Sudan (The “Zol”) – The Split infinitive Between Homogeneity and Difference   Capt Mohamed Hassan Al-Tahir  

 

✨ Sudan is a country rich in history and culture, where identities intersect and languages and ethnicities overlap. This interweaving makes it a unique case that can sometimes be described as:

– Homogeneous

– And at other times, heterogeneous.

To understand this division, we can look at Sudan from three angles:

🏛️ By design:

Sudan was shaped over centuries of interaction among different civilizations: Nubian, Islamic, African, and Arab.

This blending forged a national identity that sought to be homogeneous, as the state aimed to build political and social unity.

– Here, Sudan appears as a homogeneous country striving to present itself as unified, like “salt dissolved in water,” which looks uniform despite its diverse components.

🌍 Virtually:

Sudan is vast in area, with multiple ethnicities, languages, and religions.

This natural diversity makes society’s composition heterogeneous, closer to a “vegetable salad” where the different elements can be seen and separated.

– Tribes, local cultures, and varied languages make diversity the dominant feature.

📖 By definition:

Sudan is a state located in Northeast Africa, bordered by the Red Sea and several African and Arab countries.

Its geographic and political definition places it at the intersection of the Arab and African worlds, making it inherently divided between homogeneity and difference.

Thus, Sudan is not a single-identity entity but a plural space reflecting the contrasts among its components.

⚖️ Since its formation, the state has tried to unify national identity, the official language (Arabic), and Sufi Islam as a unifying element to gather the fragments of diversity that manifest in social and cultural reality, where ethnic, religious, and linguistic variety strongly asserts itself.

This raises the following question:

Can Sudan’s crisis be solved through:

– Language as knowledge

– Or power as language?

📚 Michel Foucault (in Power/Knowledge and The Archaeology of Knowledge) argues:

Power is not merely a tool of repression, but a network that produces and reshapes knowledge.

In Sudan, power has tried to impose a homogeneous discourse, but popular and historical knowledge always reveals plurality, diversity, and difference.

– Power works to “unify” Sudan

– Knowledge reveals its “division.”

✍️ In English, the split infinitive appears as a symbol—for example, the phrase to boldly go.

This can be a metaphor for Sudan’s situation:

– “to go” represents the natural path (homogeneity).

– The word inserted between “to” and the verb represents difference, which changes the meaning and adds a new layer, making the sentence clearer and smoother.

In this way, Sudan is a “split infinitive ” between unity of identity and multiplicity of components.

But is the political mind homogeneous or fractured? Does it have the boldness of the split infinitive in its discourse to affirm the statement “Sudan for the Sudanese”? Or have yesterday’s projects been swept away for a cheap price—mere limited coins for grand ambitions—leaving Sudan exposed to an illness called “elites,” who believe they possess legitimacy (connection) without the awareness of the subdued people?

This is a question that needs an answer, for nations have grand narratives that remind them through history’s course that the future’s course must awaken leaders, reminding them of the poet’s words: “You do not know your ally from your enemy.”

🌟 Conclusion

Sudan is not just a country, but an open text between homogeneity and difference.

This division is not weakness but a source of strength, granting Sudan the ability to be a bridge between worlds and to write its own story—as a Sudanese “Zol”—balancing unity, plurality, and freedom, guided only by a subtle hint.