Nama Nekemto
Many scholars from various sectors of society have keenly observed and widely written on the ongoing public discourse surrounding the Fano movement across various platforms. A significant concern has arisen from what appears to be a misinformed or incomplete understanding prevalent in certain intellectual circles, including among respected academics like Dr. Yonas Biru. His analyses in his recent article seem to dismiss the tremendous organizational and militarysuccess in as short time, trivialize the Fano struggle approaching it with a tone that borders on mockery or disdain.
I have been closely watching Dr. Yonas Biru’s series of articles and various interviews for some time. In general, I noticed similar flaws in his approach towards the Fano movement.
The recent analytical contribution by Dr. Yonas Birru, while ostensibly offering a critical assessment of Fano’s organizational capacity and operational methodologies, has in fact ignited considerable speculation regarding its deeper intent and underlying objectives. A widespread interpretation could suggests that this piece extends beyond mere constructive feedback aimed at bolstering Fano’s internal coherence and effectiveness. Instead, it could be perceive as a subtle, yet deliberate, strategy to reintroduce the discourse on peaceful struggle – an alternative Dr. Yonas has consistently advocated for in the past.
Therefore, It appears to function as a strategic maneuver to underscore the imperative of non-violent resolutions and to redirect focus towards diplomatic engagement and civil methods as primary tools for societal transformation.
In past several interviews and writings Dr. Yonas Biru, has said that “the Fano movement is futile and ineffective.” This perspective, regrettably, appears to align with the political narratives frequently advanced by governmental figures, including Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and General Berhanu Jula. Such a pronouncement not only superficially dismisses the profound efforts of the Fano movement but also carries the insidious implication of trivializing the critical existential and justifiable issues confronting the Amhara people.
It is imperative to recognize that communities resort to armed resistance only when all perceived avenues for peaceful resolution have been exhaustively pursued or rendered demonstrably infeasible within the existing political framework. While the principle of peaceful struggle is undeniably preferable and universally advocated, a pragmatic assessment of the current realities in regions such as Amhara, Oromia and other regions reveals that this ideal often clashes severely with ground-level conditions. If genuine viable pathways for peaceful struggle truly existed, it is highly improbable that millions of citizens would willingly endure unimaginable hardships, to engage in armed conflict, risking their lives, suffering from hunger and thirst.
To dismiss armed struggle as “futile” under these circumstances not only profoundly misunderstands the critical gravity of the situation and the immense sacrifices made by ordinary citizens but also inflicts further psychological and emotional wounds upon an already desperate and beleaguered populace struggling for its very survival and fundamental rights.
Such a pronouncement not only superficially dismisses the profound efforts of the Fano movement but also carries the insidious implication of trivializing the critical existential and justified issues confronting the Amhara people.
As seen in recent developments, when Fano’s armed well organized struggle is really picking up steam and causing a stir with in the dictatorial government, Dr. Yonas Biru comes up with unrealistic comments belittling Fan’s victories.
This distorted perspective, in Dr. Yonas Biru’s assessment, fundamentally stems from an insufficient grasp of the profound depth and core motivations behind the Amhara people’s existential struggle. The Fano movement is far from a casual subject to be lightly critiqued or ridiculed; it represents a serious and deeply rooted phenomenon. Engaging with it through jest or superficial commentary not only disregards the gravity of the situation, but also obscures the underlying truths driving this critical societal dynamic.
To truly comprehend and write comments about the Fano armed struggle – its origins, its current state, and its potential future trajectory – demands an understanding rooted in practical engagement and thorough analysis.
This is not a movement that spontaneously emerged overnight; rather, it is the culmination of decades of accumulated grievances, including systemic rights violations, widespread injustice, pervasive insecurity, and fundamental questions concerning communal survival. Its evolution to its present state, vastly expanded from its initial form, is a testament to its youth-led dynamism and broad popular support.
Attempts to reduce this complex movement to mere political bickering or to frame it as serving narrow interests betray a fundamental failure to grasp its intrinsic nature. Such an oversight carries substantial risks, neglecting the profound social and political ramifications that could unfold.
The future direction of Fano struggle is inextricably linked to the resolution of fundamental public demands. As long as these demands for peace, justice, and security were unmet through peaceful and equitable means, the impetus for change, in armed struggle forms, is likely to persist.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon any responsible analyst, particularly those who claim having advanced educational backgrounds, to undertake a rigorous examination of this movement. This necessitates delving deeply into its historical context, understanding its current realities, and thoughtfully considering its long-term societal impacts. Moving beyond superficial observation and dismissive criticism towards a genuine quest for truth and constructive dialogue would undoubtedly serve a more beneficial role in navigating these challenging times.
In conclusion, despite its explicit focus on the internal challenges confronting Fano, the broader implication of the analysis seems to be a concerted effort to reorient the trajectory of the political struggle. It suggests a strategic pivot away from military confrontation towards more conciliatory and peaceful avenues, particularly under the premise that the ongoing armed resistance by Fano has yet to yield significant, demonstrable success. This framing positions the critique not solely as an evaluation of Fano’s operations, but as a pivotal argument advocating for a fundamental reconsideration of the path forward.