Buratai: When reason deserts a critic

I least knew the concept of the book “The Legend of Buratai,” authored   Dr. Abubakar Mohammed Sani  would elicit excitingly  robust  attention. It is a fictional narrative of the daring escapades of Nigerian soldiers led by the irrepressible and craggy soldier, the incumbent Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Lt. Gen. Tukur Yusufu Buratai against the Islamic […]

I least knew the concept of the book “The Legend of Buratai,” authored   Dr. Abubakar Mohammed Sani  would elicit excitingly  robust  attention. It is a fictional narrative of the daring escapades of Nigerian soldiers led by the irrepressible and craggy soldier, the incumbent Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Lt. Gen. Tukur Yusufu Buratai against the Islamic extremist sect, Boko Haram insurgents in Nigeria.

To assert that the book is a fine fictional rendition of these military adventures is stating the obvious. It belongs to the category of children’s literature and slated for public presentation on May 17, 2019 to an audience of school children in Abuja.  But some public commentators are having sleepless nights over a matter which has no correlation with their clearly poisoned minds.  I am excited for one reason; in academics criticisms are an implicit expression of the strength of a piece of art work.

The article by one Abimbola Adelakun captioned, “the lie-gend of Buratai,” is one criticism which has compelled my deeper appreciation of the “The Legend of Buratai.”  It fruitlessly attempted to parody the concept of the book and, Gen.  Buratai its main character.

In this desperation, the critic blindfolds herself and pours out barefaced umbrage on Gen. Buratai and members of the academia who are celebrating Buratai’s heroic deeds in droves. She questions the elevation of Gen. Buratai to the mythical status of a legend. I perceive critic Adelakun as a commentator on a vengeful mission in a world she is thoroughly disenchanted and disillusioned, but does not know where to direct her anger.

It is not difficult to fetch the motive of the critic, as a hireling on a destructive voyage, who must demolish her target at all cost. This feeling assails with the opening paragraph. It says; “Since he became the Chief of Army Staff, a pattern of narcissism has followed the pronouncements and actions of Lieutenant General Tukur Yusuf Buratai. Even the military under him comes up with funny ideas such as setting up zoos and parks in barracks, establishing cattle ranches, and producing military vehicles.”

What begs for understanding is why the critic feels the Army under Gen. Buratai should not be narcissistic. There is no sane reason for soldiers who are winning the war on Boko Haram to flaunt the egoistic aura about their exploits on the battlefront. We were in Nigeria when poorly armed soldiers flinched at the battlefield before insurgents.  But the narrative has changed in favour of Nigeria with the winning streaks.

And to think that in the era of economic crunch, the Army should have no business with sourcing for other channels of revenue generation to enhance its incomes by frowning at why it dabbled into agricultural investments is absurd.  It is also ludicrous to berate Buratai’s tinkering with the idea of partnership with automobile companies in Nigeria to manufacture military vehicles under a government, which sermonizes the policy of self-dependence and local content in patronage of goods and services.

Adelakun is wailing loudly about the obsession of the academic community with the Buratai phenomenon by authoring books about him or naming structures after him. But it goes to profess that truth cannot be repressed.

The critic’s innuendo that Buratai is influencing these memorable gestures is infantile reasoning, unprovable and far from the reality.  While people like her , perhaps, enviously holds back appreciation to the legacies of Gen. Buratai and the Nigerian soldiers, everyone must not toe her mindset.

Therefore, critic Adelakun describes the thematic thrust of the literary rendition of Gen. Buratai as a “monstrous lie,” because she knows it, but pained to recognize that the Army Chief has reclaimed  all the 17 LGAs or  captured territories in Nigeria. It was a herculean task with his two or three predecessors.

Buratai has demystified Sambisa forest. And Nigerians know, it is not a “monstrous lie,” that insurgents’ operations have been confined to the obscure parts of Borno state and the Lake Chad Basin, stretching into the Niger and Chadian Republics.

Nigerians know it is not deception that the capacity of insurgents to strike recklessly and freely, visiting horrendous atrocities on every part of Northern Nigeria, including Abuja has been severely weakened by the troops led by Gen. Buratai.  It is indubitable that over 17, 000 Nigerians, including Chibok and Dapchi school girls have regained their freedom from Boko Haram captivity and reunited with families under his leadership of the Army.

I find the critic’s allusion to Gen. Buratai  as a politician very revolting and uncharitable.  Buratai is not a politician by any nuance, but the critic adamantly stated:  “Ideally, the university is where the antics of a politician desperate to write himself into history as a legend should have met the stiffest resistance.”

Adelakun should know there is nothing abnormal for soldiers to die in war. American troops battling terrorism in the Middle East are killed every day by terrorists, but the American government does not make fun fare of their burials. But Gen. Buratai has always accorded a befitting burial to slain gallant soldiers in the course of battling insurgency.

And to blame Gen. Buratai for the bandits killings in some states or kidnappings is stretching the argument beyond tolerable limits. The critic should know, the first constitutional responsibility of the Army is not for internal security. They only intervene through the instrumentality of a Presidential Order and in all instances, they have performed impressively and deserve no such vilification.

Gen. Buratai has done enough for his country, Nigeria and deserves every adoration. Those who have embarked on baseless criticisms of his stewardship are only blinded by an illogicality, propelled by selfishness, which bows to the detect of covert paymasters. But to the contrary, he is not denigrated by it.

Okanga wrote this piece from Agila, Benue State.