HomeOld_PostsCattle: A custodial heritage of Zimbabwe – Part Eight…of cattle controversies, disputes,...

Cattle: A custodial heritage of Zimbabwe – Part Eight…of cattle controversies, disputes, grievances, land ownership and native reserves

Published on

AN Order in Council introduced in 1898 created ‘native reserves’ that subsequently became the present ‘communal areas’ on lands deemed unsuitable for white settlers.
By 1910, 23,4 percent of the land had been unlawfully usurped by white settlers while 26 percent had been declared native reserves on inferior agricultural land in poor rainfall areas, with limited rights.
Indigenous people could not own their land since it was ‘held in trust’ for them by the white settler-brigandage who limited the size of land on which an individual was allowed to cultivate.
This was compounded by the Land Apportionment Act of 1930 that formalised the separation of the races by law and legitimised the removal of indigenous people from their ancestral lands; thus guaranteeing the settlers the lion’s share of fertile land, equal to 49 million acres; over half the total farming land in the country.
Having delineated the country into five distinct farming regions which corresponded roughly to rainfall patterns, the colonial authorities created tribal trust lands (TTLs) in the remaining 21,6 million acres of poor soils and low rainfall, onto which indigenous people were confined.
As a consequence, traditional agricultural methods and economic systems broke down. This also limited the number of cattle the indigenes could keep.
By the late 1930s, over half of the African population had been dispossessed of their land and economic cattle herds; which (excluded lobola cattle, that do not form a fixed part of the herd) were estimated to range between six to 12 herd of cattle per family.
Some indigenous African people, especially in the smaller, densely populated areas where grazing was limited, owned no cattle at all.
Paradoxically, the white settlers forming only three percent of the population controlled over 75 percent of all fertile land in the country, which meant that many farms could not be exploited to their fullest potential.
On the other hand, 97 percent indigenous people owned only 23 percent of poor, overcrowded and drought-prone land that resulted in overpopulation and enforced over-use of the land.
By 1946, tribal trust lands were estimated to be over 50 percent over-stocked, and more than 50 percent over-populated.
In truth, African owners of the land in congested reserves had too little land, rather than too many cattle.
In order to resettle as many people as possible in an area, the Department of Native Affairs allocated two acres per household, which they deemed to be adequate land to produce sufficient food for a family to feed itself while still being able to provide cheap labour for the white settler-farmers.
In 1966, the Department revised the standard size to four acres for male and two acres for widows on the basis that they provided for their families; single or married African women were excluded on the grounds they were considered to be staying at home, engaging in domestic activities.
The inequalities between white ‘commercial farmers’ and the increasingly marginalised ‘subsistence’ for the rural African population who normally shared a communal approach towards land ownership, led to land grievances which later became the foundation for the controversial land dispute in Zimbabwe.
Population growth frequently resulted in the over-utilisation of the existing land, which became greatly diminished both in terms of cultivation and grazing due to the larger number of people attempting to share the same acreage.
Rural people were further disadvantaged as they were generally located downstream to white settlers, away from the longer riparian to perennial rivers, limiting the water available to them and their cattle.
In their continued efforts to destock African populations of their cattle, the Colonial Native Department upheld the notion of ‘overstocking’, especially in the smaller TTLs. This resulted in a lengthy campaign to force Africans to cull their herds, economically disempowering them.
As a perceived solution to ‘overstocking’ and as a ‘foundation stock’ intended to revolutionise the rural cattle economy, the settler authorities introduced some exotic cattle breeds to indigenous people.
The introduction of a Poll Tax, for all unmarried young men, aggravated tension between the indigenes and the colonial authorities. In addition to Hut Tax and Poll Tax, the majority of Africans had to pay Dog Tax, pass fees, fines and fees of the court and identification pass renewals.
Before the promulgation of the Poll Tax, young unmarried men assisted their fathers with the payment of Hut Tax although they were already making such payments on all huts that included those of bachelors, unmarried girls and widows.
Elderly men were usually exempted from the payment of taxes, eligible males and boys over the age of 14 (who normally would not own cattle herds) were liable to a tax of £1 (approximately equivalent to Rh$2); though all single men were required to pay the tax, it was a burden on all indigenous households.
This placed Africans in many parts of the territory in a precarious financial situation at a time when they had begun rebuilding their cattle herds, fuelling anger and despair.
The national average head per married tax-paying male in Zimbabwe increased from 6,6 head in 1920 to 11,9 in 1932. The figure subsequently decreased steadily to 8,8 in 1938 as a result of the continuing rise in the human population set against stagnation in the number of African-owned cattle.
Following the 1930’s Great Depression, the settler-minority Government imposed measures to assist white farmers, cattle breeders and beef producers. The Farmers Debt Adjustment Act was passed in 1935, abolishing interest charges on farm purchases and deferring loan repayments for three years, for white farmers, to the Land Bank that was created in 1912 to enable white immigrants to settle as farmers.
The Beef Bounty and Cattle Levy Act (No. 28 of 1935), imposed to subsidise the export of mainly European-produced ‘high-quality’, chilled and frozen beef was financed by a Slaughter Levy of 10 shillings per herd of cattle payable by butchers who slaughtered over five cattle for local consumption.
To pre-empt potential dissatisfaction, the Government of the day publicly upheld that: “…local consumers, not producers, would ultimately pay the Slaughter Levy.” Adding: “…the export of large numbers of prime cattle could improve the local market for African stock.”
In practice, as with the Maize Control Act that limited the scale of production for indigenous Africans to compete with white settlers in the production of essential basic victuals — maize; the planned Slaughter Levy would: “…prevent butchers from buying native cattle for slaughter and drive them into buying the better-class stock from European famers,” according to the then Minister for Agriculture.
The levy fees were passed on to the African cattle producer, further depressing their level of income and ruthlessly hindering the post-depression recovery for indigenous African beef producers during the later 1930s.
Following the end of the Second World War in 1945, with an element of official compulsion brought to bear on indigenous herdsmen, an official de-stocking campaign was enforced with stock culling operations conducted throughout the various districts of the then colonial Zimbabwe.
In the immediate post-war years, 50 million acres of farmland were allocated within the framework of the Land Apportionment Amendment Act of 1941, for the settlement of ex-servicemen and the influx of new white immigrants.
By 1954, approximately 64 000 indigenous people had been removed from their habitual areas throughout the country, while a further 47 627 waited to be uprooted.
The Native Land Husbandry Act of 1951, which was subsequently scrapped in 1961, enforced the private ownership of land, destocking and conservation practices by African small holders.
Under the Act, it was illegal for anyone to grow crops or to graze livestock without a permit. Africans were required to obtain permits in the form of ‘farming right’ to cultivate land that could not be reduced below the standard area and ‘grazing right’ to graze livestock.
Both farming and grazing rights expired on the death of the holder and could not be disposed of by will, but transferred to other holders subject to the Native Commissioner’s consent.
The Native (later District) Commissioners were empowered by regulations to allocate a standard area of land for huts, gardens and grazing equal to each peasant.
A permit holder was entitled to hold twice the size of the limited standard of land thus allocated.
Apart from untold human suffering, indigenous African peoples’ lives became fragmented due to the loss of land and the loss of cattle — their most valued possession.
Dr Tony Monda holds a PhD in Art Theory and Philosophy and a DBA (Doctorate in Business Administration) and Post-Colonial Heritage Studies. He is a writer, lecturer, musician, art critic, practicing artist and corporate image consultant. He is also a specialist art consultant, post-colonial scholar, Zimbabwean socio-Economic analyst and researcher. E-mail: tonym.MONDA@gmail.com

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest articles

Kariba Municipality commits to President’s service delivery blueprint

By Kundai Marunya IT is rare to find opposition-controlled urban councils throwing their weight on...

The resurgence of Theileriosis in 2024 

THE issues of global changes, climate change and tick-borne diseases cannot be ignored, given...

Britain haunted by its hostile policy on Zimbabwe

TWO critical lessons drawn from the recent debate on Zimbabwe in the British House...

The contentious issue of race

 By Nthungo YaAfrika AS much as Africans would want to have closure to many of...

More like this

Kariba Municipality commits to President’s service delivery blueprint

By Kundai Marunya IT is rare to find opposition-controlled urban councils throwing their weight on...

The resurgence of Theileriosis in 2024 

THE issues of global changes, climate change and tick-borne diseases cannot be ignored, given...

Britain haunted by its hostile policy on Zimbabwe

TWO critical lessons drawn from the recent debate on Zimbabwe in the British House...

Discover more from Celebrating Being Zimbabwean

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading