Authors Synopsis The 'Y' Character of the Colonial State & Violent Conflict Violent Conflict and The Zulu Struggle for Independence. A People Divided The oscillating struggle between state repression and the town uprising had reached a deadlock by the mid-1980s. The uprising remained a primarily town affair. Meanwhile, the global situation was changing fast, with glasnost coming to the Soviet Union and the cold war thawing. Against this background the South African government tried to recover a lost initiative through several impressive changes and reforms. The more the government rushed into restructuring 'Y' character of state (indirect rule), the worse the situation became regarding violence, and the country was in an uncontrollable situation. This started in the 1970s and became desperate. During 1970-1985, South Africa vacillated between reform and reaffirmation of the repressive regime known as 'Separate Development/apartheid'. As expected, reforms that integrated housing, jobs and reforms that legitimated the rights of black labour unions propelled protest by Black Africans against 'Apartheid', but so did reforms that excluded Black Africans from nationality increased. The first was the 1986 removal of influx control and the abolition of pass laws, by that overturning the legacy of forced removals. It was as if the government, by throwing open the town gates to country migrants, anticipated they would flock to townships and put out the fires of town rebellion. As a result they gathered. By 1993, according to most estimates, the shanty population surrounding many townships was at around seven million - nearly a fifth of the total population. Many were migrants from countryside areas. The second initiative came in 1990 with the release of political prisoners and the un-banning of exile-based organizations. The government had recognized a force, significant in the town uprising but not born of it, and needed to work out the terms of an alliance with it. That force was the African National Congress (ANC) in exile. Those terms were worked out over a four-year negotiation process, called the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA). The resulting constitutional consensus guaranteed the National Party substantial authorities in the state for at least five years after the non-racial elections of 1994. Many critiques of the transition have focused on this blemish, but the real import of this transition to non-racial rule may turn out to be the fact that it will liquidate racism in the state. With free movement between town and country, but with local African administration in charge of an ethnically governed countryside population, it will replicate one legacy of 'Repressive' in a non-racial form. If, that happens, this reform without social equalization will have been a typically African ending! Was it international sanctions or armed struggle that forced apartheid to change, or instead the movement of millions of people went into the cities that created social upheaval, strained community and state institutions? Declining Institutional Capacity: the movement of millions of people into the cities created social upheaval and strained community and state institutions since 1986 forced in changes. Structure of Colonial/state, 'Y' character of colonial state (Indirect Rule) For comparative purposes, I include other parts of South Africa, because violent conflict has occurred all over South Africa since apartheid was introduced. Methodological Considerations: If we also discuss the system of repressive or authoritarian state, what is really the method and theory of social equalization of colonial and 'repressive' states? Style/Genre/Characterization: Sociological conditions-the social organization of hostels, oppression, labour market, marginalisation and alienation; ethnicity and societal conflicts; ethnicity and conflict theories; culturalists - migrant culture & tradition, and what is migr