|
|
|
Has
Mahmood Mamdani the pre-eminent African scholar become an Arab
supremacist apologist? A careful reading of his much circulated,
“The
Politics of Naming: Genocide, Civil War, and Insurgency”,
provides more than enough evidence to suggest that this great
progressive thinker has succumbed to the charms of tribe and
perhaps religion. Mamdani employs strange logic, dubious sources,
and nonsensical devices to arrive at his denialist conclusion
- there is no genocide in Darfur! If that was his only project,
we could perhaps leave him to stew in his new found prejudices.
But when he denies the victims of Khartoum’s project of
subjugation of Black Africans through elimination and displacement,
then we are compelled to speak up or be complicit in this deletion
of a people, under the guise of a crusade against imperialism
and Islamophobia. The progression of Mamdani to his current
despicable position has been gradual but certain, see his 2004
“Darfur
Crisis”.
Mamdani’s
argumentative approach – drawing an analogy between Darfur
and Iraq – effectively denies the plight of Darfur’s
Black Africans to be understood on its own terms. The fact that
the Darfur campaigners may be misguided in calling for American
intervention, and the fact that the USA has nasty imperial intentions
in Sudan, or that the war on terror is terrorism, should not
be used as an excuse not to condemn the settler Arab scheme
of colonial expansion and death in Sudan.
Some
of us Black Africans support the Anti-War movement and march
against the invasion of Iraq, the murderous attacks on Lebanon
and the illegal occupation of Palestine, whilst alive to the
fact that most of those we march with are fired by religious
and tribal zealotry and see the exercise as the preservation
of the self, they care not a hoot about the plight of Black
Africans who have been under constant fire from Imperialism
themselves. Why doesn’t Mamdani simply show the weaknesses
of the Darfur campaign instead of a blanket condemnation?
If
we cut through all the historical and sociological verbiage
masquerading as uninterested scholarship proffered by Mamdani,
we can more clearly see his Arab settlerist sympathies. He uses
a hierarchy of suffering method (genocide, crimes against humanity,
crimes of war and civil war) to show that what is occurring
in Darfur is not genocide but, a “civil war”,
the lowest in his rubric of suffering. His aim is to plead the
case of Khartoum and the counter insurgency, by denying the
historical roots and the continued settler Arab and African
problematic on the African continent and Sudan in particular.
Throughout his argument, Mamdani strains to point his torch
light on the insurgency as equally if not more responsible for
what’s happening in Darfur. In this way violence for liberation
and resistance is equated with violence for repression and dispossession.
It
is strange logic indeed from one who laments the absence of
context, politics and motivations from the Darfur campaigners,
to be so silent on what drives Khartoum, the insurgency
and counter insurgency. We are left to hold on to the thin thesis
that the basis of the conflict is the power struggle among a
de-raced elite at the top, which finds expression locally through
the battle between nomads and settled farmers. We are informed
that the one group got rich and started an insurgency, and Khartoum
armed the poorer Nomad and formed a militia. Hence, the solution
Mamdani proposes is a power-sharing arrangement at the top and
access to resources at community level. A noble idea until you
scratch a little further. We are in the dark as to the
social and racial composition of the competing political elites,
or what the demands of the insurgents are. Anyone with a passing
interest in Sudan would know that there has been a long national
liberation struggle going on against the Arab minority Khartoum
regime by Black Africans from the South, led by the late John
Garang. This is the larger political context which Mamdani does
not touch in his erudite apologia for Arab settlerism.
But
to deny the reality of Arab settler colonialism in the Sudan,
one has to deny the race question. So we are subjected to deft
foot-work by the able Mamdani, playing on the indeterminacy
and effervescence of race as a social signifier (in the white
academy), we are told that Arab and African have multiple meanings
in the Sudan and Black Africans “could become”
Arabs over time. This is an ahistorical, de-contextualised presentation
of what has essentially been a colonial encounter, its not some
kind of arbitrary choosing of one’s race. The history
of “Arabization” of the African is so painful that
it’s never spoken about in polite company. That Arabization
is deeply wrapped in the most brutal forms of deleting the essence
of a people through refusal of language, religious and other
“uncivilized” cultural practices is never acknowledged.
In reality, Arabization is colonialism bordering on the physical
eradication and more importantly the erasure of the very souls
and being of the Black African.
Perhaps
it will interest Mamdani to know that, of the more than 100
Black languages spoken in Sudan, not one is recognized by Khartoum
in its total commitment to promoting Arabic. As late as last
year the Minister of education in the Northern state had
issued instructions that no student will speak any Nubian language
within school premises at the pain of public humiliation. And
Mamdani tells us that Black Africans “could become”
Arab as if they where choosing one brand of washing powder instead
of another in a supermarket shelf. In South Africa we know of
a process of Black Africans passing as colored during apartheid,
only because that despicable regime had given certain privileges
to people classified as colored in the Western Cape. Passing
for colored required a deletion of the Black African self. Families
were broken; people would not answer to their Black names, even
to the point of passing family members on the street, for fear
of detection. A total nervous condition defined those alienated
Blacks. No people choose another’s identity out of charity.
The
idea that the kin color of the one pulling the trigger determines
whether a conflict is racialist or not is too simplistic a yardstick
to go by. In South Africa, toward the end of formal apartheid,
the white supremacist Pretoria regime encouraged the concept
of “Black on Black” violence to explain its sponsored
violence against Black liberation. True, in the now Gauteng
province, Zulu speakers, organized under the tribalist Inkatha
outfit, maimed and killed, without mercy, Zulu-speaking people
in Black townships. Unless one was an apologist of apartheid
no one bought the “Black on Black” violence lie.
In Darfur, yes, some members of the Janjawiid may be as Black
as coal, but what master and what political and religious ends
do they serve?
Khartoum’s
heartless manipulation of tribal differences has led to some
gruesome acts, such the 1987 attack on the Dinka by the Baggarra
Arabs, armed by the government. Sudanese scholar, Jalaal Haashim,
brings to life the day of attack:“In one day in mid-1987,
at least 1,000 Dinka were massacred, 4,000 were burned alive,
and the survivors - around 1,000 were enslaved”. These
acts of aggression are all calculated to entrench the Arab minority
regime in Sudan, but also speak to the ongoing Arab colonialist
project, which started with the conquest of Egypt by 642 AD.
In this regard we must be moved to wonder aloud with Chinweizu:
“…how
many Afrikans today wonder how it come about that Arabs, whose
homeland is the Arabia Peninsula, came to occupy all of the
supra Sahara Africa, from the Sinai peninsula across to Morocco’s
Atlantic coast. And what they did to the Black Egyptians, Black
Berbers and other Blacks who were the aborigines of that expanse
of land?”
It
may useful to ask, indeed, what happened to all the slaves shipped
to the middle east during the Arab slave trade? Then of course
there is the matter of continued slavery, not some voluntary
Arabization currently going on by Arabs against Black Africans
in places like Mauritania and Sudan itself.
Is
it not a rather strange thing to think that Africans are joining
queues to be Arabized in Africa? One would have thought the
process should be the other way round.
There
are a few bizarre if not shocking arguments that Mamdani employs
in his over-drive ostensibly to show Western hypocrisy. Consider,
for instance, his single-handed obsession with New York Times
columnist Nicholas Kristof. Mamdani entered a numbers orgy
with the columnist about how many people were actually killed,
and at the end, he emerged as tainted as those he accuses of
devaluing Black Africans’ lives. Does it really matter
whether it was 200,000 or 700,000 people killed in a single
region? Anyway, those of us who are familiar with denialist
strategies know that the first thing to attack is the authenticity
of numbers; what of course complicates matters is that, in general,
Black bodies are not counted – dead or alive. One is left
wondering, if it were a million killed, would Mamdani change
his mind then? The pursuit of Kristof’s numbers games
raises a fundamental question, what is Mamdani’s own characterization
of such a mass slaughter? Well lo and behold! Mamdani relies
on the Nigerian President, Obasanjo, for authority that there
is no evidence of a plan by Khartoum to decimate Blacks. Since
when do consummate social scientists rely on heads of state
for authority? The latest UN Human Rights Commission report
speaks plainly about the connection between the Janjawiid and
Khartoum, but did not say “genocide”, therefore
we must not expect any change of heart from Mamdani.
Even
his reading of the Security Council’s five person commission
report on Darfur, submitted in 2005, is interesting. We expect
a scholar with integrity to go beyond the lawyerly presentation
of evidence, to illuminate reality on the ground, but Mandani
cannot do so because his heart is in Iraq. He ends up spending
all his energy trying to show moral equivalence between what
he terms the “insurgency and counter-insurgency”.
Once he nails his colors on the mast, he has to do anything
and everything to support his position. Therefore, because the
commission said the government of Sudan “has not pursued
a policy of genocide”, that must be the end of the story.
Legally,
genocide has to have, amongst other elements, “intention
to eliminate a group”. Armed with this definition of genocide
and the pronouncement by Obasanjo, Mamdani goes on to summarize
the commission’s findings thusly: that three violations
of international law occurred in Darfur, “disproportionate
response (by Khartoum) conducted on a widespread and systematic
basis, targeting entire groups … but without the intention
to eliminate them as groups”. How do we determine
intention? How do you indiscriminately target, with live ammunition,
a group and have no intention to eliminate? Do we stick to the
letter of the word, listen to Obasanjo or do we look at mass
graves, still expanding, for evidence? The alternative and honest
view, devoid of clever rationalization and empty legaleze, would
be that those who are being killed are collateral damage as
the Sudanese Arab elite legitimately fight an illegal insurgency.
Just
when one thinks it would end, Mamdani goes further, declaring
“… peace cannot be built on humanitarian intervention,
which is the language of big powers”. Whilst milling on
that one, what must one make of this: “… chronicling
of atrocities had a practical purpose: it provided the moral
pretext for intervention”. Here Mamdani milks the anti-imperial
discourse to deny the Arab colonialist intentions and practices
against Black Africans. But worse, he does this to deny the
Black Africans of Darfur the right for their suffering to be
recognized in its own right. It’s hard to understand why
Mamdani so desperately seeks to reduce the suffering of Black
Darfurians. Except, of course, that in his legitimate battle
against Islamophobia and Western Imperialism, he ends up an
Arabist supremacist apologist. The tragedy is that he need not
be.
The
fact that the Durfur campaigners may be misguided in calling
for American intervention, and the fact that the USA has nasty
imperial intentions with Sudan, or that the war on terror is
actually terrorism should not be used as an excuse not to condemn
the settler Arab scheme of colonial expansion and death in Sudan.
Mamdani’s
call for a political settlement, based on a power-sharing mechanism
in Sudan and Darfur smacks of the apartheid regime’s attempt
to legally entrench minority rights as a device to perpetuate
white privilege. However, the suggestion falls flat when it
confronts the reality that the Arab elite is prepared
to fight to maintain its rule as shown by the recent refusal
by Khartoum to let into Darfur the UN Human Rights Commission.
If in doubt, let’s hear the ominous words of President
Omer al-Bashir: “We have assumed power with arms; those
who want power, or want to share it, should be men and fight
for it."
Using
blackmail and threats, Mamdani warns against the USA intervention
in Sudan, because such an intervention would lead to a real
genocide a la Rwanda and not the current “rhetorical”
genocide. Most progressive people would agree with his proposition
around American intervention, but only in that he does not provide
any real scope for intervention, even by African forces. He,
instead, calls for a political solution to the “civil
war”. What’s puzzling is Mamdani’s lack of
sense of urgency in the face of the continued mass murder of
Blacks in Darfur, coupled with a stubborn refusal to see Khartoum
for what it is: an illegitimate settler minority regime hell-bent
on Arab colonial expansion at all cost.
It
boggles the mind as to why Mamdani chooses the narrow path of
“UN speak” and politicians’ logic to construct
a hierarchy of suffering. Who cares whether Khartoum has a plan
to decimate those Black Africans or not? The reality is that
it has sponsored the killing of between 200,000 and 500,000
and still continuing. Why can’t we condemn these killings
with the same intensity and anger as the deaths in Rwanda, Congo,
Iraq and Palestine? In condemning, let’s not allow tribal,
religious or race prejudices to stop us from pointing a finger
at the culprits and their deadly intentions. That’s what
we can, at the least, expect from thinkers of Mamdani’s
caliber.
Andile
Mngxitama is a land activist and a Pan Africanist from
South Africa, he is a co-editor of a forthcoming volume
titled, Biko Lives - Conversations and Contestations.
He can be reached at [email protected].
|
|
Home |
|
|
|
Your comments are always welcome.
If you send us an e-Mail
message we may publish all or part of it, unless you
tell us it is not for publication. You may also request
that we withhold your name.
Thank you very much for your readership.
|
|
|