BUJAGALI AS ETHNOCIDE: CULTURAL AND SPIRITUAL DEATH OF THE INDIGENOUS COMMUNITY OF BASOGA , UGANDA

 

By

F.C. OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA

Secretary, National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE) & Coordinator, Save Bujagali Crusade (SBC)

Website: http://www.afuna.org or http://www.afuna.o-f.com

Email:afunaduula2000@yahoo.co.uk or afunaduula@afuna.org

Tel: +256 78 555 222 or +256 71 845461

 

256-78-555-222

 

AFUNADUULA ISAAC

Faculty of Law,

Makerere University

afunaduula@37.com ,

www.afuna.com,

256-71845-461

 

 

 

NAPE/SBC Occasional Paper on “Linking Culture, Spirituality and Rights in Sustainable Development”, NAPE/SBC-CSR-SD-1/2005, Kampala , Uganda . June 28, 2005.

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Broadly speaking sustainable development means maintaining the delicate balance between the human need to improve life styles and the feeling of well-being on the one hand, and preserving the natural resources and ecosystems on which we and future generations depend. According to the WCED, sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2004, 2005).

 

What, however, sustainable development really implies is simply that economic growth and the protection of environmental quality must proceed on together, each reinforcing the other. Its essence is a stable relationship between human activities and the natural world, which does not diminish the prospects for future generations to enjoy a quality of life at least as good as ours. It means the presence of participatory democracy, justice, human rights, sovereignty over resource, and honesty, truth and a listening culture at the core of development, undaunted by vested interests (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2004, 2005).

 

The guiding rules of sustainable development are multifold: people must share with each other and other beings and care for the earth (earth care); humanity must take no more from nature than nature can replenish; humanity must thus opt for lifestyles and development paths that respect and work within nature's limits.

 

Therefore, we can say that sustainable development means increase in the development vector over time, constancy of the natural capital stock, a set of development indicators increasing over time, and per capita utility or well-being increasing over time. Therefore, this is what proper management of sustainable management would achieve. For that matter, economic growth is not sustainable development. It is just increase in real gross national product (GNP). Such increase does not mean that growth is sustainable over time (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2005).

 

Sustainable development is accordingly the development process that enhances people's capacity to create and consume wealth as well as sustain quality of life on a lasting basis. This kind of development is, however, only possible, if, among other things, suitable socio-economic, socio-political, socio-cultural, bio-spiritual and ecological-biological environmental contexts exist to enable people to engage in and sustain the development process as equal participants and /or beneficiaries (Oweyegha-Afunaduula, 2005).

 

This article is on the proposed Bujagali dam in Uganda . It submits that Bujagali dam, rather than serving as a vehicle for development, will act as a tool of ethnocide through its capacity in the long term to cause the cultural and spiritual death of the indigenous community of Basoga. It concludes that for a development project of the Bujagali type to be meaningful to the development needs of citizens, it must not shatter the unity between environment, culture and spirituality of a people but must strike a balance between these human essentials. To this end, the project must, therefore, respect the rights of citizens to nature through their culture and spirituality and thus ensure that their social and environmental rights are not violated in the pursuit of development. This means weaving the culture, spirituality and rights to nature (in this case Bujagali dam) in one spectrum for sustainable development.

 

DAMS AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

 

Today there are over 45,000 large dams. These dams are invariably constructed in the river basins with rich cultural heritage. Unfortunately they have caused incalculable loss, destruction and damage of artifacts, shrines and sacred landscapes of local communities and to world heritage and sites. Large dams have also caused considerable loss or damage of cultural heritage resources through the reclamation of land and irrigation projects as well as the construction of power lines, roads, railways and workers' towns (Hassan, 2003).In Uganda, the possible destruction of Kalagala Falls through damming or mass tourism motivated a group of citizens to form in 1998 an indigenous Non-governmental organisation called The Cultural Heritage Exchange Centre (CHEC), the only one of its kind devoted to the conservation of Uganda's diverse culture and spirituality. It is against this background that Bujagali dam has been proposed for construction in a spiritually and culturally rich area of Busoga.

 

THE INDIGENOUS DECLARATION ON WATER

 

In July 2001, the International Community and Indigenous Peoples assembled at the International Conference on Water for People and Nature organised by the Council of Canadians, endorsed an Indigenous Declaration on Water (Goldtooth, 2001). They stated:

 

“As Indigenous Peoples, we recognise honour and respect Water as a sacred and powerful gift from the Creator. Water, the first living spirit on this Earth, gives life to all creation. Water, powerful and pristine, is the lifehood that sustains life for all peoples, lands and creation. In this time we see that our Waters are being polluted with chemicals, pesticides, sewage, disease and nuclear waste. We see our waters being depleted or converted into destructive uses through diversion of Water systems to different lands, unsustainable economic resource and recreational development, the transformation of excessive amounts of water into energy, and treatment of water as a commodity, a property interest, that can be bought, sold and traded in global and domestic economies. We see our waters governed by imposed foreign, colonial and inhumane laws and practices that disconnect us the Peoples from the ecosystem. These laws do not respect that life is sacred, that water is sacred. Water is disrespected, misused and poorly managed. We see the life-threatening impacts on all of creation”.

 

Unfortunately the practical implications of the Indigenous declaration on Water in terms of current water policy initiatives and debates remain an ignored realm, at least in Uganda 's water management strategies for the River Nile.

 

 

 

 

THE UGANDA CONSTITUTION ON CULTURE AND SPIRITUALITY

 

The framers of the Uganda Constitution 1995 were environmentally, socio-culturally and socio-spiritually conscious. In their collective wisdom and on behalf of the 56 or so indigenous communities of Uganda (see Table 1) they caused the Uganda Constitution to contain two Articles critical to the long-term survival of these diverse indigenous communities -Article 37 and Article 39.

 

Quite possibly the framers of the Uganda Constitution 1995 were cognizant of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 169 “Concerning Indigenous Peoples in Independent Countries”, which identifies indigenous peoples as:

 

 

 

According to Article 37 of the Uganda Constitution “Every person has a right as applicable to belong to, enjoy, practice, profess, maintain and promote any culture, cultural institution, language, creed or religion in community with others. Article 39 states that “Every Ugandan has a right to a clean and healthy environment”. This was recognition that today the ethno-cultural landscape of Uganda is incomplete without full spectrum and interconnectedness of these communities.

 

For the first time most Ugandans were to begin accepting -constitutionally -that a people called “Banyarwanda” was also an indigenous community in their country. Yet the Banyarwanda occupy no territory or specific land in Uganda as such other communities or society of Uganda 's peoples. Many Ugandans are still puzzled at the deliberate constitutional manipulation of Banyarwanda. They are listed in the Constitution at number 20 while the Basoga are at number 25 among the indigenous communities of Uganda . (Table1).

 

There is another small indigenous community called Banyamutumbi, which used to live in and around Queen Elizabeth in the Ishasha area but was evicted from its lands in 1983 as part of an implementation plan of government to revive national park based tourism. This community, which had a population of 800,000 at the time of eviction, is unfortunately not captured by the Uganda Constitution. They now number 600,000. Familiarisation with the ILO characterisation of indigenous peoples will convince one that both the Banyarwanda and Basoga are catered for but not the Banyamutumbi.

What all this implies is that any initiatives in environment and development should not violate the Uganda Constitution by abusing the above-mentioned Articles and should also be conscious of the fact that the Banyamutumbi who were ignored by the Constitution need recognition and respect. An initiative that ignores and disrespects the Constitution and the human rights of the Banyamutumbi is automatically anti-constitution and anti-Ugandan. Our people are part of nature and rich biodiversity and should be essential constituents of efforts at sustainability and sustainable development and, therefore, protected from development actions that violate this truism. Saying this is not to be anti-development but to act as a barometer to enhance development and its human orientation.

 

As Posey (1999) observes, Western science may have invented the words “nature”, “biodiversity” and “sustainability”, but it certainly did not initiate these concepts. This was the work of indigenous peoples, who have moulded environments through their conscious and unconscious activities for millennia so that it is often impossible to separate nature from culture. This is why it can be said that environment makes culture and culture makes environment.

 

Table1. Uganda's Indigenous Co0mmunities as at 1 st February, 1926 ( Article 10 a ) (Third Schedule , Uganda Constitution1995)

 

CULTURAL DIVERSITY AND DEVELOPMENT

 

“Water and Cultural Diversity” was one of the major themes at the Third World Water Forum (WWF) held in the Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan , in March 2003. The main author of this article attended the WWF and some Sessions of the Water and Cultural Diversity Group discussions.

 

The theme of Water and Cultural Diversity was based on the firm belief that “water is probably the only natural resource that touches all aspects of civilisation -from agricultural and industrial development to the cultural and religious values embedded in society -and that the need and demand for water have been a driving force of social, economic and cultural development (Keichiro Matsuura, 2000).

 

DIALOGUE ON CULTURAL FUNCTIONS OF WATER

 

It is true that the management of water resources is one of humanity's most ancient activities and has left tangible and intangible traces in virtually all cultural settings. It is, therefore, absolutely important that opportunities are created rather than avoided for dialogue among “experts”, practitioners, government, indigenous peoples and the general public from various disciplines of knowledge systems and different experiences with water on the vital cultural functions of water resources and their management. This dialogue is these days referred to as hydrosolidarity. Unfortunately, the usual tendency in water management, at least in Uganda , is either to ignore this wisdom or to whitewash it with a veneer of specialised consultations and public participation when decisions will have been already taken to use and manage it in preferred, predetermined ways. The frequently preferred ways have almost always been the political and the corporate.

 

THE CONCEPTS OF CULTURE AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY

 

The concepts of culture and cultural diversity have been severally mentioned in this article, but with no attempt to define them or state what they really imply. Below we try to do precisely this.

 

In its widest sense, culture may be said to be the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual, psychological and emotional features that characterise a society of a social group. It includes not only arts and letters but also modes of life, value systems, traditions and beliefs (Mexico Conference on Cultural Policies, 1982). This is the holistic view of culture. However, in its “Our Creative Diversity” the Report of the World Commission on Culture and Development (1995) states that the notion of culture must be broadened considerably to promote pluralism (of society, ideas, information, association, etc) as well as social cohesion if it (culture) is to be a basis for development.

 

According to Gray (1999), indigenous peoples are not simply reflections of their environment, but ultimately their cultural characteristics are more of a human matter based on choice and decision in the environment, most likely with the modifying influence of the environment. Posey (1997) has written that indigenous peoples live in anthropogenic landscapes, which they themselves help to create as much as they conserve and help to create biodiversity in the landscape (UNEP, 1999).

 

The concept of cultural diversity in itself implies that culture is a universal bond within and among nations and a motivating force that is or must be the motor of development. It is, therefore, critical to development that the cultural dimensions of water are not subordinated to technomechanics but are fully integrated into the development strategies and action plans to improve the management of the water resource.

 

According to UNEP (1999) indigenous people's cultural diversity is grounded in territory and locality, drawing together their social and natural worlds. All indigenous people throughout the world encounter the same threats in relation to access to their resources and defence of their lives and cultures. As developers pursue development, claim unity and common (or national ownership of resources at the expense of diversity, thereby risking the formation of what Brosius (1996) called “essentialised images”. However, talking only about [bio] diversity depoliticises the common indigenous struggle, which is based on the assertion of fundamental rights and freedoms (UNEP, 1999).

 

CULTURE AS A 21 ST CENTURY CHALLENGE FOR WATER MANAGEMENT

 

Unfortunately we are in the era of economic rationality, the close relationship between water and people (their experience, culture and spirituality) is set to continue being deliberately excluded from development and even environmental actions and considerations for the sake of corporate or money culture. Yet it is obvious that the management of water, like its use, demands as much on the cultural context as on the resource itself.

 

As indicated elsewhere in this article, the cultural dimension is fundamental since it determines our attitudes and behavioural patterns in our environment and towards water. For this reason, culture must be seen a new challenge for water management in the 21 st Century (e.g., Oliver, 2003). Its denigration in development projects or environmental management, including water management, only postpones action but does not remove the reality that the new challenge exists by sowing seeds of imposed ignorance of it. We cannot continue unabatedly to ignore the reactions (or even silence in face of provocation) of the peasants in the use of water, given their roots and their culture strongly linked to geographic and historical conditions and spirituality (Oliver, 2003). Doing so means lack of respect for the traditions of people preserved over hundreds of years and which have been responsible for preserving the integrity of the resources we now seek to abuse or conserve.

 

RESPECT FOR CULTURAL DIVERSITY

 

Long ago UNESCO recommended that the cultural diversity of peasants must be respected. This is because cultural diversity, at least for water management, is an endowment for all and a measure of success in water management to date corresponding to the needs and the traditions of the peoples concerned. Carrithers (1992) has stated that cultural diversity is one of the fundamental attributes of human beings because change, creation and re-creation, interpretation and re-interpretation are all parts of the everyday experience. This is particularly apparent with indigenous peoples whose lives are intimately bound up with their environments, which not only provided for production, but also provides the spiritual inspiration (UNEP, 1999).

 

What all this means is that water management must adapt to the people and not the reverse if it is to be done in a sustainable manner. This must be because as indicated elsewhere in this article water management has been at the very heart of civilisations and dynasties as well as cultural functions of water spanning space and time (Tvedt, 2003).

 

CREATING SUSTAINABLE SOLUTIONS TO WATER USE AND MANAGEMENT

 

Therefore, if we are to create sustainable solutions for water-related problems or issues and account for the needs of peoples, societies and nature, we have to understand the historically developed cultural interaction of humanity with water, including its emotional, intellectual, moral, spiritual and psychological dimensions. To this end these diverse dimensions and settings do not only provide an enormous potential of conflict resolution adapted to their respective environments, but if integrated, they provide opportunities for intercultural dialogue to exchange knowledge and adapt the transfer of information, actions and techniques between the different cultures and civilisations.

 

HOLISTIC VISION OF WATER

 

In a nutshell, it is important that we innovate policies in environment and development that promote a holistic vision of humanity's interactions with water. Such policies will not deny the voiceless and powerless the opportunity to develop their own mental prosperity of their culture, climate, humanity, modesty, sympathy and healing, which they are likely to lose in face of the current emphasis on development as proliferation of the culture of money (Ihara, 2003).

 

Indigenous water visions and right are today regarded as a new important perspective for better management, which should not be ignored or excluded from water policy and planning processes. Therefore, whatever we do or imagine in the area of water management we should recognise the critical issues of indigenous governance, institution building, organisation and leadership (e.g. Manley,2003); alternatives from the indigenous and cultural diversity perspective (e.g. Pablo, 2003) and indigenous water rights in the cultural practice of participation.

 

Kabona (2002) has addressed the issue of benefit sharing and the challenges thereof with regard to the Kalagala Falls , which is targeted for damming and mass tourism development. Kalagala is located 18 km from Bujagali Falls downstream of the Nile . Kabona decries human intrusion on the integrity and sustainability of the Kalagala Falls cultural site. At the moment, the National Forestry Authority (NFA) is in the process of tendering the cultural site to big investors to construct big infrastructure for tourism development. It is not easy to see how the two land uses will coexist once the Falls are destroyed. Clearly the holistic vision of water is being violated at Kalagala Falls by excluding the environmental, cultural, spiritual, ethical, psychological and moral functions of the Kalagala Falls from development. Already, the Kalagala Falls cultural site is a focus of intense conflict.

 

According to Kabona (Pers.Comm.), the Cultural Heritage Exchange Centre (CHEC), an NGO, which has been working since 1998 on the conservation of the Kalagala Falls Cultural site, has initiated environmental and cultural litigation case against NFA for proceeding with its development plans in total disregard of the Holistic Vision of and The Indigenous Declaration on Water (2001). He stresses that if the Holistic Vision and Indigenous Declaration on Water are respected, then the environmental justice of the peoples will not be abused through the destruction of Kalagala Falls Cultural site (also see below).

 

THE WORLD BANK ON CULTURE

 

The World Bank, the principal funding agency for large infrastructure projects particularly in the poor regions of the World, has clear policy guidelines on cultural property. Called “World Bank Operational Policy Note No. 11.03: Management of Cultural property in Bank-financed Projects” the guidelines contain the following statements:

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, recent rethinking at the World Bank seems to suggest that the Bank is backsliding on this safeguard policy as well as on others of its safeguard policies in favour of Country-specific guidelines. Besides, the Bank watched the formation of the International Hydropower Association Sustainability Guidelines (IHA) ”, launched in February 2004, which ignores important criteria with which hydropower often compares very poorly, such as cultural heritage losses, the spread of waterborne diseases, deltaic and coastline erosions, submergence of human settlements and financial viability ( e.g., McCully, 2004). HIA's complementary document called “Guidance Notes on Compliance with IHA Sustainability Guidelines” is even more misleading and dangerous than the Sustainability Guidelines because it does not say anything about compliance, which it claims to address. Instead it emerges as what McCully (2004) has called “ a set of scorecards ” for developers to use to come up with numerical rankings for their projects. The scorecards are even more slanted towards hydropower than the Sustainability Guidelines and largely useless for decision-making in the area of dams and development. They even fail miserably to show any weighting for different issues (McCully, 2004).

 

THE BASOGA AS A COMPONENT OF WORLD CULTURAL DIVERSITY

 

There is an estimated 6000 cultures of the world speaking as many languages (UNESCO, 1993). Of these between 4000-5000 are indigenous. Therefore, indigenous peoples make up between 70 and 80 percent of the world's cultural diversity (IUCN, 1997; Gray, 1999). We have already mentioned that the Basoga of Uganda is recognised by the Uganda Constitution as an indigenous community. Therefore, they are among the indigenous cultures of the world. With over 100 Clans and a population of 2.5 million people, it must be one of the largest cultures and, therefore, constituent of the cultural diversity of the world. Unfortunately, the Basoga are both endangered and threatened because the Nile River , more specifically the Bujagali Falls , which is central to their culture and spirituality, is both endangered and threatened (see below and also Brosius, 1996, 1997).

 

Table 2 lists some of the Clans of Busoga, the land of the Basoga. Clanism in Busoga is an aspect of biocultural and spiritual diversity of humanity diversity. It is the creative diversity of the Basoga, which has restricted intra-clan marriages while allowing maximum inter-clan marriages among the Basoga and thus preserved a diverse gene pool for the ancient indigenous community.

 

Table2. A Partial List of the Clans of Busoga

 

1. Idhuba

2. Igaga

3. Ighemba

4. Igulu Clan

5. Ikoba Clan

6. Ikula Clan

7. Irumba Clan

8. Isanga Clan

9. Iwumbwe Clan

10. Kabambe Clan

11. Kabira Clan

12. Kadubuli Clan

13. Kagolo Clan

14. Kaibale Clan

15. Kaima Clan

16. Katandwe Clan

17. Kawunhye Clan

18. Kayaga Clan

31. Kazibira Clan

32. Kazibwe Clan

33. Kinyhama Clan

34. Kiruli Clan

35. Kisige Clan

36. Kisikwe Clan

37. Kisuyi Clan

38. Kitandwe Clan

39. Kitodha Clan

40. Kiyuka Clan

41. Kyemma Clan

42. Lubango Clan

43. Lugonda Clan

44. Mabiro Clan

45. Maddudu Clan

46. Madiba Clan

47. Maganda Clan

48. Magumba Clan

60. Makere Clan

61. Makika Clan

62. Makole Clan

63. Maliga Clan

64. Mayandha Clan

65. Mayingo Clan

67. Mboiira Clan

68. Menyha Clan

69. Mpiima Clan

70. Mpumbi Clan

71. Mubandha Clan

72. Mubiru Clan

73. Muduuli Clan

74. Mudyadyadya Clan

75. Mugaya Clan

76. Mufumba Clan

77. Mugabo Clan

78. Mugeere Clan

20. Mugweri Clan

21. Mukembo Clan

22. Mukubembe Clan

23. Mulawa Clan

24. Mulondo Clan

25. Mulumba Clan

26. Muluta Clan

27. Munsambadha Clan

28. Munyhana Clan

29. Musabi Clan

30. Musembya Clan

49. Musobya Clan

50. Musubo Clan

51. Mususwa Clan

52. Muvvu Clan

53. Muwamba Clan

54. Muyimbo Clan

55. Muyobo Clan

56. Muyombya Clan

57. Mwandho Clan

58. Naghamwena Clan

59. Ndasse Clan

79. Ndhego clan

80. Ngobi Clan

81. Nkambo Clan

82. Nkwalu Clan

83. Nnangwe Clan

84. Nsanno Clan

85. Nsuna clan

86. Nyhunguli Clan

87. Nyhungwe Clan

88. Waguma Clan

89. Wanzu Clan

 

 

BASOGA AS A FEARFUL, SILENT AND DOCILE PEOPLE IN FACE OF IMPOSED DEVELOPMENT

 

The Basoga have many lessons to offer in water management, particularly in terms of how their local relation to Bujagali Falls reflects not only why the Falls have survived in the landscape as a sacred place, but also in indigenous governance, institutions, leadership and cultural and spiritual survival over a long span of space and time. The species-diverse environments in which the Basoga live are deeply embedded in their production activities and spiritual relations mediated by Bujagali Falls (e.g., see UNEP, 1999) and the total environment. However, unlike what has been happening elsewhere in the last 25 years (e.g., Gray, 1999), the indigenous Basoga have not become as increasingly vociferous and assertive in the environmental defence of their identification with Bujagali Falls . Therefore, they have not strongly resisted being defined by others, who claim they are developing them and other Ugandans by targeting Bujagali Falls for hydropower development.

 

In terms of fundamental environmental, cultural, ecological and spiritual rights to Bujagali Falls , the Basoga have been painfully fearful, silent and docile leaving the whole business of defending the critical landscape feature from violent development to Save Bujagali Crusade (SBC), the National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE) and a few other national and international non-governmental organisations (NGOs). This character of the Basoga has been erroneously used by the proponents of Bujagali Dam to convince other Ugandans, the rest of humankind, the World Bank, other credit institutions and potential developers that the Basoga do not oppose the project but that it is “pseudo-environmental groups” in Uganda and abroad that are frustrating it.

 

BASOGA AS A COMPONENT OF GOD'S CREATION

 

The Basoga, according to one school of thought, are the second most ancient ethnic group after the Batwa of Western Uganda, Democratic republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda . It should, therefore, probably surprise no one that in Asia the great spiritual teacher -Buddha -had that name while the chief spirit of the Basoga -Budhagali -has this name as part of its own name. Since Man, Homo sapiens sapiens is widely believed to have had his origins in Africa, Buddha in Asia and Budhagali in Busoga should be of great interest to humanists or those interested in both the origins and spirituality of humankind.

However, while the spiritual influence of Buddha, which has stretched for close to 4,000 years, does not appear to be under any serious threat from development, the spiritual influence of Budhagali is under threat from violent development currently targeting Budhagali (Bujagali), the spiritual seat of Budhagali (the living Budhagali).

 

The Basoga who are now 2.5 million (for unknown reasons the recent 2005 national census recorded a population of only 2.2) are reputed to be the most clanned indigenous community in Uganda and perhaps the rest of the world, with well over 100 clans. In their diverse clannism, they are a critical segment of Uganda 's cultural-spiritual and eco-social landscape.

 

Therefore, the Basoga should be perceived as part and parcel of God's vast creation and their psychosocial, just like their cultural-spiritual and eco-social set up, should be integrated fully in environmental design and the design of development projects. God, we are told by the Holy Bible, communicates to us through nature the same way we communicate to each other through the telephone and desires that we are in partnership with Jesus Christ, committed to saving all his creation from defilement by Satan and his agents. Accordingly, as far as Basoga are concerned, they should be saved from destruction concurrently with saving the total environment from destruction via violent development.

 

Moreover, according to the Holy Bible, not only does God command us to exercise social responsibility but also environmental responsibility. As far as the Basoga are concerned, environmental responsibility should involve the conservation of their biophysical, biosocial and biospiritual landscape, which has shaped their emotional, ethical, moral ecological and psychological integration with the natural environment for many decades epitomised by Bujagali Falls .

 

What this, therefore, means is that the Basoga Clans in their entirety should be allowed to be principal participants in developing and saving their ecological landscape in conformity with their culture and spirituality. Development for them should not be made to mean denaturising, deculturalising, despiritualising, demoralising and dehumanising the Basoga in the name of development, which in any case means simply the proliferation of the culture of money.

 

Unfortunately in the past the culture of money has clashed with traditional or indigenous cultures wherever it has proliferated unchallenged. Huge infrastructure projects have been the more often preferred vehicles for the proliferation of this culture, which has ended up bringing about the extinction of such cultures and reducing the [bio] cultural diversity of humanity. Because of this, there has since the late 1990s been increasing talk of “cultural approach to development”, which, unfortunately, current development dynamics on country, regional and global levels continue to largely ignore.

 

 

THE BASOGA, BUJAGALI AND THE SACRED BALANCE

 

At the national, regional and global levels, both conservation and management practices are highly pragmatic (Posey, 1999). However, from the view of indigenous and traditional peoples such as the Basoga, these knowledges are regarded as emanating from a spiritual base. To them all creation is sacred and the sacred and secular are inseparable. Spirituality is the highest form of consciousness and spiritual consciousness is the highest form of awareness (Posey, 1999).

 

According to Posey (1999) a dimension of traditional knowledge is, therefore, not local knowledge as such but knowledge of the universal as expressed in the local. In indigenous and local cultures experts exist who are peculiarly aware of nature's organising principles, sometimes described as entities, spirits or natural law. Thus knowledge of the environment depends not only on the relationship between humans and nature but also between the visible world and the invisible spirit world.

 

Posey (1999) quoting Opoku (1978) writes that in traditional African religion, the distinctive feature is that it is:

 

“…A way of life [with] the purpose of…order[ing] our relationship with our fellow men and with our environment, both spiritual and spiritual. At the root of it is the quest for harmony between man, the spirit world, nature and society”.

 

Therefore, as far as African religion is concerned, the unseen is as much a part of reality as that which is seen -the spiritual is as much a part of reality as the material. In fact there is a complementary relationship between the two, with the spiritual being the more powerful than the material. The community is of the dead as well as the living and in nature behind visible objects lie the essences, or powers, which constitute the true nature of those objects (Posey, 1999).

 

To this end indigenous peoples are and regard themselves as guardians and stewards of nature. Moreover, they invariably recognise linkages between health, diet, properties of different foods, and medicinal plants, and horticultural/natural resources management practices -all within a highly articulated cosmological/social context (Hugh-Jones, 1999; Posey, 1999). The Basoga, therefore, should be seen in this light is vis-à-vis Bujagali falls. The Falls are a critical element in what can be called the sacred balance of the Basoga with nature.

 

The spirit Budhagali has enormous spiritual influence over the 100 or so clans of the Basoga and is, therefore, an important organising factor of the social fabric of this indigenous community each of whose clans has a chief spirit subordinate to Budhagali, which then is a uniting factor socially and culturally. This means that the Basoga possess the cultural, spiritual and even intellectual rights over Bujagali Falls . The extensive Clan system of the Basoga is a type of organisation, which has ensured that the community enjoys maximum cultural and spiritual endowment and, therefore, access to cultural and spiritual property rights.

 

In this respect, the Basoga are a truly unique people who must be allowed to preserve and enjoy in uniqueness the natural right of being part and parcel of human biocultural diversity and biospiritual wealth nationally, regionally and globally. So if one wants to disintegrate the Basoga and to abuse these rights then the obvious way to do this is to erect a dam at Bujagali. The Uganda Constitution, as pointed out elsewhere in this article, recognises this right. The question is why should anyone familiar with the constitutional rights of the Basoga with regard to culture, bioculture, spirituality, biospirituality and landscape relations choose to violate them unless one wants to convert them into “modern nomads” this Century? What is the motivating force?

Here, we can quote Oweyegha-Afunaduula (2005) and Oweyegha-Afunaduula and Muramuzi (2005) to show what the motivation against the Basoga is

 

In a recent yet to be published article by the title “Ignorance will kill River Nile”, Oweyegha-Afunaduula (2005) writes, “ We should not do what used to be done decades ago -building big dams as potent symbols of both patriotic pride and the conquest of nature by human ingenuity. We should not build big dams to implement the amorphous concept of creating capitalist wealth or as monuments of [political] power and domination. These are ancient attitudes being perpetuated in an era of respect for alternatives. We should not celebrate them. We should also learn that wherever in the poor world they have been built and at the expense of alternatives, big dams have been much more than simply machines to generate electricity and store water. They have been concrete, rock and earth expressions of the dominant ideology of the technological age: icons of economic development and scientific progress to match the nuclear bombs and motor cars”.

 

And in their article “B ujagali dam: civil society-government alternation of engagement and disengagement continues to undermine “development ”, Oweyegha-Afunaduula and Muramuzi (2005) write:

 

“Only the social irresponsibility and bankruptcy of leaders can explain diversion of financial resources intended for the present and future social and health security of citizens and their families or communities to concrete, self-aggrandisement or political advantage. Clearly if any leadership is socially irresponsible and bankrupt, then it is irrelevant and a burden to society and, therefore, cannot be expected to be an agent of change that will bring about an enhancement in the quality of life of the majority citizens. In reality that leadership manifests as a roadblock to development and progress in the long- and medium-term. Environmentally speaking, one cannot expect such leadership to spearhead a national crusade for environmental rights, justice and peace. It is the kind of leadership that a country will suffer in terms of environmental corruption via its (leadership's) policies regarding environment and development”.

ENVIRONMNTAL JUSTICE ABUSED

 

The National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE) and Save Bujagali Crusade (SBC) have consistently, persistently and determinedly committed themselves, since the late 1990s, and tried to commit the Government and all the Citizens of Uganda to the principles of environmental justice in the face of the threat of Bujagali Falls to the environment, culture and spirituality of the Basoga as well as the total environment of Uganda. This has sometimes involved engagement and disengagement with Government and its “development” partners and continuous engagement with the citizens.

 

NAPE and SBC have held the conviction that without the commitment of Government and the citizens to the principles of environmental justice, we shall continue to regard the erection of concrete and huge infrastructures as development and our local environments, cultures and spirituality as primitive encumbrances to development, which must always be destroyed first before “development” begins to take place. They have believed that this approach to development and the attendant policies continuing to be hatched and pursued by Government are the principle causes of environmental collapse and decay, conflicts, injustices and undemocratic practices in environment and development and, therefore, peace as a myth, which unfortunately is then pursued militarily, which only complicates the situation further. They have also believed that the development partners are aware of and understand this unfavourable situation very well but pursue business as usual for corporate and monetary interests, thereby being partners in abusing environmental justice and fuelling our calamity.

 

In this case the development efforts they support such as Bujagali dam are a manifestation of what one can characterise as “environmental racism”. In fact what has been happening is that “development” business (wrongly called development) has been made, often clandestinely, and projected as if it is absolute and used to ransom the poor, ignorant and often unsuspecting citizens to criminal enterprises in which the rulers may have been the principal participants. Even laws have been made, often of course under Executive compulsion, direction and control for the sole purpose of serving the interests of foreigners or foreign companies in the name of development.

 

At worst, corporate interests have completely taken over the policy-making functions of cabinet (as in the decision to dam Bujagali Falls or form the National Environmental Management Authority) or the law-making functions of Parliament (as in the enaction of the Electricity Law, 1999 or the legitimisation of AES Nile Power's Power Purchase Agreement in respect of Bujagali dam). This is both environmental and legislative racism, which nevertheless is being implemented by government as its own innovation!

 

The problem is that environmental and legislative racism is discriminating against the Basoga environmentally, ecologically, socially, culturally and spiritually, thereby destroying their identity and confidence in the future. As a people they never gained from the demise of Owen Falls and Ripon Falls in the name of economic development, and they do not see how they will gain from the demise of Bujagali Falls for the same reason.

 

Apparently racism or discrimination uses words such as “undeveloped”, “backward”, or “primitive” to describe our society simply because it is less industrialised and monetised than the West even when in many cases our people may be practising lifestyles that are relatively sustainable. These words are being recited by the rulers almost religiously and relayed to the people like a priest would the word of God. As if this is not enough our best and brightest have been and continue to be co-opted by “White Science” and turned against their own cultures' traditional practices, which they now call “backward” and “primitive”. Without perhaps knowing, they have become tools of injustice.

 

Take, for example, psychologist Prof. J. C. Munene, who is the Director of the Institute of psychology at Makerere University . When recently NAPE raised with Uganda's Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development the issue of Cultural and Spiritual wealth of the Basoga as a continually neglected environmental resource in the Bujagali Dam process, the Ministry cited Munene as the specialist that participated and gave expert advice in a culture [and spirituality] mitigation programme (of AES Nile Power), which claims that the Spiritual Heads of Busoga and the Living Budhagali agreed that the Budhagali shrines can be moved from Bujagali Falls to give way to a dam. Yet we know that the Clan leaders and Clan spiritual leaders were a neglected entity throughout the Bujagali dam process. It is unbelievable that without being consulted they could have participated in a consensus to bring about the extinction of the rich Basoga culture and spirituality. Even the living Budhagali whom proponents of the dam claim “agreed” that the shrines could be transferred has severally pronounced to the “non-listening proponents” of the dam that he has no power to do so since the decision to move or not to move the shrines is a spiritual rather than a human one.

 

The proposal in the discredited AES Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), recently preserved and updated by a foreign Uganda Government Consultant, Scott Wilson Piesold, that the cultural and spiritual site at Bujagali can be translocated by humans to another site is causing a lot of concern among the Clans of Busoga because it is a big lie. They are even more concerned because those pursuing Bujagali dam project do not want to recognise that they (the Basoga Clans) exist and that they must genuinely be consulted or allowed to participate fully in the Bujagali dam decision-making process. They hate to hear that their spiritual and cultural interest are being dealt with by the erroneous reference to the largely cosmopolitan migrant population that settled in the once tsetse fly infested area around the Banks of River Nile.

 

When, therefore, Government and its accomplices say that the spiritual and cultural issues of the Basoga have been resolved, they never provide evidence of consent by the Clans of Busoga because they have never sought this consent. This is a blindspot in the Bujagali dam decision-making process, which seriously challenges its legitimacy.

 

It is, therefore, important to record that unless environmental justice is put on the national and global political agenda, proponents of dams will continue to float lies that the silent, environmentally, culturally and spiritually tortured and discriminated against poor will continue to be misrepresented in development and to be taken as objects to be “developed”. What matters now is to integrate the principles of environmental justices in governance of any kind -political, environmental or development, to name but a few.

 

The principles of environmental justice, which must be respected, pursued and implemented in environment and development and projects such as Bujagali dam, among other things:

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Basoga do belong, have rights and desire to share their ancestral wisdom with other decision-makers. They have for centuries had cultural interaction with the River Nile at close range and by remote-sensing and, therefore, serve as a ready traditional data base for international cooperation to ensure that it survives well into the future as a provider of multiple functions (of water). Unfortunately, the Basoga are a threatened and endangered people due to the human technoarrogance and socio-cultural ignorance of leaders, who are determined to implement the corporate and political interest to build Bujagali dam more as potent symbol of both patriotic pride and the conquest of nature by human ingenuity, and a political and corporate choice to implement the amorphous concept of creating capitalist wealth in Uganda, or, as a monument of [political] power, glory and domination of Basoga in particular and Uganda in general, by the personalised rule of General Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. This is erroneously Babtised “popular democracy”. One growing school of thought in Busoga in particular and Uganda in general holds that Bujagali dam is graduating as a tool of ethnocide, a form of environmental racism and a perversion of constitutionalism rather than a strategy in real development or sustainable development .

 

Culture and Nature enjoy an inextricable link. For a development project of the Bujagali type to be meaningful to the needs and expectations of citizens, it must not shatter the unity between environment, culture and spirituality of a people but must be a means of striking a balance between these human essentials. There is at the moment a serious threat to the sustainability of the fresh water of the Nile via damming at Dumbbell Island . It is high time to recall the spiritual link to have sustainable use of water for future generations. To this end, the proponents of Bujagali project must, therefore, respect the rights of citizens to nature through their culture and spirituality and thus ensure that their social and environmental rights are not violated in the pursuit of development. This means weaving the culture, spirituality and rights to nature (in this case Bujagali dam) in one spectrum for sustainable development and progress in the 21 st Century. Should we do the contrary this can only mean development in the reverse direction, which is de-development, a violation of our creative diversity and a blueprint for perpetual violence well into the future.

 

We should no longer postpone the understanding and knowledge that cultural values can be and have been a tool for preservation, conservation and management of environmental resources. They are, therefore, of relevance and significance to development. They are not an encumbrance to development. We must inspire everyone to begin thinking seriously about the value of mapping water and other vital resources in indigenous territories and to include serious discussion on the ethics of mapping indigenous knowledge, which is being subjugated to a Western ethnoscience and how sacredness can be a means in conservation and development.

 

Water Cultural Issues are also useful for Management of Water Rights. The Indigenous Declaration on Water can serve as a useful blueprint for integrating ethical, moral and religious concerns in development projects in general and the development process in particular for sustainable development. In this respect the Basoga have many lessons to offer if their cultural, ethical, moral and spiritual values are not deliberately excluded from development actions in the Nile Basin . NAPE, SBC and other organised civil society are committed to seeing that both the Holistic Vision and the Indigenous Declaration on Water are no longer ignored in development actions in the Nile Basin .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USEFUL BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

BOELENS RUTGERD and PALACLOS PAULINA (2003). The struggle for indigenous water rights and the cultural politics of participation. In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p. 092-093. 3 rd Water Forum, Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

BROSIUS, J. P. (1996). Analyses and interventions: anthropological engagements and environmentalism. Paper Presented to Human Dimensions of Environmental Change: anthropology engages the issues. AAA, San Francisco .

 

BROSIUS, J. P. (1997). Endangered forest, endangered people: environmentalists' representations of indigenous knowledge. Human Ecology, 25 (1):47-71.

 

BUTTON, B. (2003). The Wakka Wakka and Water Cultural Issues for Management of Water Rights. In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p. 060-061. 3 rd Water Forum, Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

COOPEY, R. (2003). Ownership and Control: public and private water resources in World History. In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p. 114. 3 rd Water Forum, Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

DUTFIELD, G. (1999). Rights, resources and responses . In: Cultural and spiritual diversity: a complementary contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. Intermediate Technology Publications. p. 503-546..

 

ENOTE, J. (2003). Thinking critically about maps, water, justice and equity in indigenous communities. In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p. 063. 3 rd Water Forum, Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

GOLDTOOTH, T.(2003). The Indigenous Declaration on Water. In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p. 062. 3 rd Water Forum, Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

GOLLIHER, J. (1999). Ethical, moral and religious concerns . In: Cultural and spiritual diversity: a complementary contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. Intermediate Technology Publications, p. 435-502.

 

GRAY, A. (1999). Indigenous peoples, their environment and territories. In: Cultural and spiritual diversity: a complementary contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. Intermediate Technology Publications. p. 61-114

 

HASSAN, F. A. (2003). Dams and Cultural Heritage Management: a Strategy for Action. In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p. 046-047. 3 rd Water Forum, Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

HUGH-JONES, C. (1979). From the Milk River : Spatial and temporal processes in Northwest Amazonia . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge .

KABONA, D. (2002). The challenges of obtaining benefits from cultural resources at Kalagala Falls , Uganda . Paper Presented at Kayunga District Consultative Meeting on 29 th August 2002 organised by the Cultural Heritage Exchange Centre (CHEC), Kayunga , Uganda .

 

KAMYA RAMACHANDRAN (2003). The sacred Spaces for Water: Temple Tanks of South India . In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p. 048-049. 3 rd Water Forum, Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

KHUMBERBANE TSHEPO (2003). Indigenous water management and water rights. In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p. 091. 3 rd Water Forum, Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

McCULLY, P. (1998). Silenced Rivers: the ecology and politics of large dams. Zed Books.

 

McCULLY, P. (2004). Hydropower Association's Guidelines Sidestep WCD Recommendations. In: World Rivers Review, February 2004.

 

MEXICO CONFERENCE ON CULTURAL POLICIES, Mexico , 1982.

 

MOBONDA, H. (2003). The cultural interaction of the Congolese with the River as a traditional data base for international cooperation. In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p. 030. 3 rd Water Forum, Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

OLIVER, J.L. (2003). Culture: a new challenge for water management in the 21 st Century. In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p. 010-011. 3 rd Water Forum, Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

OPOKU, K.A. (1978). West African traditional religion. FEP International Pvt, Lagos .

 

OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA, F.C. (2005). A DIFFICULT PUZZLE: CAN WE SAY NO TO INVESTMENT? -CONTRIBUTION FROM AN ENVIRONMENTALIST. Paper Presented in a Debate on “Uganda's Investment climate and the possibilities for targeted investment versus a broad-based policy to encourage seemingly random investment in any sector” and Organised by the Strengthening the Competitiveness of Private Enterprise (SCOPE) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) at SCOPE Headquarters, Kampala, Uganda, 4 February 2005.

 

OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA, F.C. (2005).W arning: ignorance will kill river Nile ! Makerere University , Kampala , Uganda.7 th June 2005: Unpublished.

 

OWEYEGHA-AFUNADUULA, F.C. and F. MURAMUZI (2005). B ujagali dam: civil society-government alternation of engagement and disengagement continues to undermine “development ”. NAPE OCCASIONAL PAPER ON “BUJAGALI IN THE ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND ENERGY DEATE”, NAPE/BUJAGALI-EDED-4/6-2005.

 

POSEY, D.A. and G. DUTFIELD (1997). Indigenous peoples and sustainability: cases and actions. IUCN and International Books. Utrecht .

 

POSEY, D.A. (1999). Introduction: Culture and Nature -the inextricable link. In: Cultural and spiritual diversity: a complementary contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. Intermediate Technology Publications. p. 3-18.

 

REPORT OF THE WORLD COMMISSION ON CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT (1995). Our Creative Diversity.

 

SANDERSON, D. (2003). Water and its connection to spirituality from Cree perspective: its relationship to health, education, law and the environment. In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p.058. Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

THIRD WORLD FORUM (2003). Water and cultural diversity. 3 rd Water Forum, Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

TOPFER, K. (1999). Forward. In: Cultural and spiritual diversity: a complementary contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. Intermediate Technology Publications. P. xi-xii.

 

TVEDT, T. (2003). The Idea of Water: Concepts and Representations -the First Volume of “The History of Water and Civilisation. In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p. 028-029.. Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

UNEP (1999). Cultural and spiritual diversity: a complementary contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. Intermediate Technology Publications.

 

VINALS, M.J. (2003). Cultural values as a tool for conservation and management of wetlands. In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p. 016-017. Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

WENGER, E. (2003). Third World Water Forum, Water and Cultural Diversity Session: When the Cultural value of natural Rivers leads to a new management culture. In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p. 118-119. Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.

 

YOKA, L. M. (2003). The Congo River Through various founding myths: the Hope of an Integrated Construction of Africa. In: Water and Cultural Diversity. p. 036. Kyoto International Conference Hall, Kyoto , Japan . 16-17, March 2003.