*Sudan War (A Tale of Two Countries: A Prophecy Repeated and a Destiny Decided)* Captain Mohamed Hassan Al-Tahir

*Sudan War (A Tale of Two Countries: A Prophecy Repeated and a Destiny Decided)*

Captain Mohamed Hassan Al-Taher

Date: September 25, 2026

 

London and Paris… in his famous novel _”A Tale of Two Cities”_ – Dickens was describing a pivotal historical moment when he said his immortal sentence:

– “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…”

 

This is how every story of division begins. One country, one people, finds itself in front of a broken mirror, each shard sees itself as the complete picture.

 

And this is exactly what _Muhammad Ali Jinnah_ established in his two-nation theory:

 

Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s theory was not about hatred, but about impossibility.

– The impossibility of two nations with radically different identities – in their doctrine, their culture, their social law – living under one constitution that forces one of them to be a permanent minority.

 

Jinnah said:

– If coexistence means that you have to compromise your essence every day to please the other, then separation is not betrayal, but survival.

 

India and Pakistan were a “tale of two countries” that emerged from the womb of one country.

And now, after 80 years, the same postponed question is being raised in Sudan today:

– Are we the story of one country trying to remain one, or the story of two countries trying to free themselves from each other?

 

What is likely in Sudan today is that Jinnah’s scenario is repeating itself to the letter in the battle of no-man’s-land in the game of the war of narratives, which does not resemble Muslim society, and thus the division comes between two stories:

 

_The country of the Nile and the Center:_ with its Arab-Islamic identity and its northern extension.

_And the country of the Periphery and the Mountains:_ with its diverse African identities, Christian and non-religious, which for decades have felt like second-class citizens in a state project that does not resemble them.

 

Hence the following question emerges:

– What if secession happens?

 

To answer this question, we must compare the positives and negatives, or between

the bright face of London and the bloody face of Paris.

 

If we look through Jinnah’s eyes, secession has undeniable positives:

 

_First: Stopping the bloodshed._

– All civil wars in Sudan, from the South previously to Darfur and the Nuba Mountains today, are caused by identity conflict. Two clear states would end the justification for a holy war.

 

_Second: Political clarity._

– The state will no longer be forced to write a constitution that pleases everyone and pleases no one. Each country writes its constitution that clearly reflects its culture and social laws, as Pakistan and India did.

 

_Third: Specialized development._

– One country focusing on its agricultural and Nile resources,

– And another country focusing on its minerals, its environmental diversity, and its openness to Africa, without one stealing the other’s budget.

 

As for the negatives, or the bloody face of Paris:

We find that Dickens did not write only about London, but he wrote about Paris in the days of the guillotine. And every separation has its guillotine:

 

_First: A severed economy._

– As happened to Sudan after the secession of the South in 2011, the North lost 75% of its oil.

– Any new division means a new division of gold, of water, in light of the theory of water wars, which is not without a conspiracy against the wealth of the poor Sudanese people, and this may create two poor countries instead of one rich country – “The spears refuse to break if they are together” as poetry says, and “The hand of God is with the group” as religion says…

 

_Second: The tribe will become a state._

– Jinnah’s theory succeeded because there were two clear religions, but in Sudan the divisions are not only between two religions, but hundreds of tribes and languages.

 

If we open the door to “every different identity deserves a state,” we will not get two countries, but five countries, and thus we will write a story of blood, what do you think, huh, little country?

 

_Third: The psychological wound._

– Separation does not erase memory. The Indian and the Pakistani still cry over the same songs to this day (Dil and Pyar).

 

The Sudanese in the North and the West will continue to hear the same drum and rababa… and his conscience will be moved by all melodies on the continuous pentatonic and heptatonic scales..

 

Dickens’ novel ends with a sacrifice. Its hero who dies so that others may live, and here exactly comes the question:

Are we facing the best of times or the worst?

 

The story of the two countries in Sudan will not be decided by weapons, but will be decided by one question:

Can we create “competence” – a citizenship competence that accommodates everyone, or will we be satisfied with performing unity – in front of the cameras in the manner of Stanislavski’s book An Actor Prepares, performance, while hearts are separated?

 

From here I find that if we fail to build a constitution that guarantees that no one is a permanent minority, then Jinnah’s theory will impose itself, whether we like it or not. And history does not forgive those who are late in reading its story, which makes it imperative for decision-makers to make the bitter choice between one option and another, either to be:

– London and Paris in revolution,

– Or London and Paris in cooperation.

It is the same story, and we are the ones who write its ending, and the water belies the diver.