Why Kgafela must win

To understand Kgafela’s gripe with the Botswana Government, one has to go back six thousand years; back to Mapungubwe; back to the time when Bakgatla were called BeHakata.

Hakata, as you will recall, are divining bones (Ditaola in Setswana). BeHakata were powerful people. The Nshakashongwe (King) ruled through them. Indeed, even today, hakata play a crucial role in the lives of our people. If a traditional doctor claims that his hakata have identified person A as the culprit in the disappearance of a child, then person A will need police protection, else he may be run out of the village, or if he resists, may even be killed. Such was the power of BeHakata at Mapungubwe. Their language was Chindebele, the same language that was called Ikalanga in the Middle East.

Then from Egypt and North Africa a people arrived, who spoke various languages. Some spoke Ikalanga, others spoke Chirwa (Setswana/Sesotho), and yet others spoke Nguni languages. These people did not know, and had never been subjected to the power of, Hakata. When they saw hakata in the hands of BeHakata, they quickly understood that those divining bones were the means by which society was controlled (“go laola” morafe in Setswana). Hence they called hakata, “Ditaola” in Setswana language. The new immigrants from North Africa, the majority of whom spoke Ikalanga, merged with the local people, who spoke the same language under a different name – Chindebele. All  lived under the social control of BeHakata.

The arrival of the British colonialists dislodged power from its traditional custodians the BeHakata, and threw it onto the lap of three Chirwa (Setswana) speaking Bayela (Greeks) from North Africa.  It was these three Setswana speaking Bayela chiefs who were chosen by the British, to go seek “British protection” at the dawn of colonial occupation of our country. From then on, these three Bayela chiefs were transformed into veritable “foot stools of Imperialism”, to borrow Julius Malema’s words. Our country was divided, by the British, into essentially two main regions – the first region being British possessions, i.e. crown lands and British Company farms, and the second region being subdivided among the Bayela chiefs. No one else mattered, except the BeHakata, who were too powerful to be ignored. Consequently, the BeHakata got a sizeable share of the land as “Bakgatla Tribal territory”.

But on departure, the British ensured (with Seretse Khama’s help) that power was left firmly in the hands of the Setswana speaking Bayela tribes. They concocted a fraudulent constitution to that effect, which constitution the BeHakata King Kgafela Kgafela II now seeks to expose and to trash. So, Kgafela  as the direct descendant of the Mapungubwe traditional medicine leader, owes it to all the Batebele, to  win this legal challenge and trash the fraudulent constitution. All peace-loving citizens of this country Botswana, should support him. 

Who was Pharaoh Narmer

Among the latest people to arrive in Southern Africa from Egypt were the Banyai (irrigators), also called “Badila-unnda” (irrigators). These are the followers of King Mengwe of Maitengwe, and their totem is Moyo (heart). A little earlier than the arrival of the Moyos, Southern Africa had welcomed yet another group of Banyai, the Chuma or Nkomo group. The Banyai are sometimes referred to in Setswana (Chirwa) language as Baswina, a name also used by Kalangas to refer to Shonas. The name “Baswina” is wrong. The correct name is “Bazwina” i.e. “the gatekeepers”. The Bazwina played the gate keeping (military defence) role in ancient Egypt.

Northern Egypt (the Nile delta) was home to a federation of Kalanga speaking peoples, stretching all the way north past Mesopotamia. South of the delta the Kalanga speaking Federation deployed its Defence Forces, composed of Bazwina, (gatekeepers). Further south of Bazwina were Barui (fighters in Shona language). The latter later became Baroe, now called Batswana/Basotho. The language of Barui was, and still is different from Kalanga. What is not clear at this stage is whether the Barui (fighters) were part of the Kalanga Federation army, and therefore were an extension of the Bazwina,  or whether they were considered a threat to the federation, hence the deployment of the Bazwina against them.

What can be said with considerable certainty is that General (later Pharaoh) Meno/Mengwe led the Bazwina group, just as King Meno/Mengwe leads the Banyai/Bazwina today.

And here we come to the Narmer Palette. I submit that the Narmer palette is a celebration of a MILITARY COUPE by General Meno against the Egyptian Federation. One powerful pointer to this supposition is that on the palette, the hieroglyph for Meno’s name is written upside down, resulting in it being read as “Narmer” instead of Meno or Mengwe. Mengwe wanted it written that way to celebrate “overturning” the Government.

Mengwe’s name is not the only thing that is upside-down on the palette. The whole procession of standard bearers in front of Mengwe loudly announces his arrival at the inspection of the decapitated bodies. Just infront of Mengwe is a long haired official. The hieroglyph next to him is said to mean “Tshet”. I submit that it is also upside-down, and the correct meaning is “Tetshi” i.e. “master” in Kalanga language.Thus the official was announcing the arrival of the new “master”, Mengwe. The “Tetshi” official is preceded by four standard bearers. The first two are falcons, proclaiming that Mengwe is bigger than just a king. The next bearer carries a dog or possibly a lion. A lion is a symbol of greatness in Africa. The last standard bearer is the most interesting – he carries a stomach, “gulu” in Kalanga. Well, the word “gulu” also means “big/biggest”. So, I submit that the four standard bearers announce the arrival of “king of kings, the biggest lion” Mengwe at the inspection of the decapitated former government officials!

The bull (Nkomo) in the lowest register is trampling on the vanquished IN AN ENCLOSURE, again suggesting a military coupe rather than an invasion from a foreign force. Within the enclosure is something that could be mistaken for a fort, but I think it is a pot WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN TURNED UPSIDE-DOWN, i.e. overthrown.

Thus General Mangwe, leader of the army (Bazwina) overthrew the Government and installed himself as Pharaoh of Egypt, and commander in chief of the armed forces. On top of his army cap (supposedly the white crown of Southern Egypt) he now adorned himself with the state’s crown – the red crown of lower Egypt.

Oh, just behind Mengwe on the palette is an official carrying his sandals and a milk container. This is yet another shouting of praises for Mengwe – “Manngula ne nkaka beti vula ina manyungula”, which means “the one who would rather wash with milk, because there may be tadpoles in water”.

Infantile anti-socialism

In the Weekend Post of 17^th December, 2011 the column “Opposite Poles” by one Sameosi Mokgethiwa, declares:

It only goes to show that given a chance, these latter-day communists and socialists in the BNF (from whence Modubule came from [sic]) and BCP will easily ditch the socialist rhetoric for the gravy train only found in capitalism. That is what the Eastern Block countries did and China is following suit.

Well, I don’t know about what the Eastern Block countries did or are doing, but what the writer alleges China is doing, seems way off the mark.

When Chairman Mao Tse Tung posited that in order for China to win a world war, it only has to let a division of the Red Army surrender, very few people understood what he was talking about. Many thought he was talking about a military war, but only a few understood that he was talking about an economic war. Well, you only have to look at the world today to see what Mao meant. A division of the Chinese economic army has “surrendered” to capitalism. Now, who is winning the economic war?

Bakalanga and Baroe (Basotho, Batswana) – a deadly embrace!

I have been prompted to write this, by an article written by Jeff Ramsay in the Sunday Standard of December 11-17, 2011, entitled “Builders of Botswana 1; Children of the Mambo”. Jeff Ramsay’s focus is on events that occurred starting from around the 17^th Century.  He writes:

The Bakwena royal names “Sechele” and “Sebele” for example, are apparently of Ikalanga origin. Does this mean that the Bakwena royalty were once Bakalanga? Absolutely not! They are rather the true descendents of Masilo a Malope, if not Matsieng of Lowe…

Right there JR, is the distinction between Bakalanga and BaTebele. A significant percentage of Bakalanga are descendants of Malope, while BaTebele descended from  Lowe. Lowe, as we know by now is Mapungubwe mesa in South Africa, but what is Malope?  Malope is the continent of Europe. The name Malope is a corruption of the Kalanga word “Malopa” meaning “Blood”. The current name “Europe” is a Roe (Sotho/Tswana) influence on the word Malopa to produce “Uropa”, which is a later reference to the European continent. Bakalanga (specifically Bayela) in Botswana are North Africans and Europeans who re-emigrated back into Africa, after wiping out the Neanderthal in Europe, hence “Blood”. The Neanderthal must have put up a fierce resistance to the Human incursion into Europe from North Africa.

On re-entry into Africa, the Europeans (Bayela) first settled in Sudan/Nubia (Taka dwa ku Bunyubi), before heading down south.

So there are three main categories of nations in Botswana today:

1.            Bakalanga (from Egypt and Nubia), among whom we count BaYela i.e. BakaHabangana, Bakwena, Bangwaketse, Bangwato, Batawana;  Banyayi i.e. the Moyo, the Chuma ; Bakaa and possibly others.

2.            BaTebele (from ancient Mapungubwe in South Africa), among whom we count Bahurutshe, BaRolong, BaKgatla, Batlokwa, Balete, Bahumbe, Barotsi and possibly others.

3.            Part-BaKalanga and part-BaTebele (initially from Mapungubwe/Lowe, but later from Egypt and environs), among whom we count Baperi i.e. BakaNswazwi, BakaMasunga etc.; Bakhurutshe.

There are very few Shonas in Botswana, if we exclude the Banyayi. It is instructive to note that Bangwato refer to Batalaote/Banyayi as “Baswina”. In Ikalanga language, the Shonas are referred to similarly, i.e. as “Baswina”. So who are these Baswina? In actual fact they are “Bazwina”, meaning “gate keepers” or “shields”. These are the people who used to act as a buffer between Bakalanga in lower Egypt (the North), and Baroe/Badawi in Upper Egypt (the South), until Pharao Mengwe (Narmer), a king of Baroe, broke loose from the south and conquered the north. It is this role of “Bazwina” that is now erroneously, attributed to the Bakaa, of Sebina/Tjibizina (allegedly Tjizwina) today, with claims that they were used as a shield by She Mengwe of Maitengwe. In actual fact the people whom Pharao Mengwe (Narmer) used as a shield, on his Northern flank, were indeed called Bazwina, i.e. the Shonas. They acted as a buffer between his (Mengwe’s) Baroe in Upper Egypt and the Bakalanga in Lower Egypt. That is why Shona language sounds like a hi-breed between Ikalanga and Chirwa (SeSotho, SeTswana).

Ikalanga and Chirwa - deadly language embrace

Ancient Egypt, just like present day Botswana, was afflicted by a love-hate relationship between two languages, namely Ikalanga language in Lower Egypt, and Chirwa language around the city of Meroe and Medawi. In present day Botswana, Chirwa language has assumed the name of Setswana language.

I looked up the meaning of the name ARAB. You see, in Setswana the word ARABA means "to answer".It turns out that the word ARAB (in Arabic) means something like "answering audibly". Considering that the ancient scribes omitted the last vowel, this is the same meaning of the same word in Setswana. But what I find even more interesting is that the opposite to ARAB is AJMA, meaning "one who answers inaudibly".

Now, in Ikalanga language, the word ASHAMA means "to open one's mounth". There can be little doubt that AJMA (vowel omitted between J and M) derives from the Ikalanga word ASHAMA. So here we are, the Arabic language has adopted a Setswana word "ARAB/ARABA" and an Ikalanga opposite word "AJMA/ASHAMA" - a right deadly embrace!

Mass BNF should not suspend and Expel members.

In one of the weekend papers, Gabriel Kanjabanga makes a scathing attack on the leadership of the Botswana National Front (BNF) for suspending some cadres from the party. While I have no doubt that the BNF leadership may be convinced that they have taken the correct punitive measures against the cadres, I am inclined to agree with what Kanjabanga says. I am troubled by the apparent resumption by the BNF, of the draconian rule that characterized the Moupo era.

As a party of the masses, the BNF should not follow the example of the Khama “discipline” methodologies. In a party of the masses, there is a difference between a party member and the party. The nation knows that the party (BNF) speaks when Duma Boko speaks. The nation knows that the party speaks when Moeti Mohaswa speaks on behalf of the party. Nobody would be naïve enough to interpret anything said by Lemogang Ntime as representing the position of the BNF. So why should the BNF be bothered by what he says, to the extent of suspending him?  By suspending him, the party lends credence to his accusations, whatever those are. Instead of suspending him, the party should just ignore him – after all his is a voice of a member of the BNF, and not the voice of BNF. As for Kagiso Ntime, the article he wrote against the opposition co-operation talks, which I have not read, may not have been in order, given that he was a participant ON BEHALF OF BNF at those talks. The party should therefore have simply stated its correct position through a statement from Boko, removed Kagiso from participating in the talks on its behalf, and let Kagiso carry on as an anti-cooperation-talks member of the BNF. After all there are many members of BNF out there who are anti-talks. It’s not their fault if the party delegates them to negotiate on its behalf at a time when they are not yet anti-cooperation talks.

My understanding of party democracy in a mass party is that the party members are free to express their personal opinions on any political subject, but that the party itself speaks, and acts LIKE ONE MAN. In other words, apart from Duma Boko and/or Moeti Mohwasa, (when delegated to issue a statement on behalf of the party), no member of the party, not even a Central Committee (CC) member, loses his/her right to express a personal opinion on any political matter. 

Of course the party’s detractors will always try to draw maximum political capital out of these “contradictions”, especially where members of CC seem to have widely divergent views. However, the voters, and that’s who really matters, will soon latch on to the fact that the official party position is that which is expressed by Duma Boko and Moeti Mohwasa and no one else. Those party members/cadres who genuinely wish to advance the cause of the party will always want to find out what Boko thinks on any matter before they express their own views on the subject, be it at a freedom square or in house to house campaigns. As the 2014 elections draw closer, those party cadres who will have learnt and imbibed the Political viewpoint of Duma Boko (the leader) will be accorded credibility by the masses and voters, to the detriment of the habitual leadership maligners. Thus the party will converge to speak and act LIKE ONE MAN. 

I support Kgosi Kgolo, Kgosi Kgafela Kgafela (K5)

I support Paramount Chief (Kgosi Kgolo), Chief (Kgosi)  Kgafela Kgafela, alias K5, in his challenge of the Botswana Constitution. The name K5 derives from a movie I fell in love with at first sight. If I recall correctly the title of the movie was “Short Circuit” and the star of the movie was a robot going by the name of “Number 5”.

That said I would like to suggest that the first act of writing the new constitution be to change the name of our Republic from “Botswana” to “Eastern Namkari”. The latter name is a combination of “Namib” Desert, from which Namibia takes its name, and “Kalahari” desert. Our Republic should be named “Eastern Namkari”, pending the renaming of Namibia to “Western Namkari”, and the renaming of South Africa to “Southern Namkari”.

Hopefully, the “Republic of Namkari” itself will be realized in less than 20 years from now!