The Rwandan genocide is an issue
which has a copious amount of literature written on it. When it comes to theorising the
genocide and examining the causes that lead to it, the popularly accepted view
is that of the one Jared Diamond publishes in his book Collapse. The argument is
Malthusian, and treats the Rwandan genocide as a classic example of how paucity
of resources creates warlike conditions. Hence, Diamond’s argument somehow also
justifies the genocide as one of Malthus’ corrective measures to bridge the gap
between crawling production and galloping population. Apart from being unsettlingly
Orientalist (deeming that most crises in the Occident occur due to their lack
of resources) the argument is also increasingly reductionist. It isolates a
complex phenomenon and does not take into account the crisis’ long history.
The genocide that happened in
1994 was a culmination of several events in Rwanda’s history which polarised
its communities. This of course was not the first genocide that Rwanda
experienced. From 1959 to 1967 around 20,000 Tutsis were killed and around
300,000 fled to neighbouring countries (Caplan: 2007) Then again under
President Kayibanda’s reign ethnic terror was once again unleashed on the
remaining Tutsis. But of course a country as small as Rwanda can hardly make
front page news for its “internal strife”. These and many more were telltale
signs that Rwanda was suffering from ethnic violence much before it hit the
headlines in 1994.
Apart from ignoring its history,
what it also ignored is the role the Rwandan media played in the genocide. The
media not only incited one community against the other but also sponsored
militia such as interahamve. But the media’s role is not just a symptom but
also a cause of the genocide. Right from 1990 the media began to take sides and
published insidious cartoons, write ups and broadcasts that incited people to
violence.
History
Rwanda has 3 ethnic communities,
the majority Hutu, the minority Tutsi and the marginal Twa. Before colonisation,
the Tutsi were cattle herders and ruled over the Hutus who were farmers by
profession and the Twa were potters.
When Rwanda was colonised first
by Germany and then by Belgium in the late 19th century, the Christian
missionaries swept by the wave of racial theories championed by authors such as
Gobineau began to identify the Tutsi as a superior race. They were exalted to
the level of the “white people” while the Bantu (Hutu) were regarded as
racially inferior and hence savages. The schools opened by the missionaries in
Rwanda ingrained such racial rankings in several generations of Rwanda. The
Belgians institutionalised these ethnic differences by issuing the Rwandans
identity cards which identified them as Hutus/Tutsis. These under the colonial
government benefited the Tutsis who were conferred upon with many favours and
concessions. In 60 years time though, these identity cards enabled the Hutu
Rwandan Government Front (RGF) to identify Tutsis and kill them.
Having regarded the Tutsis as
racially superior to the Hutus/ Bantus, the colonial government ruled through
them. Thus, the Tutsi became the target of Hutu ire as they rightly felt they
were being discriminated against. The Hutu demonized Tutsi as a foreign
invading power with no entitlements in Rwanda. (Taylor: 2009). Despite the
polarisation there was little open violence between the two communities. For
all their racial superiority, Tutsi benefitted from the colonial government
only marginally. Most were in as bad a situation as the Hutu.
When the wave of nationalism hit
Rwanda, the Hutus directed their freedom struggle not against the colonial
government but against the Tutsis. Realising that the tide was turning in
favour of the Hutus, the colonial government began to support Hutus against the
Tutsi. The Hutu “revolution” resulted in the end of Tutsi monarchy and started
a spate of anti-Tutsi violence. This forced the Tutsi to seek a safer haven in
neighbouring countries such as Uganda.
The first independent government
was under the Hutu Kayibanda, a regime which pleased no one. Having
disappointed both the Tutsi and the Hutu, Kayibanda’s government dug out the
age old tool of uniting the majority Hutu against the Tutsi. But even this
couldn’t save Kayibanda’s regime and in 1973 he was replaced by Juvenal
Habyarimana another Hutu president. Meanwhile in Burundi the Tutsi government
was engaged in the ethnic cleansing of the Hutu majority, an event which
further escalated tensions in the region.
Habyarimana ruled with his Hutu
clique from North Rwanda. Under him Rwanda experienced a period of peace and
stability. His government, in order to stem the differences between the Hutus
and Tutsis, instituted a policy whereby every ethnic group in Rwanda was to be
granted a share of state jobs and admissions to higher institutions in
proportion to their population. Given the Hutu majority, the policy in practise
was horribly skewed in their favour. The Tutsi in effect never received the 10%
of jobs reserved for them. Plus Habyarimana never removed the identity cards
instituted by the colonial government. The life of the people of Rwanda
depended on these cards. If it said Tutsi on one’s card one could not serve the
army or occupy a high position in the government.
In the 1980s, the Tutsis that had
migrated to neighbouring countries in the 1960s began to put pressure on the
Rwandan government to allow them to return to Rwanda. Talks were held but
nothing concrete came out of them. Then in 1990 the Rwandan Patriotic Front
(RPF), composed mainly of Tutsis but also Hutus opposing the Habyarimana
regime, invaded Rwanda from Uganda. Until 1990 they had been in the Ugandan
army. The government’s response as always was to reawaken the ethnic
hostilities. All Tutsi, including the RPF, were denounced as alien invaders.
Even though the genocide started in 1994, a considerable Tutsi population was
wiped out in the three years following RPF’s invasion in 1990s. Habyarimana’s
party the MRND organised a youth militia by the name of interahamve in order to
ethnically cleanse Rwanda. Meanwhile in Burundi, the Hutu president was shot
down allegedly by a Tutsi which further enraged the Rwandan Hutus against the
Tutsis.
It was under these circumstances
that an agreement was concluded in 1993 at Arusha. The Arusha agreement
demanded peace from the RPF and in turn granted expatriate Tutsi an entry to
Rwanda and reservations in jobs and higher education. Yet, The Rwandan
government failed to live up to its promise.
On 6th April 1994, a
plane carrying Habyarimana was shot down by a missile. This was the final blow
and triggered off the genocide. Even though no one knew who was responsible for
Habyarimana’s death, the Tutsi were made the scapegoat. The RPF was blamed and
the RGF (Rwandan Government Front) went on a Tutsi killing spree. ID cards were checked. The UNAMIR (UN
Assistance Mission for Rwanda) did practically nothing to stop/mitigate the
effects of the genocide. The US and Britain refused to beef up the UN’s
security forces. The world knew that what was going on in Rwanda was systematic
violence against a community. But nobody bothered. Least of all the US. It had
learnt its lessons in Somalia not too long ago. Clinton was only too adamant to
not send his forces. Later on, USA would feign ignorance of the events
happening in Rwanda. Truth be told, Rwanda had no oil, nor could it be
ostensibly accused of carrying WMDs. So, no “Operation Freedom” for Rwanda.
Kingship
A pertinent question that emerges
is as to why Habyarimana’s death was the immediate cause of the genocide. One
way to answer this is by recalling the example of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the
crown prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, who was assassinated by a Serb
starting the First World War. Long drawn cold war between two powers comes to
an end with one party killing an important person of the other. The other way
to answer this is by explaining the symbolic significance attached to the
President in the Rwandan context. I’d choose the other.
Rwanda was a monarchy until 1962.
The king in Rwanda was a person who took care of the fertility of the land,
people and the livestock among other things. The king was the person through
whom descended the imaana (fertility/divine beneficence) on Rwanda and its
people. The imaana, Rwanda believed, descended in the form of liquids; rivers,
rains, semen, blood, milk, honey etc. The king was considered to be in perfect
control of these. He was the principal rainmaker for his kingdom. In case of a
drought/excessive rains he could risk losing his throne. This made the king’s
own bodily fluids extremely important. His saliva, for example, was used for
rituals such as inserting the king’s saliva into the mouths of ritual bulls.
His semen was another important bodily fluid. It signified his fertility.
Ritual copulation with virgins was an important part of royal ceremonies. Even when
a king died his bodily fluids remained important. He was buried atop a hill
from where emerged the tributaries of Nyaborongo river, principal river of
Rwanda. It was believed that as the king’s body decomposes, the imaana from his
body flows in the rivers.
Umutabazi is the sacrificial king
in Rwanda. He is the king who either dies fighting for his land or one who or
has to give up his throne for failing to live up to the expectations of the
people. While these principals may have been forgotten by Rwanda over time, the
symbolism attached to the position of a king/leader was not lost. Habyarimana’s
death was that of the umutabazi, a sacrificial king who died saving his country.
But in the popular media he is also depicted as the umutabazi who disappointed
his people, especially with respect to the Arusha agreement. Hence, the death
of Habyarimana was a huge setback to Rwanda’s imaana even if the concept itself
was forgotten.
The cult of personality
surrounding Habyarimana was very strong in Rwanda. Most Rwandans had a picture
of the president hanging on the walls of their home. Most wore the MRND party
badge/button on their shirt. “On Wednesday afternoons groups met to practice
chants and skits celebrating the Rwandan state, the overthrow of the Tutsi
monarchy, but most of all to honour the country’s president Habyarimana”
(Taylor:2009). Comments were made about Habyarimana’s name; kubyara (to engender)
and imaana, a befitting name for the Rwandan state given its history.
The Radio
The media in Rwanda only added
fuel to the fire. The agenda of the media starting from 1990 when the RPF first
invaded Rwanda was to unite the Hutu on anti-Tutsi sentimentality. Initially it
was the state controlled media that incited the Hutus to violence. Then
gradually independent media started to take sides too. The Anti Hutu media was
quick to emerge too.
The medium of mass communication
that reaches most people in Rwanda is the radio. During the genocide the
RPF/RGF soldiers would be holding a machete in one hand and a radio in the
other. The Radio Rwanda was the first one in 1992 to be used directly in
promoting the massacre of Tutsi in a place called Bugesera in South Rwanda. The
Radio informed the Hutu that a human rights group based in Nairobi, Kenya had
found out that the Tutsi are planning to attack the Hutu living in Bugesera. The
Radio guided the Hutu that their only chance of survival was to attack the
Tutsi first, catch them unawares. And so it happened. Members of MRND
(Habyarimana’s party) sponsored interahamve and Hutu civilians went on to
mercilessly kill the Tutsi of Bugesera.
The RTLM (Radio-Télévision Libre
des Milles Collines) was the most popular radio
station in Rwanda. What was different about RTLM was the conversational style
in which the speakers presented shows, played popular Congolese songs, allowed
listeners to call and make song requests or just chat with the presenters. RTLM
started its agenda soon after the Arusha agreement was signed between the state
of Rwanda and the RPF in 1993. The RTLM’s rallying call was “Hutu Power” and
one of the first things it broadcast was the assassination of the Burundian
president of Hutu origin, Ndayaye. As always no one knew who killed the
Burundian president but the word spread that a Tutsi had done it. The president
was killed by a bayonet blow to the chest but RTLM reported that the president
had first been castrated and then killed. In Burundi the Hutu had attacked the
Tutsi for allegedly killing their president. The backlash was the Tutsi attack.
This attack was demonised heavily by RTLM. In doing so RTLM was trying to
remind the Hutu of the age old practice in which Tutsi rulers would castrate
rebels and hang their genitalia on a their ingoma drums, drums which signified
the power and prowess of the king. The RTLM also attacked the Hutu that
supported the RPF. It used violent language to incite people, “Interahamwe militia
might rip into little pieces those thought to support the RPF”
During the genocide the RTLM stepped up and strengthened
its anti-Tutsi propaganda. As Alison des Forges says in her essay, 'Call to
Genocide: Radio in Rwanda', “RTLM called on all Hutu to ‘rise up as a single man’
to defend their country in what was said to be the ‘final’ war. One announcer
predicted that the war ‘would exterminate the Tutsi from the globe … make them
disappear once and for all’” The popular term used for the RPF soldiers and
other Tutsi was inyenzi (cocokroach) and to exterminate each one of them was
RTLM’s war cry. The RTLM also warned the Hutu that many Tutsi might escape in
disguise. So they were to apprehend whoever they thought “looked like a Tutsi”
Print Media
While the Radio did its job, the newspapers, journals,
magazines did not lag behind. The print media through its calumniated words and
scintillating images and cartoons incited not just the Hutu but Habyarimana
himself to wage war against the Tutsi. In one such newspaper, Umurangi, a cartoon
depicts Habyarimana standing next to the Nyaborongo river and opposite him are
the rival forces of the RPF. The caption reads “leave the confines of your
sacred kingdom, proceed southward, cross the Nyaborongo wage war. Else you will
lose everything”
 |
| Umurangi cartoon, 1992 |
Another of Umurangi’s cartoon titled “metaphorical Eden”
depicted a snake as the MRND soldier handing the scrotum of a Tutsi to a Hutu
leader.
 |
| Umurangi cartoon, Metaphorical Eden, 1993 |
Another extremist Hutu magazine, La Medaille Nyiramacibiri
carried a cartoon in 1993 following the assassination of Burundi’s Hutu
president Ndayaye. While the RTLM spread rumours about his castration before
his murder, the print media backed such rumour mongering in their cartoons. The
following cartoon shows Ndayaye mounted on a cross being castrated while the
RPF general says “Kill him quickly. Dont you know we did a lot of work? With
women we pulled the babies out of their wombs, with men we dashed out their
eyes”
 |
| La Medaille Nyiramacibiri cartoon, 1993 |
Another publication was called Kangura, a bimonthly
newspaper in Rwanda. The Kangura carried the message that the Bantu must
understand that the Tutsi were the first and foremost their enemies and they
should break all ties with them including the links derived from marriage,
business or professional relations. In her essay “Kangura: the Triumph of
Propaganda Refined”, Marcel Kabanda reports that Kangura carried a lot of
fabricated information like “The Batutsi comprise 50 per cent of government
officials, 70 per cent of private business employees, 90 per cent of staff in
embassies and international organizations, and they hold prominent positions
everywhere. However, this ethnic group constitutes 10 per cent of the
population”, a point made to show the Hutu what all they had lost to Tutsi and
to exhort them to get all that back. The Kangura also carried messages like “You give shelter
to a Tutsi in your living room, he chases you out of your bedroom” and “You
cure a Tutsi of inflammation of the genitals, he makes love to your wife”
There were equally horrible messages carried by the Tutsi
and the pro-RPF newspapers. A 1992 cartoon in Kanyarwanda newspaper depicted
MRND as a flesh eating monster. These newspapers glorified the “struggle of the
RPF” to get back to the land they once belonged to.
That castration was an important symbol to demonise the
Tutsi speaks volumes about the historical references used in these newspapers.
The imaana entered a person’s body through his bodily fluids. Robbing him of
his fertility was a heinous crime, almost blasphemous in Rwanda. Hence castration was such a recurring theme in
most newspapers.
The Rwandan Genocide is long forgotten. To begin with it
was never properly remembered. As we are dismissing the ISIS ethnic cleansing
in Iraq as just another Shia-Sunni clash, we dismissed Rwanda as Tutsi-Hutu
violence. It’s their internal strife, why bother? The truth is, a country as
small as Rwanda makes no significant contribution to the structural hegemony of
the USA. Their conflicts are not worth losing “American lives” on.Thus, it doesnt matter to most of us either. Most of it never made it to the news. There was practically no international media in Rwanda reporting the situation there.
Thomas Kamilindi, a person who wrote about his personal
experience of testifying against the Rwandan Media in the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in his essay “Journalism in a Time of Hate Media” says
“So they asked me how we were living, how many of us were there. I told them there
were about 700 refugees, and we were drinking water from the swimming pool, the
same pool the soldiers were using to wash their clothes and which eventually
turned into a toilet. We had to drink that water without being able to boil it.”
Kamilindi, a Hutu, is a journalist who worked for Radio
Rwanda before it became a tool to incite the Hutu. He quit and lost his
daughter in the pogrom because his non cooperation with Radio Rwanda meant his
compliance with the Tutsi. What he tells future journalists of Rwanda now
should serve as a guideline to media across countries; ”How can we know if what
we’re doing is wrong?’ They didn’t know the answer to that question. Some of
them had already gone too far. They had become part of the hate media without
knowing it. So I told them, ‘look at what you write. Listen to what you say,
and analyze yourself. If you are demonizing people, if you are stigmatizing
other tribes, other clans, you’re involved in violence.”
Lastly, for how long will we continue to justify
systematic and state perpetrated violence as internal strife? We might not be a
part of it explicitly but each one of us implicit in the violence if we fail to
remember Rwanda.
