The animal ways in humans
As we approach the thirtieth anniversary of one of the most horrifying tribal genocides in history, the Rwandan genocide serves as a stark reminder of the depths of human brutality. In just 100 days, over 800,000 people lost their lives, with the majority of victims being Tutsis and the perpetrators largely from the Hutu tribe. Despite belonging to the same ethnic group and sharing language, traditions, and religion, they were not spared from a bloody and horrific fate.
The conflict over interests played a significant role in fueling this tragedy. As we reflect on the Rwandan genocide, it’s crucial that we learn from this dark chapter in human history. We must recognize the dangers of tribalism, prejudice, and unchecked power. We must prioritize peace-building, reconciliation, and the protection of human rights. The lessons from Rwanda compel us to work towards fostering understanding, empathy, and cooperation among diverse communities to prevent such atrocities from ever happening again.
The beginning of the tragedy was in 1916 with the arrival of the Belgian colonialists to Rwanda. Their need for the people of the country pushed them to bring closer to the best, in their view, the Tutsis, who made up 15% of the population, and alienated the Hutus, who made up 84%, out of a population of 32 million, 98% of whom were Christians.
Due to the near impossibility of distinguishing between members of the two tribes, the colonizer issued an order to include the name of the tribe in the identity card! The Tutsis welcomed this, and they enjoyed higher jobs and better educational opportunities than the Hutus, and they accumulated greater wealth, and their distinction continued until shortly before independence.
As problems accumulated and complaints increased about the Tutsis getting all the advantages, a series of riots broke out in 1959, in which more than 20 people were killed. Thousands of Tutsis died, and many fled to other countries.
When Belgium relinquished power and Rwanda gained independence in 1962, authority was transferred to the Hutus, who constituted the numerical majority. However, tensions persisted between the two ethnic groups. The shooting down of President Habyarimana’s
plane in early April 1994 marked a turning point, unleashing a wave of violence.
Hutu extremists, including elements of the army and armed civilians, embarked on a campaign of revenge. This began with the targeted killing of political opposition leaders, many of whom were Tutsis, followed by the slaughter of moderate politicians from both sides.
What ensued was the systematic mass killing of Tutsis wherever they could be found. Neighbors turned against neighbors, and even Hutus were compelled to kill their Tutsi spouses under threat of death themselves. Identity cards indicating tribal affiliation became deadly instruments, effectively serving as a “license to kill.” Machetes became the weapon of choice, often wielded mercilessly at checkpoints. The genocide in Rwanda stands as a horrifying testament to the depths of human depravity and the consequences of unchecked hatred and division.
It was very possible that the total number of victims of the Rwandan massacres, and what happened in its neighboring countries, which amounted to millions, would have been much less, had it not been for the identity system, which included the name of the tribe, inherited from the colonial era, and which continued to be used even after independence. The biggest reason was the large number of victims, without which it would have been impossible to know the person’s true tribal affiliation!
It is not surprising, therefore, that the majority of citizens of developed countries, such as Britain, where I lived for a long time, do not hold an identity card of any kind, other than a vehicle driving license, for example. Anyone whose identity is doubted by the police is detained until they are identified, or they are released and asked to visit any nearby police station to prove their identity. As for polling stations, banks, and other entities, they require some type of proof of identity, such as a passport, before carrying out the required procedure.
The National Guard, nearly 30 years ago, when His Highness the Amir was Deputy Chief of the Guard, banned the placement of a soldier’s last name on his jacket, so that family, tribal, or sectarian affiliation would not be exploited to obtain service that may not be legitimate. The rest of the security services subsequently followed the same procedure!
This wise measure came to show that affiliation must belong to the state only, and not to any other component. So when will the rest of the state’s agencies implement this simple measure in its importance?