Zanzibari Denials

Published: 28/07/2009

Zanzibar
The international furore raised by last week’s column on Zanzibar and the programmes I made or BBC World Service demands a comeback. First, the name of the sultan deposed by the bloody revolution in Zanzibar was disputed by several readers – for which I apologise- even though they sternly forwarded different ‘correct’ names. Many appreciated the broadcasts and column. But the rest, the rest were voluble Zanzibaris objectors who simply wanted to kill my voice in a cacophony of sound, so words and thoughts were drummed out. Mine was a personal reflection of childhood memories and periods of darkness in Zanzibar, pushed into oblivion, buried too long. Such a subjective exploration was considered offensive by the censorious keepers of history.

Zanzibar was an Arab slave port for centuries yet I am told Muslims did not enslave Africans and such lies are perpetuated by Christians and Hindus. Or, yes there was slavery but it was so much nicer than the Anglo-British variety. Or I had not read the right books, put questions into the mouths of interviewees, was blasphemous because I said Islam was responsible ( I have never once said anything of the sort). A top Zanzibari professor was among the grossest distorters and deniers. The 1964 revolution, when 17,000 Arabs and Indians were slaughtered largely by Africans, brought more foaming rebuttals- it was all to do with the Cold War and colonialism never racial hatred, definitely not slavery; the soldiers were migrants; I had not read the right books, etc etc. One of my tormentors did grudgingly accept that I had opened the topics up for frank discussion. But the frankness he wants is not what any of us would understand by the word. Such punishing reactions make journalists appreciate better why we do what we do and must. It has been one of those weeks for me.

Published in The Independent