SCHOLARLY REJOINDER: ON THE HISTORICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN HAUSA AND FULANI IDENTITIES
By Hajiya Kaltume Alumbe Jitami
Hausawa Tsantsa Movement, Jaruma Hausa TV , Hausa Nation
The proposition that Hausa and Fulani constitute a single unified historical nation requires careful scholarly scrutiny. While centuries of interaction, intermarriage, and shared religious affiliation have produced areas of overlap, historical, linguistic, anthropological, and political evidence consistently demonstrates that Hausa and Fulani originated as distinct peoples with different social structures, economic traditions, and historical trajectories. Academic integrity demands that these distinctions be examined without political romanticization or ideological pressure.
Pre-colonial West African history records Hausa civilization as primarily urban and mercantile, organized around city-states such as Kano, Katsina, Zazzau, Gobir, and Daura. These polities developed centralized taxation, craft specialization, market systems, and diplomatic relations across the Sahel and Sahara. Their identity was rooted in settled agriculture, trade, and urban governance long before large-scale Fulani political dominance in the region.
The Fulani, historically known as Fulbe or Fula, emerged primarily as pastoralist and clerical networks spread across the Senegambian and Sahelian belts. Their social organization was traditionally lineage-based, with mobility central to economic survival. Their migration into Hausaland occurred gradually across centuries, resulting in cultural interaction but not automatic ethnic merger.
The 19th-century Sokoto Jihad led by Usman dan Fodio remains one of the most debated historical events in West African historiography. While some scholars frame it as religious reform, others interpret it as political revolution, class conflict, or state formation. Modern scholarship recognizes that historical jihads were complex socio-political movements rather than purely spiritual phenomena, and their legacies remain contested among descendant populations.
Importantly, historical records show that resistance to the jihad existed among several Hausa polities. Some ruling houses, communities, and factions opposed the movement politically or militarily. This demonstrates that historical consensus among all Hausa populations regarding the jihad cannot be assumed.
Ethnic identity formation is not determined by conquest or political rule. Anthropological theory recognizes that ethnic groups maintain distinct identities even under shared political authority. Historical examples worldwide show that empires rarely erase ethnic distinctions completely.
Linguistically, Hausa and Fulfulde belong to different language families. Hausa is a Chadic language within the Afroasiatic family, while Fulfulde belongs to the Atlantic branch of the Niger-Congo family. Language difference is one of the strongest markers of distinct historical origin in ethnolinguistic scholarship.
Colonial administrative systems contributed to the popularization of the “Hausa-Fulani” political label. British indirect rule simplified complex identities for administrative convenience. Many historians argue that this label functioned more as a governance category than as an ethnographic reality.
Modern sociology recognizes identity as layered and situational. Individuals may share religion, region, or political alliance while maintaining separate ethnic self-identification. Shared Islam in Northern Nigeria does not automatically create a single ethnic nationality.
International law does not define or merge ethnic identities. Instead, global legal frameworks emphasize protection of cultura diversity and minority identity rights. No international legal instrument declares Hausa and Fulani to be one nation or separate nations.
The African Union Charter emphasizes respect for cultural diversity and non-discrimination among African peoples. It protects coexistence rather than ethnic erasure or forced identity fusion.
ECOWAS frameworks focus on regional cooperation, economic integration, and human mobility rights. They do not legislate ethnic identity classifications.
UNESCO conventions on cultural heritage specifically encourage preservation of distinct languages, traditions, and cultural histories. These frameworks reinforce recognition of diversity rather than homogenization.
Amnesty International and other human rights organizations focus on protection of individuals and communities from violence and discrimination. Their mandates do not include defining ethnic unity or separation.
International human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, protects freedom of cultural expression and group identity. It neither mandates assimilation nor enforces ethnic division.
The BRICS bloc is primarily an economic and geopolitical cooperation platform and has no legal authority over ethnic classification or identity frameworks.
Nigeria’s constitutional structure recognizes citizenship, not ethnic fusion. The constitution acknowledges Nigeria as a multi-ethnic federation where distinct groups coexist within one sovereign state.
Nigeria’s data protection and privacy laws regulate personal data handling and have no provisions defining ethnic unity or separation. Their relevance lies only in protecting citizens’ personal information.
Modern Northern Nigeria reflects both integration and distinction. Intermarriage and shared religion coexist with continued ethnic self-identification among many communities. Both realities can exist simultaneously without contradiction.
Scholarly responsibility requires avoiding oversimplified narratives that erase complexity. Historical unity and historical distinction are both part of Northern Nigeria’s reality and must be studied with nuance.
Sustainable peace and coexistence depend on acknowledging historical truths, respecting identity diversity, and rejecting narratives that weaponize history for modern political mobilization.
The future of Northern Nigeria lies not in denying differences or exaggerating them, but in building civic unity rooted in justice, inclusion, and mutual respect among all peoples of the region.
