Rwandans today mark the 31st anniversary of liberation (Kwibohora), which is celebrated every year on July 4. The date is significant as marked the end of a four-year war and the stopping of the Genocide against the Tutsi in 1994, which had been preceded by decades of ethnic division, persecution, massacres and exile. ALSO READ: VIDEO: Kigali residents reflect on the meaning of Kwibohora31 To comprehend the significance of July 4, one needs to dive into the decades before the Genocide and trace the origins of hate and how it fomented and formalised by various administrations. ALSO READ: 31 years after liberation, transformation continues Rwanda, before and after colonialism Rwandan history, for clarity purposes, gets divided into three historical epochs namely precolonial, colonial and post-colonial. In the precolonial period, the philosophy of one Rwanda for all Rwandans ruled supreme. Rwandans spoke one language, shared the same culture and held the same belief centred on the worship of Imana (God). Rwanda's social structure was based on clans (ubwoko) and lineages (umuryango), with families forming the basic unit. The Tutsi, Hutu and Twa existed as groups but social mobility and intermarriage were possible between them. They were social classes by connotation. Going by the fundamentals of sense and logic and the social development of society, Rwandans were one people. ALSO READ: A historical timeline of Belgium's divisive politics in Rwanda Colonial Rwanda means the period when Rwanda was under the rule of European powers, first Germany and later Belgium. Rwanda came under German rule as part of German East Africa in the 1890s. World War I enabled Belgium to take control of Rwanda in what the colonial administration renamed Ruanda-Urundi, which included Burundi. Belgium specifically employed a divide-and-rule policy based on ethnic divisions. The colonial period in Rwanda saw divisions exacerbated by the introduction of racial classifications and hierarchical structures, particularly between the Tutsi and Hutu populations. Missionaries and colonial powers, influenced by pseudo-scientific racial theories, reinforced existing social hierarchies, attributing a superior status to the Tutsi based on physical and social characteristics. It led to the formalisation of the Tutsi monarchy and the subjugation of the Hutu population. At the dawn of independence of July 1962 and during the two post-independence regimes of Presidents Kayibanda and Habyarimana, the Hutu were portrayed as having been exploited by Tutsi monarchists. The manipulation of ethnic identities for political gain by the two post-colonial regimes played a significant role in escalating these divisions. ALSO READ: Inside Rwanda’s Campaign Against Genocide Museum: A story etched in walls, monuments The Kayibanda regime rose to power in Rwanda after what was termed the 1959 revolution. It actively promoted ethnic divisions through policies that favoured the Hutu majority over the Tutsi minority. Quotas that limited Tutsi representation in education and the civil service were established. Only 9 per cent of secondary school and university seats were allocated to the Tutsi individuals. This was in spite of their proportion of the population. It was a direct attempt to increase Hutu representation in these areas, which effectively penalised the Tutsi. Existing social stratification was reinforced and ethnic tensions increased. Post-1959 polarisation In the aftermath of the so-called 1959 revolution and subsequent violence, the government suppressed political opposition, banning parties like UNAR and RADER and executing Tutsi members. It further marginalised the Tutsi community and limited their political participation. The government of Kayibanda continued the colonial practice of requiring ethnic identity cards and discouraged mixed marriages, further solidifying ethnic divisions and reinforcing social boundaries. The events of 1959 cannot be called a revolution because no revolution hinges on the division of the population. Both the Hutu and Tutsi masses should have been treated equally. To the contrary, the Tutsi were killed and their properties looted, burned, with thousands of them forced into exile in neighbouring countries. The Catholic Church played a significant role in supporting the PARMEHUTU party, the so-called Hutu emancipation movement, providing resources and networks that strengthened the government's position. The Kayibanda regime controlled the media, ensuring that newspapers supported its policies and promoted its agenda. These policies and actions created a climate of ethnic division, polarisation and animosity that would ultimately contribute to the Genocide against the Tutsi in 1994. The oppressive policies of the PARMEHUTU party sparked opposition by armed means. This is how the Inyenzi armed group was born. This was after the oppressive policies of the Kayibanda regime had forced many Tutsis and progressive Hutus to flee to neighbouring countries. Much as Inyenzi had a cause to fight for, they lacked unified leadership and a clear political line. The group ceased to exist in 1967. Under President Kayibanda, divisionism based on region and ethnicity was emphasised. The second republic under Juvenal Habyarimana, who took power in 1973, went on to the clan and family level. Regimes based on exclusionist ideology had consequences, such as the destruction of Rwanda as a unified nation, the destruction of properties belonging to the Tutsi, massacres and exile within and outside one’s own country. The question of Rwandan refugees Both the Kayibanda and Habyarimana regimes worked tooth and nail to frustrate Rwandan refugees in their countries of asylum. The Habyarimana regime’s strategy was to erase the concept of Rwandan refugees. According to the Minister of Defence, all refugees who returned were spies of Inyenzi. Returnees were totally mistrusted. Refugees were considered as a “fundamentally evil”. Those who had left in 1959 were regarded as the worst. Although the Rwandan government had since 1964 requested that refugees be settled in their countries of asylum, it did nothing to help them. On the contrary, its policy consisted of making life for them very difficult in those countries. Rwandan embassies watched refugees closely in their countries of asylum. The Habyarimna regime fomented division among refugees or caused conflicts within the people. It supported associations that fought the Tutsi in neighboring countries like Magrivi in North Kivu, Congo and the Abanyarwanda–Bahutu Association in Uganda. In 1982, Habyarimana decided that refugees had to settle in their countries of asylum because Rwanda was occupied at “full” capacity. In 1986, the central committee of his MRND party revisited this issue and suggested that refugees be naturalized by their host countries. The experiences lived in refugee camps affected the people and provided them with lessons through which their political awareness was aroused and the necessity to regain their motherland and recover all rights befitting any citizen of a country was strengthened. In different refugee communities, cultural awareness preceded political awareness. Towards the 1970s, there was a proliferation of cultural associations almost everywhere. Rwandan culture always stirred up Rwandan communities but the new strategy consisted of organising better and animating existing groups, creating new groups where they did not exist as well as organising public shows. They organised tours, music and dance performances, among other activities. Behind that cultural engagement was a nostalgic feeling for Rwanda and this later provided fertile ground for political awakening and support to the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) during the liberation war, which started in October 1990. The political awakening happened after Rwandans failed to integrate into President Idi Amin’s Uganda, followed by the massive expulsions of Rwandans under President Obote in 1982. Uncertainty loomed over Rwandan refugees in countries of asylum. The Tutsi inside the country were considered second-class citizens and were humiliated and persecuted. This climate of deception gave rise to political awareness, which translated into discussions between friends or parents and solidarity consciousness among all people who were in this situation of exclusion. The birth of RPF-Inkotanyi The Rwandese Alliance for National Unity (RANU) was created in exile. Time and the evolution of events led RANU to morph into the RPF-Inkotanyi, whose objectives included to fight against ethnic divisions and the ideology of divisionism by the Kigali regime. The RPF sought to fight against the grabbing of Rwanda’s riches by a small group of people. The other objective was to instill in Rwandans a sense of consciousness as far as their rights were concerned. It sought a solution to the refugee problem and fought the fascist regime of Habyarimana. It aimed at uniting all Rwandan intellectuals inside the country and in the diaspora to restore national unity in the spirit of “true democratic republicanism.” Liberation and stopping Genocide Once RPF had been created, replacing RANU, in 1987, military preparations escalated. Movement structures were confirmed. Short, medium and long-term objectives became clear. Orientation and political programme were specified. They included all Rwandans inside the country and in exile, Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. The programme was based on a critical analysis of the socioeconomic and political situation in Rwanda and countries in the region, especially those that hosted large Kinyarwanda-speaking and Rwandan communities. The RPF also analysed the experience of other liberation movements around the world. Its knowledge of Uganda’s National Resistance Movement (NRM) allowed it to avoid administrative errors. The correct politico-military strategy of RPF-Inkotanyi finally enabled it to defeat the genocidal regime and to stop the Genocide against the Tutsi. The victory after four years of fighting is enshrined in the annals of Rwandan history. The fourth of July is an asset for all Rwandans across generations. The echo across times is “Aluta continua” to safeguard this precious revolutionary asset.
