The outbreak of the ‘Gun War’ in 1880-81 and the involvement of chiefs Gecelo and Stokwe gave the colonial administrators an excuse to formally dethrone Gecelo and Stokwe. What follows is a brief account of events leading to the Gun War. After the war of Ngcayechibi, the Cape colonial government introduced the Peace Preservation Act of 1878 with the purpose of “disarming of all persons whom it is not safe or desirable to entrust with arms” (as quoted in Wagenaar 1988: 163). Although the Act was not extended to Emigrant Thembuland, Levey disarmed the people under his jurisdiction. He reported the implementation of this programme in his 1878 report. According to him, “700 guns and 3,500 assegais have been given up by the chiefs and people up to the present date. The principal chiefs have made a fair delivery”. It is not clear from the report whether Stokwe was counted among these “principal chiefs”.
Writing about his experience in Xhalanga, Cumming was less optimistic: Shortly after my arrival here (Xhalanga), some symptoms of uneasiness appeared among the people and, on investigation, I discovered that this feeling was due to the fact that some preposterous rumours were afloat on the subject of disarmament. Notwithstanding that these reports were of a very extravagant nature, they seemed to gain general credence. It was said that, after disarming them, the Government intended to allow them to keep only a limited number of cattle; that their country was to be taken from them; that their wives and children were to be seized. … It is my impression for a number of reasons, that the chiefs, who were very sore at the idea of having to give up their arms, encouraged the propagation of these reports. … From time immemorial, arms have been regarded as the insignia of manhood; and to part with, or be deprived of them, is, in the eyes of a native, an indelible disgrace.39
When the Peace Preservation Act was implemented in Basotoland in 1880, there was active rebellion against it. The rebellion spread beyond the Drakens- berg to parts of the Transkeian Territories. At its height, a magistrate by the name of Hope, and two other British officials were killed in Qumbu on 23 October 1880. This, according to Theal (1919: 147), signalled the beginning of insurrection in Thembuland. It is worth noting though that only parts of
38
See Stapleton’s account of a “succession dispute” involving “two Bomvana chiefs” in the Transkei (1998: 56).
39
Thembuland were involved in the War. The paramount chief of abaThembu, for example, was not involved in the insurrection. The chiefs that went to war were Dalasile of amaQwati in Engcobo, Gecelo in Xhalanga and Stokwe in Southey- ville (ibid.: 148). After the killings in Qumbu, other magistrates, for example Stanford at Engcobo and Cumming in Xhalanga, were forced to flee.
The involvement of Gecelo and Stokwe in the insurrection was not surpris- ing. As seen above, they first of all lost the autonomy that was promised them when they left for Emigrant Thembuland. Secondly, the two chiefs were undermined and humiliated by the various magistrates they fell under. Stokwe, in particular received harsh treatment from Levey, including the initial reduc- tion and withdrawal of his stipend in 1880. In other words, Gecelo and Stokwe were witnessing a gradual loss of their chiefly power from around the mid- 1870s. Added to this was the introduction in 1879 of the hut tax in the united territories of Emigrant Thembuland and Thembuland proper (Theal 1919: 144). This meant that chiefs were to become tax collectors on behalf of the colonial state.
It is worth analyzing the roles of the two chiefs in Emigrant Thembuland. In his reminiscences, Stanford has remarked that Gecelo “was a waverer”. He was apparently torn between the advice he received from his “two able councillors, Mali and Jem”. On the one hand, Mali was in favour of participating in the rebellion, while on the other hand, Jem was loyal to the government. Mali, according to Stanford, had a “strong ally” in Sifuba, a sub-chief of the Ira40
group (Macquarrie 1958: 104). In the final analysis, Gecelo reluctantly partici- pated in the war. It would seem that Sifuba was the main pillar of the resistance. Stokwe led his forces in the Lady Frere and Indwe areas. Stanford described him as “one of the most active and courageous of the rebel chiefs” (ibid.: 126).
After various skirmishes,41 chiefs Gecelo and Stokwe were defeated. Stokwe
was severely wounded in a skirmish with Colonel Wavell on 13 November 1880 at the valley of the river of Indwe. His councillors picked him up. Recall- ing what his grandfather told him, former headman Mazibuko, who was head of the EmaQwathini Tribal Authority in the 1970s and 1980s, stated that chief Stokwe told six of his councillors that he had been severely wounded and would die. His wish was that his grave be kept a secret. The reason for this, according to Mazibuko, was that Stokwe did not want colonialists to exhume him, behead him, and take his head as proof that they had killed him.42
40
This could be a corruption of theamaYirha group, the clan name of Khalipa. I am grateful to Dr Sukude Matoti for drawing my attention to this.
41
See the reminiscences of Stanford for details (Macquarrie 1958, Volume One).
42
Magistrate W.T. Brownlee’s account of the death of Stokwe, which is published in Brownlee’s “Reminiscences” is largely drawn from two letters written to the Daily Dispatch, an East London based newspaper in the Eastern Cape. A Mrs. Greenlands, who lived in Lady Frere, the capital of the Glen Grey district, narrated the story. According to her, “rebels” attacked Lady Frere on 2 November 1880. She recounted that the “hill in front of ‘Cacadu’ (Lady Frere) had become red with natives” (quoted in Brownlee 1975: 121). Gun firing, according to her, was on all day, resulting in “only one European” killed.43 In
her words: “His body was brought in later and put on our dining room table, where the doctor sewed up the wound where the natives had ripped him open with assegais after he had been shot” (ibid.: 122). Her account of the circum- stances leading to the death of Stokwe is that after the attack, “the chiefs with their impis went off towards Askeaton, where they fought among themselves and Chief Stokwe was killed. The spot is now called “Stokwe’s Basin”. According to her, the issue was that one chief did not obey instructions on how they should attack Lady Frere (ibid.: 123).
To this day, the story of Stokwe’s death and his grave are not fully known. With regard to his grave, all Mazibuko could say in the interview was that Stokwe was buried “under a cliff”. According to Mazibuko, the story has it that after the burial, “the cliff collapsed” (ladilika eliliwa). Mazibuko explained that these details came from Stokwe’s son, Nyamankulu, who was one of the men who buried Stokwe, but Nyamankulu never disclosed the site of the grave, and no attempts were made to trace it. Stanford remembered him as “a chief of great courage and resourcefulness”, known in “native song … as ‘Ix(h)onti likaNdlela’44 (the hairy son of Ndlela)” (Macquarrie 1958: 140).
On his part, Gecelo gave indications that he was surrendering on 18 January 1881. When he eventually gave himself up on 22 January 1881, he was, according to Stanford, held in custody in Dordrecht “pending instructions from the Government” (Macquarrie 1958: 168).45 Gecelo also disclosed that he was
present at the engagement in which Stokwe was wounded (ibid.: 168). With the death of Stokwe and the surrender of Gecelo, the war in Emigrant Thembuland came to an end. The ‘Gun War’ itself ended in early 1881 with a victory by the colonial forces. That Stokwe could not be given, and indeed, was never given, a decent, chiefly funeral, was indicative of how decisive the colonial victory was. Soon after the Gun War, colonialists declared the part of Emigrant Thembu- land that went to war a conquered territory. In its session of 1882, the Cape
43
Mrs, Greenlands wrote that the “little hill behind Lady Frere is called Blair’s Kop in memory of him”.
44
‘Ndlela’ was the name of Stokwe’s father.
45
parliament discussed the Gun War and decided to refer to a select committee the question as to the future of the conquered territory. The committee subsequently submitted a report in which it recommended, amongst others, that Gecelo be dispossessed of his portion of Xhalanga and that this portion be allotted to white farmers. The committee also sought the consent of the imperial government in the granting of individual titles, in the remaining portion of Xhalanga and Stokwe’s Southeyville. These titles would be granted to Africans, irrespective of tribal background (Theal 1919: 149). Lastly, the committee further recom- mended that a commission of inquiry be appointed to look into the matter. Parliament accepted the committee’s report, including the appointment of the commission of inquiry.
A Thembuland Commission was established in 1882 “to consider and report upon the question of the permanent occupation of the country lately occupied by the Rebel Emigrant Tembus, Maxongo’s Hoek, and the vacant lands in the Gatberg district”.46 In 1883, the Commission issued a report with recommenda-
tions. Details the Commission recommendations will be discussed in the next chapter. For purposes of this chapter, let me indicate that it is this Commission that redrew the boundaries of Emigrant Thembuland and established a new Xhalanga district that existed from 1883 to 2000. As indicated, a portion of Gecelo’s Xhalanga was allotted to white farmers, while the remaining portion was merged with the Cala district, together with the portion of Southeyville which was controlled by Stokwe. It is out of these three portions that Xhalanga, the case study of this book, was composed. The village town of Cala became the magistracy, and Charles Levey the first magistrate. This also meant that Gecelo and Stokwe would fall under one magistrate.
Chieftainship in Xhalanga suffered a severe blow. Colonialists decided to abolish the institution. Although the Commission accepted Gecelo’s claim that he was loyal, and that, according to Levey, “there were more of Gecelo’s men” who “remained loyal”47, he was stripped of his chiefly status. Chief Stokwe was
dead, and that spelt the end, in official records, of the Stokwe chiefdom. On 7 February 1883, Commission chairman, John Hemming told a group of “loyal native farmers in the Southeyville District, and native farmers who propose(d) coming into the District”:
46
G. 66
–
‘83. The commission consisted of Messrs J. Hemming, civil commissioner and resident magistrate of Queenstown, J.J. Irvine and J.L. Bradfield, members of the house of assembly, and C.J. Bekker, justice of the peace for the division of Wodehouse, appointed on the 17th August, and Messrs. J.J. Janse van Rensburg and J. Joubert, members of the house of assembly, appointed on the 22nd September 1882 (Theal 1919: 149).47
I want to tell you about this land belonging to the chiefs who went into rebellion; that land goes to the Government; it does not belong to the chiefs any longer. But the Government says it does not want to take the land away from the Kafir people, except a small strip under the big mountain – the Drakensberg.48
This then marked the official end to chieftainship in Xhalanga, at least until its re-imposition in the 1950s under Bantu Authorities.
Conclusion
Unlike in kwaZulu, Phondoland and Tshezi, chieftainship was never really established in Xhalanga. This chapter has argued that there are two main reasons behind this failure. First, there were major divisions and contradictions within the population from the outset and, secondly, the colonial state, after some hesitations, initially marginalized the institution before abolishing it. There was also the fact that the credentials of the chiefs were questionable, having been junior chiefs in the Tambokie location.
The chapter has shown that the Xhalanga rural population was not homoge- neous, that it was not only divided socially between the so-called ‘school’ and ‘red’ people, but along class lines – those who had access to land for cultivation and were being seen as an emerging class of African farmers, developing along white lines. The social division, it has been pointed out, was further complicated by the ethnic division between amaMfengu and abaThembu. AmaMfengu were ‘school’ people, while the majority, though not all, of abaThembu were ‘red’ people. It has been demonstrated in the chapter that there was a coincidence between the social and class divisions. The majority of the landholders were ‘school’ people, and therefore amaMfengu.
This chapter has demonstrated how the heterogeneous and contradictory nature of the population led to the undermining of the two chiefs, Gecelo and Stokwe, by the school people, and landholders in particular. As has been seen, the landholders were not responsible to the chiefs and enjoyed colonial support in so far as they were targeted in the civilising mission of establishing model of black farmers. This relationship between chiefs and land in Xhalanga seems to support the overall argument of this book that traditional authorities draw their authority from their control, which in many ways became unaccountable since colonialism, of land, rather than popular support, and that as soon as they lose this control, they power and legitimacy becomes questionable.
The chapter has furthered argued that chietainship in Xhalanga was further weakened by the colonial state, represented by magistrates. Initially hesitant about its stand on traditional authorities, in the sense that when the chiefs were lured to Emigrant Thembuland, colonialists made promises that the chiefs would be granted qualified independence. However, when the state took the decision to annex the Transkeian Territories, the Cape Colonial government’s position to destroy the power of chiefs and chieftainship following the experi- ences of the “frontier” wars with traditional authorities in the Eastern Cape in the nineteenth century was vigorously pursued. Magistrates, as has been graphically shown, humiliated and undermined Gecelo and Stokwe. The Gun War in 1880-81 gave colonialists, following a Commission of inquiry, an opportunity to formally abolish chieftainship in the Xhalanga. The Commission, as shown, also redrew the boundaries and set up a new Xhalanga magisterial district. People who were under Gecelo and Stokwe now fell in this district, under one magistrate, unlike before when Gecelo and Stokwe were under the administration of two magistrates. The recreation of Xhalanga thus set the context for the land and local governance questions that are the concerns of this book.