The terms 'colonialism' and 'imperialism' are two of the most significant conceptualizations that have determined the global politics of the 19th 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 19th 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 19th 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 19th 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.
One of the best examples of this is that only in 1924, twenty-five years after the establishment of the joint British Egyptian administration centered in Khartoum in 1899, the borders of Darfur, one of the most important regions of Sudan, were clearly defined.
The most important issue that the British faced during their first period in Sudan was the issue of security.
In this context, the British administration in Khartoum, which imposed martial law and placed military bureaucrats in administrative positions in areas where there were problems of public order and British control had not yet been established, had two different approaches in northern and southern Sudan.
Accordingly, while military administrators were appointed for a long time in South Sudan, where public order was the main issue, civilian administrators started to take office over time in North Sudan, where the situation was relatively more peaceful.
This policy of dualism that divided Sudan between south and north, can be attributed as the origin of the division that Sudan experiences today.
Religious politics
In the Sudan under the British rule, a practice like the appointment of military and civilian bureaucrats was implemented in the context of religious politics through the north-south divide.
The British avoided taking a stance against Islam in the Muslim-Arab north of Sudan, which had two completely different structures in terms of ethnicity and religion, and played a pioneering role by providing incentives for the construction of mosques and facilitating pilgrimage.
In addition, Christian missionary activities, especially American missionaries, were not allowed to enter the north. In the south, on the contrary, the British opened the southern region, which was populated by African tribes with pagan beliefs, to Western missionaries and even left the education of the region to the monopoly of these groups.
To prevent the spread of Islamic culture to southern Sudan, the use of Arabic script and even the wearing of Arabic clothes were banned.
Although it may seem as British has a kind of latitude towards Muslims in the north, it’s obvious that by their blockade of the northern people to enter the southern part that their real motive was to prevent Islam spreading to south, which may create a movement of freedom amongst the Sudanese.
In the post-1914 period in Sudan, the most troublesome issue for the British was the Ottoman-backed internal rebellions that were led by Ali Dinar. Ali Dinar, was the last sultan of Darfur and ruler from the Keira dynasty.
In addition, the Ottoman Empire gave great support to the people of Darfur against the British, such as weapons, ammunition and money.
The Darfur Rebellion in 1916 was the most important and one of the biggest of these. The 1920’s, on the other hand, was a period when nationalist societies began to be established in Sudan.
Also in 1924, the White Flag Revolution under the leadership of Ali Abd al Latif occurred in Sudan against British colonialism.
While the British struggled with nationalist leaders and groups inside Sudan, they also spent much of the 1930’s outside on issues such as the Sudan-Abyssinia border disputes and the Italian invasion of Abyssinia.
In the 1953 elections, the first democratic elections held with the participation of the first political parties that started to organize in the 1940’s, the National Unity Party won the elections and immediately started to work for the transition of Sudan to the 1953 agreement signed between the British and the Egyptians.
During this period, the dispute between the northerners and the southerners over who would have how much rights in the future of Sudan soon turned into a conflict and Sudan was on the brink of civil war.
As a result of the agreement reached with the British after the suppression of the events, the Democratic Republic of Sudan was declared at the end of 1955, while the Sudanese flag replaced the flag of the British Egyptian joint administration, which had been flying in Khartoum since 1899, on January 1, 1956.
The author, Ali Bilgenoğlu is an associate professor at Aydın Adnan Menderes University, department of International Relations.
Disclaimer: The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of TRT Afrika.
