Sudan in Multiple Contexts: The Colonial Blueprint, the Darfur Model, and the Politics of Division

By Hussein Arko Menawi

I. The Role of Colonial Administration in Fostering the Conflict

1. The Forgotten Beginning of Sudan’s Political Crisis
When we delve into the historical events of Sudan, a significant truth emerges: the colonial administration was not a passive observer but an active architect of political conflict among Sudan’s diverse political, regional, and ethnic components. Their rule, which lasted for more than five decades, was not merely about consolidating power or maintaining order; it laid the foundations for future discord. In other words, they fired the first bullet that ignited Sudan’s long and complex crisis.
This is a forgotten reality with far-reaching implications, shaping the very roots of Sudan’s political and social turmoil. Yet many deliberately avoid acknowledging it as a fundamental factor in the genesis of the Sudanese crisis. Such omission is not merely a historical oversight; it is a dangerous act of denial that distorts our understanding of the crisis and obstructs any serious attempt at resolving it.

2. The Foundation of Division and Its Lingering Shadows
Yes, it is not easy to understand the complete picture of the Sudanese crisis without mentioning all factors that contributed to deepening the Sudanese problem; however, the role of the colonial administration had a significant impact in igniting wars after independence.
As implicitly indicated, numerous factors interacted with one another to produce the catastrophic situation in all its social, economic, and political dimensions.
In this regard, we can start mentioning two negative roles played by colonial administration in creating the Sudanese crisis: first, the divide-and-rule policy of making South Sudan a separate and distinct region, which was known as the “Southern Policy”; and second, the policy of employment and service provision that deliberately concentrated in the North during the colonial era.
The conduct of administering the state in such a way had proved, without a doubt, that the colonial policy played a hidden role in creating a climate conducive to conflict among the Sudanese. After defeating the Mahdist state, the new condominium administration extended its control over most of Sudan’s regions, except for Darfur.

3. A Policy of Exclusion and the Geography of Neglect
To run the state, the new administration began to provide services that the government urgently needed, particularly in education and basic services. From the beginning, the colonial administration not only practiced bias in providing services but also concentrated most of the services in Khartoum, Al-Jazeera, and the North while neglecting the other regions.
It was a policy of divide and rule, with future adverse effects on specific regions. Since then, the game of exclusion and inclusion has begun to ferment in the minds of the elite who had not yet assumed senior executive roles or other roles in political decision-making.

4. Manufactured Stability and the Silence of the Colonized
Despite the policy of divide and rule during the period of condominium rule of Anglo-Egyptian over Sudan, which lasted for more than fifty years, Sudan witnessed no severe political instability except the short and violent protest known as the White Flag led by Ali Abdel Latif in 1924, and that is why the colonial era seemed to be the most extended period of stability in Sudan.
In fact, it was not stability due to an agreement of different Sudanese on their controversial issues; instead, it was due to other considerations, among which were the iron-fist policy exercised by the British authorities in running the country, as well as the fact that Sudanese at that time were not part of any political process.
During the colonial period, none of the members of the elite were able to participate in political engagement; however, based on evidence after independence, we can confirm that even if the Sudanese elite shared power, it would not differ from the approach of exclusion practiced by the colonial administration.

5. Continuity of the Colonial Blueprint
During its rule, the colonial administration made no effort to address the fundamental crisis that was rooted in Sudanese diversity. Later, after independence, the new rulers adopted colonial policy as a model for practicing governance.
The fabricated political stability during the colonial administration had, in turn, contributed to the rise of a narrow-minded political elite that, at the time, was utterly unable to strategize for the foreseeable future and predict the potential crises that Sudan would face after the exit of the colonial administration.

6. Lessons Ignored and the Echo of Warnings
It was unfortunate that the nature of the potential conflict in Sudan before independence, with its complex political, social, and regional dimensions, was underappreciated mainly by the Sudanese elite during the post-independence period. Politicians throughout the decades deliberately ignored the clear messages sent by some regions shortly before and after independence, whether through military or civilian protests.

II. The Panorama of the Crisis

1. Divergent Views on a Common Root
There is widespread debate about the nature of the Sudanese crisis. A significant number of Sudanese believe that the situation in Sudan has common root causes, even if it is linked to various conflict zones. Others tend to describe the crisis as if it were multiple crises of different characteristics. In this regard, it is worth noting that the political demands raised in Darfur on the eve of independence were not significantly different from the demands raised in other regions of Sudan.

2. The Evolution of Protest and the Elite’s Mindset
The overall trajectory of the political demands in Darfur, from peaceful civil protest to armed opposition, is primarily shaped by the mindset of the Sudanese political elite. As soon as Sudan gained its independence, such a mindset paved the way for the elite to exercise the policy of exclusion and inclusion in many aspects of significant issues, particularly in the most sensitive decision-making area.
According to historical records, the cases of conflict in Darfur and other regions are so interconnected that the crisis in Sudan cannot be understood unless all these disparate conflict cases are brought together.

3. The Early Protests and Signs of a Structural Defect
The protest against the central regimes in Darfur coincided with other events. The first of these was the events in South Sudan in Torit in late 1955, followed by the Beja Conference in 1957, sporadic protests in Darfur, organized by Sony, El-Laheeb al-Ahmar, and finally the organization of Nahdat Darfur in 1964. Additionally, the establishment of the General Union of the Nuba Mountains in 1964 was a significant juncture that cast a profound political shadow over Sudan’s history.
All of the above-mentioned protest organisations and events were evidence of a simmering discontent across the entire Sudan. It was also a clear indicator of the existence of a structural defect in the newly independent state of Sudan.

4. The Triangle of Fire: A Policy of Exclusion and Inclusion
The policy of exclusion and inclusion adopted by the national governments throughout the decades was an example of the notion of the “triangle of fire,” and indeed that triangle caused wars in Darfur and other parts of Sudan. In 1981, Darfur witnessed the largest-ever peaceful civil disobedience, known as the El-Fashir Uprising. It was against the decision of the appointment of Etyeeb Al-Mardi as the governor from outside Darfur by the Federal Government. The disobedience could have escalated into an armed reaction if the regime of Gaafar Nimeiri had resorted to excessive violence.

5. Escalation and Militarization in the Mid-1980s
For two main reasons, the conflict in Darfur began to escalate in the mid-1980s. The first reason was that the state indiscriminately resorted to excessive violence against innocent civilians under the pretext of armed robbery, and the other was the mobilization of militias against certain tribes.
Violence was responded to with a military reaction in the early 1990s when Daoud Bolad decided to take up arms against the regime to resist the crimes committed by the government-supported militia against his own tribe.

III. How Did the Media Portray the Conflict in Darfur?

1. The Narrative of Isolation
The impact of the media has succeeded in establishing a naive story about the war in Darfur by isolating it from the nationwide crisis known as the Sudan crisis. The war that broke out in Darfur in the early 21st century was multi-contextual in Sudan. Although each context developed under specific geographical and social conditions and was influenced by particular factors, they all shared a common denominator.
The media has categorised it under the name of the “War of Darfurins.” This occurred in line with the criteria of geography and local communities; however, upon examining the essence of the conflict’s causes, it became apparent that it was a war extending beyond Darfur to encompass all disputed issues concerning Sudan, even those caught up in the particular conflict of Darfur.

2. Beyond Geography: A National Fire
In most regions, the typical elements of conflict are often potential; they are simply waiting for conditions conducive to ignition. Precisely, the potential of a war in any part of Sudan is no more or less than the preconditions of a burning that exist in the fire triangle with its well-known ingredients of oxygen, heat, and fuel.
Local and international press, satellite channels, and social media across multiple platforms portrayed the war in Darfur as a regional conflict, isolated from the overall crisis in Sudan. The media has done its job. The massive media coverage, supported by the diplomatic stance of many countries in international forums, has provided a false justification by insisting on a narrative that the battle in Darfur was a purely local concern.

3. The Consequences of Fragmented Storytelling
No matter how the media tries to create a stereotypical image of the Sudanese crisis, in fact, some challenges constitute the national crisis. They are the challenges that disturb the way the national crisis is addressed. A piecemeal approach to problem-solving poses a significant challenge, often paralyzing efforts to develop a comprehensive vision for addressing the situation in Sudan.
The media is also a challenge. The mindset of one-sided views, often practiced by politicians when addressing crucial issues related to Sudan’s future, is another challenge. It is also a challenge to both understand the conundrum of a society sharply divided along ethnic lines and to determine how national policy can address the concerns of all stakeholders in such a divided society, where ethnic identities are determinative in politics.

4. A Crisis of Inclusion, Not Geography
All the challenges have an inclusive nature. They are not isolated to a specific area or region, but rather represent a comprehensive crisis throughout Sudan.

IV. The Dilemma of Multi-contexts

1. The Core Disputes and Their Common Threads
Among the key issues of public opinion concern are those that ignite wars, namely, power sharing, the fair distribution of resources, and the fair representation of cultural identities. However, there is no core disagreement over the narratives of events in terms of history and geography. Still, the dispute lies in the rational justification and judgment of the Sudanese crisis in different contexts.
Yes, there is no doubt that in a society characterized by extreme diversity, such as the Sudanese one, differences in contextual understanding may arise and multiply for various reasons. Understanding context is one of the challenges.

2. Two Illustrative Events from the Southern Experience
To understand the different contexts of the Sudanese crisis, let’s take two events from the experience of war in southern Sudan before secession.

• First, the mutiny of Battalion 105 in 1983. Battalion 105 mutinied in 1983 due to its alleged violation of the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement, which constitutes a breach of one or more of the agreement’s protocols. This allegation was the stance of most people in southern Sudan. In contrast, many people in northern Sudan believed a different story, based on an assertion that the battalion refused to obey the command’s orders, contrary to the military chain of command in the Sudanese army.
• The second was the re-division of South Sudan. It was a wrong decision that contravened the terms of the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement; however, the argument presented by the decision-makers in Khartoum was that the agreement is not sacred, nor is it comparable to the Qur’an or the Bible.

Perhaps this paradox is acceptable to some people, as they tend to interpret events within the context of Sudan’s geographical, political, and social diversity. The above two simple examples can pave the way and enable us to consider all possible contexts for addressing the Sudanese crisis and to anticipate how the crisis is dynamic.

3. The Geography of Conflicts and Fragmented Identities
Due to the diversity in Sudan and the influence of the media, the conflict was classified as a conflict zone and became known as the Darfur, South, Nuba Mountains, Blue Nile, and East conflict. This geographical reality also resulted in classifying the conflict according to the definition of particular communities inhabiting these regions; sometimes, the conflict is classified as a tribal conflict.
Thus, the contexts in which the Sudanese crisis is dynamic are either geographical or social; otherwise, the situation presents identical issues regardless of geographical location and stakeholders.

4. Repeating Patterns from Addis Ababa to Juba
Since the Addis Ababa Agreement of 1972 until the latest agreement signed in Juba in 2020, all protocols have emphasized only one model of issues, summarized in three main areas: power sharing, fair distribution of resources, and fair representation of cultural identities. These are the significant challenges of the crisis in Sudan, in addition to other hidden challenges.

5. Diversity as a Challenge and a Lens
Diversity is also a challenge and an obstacle because it always confuses the way of thinking of many Sudanese, and sometimes results in bias, and other times fosters a sense of under-recognizing others.
To avoid any opaque screen created by our diversity, it is necessary to view the events in Sudan within their comprehensive contexts to understand all the dimensions that have a significant impact on the central issues of the crisis, whether political, social, or economic, as well as the instrumental factors that have fueled and are still fueling the conflict in Sudan.

V. Conclusion: Reading Sudan as One Narrative

The Sudanese crisis cannot be confined to a single geography or era; it is the cumulative result of policies, perceptions, and inherited divisions that have evolved across generations. From the colonial blueprint that institutionalized inequality to the modern narratives that fragment the nation into separate conflicts, the story remains one of exclusion and misreading. The challenge for Sudan today is not merely to end wars, but to dismantle the mindset that isolates them, to recognize that every fire ignited in one region reflects a national imbalance left unresolved. Only by understanding Sudan in its multiple contexts can the country begin to rebuild a unified vision of justice, governance, and belonging.

---

Exclusively published by Brown Land News.
Where sovereignty is not negotiable, and truth defies revision.
Our Land. Our Voice. Our News