Daoud Boulad -The Revolutionary Legend of Darfur

By El-Tahir El-Faki

July 3, 2007 — Daoud Boulad’s militancy for which he gave his life became an example throughout Darfur to galvanise and transform the consciousness of the region into a newly inspired political and military strength. His courageous struggle which cost him his life turned him into a heroic symbol in Darfur. Boulad became a catalyst that has awakened Darfur to rise against tyranny of corrupt Khartoum rule and fight to end marginalisation that has besieged the whole country.

Boulad was born in the early 1950s in Darfur and went to public school after memorizing the Koran and learned the basics of reading and writing. It should be noted here that all children of his age who went to high secondary schools had no choice but to leave their homes for towns or cities further away from their homes to where such schools were available. For that reason, he went to the government‘s high secondary school in the city of Al-Fasher in Northern Darfur and studied Islamic/Arab history and culture as well as science. As a young man, Boulad joined the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, which its members considered themselves superior class of Muslims and regarded their Sheikh as an exclusive divine leader of all Muslims over the globe. He made it to the University of Khartoum, which was not an easy task for a Darfurian in the early seventies where limited places were available in hard competing atmospheres. He was elected President of the Student’s Union of the University of Khartoum in 1973/74. His charismatic personality captured the imagination of his fellow students who were attracted to his eloquent and fiery speeches against the Nimeiry regime in the rallies held at the university courtyards. Although Arabic was not his mother’s tongue, he managed to shed aside native accent and the Fur dialect to speak perfect standard Arabic. I had the honour of being his colleague and close associate as a member in the student’s union at the University of Khartoum sharing the same values.

Boulad was regularly harassed by the security forces of Nimeiry and spent some time in Dabak prison in the Northern part of Khartoum where politicians considered to be dangerous to the regime were held. At one time, he managed heroically to evade his captors and escaped from his confinement. As we will see, that incident was later abused by the National Islamic Front (NIF) and cost him his life. Having finished his university education in Khartoum, he then returned to his region of Darfur where he lived for years working as a businessman. He continued to be an active member of the Islamic movement until it took power in Sudan in June 1989. His long waited-for vision and faith in the Muslim ideal of a perfect Islamic state did not materialise and above all contradicted those held by his fellow Muslim brothers from the Northern part of Sudan. It then became obvious to him that his Northern fellow party members monopolised power, enjoyed great economic privileges and enormous political and social influences under the new Islamic regime. That phenomenon was not in Darfur alone, but all over the Sudan. Boulad was perhaps one of the few among the Muslim Brothers to realise that the new spirit of Arab nationalism and Islamic faith he shared with the ordinary members of his Movement proved to be a divisive factor negating the ideals he believed in.

Soon after, Boulad came out once more in the active political life as an insurgent SPLA/SPLM commander claiming to propagate its armed struggle into the heart of Darfur. Despite the lack of evidence so far to support the views that Boulad switched allegiance to join the secular and the liberal Dr John Garang of the SPLA/SPLM, subsequent to a specific incident, it seems reasonable to suggest retrospectively that he became alienated and frustrated when he saw the (Islamic civilisation project) falling apart and ending into a tool for repression and perpetuation of backwardness. The strains and stresses of power struggle among members of the NIF, blandishments, nepotism, wide spread corruption, threats of plots and of internal fighting each pursuing its own interests and its policies led to tyranny and repression of the same people the NIF came to help. NIF’s economic failure brought hardships and poverty and its army suffered great losses in the South. All these predicaments combined created deeply troubled and discontented Boulad. For him as a Darfurian, mounting sense of marginalisation, humiliation, inferiority and frustration compounded with his inability to solve even the simplest of problems for the region diverted him to the side of the SPLA/M.

It wasn’t clear to the observant how the SPLA would uncritically accept Boulad into the movement without authenticating his departure from his old objectives and visions of an Islamic State! He must have efficiently demonstrated his seriousness to be received into the movement. Boulad knew very well that for Darfur to have a viable movement against the NIF, it needed support by a strong political body like the SPLA/M. It was well known that the SPLA/SPLM laid down strict requirements and harsh methods to recruit followers before allowing them to engage in military operations. It was therefore that the events preceded his defection to the SPLA would not have developed overnight. Whether he deserted the Islamic movement and transferred his allegiance to his once old enemy or entered into a temporary alliance with the SPLA/M remains to be explored. It was also not known whether his defection was pre-arranged with others holding high offices and who were to join him later should he succeed. Nevertheless, Boulad gained military training in Southern Sudan under the SPLA command and was dispatched in a mission as a commander of a small battalion to Darfur early in July 1990 and emerged in the region later by October 1990. At the same time, Dr Al-tayeb Ibrahim Mohammed Kheir, nickname ‘Sikha’, who was once one of the bodyguards for Daoud when he was the president of the student’s union was the appointed governor of Darfur. The expedition was not well-organised and suffered serious hardships. As soon as Boulad reached Darfur, the government security forces knew all about his movements. As Boulad’s passage to homeland in Jabal Marra was huge and inhabited by hostile Arab tribes to the SPLA/M, it was not difficult for the government to pursue its old favoured strategy of using local Arab militias and arming them to fight against Boulad’s forces. The expedition ended in disaster and Boulad was soon captured following betrayal by his own Fur tribe.

As it was reported, Boulad arrived at a small area in Jabal Marra called Dilaige dressed in rags, unshaven and unkempt to approach a farmer working along with his son. He asked them if they knew Boulad? Their answer was no. He told them that he was Boulad and that he needed to wash and shave. They allowed him in and went to continue with their work. At that moment officials from the local municipal were looking for stolen herd when they came upon the same farmer and his son. The farmer’s son told the officials that Boulad was in their compound washing himself. He was then caught and handed over handcuffed to his once former junior Dr Sikha.

The government was jubilant and Al-Bashir himself flew to Al-Fasher to handle the matter personally. The media then portrayed Boulad as an apostate, a convert to Christianity and an infidel who was inciting sedition and blasphemy. It was reported that he was brought before Sikha himself, looking exhausted and given little opportunity to speak out. Given his experience with Sikha whom he knew very well, he must have understood that he would not survive the ordeal. As it was later reported, Boulad requested to be taken to Khartoum for trial but his pledge was refused. Al-Bashir declared that Boulad was persona non grata and should be disposed of. Three days later the governor’s media announced that Boulad was shot while trying to escape and later died of his wounds. The scenario of his execution was based on the previous precedence of his escape from Dabak’s prison in the early seventies. Boulad was never seen again and the whereabouts of his grave is not known. The story of his alleged escape has never been independently verified. The answer still rests with Al-Bashir, Altayeb Sikha and the Islamic junta.

Boulad abandoned the ‘NIF’ because of its apparent non-adherence to justice and equality ideals. He started to understand that those issues could be addressed by other means such as secularism where it practically failed under the theocratic values of the ‘NIF’. Above he realised that it was nothing wrong for him as a Muslim to adopt secular sentiments and fight for its cause. This view is supported by the fact that he joined the SPLA/M fighting the rights of the marginalised in a secular state and did not shift to join or formed another Islamic movement of his own.

Boulad’s legacy was of utmost importance in the new political struggle for power and wealth in the region. His rebellion was not directed against Islam or religion as such. It was directed against the use of religious argument and against sentiments to justify corruption and domination by privileged minorities and suppression of those seeking to exist as equal citizens. In other words, his stand was part and parcel of the movement of the marginalized against the tyranny of a corrupt State. The rule of the NIF witnessed the emergence of a new upper class of Muslim brothers that possesses enormous fortunes in cash and property supported by the political might of the state. These fortunes were achieved by holding government posts with unlimited opportunities for illegal earnings by trade or banking, loans or tips and exploitation of property and other means. Having witnessed such widely spread corruption and evidenced manipulation of his Darfurian people who were sent for the so-called martyrdom in the war against the SPLA, Boulad became disappointed with the regime that he helped to establish.

Boulad’s action signified the fact that Darfurians do not lack initiatives, courage and energy for change on their own. It is equally true that during past regimes too few of Darfur leaders rose for a common cause for Sudan as a whole using an armed struggle. Boulad became a pioneer by joining the SPLA/M that calls for a united Sudan through an armed struggle. Contemporary Darfurian elites who joined the government of the ‘NIF’ and later defected to the current rebellion in Darfur view Boulad as their hero and aspirant for instigating the revolution against what was once their Islamic vision. Their action is analogous to what he did in his course for seeking truth and political certainty. Therefore, it is unreasonable to exploit past political affiliations to justify sanctions against some of Darfur leaders simply because they were once members of the ‘NIF’.

The material result of what was termed “Islamic civilisation project” adopted by the NIF was disappointing to most of the Darfurians who recall the propaganda of idealism with which the Islamic movement used to advocate. They were led to believe in a new era of equity and justice for all. Boulad set the precedence for the new generation to shed away their old ideological ties without shame and join armed resistance or constitute opposing forces and movements of their own.. The failure of the “Islamic civilisation project” as a whole and the ridicule it brought against those who believed in it made it possible for others who critically but constructively opposed it in private to come out to the surface and oppose it in public. The “Islamic civilisation project” ultimately disintegrated and turned into a mechanism for recruiting its own enemies from among those Darfurians who ardently professed and fended it. The decline and eventual collapse of the “Islamic civilisation project” equated the enthusiasm by which it was first prescribed. The final result of its demise has been the seeds of the current Darfur crisis.

* Dr. El-tahir El-Faki, is the Secretary General of the legislative Council, Justice & Equality Movement. He can be contacted at: Email [email protected]