Chapter XXI: Introduction (20)

Throughout the time he was at Usutu, up to the outbreak of rebellion, is nothing but a tale of the spreading of his influence by one means or another in all directions, and this notwithstanding the clearly-expressed condition that it was not as Paramount Chief that he was returning to Zululand. With such an environment, the people so prone in many parts to regard him as their natural head, is it surprising that when the mysterious order that all pigs, white fowls, European utensils, etc., were to be killed or discarded was circulated, reference should have been made to him by many to ascertain his will and pleasure?

* * * * *

One of the ways in which his influence was considerably augmented, but which involved him in trouble with the Government at a later time, occurred towards the conclusion of the Boer War. Guerilla warfare was then going on in the Transvaal and elsewhere. To denude country occupied by the Boers of stock was recognized as one of the most effective means of bringing hostilities to a close. The idea of organizing raids along the north-western border of Zululand occurred to the authorities, whereupon one Colonel Bottomley was dispatched to arrange accordingly. Bottomley went to Dinuzulu and, without obtaining the authority of the Natal Government, ordered the Chief to arm and assemble his men. Dinuzulu reported to the Magistrate, who objected to Natives being employed in such way. The Magistrate, however, as well as the Commissioner, were overruled under martial law, then in force in Zululand, whereupon Dinuzulu went forth with some twenty-four companies (_i.e._ about 1,500 men), and, at a hill called Dhleke, successfully performed the required duty. It is claimed by him that, in consequence of this demonstration and other assistance in the shape of scouts, the magistracy was prevented from being attacked, as happened at four other magistracies in Zululand.

During the Dhleke expedition, besides looting stock, some firearms were taken from a Boer waggon. Dinuzulu seems afterwards to have attempted to call in the guns, but, because there had been bloodshed (a couple of his force having been killed), his men refused to produce them. He declares that Bottomley then allowed the men to retain the guns. Later, in 1902, the Magistrate ordered the weapons to be brought in for registration. A few that were produced were not, apparently, returned to the holders. Such retention seems to be the reason why other holders refused to produce theirs. The matter seems then to have dropped. It is idle to suppose that Dinuzulu could not have called in every gun had he been so inclined. Universally-recognized Zulu law requires that all loot shall go to the King as a matter of course, who thereupon deals with it as he sees fit.

During the same War took place the Holkrantz massacre referred to in a former chapter. Owing to the tribe (Baqulusi) which carried out the massacre being known to be intimately associated with the Zulu royal house, credit for the achievement was regarded as attaching principally to Dinuzulu as head of the house. The massacre created a profound impression on Natives in general; it revealed new and unexpected possibilities.

The attitude assumed by him when questioned by the Government for allowing messengers to come and see him about the poll tax and the pig-killing order can be readily understood. He practically said: "You allowed me to come back, but gave me a position not in keeping with my rank. This, Natives at large, have begun to see. Although my jurisdiction is limited to my particular ward, and such fact is well known, it is impossible for me to prevent people coming to see me." When Sir Henry McCallum spoke to him at Nongoma in 1904, he was distinctly instructed to report the arrival of people from tribes other than his own. These instructions he frequently disobeyed, and such disobedience was subsequently admitted by his induna, Mankulumana, as well as by himself.

There is another aspect in regard to the man which should not be lost sight of. The question arose many years ago as to whether the Chiefs of Zululand were prepared to surrender the status conferred on them by Sir Garnet (afterwards Viscount) Wolseley, in order that Cetshwayo should become Paramount Chief. On the Chiefs in question being approached, several objected in the strongest terms, among them Zibebu and Hamu. The Zulus regarded it as impossible to serve a King who had been conquered by another race, and whose restoration was on the condition, _inter alia_, that the regimental system should be done away with, and his jurisdiction confined to territory reduced by about a third of its original size. This opposition to his father or his becoming Paramount Chief, is what was always uppermost in Dinuzulu's mind, and what it was ever his greatest care to break down or remove. The long-continued warfare (1883 to 1887) between Cetshwayo (and, later, himself) and Zibebu took place for no other reason than that the latter had refused to acknowledge his father's and, therefore, his own authority. It was in consequence of this attempt, vigorously carried on as it was after formal assumption of the administration by the Queen, that Dinuzulu was arrested, tried and convicted of high treason, and banished to St. Helena. On coming back, he realized the futility of waging war as a means of attaining his object. The problem then was: How am I, by adopting means to which the European Government can take no reasonable exception, to induce the great mass of the Zulu people to become unanimous in the proposal of my being appointed Paramount Chief? Here, as we believe, is the motive for his sedulously promoting the development of his influence in the extraordinary, irrepressible and obscure manner outlined above.

It can, therefore, be seen that he found himself ere long in a serious dilemma. His position has, indeed, always been recognized as difficult. But, owing to being a Native, and therefore living out of touch with the European community, the nature and intensity of his embarrassment could not be realized as completely and as vividly as they were by him and his immediate followers.

And yet at the beginning of the Rebellion he stood in a singularly favourable light as far as the Government was concerned. The Commissioner had, as is commonly known, implicit confidence in his loyalty; he lost no opportunity of supporting the Chief, repudiating every allegation and calumny in the most vigorous manner. The earnest and determined way in which Dinuzulu was defended by this officer excited the admiration of all who observed it.[339] By his ready response in paying the poll tax, as well as by protestations of loyalty, coupled with an offer to take or send an _impi_ to Nkandhla to deal with Bambata, Dinuzulu at once ingratiated himself with the Government and the European public, who, though not absolutely believing in his loyalty, were only too anxious for him to co-operate at that most critical juncture. But, as it happened, he had already cast the die which, as time went on and the truth eked slowly out, rendered it more and more impossible for him to restore those good relations which, but for his own lapse, would undoubtedly have been even more cordial than ever before.

It would, we believe, be unfair to assume that he deliberately and systematically persuaded people to come and see him. He was astute enough to know that, by adopting a merely passive and nonchalant attitude, many would be seized by an overpowering inclination to pay their respects, especially when they observed that an increasing number of other people came to do so. To visit and get in touch with him became, from their point of view, quite the proper thing to do. There is no instinct among the Zulus stronger than that of desiring to do what everybody else is doing. Such arises, no doubt, from the force of long-continued custom. Living, as they once did, under the rule of as despotic kings as could be found anywhere on the globe, whose political and social habits made all sorts of demands on the people, they became alive to the necessity of being always on the alert for fear of being punished unless conforming to what others were doing. For, whatever others did was supposed to be in accordance with the will or desire of the king, even though unproclaimed. Apart from this, respect for authority is ingrained in their natures to a remarkable degree. As proof of this, it is necessary merely to mention the custom of _hlonipa_, which universally enforces propriety of behaviour, especially in the female sex.

Instead, therefore, of sending out messages to persuade people to come and see him, Dinuzulu adopted the more law-abiding and dignified policy of waiting until they called.

When, after the promulgation of the Poll Tax Act, agitation arose among the Natives to such an extent that many sent messages to him, including Chiefs who, it would seem, had never communicated with him before, he had a valid answer always ready: "What is the use of your coming to me? I can do nothing. You are a Chief just as I am. I do not refer to you when in a quandary. Go to the Government and lay your case before it for yourself." Profiting by his experience at St. Helena, and not again wishing to come into conflict with the Government, he at once made his own tribe comply with the demands. They did so at the earliest date, viz. January, 1906.

His attitude of allowing people to come and see him began at length to assume a character more or less criminal. Instead of the messengers coming to pay their respects, in order to discuss various matters appertaining to their tribes, they, one and all, came to consult him about a particular matter, and one having reference to a law already enacted. This law, moreover, had received the sanction of the representative of that Government which, as we have seen, was party to the agreement under which Dinuzulu was restored to the country. In no case did he report to the Magistrate, the Commissioner, or the Governor that these visits were being made, and that his advice was being solicited as to what action should be taken. We have seen the form of reply to those who came about the poll tax. As regards the pig-and-white-fowl-killing rumour, he said: "Such order did not emanate from me; I know nothing whatever about it."

Judging from his antecedents and his conduct during the period immediately before the Rebellion, we cannot come to any other conclusion than that his decision to pay was actuated, not by a natural desire to comply with the law, but rather because afraid, his social rank being what it was, that the first attention of the Government would be directed to himself, when he might, before he knew where he was, find that a _casus belli_ had arisen between him and people whom his father's entire army had been unable to withstand. It is, therefore, not surprising that he should have paid, and that his people paid four months before they need have done, in order to escape the prescribed penalty. Just as his compliance did not arise out of a natural desire to obey (any more than, at that time, there was such disposition on the part of hundreds of thousands of other Natives in Natal and Zululand), so it cannot be said that his object was to parade before other Chiefs his approval of the new and strongly-resented law. He was never tired of referring to, and, at his trial, never ceased to quote, his action in being among the first to pay the tax and claiming greater credit therefor than he actually deserved. His compliance was undoubtedly a satisfactory feature, but the act should not be considered except in connection with the general political situation and his own to a large extent underhand conduct at that time and afterwards.

In or about 1903, Chiefs living outside Zululand and north of the Pongolo sent messengers to complain to him of being taxed £3 per hut in the Transvaal, whereas only 14s. was being paid in Natal. The Governor later on spoke to Dinuzulu about this, asking why he had interfered. It was bad enough to exercise influence over Chiefs in Natal and Zululand, but a far more serious matter to do so in regard to those of a different administration. He replied that he had reported the incident to his Magistrate, when he received orders not to concern himself with the matter. These orders, he added, were obeyed. He pressed the Governor to produce the informant, but as this could not be done, he felt aggrieved that an insinuation of his having done wrong was allowed to drop, although informed that his explanation was satisfactory.

This accusation, in conjunction with the further allegations that he and his tribe were in possession of unregistered firearms obtained at Dhleke and Holkrantz, were the origin of a definite application by him that a full inquiry into his conduct should be held. The application was repeated on various occasions, but the Government was unable to comply. At the same time, the Governor strongly supported him in connection with the Holkrantz affair, and told him he had done so.

In consequence of evidence given at various courts-martial tending to implicate him in the Rebellion, the Government had no alternative but to decide to hold some form of inquiry. A difficulty arose as to the composition of the proposed Commission. In the meantime, an investigation had been started by the Magistrate, Mahlabatini, into the circumstances attending his predecessor's murder. The evidence therein, too, was found to some extent to implicate Dinuzulu. Under all the circumstances, Ministers, in November, 1906, resolved to refrain from holding an inquiry until a _prima facie_ charge could be established against him, as the effect of any inquiry being abortive would have been greatly to increase his prestige.

The desire for inquiry was again referred to by the Chief in May, 1907, when, with his indunas, he paid Sir Henry McCallum a visit at Pietermaritzburg. By this time, however, the Government was in possession of a good deal of other reliable information tending to prove that he was personally concerned in the Rebellion, especially by harbouring rebels, including the ringleaders, at Usutu, well knowing warrants were out for their arrest, and either inspiring, or being privy to, various murders of Native loyalists that had taken place in Zululand.

Shortly after Dinuzulu's return to Usutu, the murder of Sitshitshili occurred, followed by the escape from Usutu of Bambata's wife and children.

After fully considering the situation, the new Governor (Sir Matthew Nathan) "reluctantly came to the conclusion ... that Ministers are right in view that the peace of the Colony requires the removal of Dinuzulu from Zululand."[340] He concurred in the advice that Dinuzulu should be required to attend an inquiry into "the present state of affairs in Zululand and into his alleged connection with last year's Rebellion." He also agreed with the proposal that two companies of Imperial troops should be stationed at Eshowe, to discourage breaches of the peace and reassure loyalists more than was possible for a detachment of Militia to do. Representations were made accordingly to the Secretary of State by cable. The latter replied on the 14th October that His Majesty's Government would no doubt be "prepared to concur in the policy of enquiry, and, if necessary, to move the troops as desired, if the enquiry is to be into the best means of securing the peace of the country, including the redress of grievances and if the Natal Government will pledge itself to do its best, in consultation with His Majesty's Government, to carry out the reforms recommended by the Commission [Native Affairs]. Such enquiry might be based on Dinuzulu's own request ... [and] be an important open enquiry ... not a mere police enquiry...."[341] Dinuzulu, in the meantime, nervous on account of the police patrol that had passed Usutu on the 30th September, contemplated leaving Usutu to live in a still more isolated quarter by the Black Umfolozi and nearer the sea.

Shortly after receipt of the Secretary of State's message (14th October), another Chief, Mpumela, was murdered by being shot after dark when sitting in his own hut--again was the murder commonly associated with Usutu kraal, not, in the first instance, by Europeans, but by Natives. Ministers now advised that a warrant of arrest should forthwith be issued against Dinuzulu and a strong body of Militia be sent to reinforce the Police when executing it. The Imperial Government abode by the policy, quoted above, with the result that the two companies of infantry applied for were not sent as requested. Had this comparatively minor point been conceded, it is probable that the murder of the loyal Chief, Mpumela, not to refer to attempts to murder others, would not have occurred. It is not surprising that, under the circumstances, the Colony decided to effect Dinuzulu's arrest with its own troops, without further appeal for Imperial assistance.

Having seen how Dinuzulu's desire for a public inquiry became, through gradual denouement, transformed into a decision to arrest him on a charge of high treason, we will now pass on to consider other aspects of the case.

One often hears it said that, with the country in so disturbed a state, a magnificent opportunity for plotting and fomenting rebellion was afforded the Chief during the latter end of 1905 and beginning of 1906 had he been so inclined. That is true. But the outlook from Dinuzulu's own point of view should not be lost sight of. Here was a man, by far the most important in Natal and Zululand, in so far as social rank was concerned, who, but a few years before, had returned from a long exile. He was in a better position than was any Native in Natal to know what it meant to take up arms against Europeans. This had been tried in 1879 as well as in 1887, but had failed. It was not likely that, with his men in a disorganized condition and the nation split up into hundreds of separate tribes, the prospects of success would be any greater in 1906. Had he shown resistance, it was inevitable that the Government would have attacked him forthwith, before a strong _impi_ could have been assembled and supplies collected, quite apart from his being physically unfit to take the field. In other words, the widespread feelings of loyalty towards him by hordes of undisciplined barbarians meant little or nothing against organized troops, armed with modern weapons, until an opportunity had been afforded for openly mobilizing them and evolving order out of chaos. Dinuzulu had taken part in military operations, and was sufficiently a soldier to know _that_.

A further reason for disinclination was because, living but a few miles from him in different directions, were three Chiefs, Tshanibezwe, Mciteki and Kambi. These were all important men: the first was the son of Cetshwayo's prime minister; the second a son and temporary successor of Zibebu; and the third a son of Hamu (one of Dinuzulu's uncles). That is, sons of three of the thirteen 'kinglets' appointed by Sir Garnet (later Viscount) Wolseley. But the opportunity at hand, such as it was, was too good to lose. It might not occur again. He knew that the great mass of the people, already incensed against the Government, were looking to him. He knew that the large number of Chiefs in Natal and Zululand, and even beyond, expected him to take the lead. He knew they were ready to follow if he did. But the risks of failure were too imminent. Like Hamlet, he began to soliloquize. What, in this predicament, he actually did will perhaps be never fully known. Whether he specially sent for Bambata, on hearing this petty Chief was being harassed at Mpanza, or that Bambata came of his own accord with one of his wives (and children) to seek a place on which to live; whether Mankulumana, in Dinuzulu's presence, actually incited him to start a rebellion and flee across to Nkandhla, where Dinuzulu would meet him, or that Dinuzulu simply confined himself to saying he was unable to give a site; whether Mankulumana handed Bambata a rifle with which to begin the fighting, and provided him with emissaries to assist in inciting Natives, or that Dinuzulu, on hearing from Bambata of a certain doctor who could cure the ailment from which Dinuzulu was suffering, sent two messengers merely to summon the doctor: all this is to a large extent obscure. Witnesses have testified on oath to each of the alternatives. The Special Court found Dinuzulu not guilty of inciting Bambata to rebel, owing mainly to the evidence of the wife and children appearing to be an improbable version of what actually happened; but, whilst discrediting this evidence, the Court did not say it accepted Dinuzulu's own plausible story.

It is unnecessary to deal with other counts than the one referred to. The prosecution and defence were at one in concluding that: (_a_) Bambata fled to Dinuzulu, with his wife and children, after wilfully disobeying an order of the Government; (_b_) he had two or more interviews with Dinuzulu and his indunas towards the end of March; (_c_) he received exceptionally favourable treatment during the three or four days he was at Usutu; (_d_) he was accompanied to Mpanza, Natal, by two 'messengers' from Dinuzulu; (_e_) on reaching Mpanza, he made preparations to rebel, being actively assisted therein by one of the 'messengers' referred to, who, in Dinuzulu's name, openly incited members of his tribe to rebel; (_f_) with the assistance of Dinuzulu's messenger, three distinct acts of rebellion were committed on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th April; (_g_) Bambata, along with the same messenger and about 130 men then fled to Nkandhla; (_h_) at Nkandhla, it was represented by the said messenger that Bambata had the authority of Dinuzulu to rebel and take refuge there; and (_i_) Dinuzulu's messenger thereupon usurped control of Sigananda's tribe in order to assist Bambata. As there is unanimity in these and other particulars, and as the Court found Dinuzulu not guilty, the question arises: Who, then, was the cause of the Rebellion? The question is a fair one and obviously demands an answer, if one can be given.

Let us attempt an analysis. The names of the ringleaders were Bambata, Cakijana (Dinuzulu's messenger), Mangati, Sigananda and Mehlokazulu, whilst those who are declared to have instigated it are Dinuzulu, Mgwaqo and Mankulumana. If the author of the Insurrection is not among these, then he is nowhere.

Mgwaqo and Mankulumana may be eliminated because, being indunas of Dinuzulu, the latter must be held to have been privy to, and responsible for, everything they did. Bambata would never have been incited, nor would he have agreed to rebel, except on receiving an assurance from Dinuzulu himself that they were voicing his wishes.

Mangati and Mehlokazulu, again, only appeared on the scene _after_ the Rebellion had started, and Bambata was at Nkandhla. No one who knows the facts would regard either of them as the cause. They were accessory, but _ex post facto_.

Now, as regards Bambata, Cakijana, Sigananda and Dinuzulu. We have seen that Cakijana was a 'messenger.' The prosecution declared he was an emissary, but, assuming him to have been merely a messenger on his way to fetch a doctor, it is agreed that, when he accompanied Bambata to Natal, he did not receive his instructions from Dinuzulu or at Usutu, but at his own kraal many miles away.[342] But for having been ordered to accompany Bambata, he would probably not have gone at all. Cakijana declares Bambata had already arrived at the decision to rebel when he joined him; consequently, if this be true, the instigator could not have been Cakijana--for instance, when he represented to Bambata's and Sigananda's tribes that it was Dinuzulu's order that they should rebel.

There is not a shred of evidence that any communication passed between Sigananda and Bambata until after the Rebellion had started, and this notwithstanding the blood relation between the tribes. Sigananda, at his trial at Nkandhla, in June, 1906, a couple of weeks after Mome, stated that, in the absence of Dinuzulu and Mankulumana, he would say nothing, they being the people "who drew this man (_i.e._ Bambata) along here...." _President of Court-Martial_--"I want the names of the people who brought you into trouble." _Answer_--"I say their names are Dinuzulu and Mankulumana.... This man Bambata came from their country." Another of Sigananda's reasons for not giving his evidence was because he had just heard the messenger he sent to Dinuzulu to report Bambata's arrival at Nkandhla give evidence. With such evidence he fully concurred. What was it? Briefly that Dinuzulu had sent the following reply: "Tell my grandfather, Sigananda, that he is to receive my man Bambata into his bosom and take care of him." The witness added that Dinuzulu was at the bottom of the Rebellion, and had said he would assist by ordering various tribes to support Sigananda. And the tribes referred to _did_ actively support. Other evidence was given showing conclusively that Sigananda rebelled solely because of the instructions he had received from Dinuzulu. Now, this is independent and remarkable testimony by one of the oldest and staunchest supporters of the Usutu cause in Zululand.

There remain the names of Bambata and Dinuzulu. We know Bambata rebelled. But was he the principal, or merely an agent or instrument? He has been called a 'madman.' The word '_hlanya_,' however, that was commonly applied to him, also means 'firebrand,' 'desperado,' or 'anarchist'; it was in the latter senses that it was used. Cakijana was the same type of man, though, in addition, with considerable experience of European warfare, arms, ammunition, etc. This Dinuzulu knew when he directed him to accompany Bambata. Indeed, had the mission been merely the absurdly trivial one of fetching a doctor from a low-caste tribe, a hundred other equally suitable and less martially-inclined messengers could have been got within ten miles of Dinuzulu's kraal and within his own ward. And then not two but one would have been necessary and usual for such a purpose, especially as the man who had recommended the doctor was himself accompanying the messenger. Cakijana lived in another ward, and was not a member of Dinuzulu's tribe.

Bambata was killed during the Rebellion, hence his evidence is not available. His wife and children (the latter aged about 17 and 14 in 1907), declare that he was presented with a rifle and ammunition at Usutu with Dinuzulu's knowledge, whilst the first-mentioned adds that she heard Mankulumana, in Dinuzulu's presence and hearing, incite Bambata to rebel and to use the rifle and ammunition referred to for the purpose. Bambata, too, is known to have informed other people that Dinuzulu had given him the rifle.

On no occasion had Bambata fought against the Government until he met and conversed with Dinuzulu and his indunas, and the fatal blow was struck within a few days of the interviews. The first thing any Native would do when meditating resistance would be to calculate if his force is likely to succeed. That such is Native character, just as it is the character of other races, was brought out by witnesses both in Dinuzulu and Sigananda's trials, to refer to no others. That the same calculation was made by Bambata is probable. That it was because he recognized the futility of taking up arms that he fled when a handful of Police were sent in March to arrest him is abundantly clear. From where, then, did he derive that confidence to attack which at first he lacked? Like a wise man, wishing to oppose the Government when depriving him of his chieftainship, but realizing his inability to do so with success, he went to the only person who _was_ able to assist, one described by Natives themselves as "a high tree, upon which all the birds fed or congregated." That another Chief would be appointed in his place became a certainty to him as soon as he deserted. He, an old Natal resident, well knew the consequences of defiant conduct. Hence, feelings of hostility, together with the motive to fight, were already in his mind when he went to Dinuzulu. They did not arise merely after he got back and saw his uncle had been appointed, for the choice of a successor necessarily lay between the uncle and Bambata's brother, Funizwe. Support is given to this view by the boast Bambata is said to have made to his tribesmen when leaving for Usutu in March: "When next you set eyes on me, I shall be at the head of an army!"

We believe that Bambata went to Dinuzulu _with the resolution to rebel already formed_, and that the sole object of the visit was to obtain from Dinuzulu, at that time believed by ignorant Natives to be all-powerful, an assurance that if he, Bambata, belled the cat, he would obtain the Zulu Chief's support. We believe, after a long and careful study of the facts, that such assurance was unequivocably, though subtly, given. The proof of this is that Bambata fled unhesitatingly to Nkandhla as soon as he rebelled, where he immediately got the support of an acknowledged Usutu adherent, and such was given because Sigananda was directed by Dinuzulu to 'protect' Bambata. We do not believe Dinuzulu went out of his way to incite the man to rebel, still less that he sent for him in a cold-blooded way with the object of inciting him to rebel, nor even that he suggested his so doing, because, as we have endeavoured to show, the intent was probably already latent in Bambata's own mind. The 'suggestion' theory is plausible and appears to fit the case exactly, except for the _animus injuriandi_ that may reasonably be supposed to have been present in Bambata's mind _before_ he started for Usutu. In other words, we believe he was the author, but only because Dinuzulu was accessory. But for the feeling to rebel having occurred spontaneously, we can hardly picture to ourselves his going off to start a rebellion with only a couple of Dinuzulu's men in attendance. Surely, had the initiative come from Dinuzulu himself, Bambata would not have been content with the terms. On such a hypothesis, they would have been most unusual. No mere agent would have acted with the dash and daring Bambata did. His actions were those of a principal. But for Cakijana, the whole of the men who struck the first blow were members of Bambata's own tribe and entirely under his command. What experience had Dinuzulu of Bambata's fighting capacity that he should select him, a young man, to carry out so vast an undertaking, assuming Dinuzulu to have been actively directing its execution?

Then, it should be remembered, Dinuzulu was nothing very much to Bambata. His allegiance was allegiance-for-the-time-being, mere opportunism. Bambata belonged to a class (not only a tribe, but a set of tribes) generally looked down on by the Zulus. He was a Lala. Lalas were and are still held by Zulus to be an inferior people; ancient slanders to the effect that they do not wash before meals, and habitually lie down to sleep in an indecent manner, are indications of the attitude assumed by the aristocratic Zulus towards them. It was with that hereditary social antipathy in mind, conscious that he was accused of being the actual formenter of insurrection, that Dinuzulu, in his famous message to the Government protesting loyalty and innocence, spoke of the man, with whom he had just had intimate dealings, as 'this dog Bambata.' Zulus regard dogs as filthy creatures and keep them at a distance; the term, therefore, was intended to give the impression that it was opprobrious. As a matter of fact, it was nothing of the kind. Under these circumstances, it can be seen Bambata's loyalty towards Dinuzulu was not pervaded with that depth of affection and sincerity of devotion which would have animated tribes of a higher class.

As regards 'this dog Bambata' being connected with Dinuzulu through the latter's marriage with a girl, Nomadhlangala, the contention can be dismissed in a word. The girl belonged to the Bomvu tribe, that is, to a tribe living next to Bambata's, whose services to the Government, by invading and spoiling Bambata's ward along with the troops, besides other acts of conspicuous loyalty during the Rebellion, have become widely known.

Bambata was naturally impulsive, determined and daring, with an experience of fighting, if only faction fighting. A man of that kind, already inclined to intemperance, with all his substance wasted, and ruin, in the shape of loss of chieftainship, staring him in the face, would not require urging to take up arms. The only point for him to consider, then, would be the amount of support that could be reckoned on.

That the foregoing theory is reasonable is further borne out by what actually happened. Testimony was repeatedly given at various trials--which cannot all be brushed aside by Dinuzulu's petulant exclamation that the witnesses are personal enemies--that Dinuzulu had, at different stages of the Rebellion, either "_given_ Sigananda to Bambata," or "_given_ Mehlokazulu to Bambata," or _given_ some other Chief. The meaning was that Dinuzulu had instructed these Chiefs, in some way and at different moments, to assist or support Bambata in fighting the Government. And all the Chiefs that were named did assist. The probabilities are, moreover, that the gun and ammunition obtained by Bambata at Usutu, if given by Dinuzulu, were given not as ocular proof of incitement, but in token of his sympathy and support--not in the shape of fighting material, but to influence others who controlled such material. Such sympathy, however, we believe, was extended only on condition that the identity of the giver was not revealed.

Messengers were sent from Uzutu to Sigananda soon after Bambata got to the forests, directing him to "place Bambata under his armpit," implying, of course, that the man was to be protected from the Government troops that were sure to follow.

A strong reason why Dinuzulu did not incite Bambata to rebel, except 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.