Story of the Sudan: From a British colony to an independent state

The terms 'colonialism' and 'imperialism' are two of the most significant conceptualizations that have determined the global politics of the 19^th century.

Colonialism can be defined as "states’ conquest of overseas territories outside its own borders through various means, especially military intervention, and establishing dominance there, gaining political, economic and cultural superiority over local societies and plundering all kinds of opportunities for its own benefit".

Imperialism is categorized as its politicized dimension. Both concepts are historically embedded within the evolutionary process of capitalism, and that they influence each other both chronologically and ideologically.

Indeed, the British-centered Industrial Revolution, which gave capitalism its modern content, was the flare of the process that transformed colonialism into imperialism with the massive increase in mass production and the simultaneous centralization of capital.

The centralization of capital created an environment of colonial rivalry that formed the political spirit of the second half of the 19^th century, as the industrialized European great powers sought to access the raw materials and markets needed by their national industries.

Among the great powers that began to spread from continental Europe to the rest of the world, Britain ranked first with its volume of commercial activity, capital power and the size of its overseas navy, which naturally is the result and the cause of the volume of its colonialism.

This period is also coincides with time it has been called the empire that sun never sets on, implying the vast amount of land it covered.

Free Trade Colonialism

During the period of “Free Trade Colonialism” (1830-1880), it is seen that Britain built the commercial pillar of the classical capitalist hegemony relationship that would gradually bring overseas domination.

In this era, the most important strategic point of British domination was India. One of the most important discourses of 19^th century British foreign policy, the concept of “the security of the Indian route” was entirely based on the importance of this geography.

In addition to India, the colonial practices of the British in Egypt and Sudan, are noteworthy for their similarities as well as their differences.

In the 1880’s, despite the all resistance endeavors Ottoman’s, the British imperial policy of conquest, which had begun with Cyprus in the region, continued with Egypt in 1882.

Having a strategic geography that controlled both North Africa and the Indian route through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, Britain soon wanted to consolidate its presence here by dominating Sudan.

As a matter of fact, the British, who succeeded in capturing Sudan by destroying the Mahdi State at the end of 1898, gained a new property for the colonial empire both for the security of Egypt and to benefit from the riches of Sudan.

When 19^th century British colonialism is analyzed through the examples of Egypt and Sudan, one of the most important issues that we come across is the extremely flexible structure of colonial politics.

Within this structure, which reflects classical Anglo-Saxon pragmatism, the British pursued different policies in accordance with the geographical, strategic, economic, sociological and military structure of the region they conquered.

North-south division

The north-south division that British colonialism introduced in the Sudan, completely different from Egypt, was an administrative choice worth analyzing from every angle. Unlike the two major colonial experiences in Egypt and India, the main motive that forced the British to implement two different approaches within a specific region was the social structure of Sudan.

Inhabited by Muslim Arab communities in the north and pagan African tribes in the south, Sudan was at the same time a geography where more than two hundred different tribes and fifty ethnic groups coexisted, while more than a hundred languages were spoken and each of the tribes ruled a part of the country.

Although in legal terms the sovereignty rights over Sudan were shared between Egypt and Britain, in practice the situation was one-sided. As in Egypt, large areas of Sudan were opened to agriculture and cotton cultivation was encouraged and expanded.

However, unlike Egypt, the complex social structure of the Sudan, consisting of many different ethnic and religious groups, delayed the establishment of British sovereignty over these lands for many years.

In addition to inter-tribal conflicts, rebellions erupted at various times, causing the primary concern of the British administration in Sudan to remain the maintenance of public order for many years.