in the sense of assuring him of indirect support, is the fact that he
did not send with him an induna, _i.e._ one who is usually an elderly,
headringed man. This omission will appeal powerfully to all who know
the Zulu character.[343] Cakijana was a man of no rank whatever,
though he had once been a servant of Dinuzulu, as well as a member of
his bodyguard (Nkomondala); moreover, he was not more than 33 years
old, and without that customary sign of manhood and responsibility--a
headring. Dinuzulu himself drew the attention of the Government to
these facts in defence of his conduct. But, although _prima facie_
proof of his not having instigated Bambata, the sending of Cakijana and
the other messenger was proof to Bambata and to others of Dinuzulu's
readiness to assist, and that was precisely what Bambata wanted. He,
as well as Cakijana, made such use of the fact that, as we believe, a
false impression was conveyed to Natives at Mpanza, at Nkandhla, and
other places, that Dinuzulu himself was rebelling, instead of only
_assisting_ Bambata to rebel--that is, assisting by using the influence
he possessed to practically 'direct' Chiefs to support, although always
in a position to retort to the Government that, being only a Chief, he
obviously had no authority over other Chiefs, as clearly stipulated
in the conditions of repatriation. The conveyance of such impression,
and especially its probable communication to the authorities, greatly
alarmed Dinuzulu, and possibly was the motive why he so persistently
concealed from the Government the fact that Bambata's wife and children
were being harboured by him, and, from Bambata's wife, that her husband
was dead.
The main feature of this aspect of the case was Dinuzulu's absolute
fear of taking any step to start a rebellion in his own name. He could,
of course, have made the attempt, but, because closely watched by the
Government (particularly during the unrest), by the three Chiefs and
hereditary foes that have been named, as well as by other Chiefs,
the game was not worth the candle. He might as well have committed
suicide. These are the reasons why he did not embark on a rebellion
(as some seem to think it was open to him to do), except to the extent
of cautious wire-pulling from a considerable distance. No doubt he did
the best that could possibly have been done under the circumstances
to embarrass the Government. It certainly was not because he was
wholeheartedly loyal that he refrained from rebelling, for the Special
Court found him guilty of high treason, and the justice of that finding
has never been questioned by anyone.
When Mr. Stainbank was murdered, Mankulumana, as has been seen, was
sent with a few men by Dinuzulu, on application being made to him
by the Government, to help in arresting the murderer or murderers.
The mission met with no success whatever. Only after six years'
police inquiry, carried on altogether independently of Dinuzulu's
assistance, was the murderer discovered, brought to trial and convicted
(July, 1912). This man, Mayatana, turned out to be the son of one
of Cetshwayo's principal political messengers. He was well known to
Dinuzulu, had for months resided at Usutu, and, during the Boer War,
was a member of his bodyguard. It was the same man who, as he himself
declared, was sent with Cakijana by Dinuzulu to shoot a man called
Gence for having committed adultery with one of Dinuzulu's wives,
and causing the Chief to become ill. Gence was accordingly murdered,
not, as Mayatana was careful to point out, by himself (though he also
fired), but by Cakijana.[344]
The case of Dinuzulu is of many-sided interest, but we cannot stay to
examine it further. It is, we believe, destined to become classic, as
demonstrating the impossibility of dealing with the Native or, indeed,
any subject races on other than lines natural or as natural as possible
to themselves. The story is a sad and painful one. No one who goes
into it can fail to find a deep pathos running through the whole. That
is only to be expected, because of the limitations that were placed
on one of such outstanding rank, and after he had already experienced
the dangerous honours and pleasures that belong, as of right, to the
heir of every vacant throne. It is a story of political faults, and
these by no means only on Dinuzulu's side, but it is also the story,
especially in later days, of deep-rooted intrigue on the part of the
ex-Chief, culminating in a memorable, though merciful, debâcle. He was,
as we have seen, placed in an extremely awkward predicament, but the
restrictiveness and distastefulness thereof would not, we venture to
think, be held by even his most devoted friends to have justified the
disloyalty of which he was found to be guilty. At the same time, it
is fair to bear in mind that, ever since the Zulu War, he has had to
contend with difficulties of so extraordinary a kind as no other Zulu
has ever been called on to face.
One cannot but regret that he was allowed to drift as long as he did.
The irrationality of his position was practically unperceived, except
by those closest to him, and, if perceived by others, insufficiently
appreciated, so that a more suitable and timely remedy could be found
and applied. But here again, as the reader will have already inferred,
both the Imperial and Natal Governments were face to face with
obstacles of no ordinary character, which could not have been removed,
except by incurring grave risks and, perhaps, even graver than those
that were incurred.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 338: Cd. 3998, p. 7.]
[Footnote 339: Shortly after the Rebellion began, and public suspicion
had been aroused as to the Chief's loyalty, Sir Charles Saunders
reported as follows (20th April): "At my first interview with Dinuzulu
on his return from exile, I told him I would be perfectly frank and
open in all my dealings with him and I expected the same demeanour on
his part towards myself." That this promise was faithfully kept by Sir
Charles Saunders is undoubted, only, however, to be met with gross
deception on the part of Dinuzulu.]
[Footnote 340: Cd. 3888, p. 109.]
[Footnote 341: Cd. 3888, p. 149.]
[Footnote 342: This, though not in accordance with Zulu practice, is a
method that would naturally commend itself to a man like Dinuzulu, who
would realize the danger of adopting normal procedure.]
[Footnote 343: Too much emphasis should not, however, be laid on this,
as Dinuzulu was shrewd enough to know that, only by not conforming to
normal procedure, would he stand the best chance of cloaking the true
intent of his words and actions.]
[Footnote 344: When the troops arrived at Nongoma (December, 1907),
the same Mayatana volunteered to assist as a 'spy.' As he appeared to
be acting in a _bona-fide_ manner, his services were accepted. On one
occasion, he led the way by night to a cave near Usutu, where a couple
of useless guns and a _kamba_ full of old cartridge cases were found.
It was not, of course, known then that he was a murderer. It is not
improbable that, although _apparently_ assisting the troops, he was
_really_ acting in his master, Dinuzulu's, interests the whole time. To
have done so, would have been in keeping with Zulu character in time of
war.]
XXIV.
CONCLUSION.
That unusual significance attaches to the events narrated in the
foregoing pages, can hardly fail to have impressed the reader. It will,
no doubt, have been borne in on him that he is here face to face with
the spirit of Africa itself. Attempts have been made to explain the
position as it developed. What remains now is to deal with the subject
in a more general way--see if what occurred amounted to rebellion; if
so, when it began and came to an end; estimate the various underlying
causes; attempt replies to some of the criticisms that were passed;
and, finally, put forward one or two suggestions as to future relations
between the European and Native races.
(i) _Nature of the Rising._
A number of people, swayed by false accusations of rapacity, unfairness
or what not against the colonists, would appear to have come to the
conclusion that the Rebellion was of a merely superficial nature.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Not that the colonists were
or are without blame, for they are of the same type of British settler
as is to be found in any other part of the Empire, but such faults as
they were responsible for were certainly not, as far as we can see, the
principal or moving cause. There was something more fundamental than
that.
But before dealing with the causes, let us inquire if what occurred
was a rebellion or an insurrection. What is rebellion? It is
"organized armed resistance to the ruler or government of one's
country."[345] What is insurrection? It is "the action of rising in
arms or open resistance against established authority or governmental
restraint."[346]
It would be difficult to prove that the attack on the Police at
Trewirgie amounted to rebellion or even to insurrection. It was,
however, active resistance to constituted authority at a time when
practically the whole country was in a state of unrest and seething
with disaffection. The attack was, no doubt, intended to be an
act of insurrection or rebellion, though prematurely carried into
execution.[347] This conclusion is supported by the fact that it was
followed by no other overt act of violence on the part of others; at
any rate, not until two months later. But for such occurrence, the
Mpanza one would probably not have taken place in the way it did. The
former, no doubt, paved the way for the latter, though, at the same
time, as a general rebellious spirit was abroad, Trewirgie may be said
to have disturbed the formation of plans that were either incubating
or would certainly have incubated in an environment favourable for a
general rising.
When, however, we come to Bambata's attack, there can be no question
but that such was a premeditated act, intended to be the first step in
a revolt which, it was hoped, would rapidly become universal.
The Mpanza affair was further characterized by the plans formed in
connection therewith. Evidences of plan are found in Cakijana, in the
name of Dinuzulu, inciting Bambata's people to rebel, and warning them
not to kill European women and children, or other than members of
the Militia and Police forces; in the insurgents forthwith crossing
to the Nkandhla forests, where the Chief of that part, on receipt
of 'instructions' from Dinuzulu, proceeded to protect Bambata; in
Sigananda, Mehlokazulu and other Chiefs or headmen promptly assisting
Bambata. A war-cry, badges and pass-words, which presently became
general, were, moreover, ordered to be used, and so on.
The plan undoubtedly was that the rising should eventually involve the
whole of Natal and Zululand. To begin with, hostility was to be allowed
to develop out of a spirit of unrest and opposition to the Government,
known to have more or less infected the entire Native population. After
the insurgents had to some extent established themselves at Nkandhla,
they began coercing neighbouring Chiefs to join their cause by raiding
their stock. Had suitable opportunity occurred, these methods would
have been practised on men living at even greater distances. Later
on, two indunas, Macala and another, were, as declared by Mangati,
appointed by Dinuzulu--the former to take supreme command of the rebel
forces.
But evidences of plan and organization are not of themselves sufficient
to decide the point. The character of the motives is also a determining
factor.
There is abundant evidence that the Natives of Natal were satisfied
with the Crown Colony government that existed up to 1893, whilst
those of Zululand were equally contented with the Imperial control
which continued until the end of 1897. The majority were averse to
being autocratically ruled by Zulu kings of the type of Tshaka,
Dingana or Cetshwayo.[348] It is, moreover, certain that they knew
themselves to be powerless against European troops. With the recent
object-lesson of the Boer War before them, they realized the utter
futility and madness of attempting to regain their independence as a
nation. There is no evidence of any such thought having been seriously
entertained, in spite of Ethiopian propaganda. The most they hoped
for was that, as the Imperial troops had been withdrawn, the King
would not assist the Colonial Government in the event of hostilities.
The mere fact of withdrawing the troops appeared to their limited
outlook to show that His Majesty disapproved of the manner in which
the Colony, and especially the Native people, were being governed, and
would, therefore, probably refrain from helping. Because of apparent
disapproval of Natal policy, the sympathies of the King, they thought,
would be with the Zulus in any conflict that might arise; and any
opposition by them would be held to be justifiable. The mere fact of
a quarrel occurring would be good cause why the Imperial Government
should intervene and readjust matters. After interfering, a general
inquiry would ensue and possibly lead to reversion to the former mode
of government, and, perhaps, to the setting up of Dinuzulu as Paramount
Chief.
This is the loose reasoning that Dinuzulu and Mankulumana probably
indulged in, and this is the only motive that we can assign for the
Chief aiding and abetting Bambata as he did. The pronounced way in
which the numerous Chiefs, headmen and other Natives that appeared
before the Commission approved of Sir Theophilus Shepstone's management
of their affairs under Crown Colony government goes to support the
theory.
The peculiar instruction that European women and children were not to
be murdered or molested, or men other than Police or Militia injured,
is also in harmony with the idea, for Dinuzulu knew the Natives would
forfeit all sympathy with their cause in England had they put their
ordinary methods of warfare into practice. Clearly this extraordinary
instruction was issued to gain approval. It was certainly not to
placate the rebels. If not the Imperial Government, we fail to see what
other people it was intended to influence. No doubt, the severe manner
in which Europeans condemned the murders of European women and children
as well as civilians by the Matabele (Zulus) in the Rhodesian Rebellion
of 1896, had come to Dinuzulu's notice. If the motive was simply to
destroy European government and set up their own in its place, it is
obvious no such order would have been issued.
It may be incidentally remarked that many Europeans, particularly at
the beginning of the rising, were in a great state of alarm lest the
Natives should rise _en bloc_ and massacre them. The great difficulties
of combination between Chiefs were, however, insufficiently realized,
especially as many were loyal, or at least neutral, and would have
reported any hostile plans or intentions that came to their notice.
We believe the order about not putting European women and children to
death was issued, and it is not unlikely that credit therefor should be
given to Dinuzulu himself. At the same time, one should bear in mind
that the Natives of Natal and Zululand, upwards of a million in number,
were in a completely disorganized condition. To a great extent, they
looked to Dinuzulu as their head, and he, no doubt, desired to be their
leader. They would have wished for nothing better than that he should
lead in an active manner. The fact remains that he did not take up
such position, and certainly a man like Bambata could never have done
so. Therefore, although Dinuzulu might have given the order, there was
no guarantee, had the Government dealt with the Rebellion in a less
rigorous manner than it did, that the rebels, especially if they had
secured a few successes in different parts of the country, would not
have become so elated as to act _as they saw fit_, in the belief that
the day had at last come when the white man was to be driven back into
the sea 'from whence he came.'
As proof that the foregoing supposition is not incorrect, we find that
the civilians Veal, Sangreid and Walters were murdered, and Robbins
seriously wounded.[349] And these incidents happened two or three
months after issue of the order.
One can understand Bambata's animus towards the Government, but, as has
already been shown, Bambata was backed or supported by Dinuzulu. Had
his actions not been so directed, it is impossible to understand how
the many rebels that joined him could have done so merely for the sake
of fighting against the Government in the certain knowledge of being
speedily annihilated. So many members of a normally sane and phlegmatic
people would never have followed an _ignis fatuus_ and sacrificed
themselves on the mere chance that the public would benefit. It is
inconsistent with Zulu character for a man to sacrifice himself, unless
there be a reasonable probability of material advantage accruing. We,
therefore, arrive at the conclusion that their only reason for taking
up arms was because they believed, and believed on what appeared to be
the best possible authority, that Dinuzulu desired and had 'ordered'
them to fight to further some practical, profitable scheme or another
which he had in mind.
Another possible motive was, by offering sharp and stubborn resistance,
to demonstrate to all concerned, more plainly than words could do, that
the people resented the way in which they were being governed, and so
urge their local rulers to bring about a change for the better. These
aimless or improvident tactics are, indeed, of a merely animal type,
such, for instance, as a dog, continually irritated by its master,
might resort to.
Having regard to Dinuzulu's association with the rising in the
capacity, to some extent, of invisible mentor and director, we cannot
believe that, with his by no means scanty knowledge of Imperial rule
and of Natal responsible government, especially of the conditions
under which he had been repatriated, and of the political relations
subsisting between the Home Government and Natal, he would not have
had some ulterior object in view, even though not given expression
to at the time. His personal preference for the Imperial Government
has always been strong, consequently restoration of something akin to
Crown Colony government was naturally what would have been uppermost
in his mind and supplied a sufficiently practical goal. If, however,
responsible government could not be revoked, the conditions under
which he had been repatriated might conceivably have been revised by
establishing him as Paramount Chief and, through him, improving the
status and condition of the people at large. That such thoughts were
actually in his mind is proved by his own words to Sir Henry McCallum
at the important interview that took place in Pietermaritzburg in May,
1907: "I do not wish," he said, "to conceal it from your Excellency
that the whole of the people, the Zulus, like me, as the son of my
father, who was their king formerly.... Now, I feel it very hard on
me, as I have been placed on a level with all other headmen and Chiefs
in the country. We are just like a flock of goats, we are all the
same.... I feel very pained about something that I wish to state. My
father went to war with the British Government; he was beaten; he was
taken away from the country, but afterwards, ... allowed to return....
Notwithstanding that he was returned by the kindness of the Home
Government to his home in Zululand, I feel, and I wish to speak plainly
here, that he was not treated as he should have been, nor I, nor the
people of Zululand, as other nations or peoples who have gone to war
with the Government have been treated.... We cannot help feeling that
we Zulu people have been discriminated against, and have not had the
same treatment meted out to us as to other races.... There is no one
over us all who might be held responsible and as a superior to keep
them together and to give them advice and direction."[350]
We do not believe the ordinary Natives were well enough informed to
appreciate the general motives here imputed to Dinuzulu, but it was
not at all necessary that they should know them before acting as
'directed' by their supreme head. In the patriarchal system, blind and
unquestioning obedience is rendered, as a matter of course, even to
Chiefs; much more so in the case of a Paramount Chief or King. For
all they knew, the ordinary Natives might, in 1906, have been fighting
for anything else. It was sufficient to know that they were acting by
direction of their 'King,' the adequacy and practicability of the end
in view being a matter left entirely for him to decide. Loyalty and
devotion such as this could not but be admired by all who witnessed it.
It is just as well, from the rebels' point of view, that Dinuzulu
did not reveal his objective (assuming the one imputed to him to be
correct), otherwise many must have realized at once the futility of
their endeavours. After all, he himself saw the game was hardly worth
the candle, which accounts for his contenting himself with working
through other tribes, _i.e._ through those over whom, _ex hypothesi_,
he had no official jurisdiction.
Although he was, by birth, the supreme head, his authority was not
recognized by many Natives, especially in Natal, _i.e._ where the
new taxation pressed most heavily. Armed opposition was, therefore,
contemplated to some extent independently of his control. The murder
of Smith at Umlaas Road, the incident at Trewirgie, the exhibitions
of defiance to various Magistrates, cannot be explained, except as
spontaneous, isolated and purely local outbursts of hostile feeling in
which Dinuzulu was not implicated. He had his reasons for promoting
hostilities, whilst the Natives in general, particularly those in
Natal, had theirs. He distinctly appears to have exercised restraint,
and prevented the rising from resolving itself into isolated outbreaks
in all parts of Natal and Zululand, regulated by nothing but the
caprice of self-appointed leaders.
In these circumstances, the only conclusion we can come to is that
the rising, dominated as it was from start to finish by Dinuzulu's
personality, was more of the character of an insurrection than of
a rebellion, for, although apparently aiming at a change in the
constitution, such change, as we believe, was intended to be brought
about by the Imperial Government of its own motion, as soon as the time
came for intervening. It was what may be styled a limited or incipient
rebellion, although the rebels themselves, and certain sections of the
people, appear to have acted in the belief that the object was or ought
to be nothing less than expulsion of the white race from Natal, if not
from South Africa.[351]
That the taking of action against Dinuzulu was deferred until sixteen
months after the conclusion of the Rebellion, is accounted for by his
at first being presumed to be loyal; his having quickly paid the poll
tax; and his offer of a levy. Had Colonel McKenzie received, prior to
August, 1906, the subsequently-obtained information of the Chief's
treasonable conduct--it is needless to say that he would have been
dealt with without delay.
(ii) _Causes, motives, etc., of the Rebellion._
The vexed question of the causes of the Rebellion appears simpler now
that practically the whole of the evidence is available, by which we
mean that of the Native Affairs Commission, of Dinuzulu's and other
trials, and of numerous other official and private records. But, in
dealing with the subject, one is at once confronted with a number of
difficulties. The so-called 'causes' are found to resolve themselves
into causes, motives and occasions, these again being capable of
further subdivision. The word 'cause' will here be restricted to any
action on the part of the Government or colonists that tended to bring
about in the Natives an attitude of hostility or rebelliousness;
'motive' will be limited to anything which was an inducement to
advance from attitude to action; and 'occasion' will be regarded as
an opportunity, time, or state, favourable for rebelling. It is one
thing for Dinuzulu to have had motives and occasions for promoting
insurrection, quite another as to what causes had been at work in
bringing about a rebellious spirit in the people.
The first, elementary, and most striking fact in connection with the
upheaval is the profound and natural differences that existed between
the contending races. Their civilizations were widely different. They
had different creeds; different social systems; different habits and
customs; different languages, history and traditions; a different
physical, moral and intellectual nature and equipment; different
tastes, ideals and outlooks on life, and countless other differences.
Although the causes of any general conflict between a higher and
a lower race are not, perhaps, necessarily deep-seated, in this
particular instance we believe they arose out of the all-round radical
differences referred to, and were as fundamental as it was possible for
them to be.