Rwanda’s colonial history is one marred with ambivalences. It is one of the worst socio-economic realities. Its philosophy was based on divide and rule. The indivisible Rwandan society, going by scientific parametres, had to be divided at any cost basing on concocted fallacies. It was to cost Rwandans so much. Political parties at the beginning lacked insight into real intentions of colonialism.

In 1960, the transition from what PARMEHUTU called a feudal, colonialist and racist monarchy had become impossible. PARMEHUTU put forward the idea of two confederated regions, one for the Tutsi and the other for the Hutu. They drew examples from the Flemish and Walloons in Belgium.

ALSO READ: A glance at socio-political chaos that followed Rudahigwa’s sudden death

This was submitted to the United Nations and areas suitable for each group were proposed. To them, the Tutsi and the Hutu differed fundamentally. The advocates of two zones for each group centred on the idea that one group would be eliminated.

The racial myth created by the colonialists for ulterior motives had gripped Rwandan politicians. This serialized narrative aimed at charting the objective history of Rwandans. Rwandans from time immemorial lived together intertwining and intermingling.

Legend has it that Gihanga, the creator of Rwanda, crisscrossed the region and went up to Bunyabungo (in today’s DR Congo). Wherever he passed and lived he was welcome thanks to his civility and technological know-how. He would be given a daughter in marriage.

ALSO READ: How circumstances overtook Kigeli V Ndahindurwa

Gihanga was versed in metalwork, woodwork and pottery as well as in hunting, cattle rearing and fire making. He is believed to have had talents in leadership, technology and spirituality. Buhanga, in today’s Musanze District, is believed to have been the cradle of Rwanda nation-state. There he was with all the wives he got across his itinerary.

Programmes for most political parties had similarities. The difference lay in internal autonomy and independence. UNAR party wanted independence from Belgian colonialists and with no strings attached. Internal autonomy which meant collaboration with Belgians was rejected.

The other three parties wanted the democratization of the country first. Gitera saw independence as a witch hunt of whites. To him it was the same as bringing back supposed forced labour, exploitation and tyranny of the Tutsi.

ALSO READ: Mutara III Rudahigwa became Belgian choice after Musinga’s disgrace

Political parties began campaigns after the approval of the multiparty system. UNAR opposed colonialism. In the meeting of September 1959 held at Nyamirambo, its leaders discussed national unity, autonomy and independence.

In the beginning, UNAR is said to have enjoyed success because of their political stand. This made most chiefs and sub-chiefs join the party. One R. Lemarchand, A French-American political scientist attributed UNAR’s success to nationalism, which united all Rwandans towards progress in all forms. In 1995 he was to write the book: "Rwanda: The Rationality of Genocide”. He will be of help in this series as we progress to project objective Rwandan history.

UNAR met strong opposition from the trusteeship administration and to an extent the Catholic church. The Belgian colonial administration used all means to destabilize UNAR. Three influential chiefs in UNAR: M. Kayihura, P. Mungarulire and C. Rwangombwa were transferred maliciously. A pretext was hatched accusing them for having attended UNAR meeting when they were civil servants.

The trusteeship administration sabotaged UNAR during campaigns. Bishops Bigirumwami and Perraudin are said to have warned Catholics against UNAR. UNAR thought that those who were not with them were against the country. By demanding immediate independence and breaking ties with the metropolitan power earned them being accused of collaboration with other African nationalists, hence their inclination to communism.

Political party activities are yet in progress and more is to come as we move forward.