alt="image"/>
Map 2 Agricultural Districts of the White Highlands
Map 3 Nakuru/Naivasha Districts of the White Highlands
Introduction
The nature of the squatter problem is too familiar to require recapitulation. The way in which it should be solved has been a matter of controversy for many years, but in general it is true to say that the policy of evolution towards the cottage labourer has been accepted by both the farmer and the government.1
Establishing colonial rule in Kenya and attempting to turn the country into a white settlement area had a profound affect on the local African population. Not only did the alienation of African lands (for European settler occupation)2 disinherit and dislocate many Africans,3 but the subsequent development of settler plantations and mixed farms created a demand for a large number of wage labourers.4 But, since no African labour force was readily forthcoming, the colonial government adopted a combination of financial and political measures to create the required labour supply. Attempts to coerce Africans into seeking wage employment included imposing taxes, creating reserves, disrupting local economies and denying Africans the right to grow major commercial crops.
This is a study of the genesis, evolution, adaptation and subordination of the Kikuyu squatter labourers, who comprised the majority of resident labourers on settler plantations and estates in the Rift Valley Province of the White Highlands. The story of the squatter presence in the White Highlands is essentially the story of the conflicts and contradictions that existed between two agrarian systems, the settler plantation economy and the squatter peasant option. Initially, the latter developed into a viable but much resented sub-system which operated within and, to some extent, in competition with settler agriculture. This study is largely concerned with the dynamics of the squatter presence in the White Highlands and with the initiative, self-assertion and resilience with which they faced their subordinate position as labourers. In their response to the machinations of the colonial system, the squatters were neither passive nor malleable but, on the contrary actively resisted coercion and subordination as they struggled to carve out a living for themselves and their families
In collaboration with the European settlers, the colonial government set out to create a cheap, malleable and readily accessible African labour force.5 Most of the settlers were themselves rather poor and could only afford to hire labour if it was cheap and could be paid for mainly in kind, in the form of land for cultivation and grazing. The pioneer Kikuyu squatters, on their part, looked upon the opening up of the White Highlands as an opportunity for expansion. Both the Kikuyu who had lost access to land in their Central Province homeland (the ahoi) and wealthy Kikuyu herders visualised the White Highlands with its vast expanses of unutilised virgin territory as a land of opportunity where the enterprising could make their fortunes and establish permanent residence (utuuro).6 There was unlimited land for both cultivation and grazing.7 On a more mundane level, the White Highlands offered the squatters an escape from the extortionate authority of the village chief and the opportunity to earn enough to meet tax demands, and their accumulation of wealth, in the form of livestock, was quick. This study looks at how the Kikuyu squatters reacted to the various socio-economic and political pressures that were imposed on them and how their opportunities were frustrated and thwarted by the settlers and colonial government alike.
To a large extent the aspirations of pioneer Kikuyu squatters were similar to those of the early colonial settlers. Both wanted a fresh start in life and both anticipated that their productive ventures would bring them quick returns. But this was where the similarities ended, for the settlers and squatters were locked in an unequal political and economic relationship. As the exclusive owners of the land, the settlers expected, with political backing from the government, to be able to limit the squatters’ role solely to that of providing the necessary labour. The squatters, however, were determined to maintain independent and extensive cultivation and grazing, which put tremendous strains on their relations with the settlers.
Because it was important for the colony to become financially self-sufficient, the colonial government threw all its weight behind settler agriculture providing it with vital services and financial subsidies. More significantly, the government enacted a series of legislative measures intended to create and maintain a constant supply of labour. These included the Hut and Poll Taxes, the Masters and Servants Ordinance and the kipande system, to mention but a few. However, in Kenya, and particularly in the White Highlands, the shortage of labour and the dissatisfaction with what labour was available, became endemic. The labourers and the employers did not always see eye to eye.
While the settlers were wrestling with the novelty of farming in the tropics and trying to cope with unfamiliar crops, animal diseases, insufficient capital and unstable market conditions,8 squatter production thrived. The first chapter examines the various factors that pushed Kikuyu squatters from Central Province, as well as those that pulled them to the White Highlands. Perhaps the most important, however, was that during the pioneering stage of settler agriculture, demands imposed on squatter labourers were minimal and, until 1918, squatters were allowed to engage in extensive and unregulated cultivation and grazing which, together with a lucrative trade in livestock and farm produce, enabled them to amass ‘wealth’ through accumulating large herds of goats, sheep and cattle.
By 1918 the golden age had arrived in which squatters were realising their economic aspirations. Unlike the settler economy, theirs was well capitalised, had plenty of labour and land and required no financial outlay. During this period of laissez-faire, the squatters evolved a rewarding socio-economic system, which they sought to protect after 1918. But their independence was short-lived, for the settlers were beginning to emphasise the need to regularise the squatter presence in the White Highlands. After all, they were labourers, not co-owners of the land.
Like that of the squatters, the presence of settlers in the White Highlands was both precipitated and motivated by financial aspirations, the realisation of which largely depended on exploiting the available land and labour. With the wartime boom and profitable commodity prices in the mid 1920s, the settlers sought to diversify from their monocultural maize production into the stock and dairy industries, but were fearful that squatter livestock would spread disease among their expensive grade stock. Hence the call for reducing and/or eliminating squatter stock.
On a more basic level, after World War One, the settlers sought to alter the initial pattern of mutual interdependence with their squatter labour by holding that independent and extensive squatter production in the White Highlands was incompatible with the interests of the settler economy. Chapter Two examines the development of this conflict of interests in the inter-war period. Among other things, the conflict was heralded by the introduction of the 1918 Resident Native Labourers Ordinance (RNLO), which sought to define both the legal status and the labour obligations of the squatter.9 Henceforth obliged to give more labour hours in exchange for less cultivation and grazing, the squatter was now envisaged as a resident labourer basically dependent on a wage, but with limited cultivation and grazing providing a small wage supplement. By this time it was becoming clear that the settlers had only tolerated independent squatter production because of the labour it provided. But for the squatters, signing a labour contract was the only way of gaining access to land in the White Highlands.
The chapter also analyses the subtle and sometimes unsubtle strategies that the squatters adopted to resist oppressive labour laws and settler attempts to transform them from independent producers-cum-labourers into proletarians. Tactics such as withdrawal of labour, returning to Central Province, illegal
