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]