Deep divisions marked the introduction of the District Council in Xhalanga. The main bone of contention was the type or kind of District Council that was preferred, rather than its introduction in principle. Xhalanga rural residents, having been forced to compromise, had argued that they were in favour of a
district council that was modelled along the provisions of the 1920 Native
Affairs Act. Section 16(1) of the Act provided for the establishment of “Native conferences” that would ascertain the “sentiments of the native population of the Union or of any part thereof, in regard to any measure in so far as it may affect such population”. This latter provision was accommodated in the Transkei Proclamation. However, when the people of Xhalanga asked for a Council under the 1920 Act, the Magistrate told those attending the meeting that the Council under the 1920 Act could not be established.2 No reasons, it
appears, were given. The reason why the people of Xhalanga preferred a Council established under the 1920 Act, appears to have been the provision of “Native Conferences”.
Setting up the District Council
The process of establishing the District Council commenced early in 1925. For the purpose of electing councillors, the district of Xhalanga was divided into seven wards. Each ward was supposed to elect three candidates, out of which four councillors would be nominated. District Councils outside Phondoland were made up of six representatives, four of whom were nominated from candi- dates elected by taxpayers and the remaining two nominated by the Magistrate as nominees of the Governor-General. In Xhalanga, the Magistrate, Whitfield, held a meeting in each of the seven sections for the nomination of candidates for
2
1/XAA, 5/1/57. Minutes of meeting of General Rate Payers of Indwana, Seplan and Stokwe’s Basin Locations and Toise, Madliwa, Mahonga, Emma, Seplan Pama and Bumbana farms held at Askeaton in Indwana Location.
the Xhalanga District Council. These meetings were held between 2 and 6 March 1925. In five of the sections, nominations took place while in the other two, none occurred. What follows is an account of what happened during the various nominations.
At the first meeting of 2 March 1925, held at Figlan Trading Station on Figlan farm, one Mbangwa Tunzi of Manzimdaka location told the Magistrate that he had been “deputed … to speak because we are appealing against the action of the Government in introducing a Council under the Transkeian system”. Consequently, according to him, they had decided not to make any nominations.3 Headman Malangeni Gecelo objected stating that Tunzi did “not
represent the views of the people of my farm”. Gecelo reminded his audience that they belonged to Thembuland “and cannot abandon our chiefs and join a Council system intended for people across the Kei river”. He “heartily” thanked the Government “for giving us this Council” pointing out they intended “to make good use of it”.4 Despite these divisions, elections took place.5
The second meeting that was held on the same day at the Lower Lufuta Trading Station followed a similar pattern. Richard Buti of Upper Lufuta told the Magistrate that “the people of” his section “voted for a Council under the
1920 Act and will have no other”.6 He was subsequently challenged on the
grounds that he did “not set forth the views of all the people of this section”. Headman Arthur Tsengiwe of Tsengiwe Location added his voice, stating that he “also deeply deplored the conduct of the people in opposing the Government in this matter”. In the end, three candidates were elected.7
In Manzimahle, where the third meeting was held on 4 March 1925, it was not clear why the Council was rejected. After some deliberations, one of the participants, Jonas Tshetsha, of Mtingwevu declared: “We are tired of these everlasting and endless discussions on Government measures by the Indwana and other people. Their perpetual opposition to Government is futile and we do not desire to be identified with it”. Headman Sandi Mata accused one Mnyaka Mata “and his faction” of “ratting”, and of being “got(ten) at by malcontents
3
1/XAA, 5/1/57. Minutes of meeting of General Rate Payers of Hota-Mbeuleni, Manzimdaka, Mbenge farm, Hota farm, Sigenu farm, Mxatu Farm, Malangeni farm, Figlan Farm and Kasana Farm.
4
Gecelo showed remarkable consistency in supporting the policy of the government. We have seen that he never opposed the Council system even as the majority of headmen and landholders rejected it in the early 1900s.
5
Three people were elected, Ayliff and Alexander Gecelo (both from Mbenge farm) and Henry Kasana (from Kasana farm).
6
1/XAA, 5/1/57. Minutes of meeting of General Rate Payers of Upper and Lower Lufuta, Tsengiwe and Nyalasa Locations.
7
from Indwana Location”. He concluded by committing the “thoroughly loyal and submissive” people of Langanci and Manzimahle to accepting “the decision of the Government in this matter as final”. The Indwana location headman Mata was referring to is a nearby location to Manzimahle that was known for its opposition to the Council system in the early 1900s. Sandi Mata, Jonas Tshetsha and James Soga were eventually elected.8
The fourth meeting was held at Askeaton in Indwana Location, the site of opposition to the Glen Grey Act in early 1900s.9 The spokesperson for the
opposition, January Manqina, argued that the Government had asked them “to select whether we would take one either under that system or under the 1920 Act”. It is not clear from the minutes what the decision of the Xhalanga people was. What is recorded is that Manqina further claimed that they had a Council that was established “under the Tembuland Settlement Commission”. It was not clear which Council Manqina was referring to under the Thembuland Settle- ment Commission. He apparently could not respond when the Magistrate contested the claim. On the issue of the status of the 1920 Act, the Magistrate reminded those attending the meeting that when the people of Xhalanga asked for a Council under the 1920 Act, “they were informed that they could only have one under the Transkeian Proclamation”. The Magistrate explained that
the Council under the 1920 Act could not be established. His attempts to
convince those attending the meeting about the advantages of the Transkeian system did not succeed. After requesting time to consult, Peter Nxazonke, the spokesperson, reported that they declined to nominate delegates pending an “appeal to Government against the introduction of a Council under the Transkeian system”. No elections took place, despite the Magistrate’s attempts to split participants by making assurances that flouted principles of democracy that “if there was a minority in favour of electing the delegates it had every right to do so and was not bound by the decision of the majority”.10
At Garry Owen in Upper Cala11 Location, where the fifth meeting was held
on 5 March 1925,12 it emerged that there was an appeal made to the government 8
1/XAA, 5/1/57. Minutes of meeting of General Rate Payers of Mtingwevu, Manzi- mahle and Langanci Locations.
9 Mankayi Renqe came from this location. 10
1/XAA, 5/1/57. Minutes of meeting of General Rate Payers of Indwana, Seplan and Stokwe’s Basin Locations and Toise, Madliwa, Mahonga, Emma, Seplan Pama and Bumbana farms held at Askeaton in Indwana Location.
11 This area is popularly and confusingly known as Mchewula, despite the fact that
there is another area close by and also in the Xhalanga district with the same name. It has been possible to establish the source of this confusion.
12
1/XAA, 5/1/57. Minutes of meeting of General Rate Payers for Mceula, Lupapasi and Upper Cala Locations and Mgcodo, Mama, Nombewu, Funani, Landula, Kalipa, Solomon, Saul, Ncamiso and Taliwe farms.
against the establishment of the District Council. One of the participants, Mpayi Nqayi, of Lupapasi location, politely requested the Magistrate to postpone the nominations to after 19 March 1925, “when we shall have heard the reply of the Government to whom we have appealed against the establishment of a Council under the Transkeian system to which we have always been opposed”. He reiterated that they wanted a Council under the 1920 Act. Matinisi Nqose of Upper Cala and Ben Ngaka of Mchewula supported him. The Magistrate refused to grant the postponement stating that he “had strict instructions to expedite matters in view of the near approach of the General Council session”. He further warned that the “continual attitude of obstruction and opposition to Government measures introduced for” the benefit of the people of Xhalanga was “detrimental to the progress of the District”. This did not persuade those attending to change their mind. Consequently, no elections took place. It appears as if this was the only meeting where divisions were not reported.
Deep divisions characterized the elections at Emnxe (the sixth meeting) and Qiba (the seventh and last meeting). However, as with the first three meetings, delegates were elected despite the divisions.13 As already indicated, this meant
that elections took place in five of the wards, with the other two refusing to elect delegates.
The 15 delegates elected in the five sections assembled at the Magistrate’s Office in Cala on 7 March 1925 to elect the first councillors of the Xhalanga District Council. The Magistrate chaired the meeting. The delegates elected the following: Reverend Jacob Manelle (Emnxe), Seti Makiwane (Lower Lufuta), Clifton Kula (Cala Reserve) and Alexander Gecelo (Mbenge). The Magistrate indicated that he would nominate Arthur Tsengiwe (Tsengiwe), who had earlier lost in the election and received only five votes, and Elijah Qamata (Upper Cala), who was not nominated by any of the sections, as nominees of the
Governor-General.14 In the eyes of the Magistrate, the councillors were
representative of the different sections. In reality, this was not the case, as some sections did not elect.
Having accomplished his task, Magistrate Whitfield dutifully reported to the Chief Magistrate about the election process and outcome. He gave a detailed report of what happened. He attributed the opposition to the Council to two reasons. First, he accused “the late member for Tembuland, Mr. W.H. Stuart”
13
At Emnxe, headman Booy Nopoto, Reverend Jacob Manelle and Clinton Kula were elected, while Jacob Nkomo, Whittington Makiwane and Hamilton Kraai were elected at Qiba.
14
Elijah Qamata was a member of all the councils, save for a brief moment between January 1946 and 31 December 1948 when he resigned after being convicted of a criminal charge involving liquor. He was in most cases appointed as a nominee of the Governor-General.
who, “in the past spoke disparagingly of the Transkei Council system and as one unfitted and unsuitable for the more advanced and civilised District of Xalanga”. The other reason was that the people of Xhalanga were apparently “entirely opposed to Government Officials taking part in the deliberations of the Councils”.15 As was customary,16 the Magistrate attributed resistance to the
Council to “one or two persons only … headman Job Renqe of Indwana Loca- tion, Jonah Ngcwabe of Lupapasi and Peter Nxazonke also of Indwana Loca- tion”. He urged the government to take “a firm stand against the malcontents”, warning that “giving way to them will encourage opposition to future Govern- ment measures and will render the administration of this and other districts difficult”.17 Quite clearly, the Magistrate refused to accept that the government’s
segregation policy was at the heart of these struggles.
It is worth noting that in theory, the colonial government was still committed to a consultative process involving rural (male) residents. The purpose of consultation was to elicit the views of the rural inhabitants and, in the case of establishing the District Council, to give them an opportunity to vote for their candidates. The above meetings are an example of that commitment. However, in practice, consultation was reduced to an exercise where the rural people were expected to endorse government policy. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the Magistrate castigated and labelled as malcontents those who questioned the District Council, or the manner in which it was introduced.
It must be pointed out that the Magistrate was not consistent on the question of being firm against the malcontents. He dangled the proverbial carrot in order to co-opt the so-called malcontents. For example, when Clifton Kula, who was a pensioner, resigned on 17 December 1926, Peter Nxazonke, one of the so-called malcontents from Indwana, was appointed to the District Council. In a letter dated 28 December 1926, recommending Nxazonke to the Secretary of the General Council, the resident Magistrate argued, that he “bears a good charac- ter, is a man of considerable influence and ability, is one of the best of the faction that opposed the introduction of the Council system in the District”. He added, “I am particularly anxious that this section of the people of the District should be represented upon the council in order to counteract evil and other influences therein. I think too that the appointment will gratify this section and tend in a measure to bring it to a better frame of mind”.18 The other case arose
when Sete Makiwane, also a pensioner, died on 7 February 1927. He was
15
1/XAA, 5/1/57. Letter dated 9 March 1925. It was not clear who these Government Officials were. Presumably the Magistrate referred to headmen.
16
See previous chapter.
17
1/XAA, 5/1/57.
18
replaced by Jonah Ngcwabe of Lupapasi,19 who, only two years before, had
been regarded by Whitfield as one of the “agitators” and “malcontents”. Yet, time was to tell whether this strategy of cooption would work or not.
The Xhalanga District Council in operation
The first meeting of the Xhalanga District Council was on 26 March 1925. This was merely days after the consultative meetings. This is not surprising given the Magistrate’s eagerness to establish the District Council ahead of the General Council session.20 The Magistrate, as was required by law, chaired all its
meetings. The District Council made recommendations to the General Council with its seat in Umtata. It was also a vehicle to convey the decisions of the General Council. Given that there were few councillors in relation to the vast- ness of Xhalanga district, the District Council worked closely with the headmen in the implementation of its programmes. In addition, councillors participated in the quarterly meetings that involved the headmen of the district and men from the various villages. These meetings were held in the Court Room in Cala and were chaired by the Magistrate. The meetings were important channels of communication between the government and rural residents. The Magistrate and councillors used these quarterly meetings to read and explain circulars from the General Council and to get the views of the rural people.
The District Council dealt with a wide range of issues, including cattle dipping operations, roads, dams, “kraal” sites, weddings, liquor laws, agricul- tural shows, pensions, teachers, scholarships, police and preachers allotments.21
However, a close reading of the minutes of meetings suggests that the focus of the Xhalanga District Council was on agriculture and the improvement of live- stock in the rural areas. Land held under ‘Schedule A’ was excluded from the activities of the District Council.22 There was a lot of discussion, for example,
from dipping and repairing tanks to hiring personnel. There was also discussion on how to help cattle owners with livestock sales. A great deal of interest seems to have been shown in Agricultural Shows. Barely three years after its estab- lishment, the District Council resolved to “respectfully” request the government “to detach an official to devote his time entirely to the advance of Native Agri- cultural Shows”.23
It must be noted that the decisions of the District Council were not always popular, especially when it came to levying taxes. One of the attractions of the
19 Cala District Record. 20
See the Magistrate’s statement at the Garry Owen meeting on 5 March 1925.
21
1/XAA, 97. Minutes of Council meeting held at Cala on 21 November 1944.
22
The farm of Gecelo was, for reasons that will be shown below, an exception.
23
1/XAA, 97. Letter dated 20 December 1927 from Magistrate to Chief Magistrate. The meeting was held on 27 November 1927.
District Council for Cecil John Rhodes was that rural residents would, through it, pay for their local development. In this regard, the District Council, aided by headmen and the Magistrate, levied various taxes on its constituency. One such tax that proved not to be popular was the dipping fee. It is this fee, it will be recalled, that Figlan, one of the members of a deputation to the Chief Magistrate in April 1910, complained about. It would appear that Xhalanga had its own ‘Dipping Committee’. One of the objections was that the District Council would replace the Dipping Committee, and thus levy further taxes. Peter Nxazonke had complained to Magistrate Whitfield at the meeting of 4 March 1925 that their Dipping Committee was “kicked out like dogs for no good reason”.24
When headman Arthur Tsengiwe, a nominee of the Governor-General in the District Council, introduced a levy of two (British) pounds “per kraal” for the “erection of a schoolroom”, he met with stiff opposition from some quarters of his location, Tsengiwe.25 However, headman Tsengiwe bitterly contested this
complaint on the grounds that the “sole object is to stigmatize the status of my post and present career in the government service”.26 The resident Magistrate
came to the rescue of the headman and brushed these complaints aside, arguing that Tsengiwe was “a staunch advocate for the establishment of a District Council under Proclamation No. 152 of 1903. On this account he incurred the ill will of the complainants and others. He interested himself in school matters and worked hard for the improvement of educational facilities in his location”.27
It was striking to observe how little elderly people in Xhalanga knew and remembered about the activities of the District Council. Mlotha was by far the most knowledgeable. Born at Emnxe in 1908, he qualified as a carpenter at St. Matthews College in the Eastern Cape. After working in Cape Town as a migrant worker, he returned to Emnxe and became a herbalist and farmer on his father’s land. The latter was a landholder. This was in 1943. Mlotha remembers the District Council28 as having introduced “agricultural officers and people
were introduced to voting”. Its focus, according to him, was on agriculture and organising “agricultural shows”.29 The only thing that another informant, H.M. 24
1/XAA, 5/1/57. Minutes of meeting of General Rate Payers of Indwana, Seplan and