Invasion Theories: Tool of the destruction for the Colonialists, Racists

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 similar theories in other parts 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. (Hittites are said to be descended from the same invading Central Asian hordes from which Indians are said to be descended. So here we have a direct connection with Aryan Invasion theory)

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 invaders.

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 original natives of India, who were forced into the jungles by the invasions and migrations of Dravidians and 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 socio-political consequences.

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 can 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 was 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 civil war.

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 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.

Why Swastika?

There is much confusion regarding Hinduism in both Hindus and non-Hindus and one of them is about the meaning and use of the symbol Swastika. Most of the modern Hindus themselves do not know its meaning and confuse it with Hitler’s Swastika. I think the confusion over this symbol of Hindus must be cleared.

Hindu history is a long tale of oppression, first by Islam, then Christianity and now Communism and Modernism. That’s why Hindu mind is colonized and Hindu psyche is under the grip of dhimmitude, the mental slavery. Hindus tend to abjure everything, which is regarded as communal by Communists and anti-Hindus. Swastika was associated with Hitler so Communists take it as a de-facto symbol of Fascism. By calling Swastika as a fascist symbol, at one hand they intimidate Hindus from using it, and on the other hand go on to claim that Fascism is an intrinsic property of Hinduism. Hindus like always become frightened and abstain from using one of their most auspicious symbols.

Hindu Swastika is very different from Nazi Swastika. There is virtually no connection between them. Hindu Swastika is a symbol and celebration of the circular nature of Nature and Time. It is a symbol of harmony and balance in Nature. The four hands of Swastika are identical and denote four seasons or Hritus. If you turn one hand of Swastika by 90 degrees then it remains identical. The next season takes the place of the previous one, but the Swastika doesn’t change and remains balanced. The harmony is maintained. Swastika embodies the circular concept of time. So it is considered as one of most auspicious symbols of Hinduism. And it is considered very inauspicious if it is drawn anticlockwise.

Now something about Hitler, Nazism, Fascism and Swastika. There is no relation between Hindu Swastika and Nazi Swastika. Hinduism was not in the least, the inspiration for Hitler. He regarded Hinduism as a defeatist philosophy and Hindus as Race 3, the third-grade human race, lowest of all. When Subhash Chandra Bose met him, Hitler told him point blank that he hated Hindus and thought it right that they should be ruled by the British.

The similarity between Hitler’s Swastika and Hindu Swastika is purely coincidental. The sameness of names is the result of the immature mind of Hitler. He never read much, seldom thought enough and often took decisions and formulated policies and theories in a rash and hurried manner. Having said this, it should be noticed that Nazi Swastika is black in colour, which denotes mourning in Hinduism and is considered inauspicious. No Hindu would dream Swastika as black, let alone draw it.

Secondly, Nazi Swastika is drawn anti-clockwise. An anti-clockwise Swastika spells disaster and doom in Hinduism. It is a complete reversal of the direction of the cycle of Nature, which indeed is disastrous.

Thirdly, Nazi Swastika is tilted. This is the sign of ultimate catastrophe in Hindu terms. Tilting the arms of Swastika means tilting the balance of Nature and tilting the balance of nature is an open invitation to catastrophe. And indeed it was a catastrophe for both Hitler and Europe. It brought devastation, annihilating the annihilator with it.

Thus Hindu Swastika is in no way similar to Nazi Swastika, but the two are exact opposite of each other. The seeming similarity is just a coincidence, but then the use of an auspicious Hindu symbol, however wrongly, by a Christian tyrant does not mean that Hindus must leave using it.

The Cross is associated with the massacre of numberless women and men in medieval Europe, under Inquisition. It is associated with the racial genocide of crores of Native Americans, Africans, Goans etc, with the witch-hunt of middle ages under which around fifty-lakh women were burned at stake. But Christians haven’t left using it as a symbol of sympathy and humanism. Islamic Crescent is associated with the Holocaust of many nations and races. Yet Muslims do not consider it a bit sullied and bear it proudly as their symbol.

Moreover even while using their own symbol of Cross, which is rightly identified with barbarity, massacre, racial genocide and oppression, Christian missionaries kept on sullying the symbols of pagans and other major religions in a crusade for converting whole world to Christianity. Swastika is not the only symbol which is sullied and degraded by Christian missionaries. There are many others.

We now remember a tilted and upside-down broomstick unmistakingly with witchcraft. Actually this symbol of the broomstick was also slandered against by the Christian Missionaries and the Church during the Inquisition of witches in Europe. Broomstick was a sacred symbol among the farmers of Europe. Before the harvesting season, in a certain ritual, the women used to sit over broom and sway up and down for some time, chanting mantras in order to ensure a healthy harvest. The Church interpreted it as a practice of followers of Satan and prosecuted those women who practiced it. Along with this it issued canons against this practice notifying that broomstick is the symbol of witches and everyone should leave using it. (One cannot help remember a similar practice in Hinduism in which the broom is worshipped on the day of Diwali.)

There is another case of the trident. The trident was associated with many pagan gods of Greeks and Romans. It was the symbol of power. But after the onset of Christianity in Europe, in a crusade against paganism it was interpreted as a symbol of Satan and was finally bequeathed to it. Many paintings, reliefs and sculptures were made in which Satan was portrayed with a trident in hand. Progressive generations got increasingly alienated from the symbol and finally it was only remembered as a tool of Satan. It was not revived and given a positive reputation until its inception as the tool of Triton, the mer-king in the fairy tale of “The Little Mermaid”. In a similar way the broomstick was given its due share of respect with its adoption, along with the whole baggage of witchcraft and wizardry, as a positive symbol and a vehicle of good witches and wizards in the tale of Harry Potter. It seems that the wheels are turning back in Europe and with the decline of Christianity, Pagan practices and Paganism with them is returning back to the peoples of Europe, at least in fairy tales.

The Trident and the Broomstick were revived in the Western world by some courageous writers and filmmakers even after the disappearance of Paganism from Europe, even when their gods were forgotten and destroyed. Hinduism has been both strong and fortunate in this respect. Its gods are not dead (I refer to death in this case as a period in which the images were in a state of disuse). They are still very much worshipped in the same way as thousands of years ago.

Then why Hindus have abjured the Swastika? The Cross and the Crescent are not abandoned even after the real crimes of their real followers. The Trident and the Broomstick are revived even when their religion and gods are forgotten. Then whey Swastika is abandoned, even when a corrupt form of Swastika was used cynically by a tyrant who was not its follower and who did not even acknowledge the link between the two symbols?

Swastika should be used as a symbol of Hinduism in an effort to restore its lost glory and to clear the misconception about it. Swastika denotes the earthly aspect of Hindu philosophy. It portrays the circular nature of Hindu philosophy and epitomizes the nature of Nature.

Like a bid to revive the ancient Hindu names of Anglicized and Islamized of Indian cities, like a bid to revive ancient Hindu culture from the Westernized one, like a bid to revive the pure form of Hindi from the Urduized and Persianized version, Swastika should also be used and campaigned for in order to regain its lost glory. Symbols, like gods, are never dead. They just fall into a period of disuse. If positive steps are taken to revive it then it is possible bring back their lost glory.

Hence it must be used by every Hindu in an effort to clear the stain, which was tagged to it due to the foolishness of Hitler. It will be a service to Hindu Dharma.