When considering the history of the African National Congress (ANC), one needed to understand the necessity of breaking from a tradition of non violent activity. Chief Albert Luthuli (ANC president from 1952 to 1967) saw the necessity and virtue of armed struggle.

Hosted by the Centre for Indian Studies in Africa, a round-table discussion entitled ‘Writing histories of political violence' on Wednesday, explored the history of violence in the parallel and interlinked political histories of South Africa and India.

Mellon Chair in Indian Studies and history professor Dilip Menon, who chaired the discussion, explained that the conspicuous contribution of Mahatma Gandhi's peaceful activism to the Indian (and South African) struggle, meant that politically violent nationalists were generally "written out of history". But, political violence was "constitutive of the way in which democracies were built", he said, adding that there was no such thing as a peaceful society. In many cases, violence shaped democracy, and therefore, violence would always be present.

Rashid Seedat and Razia Saleh, authors of Men of Dynamite, which interrogated the role of Indians in the ANC's military wing Umkhonto we Sizwe (known as MK), explained that while the military movement was, from its inception, a nonracial structure, it became racially defined owing to the restraints of the Group Areas Act.

MK members saw "violence as a political undertaking, subjugated to a political will", said Saleh.

"Violence, necessity and virtue," expounded Raymond Suttner, research professor at the University of South Africa and former ANC National Executive Committee member. This was the "choice with responsibility" that the ANC made in the 1960s, with the founding of MK.

Suttner explained that Gandhi had advocated non violence, but acknowledged the necessity of violence.

In the ANC, violence was always considered a "temporary aberration". Suttner cited black academic ZK Matthews as saying that he was pleased that the ANC's armed struggle was led by men committed to non violence.

Former President Nelson Mandela had claimed that the armed struggle was meant to bring parties to negotiations, not to power.

Violence was "unjustified in principle" and "no longer socially desirable". It was part of South Africa's liberation history but not part of democracy, Suttner said, bringing up current day issues surrounding the singing of violent struggle songs.

"Songs that encourage violence were not a constructive recourse to history,' he said.

Suttner explained the meaning of the "kill the boer" song that had been made infamous recently by ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema. He said that the current refrain was "disembodied" from the song of the 1980s. In the original song, there was no "glorification of the gun", but rather a "response to necessity". Suttner emphasised that, in the song, a young man wanted the blessing of his mother before going to fight in a war that was necessary. While the original song involved "violence with reluctance", violence was now glorified, he said.

In the past, violence was seen as a "tragic necessity". The "kill the boer" song had become a "debased means of drawing on struggle history", he said.

In writing history, people should act with care by providing a context. Suttner explained that songs of war in a time of peace, indicated a "recklessness with life".

Renowned historian Phil Bonner agreed that the MK needed to be placed in context.

He spoke of the MK as a "failed movement", which had importance beyond its militancy. This value lay in its numbers and its engagement in local politics.

Seedat added that South Africa's liberation was not achieved by the ANC's liberation army.

So, while political violence was inseparable from South Africa's history, it had to be contextualised.