The Zanzibar Revolution of 1964 marked a radical shift in the politics of Zanzibar and Tanganyika. It is one of the most important moments in the country’s history, however it is also one of the most perplexing. The events that occurred in 1964 meant different things for different people. And like many politically charged events, there is no single explanation or chronicling that tells the complete story of what happened and why. In a unique way, it seems as though the collective memory of the revolution has either been suppressed or purposely forgotten.
It is fascinating and intriguing to see that in Tanzania, discussing the revolution and its consequences is considered political suicide, which hints that there has never been an official attempt at truth or reconciliation. What happened? How bad did things get? This is a puzzle that is disputed, as there are a lot of conflicting accounts and narratives of the revolution. The violence sparked by the revolution marks one of the most brutal periods in Zanzibar. This may explain why the topic is so sensitive as well as why elections in the Isles have been accompanied by aggressive clashes ever since.
During the course of the Zanzibar Revolution thousands died, many for reasons described as political yet with blatant racial implications. The bigger question to consider is whether the revolution was indeed purely political with a racial undertone or was it galvanized by race masquerading with a political mask? If you ask the Arabs that fled to Oman they would describe the revolution as a massacre. Those in Zanzibar would describe it as an independence movement. Others would argue that it was an independence movement that was never realized since they perceive their sovereignty being hindered by Dar-es-Salaam.
The different narratives that exist about the revolutions are quite striking. Very few people know the truth, although the general population has a vague idea of what happened. Trying to answer what it all means is perhaps the only way to address it, rather than actually trying to find out about what happened on January 11, 1964. The problem with history is that if it is not written, and if it is shoved under the rug it will surely be lost as those who know the truth will die off and all we will be left with are small anecdotes about our past.
This is a blog post so I will try my best to keep it short. I will attempt to analyze the language used in the available literature about how the Zanzibar Revolution is remembered. Was it a revolution at all? Depending on who is writing, it takes a much more darker tone. What happened in Zanzibar is seen as a smaller part in the greater historical context of the formation and union between Tanganyika and Zanzibar. The details are consistently brushed aside and in many ways labeling what happened as a revolution simplifies it. The different classifications through the literature makes you question if indeed ‘revolution’ should be the only word used to describe the events that transpired in 1964.
Uprising
One way in which you hear the Zanzibar Revolution described is that it was an uprising. The term uprising has a certain kind of connotation implying disorganization; one done by the masses and at times can be apolitical. In Professor Haroub Othman’s Babu I Saw The Future and It Works, a collection of essays written by Abdulrahman Babu leader of the Umma Party and an activist in the anti-colonial movements of the 1960s, Babu described what happened as “a spontaneous revolution, it was not organized, it didn’t have a vanguard to organize it. It was spontaneous, like lumpen one, just a kind of a lumpen uprising.” This labeling by Babu mirrors Amrit Wilsons’ who in Abdul Rahman Mohamed Babu: Politician, Scholar and Revolutionary, states that “it was an uprising led by a number of political forces” that the Umma Party was able to transform into an actual revolution. The labeling of uprising and its transformation to a revolution is interesting as it is only mentioned amongst the Umma camp. All the other literature does not mention this; some go even further claiming that Babu, Abeid Karume and others distorted their actual roles in the Revolution. These are the same people that label the Revolution as a coup d’etat.
Coup
Helen-Louise Hunter, a former political analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency (thank you Freedom of Information Act), wrote a book titled Zanzibar The Hundred Days Revolution. She is the only author in the literature reviewed that labels the Zanzibar Revolution as a coup. However, she also uses the term ‘revolution’ and interchanges it with ‘coup’ demonstrating her own limitations and confusion of what to call the event. “Because it was so unexpected, happened so quickly and was over so fast, there was general confusion and uncertainty at the time of the coup.”
Hunter’s labeling of the events of 1964 as a “Zanzibar Coup” was representative of the American perception of the Revolution as well as how the intelligence community felt towards it. In many ways labeling the Zanzibar Revolution as a coup delegitimizes it since coups can be ill received in any political climate. Hunter also makes clear that Babu and Karume among others had nothing to do with the events that unfolded in early January and rather took advantage of it for their own political gains. “Without exception they (Babu and Karume) tended to exaggerate their own contribution, and their supporters went to even greater lengths to present their role in the most favorable light.” This is one thing that is interesting in Hunter’s work: she confidently states that Babu was not directly involved in the “coup” and may have not even approved of such a thing. She is in conflict with both American and British assertions of Babu’s role in the revolution creating an even greater sense of uncertainty as to who was responsible for what happened in addition to what to call it.
The comparison of the revolution to a coup d’etat is relevant though because of the tactics employed. The fact that it was quick and was surprising to the Zanzibar Nationalist Party (ZNP) and the rest of the Arab minority gives it a characterization of a coup. In addition to this the “rebels” or “revolutionaries” (depending on who you ask) took over the police and radio station, which are key structures to capture in any coup d’état.
Genocide or Ethnic Cleansing
A more controversial label may either be stating that the Revolution was genocide or ethnic cleansing. None of the literature actually states that what happened in 1964 was an ethnic cleansing but the term genocide does appear. In the book by Thomas Burgess, Race, Revolution and The Struggle for Human Rights in Zanzibar, Abdul Sheriff, a historian, “describes the net effect of weeks of violence in 1964 as genocidal in proportions.” Ali Sultan Issa would disagree with this assertion, as “it was not so much a genocide as it was revenge killings or a chance to steal and rape.” Omar Mapuri, Deputy Chief Minister of Zanzibar President Salmin Amour, had a different take eerily similar to John Okello.
Okello was seen as a pariah throughout the Zanzibar Revolution and thereafter. He was a field marshal from Uganda who traveled to the island to start an uprising claiming that he was tasked to do so by divine intervention. Like Okello, Mapuri portrayed those who took part in the Revolution as victims rather than the Arabs who were slaughtered. “According to Mapuri, the revolution in 1964 did not unleash anti-Arab and anti-Asian violence in Zanzibar; it was instead a relatively peaceful intervention that protected (my emphasis) Africans from their own genocide and forced assimilation into Arab culture.”[3] Mapuri’s account is interesting as it subscribes to that trope of perpetrators never really viewing themselves as perpetrators but rather as victims.
Don Petterson, who wrote, Revolution in Zanzibar: An American’s Cold War Tale, is the only author in the literature that directly calls the events of 1964 a genocide. “Genocide was not a term that was in vogue then, as it came to be later, but it is fair to say that in parts of Zanzibar, the killings of Arabs was genocide, pure and simple. By further inflaming passions, Okello’s actions and his radio broadcasts directly contributed to the slaughter.” Okello did incite fear in his broadcast as well as called on his fellow Africans to rise up against the imperialists who he equated directly as Arabs. In his own biography Revolution in Zanzibar, Okello accounts his speeches made in public areas and it was clear that he had intent to remove Arab presence in Zanzibar through violence. “Therefore my brethren, we must get them out of the Island by guns and knives,” he says.
Further investigation is needed if we want to truly establish if a genocide took place. Such an inquiry would be hard pressed and would open old wounds in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania that many would not want to revisit. However, the source of the controversy surrounding the revolution, the source of why it is seen as politically and socially sensitive may lie with the potential labeling of it as genocide.
The case for ethnic cleansing may be less polarizing. The Arab and Asian population in Zanzibar decreased by one third and in addition to that a large number of the Arab and Asian population fled both willingly and unwillingly to either Kenya or the Persian Gulf. The demographic layout of Zanzibar changed significantly and it was done through violence and forced deportation. With this in mind, the case for ethnic cleansing may trump that of genocide but further exploration needs to be pursued indigenously.
Pulling it All Together
In trying to synthesize the limited amount of literature available, looking at the debates and arguments concerning the language used in describing the Revolution is important. What happened during the Revolution is a debate on its own; the problem of conflicting reports is represented throughout the literature. In addition to this, the question of who was responsible for orchestrating and carrying out the Revolution is another aspect that needs exploring. We are left with more questions than answers.
Was the Zanzibar Revolution really a revolution or was it an uprising? Was it Tanzania’s first instance of genocide or ethnic cleansing? The literature each had their own perspectives and each author had their own motive and argument with respect to the events that occurred in early January 1964.
For the Americans, the Revolution represented a threat to the zero-sum game they were playing with the Soviets and needed to fight on all fronts with them. This is expressed by then Secretary of State, G. Mennan Williams: “The Zanzibar situation, furthermore, is probably not the problem of Communist penetration in one small insular country alone but the potential cumulative deterioration of American interests in a number of African countries.” The Americans paid attention to Zanzibar after the Revolution and saw an opportunity to neutralize what they perceived as the biggest threat, “the fiery anti-American political leader Babu.” Babu, on the other hand has believed that the Revolution took a racial tone and had nothing to do with class, “The Revolution brought discontent.” Nevertheless, the Americans adamantly supported and pushed then President Julius K. Nyerere to create a union with Zanzibar.
For the victims, not much is known about the Arabs currently in Oman and their view of what happened. Many of them have chosen to forget that past and not talk about the events, similar to the context in mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar. For these people the Revolution was a massacre, genocide etc. Like the literature, there are various aspects and views on the Revolution demonstrating the uncertainty and lack of clarity of what it all means.
There are certain themes within the literature that have been consistent. Violence is the most recurring theme. All the authors take time to examine and describe the violence that occurred during the revolution against the Arabs. Whether they describe or view the violence as political or criminal is a different story, but there is no dispute that horrific violence erupted during the revolution. A second recurring theme is the wider context of the Cold War. The revolution demonstrated how much the ideological battles spanned during this bipolar period in the international system. All the literature describes Western fears of the “Cuba of East Africa” which consequently led to a series of misconceptions that culminated into a union to neutralize any Communist elements within Zanzibar.
Finally and perhaps a reason to the sensitivity associated with the revolution, the themes of betrayal were paramount throughout the literature. All the actors involved in one way or another felt betrayed by the revolution, betrayed by the failed promises and betrayed by the actors involved. Babu was betrayed by those who he thought were supportive of his cause, Karume was betrayed and this was exemplified by the barrel of the gun and Zanzibar was betrayed by the failed promises of the Revolution and leadership that never sought to pursue the interests of their people but instead the interests of themselves through power and greed.
The largest threat in my mind is the uncertainty and mystery that is associated with the Revolution. It is part of a painful history that will eventually fade away, no one likes to talk about it, and no one wants to write extensively about it. It is uncomfortable and opens up old wounds that never really healed. The literature written about it is sparse and this does a disservice to many young Tanzanians today. If we do not know our past we cannot explain our present, and even worse we will not know what to expect in the next few decades, making us lost when we face adversity.
Ahsante sana Ahmeid kwa makala yako. Discussions on Zanzibar Revolution were long overdue
Nimefurahishwa na extensive collection ya hizo references lakini nilichogundua ni kuwa hadi muda huu wengi wa waliolizungumzia suala hili ni ama viongozi wanaohusishwa kwa karibu na mapinduzi hayo au waandishi wa kigeni, na hivyo kuleta shaka iwapo kilichoandikwa ndicho hasa kilichotokea au ni propaganda za ‘wawamba ngoma’ tu.
Miaka ya hivi karibuni kimetoka kitabu kinachozungumzia Mapinduzi hayo kilichoandikwa na mtu asiyetoka kwenye tabaka la viongozi aliyejitambulisha kuwa ni mwenye damu ya Kirabu na Kiafrika kinachoitwa Kwa Heri Ukoloni, Kwa Heri Uhuru
Kimsingi dhana yake ni kuwa Mapinduzi hayakuleta uhuru na yaliratibiwa na watu wa nje ya Zanzibar
Nafikiri jambo kubwa tusiloliangalia kwa upana wake ni mambo yaliyoendelea kutokea kwa miaka baada ya mapinduzi. Na nafikiri hicho hasa ndicho kiini cha mtafaruku na mkanganyiko unaoendelea kuhusiana na suala hilo. Ni rahisi sana kuelewa mapinduzi ambayo yanaondoa utawala mmoja na kuweka mwengine lakini si rahisi kuelewa vitendo vibaya vitakavyoendelezwa kwa miaka mingi kwa raia wa kawaida wasiohusiana na utawala wala madaraka
Juu ya hivyo naamini pia kuwa watu hawazungumzii suali hilo kwa sababu binaadamu tuna tabia ya kutotaka kukumbuka vile tusivyovipenda. Hili ni zuri au baya kwa jamii, bado linabaki kuwa suali lililokuwa halijajibiwa
http://kitoto.wordpress.com/2010/12/09/ana-kwa-ana-na-harith-ghassany/
I remember you guys also posted this documentary on Zanzibar from 2010 which had footage of Zanzibar residents expressing disenchantment: http://vijana.fm/2010/07/29/zanzibar/
Ahmed,
This is not a bad attempt at trying to document the revolution in an objective manner by looking at the literature. However, any such attempt will fail in trying to look at the whole revolution happening unless you also look at the causes for the revolution (see for example literature on the American/French revolutions etc).
If you look at the basis for the revolution then one would be better informed to judge,or make a attempt to do so, whether what took place constituted a revolution or not. Apart from this i’d argue a lot of these recent writings are just attempts at historical revisitionism of January 11 1964.
Finally, I’d challenge you to look back on history and find one revolution that left everyone happy…by definition a revolution will always dissapoint the main players as its outcomes are never truly known until it becomes just that:”a revolution” I’d argue that of all the revolutions in recent memory, the American revolution came close to the latter but then again, the country went on to fight itself in a major “civil” war.
Tupo pamoja.
Maj, thank you for your comments and critiques. Indeed, I have to admit that attempting to explain or even capture the complicated history revolving around the Zanzibar Revolution in a blog post is not an easy task. The causes of the revolution is something the literature did not get too involved with which is a testament to the limited purview of the literature perhaps, there is so much in the history such as the plantations and the dynamics associated with that.
I also wanted to draw light to the fact that a lot of the writings do not answer the major questions once would want to know regarding certain historical events. It also brings up the question of who writes history? Victors usually write history while victims are left in the darkened cloud of ambiguity. If all these writings are just historical revisionism then we again are left with more questions and untruths correct?
From the top of my head I cannot find a revolution that left everyone happy, by definition a revolution brings about rapid change and people are always adverse to change, and if it is accelerated then you will definitely have people unhappy. I’m not sure African Americans were too happy with the American Revolution, unless you argue that it led to the civil war which led to the Emancipation Proclamation…though the civil war was not really meant to free the slaves.
Additionally, one might interrogate notions of nationalism at independence in attempting to understand the revolution. The constructs of nationalism vis-a-vis race “on” the continent in contrast/ interaction with the oceanic world, so to speak. These changing perceptions of nationalism relating the land with the “ocean” politics has been greatly determined by its global interactions at different historical moments. So perhaps a fundamental factor to consider in understanding the revolution would be the political context in which the revolution occured, at the same time immersing the discourse in a much longer history of the understanding of nationalism. The terms used to describe the revolution which you have put in debate in this article, lend themselves partly to the same western liberal framework in understanding the state and “national identity”.
Defining the Indefinable
I think before we can critically assess the Revolution, (given the lack of available resources) we must take a look at the structure holding the country together.
Often times, colonizers and those whom they colonize do not co-exist in an amicable environment. Yet when the Arabs came to Zanzibar in the 8th century, introducing Islam, there generally wasn’t unrest. Nearly 200 years later, the Persians marked their territory, followed by the Portuguese, the Omanians, and finally the Germans the British. Europe had a profound effect on how each group perceived the other to be. From the 19th to the mid 20th Century, the British categorized people into ethnic groups- the Shirazis, Arabs, Indians, and other African tribes. The colonizers implanted the idea of “the other,” an idea that has manifested as the chasm among various ethnicities has grown.
Prior to independence, Zanzibar was divided. The island was built with a cracked foundation, engendering enemies within the state. So was the Revolution an actual revolution? Or does the event’s brevity and ambiguous nature indicate that it was an uprising or coup d’etat? It depends on the definition.
If we call a revolution a sudden change in something, the term might as well be synonymous with any kind of overthrow. What makes something revolutionary is the change following the turn. Let’s consider the political unrest post 1964. When the elected government was first overthrown and the Sultan deposed, 200 years of Arab dominance was obliterated. Africans as the majority would dominate; not the Arabs. The first president, Karume ran a dictatorship, violating human rights and creating a police state. The following string of presidents had short-lived careers. If anything, violent election processes and political turmoil polarized the people into supporters of the opposition and supporters of the status quo. In 2000, elections in Zanzibar were plagued by police brutality and assault on citizens.
In response, I would argue that 1964 was a revolution and not simply a coup d’etat. The event was something like a domino effect that has marked the last 50 years with small uprising, dictator-like presidents, and worsening conditions. There was in fact a change, but a change for the worse.
how cruel it was!!!i used only to hear story telling and book reading but for sure it was too bitter. BETTER HEAR THAN PARTICIPATE. more thanks for open my mind on the Zanzibar revolution of 1964.
Thank you for the posting. I however tend to disagree with the objective of your ‘objective’ analysis of the episode of the revolution. I stand to be corrected but my take is that you are here nor there when it comes to taking a position on the revolution and my believe is there is some considerable amount of denial on your part(surprisingly, not unlike that of ‘the fled’ in Oman who still legitimize the sultan) but as one contributor put it, you need to factor in the cause of the revolution to make sense of it’s meaning instead of just looking at the events on their own and in as much as I’m not Zanzibari myself, my wide research on the subject is clear that minority arabs and who were foreigners, had subjugated and disenfranchised the majority african natives or nearby emigres hence the need for the revolution. What I can assure you of, is that any attempt at reinstating the old feudal order that had cut its teeth through among others, slavery, will be resisted vehemently not just by Zanzibari blacks but by willing comrades from the nearby mainlands of Tanganyika and Kenya. Take Note.
After 60 years, is there any way to have a truth and reconsolidation process in Zanzibar/Tanzania, started by the two government’s to heal long term traumata’s and traumata’s given to the next two generations? Maybe South Africa’s experiences with their truth and reconsolidation process could be of any help.