chieftainships of Gecelo and Stokwe in the district. Matanzima’s grand plan was to divide the district of Xhalanga into two sections, with each section falling under one of the two Chiefs. Meetings that were organised by the government officials, including the Chief Magistrate were often disrupted. This includes a meeting which was meant to introduce Matanzima as a Paramount Chief of Emigrant Thembuland and install chiefs Gecelo and Stokwe as the chiefs of Xhalanga. As will be seen below, this meeting was disrupted and ended in chaos.
In this Chapter I will investigate the processes leading to the establishment of Tribal Authorities and the re-imposition of chieftainship in Xhalanga in the period between 1956 and 1960. Given the critical role that Matanzima played in the above processes, the chapter will deal with his rise to power, particularly how he won the struggle against Paramount Chief Sabata for control of Emigrant Thembuland.3 Throughout, the chapter will focus on the response of
the rural people of Xhalanga to this new government measure, on the one hand, and how, in turn, the state dealt with the resistance.
The establishment of tribal authorities and retribalisation in
Xhalanga
The establishment of Tribal Authorities and attempts to revive chieftainship in Xhalanga in particular should be read in view of the argument here that this institution never, even before the colonialists abolished it in the early 1880s, really established a foothold. The central argument of this case study is that chieftainship in Xhalanga was not only threatened externally by the colonialists through their Magistrates, but was also undermined internally by the ‘school people’ and ‘progressive peasants’. In the period up to the 1950s, chiefs in Xhalanga were, with the exception of Chief K.D. Matanzima’s involvement in the establishment of Matanzima Secondary School, in the words of one infor-
2
For consistency, and to avoid confusion, the term “Tribal Authorities” will be used throughout. It refers to both Bantu and Community Authorities.
3
mant, “there in name”.4 With the advent of Tribal Authorities, whose legiti-
macy, according to the apartheid ideology, derived from African ‘tradition’, Matanzima, in particular, saw an opportunity to prop up chieftainship. Given his longstanding ambition, going back to the 1940s, to control Xhalanga, Matan- zima set out to re-impose chieftainship in Xhalanga after a period of over 70 years.
However, the consolidation of chiefly power was still not to be smoothly accomplished. An event that was meant to be the culmination of the attempt to revive chieftainship in Xhalanga turned out to be a major demonstration against chieftainship. This event was the introduction of K.D. Matanzima as the Para- mount Chief of Emigrant Thembuland, and the installation of Ngonyama Gecelo and Jamangile Stokwe as sub-chiefs of Xhalanga. This occasion was held on 12 August 1958 at Matanzima Secondary School, and was attended by a number of prominent people, including the Chief Magistrate and Magistrates of Xhalanga and St. Marks.5 Paramount Chief Sabata, about whom we are going to
hear more in the pages that follow, was compromised and humiliated by being asked and agreeing to conduct the installation. Although various accounts of what precisely took place at the meeting have been given, there is a common thread that seems to run through them; namely that of opposition to chieftain- ship by at least some of the attendants. According to the Chief Magistrate, for example, things went out of control when Paramount Chief Sabata told the meeting he was bringing “Chief Matanzima to you”. There was “an uproar from about 200 of the crowd of approximately 1500” and “expressions such as ‘We don’t want him. Take him away. We don’t want you either. Go home. We want no chiefs. We want to be under the White man’”.6 The Chief Magistrate created
the impression that a minority was responsible for disrupting the meeting. This statement, though, should be taken against the background of claims by inter- viewees that, as always, Matanzima was accompanied by a large group of horse riding supporters from Cofimvaba.
In his affidavit, headman Msengana stated that Paramount Chief Sabata “mentioned that the Government had seen it fit to appoint Chief Matanzima as Chief of Emigrant Thembuland and he added that he also agreed with this as these immigrant Tembu’s had always wanted him as their Chief”, at which point “there were shouts from a portion of the Crowd that they did not want him
4 Interview with H.M. Tsengiwe, Queenstown, 24 January 2001. 5
Interview with Joe Majija, Umtata, 16 March 2001. According to Ntwana, there were choirs to entertain the crowd and women were busy cooking (interview, Mochudi, Botswana, 24 March 2000).
6
CMT, 3/1484. Letter to the Secretary for Native Affairs, dated 14 August 1958 (only two days after the event).
as their Chief, nor did they want any Chief”.7 Although this account supports
the contention that there was at least a group that was anti-chiefs, it contrasts with that of Chief Stokwe who has suggested that Sabata connived with those who disrupted the meeting. According to Stokwe, Sabata “went towards the trouble makers. … I clearly heard him speaking the following words to these people: ‘There you are. I told you Tembus you must come to me and you said you want Matanzima. There is nothing that is going to happen – carry on.’”8 A
former clerk of nearby Arthur Tsengiwe Training School has given a rather different version. According to him Sabata, who “looked unhappy” and “delayed rising”, said: “Daliwonga,9 these ‘boers’ say I must install you as Para-
mount Chief of Emigrant Thembuland. I am not aware that there is Emigrant Thembuland”.10
Matanzima’s account created the impression that those who disrupted the meeting wanted to humiliate Paramount Chief Sabata.11 He alleged that he saw
Tyaliti and Nyovane “shouting and swearing as Chief Sabata spoke. They were among the men who were obstructing Chief Sabata and the proceedings of the installation ceremony. It was obvious that their shouting was directed against Chief Sabata”.12 This account contrasts with that of Chief Stokwe. According to
Stokwe: “I felt that these words referred to some previous instructions which must have originated from Chief Sabata, and I accordingly reported what I had heard to Chief Kayser Matanzima”. Although the Magistrate of Cala later dismissed Stokwe’s affidavit as not containing “any positive information”,13
Ntwana pointed out in an interview that Sabata was aware of the planned disruption. Ntwana, though, did not mention that Sabata spoke with any of the “trouble makers”.
Regardless of the details of who was responsible, that the meeting was disrupted is beyond dispute. Ntwana and Mlotha stated that the disruption was well planned by their anti-Bantu Authorities group. Ntwana explained: “When we heard that Sabata was to install Matanzima, we agreed that we should disrupt the meeting (Masiyibhoxe yonke lento, siyichithe tu)”.14 Interviews15 and 7
CMT, 3/1484, affidavit of 3 September 1958.
8
CMT, 3/1484.The Xhosa words are recorded as follows: “Nakoke ba Tembu into endandi nixelela yona nati nifuna u Matanzima qubani ningoyiki akukonto izakwenzeka”.
9
K.D.Matanzima’s name.
10
Interview with Joe Majija, Umtata, 16 March 2001.
11 Attempts to interview Matanzima have not been successful. His relatives say he is
senile.
12
CMT, 3/1484. Letter to The Native Commissioner in Cala, dated 27 August 1958.
13
CMT, 3/1484. Letter to the Chief Magistrate, dated 8 September 1958.
14
Interview, Mochudi, Botswana, 24 March 2000.
15
Msengana’s affidavit16 suggest that there were threats in the form of stone
gathering, breaking of the branches of trees and wielding of sticks, although no physical confrontation took place.17 Finally, the meeting was adjourned until
that afternoon, after police reinforcements were arranged to ensure that the afternoon meeting wouldn’t be disrupted. The introduction and installation thus took place in the afternoon under heavy police guard. The Chief Magistrate was later to report to the Secretary for Native Affairs that “the installation ceremony proceeded cordially without any further hitch and before a crowd which had not apparently diminished appreciably”.18 Tsotsi’s account, on the other hand, was
that “only a few of the tribesmen … attended the afternoon meeting” (Tsotsi 1989: 98).
In sum, the revival of chieftainship in Xhalanga met with similar resistance to that expressed against the institution of Tribal Authorities. The ‘school people’ and landholders, in particular, consistently rejected rule under chiefs. These landholders inherited land that was originally granted following the recommendations of the 1883 Thembuland Commission. They held this land under the quitrent system, although, as we saw, they wanted title comparable to their white counterparts. The former clerk of the Arthur Tsengiwe Training School, Majija, stated that what struck him when he arrived in Xhalanga in 1958 was that people in the district did not care for chieftainship (ubukhosi babungahoywanga). Majija was born in the rural areas of Engcobo, an area, in his words, “where chieftainship was prominent”. According to him:
I discovered that Cala people were agriculturalists. They were influenced by the Boers because of their proximity to white farms. There was a breed of inhabitants who were well schooled e.g. Msengana’s and Mkumatela’s. Chieftainship was looked down upon. … Chiefs did not stand a chance under such circumstances. … K.D. (Matanzima) was aware of this problem.19
A local constable, Barnabas Samuel Buhle Mdodana, also captured the intense rejection of chieftainship in the area. In his affidavit, dated 30 Septem- ber 1958, he wrote about the events of 12 August 1958 as follows:
I saw Abel Ntwana and Mabanga Mboyiya among the people who were making a noise. … We police who were on duty then moved towards the people who had started the shouting, and Michael Nyovane actually said to me ‘This nonsense about
16 CMT, 3/1484. 17
In his interview, Tsengiwe, who was a teacher at Matanzima Secondary School at the time, has stated that there was general talk that an attempt to shoot Matanzima was thwarted by a revolver that did not release.
18
CMT 3/1484.
19
Chiefs will not happen in this District as long as we are alive’. I asked him what he was talking about and he answered: ‘I am talking about this rubbish that you have come for here. You won’t arrest me’.20
Ntwana’s position appears to suggest a certain ambiguity especially given that he was one of those in Xhalanga who supported Paramount Chief Sabata. According to him, they “worked closely with the Umtata supporters of Sabata”. Ntwana was referring to the pro-Sabata group involving Nkosiyane that opposed the introduction of Bantu Authorities in Umtata. He even gave evidence in support of the Umtata group in the Young Commission. But Ntwana has claimed that their group in Xhalanga was against chieftainship for the simple reason that it would introduce tribalism. He explained that their support for Sabata was strategic and tactical: “We agreed here in Cala that we should support Sabata. We didn’t support him because we wanted chieftainship. We supported him because we did not want Matanzima. Our argument was that if Cala has to be under a chief, it must be Sabata”.21 Another informant, H.M.
Tsengiwe confirmed that Sabata was not accepted as a chief in Xhalanga. The crowd at Matanzima Secondary School on 12 August 1958 told Sabata: “We want you, but stay at your Great Place (Siyakufuna, kodwa hlala eBhotwe)”.22 In
other words, chieftainship was accepted in Xhalanga for as long as it was far and not interfering with the day-to-day life of the people. As for Matanzima, Tsengiwe stated: “Matanzima, in particular, was hated”.
Lastly, as will be seen, even the most loyal supporters of Matanzima such as headman Msengana refused to be under the control of chiefs when Matanzima tried to divide the Xhalanga district into two Tribal Authorities. What was not clear, though, was whether Msengana rejected the authority of the Xhalanga re- imposed chiefs for elitist reasons, given that they were uneducated, or whether he rejected chieftainship as such.