By: Saumitra Sen
January 30, 2006
expressed here are author’s own and not of this website. Full disclaimer
is at the bottom.
The concept of Aryan Invasion theory being a handiwork of the British
colonialists for the sake of proving the superiority of the European
Caucasian races is not an isolated case. There exist a similar theory in
other part of the world, involving other nations and other ethnicities and
I wonder why hasn’t anyone yet given an attention over that.
If we see the map of middle Africa, we see two little countries named
Rwanda and Burundi, bordering Zaire (or Democratic Republic of Congo).
With the name Rwanda it suddenly flashes in our mind, the picture of
ethnic violence, civil war, genocide and military juntas. Few Indians know
the history of Rwanda or Burundi. These countries are inhabited by two
different so-called ethnic groups, namely Hutu and Tutsi. The ethnic
composition of these countries is as follows:
1) Rwanda – Hutu 84%, Tutsi 15%, Twa (Pygmies) 1%
2) Burundi – Hutu 85%, Tutsi 14%, Twa (Pygmies) 1%
Among these the minority Tutsis are believed to be the Hamitic people, a
race which was often intermixed with the whiter races from North,
particularly from Ethiopia and Egypt, which on their turn were intermixed
by the Asiatic people, mainly Hittites, by the repeated invasions from the
North. And these people are said to have arrived from North and thus not
the native people of Rwanda.
The majority of Hutus are believed to be Bantu, the original African race
which spilled out from the mid-Western African coast of Nigeria, Cameroon,
Ghana, Togo, Benin, Cote d’ Ivoire and the inland countries of Burkina
Faso and some other parts of the neighbouring countries.
Tutsis are considered to be the foreigners, invaders or migrants in the
Rwanda-Burundi region. Hutus are said to be a much older race but not the
original one. The original inhabitants of the Rwanda-Burundi region are
said to be the Pygmies, who consist only 1% of the population of the
region. It is said that Tutsis despite being the minorities, consider
themselves superior in race and constitute the reigning elite and
aristocracy of Rwanda-Burundi and they have subjugated the more indigenous
Hutus from centuries and have forced them to agriculture and to the
inferior position. Now, the crystallization of the theory. Hutus and
Tutsis are two completely separate races, with Black Hutus forming the
oppressed majority and the more original inhabitants of Rwanda-Burundi,
and the fairer Tutsis forming the oppressing minority and the foreign
This accounts for a Rwandan version of the Aryan Invasion Theory, namely
the Tutsi Invasion theory.
Here we have some startling parallels with the Aryan Invasion theory here.
Northern Indians, namely Aryans are said to be the ultimate foreign
invaders or migrants. Southern Indians, namely Dravidians are said to be
the much older inhabitants of Indian sub-continent who were invaded by the
Aryans and were oppressed and driven in the interiors and to the South of
the Indian continent, with the ultimate consequence of being incorporated
into the Hindu fold of caste system and occupying the lowest rung of
Indian society. And even these so-called Dravidians are not considered as
the original inhabitants of the India. There is said to be a Dravidian
migration into India long before that of the Aryans, and some so-called
aboriginals (such as Santhals) are considered to be the originals of
India, which were forced into the jungles by the invasions, migrations of
Dravidians, followed by Aryans.
About Aryan Invasion theory and the cause of its origin much has been said
in this debate, and will be said in future so here I go for the
explanation of Tutsi Invasion theory, its cause and origin and its
Hutus and Tutsis never as such existed as two different ethnic groups or
races and were never at war with each other. The history of ethnic
violence in the region began with the advent of colonialism in Africa and
Rwanda-Burundi. Rwanda-Burundi was a part of German East Africa but after
the World War I, it was occupied by Belgium and made a Belgian colony. It
was these colonial Belgian masters of Rwanda-Burundi who started
entertaining strange ethnic differences and racial differences between the
two so-called different groups Hutus and Tutsis, and created the
Hutu-Tutsi rift. They invented two separate races, the racist Tutsi
Invasion theory and invented the divide between them, labeling Tutsis as
aristocratic rulers and Hutus as the oppressed masses.
It seems that skin colour superiority is so deeply embedded in the psyche
of West that they rarely get out of it.
While the Hutu and Tutsi are often considered by the followers of this
Tutsi Invasion theory, as two separate ethnic groups, scholars point out
that they speak the same language, have a history of intermarriage, and
share many cultural characteristics. Traditionally, the differences
between the two groups were occupational rather than ethnic. Agricultural
people were considered Hutu, while the cattle-owning elite were identified
as Tutsi. Supposedly Tutsi were tall, thin and fair, while Hutu were
short, black and square, but it is often impossible to tell one from the
other. (as reported by the Time Almanac)
This distinction was increased and racialized in 1933 by the Belgian
government requirement that everyone carry an identity card indicating
tribal ethnicity as Tutsi or Hutu, in order to play the power politics
between the inhabitants of the nation and thus letting them bogged down in
Since, independence, repeated violence in both Rwanda and Burundi has
increased ethnic differentiation between the groups. Some 2.5 million
Tutsis and Hutus are massacred in mutual ethnic cleansing, and genocide.
The usual opportunist African leaders are much common in Rwanda-Burundi
and they have exacerbated the ethnic tensions of their countries by
inciting the hatred between the two groups on the basis of the supposed
ethnic difference between the two. Hutu leaders have described Tutsis as
cockroaches and they used to telecast their views on radio during the 1994
Rwandan genocide of Tutsis, which inspired the common Hutus to massacre
the Tutsis, in a bid to annihilate them completely.
So a peaceful, placid nation with a common populace was destroyed and
annihilated by the colonialist, racist view of the Tutsi Invasion theory.
But why are we learning this? Because Tutsi Invasion theory has ominous
parallels with Aryan Invasion theory as explained above. The cause of the
origin of TIT is also the same as that of AIT. And the ethnic tension and
violence was also incited between the North Indians and the South Indians.
The DMK, AIADMK and all the other anti-Hindu, anti-Brahmin movements
(namely the Periyar movement) were the consequence of this racist Aryan
Invasion theory. If not for Hinduism and its cultural ethos, India would
have gone the way of Rwanda and Burundi. (Remember, Rwandans and
Burundians have been converted to Christianity) But anti-Hindu leadership
of India, and the Marxist academia and media is bent on defending the
Aryan Invasion theory/AMT, in league with their traitorous aims, and
anti-Hindu, anti-Indian designs. By keeping the various sections of Hindu
society at war with each other they can maintain their political hold over
India, and AIT is a proven tool for their designs.
The opposition of AIT is derided as an emotional, chauvinist handiwork of
Hindu nationalist or fundamentalists. But the difference between Tutsis
and Hutus is denied by the modern genuine Western scholars (non-Witzels).
Is it also a handiwork of an emotional, chauvinist Tutsi nationalists?
The answer lies in the correct reading of the indigenous history through
various new tools of Science and Archaeology and the deconstruction of the
colonial edifice which has so far promoted the racist theories in order to
prove the White supremacy.
Send your views to author
Do you wish to reach our readers?
submit your guest column
Copyright and Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and not of this
website. The author is solely responsible for the contents of this
article. This website does not represent or endorse the accuracy,
completeness or reliability of any opinion, statement, appeal, advice or
any other information in the article. Our readers are free to forward this
page URL to anyone. This column may NOT be transmitted or distributed by
others in any manner whatsoever (other than forwarding or weblisting page
URL) without the prior permission from
us and the author.