Last month, IPOB once again forced South-East residents to sit at home in the name of honouring Biafra war veterans. Exasperated, residents of the region and influential groups are now appealing to South-East governors to proclaim May 30 a public holiday, if only to end the annual IPOB distraction. I respectfully beg to differ.

What IPOB forces Southeasterners to do every May 30 is not only illegal and a time waster but also constitutes a dangerous distraction on the issues that hinder Igbo socio-political aspirations in the Nigerian nation. This is why I consider as misplaced the appeals to South-East governors by respected influential groups and individuals.

Hear me out.

First of all, have the Igbo considered the implications of pursuing this new Biafra grudge? For instance, is it possible for governors to proclaim a South-East War Veterans Day without the public wondering whether another attempt to relaunch a breakaway bid is in the offing? Is it also proper to honour war veterans of South-East origin only? In other words, was the war exclusive to the South-East? If not, what happens to Biafra veterans from the South-South region who also fought on the side of Biafra? Will IPOB, after pummeling the South-East to submission, invade Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta and Rivers states to force their citizens to fearfully flee indoors as do South-East residents every May 30? Of what benefit is this big grudge to the living who are struggling to make ends meet in our Nigeria of today?

IPOB appears to be reading Nigeria’s history upside down. The fact remains that Biafra signed an instrument of surrender on January 15, 1970. On this date, all easterners formally rejoined and declared their loyalty to Nigeria. Significantly, the Nigerian government chose this same date – January 15 – to memorialise those who lost their lives fighting in the Civil War, World War I, World War II, and other “auxiliary wars.” It is, therefore, practically impossible for any state or regional government to pursue an exclusive memorialisation of the Nigerian Civil War in the name of Biafra. It appears IPOB is either missing or deliberately ignoring many factors that make their quest almost impossible.

In January 1970, for instance, the Nigerian Army welcomed most of its former officers who quit to fight for Biafra. Government offered them amnesty as part of the no-victor-no-vanquished policy. While some personnel were reabsorbed, the majority was simply cashiered out while only a few were dishonourably discharged. The Nigerian amnesty extended to the highest levels of Biafra leadership when President Shehu Shagari pardoned the principal actor, Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, on May 18, 1982. The Nigerian Army further accorded Ojukwu its highest military honour when he died 30 years later. As reported by the BBC, the military was in charge of proceedings during Ojukwu’s burial programme.

Again, both Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari authorised payment of pensions to every pardoned Nigerian Army veteran who fought on the side of Biafra, including Ojukwu himself. At one point, the Military Pensions Board announced that it disbursed N1.5 billion approved as pension benefits to this class of military personnel who were alive by year 2020.

As already noted, Nigeria subsequently reserved every January 15 to honour deceased, retired and currently serving military personnel. Known as the Armed Forces Remembrance Day (AFRD), this memorial recognises every veteran of a war in Nigeria, including the likes of my uncle who left the Nigerian Army to fight for Biafra. My uncle who was honourably discharged received his full pension benefits until he died.

For distressed Biafran conscripts in economic distress, there is an organisation that caters to the welfare of veterans. The good news is that living Biafran soldiers may freely join this organisation as associate members. Established by law as the Nigerian Legion, this organisation economically empowers members to set up and run agriculture or other SME ventures. It is an opportunity for veterans that are alive and able to do business assuming, of course, that the organisation operates in accordance with its enabling law.

Given the foregoing, therefore, shouldn’t IPOB be a little bit less emotional in pushing for a Biafra Memorial Day and a bit more realistic about what is practicable and attainable? Biafra did not win the war; Nigeria did. Biafra no longer exists as a country. Outside the January 15 Armed Forces Remembrance Day, nothing can be legally done, in the South-East or any other region of Nigeria, in the name of Biafra, including proclaiming a day to honour its war veterans. Let this reality sink in. The South-East governors to whom respected groups are appealing for a regional holiday already have their work cut out for them. Only non-state actors can continue to hope that they will be able to somehow achieve this. The only memory of Biafra worth pursuing, as affirmed by Ojukwu himself, is the Biafra of the mind, which he summarised as a non-violent struggle against injustice and oppression by everyone in the nation.

IPOB strategists should keep in mind that no one is against setting aside a day to reflect on the circumstances that cause our youth to lose life or limb in avoidable social conflicts. Although this is an important conversation, it is nonetheless a national conversation that requires absolute respect for the other while promoting individual and group points of view. We do not need to be tetchy and impatient with ourselves in having this conversation. In particular, the media, politicians and public intellectuals owe the nation a responsibility to discourage ethno-religious rhetoric around the table of discourse.

Again, IPOB should know that Nigeria’s choice of January 15 for memorialisation of military veterans, all things considered, appears more inclusive and appropriate for such annual reflections. What we may suggest, flowing from this, is that the Nigerian authorities consider renaming the Armed Forces Remembrance Day as Nigeria Memorial Day so that it includes victims of collateral damage from all conflicts managed by our uniformed forces.

Finally, groups that want to do things differently should first consider what is in the national interest. Anambra State shined an example of how to think outside the box on such matters in January 2015 when former Governor Willie Obiano hit on an idea of organising a formal burial ceremony for civilians that died before and during the Nigerian Civil War. Strategically inserted within the Armed Forces Remembrance Month window, the state government made it clear that the event was not “a rallying call to hate or to remember the wrongs we have suffered but one to build a spirit of forgiveness and ensure the security of our children through peaceful existence and love of our neighbours.” This is a very carefully worded explanation that packs quite a lot in it. Groups can leverage this Anambra initiative to promote exclusive memorials.

One final word for the Igbo. Nigerians are currently struggling with the challenge of a divisive and nepotistic presidency, a sort of political narcissism launched nine years ago by President Muhammadu Buhari. The Igbo find themselves in a deep hole and it is suicidal to continue to dig. Why promote new grudges, especially those that guarantee their further isolation from the rest of Nigeria? Considering that isolation of the Igbo is always a strategic political tool, is it not possible that the latest grudge could be a dangerous, remote-controlled distraction instigated by those whose sights are firmly set on the presidency that begins in May 2027? If so, won’t this make the new Biafra grudge another of those sponsored distractions to promote isolation that the Igbo can do without?