|
Dear Radio Katwe Editor,
I have just read some comments on the article called "explaining Rwandan: we owe our rise from ashes to clean leadership" made by one of the Radio Katwe's readers and who seemed to praise the actual Rwandan government to be shining amidst of the past troubles. He is fully convinced that what he calls 'genocide' was well planned by the then Habyarimana government. I feel writing the following comments to throw more light of what might have exactly happened, for a wrong diagnosis may result in a wrong prescription.
For the last fourteen years, the Rwandan 1994 tragedy has been debatable to whether what it was merely planned genocide, double genocide or just a civil unrest. The lack of proper classification of what has exactly happened is even spreading much confusion across the world giving rise to a situation where any political or civil unrest in any given country is deemed to be genocide.
At the time of the Rwandan crisis, the only measuring rod of what could be a genocide was the 1940's Jewish Holocaust where the Nazis of Hitler were hunting down anyone of Jewish origin to be exterminated. History does not inform us clearly why the Germans Jews were supposed to die so horrible a death. If the Rwandan crisis is compared with the Jewish Holocaust together with today's new development, one may probably come up with some sustainable information that may inform the world to whether the Rwandan catastrophe was exactly genocide to the same extent of what had happened earlier in the 1940's.
Everyone agrees that both Hutus and Tutsis were slaughtered during the 1994 though today only Tutsis are accepted to have been genocide survivors which gives them all the extra rights and honours over any other person who survived the 1994 tragedy, to the extent of even separating their dead bodies (Tutsi from Hutu).
For instance in the past years a group of clergymen who were slaughtered by the armed wing of the Tutsi group were denied a dignified burial as it would have given them some extra rights. It was only at the beginning of last month where some officers of the army (RPA) pleaded guilty to slaughtering the clergymen; which may prove that both groups of the population were at fault, both of them having militia or an armed wing of their races/tribes.
In addition to this, last year, the Rwandan government began rewarding a group of Hutu who stood by the Tutsi people during the genocide, which would mean that it was not a blanket "the Hutu against Tutsi" but some militia Hutu against Tutsi (and vice versa).
Whilst the Jewish people were not at war with anybody and yet they were hunted down by people of a different race. The Nazis who have massacred the Jews were neither Jewish, nor Jews.
However in Rwanda, the genocide seems to have been an extension of the civil wars between elements of the two ethnicities who have fought for power domination since 1959. In other words, Tutsis and the Hutus are both Rwandans but members of two different ethnicities fighting for their respective political interests.
In such circumstance, though it is unfortunate that such tragedy happened, it would probably better to re-evaluate what exactly happened in Rwanda, whether it was genocide, double genocide or merely a civil war. Otherwise, a wrong diagnostic often brings a wrong prescription and it may also constitute a bad precedent where any civil or political unrest in any given country would be synonymous with genocide such as in Sudan, East Timor, Zimbabwe and even in Eastern Congo (RCD)
A. Kama
Readers Comments:
06 Jul 2008
1.
Response to A Kama on Ashes to clean Leadership
In 1950s, some Leaders in Rwanda were pushing for independence as most of Africa. Most were Tutsi, but some Hutu too were involved. Belgians did not want to leave Africa like all colonialists. They conspired with some Hutus for an insurrection for Hutu power. There were Belgian soldiers who watched and encouraged the Hutus to massacre Tutsis, who were not armed, whose houses they burnt down, using spears and machettes in 1959. Tutsis became refuges in the neighbouring states where they were always reminded they did not belong.
Another massacre followed in 1963, 1967, 1972,and 1990 of people who were not armed. Tutsis decided to return Home no matter what. Ofcourse there was war. However, 1994 Genocide was not between combants, but killing of innocent people who were not armed at all. A few Hutus who were moderlate or those who tried to save a few Tutsis were also killed by hardliners.
Also some combants on both sides died. History is available in most Libraries, so check the facts. Do not deny, Genocide occured.
Response To : Wissly, UK
There are many ministers including the Prime Minister in Rwanda that are Hutu. There are Hutus in many departments in different positions including proffesors, managers and secretaries. There are Hutus who are in Parliament. Rwanda now graduates many University students in one year more than graduated in all the years the Rwanda University existed. Higher institutions of learning graduate both Tutsi and Hutu unlike in the past regimes. The armed Forces of Rwanda have many Hutus in the ranks including some soldiers from the past regime. Check your facts please. Visit Embassies in several countries there are some Hutus too. OK?
06 Jul 2008
2.
Commentary on: "we owe our rise from ashes to clean leadership"
It is becoming so obvious that Kama was misunderstood. He was being objective to the real situation and he never took side in his objectives. Maybe, people reacting to Kamas points should also tell us about Rwanda's history before 1959. What happened for example in 1948 and even before? History is what happened but not what you would have wanted to happen.
Watcher.
|