South Sudan separation or failure of Arab Muslim elite

By Jacob K. Lupai

October 6, 2010 — One time in a demonstration in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, after the overthrow of the regime of Ibrahim Aboud in 1964 through an uprising, people in the streets chanted, “no south without the north and no north without the south” as a slogan. The expression was for unity of Sudan. People chanted on top of their voices, so little did hey care to give it a thought as to how to make unity attractive to the South that was already in the middle of an armed struggle against unattractive unity that was being imposed militarily. The armed struggle in the South accelerated the fall of Aboud’s regime. However, did the fall of Aboud’s regime make anything better for the South? Not at all, instead northerners working in the South were turned into mercenaries by being paid southern allowance to brutalise the South into submission for unity on the terms of the North. For those who think of nothing else except of unity of Sudan it is important that they have an understanding of North-South relations.

Sudan is Africa’s largest country by area and is ruled as an empire as it was when the Ottomans and the British ruled it. The government in Khartoum governs by marginalisation, neglect and repression. Although the word Sudan means “the land of black people” in Africa, Sudan has always been ruled by Arab Muslim elite. When one asks those Arab Muslim elite if they are African one will get an ambiguous reply. However, when asked if they are Arab the immediate reply is a big yes of course. The Arab Muslim elite of Sudan seem to think of themselves as in Africa but not of Africa. Looking north they see themselves as Arab and Islamic but when looking south it is in the spirit of Arabisation and Islamisation of the blacks considered primitive and uncivilised.

Before independence from the British colonial rule the British ruled the North and the South as separate countries. This British rule was later to be claimed by the Arab Muslim elite as the cause of North-South divide. This is of course false. The Arab Muslim elite are the cause of North-South divide. Immediately after independence they vigorously pursued a policy of Arabisation and Islamisation of the South in the vain belief that this would make unity attractive. In view of this northerners and southerners never established a common understanding of what Sudan is or what being a Sudanese means. The two parts of Sudan, the North and the South, as separate countries were united only in 1947 after a hasty conference was convened to try to convince southerners of unity of Sudan merely nine yeas before independence.

The nation state called Sudan did not grow out of a common identity but was imposed. The South found itself at a disadvantage. The northern Arab Muslim elite inherited a country in which about 83 per cent of investment was concentrated in the North. Since the overwhelming majority of the new rulers came from the North it was at their disposal to make unity attractive most importantly through equitable investment in the South, but did they? Do we have to blame the British after 54 years of independence for the unity that has been made unattractive to the South by the Arab Muslim elite dominated successive governments of Sudan? I hope Sudanese have convincing answers to the above two questions.

A French expedition came across Africa from Senegal on the west coast and stopped at Fashoda in South Sudan. However, the British could not allow the French to have a stake in the Nile valley and so they dispatched a force down the Nile to confront the French. When the British arrived, both sides simply stared at each other. Each side tried to avoid creating a scene. Both the British and the French decided to check with their respective superiors just to make sure they were not there supposed to slaughter each other. The two armies settled down together awaiting orders. When orders finally arrived the French government backed down and recalled its army to Senegal. The Nile, from Lake Victoria to the Mediterranean, was to be British. If the French had not blinked at Fashoda South Sudan might have been a separate francophone country. All the same the British ruled the North and the South as separate countries.

As independence approached suspicion grew in the South of northern intentions to annex the South to the North. This suspicion blew up in a form of rebellion by the southern corp based at Torit on the east bank of the Nile some 84 mils from Juba the capital of South Sudan. The rebellion marked the South Sudan’s first war that began in 1955 and was fought for secession of the South. The war ended in 1972 in a deal that gave the South more resources and more autonomy. However, the Arab Muslim elite dominated government reneged on the deal and leaned towards militant Islam. A group of southern army officers picked up the southern cause. The southern army officers waged a protracted war of liberation for 22 years. As there was no way to impose unity on the South militarily, an agreement was reached that virtually recognised the South as a separate country. Importantly in the agreement the South was granted the right to self-determination through a referendum and the South was exempted from Islamic sharia, making it distinct from the North. As to confirm that the North and the South were indeed two separate nations, the South was granted the right to have its own armed forces like any other sovereign nation. If that does not show that indeed the North and the South are two separate nations, it is difficult to know what does that show.

Objectively, practically and realistically North and South Sudan are two separate nations in all counts. The Palestinians and the Israelis are cousins as the grand sons and daughters of Abraham yet the world is seeking a two states solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. What solution is the world seeking for North-South Sudan conflict for people who are totally different from each other in all respects. The North is populated by people who think they are Arab while the South is populated by people who do not only think but are original black Africans, physically and culturally different from the Arab Muslims of the North. As always Arabs assume racial superiority over black Africans. This may explain the desperate attempt by some northern Arabic-speaking blacks to associate with Arabism as a way of gaining a higher status. A southerner who has lived in the North must have experienced a direct or indirect reference by the Arabs to them as slaves. This is not something strange. It happens on daily basis for southerners who are living in the North.

In defining what is an Arab in a gathering of Arab leaders they defined an Arab as, “Whosoever lives in our country, speaks our language, is brought up in our culture and takes pride in our glory is one of us”. Another definition of an Arab by a Western academic is, “All those are Arabs for whom the central fact of history in the Mission of Muhammad and the memory of the Arab Empire and who in addition cherish the Arabic tongue and its cultural heritage as their common possession”. From the two definitions of an Arab it is clear that a black Arabic-speaking (Arabophone) Muslim may like to identify themselves as Arabs to elevate themselves to a position of acceptance by what may be termed the true Arabs. The suffering from inferiority complex may be the reason to identify with the Arabs to share the history of culture and glory. It is therefore not strange to see a black Arabic-speaking Muslim Sudanese in the North preferring to be indentified as an Arab rather than a black African. However, for example, in Saudi Arabia dark-skinned Arabs like those in Sudan may be considered inferior to their lighter-skinned cousins.

People must accept the reality that North and South Sudan are two separate nations. The marginalised black Africans of Darfur, Kordofan, Blue Nile and the non-Arab Beja should not be negative and worry unnecessarily about the imminent independence of South Sudan. In fact independence to South Sudan should be seen as the triumph of good over evil. Things will never be the same again when South Sudan is independent. The marginalised in the North will have their rights respected because that would be the only way to keep the North together. However, it is easier said than done. The Arab Muslim elite at the centre will not easily give up their inherited privileges from the British. The marginalised in the North will need to make a push for democracy, justice and equality to prevail.

In conclusion the secession of South Sudan shows the utter failure of the Arab Muslim elite who inherited from day one the reign of power from the British. Self-centredness masked by ignorance in calling fellow countrymen uncultured and uncivilised, and the lack of development in the South in contrast to that in the North has cost Sudan dearly. Refuge in religion has not been helpful either. The use of force to maintain the unity of Sudan will be the worst in the living memory of any Sudanese as the South is ready to defend itself at any cost. The only way to salvage what is left is for people to accept the inevitable secession of the South with grace and to vigorously promote peaceful co-existence. The blame is on the utter failure of evolving an inclusive Sudanese identity and equitable development when the British left. Unfortunately human weakness seems to have taken the upper hand hence Sudan is nothing but the sick man of Sub-Saharan Africa.

The author can be reached at [email protected]