ABOUT INDONSAKUSA

CONTENTS

AUTHOR INSTRUCTIONS

This question is posed by Mpho in his article 'Two countries in one?  Concepts of citizenship in Matabeleland', which I find very illuminating indeed. I assume that the question he poses at the end of his seminal paper is not rhetoric. I also assume he will follow it up and give it equally interesting answers. However, having been inspired by his article, I have decided to attempt his last question.

One of the main tenets of the now defunct Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was to maintain colonial boundaries in Africa. It is now the opportune time to assess the wisdom or lack of it, in maintaining colonial boundaries now that OAU is history. However, this is not our focus here. The only interest is that this OAU principle partly contributed to the continued subordination and provincialisation of Mthwakazi to the dictates of Harare. Zimbabwean nationalists and historians have perpetuated the falsehood that all African people in Zimbabwe aspired for a neo-colonial state in the form of present Zimbabwe. They do not mention that the present Zimbabwe is largely an imposed experiment by colonialist Europeans and by Africanists who founded OAU.

The history of nationalism in Zimbabwe has been fast-forwarded to the late 50s and early 60s after Ndebele and Shona movements united in a common anti-colonial struggle. Prior to that, the two groups fought separately and had separate movements. In Mthwakazi, there was the Matabele Home Society that agitated for the right of the Mthwakazi people to their land. The Shona had the City Youth League and other groups. The reality that colonial borders were to be retained after decolonisation partly forced nationalists to unite as they were now fighting for one country. This unity was in theory, in practice the two groups remained loyal to their nations, and hence ZAPU-ZIPRA on one hand and ZANU-ZANLA on the other. Various attempts at unity were made, especially at the behest of the OAU. Some of these attempts led to ZIPA, ANC and Patriotic Front. All these were, to use Robert Mugabe's own words 'marriages of convenience'.

The pretence that Zimbabweans are one people has led to many lies and falsification of historical facts. Some historical facts that seem to have been deliberately forgotten or distorted is that the British settlers occupied two countries that they later united into one colony. In 1890, the British imperialists (from South Africa) of the Pioneer Column occupied Mashonaland and established Salisbury as the colonial capital. The Shona people were legally colonized but the Ndebele were still a free and independent nation. In 1893, the British imperialist, then based in Mashonaland, invaded and occupied Mthwakazi after a brutal war with the Ndebele impis. The British flag was hoisted in the burning remains of Bulawayo in 1893.

The two colonies remained separate countries under colonial rule until after the Ndebele and Shona uprisings. The Ndebele war in 1896 is referred to by different writers as Umvukela wamaNdebele or Imfazwe 11 or Impi Yehloka Elibomvu. The Shona war a year later in 1897 is referred to as Chimurenga 1. It was in 1898 through the Matabeleland Order In Council that Mthwakazi lost its status as a country when it was joined to Mashonaland and both became what was to be Southern Rhodesia or Rhodesia. This unity of the two countries had at that time no immediate advantages to the Shona, though sixty years later that historical act bestowed the Shona with the greatest advantage over the Ndebele. Now, we can say that unity of the two countries was annexation of Mthwakazi by Mashonaland. Mashonaland today constitute the core Zimbabwe and Mthwakazi is the periphery. The Mthwakazians' citizenship is now questionable, and rightly so because their membership into the new country is by conquest and annexation.

The advantages of this colonial act and the position of the OAU was obvious to the Shona intellectuals in the early 60s. It is then that the struggle for power in the nationalist movement became intense. If the first prime minister were to be a Ndebele, then this advantage would be lost. It was logical to all Shona nationalists to avoid that, hence the attempts to dethrone Joshua Nkomo.

When all these manipulations were taking place the Ndebeles were not blind. Joshua Nkomo knew about all these agendas but he was also very much bound by the reality then imposed by OAU. The Ndebele people had to make it within the circumstances dictated by continental and world politics. But as a minority, the Ndebeles could not afford to play the tribal card as the Shonas did. Joshua Nkomo was aware that ultimately the elections would decide the first ruler of independent Zimbabwe. He attempted to keep the Shona happy hoping they will in turn reward him for his generosity. Some Ndebele leaders resented this and it is known that JZ Moyo even formed the Dengezi movement in Zambia. The fate of Mthwakazi has always been precarious in Zimbabwe. In the similar way, the annihilation of the Ndebele after independence was inevitable in the hands of the Shona regime.

The white imperialists defeated the Ndebele people and did not kill all of them. They needed them as cheap labour in their mines and farms. After defeat and disarmament the Ndebeles posed no threat to whites, so they thought. But that is not the case with the Shona. They have not conquered the Ndebele. Even if they could, they do not need Ndebele labour, they have plenty of their own. Disarmed Ndebeles still pose a threat to Shona domination. Therefore, the seeds of genocide lie in some of these realities. The Shona historians no longer recognize the existence of Mthwakazi. They claim that Mthwakazi was once part of greater Mashonaland, therefore the Ndebele people must be settlers. In this falsehood the myth that Mthakazians are Zulus is perpetuated. The fact that the Ngunis among the Ndebele are less than 10% is conveniently ignored. The fact that the majority of Mthwakazians are by decent Nyubi, Venda, Sotho, Kalanga, Nambya, Tonga, Khoisan, etc, is excluded from textbooks because this truth justifies that Mthwakazians were in Zimbabwe probably earlier than most supremacists Zezurus. In that light, the origins argument is not valid although it is repeated several times until some Ndebeles foolishly believe that they are foreigners in their motherland.

In summary, there are two countries and two nations that were forcibly brought together. Both have a right to self-determination. Self-determination does not always translate into statehood and separate territory. The territory occupied by the state of Zimbabwe may remain intact, if we all chose that, however, the power relations within that territorial entity must change. The quest for federalism is one way of rearranging the socio-political relations within Zimbabwe to accommodate the two nations within one territorial entity. Such rearrangement will obviously be spearheaded by Mthwakazi. It is Mthwakazi could stand to lose under the present conditions where her country has been reduced to a province and her citizens into second class in the country of their birth.