There has never been any dispute over who is Hausa or who is Fulani, as there are groups in Northern Nigeria that are distinctly either. The question is whether a mix of the two groups exists in large enough numbers to warrant the adoption of the name “Hausa/Fulani” as the ethnic identity of the majority of the people of Northern Nigeria.
The contention heightened with the advent of herdsmen-related banditry in the Northwest and North-Central zones over a decade ago, which sadly still ravages this part of the country. There had, of course, been the decades-old bloody seasonal clashes between farmers—who are mostly Hausa—and predominantly Fulani herdsmen. But these disputes, which are more occupational than ethnic, did not cause the clash of identities presently witnessed in the subregion.
Brazen attacks on mainly Hausa and non-Fulani communities by gunmen, who are predominantly Fulani, have heightened anger and resentment, inducing a divisive sentiment across the once heterogeneous and monolithic North. Now, there’s a growing agitation for self-determination by elements seeking to assert their Hausa lineage, distinct from the Fulani, in defiance of the dual identity that has for ages been called Hausa/Fulani.
The existence of people in the North who bear the dual identity cannot, however, be denied. The integration of the Hausa and Fulani peoples through intermarriage is a process that spans over two centuries—especially following the establishment of the Fulani Empire over the Hausa states. An appreciable number of dwellers in Northern towns are a product of this mix, even though many urban communities remain almost solely populated by either group.
As politics and the struggle for control of material and human resources get into the mix to intensify this activism, it is necessary to lay to rest the debate on the existence—or otherwise—of a cross-breed ethnic stock in the North that can be referred to as Hausa/Fulani. This is crucial to peace and harmony among the Northern people, which, without contest, is critical to the corporate existence of the region and the nation as a whole.
Deliberate and institutional steps should be taken to reach this determination. There is already existing data from which reasonably reliable input could be mined towards a fairly accurate conclusion. Among these are records from censuses and other civic registration activities that capture self-declared personal information on respondents, including ethnicity.
Another option, which may be more accurate but is more cumbersome and costly, is a referendum covering areas where the ethnic mix is apparent—in states like Kano, Kaduna, Sokoto, Zamfara, Kebbi, Jigawa, Bauchi, Katsina, and Niger, whose indigenes include people who lay claim to the dual identity. The exercise could also affect states like Plateau and Benue that host settlers of the three ethnic groups.
The purpose of such an exercise goes beyond the need to resolve a debate. More critically, it is a means of ascertaining the true ethnic composition of a part of Nigeria where contemporary exigencies are forcing its once-monolithic people into an escalating dispute over identity. The outcome of the process could impact decisions concerning representation, development policies, and the allocation of resources, which are fast becoming an important factor in the ongoing contest.
In addition, there is a need for Northern Nigeria to generate a realistic narrative about itself, as a means of neutralising the false account being foisted by detractors with an agenda to weaken the region by dividing its people. And as the corporate future of Nigeria is being discussed—and sectional agitations for the restructuring of the country intensify—the North should approach any eventualities with certainty about its true state and the sentiments of its diverse indigenes.
The events that caused the identity dispute between the once-integrated groups in the North are negative and unfortunate, but dealing with contemporary realities is a better option than lamentation—a needless indulgence that would exacerbate rather than mitigate the situation. Failing to act is tantamount to denial, the cost of which will be dearer than the current volatile state of affairs.
