Rédaction Africa Links 24 with The Observer
Published on 2024-04-10 08:01:52
Last week, the Parliament’s Committee on East African Affairs took a significant step in advocating for the allocation of Shs 3.2 billion in parliament. The purpose of this funding is to facilitate the integration of Kiswahili language activities within Uganda. Noeline Kisembo, who represents Kibaale district as a woman representative, pointed out a significant gap in the implementation process.
She emphasized that despite efforts to incorporate Kiswahili into key Ugandan institutions like the judiciary and cabinet, the lack of funding has hindered these initiatives. The total funding required for these Kiswahili integration activities amounts to Shs 3.25 billion. The resistance the government faces in promoting Kiswahili adoption among the Ugandan populace has led to a stagnation in its adoption.
The committee’s appeal for funding in parliament is a crucial step towards overcoming these challenges and advancing the integration of Kiswahili in Uganda, aligning with broader East African Community goals. However, addressing the underlying resistance among citizens is essential to ensure the successful implementation of Kiswahili language activities.
Efforts to promote the Kiswahili language in Uganda have been ongoing for years, including its inclusion in school curricula to promote its usage. However, these initiatives have faced resistance, particularly from certain tribes and regions within the country. Some individuals attribute this resistance to Kiswahili’s historical use by rogue armed officers and criminals who communicated in the language during turbulent political periods in the 1970s and 80s.
Phrases like “Panda Gari” (board the vehicle), “Kitambuliso yako iko wapi?” (where is your identity card?), “Funguwa Mulango” (open the door), and “towa pesa” (bring money) still evoke memories of those difficult times for many.
Professor Ruth Gimbo Mukama from Kabale University’s department of African Languages acknowledges the stigma associated with Kiswahili in Uganda due to its misuse by criminals in the past. However, she challenges the notion that Kiswahili itself is responsible for the actions of individuals. She argues that blaming the language is misplaced as the responsibility lies with the people who misuse it.
Mukama highlights that Kiswahili’s negative perception during the 1970s and 1980s overshadows the pre-existing resistance to teaching and promoting the language between 1925 and 1957, stemming from competition between Christian missionaries and Muslims. She emphasizes the historical presence of Kiswahili in Buganda prior to European arrival, introduced by Arab and Swahili traders.
In Buganda, many people were proficient in Kiswahili, with Arabs and Swahilis introducing Islam and Kiswahili during the reign of Kakaba Ssuuna II (1832-1856). Prominent figures like Kabaka Mutesa I were fluent in Kiswahili during Kabaka Mutesa I’s era. The interactions between the Baganda people and Arab and Swahili traders led to a significant integration of Swahili words into their language.
Mukama also emphasizes the historical association of Kiswahili with the Muslim community amid religious tensions in Buganda. She explains how language became a tool for religious dominance. The adoption of English over Kiswahili as a medium of instruction in schools due to its association with Islam by Christian missionaries further hindered Kiswahili’s promotion in Uganda.
The resistance to adopting Kiswahili as a primary language of instruction continued into the 1930s, with Luganda being favored for educational and religious purposes. Despite some efforts to introduce Kiswahili as the language of instruction in schools, the strong opposition from religious leaders led to its limited use primarily where students lacked a common indigenous language.
Governor William F. Gowers’ push for Kiswahili as a unifying communication tool across diverse ethnic groups was met with resistance, leading to the language’s removal from Uganda’s education system by 1952. This policy decision significantly impacted Kiswahili’s fate before Uganda’s independence, ruling out the turbulent Obote and Amin eras as the primary reasons for Kiswahili’s resistance.
In conclusion, the deep-rooted history of Kiswahili in Uganda, influenced by religious tensions, missionary competition, and political agendas, sheds light on the challenges faced in promoting and integrating the language within the country’s institutions. Addressing the underlying resistance and stigma associated with Kiswahili is crucial in advancing the language’s adoption and fulfilling the goals of the East African Community.
Read Original article on The Observer
