Vive John Garang (5-6)
By Setepano Wöndu
August 1, 2008 — This July, we should replay Dr John’s argument that the Sudan is a centuries old phenomenon and not a recent creation of European colonialism. He traced the various events and scenarios of national formation as far back as the creation of humanity. According to this concept, Sudan as a nation state is not only viable but has the potential for greatness. Not many Sudanese were enthused by this fascinating obsession with medieval history but nobody came up with a convincing counterargument. Even those who had to listen to these words over and over again for a couple of decades were unsure of Dr John’s motive for hammering the point. Did he intend to ignite patriotism and national pride? Was he trying to prove that Sudan historically belonged to black people but the later comers were welcome if they do not monopolize power? Was the intention to alley fears that he had a hidden secessionist agenda? Was he just teasing everyone? Let us listen to him again and think more deeply about the facts as he presented them and the underlying motives. This particular extract is from a speech he made at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington D.C in December 1995. Typically he repeated it at the Brookings Institution, the National Press Club and indeed in all other speeches he made in the United States in the nine years of my tenure as the SPLM representative there.
“The basic problem of the Sudan is that its reality, both in its historical perspective and its contemporary context, conflicts diametrically with the policies that have been pursued by the various governments that have come and gone in Khartoum since independence in 1956. What characterizes the Sudan is its diversity.
In its history the Sudan goes back thousand of years to biblical times. It can be inferred from Genesis 2:10-14 that the Garden of Eden was a much larger territory than a modern estate and that it included present day Sudan. The river which went out of Eden to water the Garden had four heads. The first head was Pison which passed through the land of Havilah that was rich in high quality gold and other minerals. The second river was Gihon and it passed through the lands of Ethiopia. The name of the third river was Hiddekel passing towards the east of Assyria. The fourth river was Euphrates. It does not demand too much intelligence to figure out that the first river must have been the White Nile, the second the Blue Nile. There is an old hotel in Addis Ababa called Gihon. The third the Tigris, and the fourth is of course, the very same Euphrates as we know it today.
The book of prophet Isiah Chapter 18 talks about Kush, the land beyond the mountains of Ethiopia that is spoiled by rivers and that is peopled by tall black smooth-skinned beautiful people that send ambassadors to Jerusalem. That is an unambiguous description of present Southern Sudan. It still gets flooded [spoiled by its many rivers] and is still inhabited by black tall smooth beautiful people, some of whom are sitting here with you; referring to Deng Alor, Francis Deng, Rebecca Nyandeng and myself.
From the era of the prophets we come down the ages to the Christian Nubian kingdoms immediately after Christ. The expansion of Islam and the movement of the people of the Arabian peninsular into the northern part of our country led to the establishment of various Islamic kingdoms. The present age witnessed the Turko- Egyptian expansion into the Sudan, the establishment of the Mahdist state, the Anglo-Egyptian condominium and the present independent Sudanese state.
I call this historical diversity. Kingdoms and civilizations have risen and fallen on the soil of our country in various forms. Nations are products of historical movement of peoples. People move for a variety of reasons; in search of economic opportunities, escaping religious persecution, or just out of curiosity; they want to know what is behind that hill. This has been your experience here in the United States. People have moved to this land for various reasons. Africans were brought here as part of that movement. They did not choose to move but they were moved and they became part of this nation. Similarly in the Sudan, people have moved in from other parts of the world and became part of the Sudanese nation. The problem of Sudan is that some citizens do not want to become part of the Sudanese nation, clinging precariously to Arab origins no matter how dilute, remote or imaginary.”
The second prong of John Garang’s postulation argues that contemporary Sudan is multi faceted in terms of creed, ethnicity, language and culture. These multiplicities need no undermine the nation state. Unfortunately our diversity had been manipulated by a minority to the detriment of the majority. Garang’s argument is that statistically, Sudan is not an Arab state, certainly not according to the census of 1956. This component of Garangism was picked up and amplified, not only by the SPLM cadre but also by other political formations in the east, west and south of the country. Of all the weapons the SPLM deployed during the war, this exposition was by far the greatest threat to the ruling establishment in the Sudan. It was appealing, revealing, awakening and worst of all, contagious. This is how John Garang put it:
“The second diversity is the contemporary diversity. Ethnicity basically defines two groups, the African and the Arab nationalities. Religion is the other component of Sudan’s contemporary diversity. We have Moslems, we have Christians, and we have those who believe in their ancestral religions. The false impression has been created by the media that there is an African Christian South and an Arab Moslem North. This is a gross misrepresentation of the real situation. The last reliable population census was conducted by the colonial authorities just before their disengagement from the Sudan in 1956. That independent census showed the demographic breakdown of the Sudan as 31% Arab, 61% African, and 8% ‘others’. The 8% were mostly West Africans who got stranded in the Sudan on their way to or from pilgrimage in Mecca. Therefore 69% of the Sudanese population is African. Given that the South constitutes 30% of the total population, and given that the South is all African, the other 39% of the population, which is African, is in the north. Thus even in the northern Sudan, the Africans are in the majority. The north may be predominantly Moslem but it is certainly not predominantly Arab.
Conclusion
So the Sudan has these two diversities, the historical diversity and the contemporary diversity. This reality has been ignored by the governments that have come and gone in Khartoum since independence in 1956. The present National Islamic Front government is the culmination of the policies of those governments. I call it the ugliest face of the old Sudan. Instead of using the historical and contemporary diversities to evolve a Sudanese commonality that belongs to all of us, to which all Sudanese pledge undivided loyalty and allegiance irrespective of their race, irrespective of their religion, irrespective of their historical roots and irrespective of any other localism, all the governments of post-colonial Sudan have emphasized only two parameters of our reality; Arabism and Islam.
We have to transcend these localisms without negating them. The Arab nationality can remain Arab, the Africans can remain African, the Christians can remain Christian, and the Moslems can remain Moslem. We can use these diversities to interconnect with the reality around us to create a specific Sudanese identity that is consistent with its reality. Instead, we have had governments that pursue policies that exclude others. The present regime has introduced a new element of exclusion; it is no longer enough to be a Moslem. One has to be a fundamentalist to be included in the Sudan. Naturally the excluded would struggle and oppose the government that excludes them. That is exactly what has happened in the Sudan…”
[To be continued]
The author is the Sudan’s Ambassador to Japan