A story of raiders and thieves

107

among Kamba families that lose a parent, it is always a catastrophe if its the woman who dies.

And she seemed to epitomise this herself.

I would like to revisit Maasai‟s occasional presentation of the Kamba as “good in business”.

Suffice it to say that Kamba „dominance‟ of business has nothing to do with ethnicity but the socio-cultural environment in which the Kamba, unlike the Maasai, operate and how history has shaped both groups. In the 19^th century long-distance-trade that took groups from the interior to participate in the Indian Ocean trade along the East African coast, the Kamba were only rivalled by the Yao and Nyamwezi of Tanzania. With a history of recurring famines, the Kamba were also very active in interregional trade, particularly in the Kikuyu country where some of the items obtained from the coast e.g. salt and corrie shells were traded for food supplies.

It is important to point out though that Maasai recognition of the Kamba as excelling in business does not exonerate them from being designated as “poor”. Moreover, it is also a relative edge. Both the Maasai and the Kamba are quick to point out that other ethnic groups e.g. the Kikuyu, Meru and Kisii tend to be more entrepreneurial.

108

like the Kikuyu” while the Kamba say that Maasai‟s “deceptive” looks notwithstanding,¹⁴³ they „steal‟ without batting an eyelid.

I would like to present an incident to illustrate this depiction. Something unusual took place one morning in February 1999. A Kamba businessman who owned a slaughter house in Simba was accused by a Maasai trader of “stealing” Ksh 32,000 (EUR 400) within the precincts of the slaughter house. There were also Maasai „witnesses‟ whom the Kamba thought were fake. The businessman insisted that he had not picked any money. The Maasai acted swiftly, and after a some consultations, a group of Maasai murran came and took a bull from the slaughter house as ransom. They said that the bull would only be handed over after the full payment of the „stolen‟ cash had been made. In retaliation, the Kamba businessman mobilised his workers, relatives, friends and other Kamba in the neighbourhood who, armed with bows and arrows, crossed over to Maasailand and took 30 heads of cattle and 16 goats.

What followed was a stand off that lasted for about three days. Business in the centre was virtually paralysed during that period. In the arbitration process which involved state authorities, the cattle taken by the Kamba were returned to the Maasai. The goats were handed over much later.

An examination of the incident revealed that it was something waiting to happen. There had been tension in the trading centre for a long time. The Maasai considered the centre as „theirs‟

on the basis of territoriality and therefore felt they had every right to control all business activities. They had lost the interethnic competition in entrepreneurship. It emerged that when the Kamba butcher slaughtered a bull, it was sold out within a day. Conversely, when a Maasai slaughtered, he would be forced to throw some of the meat away. The chairperson of the centre noted that when it was Maasai‟s turn to slaughter, “even a goat would stay overnight” (Mavuthi, Simba, 21/06/2000). The chair, in consultation with the chief and local businesspersons made an arrangement where only one bull or cow would be slaughtered per day and that this would be done in shifts where, “if a Maasai slaughters today, a Kamba slaughters tomorrow”. This was meant to give each ethnic group a chance. So, why was

„Maasai meat‟ boycotted? It appeared that while the Maasai had no discrimination in buying meat (or could not do without meat), many Kamba residents would boycott when a Maasai slaughtered arguing that “Maasai meat is not clean” and therefore they were not buying meat

„for hygienic reasons‟. Moreover, even Maasai butcheries would be avoided with the excuse that the sanitary conditions were insalubrious, and that the Maasai “roast meat only for a few minutes”. A Kamba respondent said: “If you have been eating meat around here, you must

143 Looks of simplicity and innocence.

109

have realised that Maasai eat meat when blood is still oozing out” (Kyuli, Kiboko, 15/09/2000). The Kamba boycott of Maasai meat was interpreted to mean that they had hatched a strategy to drive the Maasai out of a fragile but lucrative meat business.

Back to the „theft‟ case. The Kamba had returned the animals taken from the Maasai while the Maasai had returned the bull, but the issue of the money had not been resolved. Elders from both groups could not agree. A Maasai elder was quoted as saying: “If you had taken our cattle or sheep, no problem, we do these things...but money, no, money...you have to pay.”

Local government officials had to intervene. Through local chiefs, the matter was reported to the Makueni officer commanding police division (OCPD) and district commissioners (DCs) from Makueni and Kajiado. When the two groups finally met in an emotionally charged large gathering, the Maasai made two conditions. One, the money must be paid in full, and two, the Kamba businessman should be banned from doing business in the trading centre. After assessing the incident, the OCPD came to the conclusion that the „Kamba‟ should pay the money “whether they stole it or not”.¹⁴⁴ Although the Kamba protested, Mavuthi says that this was the only way the Kamba would earn their peaceful stay in the market. It was the price to pay for “acceptance” from the Maasai who, as the local chief said “were simply asking for respect.” At some point therefore, the issue was not the money but a group‟s worth, self-esteem and recognition.

The Kamba were given time to raise the money and a date was agreed on when the payment would be made. The Kamba organised a fundraiser to raise the Ksh 32,000. The businessman‟s family members, his clan, families in the neighbourhood, fellow businesspersons and friends made contributions. The Kamba were convinced that „their man‟

was innocent and that this had turned into a “Maasai versus Kamba” duel. That explains why irrespective of one‟s material inadequacies, the Kamba made contributions, ignoring the fact that the businessman could afford to pay the money on his own. When the money was being handed over to the Maasai, the Kamba made the „final‟ condition. They insisted that if the Maasai were “sincere”, then they should be subjected to the revered Kamba oath (kithitu or muma). The Maasai asked for a few hours to consult on that proposal. After „consultations‟, they said that they could not be forced to take part in an exercise whose consequences could be fatal. Although Bourdieu (1990: 68) alludes to the requirement of “being born in it” in order to „believe‟ and suffer the consequences of magic or witchcraft, the Maasai took no chances. The Maasai went contrary to Bourdieu‟s argument that beliefs are not an arbitrary adherence to a set of doctrines but rather “a state of the body”. Whatever the case, two things

144 It was the „price for coexistence‟, an aspect analysed in chapter five.

110

were clear, namely the Maasai „believed‟ in Kamba witchcraft and magic if they stood any chance to lose, and two, they knew a lot about the Kamba than what the latter had imagined.

To the Kamba, the refusal to swear by their oath was interpreted to mean an admission of guilt and a confirmation that the Maasai had not lost any money. It was a display of not only a clash of the traditional institutions of administering justice and discontinuities of values but the transcendence of societal sanctions and beliefs across ethnic boundaries. The OCPD, who was neither Maasai nor Kamba, ruled that the money be handed over without conditions. The Kamba however asked the Maasai to give them a „stick‟ (kutulilwa muti)¹⁴⁵ an act which, according to the Kamba oathing system would enable an aggrieved party to administer the oath against the Maasai ex-parte. This suggestion too was cleverly rejected by the Maasai (for details on Kamba oathing system, see Lindblom, 1920; Ndeti, 1972, and Middleton and Kershaw, 1972).

What was Kamba‟s interpretation of Maasai‟s refusal? The chair of the centre put it thus: “We (Kamba) felt like we were dealing with our fellow Kamba not Maasai, they knew everything”.

The response of the Maasai was a pointer that they had good knowledge of Kamba‟s cultural practices and belief systems¹⁴⁶ which called into question the hitherto held general belief among the Kamba that the Maasai took for granted Kamba magic, witchcraft and medicine.

And thanks to this „acknowledgement‟, the Kamba did not consider themselves as losers. Mr Mutui said that to the Kamba, the Maasai had not only „finally‟ demonstrated that the Kamba could inflict harm on them away from the battlefields, but they had also “confirmed” that they were the aggressors. He said that handing over the money to the Maasai was a demonstration that the Kamba could go to great lengths and sacrifice a lot for the sake of peace. There has been talk since then about how the Kamba went out of their way to pay money that they had not been „stolen‟. To the Maasai however, the compensation was an admission that their loss was a genuine one. Mr Palalelei (a Maasai) told me: “We know them (Kamba), they are mean, if they had not done it, they wouldn‟t have paid”.¹⁴⁷ What the Kamba were to realise was that they had to confirm that they were indeed „thieves‟ and that since they were in Maasai territory, they had to live with that. Refusal to pay would have jeopardised their residence in Simba. They had fewer options. But perhaps more important is how what started as a personal dispute between two traders had been deliberately elevated to a „tribal‟ dispute pitting the Maasai against the Kamba. Witchcraft and ritual are important means of social control and

145 kutulilwa muti is giving whoever is in doubt or suspicion a chance or a go-ahead to prove the innocence of the accused.

146 Through many years of cross-ethnic interactions and the Kamba wives married to the Maasai.

147 “Mean” here also meant “poor”. He meant that: “As poor as they are (Kamba), they must have been guilty to pay”.

111

resolving of conflicts (Gluckman, 1965; Turner, 1972), but usually within a group. Kamba‟s attempt to apply these sanctions of behaviour across ethnicities were rejected. And yet, this rejection is also taken as Maasai admission of guilt. Apart from depicting the Kamba as thieves, this becomes a negotiation process with regard to residence rights. The councillor told me: “Look, they do all sorts of things here...you must have heard about how they stole some money from a Maasai the other day, but we are saying let them stay…we take peace to be very important” (Tauketi, Simba, 22/06/2000). Although the incident involved two people, a Maasai and a Kamba, the Kamba guilt is generalised (“they”) while the Maasai „victim‟

remains in the singular form. He stressed what was „important‟.