Conversations with Myself (5 page)

MANDELA:…I didn’t know politics, you see? I was backward politically and I was dealing with chaps, you see, who knew politics, who could discuss what was happening in South Africa and outside South Africa. Chaps, some of whom had only Standard Four, academically very humble educational qualifications, but they knew
far
more than I did…At Fort Hare [University] I did two [BA] courses in History where I went into South African history very deeply and European history. But what Gaur Radebe knew was far more than I did because he learned not only just the facts;
⁷
he was able to get
behind
the facts and explain to you the causes for a particular viewpoint. And I learned history afresh and I met a number of them. Of course people like Michael Harmel with MAs, you know, and Rusty Bernstein was [a] BA from Wits [University of the Witwatersrand], these chaps…were also very good in history and although I was not a [Communist] Party man, but …I listened to them
very
carefully.
⁸
It was very interesting to listen to them.

STENGEL: When you first went to the Communist Party meetings…you were very anti-communist then?

MANDELA: Yes quite, oh yes, oh yes.

STENGEL: So when you were going to the meetings it didn’t make you sympathetic to the Communist Party?…

MANDELA: No, no, no, no, no, no. I was just going there because I was invited and I was keen to see. It was a new society where you found Europeans, Indians and Coloureds and Africans together. Something new to me. Which I had never known. And I was interested in that.

STENGEL: You were interested in being a social observer more than you were interested in the politics.

MANDELA: Oh, no, no, no. I was not interested really in the politics. I was interested, you see, yes, in the social aspect of it…I was impressed by the members of the Communist Party. To see whites who were
totally
divested of colour consciousness was something, you know, which…was a new experience to me.

STENGEL: So did that feel liberating in a way? Was that intoxicating?

MANDELA: No, it was interesting. I wouldn’t say it was liberating. And that is why I attacked the communists, you see, when I [became] involved politically. And I didn’t think it was liberating. I thought Marxism was something that actually was subjecting us to a foreign ideology.

8. FROM A LETTER TO WINNIE MANDELA, DATED 20 JUNE 1970
⁹

Indeed, ‘the chains of the body are often wings to the spirit’. It has been so all along, and so it will always be. Shakespeare in
As You Like It
puts the same idea somewhat differently:

Still others have proclaimed that ‘only great aims can arouse great energies’.

Yet my understanding of the real idea behind these simple words throughout the 26 years of my career of storms has been superficial, imperfect and perhaps a bit scholastic. There is a stage in the life of every social reformer when he will thunder on platforms primarily to relieve himself of the scraps of undigested information that has accumulated in his head; an attempt to impress the crowds rather than to start a calm and simple exposition of principles and ideas whose universal truth is made evident by personal experience and deeper study. In this regard I am no exception and I have been victim of the weakness of my own generation not once but a hundred times. I must be frank and tell you that when I look back at some of my early writings and speeches I am appalled by their pedantry, artificiality and lack of originality. The urge to impress and advertise is clearly noticeable.

9. FROM A CONVERSATION WITH RICHARD STENGEL ABOUT THE 1952 DEFIANCE CAMPAIGN AGAINST APARTHEID LAWS

Well, I had been in prison before that, but for minor violations and where I was detained for about a day, not even a full day. I was detained in the morning and released in the afternoon…I was arrested there, not because I had defied, but because I had gone and urinated in a, what-you-call, whites’ toilet room, for whites only. Well we can say I went to wash my hands in a white lavatory and then they arrested me…[
chuckles
]. It was a mistake on my part; I didn’t read the sign. So then they arrested me, took me to a police station. But at the end of the day they released me. Now, but
here
were people who were going to jail because of a principle, because they were protesting against a law which they regarded as unjust. Students who were my colleagues left classes and went to defy for the
love
of their people and their country. That had a tremendous impact on me.

10. FROM A CONVERSATION WITH RICHARD STENGEL

[I don’t]…interfere in the affairs of others, unless I’m asked. Even when I’m asked, my own concern is always to bring people together. Even as a lawyer, when…a man or his wife comes to me to institute divorce action, I always say, ‘Have you done everything in your power to resolve this problem?’…Some people welcome that, and in fact I have saved marriages in that way. And then some people of course resent it. She comes to you because they have quarrelled…and she feels bitter, and when you say, ‘Can I call your husband?’ You see? Oh, she gets terribly agitated. And from that moment even when you go to court she does not even want you to look at her husband…You see she wants you to adopt exactly the same position which she adopts. It becomes very difficult. But the point is that I have always tried to bring people together, you know?…But I don’t always succeed.

.....................................................................................

From a letter to Winnie Mandela, dated 27 December 1984
.

11. FROM A LETTER TO WINNIE MANDELA, DATED 27 DECEMBER 1984, QUOTING FROM A LETTER TO K D MATANZIMA
¹¹

It appears…that you and the Government intend that I and some of my colleagues should be released to Umtata.
¹²
I perhaps need to remind you that when you first wanted to visit us in 1977 my colleagues and I decided that, because of your position in the implementation of the Bantustan Scheme, we could not concede to your request.
¹³
Again in February this year when you wanted to come and discuss the question of our release, we reiterated our stand and your plan was not acceded to. In particular we pointed out that the idea of our release being linked to a Bantustan was totally and utterly unacceptable to us. While we appreciate your concern over the incarceration of political prisoners, we must point out that your persistence in linking our release with Bantustans, despite our clearly expressed opposition to the scheme, is highly disturbing, if not provocative, and we urge you not to continue pursuing a course which will inevitably result in an unpleasant confrontation between you and ourselves. We will, under no circumstances, accept being released to the Transkei or any other Bantustan. You know fully well that we have spent the latter part of our lives in prison exactly because we are opposed to the very idea of separate development, which makes us foreigners in our own country, and which enables the Government to perpetuate our oppression to this very day. We accordingly request you to desist from this explosive plan and we sincerely hope that this is the last time we will ever be pestered with it.

12. CONVERSATION WITH RICHARD STENGEL

Stengel: We left off last time talking about your trip in September 1955 when your bans expired,
¹⁴
and you write quite a lot about it in your memoirs, in the manuscript, in great detail. Was the trip important to you because you felt like it was your last moment of freedom?

MANDELA: No, I had been banned from September, from December 1952. That was my first ban in terms of the Riotous Assemblies Act and that was for one year, and then on another occasion it was for two years. But in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act, I came to be banned and confined to Johannesburg for five years, and when the ban expired because it had not been possible for me to travel around, it was like a new chapter in my life and therefore I made it a point to see the country because I knew that the question of a ban and confinement to a particular area was something that was going to haunt me for the rest of my life as long as I was active politically. That really was the reason for the importance I attached to the trip.

13. CONVERSATION WITH RICHARD STENGEL

STENGEL: What was the International Club?

MANDELA:…The Johannesburg International Club was a club which made it possible for people of various national groups to meet…it was a place in town where people could meet and exchange views and receive visitors…and it served meals, there were games…debates, and so on. It was a place for social occasions. At one time there came an American, two American actors: Canada Lee…and this chap now, who is quite a top actor, Sidney Poitier. We entertained them there and it was a very interesting club; those days it was one of the few instances where you could have members of all national groups together.

STENGEL: And was it here in town? Where was it?

MANDELA: Yes, it was further down towards the west…

STENGEL: And you became secretary?

MANDELA: Yes, I became secretary.

STENGEL: There was also a fellow who – I believe he succeeded you as secretary, with whom you were friends – Gordon Goose.

MANDELA: Gordon Goose, yes, that’s right.

STENGEL: So you socialised with people.

MANDELA: Yes, an Englishman, who came from England, and a very religious man, married to a Jewish lady, Ursula. A blind lady, but very capable, very capable lady. She is now teaching; at least when I came out of jail I went to see them…One day Gordon was not going to be available at five o’clock to go and fetch his wife, so he asked me to [do it]. She was…working…a few blocks away from here in Commissioner Street. And I went there, I got hold of her. Now, because she was blind, she put her hand here [
gestures
], on the arm. And then I went out with her. The whites nearly killed me. Now she…was a beautiful woman…to see a black man holding a white lady like that? Oh, they almost killed me. But I can pretend…that I am brave, you know, and [that] I can beat the whole world, you see, so I just ignored them. And got into the car. [Later] when I was underground, I spent a lot of time with them. They were not very far from my hiding place and I used to visit them in the evening.

14. CONVERSATION WITH AHMED ‘KATHY’ KATHRADA ABOUT DR JAMES MOROKA,
¹⁵
Who Wanted to Distance Himself from the Nineteen Other Accused, Including Mandela and Kathrada, in the 1952 Defiance Campaign Trial and Appointed his Own Lawyer
¹⁶

Kathrada: Ah, then page 61–62 [of
Long Walk to Freedom
draft]: ‘I went to see Dr Moroka at his house in Thaba Nchu in the Orange Free State. At the outset of our meeting [I] suggested both of these courses of action to him. But he was not interested; he had a number of grievances that he wanted to air. Moroka could be quite haughty,’ etcetera.

MANDELA: Could be ‘quite haughty’?

KATHRADA: Haughty.

MANDELA: No, man…I don’t like the description of Moroka like that.

KATHRADA: Aha.

MANDELA:…In the first place, Moroka was never haughty. And I don’t like, in, a biography like this, you see, to make uncomplimentary remarks.

KATHRADA: Aha.

MANDELA:…I think we should have, we
can
say, ‘It was a disappointment to see that the leader of the African National Congress should want to disassociate himself from actions and policies which were adopted under his leadership.’…But I don’t want us to be going into the questions of him being haughty and betraying people.

KATHRADA: Aha.

MANDELA: I think we should avoid that…and…you know, his children, I wrote to them when I was in prison and they wrote back, you know, to say that for the first time a good word has been said about…

KATHRADA: About their father.

MANDELA: Their grandfather.

KATHRADA: Aha.

MANDELA: You see what we
say
about leaders, even though we may criticise them, it would be
good
, you see, to say that to compare him with [Yusuf] Dadoo
¹⁷
…[Walter] Sisulu
¹⁸
, you know, these are people produced by the movement…who were committed, you know, to the
whole
culture of collective leadership…Dr Moroka came from another school and he had these limitations, but put it in a dignified way.

KATHRADA: Aha.

MANDELA:…You see criticism must be dignified. We must be factual, we must be realistic, we must be honest, but at the same time, you know, within a certain frame because we are
builders
…

KATHRADA: Ja, ja.

MANDELA: When you said that a writer from the movement is not just recording, also is a builder, must contribute, you see, to the building of the organisation and the trust, you know, that should be invested in that organisation. I think you’ve said that…

15. FROM A CONVERSATION WITH RICHARD STENGEL ABOUT NON-VIOLENCE

The Chief [Albert Luthuli] was a passionate disciple of Mahatma Gandhi and he believed in non-violence as a Christian and as a principle…
¹⁹
Many of us did not…because when you regard it as a principle you mean throughout, whatever the position is, you’ll stick to non-violence…We took up the attitude that we would stick to non-violence only insofar as the conditions permitted that. Once the conditions were against that we would automatically abandon non-violence and use the methods which were dictated by the conditions. That was our approach. Our approach was to empower the organisation to be
effective
in its leadership. And if the adoption of non-violence gave it that effectiveness, that efficiency, we would pursue non-violence. But if the condition shows that non-violence was not effective, we would use other means.

16. CONVERSATION WITH AHMED KATHRADA

KATHRADA: Did you read Gandhi too? Mandela: Oh yes. No, that’s true. No, that’s true.

KATHRADA: So, that’s true?

MANDELA: But, Nehru was
really
my hero.

KATHRADA:…This is the way it’s worded, page 62 [of
Long Walk to Freedom
draft]: ‘He felt some pangs at abandoning his Christian beliefs which had fortified his childhood, like St Peter three times denying Christ.’ Now, is it correct wording to say you ‘abandoned your Christian beliefs’?

MANDELA: No, never.

KATHRADA: It would be wrong, isn’t it?

MANDELA:…I say it’s absolutely untrue. I never abandoned my Christian beliefs.

KATHRADA: OK.

MANDELA: And I think it’s proper, you know, it could do a lot of harm.

KATHRADA: Exactly, ja.

MANDELA: Ja, could do a lot of harm.

17. CONVERSATION WITH RICHARD STENGEL

STENGEL: What was Ruth First like?

MANDELA: Ruth? Ruth – her death was a tragedy for South Africa because she was amongst the brightest stars in the country, in the proper sense of the word.
²⁰
I…[had] known Ruth from our university days. We were in the same university and she was progressive, and she was not the type of white who was progressive when she was with you in a room, or away from the public. If she met you in one of the corridors of the university or in the street, Ruth will stand and talk to you,
very
comfortable, in a very relaxed manner and she was
brilliant.
In any meeting where you sat with Ruth, there was just nothing but brilliance. And…she did not suffer fools, had no patience towards fools and she was energetic, systematic, hard-working and she would tax you on any type of job that you undertook and she would…make the
maximum
effort and to produce the best result. She was fearless, she could criticise
anybody
and she rubbed people, you know…in the wrong way at times. She was direct and outspoken. But at the same time she was very broad, just like her husband, Joe [Slovo], very broad. In those days when [they] were young communists, and very radical, they had friends amongst the Liberals and amongst prominent businessmen, and her house was a crossroad of people of different political persuasions. That was a wonderful girl, I loved very much. I loved and respected [her] very much and I was very sorry when I heard from prison that she had passed away.

STENGEL: And their house was, as you say, a kind of centre.

MANDELA: Oh yes.

STENGEL: And would you go there for dinner…?

MANDELA: Oh very often, very often. I had a clash with her…in 1958, I appeared in a trial and…I lost the case, and some women were sent to jail, and she then criticised me in the way I handled the case. It was actually the criticism of somebody who was not conversant with the law. But it was over the telephone and I was hard-pressed because I was dealing, you see, with more than 2,000 women, trying to arrange defence [for] them. The whole day, you know, I’d be busy either actually defending them or arranging people to defend them. And…then I handled one case and I lost it and three women were sent to jail, although, of course we bailed them out. Then she, on the telephone, criticised the manner in which I had handled the case and I told her to go to hell. And then [
laughs
] immediately thereafter I realised, man, you see, this is a lady, and this is a
very
good comrade. However wrong she was, she believed in what she said. Then, at the end of the day, instead of going home, I went along with Winnie to her place and I found her with one of the lecturers…at university…I just came in, didn’t say anything, just grabbed her, embraced her and kissed her and walked out. Walked away. [
laughs
] Ja, they tried to say sit down and so on – I just walked away. Yes. But I’d made peace. And Joe was saying, ‘I told you Nelson would never have any grudges against you.’ I walked away. So we made up. I didn’t want any tension between us. Although I lost my temper I immediately realised that, no, I was unfair to her. She’s a
very
sincere comrade, she should be entitled to criticise the way I behaved in anything where I made a mistake. But we made it up. I
really
respected Ruth and when subsequently I went underground she was one of my contacts.

18. FROM A CONVERSATION WITH AHMED KATHRADA

Gee whiz. I think we should describe, you see, what banning means…you are just prevented from attending gatherings and confined to a magisterial district. That was the first time, you know, I was banned, under the Riotous Assemblies Act in December 1952…I was prohibited from attending public gatherings, and then I was confined to the magisterial district of Johannesburg. Now, it was a
new
experience in so far as I was concerned and the fact that I couldn’t go beyond Johannesburg was, of course, something that affected me a great deal. But there was no
shunning
by people because not everybody in the first place knew when he met you that you are a banned person. The only case in which I came across this was, there used to be a chap called Benjamin Joseph, an attorney, where Harry Mokoena worked. One day…I was coming down Fox Street and he was coming towards me and as I approached he says, [
whispering
] ‘Nelson, don’t talk to me. Please just pass. Don’t talk to me.’ That was the
only
case I know.

19. FROM HIS UNPUBLISHED AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL MANUSCRIPT WRITTEN IN PRISON

Confined to Johannesburg for a whole two years and with the pressure of both my legal and political work weighing heavily on me, I was suffocated from claustrophobia and anxious for a bit of fresh air. Fourteen years of crammed life in South Africa’s largest city had not killed the peasant in me and once again I was keen to see that ever beckoning open veld and the blue mountains, the green grass and bushes, the rolling hills, rich valleys, the rapid streams as they sped across the escarpment into the insatiable sea.