On June 20, 1994 Habimana Kantano of the genocidaires’ mouthpiece RTLM, announced he had good news for his listeners. But before breaking the news cynically asked them to sing a song with him. It was a rephrased hymn into a praise for the exterminated Tutsi with a maniacal giggle: Friends let us rejoice.... The Inkotanyi have all perished.... Friends, let us rejoice.... God is fair.... (Laughter). Before and during the genocide—words Inkotanyi, a Tutsi, enemy, cockroaches and accomplices— were used interchangeably. To understand this criminal celebration, cognizance of the genocidal propaganda is key. Criminal decrees In the history of the genocide against Tutsi in Rwanda, few heinous propaganda documents have carried such devastating repercussions as Kangura Issue No. 6 of December 1990, which introduced the infamously known Ten Hutu Commandments. These genocidal decrees were an unnerving manifesto of ethnic supremacy and incitement to violence against the Tutsi as a protected group. Among these commandments, the eighth, stood out as a particularly egregious call to abandon all semblance of humanity: Hutus must cease or stop having any pity for the Tutsi. At first glance, this commandment may appear as a mere exhortation to disregard compassion for a perceived enemy. However, when viewed within the context of the Genocide against Tutsi that unfolded just four years later, its true malevolence becomes horrifyingly clear. The insidious nature lies not only in its callous disregard for human suffering but also in its role in fostering genocide denial. By conditioning Hutus to view the lives of Tutsi as inconsequential, it creates a psychological barrier to acknowledging the magnitude of the atrocities committed during the genocide. The Kangura’s 8th instruction was a heartless invocation to view Tutsis not as fellow human beings but as expendable entities devoid of worth or dignity, reducing them to mere objects of disdain and contempt. By dehumanizing the other, perpetrators of genocide were able to rationalize their actions as justified, viewing their victims as unworthy of empathy or consideration. This psychological distancing enables individuals to commit genocide with impunity, shielded by a veil of ideological indoctrination. The consequences of such a directive were, and remain profound and far-reaching. By stripping away empathy, individuals were desensitized to the suffering of others, paving the way for acts of horrifying violence and cruelty. The psychological barrier of empathy serves as a fundamental restraint against perpetrating harm onto others. On the other hand, when this barrier is intentionally dismantled through propaganda and indoctrination, it unleashes a wave of brutality unrestrained by moral conscience. That is how we witness Congolese Tutsi being barbecued live on camera. The apex of dehumanization In the context of genocide, the prohibition against feeling pity or sympathy for the targeted group serves as a mechanism of psychological warfare. It reinforces the narrative of us versus them, casting the victims as the 'other' – less than human and deserving of their fate. It justifies the most heinous acts of violence by framing them as necessary for the preservation of one's own group. The commandment embodies the devious nature of genocidal ideology. It insinuates that empathy towards the 'enemy' is not only unnecessary but detrimental to the survival of one's own group—Hutu for that matter. It represents a pivotal moment in the dehumanization process. Such hatred cultivates a culture of impunity where atrocities are not only condoned but celebrated as acts of loyalty and patriotism. To comprehend the significance of instructing a group of people to relinquish empathy for another, one must understand the profound implications it carries within the framework of genocide. Empathy, the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, serves as a fundamental pillar of human morality and social cohesion. It fosters compassion, solidarity, and a sense of common humanity that transcends ethnic, racial, or cultural boundaries. However, when a group is explicitly instructed to suppress these natural inclinations, it paves the way for atrocities to occur without hesitation or remorse. By instructing Hutus to abandon any semblance of empathy or compassion towards Tutsis, it effectively severed the moral conscience of a significant portion of the population. Indifference During the 1994 Genocide against Tutsi, this lack of sympathy manifested itself in the most appalling manner imaginable. Hutu extremists embarked on a campaign of systematic slaughter, targeting Tutsis and Hutus who were against the slaughter with cold-blooded efficiency. Entire communities were razed to the ground, families torn apart, and countless lives extinguished in the name of ethnic purity. As we endeavor to shape a more unprejudiced and empathetic world, let us again heed the words of Elie Wiesel, himself a survivor of the Holocaust: The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Let us never forget the human cost of indifference and the imperative of empathy in preserving the dignity and sanctity of every life. The normalization of indifference towards the Tutsi population contributed and still contributes to a culture of impunity, where perpetrators of genocide are shielded from accountability. The tragic consequences of the eighth commandment reverberated throughout Rwanda and beyond. It happened in Rwanda in 1994. In 2024, the same indifference to the plight of Tutsi is in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It stands as humanity's capacity for evil and the depths of depravity to which individuals and societies can sink.
