admin
Pathisa Nyathi
IN today’s instalment we continue with roles of chiefs within the Ndebele State. What we do observe is that the institution of chief represented both decongestion and devolution as elements of decentralisation. The king alone, as the central authority, could not hold the state intact.
As a result, the king was said to have chiefs as his eyes and ears on the ground, men who dispensed justice, led in the provision of defence and security, attended to the economic needs of their subjects and, above all, fulfilled the role of custodians of culture. Chiefs played a role in ensuring that cultural identity was both nurtured and sustained. Some of these have been alluded to in the last instalment and now we shall deal with the outstanding ones.
We have said it before that from the outset the nascent Ndebele State faced military threats to its very existence.
Militarisation of the state was thus in response to the perceived threats, starting with those emanating from the Zulu, then later the Sotho/Tswana, Griqua and finally the Afrikaners. It was ironic that the people who would later destroy the Ndebele State were the British in November 1893. We did look at bravery as an important consideration in the choice of chief. Through incorporation, many regiments were established and chiefs were appointed to lead them on raids calculated to bring in captives and cattle, both of which were important in the economic sense.
Stability within the state was important if economic and social development were to take place. Within the state there were regiments or imizi that kept a close watch on the movements of potential enemies who posed a security threat to the state. Such intelligence gathering villages under the leadership of a chief were called izikhuza or izihlabamkhosi. They were expected to relay intelligence to the king so that appropriate action was taken. Visitors coming into the state, be they concession seekers, missionaries, expeditionists, hunters and traders got to some border villages which dealt with immigration issues and sent word to the capital town. Visitors stayed put at the immigration village till word came from the king sanctioning their entry.
It was chiefs in the far flung immigration towns who sent intelligence officers to neighbouring and distant communities to spy on them and get to grips with the political goings in order to make sure there were no activities calculated to undermine the security of the state. When it became necessary, chiefs led their people (males only) in defensive wars. If deemed expedient the people moved en masse to new sites considered safe. It was such strategic withdrawal and relocations that led to the reference of King Mzilikazi Khumalo’s state as the migrant kingdom. It was this militarily induced migrancy that saw the Ndebele people move as far as the south-western part of Zimbabwe where they arrived in about 1839, having left KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) in 1820.
The Ndebele State was not threatened solely by military situations. Only a handful of people left KZN with Mzilikazi Khumalo, son of Matshobana kaMangethe. Along the tortuous route incorporated and assimilated elements did pose a threat to Nguni cultural identity. In the early stages of state formation many people formerly belonging to the collapsed Ndwandwe State reinforced the Nguni component. The Mafus were an example of the people who joined the migrant kingdom. However, sooner than later the Ndebele crossed the Drakensberg Mountains and entered Sotho-Tswana territory.
In due course these incorporates who differed culturally from the Nguni people came to dominate Ndebele society.
For example, some Sotho words were adopted, so were some cultural practices. The Nguni word for God was uNkulunkulu but once the Sotho became a dominant factor within Ndebele society the indigenised word uMlimu (from Modimo) was adopted and further buttressed by the missionaries who were serving among the Sotho-Tswana communities. A good example was the Reverend Doctor Robert Moffat of the London Missionary Society (LMS) who pastored the flocks at Kuruman among the BaThlaping. Further, the Bible was first translated into Setswana before it was translated into IsiNdebele. It was the arrival of the Reverend Doctor Robert Moffat at Mhlahlandlela which led the oldest royal prince, Nkulumane to be given that name. He was born in the year 1829 when Dr Moffat visited King Mzilikazi Khumalo for the first time.
In order to retain Nguni cultural identity the chiefs kept a watchful eye on who was marrying who. They were keen to see that there was no intermarriage between Nguni and Sotho-Tswana communities. Levels for such inter-ethnic marriages were kept as low as possible. The chiefs themselves married from within Nguni communities. There were certain houses that were preferred such as the Mafus from the Ndwandwes. At the village level the chiefs superintended the observance of Nguni culture. For example, the First Fruits Ceremony, ukuchinsa, was conducted by traditional doctors who used medicinal formulations delivered from the state capital. Local supervision of the ceremony was done by chiefs, in the process ensuring allegiance to the monarch and the continuance of a Nguni spiritual ritual with economic dimensions.
The chief himself set the pace when it came to marriage rules that sought to protect Nguni cultural identity. Rules of succession to the office of chief were so calculated that only sons born of Nguni women were eligible to succeed.
Where a chief married a woman from the abeNhla group (Sotho-Tswana) the sons born to such a woman were superseded by those born of an Nguni woman who was married much later. Mothers were considered key players in the socialisation process. Besides, marrying outside Nguni circles meant wealth in the form of amalobolo cattle were lost to the lower classes. Political and economic power was retained within the Nguni communities through carefully calculated social measures. Nothing was left to chance.
In order to strengthen and reinforce their own rule, chiefs married daughters of other chiefs who invariably were of Nguni extraction. The chiefs who were rich in comparison to other people had licence to enter the royal enclosure, isigodlo. That was where the princesses lived. Of course there were some that lived within bigger villages where queens lived. It looks almost certain that the marriages of royal princesses to chiefs were a case of arranged marriages. It was the king and his close advisors who knew about the various chiefs to whom the princesses were given in marriage. As was pointed out earlier, such princesses bore the chiefs’ successors. Such chiefs considered themselves very lucky indeed – induna iwelwe liyezi.
IsiNdebele language is still spoken to this day largely as a result of the policies and practices put in place by King Mzilikazi Khumalo and his council of advisors, uMphakathi, comprising chiefs. Though terribly outnumbered by incorporates from other ethnic groups the Ndebele State managed to retain its cultural identity albeit slightly modified. Despite the loss of political power at colonisation cultural identity was relatively maintained. It is of course acknowledged that political power helps in the protection and retention of cultural identity. Both political and economic power may be manipulated to foster and sustain cultural identity. When a people lose political power and control their cultural identity is compromised; they have no means to enforce certain decisions that seek to preserve their culture. So it was with the Ndebele people once they had been defeated by the British forces in 1893.The culture of conquering group takes precedence over that of a defeated people.
For a community to operate meaningfully and successfully there are rules that are crafted in line with critical values, objectives, principles and worldview. Where rules are being flouted, in the process posing a threat to the social cohesion of the community, there must be judicial processes and officials that act as arbitrators. Chiefs played the role of judges there was conflict. The aim was to restore good relations among the people in the community. Their work never sought retribution but rather restoration. Africans were a group-based people to whom cordial and cooperative relations were paramount.
Chiefs’ judicial powers were clearly defined. There were cases that they referred to the king who possessed power of life and death. High treason fell under the purview of the king, so did judgment in cases of witchcraft. There were cases that were dealt with at family level by the family head. Beyond the family cases were referred to the chief who held open trials in the public. Women, unless standing trial or coming to give evidence, did not attend court proceedings. When they did, they were not allowed to stand in front of men; rather they spoke while kneeling.
Online Reporter