Blurred Line Between Heroes and Villains "Any one determined to distort history for selfish aims must remember that most of their potential readers will not be morons but reasonable people who would be able to separate facts from fiction..." 08 June 2015
By Atem Yaak Atem To gauge the attitude of most South Sudanese towards their leaders, past and present, and their place in history, you just have to listen to speeches being made to commemorate some national occasions such as the Martyrs’ Day or May 16 which marks the anniversary of the mutiny that led to the birth of the SPLM/A later in 1983. In the second half of May this year I attended two functions to celebrate the 32nd anniversary of the Bor rebellion. The first was at Canberra the Australian capital city. A week later- May 23- the South Sudanese held their function for the same purpose in Sydney, New South Wales. Speeches made during the two gatherings were mainly to pay tribute to freedom fighters, especially to the memory of the ones who could not see the “promised land”, having paid the ultimate price. In Sydney, a group of South Sudanese women took to the stage to entertain the audience with patriotic songs, praising liberation leaders through history until the SPLM/A time. Some of the leaders remembered in songs have long been dead while others are among the political class either in power or in opposition in the now independent South Sudan. But before the singing could begin they had to make a disclaimer: the song the group was going to belt out like the rest of the 10 tracks or so already produced in a CD was composed to mobilise the diaspora Southern Sudanese to vote in the referendum of early 2011. That clarification was necessary because most of the songs praise some among retired and serving SPLA commanders. The selected songs for the occasion did not include any of the figures currently in opposition against the Government of South Sudan. However, one of the songs on the CD and not performed on that night contains a refrain that goes “…*yekë cï wek paanda dhieel bei”*, a Dinka expression roughly meaning “…because you have wrestled out our homeland from [the oppressor]”. One after the other, the paean lists some of the former rebel commanders: Salva Kiir, Riek Machar, Wani Igga, Kuol Manyang, [Daniel] Awet Akot, Oyai Deng, Pagan Amum, Yousif Kuwa and on and on it goes. (And for the South Sudanese who voted against independence the singers have scathing words for them: “you have chosen slavery/ we have rejected slavery/ for nobody is born a slave in his homeland”), the lyrics declare in part. As it is known the armed conflict that broke out in December 2013 has poisoned relations among various SPLM leaders, some whom are implacable foes today. Since that time the former comrades in arms have become three opposing camps; some of them in government (President Salva Kiir, his deputy James Wani Igga, defence minister Kuol Manyang while on the other hand former vice president Riek Machar now leads an armed opposition; and Pagan Amum and Oyai Deng, among others, are in another rival camp of a group known as political detainees.) But the composers who sang praise of all these former guerrilla fighters in 2011 had no idea that these men who fought together for freedom would differ, quarrel and become enemies of each other in future. *Differences among leaders spill into society* Call it self-censorship or whatever name one may fancy, for one to cite- in a positive context and before an audience that is unlikely to approve the credit so conferred- a name of an individual or an organisation that is associated with dissent, the presenter would probably be considered impolitic if not courting outright opprobrium and sometimes accusation of being a sympathiser of rebels, a common error of judgement or sometimes arising out of latent spite or both, practices that have become common within South Sudanese diaspora for some time now, especially in Australia. Throughout the years of the armed conflict in Sudan it had become almost the norm for people to shun expressing any positive sentiments about a *nyagat*. (Nyagat which is a word of obscure origin is a South Sudanese equivalent of “renegade”). For example, journalists in Juba now are told not include rebels’ position for the sake of balancing their news stories. Likewise, the armed opposition’s media statements do not mention government’s views except when they are selectively picked for ridicule. *Once praised, now demonised* The saying that someone’s freedom fighter is another person’s outlaw or terrorist equally applies to the South Sudanese society. Many times over, some of their leaders who were at first their darling and accordingly showered with praises for their patriotism ended being called names after a fall out leading to a rift or defection to the enemy or a radical change of political or ideological course. This writer is no stranger to grappling with problems occasioned by differences within South Sudanese political leadership and how such an environment can impact on the principles of sound journalism and its ethics. I am referring to the events of 1987 following the arrest and detention of Commander Kerubino Kuanyin Bol. For reasons to follow shortly, Cdr Kerubino Kuanyin’s name was immortalised by the fighting forces in songs they composed and sang during their time at training centres. These songs were some of the stuff Radio SPLA broadcast to boost the morale of both the forces as well as millions of rebels’ supporters at home and abroad. As head of that clandestine broadcaster I faced a complicated problem over what to do with the war songs that praised the detained commander or the speeches he made and were recorded before he was bundled into confinement. Worried members of my team- programme producers and news editors for English, Arabic and “Nationality Service”- approached me for advice: what should they do while several reels of recorded music mentioned “Kerubino” in them? Their concern was similar to mine. I did not have ready and convincing answers; it was a sticky situation. The case revolved around someone who had earned the credit for which he was being praised; he deserved that and it was a right none of us should deny him or withdraw from him, not even death could do that. Before his detention Kerubino Kuanyin Bol was not only the second in command of the movement; he was the officer who spearheaded the mutiny that later culminated in the formation of the SPLA/SPLM (the order was reversed in 1986 to give the impression that the military component of the organisation was subordinate to the political, which in practice was not the case true). At the warfront Cdr Kerubino Kuanyin was one of the commanders who conducted successful operations, one of them which resulted in a humiliating defeat in 1986 of a government battalion in Southern Blue Nile region and the capture of its commander, Lieutenant Colonel Abu-illa Juma who became a prisoner of war. Furthermore, although a controversial leader, Kerubino Kuanyin has an enduring legacy for his role in making the rebels’ policy of taking and keeping safe the Government of Sudan’s soldiers captured in battle as POWs a palpable reality. But these justifications for and arguments against overt censorship we were going to implement flew in the face of the reality of the situation. All of us as a team running the radio station had little leverage over what to broadcast or not to broadcast when the issue concerned senior leadership or their decisions. Our job was mainly to do as told and to receive instructions and comply with them and no questions asked. This meant that if the leadership had decided to lock up one of their own (and to naturally expect us to suppress his praiseworthy role) we had to go along with that line regardless of our personal views. To the outsiders and especially the moralists we would now appear as a spineless bunch of journalists. There is a caveat to be made for one to come to that conclusion. Under a conventional media job, mainly a paid one, a journalist in such a situation would have the choice of doing as told or voting with their feet: quitting the job on moral grounds. In our unconventional media setting, quitting unequivocally meant desertion and that equalled denouncing the struggle and its objectives which in turn would amount to treachery and betrayal of the cause even if one did not defect to the enemy. After having suspended judgement on the issue, we decided to follow what we thought was the obvious course of action; in short the station should not play any war song that mentioned Kerubino Kuanyin Bol by name or any recorded statement by him during the “good old days”. That was a foregone conclusion and my staff threw spanners at work to redub the reels. Those tapes which contained the embargoed songs had to be kept outside the studio while the “sanitised” reels were prepared for everyday use. The Radio SPLA staff, especially editors, producers and the head of entertainment unit- had to make sure the music they would select to accompany their programmes did not have those which mentioned the name of Kerubino Kuanyin. And there were several songs of them that did. The result of that was that Kerubino Kuanyin Bol disappeared out of the airwave as if he had not existed at all or ever been a member of the organisation of which the station was a mouthpiece. *Cdr John Kulang: first feted as a hero and killed as a traitor * The history of SPLM/A is replete with fortunes of some of its leaders being feted as heroes but who at certain stages of the struggle would change course either as a result of a disagreement or defection to an opposing camp and ending up being demonised by their erstwhile comrades. Late Cdr John Kulang Puot epitomes a feature that became defining attribute of some SPLM/A: pendulum swinging from adulation to disgrace in equal measure. Although several years ago I wrote as an example, a piece on that extraordinary journey by Kulang, I feel compelled to reproduce it here as abridged and in present tense. In 1984 Samuel Gai, then Anya Nya leader, is killed, William Abdalla Chuol succeeds him. Chuol is reported to be receiving military support from the Government of Sudan and has become a thorn on the side of the SPLA. However, SPLA forces of Battalion 105 under the command of Major John Kulang defeat the forces of Anya Nya Two and its commander Chuol is killed; Kulang gets elevation as a reward, becoming alternate member of the Political Military Command of the SPLM/A. A couple of years afterwards, Cdr William Nyuon orders the arrest and detention of Cdr Kulang. Several years later, Kulang and fellow detainees, including Cdr Kerubino Kuanyin Bol, Cdr Arok Thon Arok, escape and flee detention centre and out of bitterness for what he (Kulang) sees as unjust incarceration, deserts and joins the Government of Sudan. Khartoum sends Kulang to his home area of Pan-gak (there is nothing called Fangak) to set an administration allied to the government; SPLA forces in the area follow Kulang’s movements; he is marked as a legitimate target; his convoy is ambushed and Kulang is killed by his former comrades of the SPLA. (It is to be recalled that Kerubino Kuanyin Bol and William Nyuon died in South Sudan at the hands of gunman/men who were believed to have been either in the SPLA or were once members. Arok thon Arok on the other hand died in a plane crash that also killed Sudan’s first vice president Zubeir Mohammed Salih in Nasir in 1990s). The question I put to the reader then was and remains: was John Kulang Puot a hero or a traitor? A patriot or a betrayer who worked in cohort with the oppressor? Happily for the memory of John Kulang and that of his former and deceased colleagues who had traversed this controversial route from glory to damnation, the SPLM leadership in 2011 decided to recognise their individual contributions by adding their names to the long list of martyrs. During the days preceding the celebrations to mark the independence of South Sudan, members of the national committee that was tasked to spruce up Juba city among other activities, for the occasion, put up photographs of some personalities who identified with the struggle, among many, all of them dead. Those whose images graced the main streets of the capital city included John Kulang, Kerubino Kuanyin, William Nyuon Bany, Arok thon Arok. The last three figures that had gone to Khartoum after their long detention were branded as turncoats and denounced publicly within the mainstream SPLM/A official circles including their media before the end of war in 2005. Demonising rivals among South Sudanese leaders was not confined only to those who had defected to the enemy camp. For example, John Garang, the founding leader of the movement had his share of uncharitable epithets supplied to him by his opponents. In his *The Nasir Declaration of 1991* Lam Akol has revealed that while William Nyuon- then Garang’s deputy- was while at Pageri in Eastern Equatoria plotting and in collaboration with Riek Machar & Co. to take over the movement’s leadership in 1992 that during Nyuon’s communication with the grouping who had broken away from the SPLM/A, Garang had been given the moniker “Monster”. Another former close ally of Garang who had turned bitter detractor was fond of referring to him, in a one-man-publication as “Arabophile” or the Arab lover. The modifier was created to disparage Garang over his policy that called for a Sudan united on the basis of a radically overhauled system of rule in the country. It appears, the only living saints within the power elite of South Sudan then were the accusers while their enemies were given the kind of adjectives that would make even the devil blush. This presentation of the world raises the question: what could future historians of our long and costly struggle for freedom and dignity make of us, considering that they will draw some of their conclusions from some of these sources? *“Distorted” history of the struggle* Ideally, an objective historical account of a country, a political party or struggle for national independence, like any other history should record everything, warts and all and with ample analysis to shed light on actions, omissions, actors and their motives and justification or lack of them. That kind of narrative is expected to accommodate the good and the bad, the noble and the evil and that every actor has to be given their dues, glorious or otherwise. In real life, few could be so magnanimous so as to give all the credit to opponents, especially among living contemporaries. It therefore comes as no surprise that much of what has been written about the struggle for South Sudan in form of memoirs or press articles in the conventional or social media is more often than not an effort for self-glorification on the one hand and vilification, denying rivals their achievements or positive stance on issues of the day on the other. I have met several fellow South Sudanese who are worried about what they think is that the history of the struggle- by which they mean only the period from 1983-12005- is being “distorted” and “stolen”. The second allegation refers to exaggerated roles some actors have claimed for themselves when their critics think that their role was either peripheral at best or more of a disservice than an input to the liberation process. Anyone complaining about these issues has a case. But they should understand that if they have the story and the means of putting that narrative into its a desired perspective that puts right the alleged distorted version, the sooner they do it the better before some of the remembered facts evaporate into mist of time if they happen to have been an eyewitness. There can never be an objective treatment of any history unless its authors are honest to tell it as it is. As far as the history of our struggle is concerned we have to think and talk of histories, not *the history.* Due to the dearth of primary sources (some of important documents are being owned by individuals who have no intention to release to public archives for safekeeping for a future release to the public) on the struggle for nationhood, it would be a very long time when a definitive history of South Sudan’s struggle will be available. In the meantime we have just to be content with a series of histories, imperfect as they may be. Finally, I think it is appropriate to end this piece with an observation about the dangers that arise when myths and history are mixed. In a Preface to his book *The Strange Career of Jim Crow, *author C. Vann Howard has this to say, “The twilight zone that lies between living memory and written history is one of the favorite breeding places of mythology”, adding that such a situation “has been aided by the old prejudices, and the deeply stirred emotions that always distort history…however well illuminated by memory and research.” Any one determined to distort history for selfish aims must remember that most of their potential readers will not be morons but reasonable people who would be able to separate facts from fiction even if they might not have been eyewitnesses to the events being told to them and no matter how beautifully the stories are packaged and spiced. *This is a shortened version of a longer essay under the title of “>From an Eyewitness: Some Selected Events from Our Recent Past”* Posted in: Opinions <http://www.gurtong.net/ECM/Editorial/tabid/124/ctl/CategoryView/mid/519/categoryId/24/Opinions.aspx> -- To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/southsudankob View this message at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/southsudankob/topic-id/message-id For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "South Sudan Info - The Kob" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SouthSudanKob. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SouthSudanKob/CAJb14orCHaw5g7x8LZC-gHXssgXSBygiVBpTj7H4uns5oZ%3DqQg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
