battle” before it actually occurred, nothing was done to avert it* After it started and after it died down, the police took about 24 hours before visiting the scene of the trouble although the Provincial 81 Administration had asked them to intervene*

Immediately after Mr* Simon Wachira died, the members of the directorate appointed Mr* Arthur Thungu wanyoike, president Kenyatta’s personal Body Guard, to replace him as one of the directors* At the same time they had managed to make the Provincial Commissioner - 336 - of the Rift Valley Province Mr* Isaiya Mathenge a member of the Company. The company leaders, on their part, had therefore created a fafety mechanism in case of direct confrontation between the company and the members of the petty-bourgeoisie yearning to buy those farms. Through A.T. Wanyoike and I.

Mathenge they were able to get a direct access to

President Kenyatta and put their case before him.

This explians how Kenyatta intervened in order to avert the auction which had been planned by Mr.

Mungai to include all the company's properties 82 including land.

In other words, the petty-bourgeois&e would stop at nothing in their search for land to appropriate.

Had it not been for Kenyatta's intervention, (and this was not the only time he intervened*), the Nddfo

Company would most probably be dissolved and its land and property sold at auction. The members of the company who had been allocated with some building and cultivation plots, would have become homeless and illegal squatters.

The main competition therefore was not actually

"tribal", but class competition. Reference to "tribal” relations would be made by various leaders whose real 83 aim was personal self-aggrandisement. It should be emphasized that the position of the petty-bourgeoisie as counterpoised with that of the peasants, small-petty traders, squatters and workers classes becomes stronger 337 mainly because they are assured of the use of govern­ mental coercive force in their favour as it became necessary, and also because credit machinery is well set to favour them in terms of having at the head of credit giving bodies people of the same petty-bourgeoisie who are prepared to safe-guard their class interests*

International credit system, under the cover of promoting development has been the origin of such a competition* In the face of the petty-bourgeoisie, the masses become alienated from land and property ownership, and they are relegated to the position of oppressed and exploited classes through the instrument of international finance capital* 338 -

AFRICAN BUSINESSMEN AND STRUGGLE FOR ECONOMIC

AND POLITICAL CONTROL - NAKURU DISTRICT______

There is some relationship between land ownership and business ownership which needs to be briefly surveyed before concluding our study. Interviews with Nakuru businessmen, particularly those outside

Nakuru Town, indicates that approximately 54% of them were either born in Nakuru district or migrated there in their early childhood. Of the rest 46%, who migrated in their adulthood, about 11% migrated before 1940, 39% between 1940 and 1959, and 50% migrated after 1960.®^ Those who migrated before

1940 did so in order to escape being enrolled in the carrier corps in the first World War; others moved to be employed in the forestry department which normally offered some cultivation plots to its employees. Some of them were employed as

Juvenile or child labour to look after the calves or sheep in the European farms. Those who found favour with the headmen and the European administration were given plots to construct temporary business premises in the "African locations." They started small shops and tea houses from which they served their fellow Africans working in the European farms and in urban areas as clerks, sweepers, gardeners, or shop assistants and house servants. These early

African traders in Nakuru district operated in 339 competition with the Asian traders who had been encouraged to engage in trade as their exclusive speciality vis-a-vis the European settler farmers who claimed exclusive rights over land in the highlands* They were therefore viewed by the

Asian traders as intruders* Competition against them was therefore, stiff from the Asians and they later found themselves concentrating on petty hotel keeping and "native*' liquour making and selling*

Among the adult migrants who turned to trading, it was observed that 60% of them had at least seven years of schooling* Most of those who migrated after 1960 had more than seven years of schooling*

All businessmen who migrated in their adulthood had some schooling either before or after they migrated*

The general tendency for Nakuru businessmen was towards having some education* Those who were born before 1920 seem to have had some education, a trend which seems to have been copied by those who were born after 1921 and before 1940* (See Table

VIII*). This table seems to suggest that most businessmen in Nakuru were born between the years

1921 and 1940, About 50% of those born after 1941 had between five and seven years of schooling* The rest of them had more than seven years of schooling and had a greater tendency towards having more than ten years of schooling* Business, therefore, tends I 340 I ero it Lvlo dcto (N=84) Education of Level 1950 - 1941 1930 - 1921 Birth of Year ee o Education: of Level BUSINESS OF PLKCLNTAGE TABLEIX* 1940 - 1931 Years in School in Years 1910 - 1901 o answer No 1-4 0 1920 - 1911 12 11 9-10 EDUCATION OF LEVEL BY BUSINESSMEN OF AGE VIII: TABLE 5-8 - ♦

12

Sources Sample Survey. Sample Sources No answer No — — -6 4 Source! Sample Survey Sample Source! t. I-IV Std. H r — 4 12 4 4 e . N 3Y YEARS SPENT IN SPENT YEARS 3Y N % of age of businessmen of ageof V-VIII (N84)- 16 10 10 2 2 8.0% 0 . 48 100% 28.6% 2 .4% 2 7.1% 7*1% . 0 % Form I-II Form - - - - 2 SCHOOL Form III-IV Form — — — — 6 Form - - - - 2 341 to become more and more the occupation of the educated. The same picture is portrayed by Table

IX in which the total levtl of illiteracy is only

7*1%* More than 64.3% have more than five years of schooling* I The explanation of this situation seems to be that the more educated a pefson had been, the greater the opportunity he had to earn some salary part of which he saved and became his initial capital* This became the beginning of primitive capital accumulation during the colonial days*

The "primitive capitalists" who emerged and had conflict of interest with the Asian traders largely became the instrument which the colonial government tried to coopt to its side whenever it became necessary for it to demonstrate its support from the Africans against criticisms from the Asian 85 communities* It was the informed group and one which was inclined to adopt any income earning methods, including trade, in order to realise the economic status closer to that of the European

settlers and the Asian traders* This also applies in the independent period* The educated have been able to read papers and listen to the radio from which they get various types of information related to improving their wealth* Thus, they apply for shops which fall vacant as a result of quit notices to Asian traders; they apply for loans and for 343

TABLE Xt SIZE OF LAND OWNED BY PERCENTAGE OF ______BUSINESSMEN

(N - 84)

Acreage in Acres ______Percentage of Businessmen

0 26.6%

0 - 2 5 36.6%

2.6 - 10 24.4%-

11 - 20 2.4%

21 - 100 1 .0% 101 - 300 2.4%

301 + 6.6%

100%

Sources Sample Survey 344 time* capital and profit* Nearly all the businessmen owning more than 301 acres of land had power connections with senior civil servants, councillors, members of parliament and government ministers* They also tended to know the officers concerned with trade licensing and trade loan donors such as the Industrial and Commercial Development Coroporation (ICDC),

Credit Finance Corporation (CFC), and managers of various commercial banks. They were regularly visited by various government officers and sales promotion agents of the trade items they handled.

These are the people who get all possible assistance there is in connection with forms of trade and various methods of profit making#

Nearly 43% of businessmen had another business before the present one, and nearly the same percentage had more than one business now# Only 41% of businessmen with land of any description seem to have had land before acquiring or starting the present business, while 59% bought land or land shares afterwards. The latter group were mainly small traders, shopkeepers, tea sellers, butchers, open-air second-hand clothes traders, and kiosk keepers*

The only land traders in these categories could buy, given their limited capital, was in cooperatives and in mass-companies*

Comparison of the size of stock in the businesses in Nakuru and the amount of land owned indicates that - 345 - the smaller the stock, the more likely that a businessman has only a small piece of land or no land at all* (See Table XI). Most of those with a stock of less than Shs. 50,000 (Including the value of the premises, where the trader owns it), had land mainly in the cooperatives or in the mass-companies* The traders with a stock of more than 5hs. 200,000/- were also large-scale farmers, and in most cases they owned more than 200 acres of land* They were the main beer and soda wholesalers, and they also retailed the same items in competition with the very small shop and kiosk keepers. They were also the main wholesalers of cigarettes, maize products, sugar, and they dealt in building and farm hardwares and motor and farm machinery spare parts*

The big traders in Nakuru were not only big farmers as well, but were also directors of farm and trade companies in Nakuru or elsewhere in the country. They played a leading role in the political life of the district* As noted above, they had a greater propensity towards being educated and hence articulate. They were therefore capable of holding prominent positions in political organisations such as Kikuyu Central Association (KCA), and Kenya

African Union (KAU) during the colonial days, and

KANU, KADU, and KPU during the post-independence period*4 ^ 86

The big traders in Nakuru district, as in other 346 TABLE XI: SIZE OF STOCK AND SIZE OF LAND BY PERCENTAGE OF OF BY BUSINESSMEN,OF PERCENTAGE SIZE LAND OF STOCK AND XI:SIZE TABLE £? SOURCE: Sample Survey Sample SOURCE: 800000 10000i— 50001-100000 5001-10000 200001+ 10001-50000 500-6000 in Sh.in SizeStock of AUUDSRC. 1976.DISTRICT.NAKURU

Landless 10.0 25,0 25,0 — 7.5 $6 2.5 Percentage of Businessmen by 3ise of Land They Own,They 3iseof Land of Businessmen by Percentage 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 . % % $> % Land in Coops, Land orMass-co.s 1-5 acres1-5 17.5 17.5 10.0 10.0 22.6 22.6 52.6 52.6 • * 2.5 - ______% % % %

5-50 Small-scale farms 12.5 12.5 - - - 7.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 ars _ acres % % % Large-scale 50 acres50 farms-over 10.0 >«, 10.0 — - 2.5 2.5 5.0 2.5 /j 2.5 %

(N=80) Percentages Total 100.0 100.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 JS 22.5 7.5 5.0 # 5.0 £ 5.0 % % % 347 places, are a source of numerous political manouvres

and conflicts which are generally aimed at manipulating political power from various interest groups in order

to eliminate competition and thus maximise profits*

Unlike the case of land where a great mass of land­

less and small-landed people originating from

Kiambu district were settled in Nakuru and Nyandarua

districts by both colonial and post-independence

governments in order to quell the clamour for land

held by Europeans,the case of trade takeover and

operation by Africans became one of the main sources

of conflict between the Africans and the Asians on

the one hand, and between Africans cf various

origins within the country# The Asians were defeated

through Trade Licensing Act and immigration regulations

which applied to the entire country* They v*ere

therefore forced to sell their businesses o l e r to

Africans*

But the more serious open conflict developed

between the Africans themselves. Nakuru district

being largely occupied by Kikuyu immigrants the

conflict took the nature of sectional discrimination

and competition, particularly on the basis of

districts of origin* The most manifest conflict

and competition developed between the Kikuyu who

hailed from Kiambu district or Southern Chania

Kikuyu on the one hand, and those who hailed from

other districts particularly Nyeri or the Northern - 348 -

87 Chania Kikuyu on the other* In an attempt to simplify the struggle the people of Nakuru district, and particularly the Nakuru Town, were conceptualized by the leading antagonists in terms of having come from Kiambu or from Nyeri* The leading wealthy southern Chanianists constituted themselves into m an unofficial group which they called the "Big 36", and also managed to coopt some wealthy businessmen, farmers, and government officers originating from

Murang’a district. This group, which was led by

Kihika Kimani, M.P, councillor Silas Mburu Gichua,

Philip Njoka, agnominated Mungai, Senior

Assistant Police Commissioner for Ri$t Valley

Province, met at the farm of D.K. Kanyi on 17th

September, 1974 and passed a resolution to the effect that they would step up their side of the struggle until all "Nyerian" prominence, particularly economic and political prominence, was completely reduced or eliminated* 88

The other side of the struggle which was generally referred to as the Nyerian side, was led by the former Mayor of Nakuru Town Councillor Dr.

Isaac Kirubi, Mark Mwithaga, and J*M* Kariuki the former M.P. for Nyandarua North. They also managed to coopt the secret support of the Provincial

Commissioner for the Rift Valley, Mr, Isaiah

Mathenge. But what was more important was their - 349 ability to pose as representatives of the oppressed and exploited classes of peasants( small—petty— traders, squatters, and workers especially the unemployed workers. They therefore gained on their side the support of the northern Chaniah

Kikuyu (and to a large extent also the Kiambu

Kikuyu who felt oppressed or exploited.) They also gained the support of virtually all the other ethnic groups within the district. Indeed the leaders of the northern Chanianists became a section of the petty—bourgeoisie which had deviated from championing the interests of that class. They had turned to leading the masses out of oppression and exploitation by the petty— bourgeois class.

The southern Chania section of the Kikuyu petty bourgeoisie had in the meantime been consoli­ dating their side of the struggle since the 1969

Kikuyu oathing and the ensuing general election in the same year. During that oathing the southern

Chania Kikuyu had pledged never to pass the reigns of national political power to Kikuyu of other sections or to other ethnic groups. From that time the leading southern Chanianists in Nakuru district began to appropriate all central points of socio-political power and control in the district.

Kihika Kimani, for example, took over KANU district

chairmanship from Mark Mwithaga in 1972. He was 350 -

also elected GEMA district chairman in the following year. He had started organising a land-buying mass company called Ngwataniro (Mutukanio) in which he managed to register several thousand members 89 from every corner of the Nakuru district. He

created unofficial branches for the company through­

out the district* and in most cases the chairmen

of these branches also became the chairmen of

KANU and GEMA in their respective areas. Thus*

for example, the chairmen of Ngwataniro (Mutukanio)

for Molo (Mr. Josephy Kariuki), for Rongai (Mr.

Zachariah Githuku), and for Elburgon (Mr* Danson

Kahingo Ngugi), were also county councillors

and chairmen of KAhiU and GEMA in their respective 90 areas. When this position was achieved, Kihika

Kimani managed to gain social and political control

of the entire district. He, as the main leader

of the southern Chanianists in the district, was

therefore able to organize the sponsoring of

southern Chanianist candidates for all parliamentary

seats and for all county and municipal councillor-

ships in the district. All parliamentary candidates

sponsored by that group, except for Nakuru Town

seat won the 1974 October General Elections. They

included Kihika Kimani himself (for Nakuru North seat), Simon Kairu (Nakuru East), and Evanson NJau

Kariuki (for Nakuru West). As a compensation for

having lost the Nakuru Town seat to Mark Mwithag*,

the group managed to obtain the nomination of 351

Philip NJoka, the former Municipal Councillor for

Hospital Ward, as Member of Parliament allegedly to represent the interests of the Rift Valley

Province.

In the Nakuru Town itself, the southern

Chania petty-bourgeoisie had successfully manouvred to have most of thalr candidates elected to the seats of the Mayor, the deputy Mayor, and several municipal council committees. This was aimed at obtaining the effective control of the urban masses in Nakuru in order to achieve the election of their candidates to the national assembly and also in order to manipulate economic appropriation in the town in their favour.

By 1974, the southern Chanianist petty- bourgeoisie had grown very strong and influential in terms of both political, bureaucratic and economic power. They had only one major weakness.

That was the fact that Mr. I.M. Mathenge was the

Provincial Commissioner for the Rift Valley Province.

This they came to realise after their candidate for the Nakuru Town parliamentary seat had lost the

1974 October General Elections. They therefore resorted to persuading the Office of the President, which was headed by a well known staunch southern

Chanianist and senior government minister, Mr.

Peter Mbiyu Koinange, to have Mr. Mathenge removed 91 from there to the Eastern Province. In his place - 352 - they ”demanded" to have the Eastern Provincial * Commissioner, Mf. C.K. Koinange, brother to the minister in the President's Office as the new P.C. for Rift Valley Province.92

The order for the transfer was issued by the

Office of the President but it never materialized.

It was alleged that Mathenge at this Juncture saw himself as the defender of the Nakuru masses against oppression of the KiambVL petty—bourgeoisie and so he took the bold choice of stubbonnly disobeying the orders to move out of the Rift

Valley Province.

Having failed to replace Mathenge with a person who would support their side of the struggle, the southern Chanianists resorted to the two instruments of force left to them in their manouvre.

In the first place they coopted the support of

President Kenyatta, a southern Chanianist himself, who gave them the backing of the government in their dealings. They therefore saw themselves as the government and everybody who oppossed them was said to be opposing the government itself.

Having obtained that supportm the Big 36 used

Mr. J.J. Mungai, the Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police for the Rift Valley Province, and who was also a member of the group, as their instrument of coercive power. In this role Mr. J.J. frying ai was assisted by Mr. J. Wangombe who was his assistant and the Officer Commanding Police Division in - 353 charge of Nakuru District*

The Big 36v saw themselves as being KANU which was the party officially forming the government of Kenya, and they also viewed themselves as GEMA which they led and monopolized at the 93 district and national level*

At this juncture, when they had viewed themselves as the government, KANU and GEMA, the

Big 36 felt strong and confident enough to execute their 1974 September resolution without expecting much trouble from anywhere* They began a campaign against the people who had levied attacks against oppression, exploitation and appropriation of large tracks of land and property by the members of the petty-bourgeoisie* Such people were smeared as being anti-Government, anti-KANU, anti-GEMA and anti—KANU—GEMA led Kenya*

The first victim of the 1974 September resolution became J*M* Kariuki, the former member of Parliament for Nyandarua North, a prominent businessman and exceptionally influential and popular national politician* He was considered to be the central standard-bearer of what was considered to be Nyerian anti-government group.

He was therefore assassinated on 2nd March, 1975, in the most brutal manner ever recorded in the history of Kenya. 354

The next victim of the "Big 36" manouvres was

Mark Mwithaga. He had defeated Amos Kabiru

Kimemia, the candidate of the Big 36, in the 1974

October General Elections in Nakuru Town* He had

also been appointed the vice-chairman of the parliamentary committee probing the assassination of J.M. Kariuki. During the debate on the report of this committee Mark Mwithaga severely castigated

some members of the Big 36 for their alleged direct 94 role in the murder. From that time he was referred to as anti-government, anti-KANU, anti-

GEMA and a subversive.

As he had to face a by-election which was

forced upon him through the influence of the Big

36, that group mustered all the efforts and forces

open to it in order to ensure that Mark Mwithaga

did not win. The entire government machinery

including the administration, the police, the

General Service Unit, and the senior civil servants

were all mobilized in order to ensure that Amos

Kabiru Kimemia was elected. Two weeks before the

date for the by-election, the momentum of the

election campaign had clearly indicated that Mark

Mwithaga would obtain a landslide victory. So the

next stage of the manouvre became to seek a way

of ensuring that even if he was re-elected as it was prob­

ably » he should not have the chance of becoming an

M.P. again. He was therefore arrested and charged - 355 - with assault and damage of property* One of the senior resident Magistrates stationed at Nakuru,

Mr* E. McGreedy refused to handle what the prosecution referred to as a “special case", on the grounds that it was groundless, petty and suggestive of immoral dealings and mischieve on 96 the part of the prosecution* The prosecution therefore transferred that “dpecial case*' to another court, this time chaired by an Asian magistrate Mr* V.S* Dhir, who subsequently sentenced Mark Mwithaga to two and a half years imprisonment* The “Big 36“ were over—joyous when they learnt of the prison sentence* They reveled 96 and drank to the success of their plot*

Meanwhile the public of Nakuru Town, and the entire district, were raging with anger at the sentence* They had spent five days in heavy rain outside the Nakuru courts where the trial was going on, while they hoped that the court would see the evil behind the plotted case and perhaps release him*

tohat was significant, however, was the political and class consciousness that was demonstrated by the masses of Nakuru Town, and surrounding areas*

They had been able to identify the HBig 36" as their enemy and as the instrument through which ruthless oppression and exploitation upon them was manifested.

They had realised the power money was playing in order - 356- to oppress them. In particular they had Identified the "Dollar*' as the money power behid this group of the

"Big 36",and In particular behind the Mayor Mr,Silas

Mburu Olchua and his deputy Mr, Oathogo Mwitumi. On the day Mark Mwithaga was imprisoned,15th August,1975, which was also the eve of the "IWITHAQA 1975 BY-ELECTION", thousands of men,women and children in defiance of many squads of riot police, proceeded on a protest demonstration through the main streets of Nakuru and wailed as they sang:

Hatutaki Dollar, twataka Ukweli; Ukweli nl Ndovu, twataka Mwithaga,

The electorate of Nakuru rejected Amos Kimemia

Kabiru for their M.P, as they believed he was one o f those who represented the oppressive and exploitative power of money. They opted to elect Mark Mwithaga although he was already in prison on the polling day. They would not of their own free will elect any person who had identified himself with, or who had any connections with, the "Big 36",They set themselves against the petty-bourgeoisie of which the "Big 36" were Just a part.

Meanwhile many other people of Nyeri origin particularly the businessmen, were harassed by the pon ce

adtrinia tration at the instigation the g ro u p . The

construction of the tali Nakuru Branch of the National 357

Bank of Kenya building by President Kenyatta, who hails from Kiambu and seems to go along with the demands of this group, is symbolic of their projected victory#

Before ending the discussion on the relationship between land and business ownership, a note should be made of the various financial institutions which back up the establishment of the business people#

Respondents in Nakuru indicated that about 53#7% of traders, particularly those outside Nakuru Town, did not receive any loans from anyssource at all.

Of those who received some loan, the majority received it from the Standard Bank and from public credit bodies like the ICDC and the District Joint Loans

Board# (See Table XII)#

All large-scale traders received loans from

ICDC and about 80% of them also received other loans from other bodies, particularly the Standard Bank#

Most of them obtained advances from more than one financial institution, including ICDC, District

Joint Loans Board, Credit Finance Corporation (CFC),

Housing Finance Company of Kenya (HFCK), and various commercial banks including the Standard Bank,

Barclays Bank, Kenya Commercial Bank, and National

Bank of Kenya. More than 22% of all loanees in the district obtained loans from four sources including the ICDC, CFC, Joint Loans Board, and the Standard

Bank# The main promoters of the large-scale traders

- tgr «r. 1 TABLE XII* Source of Business Loans by Percentage

of Loans R *calved

Sources of Loans Percentage of loans as per

source (N - 381 ______

Kenya Commercial Bank 9*S%

Standard Bank 32.1%

Barclays Bank 13.0%

District Joint

Loans Boards 22.3%

ICDC 20. 0%

Credit Finance

Corporation 2. 1%

Other 1.0%

100%

Source* Sample Survey. - 359 - and businessmen in Nakuru district were the ICDC and the Standard Bank.

District Joint Loans Board gave loans mainly to small-scale traders. This general rule should, however be qualified. Nearly all the large-scale traders fcnd businessmen were also small-scale traders in retail shops, hotels and kiosks. As

such they were able to pose as both large-scale and small-scale traders and receive credit consideration on both counts. In the case of Rongai Township, for example, it was noted that about 50% of all the

small scale businesses were in possession of three individuals only and they were able to receive loans on nearly all these businesses. These included loans

to construct the two thirds of the township trade premises which they own and some of which they rent out to other small traders. The phenomenon of having the greatest share of trade premises owned by a handful of individuals was observed throughout

the district. These individuals came to gain such possession through loans institutions particularly

the ICDC, the Standard Bank, and the Barclays Bank.

They turned to become rentiers to the approximately

70% of all traders who were noticed to be operating in premises they did not own. Thus apart from the exclusive profits the large-scale businessmen earn

from the wholesale trade, they also earn additional profits from a spree of small-scale trades they operate and also from rent. As noted above, all large-scale businessmen in our sample were also large scale farmers. The benefits they reaped from credit facilities were enormous in terms of business purchases, building loans, and small-scale industrial development loans.

They were at the same time the main recipients of agricultural credits from such bodies as the

AFC, ADC, KFA, and commercial banks. The AFC and

ADC (through it Land Bank Ltd.) were mainly concerned with land purchases. The AFC, together with some commercial banks, were also concerned with develop­ ment loans particularly of large-scale farmers and farm-owners.. The Standard Bank was particularly noted for giving credits to promote large scale farming in the area. - 361

THE RULING PETTY-BOURGEOISIE AND INTERNATIONAL

CAPITAL - IN ALLIANCE:______

The consequence of concentrating ownership of large-scale farms and businesses in the some hands is mainly that there emerges an economically strong class which utilizes its economic power in order to appropriate political power and also convert the bureaucracy into its own instrument of resource appropriation and political control.

Where land, property and business ownership is concentrated in a class made up *f politicians, civil servants, police and army officers, professioal businessmen and farmers, the disparity between the political and bureaucratic power tends to be minimized. As in the case of the Big 36, the unity of the bureaucratic and political power is virtually realized. A single petty-bourgeoisie emerges out of political and bureaucratic and economic power holders.. This becomes a basis of stepped up oppression and exploitation in order to increase the ability to accumulate profits, land and property of petty-bourgeoisie.

The big traders and landoowners and farmers were therefore able to lobby for assistance in their operations by the various marketing organizations such as the KFA, KCC, KMC, Kenya National Trading

(KNTC), and Kenya Planters Cooperative Union Ltd. -362

(KPCU). They were also the centre of government assistance of various types* They benefitted from reduced or vaived customs duties on farm machinery, fertilizers, high-quality livestick breeds, and from various government trade regulations aimed at protecting and promoting

African businessmen, and African large-scale land owners and/or farmers.

The "Big 36" constituted only the leadership portion of the petty-bourgeoisie in Nakuru district.

The petty-bourgeoisie in Nakuru occupies one side of the class struggle in the district, while the other is occupied by the peasants, squatters, and workers. The latter classes are reinforced by some members of the petty—bourgeoisie who desett the exploiting and oppressing camp to join the struggling oppressed and exploited masses. The

"Big 36", which chocse to alienate the members of the petty-bourgeoisie of other districts and ethnic backgrounds apart from the Kikuyu of Kiambu district by origin, only manages to make such members take sides with, and strengthen thestruggle on the side of, the peasants, squatters, and the workers. The

"Big 36", and their fellow petty-bourgeoisie elsewhere in the country, then resorts to international monopoly capitalists for material, especially economic, and moral support. The consequence becomes the intensification of oppression and extension of - 363 -

exploitation by international monopoly capitalism

through the instrument of the African petty-

bourgeoisie*

The African petty-bourgeoisie does not y . degerate into the working classes as predicted

by Marx* Indeed the international bourgeoisie

does not wish to see it finished as it plays an

important role of being the instrument through

which oppression and exploitation can be carried

out without having to involve a direct confrontation

with the masses of the nee-colony*

we have so far seen how European settler

capital manipulated the emerging African class in

an attempt to preserve its interests in Kenya and

also in an attempt to extract maximum profits from selling the land they held to Africans at

uncontrolled prices* Ever since 1950 the Land

Control Board was no longer empowered to refuse

consent to a land transaction by reason that the

Board objected to the pecuniary consideration for 97 the transaction. Thus, land could henceforth

be sold at inflated prices which could no longer

be controlled* The strategy of making the British

Government, and then the World Bank and the W«st

Germany, give loans to the Kenya Government to

buy out Europeansfarmers was hinged on such an

understanding* The idea of the European settlers

was to have as much money as possible availed to 364 - the government in Kenya (both outgoing colonial government and incoming African government) which would appear to be free donation and thus make it easy for them to sell their land at high prices*

This strategy was further reinforced by the institution of the Land Bank to handle the transfer of land* It was supposed to be a body independent from the control of the Kenya Government, particularly of the post-independence era, but which could serve the interests of the outgoing settlers without deviation whasoever* It was fcd be organized and run by fellow European officials and settlers and it was not unexpected that they should be biased 98 in favour of the Europeans selling their land*

In order to reinforce the position of the

European settlers, particularly with respect to the price they reaped from land sales, a separate body, the Central Land Board, was maintained and also manned by Europeans and charged with the duty of settling Africans on the purchased land* This body was to be concerned with settling various categories of undefined Africans on former European occupied land* It was not to question whether or not the price these new occupants had to repay through loans later on were fair* Indeed the members of the board, most of whom were themselves Europeans settlers, were supposed to pretend that they did • • --- nric.es being charged by the 365 - outgoing fellow European settlers, and allowed by the Land Bank, were exornitant and unjustified*

All efforts were made at that time to obscure the fact that land was being given to Africans on loan through the Land Bank* As it was put at that time land was actually being given to the Africans*

The latter paid very little or no money at all when they received their plots* All the rest was paid up by the Land Bank from the capital it received from Britain, west Germany, and the World

Bank in form of loans to which the post-independence

Kenya Government was commited* From 1962 Kenya was tied in a maze which makes it impossible to appropriate capitalist property in the country, especially land, without resorting to further loans from international capitalist agencies or alternatively without resorting to a revolutionary severance of ties with capitalism* Kenya chose the former strategy*

Accepting loan capital meant also accepting the principle of protection of private capitalist interests by post-independence government in Kenya*

It should always be remembered that private property implied "LAND" as far as the British settlers and government were concerned* Indeed It implied land held by European farmers* After independence private property has become land and other industrial and trade concerns held by European capitalists and by 366 the African petty-bourgebisie.

In order to maintain the African petty- bourgeoisie which had accepted to protect European

(especially British) capitalist interests in Kenya, international capitalism was introduced in form of international aid and loans to develop an African petty-bourgeoisie composed of large-scale land owners/farmers, large-scale businessmen and rentiers, and small scale industrialists. All aid and loans were channelled through agencies controlled by, and serving the interests of European settlers, metro­ politan industrialists and the petty-bourgeoisie.

These agencies included the AFC, the Land Bank, the

ICDC, the HFCK, HFC, CFC, the Development Finance

Company of Kenya (DFCK), and various commercial banks. As in the case of land all these bodies,

(and these are just a few among many) aimed at continuing in the process of creating an African class, capable of protecting European and international capitalist exploitation in Kenya in the same way as R.J.M. Swynnerton had dextously laid down in

1954. At independence the Europeans managed to adapt themselves to accepting and cooperating with the new African Government, while they also managed to coopt the new government members who used to be anti-settler and anti-European into the capitalist profit making and searching race. - 367

The idea of large-scale farming was also « encouraged by Britain and the World Bank who were opposed to subdivision of the former European large farms into smaller plots cultivatab^e on basis of peasant farming only* The Stamp Report cited above, for instance, represented British government and capitalists in opposing further subdivision of large-scale farms for the purpose of settling the

African landless-masses on high density basis*

The report allegedly aimed at saving Kenya’s agricultural production from collapsing as a result of inefficiency which the commissioners believed to be inherent in small-scale, especially peasant farming* It was alleged that preserving what was called high productivity in the large scale farms would increase the rate of employment in the country, particularly in the rural areas*

But in reality things did not work out that way, In the case of employment, for example, capitalist large scale farming in Kenya concentrated on cppital intensive methods of production in the same way as the capitalist industries did* In Nakuru, for instance, Tarakvaet Farm (1200 acres), Jasho Farm

1.000 acres), Irangi Farm (250 acres), Kerma Limited

(about 2,000 acres) and Gogar Farm (4,200 acres) 99 employed 60, 20, 5, 25 and 80 labourers respectively*

They represent and average of 30 labourers per

1.000 acres with a range of 13 to 50 labourers - 368 - per 1,000 acres* Such a level of employment was considered by ILO report to be low* It was considered to originate from general lack of capital and managerial ability, which in turn caused a reduction of land under crops, lower output and ultimately lower employment per usable acre.1®® But the commisioners should have recalled that ever since colonial days in

Kenya, only a small portion of cultivatable land in large-scale farms was used for crop purposes* This was mainly because land holding for speculative purposes has Always been one of the targets of many large-scale land owners to whom farming per se served only a secondary purpose.

When farming was undertaken it was carried out only up to the level that would maximize capitalist

profits any one given moment* The target had never been to employ people or to increase productivity itself* It was always to maximize profits and other

factors like employipent and productivity were hinged upon this requirement and not vice versa*

Ever since the colonial days, farm productivity has been kept low by farmers mainly in order than

they may use the threat of food shortages to obtain

GMR and subsidies on maize, wheat, barley, livestock

from the government* They used the same threat, which was highly doubtful if ever they would carry out, in order to obtain customs duties and taxation - 369 -

reliefs for farm machineries, fertilizers, and

farm chemicals* Under the same pretext, the large- scale land owning petty-bourgeoisie tend to

rationalize price increases for the locally consumed

farm products in which they specialize including

wheat, barley, maize, meat and milk* Maintenance

of low productivity has therefore tended to assure

the land owning petty-bourgeoisie of great profits,

most of which are unearned profits (including customs

duties and taxation reliefs, GMR, subsidies on

fertilizers, farm chemicals, and farm products

transporting and marketing)*

The small-scale peasant cultivation on the

other hand is a labour intensive system of production*

Although it could also be subjected to capitalist

exploitation under cash crop cultivation as in the

case of groundnuts in West Africa, this kind of

farming would, however, provide employment to the

majority of the people of Kenya were it not for

the capitalist hunger for exclusive profits at the

expense of the other people* Indeed there is no

other Justification for growing maize on large-scale

bases, for example, except hunger for quick profits

exploitable from local market which is manipulated

by the large-scale kand owners/farmers*

It is also not tnue that large-scale farms are

more productive than small-scale peasant cultivation*

Indeed the government of Kenya has come to accept - 370 - that this myth no longer holds in practice*1®1 In

Nakuru district, for example, large-scale farms could raise an average of 15 bags of maize per acre per year* The small-scale plots on the other hand were able to raise more or less the same number of bags of maize per acre per year in addition to 102 growing beans, potatoes, and vegetables* Small-

scale peasant and squatter plots were therefore more productive than the large-scale farming*

They used minimum or no capital at all, and hence virtually no foreign exchange vtas used* In addition they supported the greates number of people in the district in terms of food, housing, clothing and education*

This is made possible by the fact that the

small plot cultivators give most of their attention

to their soil and crop maintenance* This taight

sound to be contrary to the much popularized bourgeoisie claim that the small cultivators care very little about their soil conservation

and improvement* Nevertheless, the experience of Nakuru indicates that soil exhaustion would only be realised if the so-called modern methods of cultivation are fully adopted by the peasants

and squatters* Thus, for example, land alienation by the Europeans forced the Africans to start

cultivating on the sloppy areas which were - 371 traditionally reserved for forests and grasses*

Mixed cropping of traditional farming in Kenya served the purpose of preventing soil erosion on the one hand, and also of enriching the soil * with various minerals, including nitrates* Such kind of farming is best realised in small plots cultivation by peasants and squatters.

The case of wheat is more complicated than that of maize* The ILO commission observed that wheat farming was "inherently risky even under competent management* But they saw no other justification for growing it on large-scale farms except the desire to realise the "economies of scale in the capital equipment, e*g* tractors and combines used in its production*" It was at this juncture that the commission avoided looking at the original source of the problems they were trying to help to solve*

The large-scale farm owners/farmers# as we have explained above, are mainly composed of the core of the petty-bourgeoisie class in Kenya, and would not contemplate any other wheat farming methods which would be suicidal as regards the inflow of their profits* The commission argued that there were fewer reasons for regarding wheat as unsuitable crop for a small farm* After all, wheat was successfully and profitably grown intensively on small holdings in many parts of the 372 world Including Europe and Asia, and most notably in Japan* In this case the commission seemed to imply that large-scale farming, since its inception

in Kenya by European settlers during the colonial days, could be justified on any other grounds except the capitalist search to maximize his profits and capital accumulation at the expense of Kenya*s land and peoples* It is at this point

that we take the contrary view* We further propose

that because the II#0 commissioners "refused” to consider capitalist exploitation and hunger for profits as the core source of the problems in

Kenya, they also failed to recommend solutions that would once and a or all bring to an end, or at least greatly reduce, the problems of poverty, unemployment, and inequality*

Unlike the ILO commissioners view, the problems of poverty, unemployment and inequality do not originate from the size of agricultural farm or industrial concern* Nor do they actually emanate

from the methods of production, such as modern or traditional methods* These are problems of capitalist expropriation and appropriation of

the means of production on the one hand, and of exploitation and appropriation of surplus labour value of the peasants, squatters and workers on the other* The latter, who include also both the employed and unemployed workers, are exploited in 373 order to increase and expand capitalist profits and capital accumulation. As stated above reql / i efforts to utilize all the land held by the petty- bourgeoisie will not be realized mainly because v land speculation for profit*- has increasingly been Jjl a major phenomenon of Kenya's economic system. fij Unlike the ILO commissioners, we maintain / \ that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with large-scale farming# What is, however, basically I unjustifiable is the fact that land speculation continues to be unoutlav/ed and therefore permitted in Kenya, and that such a highly profitable crop as wheat, or any other crop for that matter, should be farmed by, or the benefits should be appropriated by, the few so called large-scale farmers.

As the study of Nakuru reveals, many of these so called farmers are not farmers at all# They are either mere large-scale land owners who employ cheap labour and government trained agricultural officers as their farm workers and managers respectively. They rent land cheaply from the

Masai in the adjacent Narok district which they then pass on to be actually farmed and managed by the AFC under the GMR arrangements, or by such other agents or intersted buyers or dealers in wheat and barley as the Kenya Breweries Ltd., and Kenya Farmers' Association (Co-op.) Ltd.^^

In case of the wheat and barley buyers or dealers - 374 - talcing over fanning of a given farm, the so called farmer does nothing more to that land while all the planting and harvesting is done by the agents.

He then collects profits after farming expenditure have been deducted. In other words, he does not farm at all; yet the profit he makes out of the rent he pays for the land is excessively voluminous.

Such voluminous profits go into the pockets of a few individuals who are mainly members of international bourgeoisie and of the ruling

African petty-bourgeoisie. They do not work to earn it. They merely utilise political power and power relations, together with credit facilities open only to a few privileged individuals, in order to purchase or rent land which they pass to agents who farm it on their behalf and for their profit. This practice is not restricted to wheat or barley only. It is being adopted very fast in large-scale maize, sunflower, coffee, and tea farming; it is also being adopted in extensive ranching pursuits.

The kind of economic development that was supported by international finance capital was therefore capitalist development which created and strengthened a class of African landed petty- bourgeoisie which in turn, supported and promoted international capitalist development, oppression and exploitation in Kenya. - 375 -

Other projects which were initiated by

British colonial government in order to perpetuate and strengthen capitalist oppression and exploitation in Kenya were also intensified during the post­ independence era with the help of international finance capital• The most important one has been land adjudication and registration programme. 105 Although evidence has proved the contrary, the

Programme continues to be officially rationalized on the pretext that it should increase production and employment in the agricultural sector 6 # Kenya’s economy.This has been only an excuse to Justify international funding of the project. But the real aim of the programme can only be found in the capitalist manouvres to extend and strengthen an African petty-bourgeoisie in terms of the amount of land they hold and control, and to intensify alienation of the bulk of the Kenyan masses from land. Such a purpose is suggested in statement that -

"The Land adjudication and registration

programme, to be continued on large scale,

will encourage farmers to develop their

land and help to establish an active land 107 market.”

It means, therefore, that the project should be stepped up as an instrument of greater commercia­ lization of land in Kenya. As it has always - 376 been ever since its inception in 1954# the programme would make it possible and easy for

the people with money and political and bureaucratic power to appropriate more land for themselves. At the same time many peasants and livestock keepers, who were protected as land right owners on basis of oommunal ownership, are completely alienated from land as a basic means of production. Once registration is done

the smaller peasants are increasingly bought up by the bigger ones or by members of the landed petty-bourgeoisie. Landlessness increases as a result of adjudication and registration programme.

Deprived of the only means of production they had, many peasants and livestock keepers are subjected

to poverty they have never experienced. The fruits of that expropriation go to the petty- bourgeoisie who gcow in strength, economically

and politically,and are prone to refer to the peasants whose land is appropriated as being poor ... 108 idler 8 .

Having got financial assistance in form of

international loans, and having used such assistance

to become land owners/farmers, businessmen and

rentiers, fckie petty-bourgeoisie turns to reasserting

its support f e e foreign capital investment in

Kenya. Apart from the loan capital channelled

to the petty-bourgeoisie through various government

and private agencies, private foreign capital is 377 - encouraged particularly from the multinationals*

Most of the latter deal with the processing of farm products and they therefore provide the petty-bourgeoisie with ready market for their crops including wheat, maize, barley, sunflower, wool* Industrialisation dealing with these products is viewed as essential to petty-bourgeois conception of national development. Their interests and those of their sponsors, the international monopoly bourgeoisie, are viewed to be one and same as national interests*

Industrialisation whether dealing with agricultural products of the large-scale farms or with any other products locally produced or not, is welcome by the petty-bourgeoisie for other reasons* One of them is that it gives them new area and chances of increasing their profits by being appointed as transporters or wholesalers of any new products that may be produced, particularly for local consumption. This class therefore benefits from industrialisation by the multinationals in that it reaps and appropriates the middleman’s profits. Industries falling in such a category include the East African Industries, Kenya Breweries

Ltd., Bata Shoe Co., British American Tobacco

(B.A.T.) Ltd., Coca Cola Kenya Ltd., Knluworks

Ltd., Portland Cement Co. Ltd., and Union Carbide

Ltd - 378 -

The ruling petty-bourgeoisie thus becomes fully involved in the exploitation exercise of the international monopoly capitalism. The profits they reap are those of the middleman and this is perhaps one reason why C. Leys refers to them as the "auxilliary bourgeoisie'il0 ^heyt as a result, become the leading worshippers of foreign capital and of international capitalism.

The argument advanced by the ruling class ia support of bombarding the country with foreign capital is that it helps to industrialise the country and hence helps to create employment.

£\jt they, perhaps without a tinge of selfishness and hypocrisy, ignore the fact that the so called national industrialisation is not a reality at all.

It merely pepresents erection of the industrial enclaves of international bourgeois industries, particularly European and American, usually in order that the international bourgeoisie may make greater profits and hence increase and expand their capital accumulation. Indeed such pretentious industrialisation only serves the purpose of intensifying oppression and exploitation of the

Kenyan masses under the yoke of international / capital.

As regards creation of jobs for the Kenyans, the ruling class assumes, again hopefully without any hypocrisy, that what the Kenyans need is wage 379 - or salary work based on exploitation of surplus labour value by capital, particularly foreign and international capital. They do not consider that the majority of the Kenyan people could be economically productive as self-employed independent producers if exploitation based on private land and property did not exist, or existed on very reduced size.

Again the so called industrialisation has not managed to, and in most cases will notfincrease employment by significant levels. The principle of profit making and capital accumulation is based on minimising production costs particularly by reducing the number of human labour, which is normally difficult to control, and by substituting it with capital equipment which will not only increase productivity but also the quality of the products. Industrialisation by international capital not based on this assumption would be unrealistic to imagine.

As the International Labour Organisation report on Kenya’s problems of employment, incomes, and equality observed, these industries, far from utilising the labour-intensive methods of production which would increase the number of jobs significantly, in fact use the capital-intensive methods, which have the contrary effect.The latter choice also has the effect of wasting or misusing the Mhard won" foreign exchange which the ruling class urge the country to save and which is meant to be

\ A ' 4 saved by industrialisation through foreign private ■ capital of the multinationals. It also kills or greatly discourages development of any indigenous technology and industrialisation. The multinationals J have taken to manufacturing even the very basic I '\ > \ items most of which could adequately be manufactured by local indigenous people. Such items include cooking fat, fruit Juices, salt, sugar, maize, and wheat flour, cooking utensils, common farming impliments such as panga, axe, jembe, knife, '* v f baskets, bags, and other items like buttons, ear- fings, neck-laces, dresses and clothing items \ in general.

The following chapter examines social and l \ political implications of the development of an \

African ruling petty-bourgeoisie which is largely supported by international monopoly capital on IA the one hand, and also of the increased number \ of the small and pedty-traders, the peasants, I squatters, workers and landless unemployed on the v - other. The latter classes constitute what we \\ have called the exploited and oppressed masses of Kenya. I - 381 -

FOOTNOTES

1. Dualism and Rural Development In East

Africa!

(Institute for Development Research, Denmark,

1973) p. 7.

2. Ibid.

3. Kenya! Annual Report, 1953.

The European occupied areas had district

county councils which did not levy rates

even though they had the power to do so.

Practically the whole of their incomes

consisted of Central Government grants which

were channelled through the Roads Authority. They also got additional funds towards the

costs of supervision and administration

expenses.

4. The colonial created educated elite and

••primitive or embryonic -capitalists"

developed into land and property appropriating

groups durj[ng the colonial days. At the time

of independence the same Groups became the

main inheritors of the outgoing European

and Asian owned property and businesses.

Hence a background of the emergence of this

group of privileged Africans becomes important.

5. Kenya: Annual Report, 1950, p. 49.

6 . Kenya! Annual Report, 1954, pp. 51-52.

7. Land Bank, Report, 1949.

Most of the farms in Nakuru were now mechanised - 382 -

as a result of a campaign to thqt effect.

This campaign was greatly assisted by British

capital through Colonial Reconstruction Fund.

Consequently9 only a few labourers could be

employed. This situation persisted into

post-independence period.

8 . Convention of Associations, Minutes-1948.

9. Kenyax Annual Report, 1950, p. 37.

10. See Chapter III.

11. This was recollected to me by Messers.

Gicere Mbirua, Kamau Kihara, and Waweru

Kihara (ALIAS Karemanjaga) all of Olenguruone

Special Settlement Area.

12. In addition, see report of the Kiambu

District Committee of chiefs and elders who

visited Olenguruone in February, 1946,

(N.A. File on Olenguruone)•

13. They believed that it was only the whiteman who

could treat Africans as labourers or workers

to be exploited. They never therefore

conceptualized that under an African government

they would continue to be exploited as

labourers and be maintained as undignified

"landless" members of the independent Kenyan

country. They were to be disillusioned later

on.

14. African trade unions started to emerge about

the same time and, although they were under - 383 -

the direct direction of the colonial

government, they nevertheless increased

the need to soften the African animosity

against the European racism.

15. Swynnerton, A Plan to Intensify the

Development of African Agriculture in Kenya,

(Nairobi, Govt. Printer, 1955). The so

called "African middle class" was merely

a group of Africans who were encouraged to

develop capitalist oriented methods of

ownership and economic production which

exploited the labour of others in order to

make and accumulate profits. They did not

have capital as such. They therefore used

power and "primitive accumulation of capital"

with which they, appropriated much land and

some other property from the rest African

members. They used a mixture of both their

family and hired labour in order to increase

their profits. We have referred to them as

"primitive capitalists" in Chapter I.

16. Sorrenson, M.P.K. op. cit.

C. Leys, The Development of Peasant Society,(IDS Discussion Paper,102). Wanjohi, N.A.G., Classes in Kenya: The Case

of Kiambu District, (B.A. Dissertation, 1974).

17. Op. cit. 384 -

18. The bill to that effect had been introduced

in the legislative council in 1957 and had

to be delayed until the terms of the Kenya

National Farmers Union (KNFU) were incorporated

in it* Harbeson, J.VU, Nation Building in

Kenya, (Evanston, 1973, p. 92)*

The passing of this bill was also due to the

persuations of Mr* M. Blundell who had become

the architect of multi—racialism in Kenya,

Ibid* , p* 52*

19. Founded in 1947, its membership was largely

composed of European mixed farmers. However,

its structure contained representatives of

plantations, ranches, and the organised

agricultural industries such as the Pyrethrum

Board, Wheat Board, Coffee Board, Kenya Meat

Commission, and Kenya Cooperatives Creameries.

20. Wasserman, G., The Politics of Adaptation in

Kenya. (UEASSC, 1970).

21. In order to make arrangements to that effect,

elections under the First Lancaster House

Conference were delayed for two years.

Harbeson, op. cit. p. 85.

22. Ibid. pp. 84-85. Investment by Europeans and Asians had virtually

stopped and it was imagined that this would

lead to a collapse of "Kenya*s economy" before

and after independence. This was of course

referring to the capitalist economy which - 385 - required to be overhauled if a real national economy had to be established, unfettered by foreign aid/debt* The situation in the country was made to look as if such an overhaul would lead to widespread unemployment and land hunger* It was exaggerated by the local and foreign, especially British, press and a picture of chaos and instability awaiting

Kenya after independence became the everyday story. Instability was always the greatest enemy of capitalism and British and European capitalists tried to do all they could to forstall such a situation in Kenya, the one country they yearned to exploit more even after independence* It was therefore necessary to embark on extensive scheme for the transfer of some European occupied farms to a group of Africans. The main idea behind the

Mpre-emtiveM exercise of alloting some land to some of the unemployed and landless, particularly the Kikuyu, was to pave the way for a peaceful transfer of political or Msymbolic*' power to

Africans and thus allow some time for "cooptation" of the new leadership into the capitalist interests which they would be wooed to defend.

Indeed this transfer of power by peaceful means was meant to facilitate a transfer from colonialism to neo—colonialism* - 386 -

23. wasserman op. cit. the KNFU requested £25

million over 1 0 years.

KNFU engaged in negotiations and supervision

of land purchases and also for loans for

further purchases from various international

•'aid*' agents* especially the British Colonial

and Commonwealth Development Corporation.

This exercise by the KNFU continued in the

post-independence Kengra. In 1966, for example

it sent a mission to London led by its

president Mr. Pollard for the same purpose.

East African Standard* 7-1-66, p. 15.

24. wasserman, op. cit. One of the aims of

keeping in such a body was to vest it with

secrecy particularly of the exorbitant prices

at which land was being purchased and conceal

the fact that land was actually being sold to Africans. 25. Ibid* 26. Ibid. From this statement it appears that

the World Bank was actually persudding

Britain to accept its involvement in the

purchasing of the outgoing British settlers

farms. The British Government was persuaded

by the arguments and it conceded to the plot

solely aimed at blackmailing any independent

African government in Kenya whether it was

to be led by KADU or KANU.

27. After the conference had ended, the British

Government recommended that Kenya should seek 387 -

financial assistance feom the (Colonial

and Commonwealth Development Corporation

(CDC) and from the World Bank and the West

Germany Government. The reasons for this

kind of pretended Msacrosanct” advicd were

based on the fear that future African govern­

ment in Kenya might not honour credits given

by the former colonial power in order to

buy out European farmers it had helped to

establish in order to exploit the Kenyan

land and its peoples. A blackmail had

therefore been accepted as being necessary

if repayment of credits for such a pmrpose

had to be realised. The British Government

therefore came to accept the blackmail plot

of capitalists who were both in Kenya, led

by the KNFU, and in Britain led by various

multinationals who had invested their capital

in Kenya especially in tea, coffee, and sisal

plantations as well as in various ranching

pursuits. Britain therefore ’’coopted” various

international and semi-international financial

institutions in order to consumate the black­

mail. Harbeson, op. cit. p. 208.

28. This became the pattern. Leaders both in

KANU and KADU tried to avoid issues hoping

that once independence had come they would

do things the way they wanted without having

to be tied down by the constitution. Kenyatta 388

had on several occasions tried to avoid the

issue. Ronald Ngala, the President of KALU,

normally preferred "not to comment further

at this stage", Sunday Post 4-2-62 (p.4).

But once the European negotiators realised % this strategy, they instead continued to

insert clauses in the constitution which

had indirect, but effective, influence on

any issue, including land. Indeed under

the leadership of Mr. M. Blundell, they

insisted that specific guarantees for land

ownership be incorporated in the section

on the Bill of Rights. The issue of the

Bill of Rights was turned into an issue

of land. (0. Cndinga, Not Yet Uhuru, p. 178).

It was later included in the constitution.

29. Kaggia, B.M. Roots of Freedom (EALB9 1975

p. 166).

30. Wasserman, op. cit.

31. KANU Manifesto, 1963.

32. Masserroan, op. cit.

33. KANU fell victim of accepting the principle

of private property without asking how that

property was acquired.

34. Department of bands, Annual Report, 1964.

35. Vasserman, op. cit.

36. Ibid.

37. The urgency of the "pre-emtive" settlement

project became much more felt among the - 389 -

Europeans when some African politicianst

particularly Kaggia and Ngei, insistently

declared that land had never been sold to

Europeans by Africans and should therefore

not be paid for by them in any form. (Sunday

Post, 4-2-62).

38. Ibid.

Also, Republic of Kenya* The Million Acre

Settlement Scheme, 1962—66, p. 1.

The Million Acre Scheme would settle about

30,000 families. The actual acreage for the

scheme had proved to be less than the original

1 ,0 0 0 , 0 0 0 acres; it was 850,000 acres instead.

(E.A. Standard 7-1-66, p. 15). This revelation

was contained in a report prepared by the

KNFU which was the actual organising agent/

force in the scheme. The project wgs expected

to last for five years up to 1967 and to

involve about 200,000 acres a year. The

average acreage of plots was expected to be

50. IBRD, the Economic Development in Kenya,

(Baltimore, 1963, p. 84).

39. The Lands Department Report states that no

titles were issued to individual settlers in

order to avoid lack of completion of demarcation

of boundaries in the individual scheme, what

the individual settler got was only a letter

of allotment. But it seems to have been a

delaying method which avoided giving title deeds - 390 -

until the settlers had repaid their portion

of loan which actually owed to the British

Government in the main. Note also the

participation of the World Bank, the (Colonial

and) Commonwealth Development Corporation,

and the West Germany Government in helping to

create a handed petty-bourgeoisie while at the

same time stressing the alienation of the

bulk of the landless workers from the right

to land in their own country.

40. IBRD. fH T p. 83.

41. Vinnai. V. - The Africanisation of the

White Highlands - (IDS Discussion Paper,

No. 7, 1973).

42. Their' li plots would be bigger than the ones

found in the Central Province in general. It

/should be clearly noted that 12,000 or 30,000

families scheduled to be included for the

programme was only a very small proportion

of the "peasant-workers and landless workers

and1 \ unemployed who required some land on which

they could depend for their livelihood.

43. Ibid. The project would cover aboit one-eighth

of mixed farming. The rest of the area would

remain under capitalist farming. I 44. Land Bank Report, 1963. As it can be observed

from the settlement scheme above, only High

Density Scheme was reserved for Africans only. 391

Also Vinnai, op. cit.

Table I, for example, shows that land in the

Central Region, which included the new

Nyandarua District, cost about £13 per acre

while it cost only £10 in the Rift Valley

in 1961/62. One could also sell his land

in the Central Region for £11 in 1962/63

and for £13.1 in 1963/64 and turn to buying

other land in the Rift Valley for £7 and for

£ 1 0 in the same years respectively.

45. Land Bank, Report, 1963.

46. Ibid.

47. Nakmru District land files indicate/ that

Europeans bought land which they disposed

off to Africans at exorbitant prices soon

after. This trend seems to have proceeded

unabated into 1972 when Mr. Moi, Kenya’s

Vice President, for example, warned some

European farmers in the Nandi District who

were "buying farms for speculative purposes

in ordef to exploit the people." He cited

the case of a European farmer in the Nandi

Hills who, having bought a farm for £5,000

some months before, was now asking for

£30,000 from prospective African buyers.

(E.A. Standard, 7-1-72)

Some achieved voluminous profits by subdividing

the land they had just bought and then selling

it in small plots which Africans seemed able 392

and eager to buy quickly.

48. Wasserman, op. cit.

Agricultural Development Corporation Report,

1965.

49. E.A. Standard, 13-8-64.

Development Plan 1966/70.

50. Economic Survey, Kenya, 1969, p. 79.

51. Economic Survey, 1969, p. 79; and 1971, p. 77.

52. Economic Survey, 1968, p. 69.

53. Economic Survey, 1974, p. 79.

In 1971 the number of squatters in Nakuru

District was 2,018 and the occupied 44,862

hectares. The cooperatives referred to here

are not the same as the ones in which the

members contributed money to buy land. For

the latter type of cooperatives see below.

54. Economic Survey, 1974, p. 79.

55. Under "Stamp Purchase Programme*1 a number of

properties were to be acquired by the government

for operation by the ADC as State Farms,

especially for the maintenance of nucleus

herds of high-quality livestock. At the same

time, most of the other large-scale farms

which were being purchased from their previous

European owners would pass into the possession

of the ADC which would continue to own them

for some years while some new African farmers

would be allowed to take-over some of them

which they would operate as tenants for a - 393 -

number of years* When these new African

farmers had been taught the elements of

large farm operation, and had proved

satisfactory, they would begin to purchase

their farms •••••• As a result of these new

arrangements the number of independent African

large-scale farmers did not increase in 1966

at the same rate as in 1965* Economic Survey,

1967, p. 38.

56. Ndefo (Ndeffo) Company Ltd. leased their

farms, Lusiro Farm andEngoshura Farm from the ADC under such terms. But their hope

was that once they were allowed to buy these

farms, the land would then be subdivided and

allocated to the many members of the company.

The problems of this company, which will be

referred to below, originate from

this kind of confused situation. (Interview

with the company*s Managing Director, Mr.

Kimunya).

57. 0. Odinga, op cit., p. 260-268; 303-304.

Also in the Manifesto of Kenya People's

Union (KPU)* It declared that cooperative

farming on land taken over from European

settlers would be preferred and encouraged ••••• (and) that KPU would fight for a

reduction of the size of farms held by

individuals. (Odinga, op. cit. p. 304). - 394

58. In addition to these harassements, very little

practical assistance was given to the

cooperatives* Thus, of the 100,000 acres

of land included in Development Plan 1966/70

for the yearly transfer to Africans, 80,000

would go to large African farms, 20,000 would

go to peasant farmers. There was no provision

for cooperative land purchases in particular*

Again only 6*7% of over £2,000,000 advanced

by the Land Bank for land purchases between

1963 and 1967 went to cooperatives* (Odinga,

op* cit* p. 260)

Ai*o Development Plan 1966/70, p* 156— 7*

59* This was one of the cooperatives and mass-

companies visited* Others included Nyagaco

or Arash F*C*S., Subukia Valley Farmers

Company, Rumwe F.C*S*, Kamwaura Farmers

Company, Ngondu F*C*S*, Ndefo Company Ltd*

Lusiro and Engoshura Farms, Ngwataniro

(Mutukanio) Company Ltd.-Bahati and Njoro

Farms, Ogilgei Farmers Company Ltd*, and

Mai Mahiu Farmers Company*

60* Profits from Shirika farms go to Settlement

Fund Trustees* (Interview with Assistant

Farm Manager at Lenginet Shirika Settlement.)

61* For example, Amigos Bar building in Nakuru

Town was purchased by Ngwataniro Company and

was soon rented to Kihika Kimani who was the - 395

company's Chairman/Managing Director and

P. Kanyi Nakuru GEMA secretary arut leading

member of Ngwataniro Company. Note also

that Kihika Kimani was the Chairman of-

both KANU and GEMA in Nakuru District*

62. Confidential confession by one manager of

such farms*

63. Leaders capitalise on this to delay allocation

of plots to their opponents and to win the

support from the majority of the people in

the waiting list. This seems to be turned

into a control tool - social and political.

64. Kalenjin Snterprises Ltd*, could be owning

well over 7,852 hectares or 19,630 acres of

land* They could also have increased their

acreage to more than 17,352 hectares or

43,380 acres if they have completed a purchase

deal for Kerenget Estate near Molo which they

had started in 1975*

65. Colin Leys notes that acute landlessness of

the type experienced by Kikuyu was lacking

and that teachers were content to become

shareholders in large farms. The additional

anxiety to live and cultivate in those farms

was very limited among the Kalenjin. Iin

"Underdevelopment in Kenya," Heinemann, 1975, p.229).

6 6 * See Chapter III*

67. Cooperatives or companies led by powerful or

influential people-like Kihika Kimani, - 396 -

G.G. Kariuki, (M.P. and Assistant Minister

for Lands and Settlement), Fred Kubai (Chairman

and Managing Director of Mai Mahiu Farmers

Company, former M.P. and Assistant Minister

for Labour), and Mr. Arap Moi, (the Vice

President and Minister for Horae Affairs)

together with Mr. Komen (a veteran Kalenjin

leader) - largely benefit in that sense.

Note that when the Ndefo Company was threatened

with dissolution which would have meant that

all their land and properties would be sold

by a public auction, they incorporated Mr.

Arthur Wanyoike Thungu, President Kenyatta*s

personal body guard, in order to achieve the

sqme aims. As a result President Kenyatta

was to intervene to save it from dissolution.

(Interview with various leaders of the company

particularly the Managing Director Mr. Kimunya

Kimana).

6 8 . Gicheha Farm used to be Kenyatta*s farm only.

The combination with Koinange’s farm adjacent

to it makes the two people not only friends

and kinship relatives by marriage, or mere

political partners, but also economic partners.

Koinange would therefore benefit from the free

machinery and staff from the Ministries of ttork and Agriculture, and also from the free

prison labour which Kenyatta utilises in order

to maximise productivity and profits from 397

his farms in various parts of the country*

69* The very high rate of unemployment and

landlessness in Nakuru was expressed by

nearly all Government officers who were

interviewed*

70* Such people as John W* Michuki, (Chairman

of Kenya Commercial Bank, (Duncan Ndegwa

(Chairman of Central Bank of Kenya), Njenga

Karume (Chairman of GEMA in Kenya and Nominated

M*P•) and the influential Kihika Kimani (M.P.

for Nakuru North) are all senior members of

GEMA national committee* They have great

influence on Kenyatta*

71* Interview with recent land buyers and with

officers in the Lands Office, Nakuru*

72* As a result of Stamp Report and the subsequent

land purchase programme which required farms

not to be subdivided, the number of independent

African large-scale farmers did not increase

at the same rate in 1966 as in 1965*

(See Foot Note number 55, above)*

73. Economic Survey, 1972, p* 79*

74. See Foot Note number 58, above*

A sample of files at the AFC offices at

Nakuru also suggested that only about 10% of

land purchase or development loans went to

cooperatives and mass—companies in Nakuru

Bistriet - 398 -

75. B. M. Kaggia, Roots of Freedom, (EAPH, 1975). 76.C. Leys, op. cit. p. 229. Daniel Arap Moit the Kenyan Vice President, for example, lent

his name to the Kalenjin land buying companies.

77. According to this principle, "insatiable

greed'1 was the leading motto. The members

of the petty-bourgeoisie therefore insisted

on having more and more of land and property

without any regard of what the rest of the

population would suffer. (Interview with

the Chairman of Nakuru County Council, Mr.

George Kori, the Managing Director of the

Ndefo Company, Mr. Kimunya Kimana, and the

Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce in

Nakuru west Section, Mr. Evans Njoroge

Ngugi.)

78. Interview with Mr. Kimunya Kimana and adminis­

trative officials who dealt with that incident.

79. Correspondence files at the Ndefo Company's

offices, Nakuru.

80. Daily Nation, 22-7-75.

81. Interview with government officers who dealt

with the incident.

82. In March, 1976, J.J. Mungai chaired several

meetings in his Nakuru offices with his hand­

picked so called leaders with whom they

intrigued to have the company's land and

other property sold at an auction, preten­

tiously in order to repay the AFC loan. That 399

auction was put off at last hour due to the

intervention of President Kenyatta. (Daily

Nation 6-4-76)•

83. GEMA for example, has no other practical aim

except to perpetuate the interests of the

Kikuyu Petty-bourgeoisie.

84. Post 1960 business-migrants initially traded

in second-hand clothing. This was the largest

number of traders interviewed.

Others were employed by Indian traders as

tailors, some by the Nakuru County Council

as clerks, and the rest were employed as

labourers.JLn European farms, Forestry Department,

and in the houses of European Government

officials. There was about 20% of traders

who migrated after independence and who were

granted trading facilities as a result of

their connections with influential occupants

of political and bureaucratic power positions.

These included A.D. Macharia the brother to

Major Macharia who is presently the A.D.C.

to the Presided.

85. F. Furedi, The Development of Anti-Asian

Opinion Among Africans in Nakuru District,

Kenya. (Institute of Commonwealth Studies,

London).

86. Ibid.

87. People of Nyeri origin own about 40% of all

businesses in Nakuru District according to - 400 -

trade officer Nalcuruf 1975, Mr. Nguma Mwai.

They have hence become the victims of

competition from the powerful petty-bourgeoisie

emanating from Kiambu District.

88. For a little more details of the composition

of the "Big 36" see Appendix II. The

information is based on with various people

closely connected to the members of this

group.

89. As a tool of dramatisation of Kihika’s

leadership zeal, at least in the eyes of

the public and the administration, he

organised the construction of the expensively

built Ngwataniro Harambee Secondary School

at Bahati, Nakuru. The school was officially opened by President Kenyatta on 25-9-74 in

1973 as a gesture of recognition of Kihika's

personal efforts and as a way of legitimation

of his leadership. (E.A. STANDARD and DAILY

n a t i o n 26-9-74).

90. Interview with officers of Ngwataniro

(Mutukanio) Company.

91. Daily Nation, 20-11-74.

92. Ibid.

C.K. Koinange is also one of the large-scale

land owners in Bakuru District.

93. Note that the National Chairman of GEMA,

Mr. Njenga Karume, himself a staunch southern - 401 -

chanianist, also owns about 19000 acres of

land In Molo, Nakuru.

94. Of these members of the "Big 36"f the ones

reported to have been associated with the

murder of J.M. Kariuki included J.J. Mungai,

S. Mburu Gichua, P. Njoka, Evanson Ngugi,

Simon Kairu, Arthur banyoike Thungu, and

Simon Thuo. (J.M. Report, 3-6-75). Those

who publicly castigated the members and

work of the "probe committee" included

Kihika Kimani, P. Njoka, Simon Kairu, and

Evanson Njau Kariuki. (Daily Nation, May,

1975).

95. The police which was headed by a member of

the "Big 36", J.J. Mungai, had also charged

Mark Mwithaga with theft of 100,000/- and

opposed bail while the case was heard. But

Mr. Edward McGreedy who handled that case

offered the token bail of 1,000/- only and commented -

"I consider it harsh and oppressive

to refuse bail in a case where the

alleged crime is lacking in specification."

(Daily Nation, 16-^-75).

96. Mwithaga was not the last victim of the "Big

36" manc^vres. Others who followed him

included Miss P. Chelagat Mutai, Martin J.

Shikuku, and J.M. Seroney. The first one was 401 -

chanianist, also owns about 1,000 acres of

land in Molo, Nakuru.

94. Of these members of the "Big 3 6 % the ones

reported to have been associated with the

murder of J.M. Kariuki included J.J. Mungai,

S. Mburu Gichua, P. Njoka, Evanson Ngugi,

Simon Kairu, Arthur Wanyoike Thungu, and

Simon Thuo. (J.M. Report, 3-6-75). Those

who publicly castigated the members and

work of the "probe committee" included

Kihika Kimani, P. Njoka, Simon Kairu, and

Evanson Njau Kariuki. (Daily Nation, May,

1975).

95. The police which was headed by a member of

the "Big 36", J.J. Mungai, had also charged

Mark Mwithaga with theft of 100,000/* and

opposed bail while the case was heard. But

Mr. Edward McGreedy who handled that case

offered the token bail of 1,000/* only and commented -

"I consider it harsh and oppressive

to refuse bail in a case where the

alleged crime is lacking in specification."

(Daily Nation, 16-^75).

96. Mwithaga was not the last victim of the "Big

36" mancyjvres. Others who followed him

included Miss P. Chelagat Mutai, Martin J.

Shikuku, and J.M. Seroney. The first one was - 402 -

imprisoned by the same magistrate V.S. Dhir

for two years, while the latter two were

placed under an indefinite political

detention for asserting that KANU was dead.

97. Kenya: Annual Reports, 1950, p. 58.

98. A Land Bank representative at Nakuru East

felt that since the British Government had

encouraged European farming in Kenya, it

should pay, through a loan, Mfor a farm

the capital required to yield an approximately

similar income from a British farm." Thus

he expected that the farmers selling land

in Kenya would earn prices similar to farms

in Britain at that time. The idea that

local prices were utilised when buying the

European held farms was therefore far from

correct. (Land Bank, Annual Report, 1964).

99. Interview with managers of these farms.

100. ILO Report, p. 166.

101. Ibid.

Kenya Development Plan 1974-78, p. 199.

102. Interview with managers or their assistants

and members of various farm cooperatives and

mass-companies. These included Rumwe Farmers

Cooperative Society (FCS), Ngondu FCS,

Jumatatu FCS, Ogilgei Farmers Company, Ndefo

Company, Ngwataniro (Mutukanio) Company, and

Lenginet Settlement Scheme. - 403 -

103. ILO Report, p. 168.

104. Interview with Agricultural Officers, AFC

Officers, and KFA Officers working in

Nakuru District.

105. Seidman, Comparative Development Strategies

in East Africa, p. 168.

106. Development Plan 1974-78, p. 199.

107. Ibid.

108. This attitude originates from the colonial

days when, after their land was alienated,

the Africans refused to work for European

settlers and were hence referred to as

idlers. C. Eliot, The East African

Protectorate, (London, 1905); P. Mitchell, African Afterthoughts (Hutchison London,

1954).

109. C. Leys, Underdevelopment in Kenya.

Chinese Marxists called them ’’Comprador

Elements”.

110. ILO Report. 404 -

CHAPTER V

CONSOLIDATION OF CAPITALISM IN KKNYAt

Socio-Political Implications

INTENSIFIED CAPITALISM AND ALIENATION OF THE MASSES

This study has so far shown that a removal of the means of production from the common ownership and control of the society also leads to appropriation of productivity thereof by the new owners| who usually constitute only a small class, at the expense of the majority of the population* with the process of alienation of f the means of production, such as land, property and "business"f the members of the section of the society which is deprived of those means are forced into being the workers* It is their surplus labour value of production which is appropriated by the class owning and controlling the means of production,particularly capital, in order to make profits .and accumulate capital*

This entire situation constitutes the system of appropriation of ownership and control of means of production and of expropriation and appropriation of surplus labour value of all non-owning and non-controlling classes in the society* As noted in Chapter One appropriation of productive efforts or surplus labour value can also occur where the owners are the producers but not the controllers 404 -

CHAPTER V

CONSOLIDATION OF CAPITALISM IN KENYA!

SgffAft-PfiUttcal Ipn3LAgatj.ffng

INTENSIFIED CAPITALISM AND ALIENATION OF THE MASSES

This study has so far shown that a removal of the means of production from the common ownership and control of the society also fceads to appropriation of productivity thereof by the new owners, who usually constitute only a small class, at the expense of the majority of the population* with the process of alienation of ( the means of production, such as land, property and MbusinessM, the members of the section of the society which is deprived of those means are forced into being the workers* It is their surplus labour value of production which is appropriated by the class owning and controlling the means of production,particularly capital, in order to make profits ,and accumulate capital*

This entire situation constitutes the system of appropriation of ownership and control of means of production and of expropriation and appropriation of surplus labour value of all non-owning and non-controlling classes in the society* As noted in Chapter One appropriation of productive efforts or surplus labour value can also occur where the owners are the producers but not the controllers - 405 - of the products or profits. In this case the power holders become the main appropriators of the owner's and workers' surplus value. In case of peasants in Kenya, appropriation of productive efforts has been occurring as a result of very low wages to workers who in turn resort to cheap peasant products in order to subsidize these poor wages. The peasants therefore indirectly subsidize the employers who are the capitalist owners of means of production.

The latter actually appropriate the surplus value of the peasants as well. European capitalist settlers not only put an end to communal ownership of land and other property.

They also put an end to the common benefits which

the entire membership of the African societies used to enjoy under their communal and egalitarian

systems. In place of benefits for all, European capitalists initiated land holding for speculative purposes and also initiated the system of keeping productivity of that land low in order to induce

state subsidy and manipulate local prices with the

aim of increasing their unearned for profits.

Such a capitalist manouvre, which was also

continued and intensified under independent Kenya,

was always in sharp contradistinction with the interests of the squatters and workers who were 406 created by colonial capitalist! and of the peasants and small-petty traders who have since the colonial days subsidized the low wages of the squatters and workers. All these classes have been the oppressed and exploited classes since the colonial days and up to the present day.

Virtually all the so-called efforts to soive the problems of these classes have never passed the pretentious stage. This was the case during the Masai removals in the Rift Valley and all through the colonial days. Swynnerton Pian, for example, was, as we have noted in Chapter IV, only a means of ensuring the capitalist settlers of a stable pool of labour and profitable producti­ vity through mechanization of their farms. Like all other activities of the colonial, and to a large extent post-independent government, the plan was just one Instrument of obscuring capitalist exploitation and oppression in Kenya.

Continuation of the implementation of the plan after independence constitutes one of the greatest ironies in the history of Kenya.

The centrality of land in Kenya’s socio­ political setting has been emphasized by many scholars on Kenya’s devellopment. We consider it a valid thing to do particularly when, as we have seen in Chapter IV, the trrend of appropriation of 407 other property and businesses in Kenya in post­ independence era, tends to follow more or less the trend which was followed in land appropriation during the colonial and post-independence periods.

As we have observed European settlers were able to acquire land , which the colonial government had alienated from Africans, only with the assistance of long-term financial credit.

They used the same financial credit to improve some portion of that land in order to exploit it by using African cheap labour for their own profits and capital accumulation. At independence this same process was repeated when Britain, west

Germany and the Wqrld Bank gave financial credit to a few Africans who became large-scale and medium-scale land owners and members of the petty- bourgeoisie. The few among the squatters and workers who received land through such credits were just a token show while the actual target of the credits was to promote and strenghthen the petty-bourgeoisie. This trend has continued up to the present day. It is likely to continue for many years provided capitalist financial credits will continue to flow into the country.

Availability of easy loans for land purchases at the time of independence and after, put a new momentum to the rash for land for speculation by the African petty-bourgeoisie. Many of them have 408 held large tracts of land while their productivity or employment opportunities remained very low*

Against the ILO Report, we have, therefore, maintained that no amount of capital or expertise will help to increase the level of productivity or emplyment in rural areas, and particularly in the former scheduled European areas, as long as the principle of individual private property, particularly land, is upheld in Kenya. Until this principle is withdrawn, manipulation of level of productivity and employment by the private land owners will continue} manipulation of state power to obtain subsidy, tax reliefs and price increases will also continue unabated.

At the same time the petty-bourgeoisie will aslo manipulate financial institutions, political and bureaucratic power and influence, in order to sell some of their land at exorbitant prices while they also buy other land at low prices.

Irom the lesson of the adjudicated areas, and also from the study of land cooperatives and mass- companies in Nakuru district, we also highly doubt whether the ILO recommendation on subdivision of large-scale farms will actually lead to any significant increase of families settled in such p farms. As long as land is a commercial commodity and serves as a basis of capitalist profit-making by the petty-bourgeoisie, subdivision of such farms - 409 -

Mill only lead to a multiplication of the number

Of land pieces an individual will hold, while the over all acreage and quality of land held by the petty-bourgeoisle might increase signifi­ cantly* Subdivision of this nature would be of meaning only if all land is held by the state and only if the actual cultivators are the only people allowed to hold any land at all* In such a case employment of labour on land held individually, except one's family labour, would be disallowed* Such employment would be reserved for state farms which would ideally be the only existing large-scale farms in the country*

In order to effectively implement the ILO

Report on the issue of land subdivision as a means of reducing poverty and inequality by increasing employment and incomes, particularly of peasants, squatters, and workers, we maintain that the entire land policy has got to be overhauled* Land should be nationalized as a necessary prerequisite of such an overhaul* This would put an end at land holding for speculative purposes or for profits

6 £ the small class of the petty-bourgeoisie. The other requirement is the declaration of war against exploitation of man by man and thus elimination of "man eat man” society which Kenya has been said to be.® This would require the destruction - 410 -

of the class base upon which mass land alienation

and subsequent exploitation of that land and the

masses of Kenya by the petty-bourgeoisie is

founded. This would not actually be possible without

a revolution which nobodv in Kenya has dared to

As in the case of land purchases, the purchase

of businesses, business-premises and of residential

houses required the assistance of finance capital

which once again originated from international

sources. Institutions such as the HFCK, the H*C,

and 1CDC were created to act as agents through which that international finance capital could be

"dished" out to the Kenyans, particularly the

members of the ruling petty-bourgeolsie#

International financial institutions which joined

the race of promoting real estate acquisition in

Kenya included the World Bank, the British

Commonwealth Corporation, United States AID and

various international, or internationally funded,

commercial banks* As in the case of land, it was

the colonial made African elite and "primitive

capitalists" who largely appropriated most of

the former foreign owned businesses and real

property# As such, the landed petty-bourgeoisie

also became the main propefty and businesses owners

in the country# 411

After the petty-bourgeoisie had appropriated

most of the former Asian and European owned

businesses and real property, they turned to

reselling them for profits* Thus the lesson

they had learned from speculating on land soon

began to be applied in business and real estates

such as residential and business premises* Many

of the petty-bourgeoisie no doubt used such

premises for their own businesses or occupation,

while the extra ones were rented away* But they

would not hesitate to manipulate financial insti­

tutions to boost up their chances of selling

these premises at profit whenever they could* In

the case of business, for example, they petty—

bourgeoisie have managed on several occasions to

hold such commodities as sugar, maize and maize-

products, rice, matches, wheat products and meat

in order to force up the prices for their

own profits* Specualtion on property and on

business in Kenya is, however, an area which

little research has been done and more of it is

long overdue.

In both land and business and property

{appropriations, international financial credit

agencies concentrated their efforts on the petty-

bourgeoisie who, as we have seen, were thought to

be capable of repaying the loans and were also

ready to perpetuate and protect capitalist interests 412

in the country. In both cases, the international

finance capital, disregarded the idea of creating

new viable large number of people from among the

squatters and workers, for example, who could

become independent producers capable of satisfying

their basic needs of food, shelter, clothing,

education and general happiness without depending

on peasants and small-petty-traders for subsidies and on selling their labour in order to earn a living. Nor

wpuld these capital agencies be expected to adopt

such an idea which may not necessarily or directly

lead to the repayment of credits, or to the

maintenance of suitable environment for capitalist

oppression and exploitation,

what can be expected therefore is a continued

perpetuation and strengthening of the class of

petty-bourgeoisie on the one side, and perpetuation

of deprivation, oppression and exploitation of

the peasants, squatters, small-petty-traders and

workers on the other. The same International

finance capital will then keep on supporting the

petty-bourgeoisie who in turn will tend to

manipulate it in order to strengthen and preserve

their class and class interests. With such a

backing, the emergence of powerful, oppressive

and exploitative petty-bourgeois, eolldarity

groups as the "Big 36” becomes inevitable.

Further alienation of the peasants, squatters, 413

small-petty-traders and workers from ownership

of means of production, especially landt real property and businesses, will then take place.

Through their manipulation of state power and

the conditions of supply and demand, the petty-

bourgeoisie will then have more and more price

increases for their products, while subsidies,

tax reliefs, credits and technical services

are offered by the government on the most generous

terms possible. While price increases on local

consumer products hits the consumer directly, the oppressed classes are more exploited through heavy taxation which increases state revenue from which the petty-bourgeoisie draw their subsidies,tax reliefs,

credits and government services which they

convert into unearned for profits.

The masses of peasants, squatters, small-

petty-traders and workers therefore become all

the more exploited. In order to subject them

to that situation, oppression or repression is

stepped up to unprecedented levels. Other vices

such as corruption, armed robberies and murder

become inevitable when the petty-bourgeoisie

struggle to increase and accumulate their profits,

while the masses struggle to make a living out of a pitiance. In such a situation violent class

struggle becomes matter of time but inevitable. CLASS STRUGGLE AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS

Class struggle in Kenya began as soon as colonial capitalism set its "foot" in the country.

Initially the Africans fought to prevent capitalist alienation of their land. Later on they struggled against being converted into,and being maintained as, exploited and oppressed w^je labourers in their own country. The capitalist, on his side, always struggled to maximize the amount of land he held for speculation, and also to maximize his profits by exploiting land and cheap African labour. In order to subject the Africans to the capitalist requirements for profit and capital maximization, the capitalist utilized British colonial state power to oppress them. This was done under what was called the ’’rule of law" which, to Africans

(and other colonized and exploited peoples), was the rule of capitalist oppression to facilitate maximization of capitalist exploitation. The struggle between European settler capital and the African peasants, squatters, small-petty traders and workers continued throughout the colonial period.

At the close of that era, European and international capital successfully managed to overtake the struggle of the peasants, squatters small-petty traders and workers. 415 by manipulating international, especially British capital in order to promote and strengthen the colonial made African elite and ’’primitive capitalists" into full fledged petty-bourgeoisie or capitalists without capital. Through that capital, the Europeans had earned their speculator’s profits through the transfer of land to the African petty-bourgeoisie while at the same time they safeguarded capitalist interests in farming, industrial and commercial areas* In this respect

European capital, which had joined international capital in order to ensure its preservation, managed to create a buffer and medium through which it continued to exploit and oppress the African masses. Overt struggle between the masses on the one sic 2, and European and international capital on the other, subsided for the time being*

Meanwhile, the attention of the masses, especially the small-petty-traders, was diverted towards the

Asian trader who had been in control of most wholesale and retail trade* Through the state power, particularly the weapon of Trade Licensing

Act of 1967 and the system of quit-notices of

1971 devised by the Ministry of Commerce and

Industry* Asian enterprises were greatly reduced*

Unlike the Europeans who utilized international finance capital to solicit long-term safety of their capitalist interests, the Asians resorted to - 416 - short-term approaches such as corrupting politicians and bureaucrats such as trade-licensing officers or going into partnership with Africans of little influence. They were therefore much easier to get rid of.

As the small-scale traders set to appropriating property and businesses from the Asians, they were in most cases taken by surprise to find that they had to trade in premises which had secretly been bought by the African petty-bourgeoisie from the

Asian owners. These new owners of trading premises who were also the main African wholesalers, turned to making profits out of rents and wholesaling in the same way the Asians had done. In Nakuru District, as we have noted, that about 70% of all traders actually operate in rented premises. This becomes significant in that the majority of the traders who had tried to escape exploitation by Asian importers and wholesale traders were not becoming victims of African petty-bourgeoisie rentier and wholesaler exploitation. However, they seem h o t to be immediately antagonistic against their rentiers, and this situation is likely to prevail as long as they are not charged exceedingly exorbitant rents which would significantly reduce the income they earn from their sales.

It should also be noted that as part of their struggle, the European capitalists, unlike the

Asian commercial bourgeoisie, managed to adapt

themselves to changing environment in the country.

They therefore changed their outward appearance

while they retained their goal unchanged - that

is exploitation and oppression in order to maximize

profits and capital accumulation.

The European,more than the Asican for instance,

managed to safeguard his interests through the

so-called Africanization of Kenya*s economy. All

he did was to Africanize most of the formerly

European and Asian occupied work positions in

various industries and businesses. But the critical

decision making positions were always retained by

„ the European. This was certainly not Africanization a " sconomy but rather Africanization of the

sefviti-'inen of foreign capitalist economy. The

Asians delayed in doing the same thing in their

business enterprises and they therefore suffered

greater expropriation by the African^".

While the struggle for the expropriation of

European settler farms and Asian property and

businesses by Africans went on, intra-African

struggle developed into a competition for

international resource allocation and also for

the distribution of land, property and businesees

appropriated. This struggle was initially viewed - 418 (i1. °V

as a "tribal” or ethnic competition* But it

tended to develop into an intra-petty-bourgeoisie

competition on the one hand, and into a petty- bourgeoisie versus the peasants, squatters,

small-petty-traders and workers on the other*

Cases of bitter conflict between ethnic groups especially in Nakuru District, have never gone beyond mere internal petty-bourgeois conflict*

This can be explained by the excessive preponde­

rance of ..the Kikuyu population in Nakuru District*

But that kind of explanation tends to be defeatist

and lacking in wait* The more viable reason can

only be found in the fact that the peasants,

squatters, small-petty-traders and the workers of various ethnic groups do not as yet have anything

to compete for, while they should all struggle to

safeguard themselves from further alienation from

the means of production and fruits thereof by

the petty-bourgeoisie of all ethnic backgrounds*

They suffer the same oppression and exploitation by the petty-bourgeoisie, and they need not compete among themselves while the latter cooperate and unite to intensify oppression and exploitation*

The first class struggle after independence took place within the petty-bourgeoisie itself* • 419 -

This was mainly between the political and the bureaucratic sectors of the petty-bourgeoisie. It concentrated on differences concerning who were going to appropriate international financial credits and also land, property and businesses from the outgoing Europeans and Asians* Some politicians claimed that the civil servants could not become owners of land, property, or business and at the same time be able to sefve the national Impartially and with full devotion. As a result of mounting conflict between the political and bureaucratic capps of the petty-bourgeoisie, the Ndegwa Commission was appointed*

As part of its job, the commission,under "any other matters" as per terms of reference, undertook 4 to arbitrate the dispute* The Commission had "no objection to the ownership of property or involvement in business by members of the public services to a point where their wealth is augmented perhaps substantially by such activities ••••• It is understandable, the commissioners reported on,

"that public servants should have taken their opportunities like other citizens but if the benefits in some cases seem to be out of proportion to the opportunities which have been available to them in common with other citizens it is inevitable that questions should be asked as to how this has come about. " 5 The civil servants 420 were not, however, asking to have more than

•'other citizens", particularly the politicians*

They merely wanted to have a share of the fruits of Uhuru, especially the international aid loans for property and land purchases* They were not to engage in trade or acquire directorships* In other words they could invest capital (borrowed capital) in land and business and like other members of African petty bourgeoisie, sit back or stay in offices, and wait to appropriate profits earned through the work and sweat of the workers they hired*

The basis of the conflict between some politicians and the senior civil servants,both members of the petty-bourgeoisie, was that the latter had been charged with the duty of "Dishing" out international loan aid on behalf of the "donors"*

The criteria of allocation was, particularly in case of land purchase loans, availability of

"suitable Africans"*® Like the politicians, senior civil servants also considered themselves suitable for the allocation* They would not bear to see all the cake of what appeared to be free capital go to politicians and their henchemen, while they behaved like "divine" and unaffected individuals. Many of them, particularly the senior officers, had engaged in land, property and business purchases and ownership long before the report of • 421 - the Ndegwa Commission was accepted by parliament*

This involvement by the senior civil servants was viewed by some politicians and the colonial made African "primitive capitalists" class as yet another competitition to be contended with. The report, however, vindicated the senior civil servants claim that they too belonged to the petty- bourgeoisie class and they should not be excluded from participating in it fully, including making profits out of land, property and business ownership.

The report helped to bring the unity of the petty- bourgeoisie class much doe e r than ever before.

This meant that they should also take a direct share of international and "national" credit facilities in order to become capitalists. It followed that they^like most of the politicians, turned to be staunch supporters and perpetrators of international monopoly capital in the country and, ipso facto, they also became the main perpetuators of oppression and exploitation of the Kenyan masses by international capitalism.

The petty-bourgeoisie have then turned to strenghtening their side of the struggle by mobilizing bureaucratic, political and coercive forces to reinforce their class oppressive power. They also manipulate political appointments, particularly of heads of financial agencies, in order to have their 422 economic interests well safeguarded. Such heads of bodies like ICDC, AFC, HFCK and most of the commercial banks are utilized in order to exercise control over would-be opponents of the zealous members of the petty-bourgeoisie. Thus, for example, a person might feel opposed to elimination of what we have called "Nyerians" in Chapter IV, But he would refrain from expressing such an opposition or else he might lose credit facilities he expects from, or he has with, ICDC, AFC, Kenya Commercial Bank,

Standard Bank, or Barclays Bank,all of which are greatly influenced by members of the petty-bour­ geoisie who have been appointed directors or chairmen in order to safeguard class interests, with their representatives at various strategic positions the petty-bourgeoisie is able to obtain more financial credit and use of power in order to appropriate more land, real property and businesses at the expense of the peasants, squatters, small- petty- traders, and workers.

But they are not content with having the support of bureaucratic, political and coercive force agents. These agents, especially the senior civil servants, police officers, army officers, and politicians are themselves members of the petty-bourgeoisie. But the struggle requires that they institute themselves into solidarity groups such as the "Big 36” which maintain unflinching commitment of all members to A i the ideals of the petty-bourgeois class as a whole. ; j j r j: The strategy of the petty-bourgeoisie is to / 11 1 build a kind of 'Caucus'1 which will hold and • A: l j! | monopolize al m forms of social political and economic co^tirol. That ‘’caucus" then turns to regarding itself as the government, the ruling I / [« p^rty KANU, and the nation. It then expects all other members of the petty-bourgeoisie to support it and un ite under it in order to exercise greater control or oppression over the peasants, squatters, V i/ small-petyty-traders and workers and maximize I appropriation and profit making for the entire dies.

In an attempt to conceal their class interests and also in order to increase their control of the entire masses, the petty-bourgeoisie institute or adopt such institutions as Gikuyu, Embu and Meru

Association (GEMA)f New Akamba Union (NAU), and

Luo Union which are ethnic in origin and which tend to erroneously suggest ethnic interests against the class interests of the petty-bourgeoisie .

Such organizations rather than being antagonistic to class interests really become the main reinforce­ ment columns of the petty-bourgeoisie. Like the

"Big 36" of Nakuru they tend to recruit membership from the politicians, senior bureaucrats, senior 424 police officers, and in case of GEMA, also influential clergymen such as Father Muhoho of the United 7 Nations Environmental Programme in Kenya*

After building itself into such groups as the

"Big 36"9 GEMA, NAU, (or other undeclared groups), the more ardent members of the petty-bourgeoisie begin a campaign of ensuring absolute identicalness of their class views and interests* The "deviants" or "half-committed" members of the class who are generally referred to as dividers of people, tend to be excluded or removed and replaced from what is considered to be membership and leadership of

KANU, or GEMA, NAU, or even Luo Union* The several "coups" andwattempted coups" in several

KANU branches have largely fallen in line with this kind of cleaning up exercise within the petty- bourgeoisie itself* The resolution of KANU governing council to the effect that civil servants, and particularly senior civil servants, should become

KANU members should also be seen as an attempt by

the petty-bourgeoisie to unify itself and its

interests by all available means*

The question of bureaucracy controlling the political cadre, or vice versa, therefore becomes

irrelevant* They are both sectors of the same

petty-bourgeoisie and they only differ in the role

each one plays in defence of the class interests - 425 - t by way of controlling the masses and perpetuating exploitation. In this case bureaucracy is no more a mere instrument of the petty-bourgeois class.

It is also part of that class and it act? in the interests of that classv self preservation and perpetuation.

Meanwhile, oppression, deprivation and exploitation is intensified against the peasants, squatters, small-petty-traders, and workers classes. In their turn these classes increase the awareness of their common suffering under the petty-bourgeoisie. They also increase their consciousness and desire to rid themselves of oppression and exploitation which they express in such cases as during elections when they tend to return candidates who disassociate themselves from the oppressing petty-bourgeois class. In Nakuru, as we have observed in Chapter

IV, the election of Mark Mwithaga even when he was in prison was demonstrative of rejection of the "Big 36” candidate Mr. A* Kabiru Kimemia.

The latter was again rejected in yet another by- election on 29th December, 1975 as a sign of determination with which the peasants, squatters, small-petty-traders and workers despise the O oppressive petty-bourgeoisie.

Nearly all the institutions through which the masses could channel their antagonisms against oppression and exploitation are stunted or converted 426 into instruments for perpetuation of oppression and exploitation by the petty-bourgeoisie and /or international monopoly capital. As we have noted,

KANU as a party is, for example, appropriated and reduced to absolute inactivity by the ruling petty-bourgeoisie. It is referred to only when the ruling class wants to give the impression that the masses of Kenya are behind it in its policies. But it is no more the channel through which the masses can cothmunicate their problems or demands as to how they should be ruled or

’♦served”. As a result of this, the masses consider it to be a dead or moribund and useless tool, and they accordingly refuse to support it no matter what efforts may be made to revive or reconstitute it.

Such a resistance by the masses against becoming members of a party that would be suggestive of their support of the oppressive and exploitative petty-bourgeoisie is in Itself symbolic of great consciousness within the masses of oppressed classes against the petty-bourgeoisie, which is also the ruling class. It also becomes indicative of a silent call for change. This change, the masses suggest by their resistance, should be political to begin with, and should be followed by changes in all other spheres of the country*s life including economic, social, educational, cultural and mental. 427

With such a call the masses require to see their interests of food, clothing, housing, education, recreation, happiness and absence of oppression and exploitation championed and maintained* They want the complete elimination of the petty-bourgeoisie which they see as being the real oppressors and exploiters*

Apart from the party, the peasants, small- petty-traders, squatters and workers could be expected to resort to organizations such as the trade unions in order to bring about changes in the country*s socio-economic structure* But the peasants, squatters and the smaJLl-petty-traders are almost wholly excluded from any form of trade unionism. The unemployed workers are also excluded from any instrument of bargaining to better their living conditions by getting access to means of livelihood* They cannot therefore bargain for the utilisation of public money, for examplet in

ICDC, AFC, HFC, and banks in those projects where they would not be exploited and retained in poverty. They cannot bargain for new land policy based on "land to the tiller” principle*

Nor can they bargain for lower taxations or lower prices for their food, clothing, housing, education, or recreation.

In the case of workers under wage employment, their entire leadership becomes coopted into the petty-bourgeoisie, which as we have seen in Chapter

IV, defends and perpetuates the interests of the international capital* The interests they will be championing are these of the petty-bourgeoisie and of their sponsors, the international capitalists*

The trade union leaders therefore see the interests of the workers and of their capitails 1t employers to be one and same* But in the actual reality the interests which the leaders view to be workers* interests are in fact only the interests of the leadership itself* That leadership cannot therefore champion any serious struggle to end oppression and exploitation by the petty-bourgeoisie and the international bourgeoisie*

Other institutions such as the parliament, the courts, and the religious bodies are converted into legitimation instruments of the petty-bourgeoisie*

In Nakuru we have for example, observed that the

"Big 36" sponsored their own candidates for both parliamentary, county and municipal elections* This has been the case elsewhere in the country* The aim is to get to these legislative institutions, particularly the parliament, members who themselves belong to the staunch petty-bourgeoisie and who will defend and champion the interests of the entire petty bourgeoisie* Parliamentary members who do not fully commit themselves to those ideals are harassed, detained, imprisoned or assassinated* In their place the petty-bourgeoisie forces pseudo-free - 429 - elections wtaftch ensure or try to ensure an increase of their supporters in Parliament,

In that case parliament ceases to be the supreme defender of all the people’s right to food, shelter,

Clothing, education and happiness. It is not even a "rubber stamp" of the petty-bourgeoisie. It becomes a petty-bourgeois assembly of legitimation of their oppression and exploitation. The target of this legitimation is »ot the peasants, squatters,

small-petty-traders, and workers. These become of little or no consequence after the petty-bour­ geois solidarity is realized. They will find it difficult to remove their members of parliament \ who are supported by the petty-bourgeoisie. They will also require extra-determination to resist the

removal of their member of parliament who falls

in disfavour with the petty-bourgeoisie solidarity.

But the target of legitimation is the international

world which is the source of international finance

capital upon which the petty-bourgeoisie draws

its financial and capital support. Such support

will only be granted when this class has demonstrated

that they oppress the masses hard enough to achieve

stabilitvy and ^absence of criticism which they call unity, "Ordery, "stability" and "favourable

investment climate" not only attracts financial

credit for the pett^-bourgeoisie, but it also

attracts capital investment by various multinationals 430 - for the purpose of oppression and exploi of the masses* As we have seen elose relationship exists between promotion and strengthening of the petty-bourgeoisie in Kenya and perpetuation and protection of international monpoly capitalist investment and exploitation*

In the absence of any channel through which the peasants, squatters, small-petty-traders and workers can realize solution of their increased poverty and suffering, and in the face of mounting solidarity of the petty-bourgeoisie in intensifi­ cation of its repression and exploitation, the conflict of the two main classes becomes increa­

singly serious* This conflict becomes more serious between the squatters and workers on the one side, and the petty-bourgeoisie on the other* It could be more sharpened among the urban workers whose

suffering and deprivation leads them to a point of near-d sparation. Their consciousness is greater than that of other oppressed and exploited

classes* They therefore have got to lead the other

classes to rejecting and destroying the petty-

bourgeoisie upon Whom th*lr common poverty and misery is founded* As the petty-bourgeoisie, with

the help of international finances^ ideas and arms,

increase their repression through the use of

coercive force in their control, the oppressed and - 431 exploited classes also step up their resistances and protests which are bound to become violent especially if they are countrywide* A revolutionary trend will have started and will only require revolutionary good and committed leadership to keep up that violence as the only means to destroy the petty-bourgeoisie and the basis of international monopoly capitalist oppression and exploitation*

The role of revolutionary leadership would be to guide the peasants, squatters, smali-petty- traders and workers in destroying the entire basis of class oppression and exploitation* Such a basis includes the entire institution of private property and its connection with international finance capital which boost it up* This would mean re-appropriation of ov/nership of means of production by the oppressed and exploited classes* j with that appropriation all institutions which are so structured as to perpetuate oppression and exploi­ tation have to be destroyed. These include parliament, courts, bureaucracy, educational syst«« and the armed forces* All these have to be replaced with new ones which will be so structured as to safeguard communal and egalitarian relationship to the means of production and which will also safeguard all people’s right and duty to be free from suffering deprivation, oppression and loss of surplus labour value* - 432 -

Such a revolutionary uprising should not take long to come about once the cleaning up exercise of the petty-bourgeoisie continues to assume control of the government, KANU, GEMA, NAUf Luo

Union, Muslim Association, Trade Unions, Courts, and Churches* Repression is then expected to be increased to unbearable levels and a general call for change will be inevitable* - 433 - E..Q iLULQ T a, .a

1, See Chapter IV.

2, ILO Report, pp*165-172,

3ee also Chapter IV,

3, Tanzania’s Daily News,May 1976,

4, Ndegwa Report, Commission of Inquiry (Public

Service and Renumeration Commission) 1970-71,

Government Printer, j.97a , sections 32-36 and739.

5, Ibid.

6, For example in the Stamp Land Purchase

programme which see in Chapter IV.

7, Father George Muhoho is a prominent member of

GEMA« He is brother to Mama Ngina Kenyatta,

President Kenyatta's wifo,0wns large-scale farm at Rongai,Nakuru. 8, Willie Komen won the December 29,1975 by-elections.

TABLE XIV:AFRICAN AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES - APPENDIX I

Monthly paid labour Daily paid casual labour Resident labour Totals Year ■ i Men Women Children Men Women Children Men Women Children

1936 154,698 — —- 11,178 10,904 8,768 — — — 185,548 1941 159,638 — 46,972 18,151 16,422 11,145 23,325 — — 266,653 1942 106,249 — 35,577 2,036 13,737 5,366 23,702 — — 186,666 1943 98,010 — 35,408 1,913 9,924 3,310 26,757 16,118 16,268 206,708 1944 98,169 — 36,201 1,738 9,377 2,876 34,656 15,981 15,215 £14,213

1946 99,924 5,802 34,487 2,133 6$,593 2,525 31,930 13,524 13,144 210,062 1946 90,651 8,932 38,348 3,288 9,296 3,265 27,746 14,045 7,754 203,225 1947 93,493 9,193 36,484 4,983 13,015 4,399 16,625 9,087 7,888 195,167 i 1948 94,593 10,728 31,587 3,944 8,324 2,633 25,359 8,739 6,695 192,602 ,■■■' * 1949 100,358 12,516 27,901 2,478: 6,365 1,816 27,916 9,470 6,093 196,913 1950 100,510 14,228 28,694 8,492 6,730 3,655 27,690 9,960 10,425 210,384

1951 105,045 14,449 29,600 7,196 14,074 4,699 25,522 9,633 6,798 217,016

1952 105,957 15,092 28,774 5,911 11,820 3,761 27,445 9,989 7,090 215,839

SOURCE: Department of Labour,Annual Reports,1951 & 1962 TABLE XV ^AFRICAN AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES WORKING APPENDIX I

ON CENSUS DATE

Year Men Women Children Totals

1936 194,172 10,904 8,767 213,843 1941 257,339 16,429 69,896 333,663 1942 281,637 14,623 61,226 347,386

1943 286,793 27,466 64,288 378,646 1944 287,068 28,187 62,863 378,089 1946 294,999 28,366 66,931 379,286 1946 287,134 34,756 64,892 376,781 1947 300,833 33,849 64,179 388,861 1946 310,074 30,669 44,904 386,667

1949 323,867 32,741 38,304 394,912

1960 341,063 34,479 46,664 422,206 1961 327,401 41,402 43,613 412,416

1962 361,368 40,364 42,817 434,639

SOURCE: Department of Labour,Annual Report** 1952, f \ APPENDIX II

l ORIGINAL' No.. ...Q LQJ:/J m .~ o ( ' A l> *t. »!4 i COLONY AND l*HOTJOOTOHATH 01-’ K E N Y A

LICENCE TO ENTER A. CLOSED DISTRICT 'v Under the provision -t of the On tying Districts Ordinance JJSlU* UJ - - J f ) j Name Of ..

| Address __...... — ( 1 . u

...... N...... a J n # * ? ,

/

- / ’ v 2 A A Conditions upon which this licence is granted ...... c it...... l...... & l/>

I%dSalLLt^.ZUuL'J^L ...... _ .r j f i ' A / .. . 7 , / ' O ^L£o jjJL.. -ZiL/ulri.'.-_ r...... 5.---

Place of issue...... i . ' y D a le o f issue...... Vi D a te o f e x p ir y .— ...... — / . j/ j-

.y v y \

^ ' 4 f r s( j s / u &Q. ....• > - • • * • . > - /• Provincial Commissioner " ^ V K* 1 • / i ' ‘ ' ' ••: . .■ +,.<*.' ’s f ; J i 9 " . /•. ,rv:>, ^ / / • J • • r. a~yv/’r* ' J - 1*38 -

APPENDIX III: SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON

SOME MEMBERS OF THE "BIG 36”

In order to appreciate the central role the members of the "Big 36" do play in socio-economic and political affairs of the district (and the nation to some extent), it would be worthwhile to look at some background' information on some of the members of this group.

Member's Name Background information and Remarks

1. KIHIKA KIMANI M.P. for Nakuru North; GEMA -

National Organising Secretary; i

KANU Nakuru District Chairman; *

GEMA Nakuru District Chairman; Q

• Founder and Managing Director of r"

Ngwataniro/Mutukanio Company;

Manager of Ngwataniro Secondary

School at Bahati; Co-manager 7 of Ngwataniro Farms at Bahati;

Owner of two large-farms at Njoro

and at Molo; Owner of a smaller

farm at Nakuru, located next to Member’s Name Background Information and Remarks

the Ndefo Company farm of Engoshura,

and on which he has recently b u ilt

an eight chimney mansion; Business

partner with D. Kamau Kanyi at

Amigos bar and re s ta u ra n t, Nakuru.

2. PHILIP NJOKA M .P ., Nominated to re p re se n t R i f t

Valley interests; Former councillor

for Hospital Ward of Nakuru Muni­

cipal Council; Co-owner of business

with his wife, called Philip Njoka

Alice Kahaki Wholesaler.

3. Mrs. ALICE KAHAKI NJOKA:Wife o f P h i l i p Njoka.

4. PETER MENYA Former employee of Gestener

Duplicators, Nakuru and later on

owner of that business; Narrowly

elected concillor for Hospital

Ward, Nakuru Town, in place of

Philip Njoka after the latter was

nominated to parliament. He was

the hand-picked candidate for the

"Big 36" and hence their fu ll support

during the by-election. / 5. EVANSON NJAU M.P. fo r Nakuru West; .Chairman

of Ngwataniro/Mutukanio Company

Mau Narok Branch; Former manager

of Ngwataniro/Mutukanio Farm at Member's Name Background Information and Remarks

6. SIMON KAIRU M.P. for Naivasha; The first

African tour operator in Kenya;

Assistant Minister for Labour;

Businessman in clothmaking.

7. S. MBURU GICHUA Mayor for Nakuru Town; Owner of

large-scale farm near Nakuru

Town;' Businessman, transporter,

and contractor.

8. GATHOGO MWITUMI Deputy Mayor for Nakuru Town,

Elected councillor for Bondeni

Word, Nakuru Town; Mau Mau

freedom fighter-deserter and

subsequent collaborator with

colonial forces; Former member

of KPU; Owner of Nakuru Top

Lodge Day and Night Club. 9. D. KAMAU KANYI GEMA Nakuru District Secretary

Large-scale farm owner and

businessman; co-operator of % Amigos Bar and Restaurant with

Kihika Kimani. 10. AMOS KIMEMIA KABIRU Businessman; An unsucceful "Big * 36" candidate for parliamentary / 1974 October General Elections

against Mark Mwithaga (inter alias)

unsuccessful "Big 36" candidate - Mn

Member’s Name Background Information and Remarks

for parliamentary by-elections

of August 15, 1975, against

Mark Mwithaga (inter alias) and

December 29th, 1975, against

/ Arap Komen (inter alias). 11. EVANSON NGUGI Chairman of Kenya Cooperative t Creameries. (KCC) Ltd., large-

scale farmer and businessman. 12. ARTHUR WANYOIKE • THUNGU President Kenyatta's personal

bodyguard; Owner of a large-scale

farm near Nakuru Town; Coopted

co-director of Ndefo Company v.Ltd.,

after 1975 crisis around the

company. ' •

13. J. JOSEPH MUNGAI Senior Assistant Commissioner of

; Police for Rift Valley Province;

Owner of two large-scale farms, ■ one of which is next to President

Kenyatta's Gicheha Farm at Rongai,

' Nakuru. 14. J.N. WANG' OMBE- Officer Commanding Police Division,

Nakuru District; Owner of large-

scale farm in Bahati, Nakuru. - kk2 -

Member*s Name Background Information and Remarks

15, JOEL MUCH AX Assistant Director of Social

\ Service, Rift Valley Province; Large-scale farm owner in Nakuru.

16. SIMON THUO District Commissioner for

Nyandarua District; Owner of

large-scale farm in Nyandarua

South in conjuction with KABINGU

MUREGI, M.P. for Nyandarua South

and Deputy Speaker of the National

Assembly of Kenya, a post assumed

after J.M. Seroney was detained

allegedly for supporting J.M.

SHIKUKU who declared in that

assembly that KANU was dead. 443

BIBLIOGRAPHY

\ - 444 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adamson J. The Peoples of Kenya, (Colling &

Aorvill) London, 1967

- Alavi,h . Imperialism, Old and New, (in the

Socialist Register London, 1964)*

Altricham, Lord, Kenya's Opportunity, (Faber & Faber,

London, 1955)

Amin, S. Neo—colonialism in West Africa,

(Penguin, 1970)

Arkadie, Van Mission on Land and Settlements

(Report on Kenya, (Nairobi, 1966)

Aristotle, Politics, (N.Y. Modern Library,

1943)

Arrighi, J.J.

— & Saul J. S. Essays on Political Economy of Africa

(EAPH, 1974)

Askwith, T.G. Kenya Progress, (EALB, 1958)

Ajayi, J.F.A.

& Crowder, M,(ed) A History of West Africa, vol. II

(London, 1974).

— Baran, P.A. The Political Economy of Growth (Penguin,

1973)

"^Beaxher, R.W. East African Ivory Trade in 19th

Century, (In Journal of African

History, vol. Ill, 2, 1967).

‘"’Beecher, L.J. The Kikuyu, (Nairobi, 1944).

- Bennet, G. Kenyas A Political History of the 445 -

Colonial Period, (London, 1963).

Bennet, G.

& Rosberg, C.G.The Kenyatta Election, Kenya 1960-61,

(London, 1961),

Berntsen, J.L. Masai and Iloikop, Ritual Experts and

their Followers, (M.A. Thesis,

Wisconsin, 1973),

Blackburn R.H. Honey in Okikk Personality, Culture

and Society, (Ph.D. Thesis, Nairobi).

Blundell, M. So Rough a Wind, (London, 1964).

Boguslaw, R. The New Utopians, (Prentice-Hall, 1965).

Boorstein, E. The Economic Transformation of Cuba,

(Monthly Review Press, N.Y., 1968)#

Bottomore, t.B.Classes in Modern Society (London,

1967). Elite and Society (Penguin, 1971).

Bretton, H.L. Power and Politics in Africa, (Longmans,

1973).

Brett, E.A. Colonialism and Underdevelopment in

East Africa, (Heinemann, 1973).

Bukharim, N. Imperialism and World Economy, (Merlin

Press, London, 1972).

Buxton, M.A. Kenya Days, (London, 1928).

Cabral, A. Revolution in Guinea, (Brussels, 1973).

Cagnolo, C. The Agikuyu, (Nyeri, 1933).

Cargenie, V.M. Kenya Farm Diary, (London, 1930).

Carothers, J.C.The Psychology of Mau Mau, (Nairobi,

1954),

Clayton, A. and

^-Sevage D.C. Government and Labour in Kenya 1895-1963 - 446 -

_Cole, G.D.H. Studies in Class Structure,

(Routledge & Kegan Paul, London,

1955).

— Cole, S. The Prehistory of East African

(New American Library, 1965). Colson, & Seven Tribes of Central Africa, Gluckman, (Manchester University Press,1968)p.19 Corfield, F.D. The Origins and Growth of Mau Mau, (Nairobi, Govt. Printer

Cranworth, B .E .G . Kenya Chronicles, (Macmillan, 1939).

^Cockcroft, J.D. ]

) Frank, A.G. and ] Dependence and Underdevelopment: ( Johnson, D.L. ] Latin America’s Political Economy, (Anchor Books N.Y., 1972).

-Dahrendorf, R. Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1969).

Davidson, B. Which Way Africa, (Penguin Can Africa Survive (Heinemann, 1975).

De Gregori, T.R. Technology and the Economic Development of the Tropical African Frontier (Claveland & London, 1969). — Dilley, M.R. British Policy in Kenya Colony (Cass, 1966).

-Djilas, M. The New Class, (F.A. Praeger N.Y., 1962).

Dualism and Rural Development in East Africa, (Institute for Development Research, Denmark, 1973).

\ - 447 -

Dumont , R. False Start in Africa (Sphere Books Ltd., 1967).

— Dundas, K.R. Notes on the Origin and History of the Kikuyu and the Dorobo (Man, 1908).

Duverge , M. The Idea of Politics, (London, 1971) .

Eastman, M. (ed ) Capital, The Communist Manifesto and other writings by Karl Marx, (Modern Library, N.Y. 1969). Eliot, C. (Sir) The East African Protectorate (London, 1905).

Fabian Colonial Bureau, Kenya Controversy, (London, 1947).

Fanon, F. The Wretched of the Earth, (Penguin, 1974).

Farson, N. Last Chance in Africa ( 1949).

First, R. The Barrel of the Gun, (Penguin, 1972) . Frank, G. Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America, (Penguin, 1969).

^.Faller, L.A. Social Stratification and Economic Process in Africa (in Economic Transition in Africa). — Furedi, F. The Kikuyu Squatters in the Rift Valley, 1918-29, (In Hadith 5;ed.B.A. Ogot, EALB, 1975). The Development of Anti-Asian Opinion Among Africans in Nakuru District, Kenya, (In Institute of Commonwealth Studies - 448

London.)

— Gauzner, N. Social Effects of the Scientific and Technological Revolution under Capitalism, (Moscow, 1973).

Gakaara Wanjau Mihiriga ya Agikuyu: Kikuyu Clans, (Nairobi, 1970).

Giddens, A. The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies, (London, 1973).

_ Gregory, J. ■.** The Foundations of British East Africa (Negro University Press, N.Y., 1969).

Gann, L.H. & Duignan^P. (ed). Colonialism in Africa 1870 - 1960, vol. I (Cambridge 1969)

Harbeson, J.V*. NationaBuilding in Kenya, (Evanston, 1975).

Harlow, V. & Chilver, E.M. (ed.) History of East Africa (Oxford, 1965).

Harris, P. i*yn, A Discussion of the Problems of the Squatters, (1946).

Heyer, J. Ireri, D. Morris, J. Rural Development in Kenya (EAPH, 1971),

Hailey, (Lord) - An African Survey, (Oxford, 1957).

Hill, M.F. Permanent Way: The story of the Kenya Uganda Railways, (Nairobi, 1950).

- Planters Progress: the story of Coffee in Kenya. - Cream Country: The Story of Kenya Creameries Cooperative.

Hinde, S.L The Last of the Masai, (London, 1901). - 449 -

Hobley, C.W. From Chartered Company to Crown Colony, (Frank Cass, 1970).

Hollis, A.C. The Nandi, (Oxford, 1969),

The Masai, The Language and Folklore, (Oxford, 1905).

Humphrey, N. The Kikuyu Lands (Nairobi, 1945).

Huntingford, G....B.The Social Organisation of the Ndorobo, (In African Studies, 1942, vol. I). - The Nandi of Kenya, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1953).

Huxley, E. Settlers of Kenya (Longmans, 1948)#

Huxley E. White Man’s Country (Macmillan, 1935).

Horwitz, R. The Political Economy of South Africa (

Hyden, G. J.J. Ckumu & j. Jackson Detelopment Administration: The Kenyan Experience, ( Oxford University Press, 1970 ) .

Jackson, F. Early Lays in East Africa, (Dawsons of Paul & Maul, 1969).

Jacobs, A.H. Masai Age Groups and some Functional Tasks, (EAUSRC, Kampala, 1958).

Jerome, A. Racism and Economics: (In National Agrarianism, vol. 2, EALB, 1973).

Kaggia, B.M. Roots of Freedom, (EALB, 1975).

Kenyatta, J. Facing Mount Kenya, (London, 1938).

— Kenya: The Land of Conflict, (London, 1945). 450

— My people of Kikuyu

Kitson, F. Gangs and Countergangs, (London, 1960).

Lambert, H.E. The Systems of Land Tenure in Kikuyu land Unit*

The Kikuyu Social jind Political Institutions, (Oxford, 1956).

Lander, C. My Kenya Acres, (London, 1957).

Leakey, L.S.B. Mau Mau and the Kikuyu (London, 1954).

Lenin, V.I. Selected Works, vol. I & II, (Moscow, I960).

Leys, C. Underdevelopment in Kenya, (Heinemann, 1975). The Development of Peasant Society (IDS Paper, 102) The Limits of African Capitalism in Kenya (1970).

Leys, N.M. Kenya, (Frank Cass, 1926).

Lugard, F.D. The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa, (Frank & Cass, 1965). The Rise of Our E&st African Empire, (London, 1893).

Macdonald, J.R.L.(Major, R.E.) Soldiering and Surveying in British t East Africa, (Edward Arnold, London, 1897).

Marris, P. & Somerset, A. African Businessmen, (EALB, 1971).

Marx, K. Capital (George Allen & Union Ltd., 1971) — T$e Poverty of Philosophy, (N.Y. International Pub.) - 451 -

Marx, K. & Engels, F. The German Ideology, (N.Y. International Pub. 1939) — Communist Manifesto, (Penguin, 1967).

Mboya, T.J. Challenge of Nationhood ( Heinemann )•

- Freedom and After, (Andre Deutsch) (London, 1963).

Meiaertzhagen , R. Kenya Diary 1902-1906 (Oliver & Boyd, London, 1957). Mendel, A.p. (ed.) Essential Work of Marxism.

Meek, C.K. A Sudanese Kingdom (Kegan Paul, 1931). -Tribal Studies in Northern Nigeria (Kegan Paul, 1931).

Mills, C.W. White Collar: The American Middle Classes, (Oxford University Press, ' 1953). — The Power Elite, (Oxford University Press, 1970). Mitchell, P. African Afterthoughts (Hutchinson London, 1954.)

Murluki, G. A History of the Kikuyu, (Oxford University Press, 1975).

Mutlso, G.C.M • Kenya Politics: Policy and Society (EABL, 1975).

Mohiddin, A. Notes on the Colonial Backgrounds of sessional Paper No. 10 of 1965 (EAUSSC, 1972, Paper No. 50).

Nyangira, N. Relative Modernisation and Public Resource Allocation in Kenya (EALB, 1975).

Newsbury, C.W • British Policy Towards *.est Africa, (Oxford, 1965). - 452 -

Nyerere, J.K. Freedom and Socialism, (Dar es Salaam, 1974i, - Ujamaas Essays on Socialism, (Dar es Salaam, 1971) - Man and Development (Dar es Salaam, 1973).

Naval Intelligence Division - G. Britain (NID) French Equatorial Africa (1942).

Nkrumah, K. Class Struggle in Africa, (Panaf. London, 1970).

Nzongola Ntalaja -- A Contribution to the Theory of Social Classes, (EAUSSC, 1972).

O'Connor, A.M. Railway and Development in Uganda, (Oxford, 1965).

Odinga, 0. Not Yet Uhuru, (Neinemann, 1971).

Cgot, E.A. & Kietan, J.A. Zaraani: A Survey of East African History, (Nairobi, 1971). ^Ossowski, S. Class Structure in the Class Consciousness, (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1967). - Owen, C. Social Stratification.

Parkin, F. Class Inequality and Political Order, (London, 1971).

' Prewitt, K. The functional Justification of Inequality and the Ndegwa Report; Shaping an Ideology (EAUSSC, 1972).

- Raynor, J. The Middle Class, (Longmans, 1969).

^Rodney, w. How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, (Dar., 1974). - 453

Rosberg, C.G. &

Nottingham, J. The Myth of Mau Mau: Nationa­ lism in Kenya. (EAPH, 1966).

Ross, M.G. Kenya From within, (Frank &

Cass, 1968).

Roscoe, J* The Northern Santu (Frank & Cass 1966).

Robinson, X. The Petit Bourgeoisie: Paper on "An Analysis of its Socio-

Economic Origins and its

contemporary Role in the Political

Economy in Kenya, (1971).

Sandford, G. Ex-Soldiers* Settlement,

(Mines, 1919).

Salvador!, C. &

Fedders, A. tfassai, (Collins, London, 1973). 0

Schram, S. Mao Tse-Tung Unrehearsed,

(Penguin, 1974).

—Mao Tse—Tung, (Penguin, 1974).

Segal, A. The Politics of Land in East Africa, (In Institute of Inter­ • V national Studies, California,

1968).

Seidman, A* Compare tive Development

Strategies in East Africa,

(EAPH, 1972).

Seidman, A* & - 454 -

R. Green Unity or Poverty, (Penguin, 1968).

Swidman, A.

Shivji, I.G. Class Struggle in Tanzania, (Dar es Salaam, 1975).

Smelser, N.J. &

Lipset, S.K. Social Structure and Mobility in Economic Development, (London,

1969).

Sorrenson, M.B.K • Land Reform in the Kikuyu Country, (Oxford, 1971).

— Spencer, I.R.G. The Development of Production

and Trade in the Reserve Areas

of Kenya, 1895-1929 (Ph.D. Thesis,

Simon Fraser University, 1974).

Spencer, P. Nomads in Alliance, (Oxford, 1973).

Spiro, H. J. (ed. ) Patterns of African Development

Swynnerton, R.J.K. A Plan to Intensify the Develop­ ment of African Agriculture in

Kenya, (Nairobi, Govern. Pt.,1955)

Tate, H.R. Further Notes on the Kikuyu Tribe

&f British East Africa (London, 1904).

Thompson, J. Through Masailand, (Frank Cass, 1968).

Thuku, H. Harry Thuku: An Autobiography

(Nairobi, 1970). •

Tucker, A.N. &

Ole f^paayei, J.T • A Masai Grammar with Vocabularly

(Longmans, 1955). - 455 -

Tumin, M.M. Social Stratification: The forms and functions of inequality

(Prentice-Hall, 1967).

— Readings on Social Stratification,

(Prentice—Hall, 1970).

Turner, V. (ed.) Colonialism in Africa vol. 3 (Cambridge, 1971).

Vinnai, V. The Africanisation of the White

Highlands, (IDS Discussion Paper,

1973).

Ward, w • E • I &

White, L«W« East Africa: A Century of Change, 1870-1970, (Africana Pub. Corp.

N.Y., 1972).

Wasserman, G. The Politics of Adaptation in Kenya (UEASSC, 1970).

Weber, M. Economy and Society, (Ed. Guenther Roth & C. Wittich-Bedminster Press,

N.Y., 1968).

The Theory of Social and Economic Organisation, (London, 1968). - Protestant Ethics and Spirit

of Capitalism, (London, 1970).

- Essays in Sociology, (H.H. Gerth

& C. W. Mills (ed). Roubiedge &

Regan Paul, 1964). - 456

Wolff# R.D. Britain and Kenya 1870-1930,

(Transafrica Pub*, 1974).

T-

Zwanenberg, van R*M*A. Colonial Capitalism and

Labour in Kenya 1919-39,

(EAPH, 1975). OFFICIAL SOURCES:

Kenya* Annual Reports, 1950-1958. Kenya: Statistical Digest, (1963) vol. I.

Kenya: Trade and Supplies, (1957).

Kenya: Report of Land Commission of 1933,

(Nairobi, 1934). Kenya: Non—Native Population Census - 1911,

1921, 1926, 1931, 1938, 1948. Kenya* Population census - 1962, and 1969. Agricultural Census - 1920.

East Africa Protectorate* Railway-Administration

Reports, (1907-8).

East African Statistical Department - Kenya Unit,

1961. District Annual Reports* Naivasha District, 1910—33

Nakuru District, 1910-1939

Nakuru Town Sites Board-Minutes, 1925-28.

Olenguruone Settlement Reports, 1946—48.

Land and Land Conditions in Kenya, Department of

Lands, 1927.

Lands Department — Annual Reports, 1922—1964.

Land Bank: Annual Reports, 1932—48 and 1962-65.

Agricultural Development Corporation (ADC) — Annual

Reports, 1965.

Labour Department - Annual Reports, 1943—53.

Labour* Reports from Naivasha District, 1953— 55.

Labour Bureau Commission, 1921 - Report. 458

Sub-Committee of Labour Advisory Board-Report, 1946*

Corfied’s Report — The Origin’s and Growth of

Mau Mau, Sessional Paper No* 5,

1959-60.

Interim Report of Economic and Finance Committee on Native Labour, (Govt. Printer, 1925).

Ndegwa Report - Report of the Commission of Inquiry

(Public Service and Renumeration Commission) 1970-71,

(Govt. Printer, 1971).

Development Plan - 1966-70;

' - 1970-74;

- 1974-78.

The Constitution of Kenya, 1969 (edition).

Sessional Paper No, 10, 1965 and No. 10, 1973.

Rift Valley Provinces Kenya Regional Physical

Development Plan.

ILO Reports Employment, Incomes, and Equality in Kenya, 1972.

IBRD Reports Economic Development in Kenya, 1963.

Report of the Select Committee on the Disappearance and Murder of the Late Member for Nyandarua North,

The Hon. J.M. Karluki, M.P. (June 3, 1975). - 459 -

JOURNALS AND PAMPHLETS

Journal of Modern African Studies, (6,2, 1962)*

Economic Transition in Africa

Africa Digest - 1958-1964.

Africa Review, ( v o l. 3, No. 2, 1973)

( v o l. 4, No. 3, 1974)

KANU - M a n ife sto - 1963 and 1969.

KADU — M a n ife sto - 1963

KPU — Manifesto — 1966.

Jo u rn a l o f Commonwealth S tu d ie s, (London • • • .• • .)

Hadith No. 2 and 5 (Ed. B.A. Ogot).

East African Standard (E.A. Standard)

Daily Nation

Sunday Post. Journal of African History, (vol. IH* 2, 1967).

African Studies, (vol. I, 1942).

J.M. Kariuki - J.M. Kariuki Speaks His Mind - 1974

October, Election Manifesto.

Mark Mwithaga - Parliamentary by-Election in

Nakuru Town, 1975 — M a n ife sto .