Conclusion
“Gganga Had a Narrow Escape” narrates the story of a court musician, most likely a harpist, who misbehaved in the royal court of Mwanga II and the punishment that followed. A literal reading of the song posits that the musician “stole meat” and had his fingers cut off as a result. According to this reading, the song is an indirect challenge to the harsh punishment. It suggests that the punishers of the “thief” should have left him his fingers because he needed them to eat. However, the singer does not reject the notion of punishment outright. Instead, he suggests a less severe form, validating the decision to punish while questioning the use of severe violence. In this sense, “Gganga Had a Narrow Escape” explores the question of accountability between the king and his people, not just in terms of the leader’s capacity to extend punishment but also in the people’s capacity to confront him. This arrangement is characterized by Kiganda notions of justice, which involves a reciprocal cycle of punishment and mercy.
Bisaso’s alternate version of “Gganga Had a Narrow Escape,” “They Chopped Off His Fingers,” highlights the authority court musicians have historically held in some outcomes of legislative decisions. Court musicians have historically had the power to change the king’s mind and alter his decisions, as exemplified by the lyrics of many songs discussed in this book. The song in question is therefore a reminder to the performers and civilians to always act on the power that they have to ensure the best outcome for their people. “Gganga Had a Narrow Escape” transforms an individual’s punishment into a broader lesson about court etiquette and power dynamics. The song also preserves institutional memory about appropriate behavior within royal circles, using one musician’s experience as a teaching tool for subsequent generations of performers. By memorializing this specific incident, the composition establishes boundaries for court musicians, demonstrating how artistic proximity to power carries both privileges and significant risks.
Characterized by the related themes of punishment and mercy as well as the universal topics of justice and responsibility, the two versions of “Gganga Had a Narrow Escape” analyzed in this chapter relate to a multitude of sociopolitical contexts, as demonstrated by the unique views of the interpreters featured in the chapter. At first glance, the song might indicate a strong emphasis on brotherhood and support among court musicians. In the case of Gganga, his fellow musicians lament his punishment and continue to support him, even though he has committed a crime in the court by going against the rules that the royalty have set in place. They even go as far as composing a song that would hopefully convince the king to pardon him, a process that is neither easy nor secure, as such an attempt could easily backfire on them.
Reorienting our perspective and meaning of justice, the song explores the question of accountability between the king and his people, not only in terms of the leader’s capacity to extend punishment but also in the people’s reciprocal capacity to confront him. This arrangement is characterized by the philosophy of
ubuntu, which means one cannot exist as one is without others.
1On ubuntu, see Eze 2010 and Houshmand 2019. This theme parallels other court songs’ focus on the king’s thoughtfulness and leadership, and it recalls and demonstrates the previously discussed royal court harpist’s historical role in giving voice to the people of Buganda by lending advice to the king.
Each interpreter’s analysis of “Gganga Had a Narrow Escape” reorients our perspective and meaning of justice, providing a unique spin on the song’s connections to this topic with a focus on the related themes of punishment and mercy. Through their readings of the song, we see that the real physical and emotional impacts on people far exceed any one view about these themes. The interpreters’ applications of the song’s lyrics to politics remind us to avoid war and violence, both of which might leave different kinds of scars (physical, psychological) on the groups of people involved. The commentators, therefore, suggest that leaders of those people must be cautious in how they approach conflict. As we have seen in the previous part of this book, these interpreters continue to morph, hybridize, and revitalize the lyrical content with new contexts and ideas.