In 1900 Bernard Shaw completed the difficult task of drafting the Fabian’s society position in the manifest Fabianism and the Empire. The society’s progressive program advocated for socialist values, social justice and women rights. Against the background of these modern and leftist values though, the society’s position on imperialism is somehow astonishing. One of the motives for its supportive stand on imperialism lies in the yet valid division they made between domestic and international politics. Edward Pease’s The History of the Fabian society addresses the international system, for example under terms of efficiency and colonialism. According to him “the only valid moral right to national … possession is that the occupier is making adequate use of it for the benefit of the world community.” From the “International Socialist point of view” national sovereignty and noninterference are not acceptable and the world must strive for an “international civilization” according to socialist merits. Pease as well as Bernard Shaw in Fabianism and the Empire accept colonialism as a fact and furthermore they illustrate the Great Powers’ advance as colonizers “only [as] a question of time.” Their exclusive focus was the benefit of the British Empire without a minimal consideration of the dignity or the right to self-determination of the people the British were occupying and exploiting. “As for parliamentary institutions for native races, that dream has been disposed of ... [t]hey are as useless to them as a dynamo to a Caribbean.” Following this theoretical background, the ensuing paper will focus on the British colonial policy in Sudan. Edward Shaw points out two possible “imperial policies” of which the second is “a bureaucratic policy where the majority consists of colored natives.” This illustrates one of the policies the British attempted to implement in Sudan after their conquest of 1899. This paper will analyze various approaches of the British administrative in Sudan, as Indirect Rule and Native Administration. Beyond it, it will address the policy’s aims and actual results with which the Sudanese had to cope and which still interfere greatly in the daily reality of Sudan. It will try to draw connection between the actual situation in Sudan, and especially in Darfur, and the colonial legacy of the British policies.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction to the Fabian Society and Imperialism
2. British Colonial Policy in Sudan: Military Rule and Mahdism
3. Indirect Rule and Native Administration
4. The Impact of Tribalization on Social Structure
5. The Southern Policy and Regional Antagonism
6. Colonial Legacy and Identity Formation
7. Conclusion: Colonial Roots of the Darfurian Conflict
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper examines the historical trajectory of British colonial policy in Sudan, specifically analyzing how administrative strategies like "Indirect Rule" and "Native Administration" fundamentally reshaped Sudanese social, ethnic, and regional dynamics, ultimately contributing to contemporary conflicts such as those in Darfur.
- Analysis of Fabian socialist ideology regarding imperialism and colonial governance.
- Evaluation of military rule and the suppression of Mahdism in early colonial Sudan.
- Assessment of the "tribalization" policy and its devastating impact on administrative and social cohesion.
- Investigation into the origins of North-South antagonism and regional marginalization.
- Critical examination of the role of census data and identity formation in colonial policy.
Excerpt from the Book
Indirect Rule and the Corruption of Tribal Tradition
Indirect Rule in Sudan had two main architects, the governor-general Maffey and Harold MacMichael; the latter served in Sudan as assistant civil secretary from 1919 to 1925 and subsequently as civil secretary until 1934. Besides the problem of manpower shortage, he also argued in favor of Indirect Rule because he saw that the tribesmen and villages “were accustomed to a patriarchal system.” Furthermore he stated that a great number of sheikhs and tribal leaders would resent if somebody dispossessed them of their traditional rights. In his account MacMichael neglects that Sudan has experienced decades of centralizing structures under the Turco-Egyptian (Turkiyya) and later under the Mahdist rule. Beyond it, the first years of Anglo-Egyptian conquest and rule were marked by a centralizing approach as well. These experiences had considerably weakened or even destroyed tribal and village structures on which the British planned to erect their policy of Indirect Rule. However, they ignored the facts on the ground and embarked on a course resolutely undeterred by the realities of the social structure of the Sudanese population.
Indeed, in 1922, British authorities commenced to identify the Sudanese population within tribal terms. Every person was requested to “identify his or her tribe.” British authorities aimed to distinguish between nomads and sedentary population for an easier administration and taxation policy. Before the ascent of the British rule in Sudan, tribes were fluid cultural or ethnic entities and inter-tribal movement was very active. By means of the policy of ‘tribalization,’ realized in the name of the Native Administration, the motion of relations and ethnic boundaries was replaced and tribes mutated to stiff and separated groups, circumscribed to their belongings, members and lands. After the British categorization, it became increasingly difficult to move between sedentary, cattle-nomad or completely nomadic lifestyle, though this fluidity of lifestyle had been custom in Sudan and furthermore a necessity for surviving.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction to the Fabian Society and Imperialism: Explores the contradictory stance of the Fabian Society toward imperialism, justifying it through the lens of efficiency and global benefit.
2. British Colonial Policy in Sudan: Military Rule and Mahdism: Discusses the early years of the British occupation, characterized by the systematic suppression of Mahdism and the targeting of religious institutions like the tariqas.
3. Indirect Rule and Native Administration: Analyzes the implementation of decentralization strategies that empowered tribal leaders to minimize colonial administrative costs and mitigate the influence of an emerging urban educated class.
4. The Impact of Tribalization on Social Structure: Examines how the colonial imposition of fixed tribal identities disrupted fluid social dynamics and negatively impacted nomadic and sedentary interactions.
5. The Southern Policy and Regional Antagonism: Details the colonial effort to divide Northern and Southern Sudan, which entrenched existing historical prejudices and worsened regional disparities.
6. Colonial Legacy and Identity Formation: Investigates the use of census data and genealogical records to construct specific racial and ethnic identities that persist as drivers of modern conflicts.
7. Conclusion: Colonial Roots of the Darfurian Conflict: Summarizes how long-term structural neglect and the creation of exclusionary identity hierarchies in the colonial era directly inform the realities of the contemporary Darfur conflict.
Keywords
Sudan, British Colonialism, Indirect Rule, Native Administration, Darfur, Mahdism, Tribalization, Identity Formation, Colonial Legacy, Southern Policy, Ethnic Conflict, Censuses, Imperialism, Social Engineering, Marginalization.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on the British colonial administration in Sudan and investigates how specific policies, such as Indirect Rule and the rigid classification of tribes, have shaped the country's social and political landscape.
What are the key thematic areas covered in the work?
The central themes include the historical suppression of religious movements, the administrative strategies used to control the population, the invention of ethnic and racial identities, and the roots of contemporary regional conflicts.
What is the central research question?
The research asks how the colonial legacy of British administrative policies, particularly those implemented between 1899 and the mid-20th century, contributes to the ongoing warfare and instability in present-day Sudan, especially in Darfur.
What scientific methodology does the author apply?
The study employs a historical-analytical approach, utilizing colonial administrative documents, historical census data, and critical secondary literature to trace the causal links between past governance and current socio-political issues.
What topics are discussed in the main body of the paper?
The main body covers the transition from military rule to Indirect Rule, the implementation of the "Southern Policy," the institutionalization of tribal boundaries, and the manipulation of demographic data to foster specific ethnic identities.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include British Colonialism, Indirect Rule, Tribalization, Sudan, Darfur, Identity Formation, Regional Inequality, and Colonial Legacy.
How did the British 'tribalization' policy change the lives of the Sudanese population?
It transformed fluid, dynamic tribal and ethnic identities into rigid administrative units, which restricted movement between nomadic and sedentary populations and created new, exclusionary territorial rights that fueled local conflicts.
Why does the author argue that the 'global war on terror' is relevant to the discussion?
The author suggests that the contemporary political environment, influenced by the rhetoric surrounding the 'global war on terror' and mass media perceptions of Muslims and Arabs, exacerbates and misrepresents the underlying historical grievances of the Darfurian conflict.
- Citation du texte
- Sophie Duhnkrack (Auteur), 2009, Sudan - An Analysis of the British Colonial Policy and its Legacy, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/141506
