Conversations with Myself (17 page)

MANDELA: No, no, no. That I never had.

STENGEL: Oh, you didn’t, okay.

MANDELA: No, I never had nightmares.

STENGEL: Okay. What would you say was your worst moment on Robben Island, when you felt the lowest?

MANDELA: Well, it’s difficult…very difficult to pinpoint any particular moment as my worst moment, but the question of my wife being harassed and persecuted by the police, and sometimes being assaulted, and I was not there to defend her. That was a very difficult moment for me. And when I saw that she was being hounded from one job to the other by the police. They would go to the employer and say, ‘By keeping this woman here you are starting trouble.’

STENGEL: But how did that make you feel? I mean, did you feel powerless? Did you feel angry?

MANDELA: Well, naturally there was an element of anger, but at the same time I tried to be cool about it, and remembered that this is the price we have to pay for being committed to the struggle. And it’s something that disturbed
me
very much, and the feeling of frustration and helplessness
was
there, because there was nothing I could do about it.

STENGEL: What about…I’ve read before that sometimes you would come back to your cell at the end of the day and they would place press cuttings…

MANDELA: Yes, quite, they would do that.

STENGEL: Quite regularly?

MANDELA: Well, now and again, they did. Whenever there was some bad report about the family, they would put the cutting on my table. Very dirty.

STENGEL: And that would make you angry too, I suppose.

MANDELA: Yes, well one got used to the methods which they used, and decided to keep cool about it. But of course there was an element of anger against it, but one learned to be calm about these things.

STENGEL: Right. Well, I have a quote here from Mac Maharaj, who said about you, and this is relevant to what you were just saying, ‘As he has been living through prison, his anger and hatred of the system has been increasing, but the manifestations of that anger have become less visible.’
²²
Would you say that that’s true?

MANDELA: Well, that certainly is correct in the sense that I am working now with the same people who threw me into jail, persecuted my wife, hounded my children from one school to the other…and I am one of those who was saying, ‘Let us forget the past, and think of the present.’

25. CONVERSATION WITH RICHARD STENGEL ABOUT COMMUNICATION WITH OTHER SECTIONS IN PRISON

STENGEL: How did you communicate with people in the other sections?

MANDELA: Well, we smuggled letters…and Kathrada, Ahmed Kathrada, was in charge of that. But there were embarrassing situations, because one day I was standing with the warder; they were bringing in food, in drums, and the chaps from the kitchen are only allowed just to give us the drums through the door without entering our section. Now it was the
last
delivery of food for the day; it was in the evening, at sunset. So there was a young fellow…and he was
desperate
to pass on this letter, and as I was standing there receiving the food, he just took the letter and gave it to me. Now…by then, of course the warders respected me and I felt very small. I did not know what to do, not so much because of punishment, but because of the effect on this warder; especially because he was comparatively younger than myself, and I didn’t want to abuse, you know, the respect…in which they held me…I was really tortured by that and I just walked away from him and I handed it to Kathrada and I found it
very
difficult to look at that young warder.

STENGEL: Because he saw?

MANDELA: He must have seen…because we were standing together and this young chap from the kitchen, just after delivering the drums, he just takes this thing and gives it to me. Because he was
desperate
, he had to
pass
the thing, you see, to get an urgent message.

STENGEL: And it was humiliating for the warder to witness this?

MANDELA: Well, it was humiliating and it was a breach of duty because he should have acted against that boy, against myself as well. He should have taken the letter, but out of respect, you know, he pretended as if he hadn’t seen anything, didn’t do anything. And that
really
humiliated me. To abuse your trust in that fashion. At the same time, I couldn’t say to this youngster, ‘Don’t give it to me; take it back,’ because if I had done so, the warder would have punished him. Would have charged him. But we
were
able to smuggle, very quietly.

26. FROM A LETTER TO TIM MAHARAJ, DATED 1 FEBRUARY 1971
²³

It has been said a thousand and one times that what matters is not so much what happens to a person than the way such person takes it. It may sound silly for me to burden you with what is a matter of more than common knowledge. Yet whenever it is my turn to be the victim of some misfortune, I forget precisely these simple things, and thereby let hell break loose upon me.

27. FROM A LETTER SMUGGLED FROM PRISON TO LAWYERS IN DURBAN, DATED JANUARY 1977

M/S Seedat, Pillay and Co, Durban

I intend instituting legal proceedings in the CPD [Cape Provincial Division] against the Dpt [Department] of Prisons for a declaration of rights and for an interdict restraining the prison authorities from abusing their authority and subjecting me and my fellow prisoners to political persecution and from committing other irregularities.

In this connection I should be pleased if you would act for me and brief Adv. [Advocate] G. Bizos of the Jhb [Johannesburg] Bar or any other barrister he recommends.
²⁴
I hope you will be able to arrange a consultation at your earliest possible convenience either with a member of your firm or with counsel when the full facts on which the cause of action is founded will be placed before you.

If your firm is for any reason unable to come down for consultation, I would still like to retain your services but would be happy to have an interview with any other person you might send. Arrangement for payment of your fees and disbursements will be made directly with you or your representative at the consultation.

On Oct 7 1976 I wrote and asked the Commanding Officer, Col [Colonel] Roelofse, for permission to instruct my lawyers to institute proceedings. The request was refused and I had no option but to smuggle this letter out of prison.

On July 12, 1976 I wrote a 22 page letter to the Commissioner of Prisons and expressly drew his attention to the abuse of authority, political persecution and other irregularities committed by the C.O [Commanding Officer] and his staff. A copy of this letter is still in my possession and I hope to hand it directly to you in due course. Meantime I would suggest that you ask him not to remove the document and other papers relevant to the contemplated proceedings from my custody.

Here is a summary of the letter:
Abuse of Authority
. Both Col Roelofse and Lt [Lieutenant] Prins, Head of Prison, have been systematically preaching racialism to fellow prisoners of different population groups in the single cell section where I live and trying to foment feelings of hostility amongst us.

Improper interference with social relations
. After setting out the facts in support of this allegation I added, ‘I now consider the untruthful explanations that are repeatedly made by the local officials about our correspondence and the so-called objection either to the contents of the letter or person who wrote it as a mere technique to deprive us of the legal right of preserving good relationships, between ourselves and our relatives and friends.’

Censorship of outgoing mail
. As has often happened in the past, the birthday card I sent to my daughter in Dec. 75 did not reach her. Last Feb I wrote to my wife and regretted the fact. I also referred to photos my daughter repeatedly sent me and that had disappeared without trace. The C.O. objected to this paragraph. My daughter plays rugby and in another letter I advised her to pay attention to her diet. I was asked to remove the passage. My grandniece wished to study LL.B and I wrote and requested Mrs F. Kentridge of the JHB [Johannesburg] Bar to advise her on law as a profession for women. Lt. Prins first asked me to remove this particular paragraph and some wks [weeks] after I had handed in the altered letter I was then told that it would not be sent to her because the Dpt now objected to her person. I concluded, ‘To prevent me from telling my wife that I sent my daughter a birthday card which did not reach her, that I always think of her and that the photos she had posted to me had disappeared is unreasonable and based neither on security considerations nor on the desire to maintain good order and discipline nor to promote my welfare. The same applied to my letter to Mrs Kentridge…’

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

From a letter smuggled from prison to lawyers in Durban, dated January 1977
.

Censorship of Incoming Correspondence
. But the worst abuses in regard to the censoring of letters are committed in regard (to) incoming correspondence and, in this connection, the C.O and his staff have gone rampant. The censoring is malicious and vindictive and, again, is actuated neither by considerations of security and discipline nor the desire to promote our welfare.

I regard it as part of a campaign of systematic political persecution and an attempt to keep us in the dark about what goes on outside prison even in regard to our own family affairs. What the C.O is trying to do is not only to cut us off from the powerful current of goodwill and support that has ceaselessly flown in during the 14 yrs [years] of my incarceration in the form of visits, letters, cards and telegrams, but also to discredit us to our families and friends by presenting us to them as irresponsible people who never acknowledge letters written to them nor deal with important matters referred to them by the correspondents.

In addition, the double standards used in censoring letters is cowardly and calculated to deceive the public into the false impression that our outgoing letters are not censored. In the case of these we are requested to rewrite them whenever there is any matter to which the prison authorities object so as to remove any evidence that they have been heavily censored. Incoming ones are badly cut and scratched out as the censor pleases. Nothing will best convey to you the extent of the damage caused to the incoming mail more than actual inspection by you in person. Many of the letters from my wife consist of strips of incoherent information that are difficult to keep together even in a file.
²⁵

My wife has been in prison several times and not only knows the relevant Prison Rules well but also the sensitivity of your local officials to anything they might consider objectionable. She makes a conscious effort to confine herself to family affairs, yet hardly a single one of her letters escapes mutilation.

On Nov. 24, 1975 she wrote me a 5 page letter and only the remains of 2 pages finally reached me. The censorship policy adopted here is not followed even by your own officials in other jails. As you are aware my wife has recently served a 6 month sentence in Kroonstad.
²⁶
Some of her letters were posted by the C.O. of that prison but heavily censored [at] that end.

But what I intensely detest is to force us to be parties to a practice based on plain falsehood. It is immoral for the C.O. to destroy or withhold letters from our families and friends and at the same time prevent us from telling them about what he does. I consider it callous to allow our people to continue wasting money, time, energy, goodwill and love by sending us letters and cards which the C.O. knows will never be given to us… You ought to issue a public statement in which you clearly define the policy of your Dept and set out more particularly what you consider objectionable and the categories of persons who may not write or send us messages of goodwill.

Disappearance of letters in transit
. The number of letters that disappear in transit is far too large to be explained on the basis of the inefficiency of the P.O. [Post Office] Dpt and from the unreasonable and persistent refusal of the C.O. to allow us to register our letters. I must draw the inference that their disappearance is not accidental.

Visits
. Even here the measures taken by the C.O. in supervising conversations between prisoners and visitors go beyond security requirements. To put 4 or sometimes even 6 warders to one visitor and breathing or staring threatening[ly] at her is a blatant form of intimidation.

It is my duty to tell you that there is a widespread belief amongst my fellow prisoners that at these visits there is a listening device that records all conversations including confidential matters between husband and wife. If this be the case there is hardly any justification for the show of force now generally displayed during such visits.

Language qualifications of the Censors
. The man who is directly in charge of censoring mail and magazines is W/O [Warrant Officer] Steenkamp who was previously in charge of the section. Although he may have passed Matric English he is certainly no more proficient in that language than I am in Afrikaans and I doubt if Sgt [Sergeant] Fourie is any the better.