We are not debating with you Nathaniel Manheru

Last week I responded in part to Nathaniel Manheru's article of December 27 in which he described the people of Matabeleland as cry babies and described the Gukurahundi atrocities of the
eighties in the region as a mere myth.

Before my second part of the response was published, which was due for today, he has since respond to my and other responses with vengeance and calls his response an on going debate on the myth of Southern Zimbabwe.

In this article in the The Herald of January 4, 2015 entitled "Southern Zim: Taking the debate forward", Manheru decides to respond to my response and that of Ndaba Nhuku and Hlosukwakwakha only ignoring a whole lot other responses to his damning article of December 27. He ignores scores of other responses in the various media houses including the social media just to trivialise the reactions and make it look like a reaction from a few people which he describes as "response from individuals largely drawn from one
or two political parties, both of them founded on narrow politics, both of them seeking dignity and decency in names from a hallowed past."

First things first, I would like to make it clear to Manheru, who we cornered to admit who he really is, that by responding to his wrangling we were not debating with him but telling him facts to his wrong perceptions of the people of Matabeleland and their woes and that as far as I know none of us are speaking on behalf of a certain political affiliation. So, if he thinks Gukurahundi is a matter of a debate and a political one for that matter then he doesn't deserve to talk about it nor comment on it at all.

Will quickly give a summary of my response to the last part of his December 27 writing and link it to his "further debate" written on Saturday. The good thing about his
response is that he agrees with me by being silent on it that he wrote last week's article in a sure semi drunken stupor from the over indulgence at Christmas which he
confessed to. Even though yesterday's writing is slightly
sober than that of the previous week it is still not spared of signs of someone still battling to recover from the hangover of "debauched moments" of the festive season.
Perhaps a little break from writing until fully recovered would have done him a service now that he has
shockingly volunteered to tell the world who he really is after years of giving us headaches guessing. Now we know Manheru is Canaan Banana's last spokesperson who is known by name.

Two things that Manheru highlights in the last part of his December 27 writing which I wanted to tackle are that;

1) The people of Matebeleland must take pride in that 90% of them can speak Shona where as only 10% of people of Shona origin battle through speaking any of the numerous languages of this region.

2) That the people of Matabeleland lack confidence in the leadership of people of their region and would prefer what he proclaims as superior leadership from Mashonaland.

In the first instance Manheru, portrays himself as one person more educated than all people of the South and so knows and understands them far much better than they know and understand themselves. Guess he is one of those "MaNdewere hana kudzidza" stereotypes. He goes on to belittle the huge cries on the continuous misspelling of Ndebele words and wrong grammar even on official
documents like the Zimbabwean passport as a nothing because according to him as Ndebeles learn to speak Shona they also fail to
pronounce "tasvika" and say "taswika" and so no need to make noise about misspelt words.

To make matters worse, learned as he claims to be Manheru takes it lightly that Zimbabwe is indeed meant to be a polyglot nation where no single  language must dominate all other languages. This is a constitutional provision which no one more so those in authority must ever denigrate.

On the second part Manheru tries to give a picture that the generality of the people of Matabeleland has forgotten about Gukurahundi atrocities and evidence to that is because they vote for one "Mugabi" who I presume he refers to President Robert Mugabe.

In his submission Manheru says that the people of Matabeleland rejected their own Welshman Ncube and Dumiso Dabengwa in the last election opting for Robert Mugabe who is proclaimed by Matabeleland politicians as the head of Gukurahundi. Truth is, if you are not in it you will never know it Manheru. Fact is that by voting and "following" ZANU PF the people are merely responding to threats by the very ZANU PF local leadership that if they don't vote for or align with ZANU PF another wave of Gukurahundi will be sent through. We can not use a result based on duress as a fair assessment of the situation on the ground.

Coming to the latest writing.. I will have a direct talk,

This writing is so full of confessions that have left the world shell shocked exactly what could have driven you to open up so much Manheru. For the first time you agree to a point you have always refused to agree to that you do your writings on a ZANU PF pedestal, that's a good revelation which will going forward help give a better understanding of your  past snd future writings.

Secondly you go on to reveal to us who you really are. For years readers the world over battled to guess who Nathaniel Manheru really was and so many names of people innocent to the writings were dragged into the matter. Thank heavens we begin 2015 with that matter now water under the bridge. This revelation now really helps us also engage with you on a better footing and with respect knowing we are addressing a very senior government and party official.

Like we did last week, we will again not go into the nitty gritties of how you were employed into your first job and the experience that followed which you highlight. Of great interest on that is the element that you confess to have been the one taking minutes of the unity rallies that President Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo held across the country after the signing of the unity accord in 1987. That's very interesting because we have always been wondering who created the record that our history writers base some of their information on about that phase of history. We now have a clarity there.

Let's get to the "debate".

You very well put it in the writing that the matters of the 1980s disturbances are not one sided issues and that's precisely what we have been saying for all the years. We can not be fair to ourselves and everyone for that matter if we say let's speak and hear about Gukurahundi and not speak about the dissidents that also racked similar havoc at that time. You are dead right, the woman in Zvimba who up to today is wheelchair bound equally needs a closure to her case as that woman in Tsholotsho who grew up fatherless. I agree in totality with you that families of those white tourists whose remains were found on the banks of Gwayi River also need closure to their matter, we are together there.

I then totally do not understand you when you infer that a national truth, truce, healing and reconciliation exercise is not a needed. How do we bring closures to these matters if we don't talk apologise and redress? Where will the woman from Zvimba you referred to have her story heard as you say if its not going to be heard at the national healing commission?

You claim that the unity accord of 1987 did indeed bring closure to the disturbances of the 80s, how really? If a question could be asked. Yes the accord gave us peace from the warring that was going on. It brought an end to the killings that had taken over 20 000 predominantly innocent people but, did it really bring truce to the affected people? NO!

You very well say that you were minuting Joshua Nkomo's speeches as the unity accord was being sold around the country, if indeed you were paying attention to detail, what did Joshua Nkomo mean by "asingeneni eminye imbuzo sizayibuza sesiphakathi" if indeed the accord brought the issues to closure? Why did he spend the better part if his life as Vice President calling for a national healing process? How do we find healing without talking?

You ask the question "Whose truth, whose reconciliation?" What a question. If you really believe that there is no one out there with questions then I don't know which Zimbabwe you belong to, please read again Hlodukwakha's story then tell us people are happy. You quickly throw away the calls for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission by even belittling the one that South Africa went through which developed South Africa to an otherwise peaceful country it is than it would have been had they not gone through that phase. The paragraph you wrote and I quote below is certainly one of the most shocking you have ever written;

"That bourgeois gathering which allowed greater amity between
African elites and white Afrikaners while bringing no respite to the actual victims of apartheid? Who doesn't know TRC created a Tutu, while burying for good Steve Biko? Who? Or are we talking about a demand from the half-caste,
ambitious middle-class politicians and political activists seeking another enabling conflict or conflict-resolution process as would give them a second chance to their failed politics, failed ambitions?"

I don't want to believe that this is your honest assessment of what a TRC means and what it would do for the country. Unfortunately this process is a constitutionally enshrined process which we must go through and I don't understand why you say that when we demand for it we are being militant.

Your continuous claim that politicians or activists of this region are using Gukurahundi for political expediency is neither here nor there. We can never remain silent when we have people like you speak so ill of a very traumatic time that we went through and die like sheep on a slaughter. Never. If the talking eventually gives political or social mileage so be it but truth must be told.

Ndaba Nhuku is right and to the point "Manheru, Gukurahundi can never be shelved! The Gukurahundi victims will never shut up!!" This matter needs to be talked about in an open formal and official platform where all will be said, listened to and redressed. The longer we keep silent about it and have people like you Manheru thinking that they have the sole right to speak about it and that only their side of the story must be heard the worse the matter gets.

We applaud the appointment of Vice President  Mphoko to lead the National Reconciliation and Healing process and hope that he will take it forward with the zeal and urgency it now demands as you rightfully close off by saying;

"It would be sad if Robert Mugabe, now the only surviving signatory to the Unity Accord, bows out, leaving this nation at the peril of centrifugal politics of disunity and recidivism."

I shudder the thought too.

Bekezela Maduma Fuzwayo is an independent social and political commentator and writes in his own capacity. He is contactable on bekezelamaduma@yahoo.co.uk