The True Picture and Short History of the Southern Sudan Struggle for Freedom

By Pal Chol Nyan*

"History is an event. It cannot be distorted whatsoever."

History is an event. It cannot be distorted whatsoever. The first bullet for the war to liberate the people of South Sudan from slavery and oppression was shot at Torit Mutiny on the 18^th of August 1955. This insurrection was staged under the leadership of Gen Emilio Tafeng, Gbattala and Fr. Saturlino Ohure among others. This led to a relative peace with the 1972 Addis Ababa peace accord which had granted autonomy to Southerners but with landmark decisions still being taken in Khartoum. Many Southerners then were dissatisfied with the agreement and staged another war for total liberation of South Sudan because they feel that it did not actually and basically addressed the fundamental root causes of Southerners’ grievances against the Arabs in the North of the country. The Northern Sudanese wanted to islamise the South, introduced and applied Sharia Laws as a source of legislation. 

The rebellion of 1975 was launched by Lt Vincent Kuany Latjor and Sergeant Bol Kur, a Chollo. They joined ranks with Gordon Koang Chol, the Anya-nya-2 C-in-C and were stationed at Bilpam. When the Anya-nya-2 and the SPLM/A disagreed on the objectives of the war coupled with the power struggle or leadership crisis of 1983-4, the two camps clashed resulting in the dislodging of the Anya-nya-2 and capturing of Bilpam with the support of the Ethiopian troops under Mengistu Haile Mariam by the SPLM/A. Bilpam then became the main headquarters of the SPLM/A.  In 1982, the Veteran Lou Nuer Politician Gatjiek Wie, rebelled and walked all the way to Ethiopia and settled at Itang. In his company were some notable Southern Sudanese figures in the persons of Obieny Deng, a Chollo, Gatluak Doamai, Malow Kulang, Par Golong, Dak Riek and Tut Gatpan to mention but a few. They had about 9000 recruits mostly drawn from Lou Nuer and were undergoing military training at Thowkoat with an objective of fighting for an independent South Sudan. Aballa Chuol Deng and Lokurnyang Lado, a Murle (who’d later be summarily executed by the SPLA using the jungle laws), joined Gatjiek in 1983. He was warmly received by Gatjiek Wie. He was accommodated at Tielul 4, and Gatjiek gave him 2 AK 47 rifles with two soldiers to guard him. Pagan Amum, Nyachigak Ngachiluk, Atali Okoth and Oyai Deng Ajak were stationed at Paket, an Anuak territory. Around 1984-5, they joined the SPLA, attacked Boma where they reportedly took hostages of some international mining workers and later released with heavy ransom.

On May the 16^th 1983, the Bor mutiny was staged by the SAF soldiers over unpaid salaries. It turned into an armed insurgency or rebellion. The first bullet was fired by Sergeant Yusif Kiir Tang, a Moslem Nuer from Nasir. He was later ruthlessly, without a remorse, murdered by the SPLA so that he disappeared from the screen of the political history of liberation. Major Kerubino Kuanyin Bol, then a SAF officer, by virtue of his seniority, took over the command of the rebellious troops and as the fight ensued, he was wounded. On 18, May 1983, Capt. David Riek Machuoc, a Nuer from Akobo revolted in Pibor and in June Major William Nyuon Bany Machar, a Nuer from Ayod, revolted after a fierce fight with SAF. Dr John Garang, who had expressed reservations on the Addis Ababa Accord, took advantage of these rebellions. In July 1983, Col. Dr John Garang, Chigai Atem, Gany Juc and Lt col. Francis Ngor left and joined  the camp of Gatjiek and his lieutenants. The veteran politician Gatjiek Wei hospitably accommodated his brother Dr John Garang at Itang with his escorts which included Maker Deng Malow, Garang Akok and Gany Juc. They were given  two AK47 rifles for protection. They later assembled at Marol military post commanded by Gik Lew of Anya-any-2. Samuel Gai and Akuot Atem, who were also with Salva at Kur Mayom, reported to Marol village where they all proceeded to Adura. They were then picked up by a helicopter from Adura to Itang. There and then, Thowath Pal, the Security chief of the DERG regime picked them up to Addis Ababa to meet Mengistu Hailemariam where they linked up with the veteran politician Joseph Oduhu who went ahead of them.

Here, after all the courtesies, the issue of the leadership was raised and there was a deadlock on who will lead the Movement. Samuel Gai wanted Akuot Atem to be the leader but with strong resistance from Dr. Garang’s camp covertly supported by Mengistu. Dr. John Garang did not buy that idea. There were sharp differences and they then came back to Itang and proceeded to Adura. The camp headed by Akuot Atem and Samuel Gai clashed with Garang’s camp where Samuel Gai met his fate in 1984 at Thiajak in the hand of the champions of the unity of Sudan. His dead body was repeatedly and inhumanely subjected to beatings by one of the most senior members of the SPLM/A. The people later perished in the same way. It later transpired that many of these veterans, who did not or refused to follow the teachings of Dr. John, died under mysterious circumstances. It was being said that Garang hijacked the movement with the help of Mengistu, installed himself at the helm of power as the Head. He named the members of his movement as follows:

1.      Dr John Garang - Chairman and C-in-C

2.      Kerubino Kuanyin- Deputy Chairman and C-in-C

3.      William Nyuon - he Chief of staff

4.      Salva Kiir as Deputy Chief of staff for operation and security

5.      Arok Thon Arok as the deputy Chief of staff for administration and logistics.

Assumptions About Africa and Africans in North America

Africans are very familiar, in North America, with questions about 'living with lions, giraffes, cheetahs, etc.' or 'how come one speaks English so well' or that 'your English is so good!'

Such questions are usually a surprise, if annoying, when one initially arrives. Undoubtedly, the questions become denigrating, annoying and alienating. However, as one continues to live in North America, the effect of such questions starts to lose power.

Africans start to perceive the questions as born out of ignorance or complacency of people who don't want to know anything about others; or people who see others (and their national origins) as merely objects to be marveled about. These exotic others (people) are 'admired' as beings from places that sound good to be visited. Places of exotica as Chinua Achebe would say!

What's fascinating about the above questions isn't the assumed ‘ignorance’ that motivates them. What's fascinating is how we, as Africans, respond to these questions. What we tend to forget is the proverbialism or inveteratism which informs the normative aspects of given societies. North Americans are informed by a tradition that looks at Africa and Africans in a given light. And this given ‘light’ is the only thing available to them. It’s unrealistic to expect people to know what they don’t know. Annoying as they are, the above questions are informed by a long established pedagogical and scholarly tradition that sees Africa and Africans as objects of virtual and intellectual play.

Even when scholars rationalize Joseph Conrad’s ‘Heart of Darkness’ as an indictment of colonialism in Africa, his debasing description of Africans played into the hands of those who wanted to put Africans down.  With that in mind, however, it’s good to remember that the only people who can change that eschewed narrative is us!

As long the narrative available to North Americans takes Africans to be the Africans of the 17^th, 18^th and 19^th centuries, then it would be unrealistic to blame North Americans. We need to change the narrative. However, instead of changing the narrative, we tend to either whine without producing and effective countering narrative, or we conform to the negative realities about us. But then we complain when we conform to them.

We use phrases such as Third Word, Black People etc. These terms do nothing but reinforce the available narrative about us. People are not chicken, goats and cattle to be identified by colors! And how do you agree with Martin Luther King that people shouldn’t be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character but then move back to use the same color as people’s identity? This is the eschewed thinking that’s counter-productive.

People have cultures and traditions that inform their societal norms, mores and identities.  But we can’t blame people who have their own societies to protect and self-esteem to elevate. It’s not up to North Americans to change epistemologically into a narrative that’s not offered!

As long as North Americans don’t get formidable counter-narratives to inform them that the African of the 21^st century is not the caricatured African of the 17^th century, we’ll continue to be asked about lions in our backyards! A Zulu asked about Wolof. A Jieeng man asked about Ashanti. This is the very oversimplification (or deadening) of African cultures that’s killing our universal image.

Instead of getting angry at North Americans, we should inform them. Instead of conforming with their narrative, we should dismiss them with respectable alternatives offered. Instead of becoming simply a ‘black man’ in America or Canada, you should remain a Ghanaian.

We turn to help North Americans in their perception of us while whining about the same perception we are helping establish. Blackness was a cultural deconstruction and reconstruction of the African Personhood into a utilizable OBJECT!