Recently, we had the privilege to witness what could be called a catfight between two legendary women.
The one, Nadira Naipaul — a writer — had the pen and the other, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela — a symbol of resistance — had the word.
Between the two lies a truth that has only been whispered for the last 20 years: Nelson Mandela who went to prison a revolutionary hero, did not come out the same man.
This was a round-about way of saying that he was a sell-out.
But there was nobody who was willing to stand on the rooftop to tell what some, not all, oppressed black people thought and felt.
The issue of whether this is true or not is neither here nor there.
Instead, what we need to acknowledge is that, for a few days, the catfight between these two legendary women resulted in the truth getting lost between the pen and the word.
But we all know that over the past 20 years the people of this country and the world have always preferred it to be dressed in designer labels, with a suburban address and a fat bank account.
Thus what we have always known is not a Robert Sobukwe or Steve Biko who died paupers and naked, respectively, but the image of a Nelson Mandela who is both a world statesman and a saint.
This profile of Madiba — as he is popularly known — is not a manufactured truth but what the man represents to many people around the world, including yours truly.
But what concerns me is how Madikizela-Mandela — in her denial of the alleged vituperative attack — feels picked out, branded as a bitter radical who harbours resentment against a former husband.
She felt that Naipaul had abused her access to a private conversation that would empty Mandela of his stature and his height.
When she returned from her American sojourn, she had to clean up the mess that had been created under her name. But the words attributed to her will not die, they continue to echo in some hearts and minds.
Ironically, there will always be some people who believe that Naipaul would not risk her reputation to write lies about a woman who opened her soul to her husband, VS, and herself.
There are countless lips in Soweto and around the world who have breathed a sigh of relief that, at long last, someone had the courage to utter the words that have always been in some hearts.
They believe that the pen would not have written without the word.
Well, the truth lies somewhere between the two women who are both intuitively connected to the history and heritage of the Third World struggle for freedom and self-determination.
The matter that these women have raised speaks to the heart of the, increasingly, perceived meaninglessness and Pyrrhic victory of Uhuru and African self-governance.
For the past 50 years since the independence of Ghana — the last nation to be free led by Mandela — we have listened to whispers of those who reproach African leaders for selling out.
Many people have listened without displeasure to these statements of resentment and a sense of betrayal.
It is a pity that Madikizela-Mandela has been forced to distance herself from these sentiments.
What is worse is that Naipaul has not only been forced to talk to herself in a global monologue but had to allegedly use the spirit of Madikizela-Mandela to make a very relevant point.
I am proudly amazed that these two women are afraid to cut to the bone.
It is a good thing that, hopefully not for the first time in a patriarchal society, it is the man who is the object of a fixed gaze.
Women should be able to talk by themselves and still have the freedom to take their conversation beyond the hallowed walls of their homes.
If patriarchy did not allow any one of them to be on the defensive, we would be having a serious national dialogue about the most important leader to emerge out of Africa in the 20th century.
We will never know for sure whether the conversation did happen.
But since this now, is a catfight, let us pretend that there was “no interview”.
However, we must always read between the lines and learn to listen to the voice of the women for they brought man to this world.