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.