- A response to Professor Messay Kebede - Reacting to one of my recent articles that assessed the last two decades of the OLF, Professor Messay Kebede argued that I avoided addressing the principal cause of OLF’s failure. In his view, the major obstacle to OLF’s success has been its ideology, namely its insistence upon self-determination. I disagree with him.
I think Professor Messay is mistaken in attributing the “inappropriateness” of the ideology to failure of the OLF to advance the Oromo cause in the last two decades. This argument would have been valid had the ideology advocated by the front failed to attract or been rejected by the people it claims to fight for. His arguments, lead us to believe that OLF failed due to lack of support amongst the Oromo nation. As people who suffered a century of cultural, political and economic discrimination, dehumanization and repression, the vast majority of the Oromo accepted and overwhelmingly supported the question of self determination as a means of overcoming the system imposed on them by successive oppressive regimes.
Whether the leaders were right in rallying the people around this particular ideology is a different issue, however, it is immaterial in determining the success and failure of the OLF, as the ideology did not prevent the organization from receiving incredible level of support for nearly four decades. This is exactly the reason why I dismissed ideology as a factor, and rather focused on analyzing why the front failed to capitalize on such popular support. I have come to conclude that failure to deliver tangible result due to faulty strategic choices and internal party dynamics have brought the organizations to the crisis it has found it self in.
It is also important to note that the OLF had all the necessary conditions believed to help an insurgency. These include low GDP per capita (proxy for weak state), rough terrain (distance from the center and rural, nd dense forest), and large population that has grievance towards the center.
Efficiency of an Insurgency: Choice of Strategy and Commitment of Leadership or Ideology?
As long as an insurgency’s ideology and minimal program is accepted by its core support base, much of the success that follows depends on strategy and commitment of the leadership. If we follow Professor Messay’s argument we would end up saying that it was their ideology that helped TPLF and EPLF to defeat Mengistu’s regime. That means we have to believe that TPLF was able to take central power because its ideology was accepted by the vast majority of the Ethiopian people. We know that was not the case. All TPLF needed at the initial stage was to sell its minimal program of liberating Tigrayans from the yoke of repression. In the presence of widespread grievance against the central government, the peasants cared less about ideological debate and more about ending their immediate suffering.
TPLF’s rapid military success, which was largely due to the committed leadership, organizational discipline,and their shroud strategic and political maneuvering, helped the front to maintain the level of support it needed to achieve its goal of capturing state power.
Actually here it can be argued that the TPLF leadership was adamant at copying the extreme form of Stalinism, which is Albania’s Enver Hoxha thought, in its leadership style and organizing principle and succeeded in winning and holding power for the last 18 years. Hence the fact that the OLF was unable to lead the struggle to success cannot be attributed to Stalinism. In fact one can argue, next to the EDU, most probably the OLF must have been the least leftist organization among the multitude of ‘Ethiopian’ ethnic and ‘class’ based organizations. OLF is not known for a leftist ideological bent beyond its nationalist agenda.
Let me add one more example to stress how ideology does not play much role in determining the failure and success of an insurgency. If we take EPRP, an organization which the professor mysteriously forgets to mention along others who originated from the radical left movement,I do not believe its ideology is the prime factor in its failure to achieve its stated goals. EPRP’s political programs were positively received and supported by its core support base,the bureaucratic elites and the Amhara population. In fact, it can be argued that, on paper, EPRP had the most inclusive political program relative to other parties of the time. EPRP’s failure to me primarily resulted from strategic mistakes, particularly the decision to declare premature urban guerilla war at a time when a military government was still popular, that cost the party its most capable leaders, strategists and urban structure. As a party that emerged from the grievance of the “middle class” and bureaucratic elites, the party also failed to anticipate that it cannot simply transform itself into a peasant-based revolutionary force.
The dismantlement of the urban structure was a major blow which brought disappointment, disorientation and demoralization within the rank and file – being a leftist radical organization, the leaders, instead of acknowledging their collective mistakes, went on the blame game and punished dissenting views.
The internal turmoil obviously was a major obstacle to regrouping and reemerging. This coupled with the fact that the party had to compete for peasant support and territorial control against TPLF was a crucial problem that hindered the organization from showing any tangible results. The last stroke is the abandonment of the field by the leadership which made any remaining possibility obsolete. Therefore, just like the OLF, the core issue behind EPRP’s demise is its failure to deliver a tangible action, which was the result of faulty strategic decisions and internal turmoil.
It is also worth noting that the EPRP reformed its leftist agenda as early as 1980, and formed a front with a traditional party called the EDU (Ethiopian Democratic Union) led by Prince Ras Mengesha Seyoum, yet the alliance did not bring the party any strength in the past 29 years. Hence changing one’s ideological garb cannot guarantee success as the EPRP experience attests.
Reform Requires Moral and Political Capital
It is true that an ideology does affect an insurgency’s external relations. It is also obvious that OLF’s quest of self-determination has helped its opponents to label the movement as secessionist and arouse fear and opposition among other Ethiopians and some international actors. But OLF never really reached the level where it needed the alliance of external groups as it was not able to effectively utilize the support and resources of its own base and make it self a viable force. Once an insurgency is strong enough and proved its efficiency to its core support base, the leaderships has enough moral and political capital that makes it easy to reshape and reform its program in order to attract external support. But an organization that suffers from inefficiency and internal turmoil cannot change or reform its ideology even if it sees it necessary.
It is no secret that over the last decade the OLF leadership has been dancing around dropping the goal of establishing an independent state but have been unable to do so. The leadership does not have the political capital to reshape the belief that the “original” goal has more support and hence they fear that an opposing faction might purge the reformers by accusing them of revisionism. In contrast, a successful leadership would have more moral capital to silence opponents of reform. TPLF’s military success gave it enough room to reform its agenda of liberating Tigray and go for the bigger prize of dominating the larger Ethiopia. Although such change did obviously face opposition within the organization, the revisionists did not loose as their supporters were satisfied with their performance and achievements during the previous years.
Peaceful Struggle?
Another point Professor Messay raised is that OLF should have chosen “peaceful” struggle. This is quite confusing. No struggle against authoritarianism can be “peaceful”, as peace is the absence or active prevention of conflict, but as an opposition you are asking a dictator to give up all its privileges and power, and face the consequences of his past crimes – this cannot happen without fighting.
If the professor is talking about nonviolent struggle, it is completely different from “peaceful”. Nonviolent struggleitself is a conflict, because it is an active form of resistance filled with real fighting and sacrifice. Nonviolent struggle is a choice of method to fight a dictator and does not necessarily depend on what kind of ideology activists want to advance. It is chosen not out of some religious or passive belief but because it’s considered to have a better strategic and tactical advantage over armed struggle. One can use either nonviolent or armed methods towards the same end, say establishment of democracy or an independent state. Most importantly, whether a party chooses nonviolent or violent methods, its success ultimately depends on the strength of the organization, commitment and determination of the leadership and the sophistication and compatibility of the strategies. I am baffled that professor Messay believes OLF is wrong to choose armed struggle, but failed to say the same about other organizations, for example Ginbot 7, which recently, after trying electoral revolution, have come to conclude that the regime should be removed by all means necessary?
Wrong Assumption or Paternalism?
Let me acknowledge that Professor Messay is one of the few “centralist”1 scholars who have been making seasoned and rational case against the politics of self-determination and secessionist ideology. Even in his recent article, he has made a fair argument about the “self-degrading” aspect of a majority demanding to secede.
However, unfortunately just like many centralist scholars, Professor Messay writes his essay by assuming that I am a secessionist simply because I am an Oromo who advocates for the Oromo cause. This assumption seems to have clouded him from understanding the core message of my article, particularly my conclusion.
Professor Messay also labeled me of being secessionist simply because I advocate for the rights of the Oromo. For instance, although I said “We, Oromos, have the culture, resources and determination not only to solve our problem, but also we can and we shall play the leading role in democratizing, stabilizing and developing the entire East Africa.,” he concluded saying, for Jawar, independent Oromia “ have the culture, resources and determination not only to solve our problem, but also we can and we shall play the leading role in democratizing, stabilizing and developing the entire East Africa. .” How did my statement become a secessionist one, while in fact it is quite similar to his own assertion that says “the Oromo could become the force that democratizes and consolidates Ethiopia.” I found this to be the classic paternalistic behavior of centralist individuals who harbor deep rooted suspicion and disrespect for persons of Oromo and other Southern origin.
This reminds me that the core leaders of the “Mela Amhara Movement” like Professor Asrat Woldeyes and Hailu Shawel were never suspected and criticized by “Centralist” scholars, including Professor Messay, even though they openly espoused slogans about defending the Amhara settlers in the South, East, and West of the country. But whenever an Oromo or Southerner raises his/her voice in defense of their people, there is a rush to suspect, neutralize, and condemn; before listening to his/her argument. Professor Messay could have sent me a private email to facilitate communication and understanding, but he chose condemnation instead. Categorizing all Oromos under one ideology and under one organization has been the weakness of ‘Centralist’ intellectuals, and I feel sorry to find Professor Messay in that same fold. If Ethiopia is to be democratic, Oromo intellectuals need to be heard, respected, and set free from apriori judgment by Ethiopian ‘Centralist’ agenda setters. We do not need to throw away just Stalinism alone as Professor Messay suggests, but more importantly we need to throw away old thoughts, judgments, suspicion, and embrace openness and fresh thinking. It is in that mold that I have undertaken to engage in Ethiopian politics. I have neither the political baggage, nor the old culture of the Ethiopian left; I just do not know it. I wasn’t there.
Professor Messay also thinks that I am trying to “salvage” the movement. How wrong he is! The Oromo movement for political, economic justice and equality, and cultural emancipation does not need salvaging as it already has achieved a milestone. By paying the ultimate price, the Oromo movement has regained the right to land, the right to develop our language and even if only on paper, the right to self rule. I my self am a proud product of the movement, so are millions young Oromos who have been proudly educated in our language without being subjected to ridicule of the ‘foreign’ language that traumatized our predecessors. These gains are irreversible, the movement is unstoppable and we are marching forward. The debate right now is how to complete the journey in a constructive, sustainable and productive manner.
It is true that I have declared the OLF irreparably damaged, however the good professor needs to know that the movement is and has always been bigger than the OLF, which was an organization formed to serve as a vehicle. When a vehicle is too old or too weak to carry on, it has to be retired not to slow down the movement. Even if OLF as a vehicle of the movement has outlived its purposefulness, its historic role and the legacy of the martyrs who fought for the cause under the front’s banner, will never been diminished. The OLF will remain the most revered and sacred organization of the Oromo people.
Conclusion
When I wrote my article on OLF, I was aware that some Oromos and many non-Oromos believe that OLF’s crisis is caused by its ideology. Some blame the departure from the “original” goal of establishing an independent state for dividing the organization and weakening it. Others, like Professor Messay, assume that OLF’s refusal to completely drop the ideology is to be blamed for its weakness. Both of these assumptions miss the point by mixing two important but different issues: a) Whether, the ideology was the cause for the organization’s weakness b) Whether the ideology befits the Oromo struggle and its short and long term interest. As I have discussed above, I have come to conclude that as far as an insurgency’s primary goal of defeating a regime is concerned, the ideology of self determination does not cause significant hindrance. In fact, a strong argument can be made that it plays a positive role in helping rebels turn grievances into nationalism which can be the most effective revolutionary force.
But just because an ideology makes it simple to mobilize support, it does not mean it should be adapted without careful and rational evaluation of its short term and long term impact after liberation. Hence, the argument that self determination or secessionist agenda does not benefit Oromo or other nations in the long run is a sound one, but to blame ideology for organizational weakness is a fallacy.
Jawar Siraj Mohammed
jawarmd@gmail.com
September 19, 2009
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Dear moderator,
to make the discussion here balanced, please post the following article about Jawar:
“A Smart Foe or a Stu*pid Friend?:- the case of Jawar!
I personally don’t know who Jawar S. Mohammed is. The first article I read from him was the “best criticism” he made against OLF-leadership in this year. Now a sort of discussion is going on between him and Messay Kebede. I was the “Oromo interlocutor”, who provoked Messay to write his last articles on OLF, self-determination and Oromo liberation movement. I had certain important conversation with him regarding the right of Oromos to self-determination. Messay seems to be one of Amhara minded Ethiopianists with Oromo biological heritage, but who is vehemently against the right of Oromos to self-determination with a pretext of keeping Ethiopian unity. Anything challenging the unconditional Ethiopian unity he is continously preaching including the challenge from the right of Oromo nation to Self-determination is cursed and discredited by him and by others who claim also to be Oromos, but who are in practice Amharist activists. This includs a lot of people, who are said to be Oromos or who claim to be as such, like the author of many articles in Abesha web sites with a nick name Robele Ababiya. I just say such people can be biological Oromos, but they are mentally Amharas, who are ready to fight and die for Amhara cause which is nowadays being covered as “Ethiopian cause”. They do it either consciously or being mentally enslaved Oromos so that they subconsiously identify themselves with our enemies, which is one of the negative results of our subjugation for the last about 150 years.
Regarding Jawar and his likes, it is not possible to put them in this category of Amharanized Oromos, but I do ask if particularly he is one of the smart foes aka Weyane cadres or one of the stu*pid friends, be it Oromo or not, playing in to the hand of our enemies naively or opportunistly. Even though I don’t know Jawar, the following is in short the opinion I read about him till now. He is a 23 years Old young Oromo, who has been active in Oromo youth association in diaspora, who is alleged to have good contact with the currently ruling regime in Finfinne and who has got a previlege to be promoted to study in Stanford University.
Some commentators even consider that the articles written in his name up to now are not actually his own, but written by Weyane’s diaspora department, who is nowadays very active to attack OLF in diaspora, so that this liberation front loses its mass support and be weakened. I can neither disprove nor verify this allegation, but there are a lot of similarites between his assertion and that of the notorious Weyane cadres roaming in forums like Manabuna just to discredit and curse OLF. This puts him in a radar of suspicion. Here are few of the similarites between his opinion and that of Weyane cadres:
- their modern approach is a devide regarding “evil and incompetent” OLF leadership Vs good OLF supporters, so that they mainly attack the leadership of the liberation movement and they seem to be now very happy by seeing the OLF leadership devided in to three or more.
- their wishfull phantasy about the “damage of OLF beyound repair”. This is the summary of Jawar’s conclusion in his articles. Fact is that this is only the wish of our foes. OLF can be weakened structurally, bus can never be damaged as they do want, rather it is becoming part of every Oromo individual’s life for all Oromos are being directly or indirectly affected by the noble ideology of this organization.
- their conclusion that OLF is “good for nothing”, so it needs to be abandoned by all its supporters, this being the smear campaign made by Weyane since it is in conflict with OLF for the last 17 years. They even declared many times that this “good for nothing organisation” is no more existing, so that Oromos should give up their support to this organization!
- their agitation that OLF supporters should stop specially giving financial support to OLF, but go back home and support the “legal organizations struggling for Oromo cause and who are now more productive than the liberation fronts”. They designate OLF as a business company for making profit, but not fighting for the nobel cause aka liberation.
- their stand against the cooperation of Eritrean government and OLF-leaders. The only ones who are crying about Eritrean involvement in Ethiopian politics nowadays are Weyane activists. Even Amharas, leave alone Oromos, have given up attacking Eritreans, be it tactical or otherwise.
- their stand against a possible reunification and reconciliation of OLF factions to effectively lead Oromo liberation movement. Weyane knows above all that it is only the united and strong OLF which can lead Oromos to our END destination, that is why it directs all its propaganda machinery against OLF. My assertion here is not intendend to neglect the contribution of genuine Oromo activists being organized under other members of ULFO, OFDM, OPC and even OPDO. These Oromos are part and parcel of the activists being led by OLF mindset. Covertly or overtly all are pushing for the Kaayyoo aka Oromo’s right to self-determination.
Now Amharist Oromos like Messay seem to have knowingly or unknowingly chose to be part of Oromo foes to fight against the God-given as well as the Man-made (e.g in UNO charter) right of Oromo nation to self-determination. But, assuming that Jawar can be an Oromo young “intellectual”, let me ask further, who is he in reality? Part and parcel of the smart Oromo foes aka part of Weyane’s diaspora department or a naive young Oromo individual acting as a stu*pid friend of Oromo unkowingly playing in to the hand of our arch enemy? Leaving all the details of his “criticism” against OLF in his hitherto articles to his own entertainment aside, let me put his message in short as follows. It sounds in short like “Oromos should abandon this beyound the repair damaged, good for nothing organization, aka OLF, and go back home to rally behind the good legal oromo organizations”. Interestingly this is the message all Weyane cadres in Manabuna forum and other web sites tried to convey in the last many years. Is this a currently found method aka “using Jawar’s name” to achieve the same result, a new way of doing the same business for the Weyane diaspora department? Let the future clear this speculation or reality.
If we consider Jawar to be one of the stu*pid friends aka Oromos doing naively a damage on our liberation movement, what are the points which made him to be designated as such? Here are few facts about him:
- he is naively criticiting his own leaders in a forum full of our foes aka in a cyber world so that our foes take advantage of it. Does he know that in the present modern world, directing a single word of cricisim against an enemy is equivalent to shooting the enemy with a bullet? That meanse till now he used to shoot tausands of bullets against OLF leaders!! Does this make him Oromo foe or Oromo friend? I am not against criticizing Oromo leaders per se, but Oromo friends know the appropriate manner, place and time to do it constructively. Sure is that Jawar’s choice of manner (fault finding and cursing), place (cyber world) and time (at this critical time where Oromos are doing our best to consolidate our struggle against the actual tormentors of our people) made him not to be a smart friend, but one of the destructive criticizers.
By the way fault finding is the very simple and cheap job even any imbecile can do. I do expect from Oromo intellectuals a solution seeking mind which is the best way of doing a constructive criticism. The best constructive way of criticizing our leaders is by showing a better solution and if possible by doing the better practical way of a struggle. That is why I am in principle against any abhorrent ololaa the OLF factions are doing against each other. Instead of blabbering the negative criticism against their rivals, they need to show us the better way of doing business. Oromo people support them not by looking at their best performance of ololaa against the other faction, but by seeing their best way of leading us in the liberation movement.
- not only the words that Jawar chose, but also the tone of his writing speaks more for the Weyane cadres being behind the articles than being written by a genuine Oromo seeking a better performance in liberation journey. The tone of genuine Oromos criticizing Oromo liberation leaders is usually full of respect, love, openness, goodwill, complement and corrective, whereas that of our enemies is hatred, despising, discrediting, devisive, denouncing and accusitive. Is Jawar acting naively as an enemy?
- even if he is genuine in his assertions, he is too young and unexperienced to objectively judge what really went on in Oromo liberation camp in the last 40 years. He might have read a lot and discussed with many people to gather facts, but that is not enough to have a solid reality about the leaders who have been in the liberating businness their life long. As an example, I found it very shallow, when he tried to compare TPLF’s “success” with OLF’s “failure” in his last article. Thinking mono-dimentional or even bi-dimentional is not enough to make a good judgment. Hundreds of factors did play to determine the results of these liberation movements, which I do not want to list here and now. But our “naive” Jawar as an enthusiastic student thought to know the real reasons for the failure and the success. I would like to advise him to have a humility and leave such job for the professional and unbiased political scientinsts and historians to do the judgment. Otherwise he just be knowingly or unknowingly the propaganda mouth piece of the Weyane diaspora department.
Last, but not least I don’t want to avoid giving him a credit for the change of a tone in his last article as a response to Messay, where he at least tried to recognize the eligibility of Oromo’s cause to self-determination and the recoginition he gave to OLF in achieving the status quo. If he is not part of Weyane’s conspiracy as alleged by some, I am sure Jawar will yet learn from experience and be one of the best leaders in Oromo liberation movement accepting OLF as a vanguard of the liberation movement as the majority of our people did, instead of being the stu*pid instrument of our smart foes, who are wishing our beloved organization’s “damage beyound repair”.”
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I agree with Jawar assesment and conclusion of the OLF organizations failure.
Ok
September 24th, 2009 at 2:32 am
Who cares whether OLF is haunted by Ideological and/or organizational inefficiency? All those so called parties, groups or liberation movements created out of the childish dreams of the Ethiopian student movement are all responsible for all our sufferings since 1991. OLF was came to Addis from Ambo with Woyannie thugs and it is equally responsible for what has happened in the country in the early years of the 1990s.
September 24th, 2009 at 3:06 am
The OLF should abandon its obsolete Marxist and dysfunctional idoelogy of secession and join the forces of democracy and freedom. There is no force which can stop the Oromo people if they want to secede and form their own independent state. The OLF elites who are drawn from a specific region are not in touch with and do not represent the vast Oromo people. The Oromos are Ethiopians and do not want to follow the secessionist agenda of the OLF and that is why the organization has failed. Elite politics without grassroots is the main deficiency of the secessionist groups like the OLF and TPLF.
September 24th, 2009 at 6:01 am
The former Ethiopian Armed Forces members was joined to OLF in 1984 Ethiopian Calendar to demolish the weyane regime, The former Ethiopian Army members was trying to change the OLF program for the Freedom of all Ethiopian regions, provinces as before to keep up our unity, as well as trying to teach the Leaders of OLF; There was not namely OROMIYA region on the Earth, We are all Ethiopian born from Oromo Nation Family, Why do we give up our Country(people) to divide? Why do you using the plan of the Fascist Musollini Soldiers Map? This is ridiculous & we do not want to continue your fake struggle & change the program as soon as posible, otherwise, all Oromo people never ever accept this devastation program.
The OLF leaders never accept. most of the former Ethiopian Army are back to home to struggle in other way- “ONE COUNTRY, ONE PEOPLE, ETHIOPIA” AS WE ENGAGED BEFORE TO SERVE OUR COUNTRY.
VICTORY TO ETHIOPIAN!
September 24th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Thank you Jawar - You indeed went far and beyond to address the twisted motives of the likes of “Messay Kebede” who rejoiced at the article that you wrote in the hopes of creating a wedge between OLF and the Oromo people. However, as you clearly stated in the response -
“The OLF will remain the most revered and sacred organization of the Oromo people”
Thank you again for making it clear to friends and foes alike that the intent of your article was and still remains, a stimulant for constructive engagement of OLF for a better tomorrow for Oromos and the people of the region!
September 24th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
who really care about the usless so called OLF after 40 years of false struggle i dont care abuot OLF EPRP SHABIA and Woyane they are all the same poletical jokers
September 24th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Dear friend Taye;
Our beloved Oromos are migrated long long ago from central east Africa ,mainly from the current Rwanda .The famous Historian Richard Pankhurst call them the Animists .The prime example of all this is the pure Oromos in deep south, which they still retain their cousins Hutu and Tutu complexion . like anybody would suggested otherwise, I do not wish to see no Oromos to go back to Rwanda either, but, to exercise their identity, liberty, the pursuit of happiness in their (new home land)Ethiopia. Here the discussion shouldn’t be that of succession or not. Their beloved country Ethiopia loves them not as a Diaspora but patriotic citizens like the rest of us( Ethiopians). Forward with a united Geez speaking Ethiopia.
September 24th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
በውነቱ ለመናገር በታሪክ የኦሮሞ (Oromo)አመጣጥ ከመሃል አፍሪካ ግዛት ከሩዋንዳ መሆኑን የታሪክ ተመራማሪዎች በሰፊው ” the African migration and who was LUCY” በሚል ጽሁፍ በትንታኔ አስቀምጠውት የዛሬ 10 ዓመት ገደማ ማንበቤን አስታውሳለሁ::እዚህ ላይ መላው ኦሮሞ ወደ Rwanda ይመለስ ማለቴ ሳይሆን ትልቁ ችግራችን በአሁኑ ሰአት የሚፈታተነን በምን ቓንቓ እንግባባ በምን ቓንቓ ዱላ ቀጥፈን እንጣላ መሆን አልነበረበትም : ነገር ግን ትልቁ ችግራችን ስንፍናችንና መሃይምነታችን ያተረፈልንን ረሃብና እንደ ወባ አይነቱን እንኻ ቀላል በሽታ መቓቓም አቅቶን የቢቢሲ ዶክሜንተሪ ደንበኞች መሆናችን እንዴት አያስቆጣንም? እንዴት አያበሳጨንም ? እንዴት አለም ዞር ብሎ የማይነካብንን ምግብ እንጀራ እንኻ በበቂ ማዳረስ ያቅተን?
September 25th, 2009 at 6:47 am
“አጋፋሪ ሳሙኤልና ባስመን ዛሬ” የዛሬ 10 ዓመትም አነበባችሁ 20 ዓመት ፕሮፌሰር ሪቻርድ ፓክረስትም ሆኑ ሌሎች የታሪክ ምሁራን ኦሮሞ ከሩዋንዳ መጣ ብለው አልጻፉም አልተናገሩም:: እርሳቸው የጻፉት በሃገር ውስጥ ስላለው ሁኔታ ማለትም የኦሮሞ ህዝብ እንዴት ወደመሃል አገርና ሰሜን እንደተስፋፋ ነው:: በሩዋንዳ የሚገኙት የቱትሲ ብሔረሰብ ከምስራቅ አፍሪካ ፈልሰው ሄዱ ተብሎ በብዙ የታሪክ ምሁራን ተነግሯል ተጽፏል እንጂ ከኢትዮጵያ ስለመሔዳቸው ምንም ማረጋገጫ የለም የጻፈም የለም:: የሁቱ ብሔረሰብ ግን ከምስራቅ አፍሪካ ጋር ምንም አይገናኝም:: እዚያው መሃከለኛው አፍሪካ የነበር መሆኑ ነው የሚታወቀውና የታሪክ ፈጠራውን አለማዛባቱ ይሻላል:: ፕሮፌሰር ሪቻርድ ፓክረስት ያላሉትን ጽፎ ማሳመን አይቻልም:: እርሳቸው በሃገራችን ውስጥ ስላለው የጥንት ሁኔታ ብቻ ነው የጻፉት::
የኦሮሞ ብሐረሰብ ከህንድ ሲዲ ብሐረሰብ ስለመምጣቱ( The invasion of oromo) በሚለው የቀድሞ መጽሃፍ ተነግሯል ተጽፏል::
በደቡብ ኢትዮጵያ የሚገኙት የቦረና ኦሮሞዎች እስካሁን ድረስ ከ HINDU የህንድ ሃይማኖት ጋር የሚመሳሰሉ ባህላዊ ሁኔታዎችና መልካቸው ጸጉራቸውና የቋንቋቸው መመሳሰል ግልጽ ብሎ ይታያል:: በህንድ ጉተማ የሚል ስም አለ: በኦሮሞ ብሐረሰብም አለ ሌላም ሌላም ሌላም::