Let Us Avert Rwanda Genocide Experience In Nigeria By Abdulrazaq O Hamzat

Many years after Rwandan genocide of 1994 between Hutu and Tutsi which claimed over 1,000,000 lives, certain revelations were made as a result of critical analysis of the incident.

It was revealed that, going by the media reports in 1994, the Rwandan genocide was often portrayed as a conflict based on ancient hatred between people who had been killing each other in such a manner for hundreds of years. However,those media reports were greatly misleading and proved incorrect after critical analysis. Hutu and Tutsi were not ethnic groups, but economic/political class divide.

Investigation shows that, throughout history, the great lakes region had never encountered any ethnic violence between Hutu and Tutsi and there was no pattern of inter communal violence ever witnessed between Hutu and Tutsi and nothing approached or even suggested the level of violence of the 1994 genocide. In fact, in pre-colonial era, there was no any ethnic group by the name Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda, the term Hutu and Tutsi had after centuries of inter marriage, coming more closely to represent a distinction of economic class not ethnic. Hutu and Tutsi before the colonial era were about class not ethnic origin.

For example, a Hutu who gained wealth could become a Tutsi and a Tutsi who lost wealth or economic ground could become a Hutu. Just like a man who gain wealth could be referred to as rich and another who lost wealth is referred to as poor. When the rich lost wealth, he his referred to as poor and when the poor gained wealth, he his referred to as rich. This is what the term Hutu and Tutsi referred to in Rwanda in pre-colonial era and it has nothing to do with ethnicity.

It is therefore imperative for us to look back at what really transpired in Rwanda about 20 years ago and work to prevent such ugly experience in Nigeria. We must guide against similar incidence in Nigeria as we approach the 2015 election because if not, I fear that something of such may repeat itself in much greater proportion. Let us avert Rwandan genocide experience in Nigeria.

In addition, while it is true that Nigeria is not Rwanda, we have seen similarity in what triggered the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and we must make delibrate efforts to prevent it.

It is on record that few months ago, Bauchi State governor, Alhaji Ibrahim Shema was heard in a video recording, calling out his supporters to crush and kill the cockroaches. Those he refereed to as cockroaches are members of the opposition political parties.

Governor Shema likened opposition politicians to ''cockroaches''

before asking the crowd what to do if they found the nocturnal insect in their apartments. The crowd chorused ''kill them''. ''Crush them''

the governor responded, agreeing with the crowd.
It should also be recalled that, similar calls triggered violence in other countries, particularly in Rwanda, where the majority Hutus describe minority Tutsi as ''cockroaches''. Like in 1994 in Rwanda, Nigeria's governor of Bauchi State also referred to his fellow country men as cockroaches deserving death in the hand of his supporters and as a result of such call and other similar ones, Nigeria have experience pre-election violence far beyond what had ever been witnessed in recent time.

Weeks before the election, over 20 people have been reportedly killed in different states, party offices bombed, campaign vehicle set ablaze and people are physically attacked. This is a bad signal which require extra attention. If such magnitude of violence could occur before the election without any check, what is likely to happen during and after the election? We must prevent the Rwandan experience.

The territory now known as Rwanda was first controlled by Germany during the colonial era. Under Germany, the region enjoyed what may be termed as durable peace. Germany didn't introduce anything new, neither did they try to enforce any idea or take away the existing ways of life, they only sought the support of the local chiefs which were given and they systematically ruled them indirectly.

During the World War I, Germany lost the territory that would eventually become Rwanda. The territory was placed under the Belgian administration by the League of Nations, with its substantial technical and military superiority, easily ruled over the native population and the region enjoyed a long period of peace. The situation at that time was not described as a durable peace, since there was little challenge to the Belgian rule and thus a period of general stability, the peace was not based on shared value, goal and institutions, but based on force. The Belgian took over everything by force and started to impose ideas and take away the custom of the people. In 1926, the Belgian authority established policies to sharpen distinction between Hutu and Tutsi, those who own more than 10 cows were designated as Tutsi and those with less than 10 cows or nothing were designated as Hutu with no possibility of movement between the two groups. What had been a fluid distinction developed over time and custom was abruptly replaced by a permanent categorization, making some people permanently inferior and others superior. The Belgian greatly favored the upper echelon of Tutsi, offering the wealthiest among them superior opportunity for education and economic advancement and using them as administrators to enforce the colonial rule. With this policy, two groups where created not by ethnic origin, but economic origin which eventually turned political and subsequently regarded as ethnic. Apart from their system of codifying ethnic distinction, the Belgian issued an I.D. card to all Rwandans, the identity card made clear into ethnic group and individual classification, on this card, Hutu and naturalist have been crossed out. Belgian continued to carryout policies that alienated Hutu and Tutsi from one another, including a system of forced labor were selected Tutsi overseas were tasked with physically punishing slower workers who are Hutu. After World War II, the status of many African colonies began to change the Belgium began to incorporate Rwandans more fully into the country's political institutions.

Point of note here is that, it is true that there was no much violence during the Belgian rule, but there was at some point, though they enjoyed a long time of stable peace. The stable peace was enforced through Belgium's subtle superior technical and military capability.

It is the policies and actions taken by the European power during that period fueled the animosities and distrust that eventually shaken the foundation of this peace and ignite substantial violence, including the 1994 genocide. The Belgian institution did not address issues important to Rwandans, particularly to the Hutu majority who have been long marginalized and permanently relegated. In the 1950's, the Hutus began to resist the Tutsis authority and the Tutsi and Hutu began to resist Belgian authorities. The Hutu and Tutsi also began to consider themselves in competition for power and access to scares resources.

The Belgian exacerbated rather than reduce the tension caused by their policies. As the tension increased, unstable peace have away to cross in the late 1950's. The Belgian began to remove the Tutsi's from their offices and mostly to be replaced by Hutu. In 1959 to be precise, violence began in form of clashes or in form of attacking Tutsi's by newly appointed Hutu administrators. By 1961, Hutu lead political forces succeeded in abolishing the Tutsi monarchy, forcing many Tutsis to seek refuge outside Rwanda and the Hutu political group then guided the Rwanda in collaboration with the Belgian colonist to their independence while the Tutsi are left out completely.

It was the combination of all the hatred and bitterness caused by the Belgian administration that accumulated to form the constant crisis that rocked Rwanda after their independence and the eventual genocide of 1994.

During the genocide, the UN responded quickly by sending some UN peace keeping forces, but it is a surprise that the UN peace keeping forces sent were only sent to mock Rwanda and Africa. Just like the slave masters watch their slaves fight in the cage during the slave trade.

The UN peace keepers were only sent to watch the fight, not separate it. But as the genocide increased, the captain who lead the peace keeping force communicated the New York office to inform them of the death toll and what is about to happen if no action is taken, but the United States instead of giving the forces the mandate to separate the fight or increase the number of forces, it instead advised the UN to withdraw the peace keepers. The UN drastically reduced the forces while the genocide continues.

It is important to ask that,why send peace keepers to Rwanda in the first place when they have no business there? Since the UN is not willing to lend any support to ending the Rwandan crisis, why form a Good Samaritan by sending observers as peace keepers? Finally, after over 1 million people have been killed, it is the Rwandan Patriotic Army that single handedly came in to rescue the situation by over powering the Hutu lead rebel.

The lesson here is that, no help would come from abroad should such ugly incident happen anywhere in this country, even in a small country like Rwanda, no external help came, they were left with their faith until they took their own destiny in their own hands.

Nigeria must be careful not to fall into such situation, as there would be no external help that could help the country. We must be mindful of our actions and words not to ignite a fire that would consume us.

Furthermore, it is easy to threaten and claim to be ready for war should a candidate not emerge, it is also very easy to make noise on the media and social media, but I want to assure you that, no nation or parts of nation goes to war against itself and come back as winners. War don't provide winners, particularly a war against yourself, both party in war come out of it as losers. We must be guided and also guide others.

On this note, let me call on the war mongers to make a retreat, war is not tea party. War is not militancy or insurgency, war is death and more death. War is hunger and more hunger. War is destruction upon destruction. War is destabilization upon destabilization. War is against peace and development. And finally,war is poverty, disease and cruelty against human nature. In war, there is no room for good governance, dividend of democracy or aspiration to have life fulfillment and other good things human desires. I urge all well meaning Nigerians to impress the need to desist from violent call to our leaders and political parties. I also call on the security agencies to be proactive in their response to violent situations. They should ensure to arrest perpetrators of violence and make them face the full wrath of the law. Their sponsor should also not be left out no matter who they are. We must act right and be mindful of our utterances.