60 years after the UN Convention - Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation

180 development dialogue december 2008 – revisiting the heart of darkness
ed imperial authority over this colony in the mid-1890s 13 the greater
part of present-day Rwanda was under the control of a centuries-old
monarchical state 14 fairly rigidly stratifi ed into a ruling Tutsi elite that
almost exclusively practised pastoralism and Hutu commoners who
were mainly agriculturalists. 15
In pre-colonial Rwandan society Hutu and Tutsi were neither ethnic
nor racial identities. Firstly, there had been a thoroughgoing acculturation
between the two groups by the time of colonisation. Over
several generations Hutu and Tutsi intermarried extensively, came to
share the same language, Kinyarwanda, as well as the same social customs
and religion. Secondly, it was possible for a small number of the
most successful Hutus to become Tutsi, through the practice of kwiihutura
(shedding Hutuness), and for a fall in social status from Tutsi to
Hutu (gucupira) to occur. 16 Also, Hutus were not completely excluded
13 Germany claimed Rwanda as a colony in the mid-1880s but only posted colonial
administrators a decade later.
14 A Tutsi-dominated state emerged in east-central Rwanda from the early 16th century
onwards and had developed into a highly centralised monarchical state by the
middle of the 18th century. The mwami (king), considered to be of divine origin, was
in control of a standing army and ruled through an elaborate bureaucracy of mainly
Tutsi chiefs. The Tutsi aristocracy maintained control through a feudal-like arrangement
of clientship known as ubuhake. In this arrangement of mutual obligation the patron
would provide the client with cattle and access to land in return for loyalty, tribute
payments and labour service (ubureetwa). Nearly all patrons were Tutsis and clients
could either be Hutu or poorer Tutsi. Only Hutu were subject to labour service,
underscoring their subservient status. Not all Tutsi were wealthy and not all Hutu were
poor though high status and political power were fi rmly associated with the Tutsi.
15 The archaeological record indicates that about 3000 years ago migrating Bantuspeaking
people probably from west-central Africa settled in the area of fertile
highlands that today comprises Rwanda and Burundi. Their descendants would
later form the basis of the Hutu grouping. Hutu identity is clearly not primordial but
most likely emerged amongst subject people in response to Tutsi state formation.
About six centuries ago they were joined by pastoralists who had most probably
come from present-day south-eastern Ethiopia and Somalia. These people and their
descendants came to form the basis of the Tutsi grouping. The new migrants were
not only culturally distinct from the Hutu but were also physically diff erent, being tall
and slender with thin, elongated features which were an adaptation to the hot, dry
climate from which they emanated. Some scholars would add that their tall stature
was also partly due to a protein-rich diet of milk and meat. The evidence points to the
pastoralist Tutsi and Hutu cultivators living together peacefully in the earlier period of
contact. In Kinyarwanda the word Tutsi means ‘rich in cattle’ while Hutu means ‘subject’
or ‘servant’. The correlation between identity and economic activity was far from
absolute. There were many poorer, even cattleless, Tutsi and some richer cattle-owning
Hutu in pre-colonial Rwanda.
16 A Hutu family that had gained signifi cant wealth and managed to marry Tutsi women
could over a period of a few generations become Tutsi. This co-opting of successful
Hutu was crucially important for shoring up minority Tutsi control by preventing the
emergence of a Hutu counter-elite.