Sudan victim of two conflicting world views.

A W Shumay

17/10/2010

Sudan was conquered with the help of the British with one thing in mind, to consolidate British hegemony over Egypt. To secure this deal, Britain had to have a firm grip over the Nile River starting from its sources in the high mountains of central and east Africa right down to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. Egypt which was then a British protectorate itself had already occupied most of Sudan by the 1820. It was given the right to share in ruling Sudan after the defeat of the Mahdists by the British army at the close of the nineteenth century. The Egyptians were allowed to have administrative powers of this new colony known as Anglo-Egyptian Sudan.

In the early twentieth century Britain signed many riparian treaties with the Egyptian authorities in order to dispel their fears that the Nile and its sources might fall into the hands of unfriendly European powers. Britain in return, gained the right of ownership and control of the strategic water way the Suez Canal. The canal was dug out by French engineers at the close of the nineteenth century. It was one of most grandiose man made project of its time. It’s purpose was to connect the Mediterranean and the Red Seas for the use of shipping lanes. All the areas bordering the Red Sea were, therefore, hurriedly to be secured either by British forces directly or by forces that were allied to her, such as the Italians.

Initially, this type of Anglo-Egyptian business dealings seemed to serve the British side better than to their Egyptian counterparts. By considering the size and might of its naval power Britain was thought to have the upper hand in securing the control of this strategic water way for a long time to come. The British were, therefore, very careful not to antagonise the Egyptian authorities with Sudanese affairs as their top priority was to keep the canal open and maintain permanent control of this important sea passage for British ships and its allies to India and Australia via the Red Sea. After the Second World War, however, British power was challenged and its Empire was on the decline and after the rise of Arab nationalism Britain was forced to abandon Suez during the War of 1956 with Egyptian nationalists.

As for the inhabitants of bi-colonial Sudan, their wishes and long term interests were either deliberately ignored or considered not important by their joint colonial masters. Hence, the ancient black nations of Kush, Nubia, Beja, Fur, Dar, Nuer, Dinka and Kordofan nations were all lumped together without paying any attention to their linguistic differences or paying due regard to their historical backgrounds.

After studying this pathetic Anglo-Egyptian marriage of convenience of colonial dealings, one is led to conclude that Sudan from its very inception was a creation of two antagonistic forces each with its own designs and selfish objectives.

Sudan was known to be the centre and the source of many African languages and home to many sophisticated civilizations. The Nubian civilization, for example, rivalled that of ancient Egypt or Kemet and from to time to time great Nubian dynasties ruled Egypt for many centuries. It is, therefore, sad to notice that so many of the Kordofanian languages disappearing completely from the face of the map without any trace, only to be replaced by creolised Egyptian dialects. In today’s northern Sudan the age old African religions and traditions have already been eradicated and replaced by imposed alien cultures. This was achieved by the relentless effort of Egyptian colonialists during the nineteenth century. As a result, the northern Sudanic populations have now all been acculturated to Egyptian norms of thinking who now blissfully choose to forget their African heritages. 　

The British on the other hand, with the help of other European missionaries were busy converting the indigenous populations of the south with their values of western behaviour. They were also intending to split Sudan into its major constituent parts before they hastily left the country in 1956. It seems they were caught off guard and were rushed to leave Sudan before it was declare independent in 1956. South Sudan was ruled by the British independent of Northern administration prior to their departure in January 1956. Their intention was to make the South separate and independent state sometime in the future before they left.

After their hurried departure, however, the southerners found themselves in a complete quandary, with Khartoum as their new master. This been the case the majority of the black populations of the entire south felt betrayed and abandoned by the British who left them to fend their own future and destiny by themselves. With the Arab-speaking North in full control of the South they felt they had no other choice but to consult the Northerners if they can willingly allow them to manage their own affairs.

One can only assume that their pleas must have fallen on deaf ears when they decided to take matters into their own hands. They resorted to wage an armed struggle in order to free themselves from the yoke of Arab domination. When war of liberation is being waged all across the land, one is bound to ask why did the southerners decide to arm themselves and wage war of liberation against the Arabic-speaking Northerners? Was there any thing that the northerners could have done to mend things from getting out of control? Did they make any effort to salvage Sudan from the current predicament that it now finds itself in today? If so, what sort of compromise did they offer to their Southern opponents in order to answer their general grievances and resentments? Clearly, the answer to most of these questions is unfortunately a blatant NO. ‘The proof of the pudding is on the eating’, as the old English saying goes.

The typical Arab-speaking northerner mostly considers himself to be more equal than the darker or charcoal black African southerner. The age old, class stratification practice based on the colour of the skin, and the old practice of master/slave relationships, ‘old bad habits die hard‘, as they say, are still rampant in today‘s Sudan as they were two centuries ago.. A typical Arab-speaking northerner considers himself Arabic first and African second. He prefers to focus towards the east or the north rather than south or west as his Nirvana. The Arabic speaking northerner would like to boast openly of his Arab culture while ignoring his African roots deliberately. To him ‘blood is not thicker than water’, and the black genetic make up that runs deep in his veins is less significant compared to his new religion or his acquired culture of his superiors.

Tragedies caused by human failings and of a mistaken identity crisis due to the lack of clear world view is not unique to Arabic Sudan alone. There are many countries in the world today who could be classified in the same category as the Sudan with a serious national or regional identity crisis. At long last, it seems that the terrible sufferings endured by the peoples of South Sudan for many centuries is coming to an end. Therefore, one could confidently predict, God Willing, that the good will triumph over evil on Referendum day, 9 January 2011.