A huge new Maoist ambush in the Bastar Region of Chattisargh killed 27 police and wounded 10 others. About 100 rebels opened up on the forces from a hilltop as they were returning from a patrol. I understand that the Operation Red Hunt in the region is winding down because the Monsoon season is starting up in Bastar.
Monthly Archives: June 2010
In the India Is a Shithole piece, James Schipper suggests that India has been free of significant civil strife:
Another thing for which India deserves credit is that, despite being one of the most multinational states in the world, it has managed to avoid serious internal conflicts. In terms of national composition, India should not be compared with the US but with Europe, which is of course divided in about 40 different states.
This is not true. Kashmir has been on fire since 1968 or so. There are now 500,000 troops locking the place down, and every day, another young Kashmiri or two at least is killed.
India was born in blood and sin, like the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and various settler-colonial states.
The difference is that the Indian state, incredibly, attacked her very own people from the start of the Indian state enterprise, and has been at war with them ever since. In this sense, India is an utterly failed state like Myanmar or Indonesia, two other former colonial states who have been battling insurgencies from the start from parts of the former colony who never wanted to join the new state.
India has about as much right to exist in its current form as Myanmar does. India is a failed state. It’s has failed to properly rule or provide for its people, and tens of millions of its citizens never consented to join the new state in the first place, but were dragged in kicking and screaming amidst slaughters.
Parents who can’t raise their children get their kids taken away. India’s children are its nations and peoples, whom it can’t and won’t care for because its ruling class is negligent and doesn’t care, like a crack-addicted Mom. Hence, India has no right to rule the peoples of the Northeast, Kashmir and Punjab and the Indian state in its current form should be dissolved as surely as Israel should be.
The Northeast has been in rebellion, often armed rebellion, nearly from Day One. There have been scores of armed groups fighting the state in that region, and many are still active. Bottom line is that India has no right to rule the Northeast, and as India is a cesspool anyway, why should the NE people be forced to live in a sewer? Let them secede and negotiate their way to modernity.
There is now a huge Maoist rebellion going on the East. There are easily 100,000 Maoists, and they have millions of supporters.
There was a huge rebellion in the Punjab a while back. It’s over, but it was nasty.
There is a continuous low level conflict going on with India’s Muslims, who regularly set off horrible bomb attacks on India’s Hindu cities. The Hindus are now responding by bombing India’s Muslim cities. Further, there have been many cases of inter-religious violence, mostly pogroms of Muslims by India’s Hindus and sometime riots by put-upon Indian Muslims. These pogroms started with the birth of the Indian state and the splitting of Pakistan, and to be honest, have never stopped.
In addition, there have been hundreds of killings of Christians in the East by Hindus, including burnings of churches and entire towns, pogroms, etc. This is ongoing as I write this.
My usual answer to the first question is Daniel Defoe, and my typical answer to the second question is Moll Flanders (1722).
Defoe seems to be correct, though a better answer to #2 would be Robinson Crusoe, which predated by Moll Flanders by a whole three years (1719).
Interesting that about a century goes by between the end of Shakespearean drama, which one would have thought would have spurred something as great as the novel, until the first real novel. What happened in between. More plays, I think. Poetry, Milton, etc. Tons of religious nuttiness, lots of kings and queens, the usual early civilizationist grapplings.. The colonization of the Americas. Lots of stuff. But no novels. Funny, that.
Anyone who has an earlier English novelist or novel please speak up.
This article sums up what modern India is all about, written by a fairly progressive fellow named Sean Kelley. I’ve been studying India for a while now, and the more I study it, the angrier I get. India, quite simply, sucks. Sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks and then sucks some more. I don’t know how long this shittiness has been going on, maybe forever. When the British first showed up, they were appalled. They tried to civilize the place, but the small-c conservative Indians kept objecting to getting civilized.
What sucks? India sucks. What about it sucks?
First of all, the state.
The Indian state has sucked Devil’s balls in Hell from Day One, birthed in blood-soaked imperial and neo-colonial sin like America, Australia and Israel, with even less of an excuse, as a long-abused colony themselves. Now, via alliances with imperialist America, the UK and Israel, India seems to be aping the worst aspects of its former imperialist and colonialist master. Like a crime victim going on a killing spree. Of all the ways to react.
The shitty nature of the Indian state is of course rooted in Indian society, as all states are rooted in the cultural formations of their societies. The Indian state sucks because Indian society sucks.
Why does Indian society suck? It’s hard to sum it up. First of all, you have one of the most callous and uncaring ruling classes, with the usual upper middle class allies, found on Earth.
Missing the good old days? Go to India. Nostalgic for debt slavery and bondage, feudalism (the real deal, not the semi-feudal modern kind), slavery – child and adult, child labor, shit in the streets like the Middle Ages Europe pre-Black Plague? Go to India. It’s all there in spades.
Even more appalling is that no one in India gives a fuck. The bourgeois either live in denial or could care less if the lower classes live, die, or flop, gasping, somewhere in between.
The poor are too stupid and/or ignorant to know better, and many think that their savage and inhuman abuse, like something out of 1400′s England, is actually religiously ordained by God Himself. Sure, the bourgeois sold the poor this rope to hang themselves with, or gave it to them, but they wrapped up all up in one of the most barbaric cultural-religious systems known to modern Man, Hinduism, to give it the staying power of super-glue.
The article makes clear that neoliberalism has ruined India beyond its prior Hellishness. Which is possible, since you don’t need to read Milton to learn that Hell can always get worse.
The pollution and the filth.
The pollution and filth is destroying India and turning it into an actual open cesspool/sewage ditch/garbage dump. One that traverses the whole country. It’s not only nauseous to breathe or look at the filth that surrounds you without respite, but it’s actually literally sickening. A visit to India means a continuous low-level infectious illness from all the filth drowning out your world.
Worse, Indians don’t care. See that guy shitting on the sidewalk? Pay no attention to him. OK, he’s getting up and walking away now. No problem, just don’t step it. The rich pay the trash collectors to keep their neighborhoods clean, and fuck everyone else. A callousness reminiscent of Anglo-Irish absentee landlords in 1820′s Ireland.
The one good thing about neoliberalism is a decline in bureaucracy. You gut government, so there’s not much left. Bureaucracy means too many idle government slackers wasting time and dicking off. It could also mean an insanely underfunded state, which is probably the case with India.
The government doesn’t give a fuck about anything but the rich. The state exists only to suck up to the rich or in its human form to move up classwise and become part of the elite class. The state cares nothing about workers, consumers, the environment, Hell, about anything relating to the people.
Everyone who works for the state is a crook, and they are all on the take. Schools and hospitals in rural areas are empty. Doctors and teachers collect salaries and never show up for work.
Nothing works. The electric grid is down most of the time, but you pay at the end of the month anyway, even if you got little or no energy use out of the system that month. The roads are nightmarish, traffic is horrifyingly dangerous and everything is so congested it makes Los Angeles look like a breezy Sunday drive in the country. The ports don’t work either – they look like something out of 1900. Let’s see, the ports don’t work, the roads don’t work, and bureaucracy stifles everything. How is this neoliberal paradise economy supposed to function anyway?
It’s tough in this neoliberal paradise to even purchase a product. Getting a hotel room is a pain in the ass. Buying a new SIM card for your cellphone is a nightmare best avoided.
The one thing that everyone raves about in India is the trains. Nearly all Indians will insist that the trains are wonderful. Maybe 5-10 years ago, but not anymore. The traffic has maybe tripled, and almost no new cars or lines have been added, as you would expect neoliberals to do. The lines are Hellish, and customer service is probably better in Hell itself. Worse, no one cares. Even worse than that, Indians think Indian Train Hell is Paradise itself.
Malnutrition effects 51% of the population, and about the same number are permanently stunted in their mental and physical growth. This number is flat after 15 years of explosive neoliberal growth in India. Bottom line, all the Wild West dizzying growth rates haven’t filled a single starving Indian stomach. What a shit system.
The starvation and malnutrition levels are actually worse than in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa. Kelly echoes this by saying that he’s been in 50 countries the world over, and even Ethiopia was less a shithole than India. Damn, that’s a powerful indictment. To the Africans’ credit, most Africans, despite their IQ’s, will readily admit to you that their country is a piece of shit. They don’t dig it, and they want change. Good for them.
First part of getting out of a hole is not just to stop digging, but to realize that you’re in a nasty hole in the first place, and would prefer to climb out rather than digging your way towards China and sure death.
Indians not only won’t stop digging, they think that trying to dig your way to China is some kind of a cultural-religious noble endeavor. Any Samaritans stopping by to toss them a rope or offer a hand are showered with abuse for refusing to acknowledge that the Indian’s deep dug pit is actually the greatest civilization created by man. Predictably, most sane folks throw down the rope, say fuck em, and walk on.
The Indian keeps digging as the water fills in around his muddy and beaten feat. Hunger gnaws at his belly. In response to his dim and plunging prospects, he can think of nothing to do but shout, “Glory to Bharat!” while cursing Muslims, Christians and those nasty British. With every breath, the water’s creeping higher.
You wonder why I support the Indian Maoists. Of all of the people in India, only the Maoists seem to have a bat’s chance in Hell of negotiating some kind of a future lessening of the mess above. Everyone else is cheerily on board for stasis or worsening.
*About the title, apologies to all of the actual shitholes in the world. I didn’t mean to compare you with India, sorry.
Jamila is a reactionary Black blogger who has appeared in the comments section. I praised her earlier before I checked out her politics, and now I have to think otherwise.
First of all, it is certainly despairing that over 95% of race realists are fanatical pro-capitalists, either reactionaries or Libertarians. I never knew race had anything to do with economics! There are actually some deeper reasons for this seemingly strange alliance of race realism with hard Right politics, but I don’t have the time to go into it now. Suffice to say that hereditarians are almost always Social Darwinists, and have been since the days of Galton. I’ll let you ponder why this is so.
Jamila is opposed to minimum wage laws:
But either you eliminate minimum wage laws and allow unskilled workers to charge something for their work, or you make them unproductive members of society – because no one will hire them at the rate that laws say they have to be paid–and you end up making the productive members of society take care of them via subsidized housing, food stamps, cash assistance, child tax credits etc.Thomas Sowell has written extensively on how minimum wage laws harm unskilled workers.
Sowell is a reactionary who pursues a blatantly and objectively anti-Black politics. Jared Taylor, pre-eminent White nationalist, has said that he would vote for Sowell for President, so Sowell is palatable to the worst White racists of them all. That does not speak highly of Sowell’s project in terms of Black folks.
If jobs below minimum wage in the ghetto were offered…well, they would not be. There are no jobs of any kind in the ghetto, minimum wage, below, or above. If you drop the minimum wage to zero, the ghetto is not going to be flooded with job openings. Any below minimum jobs that opened up would be mass rejected by all the Blacks of the ghetto. Only illegal aliens would work them, like they already do.
If no minimum wage laws means paradise, the 3rd World would be Paris everywhere. It’s not because they aren’t.
The best living conditions are to be had in places where the workers make the highest wages. The shittiest conditions are in places where the wages are very low. This shoots the whole anti-minimum wage argument right there.
Capitalists need to hire workers. If there are jobs that need to be filled, capitalists in general will just fill them, since they can make a profit by hiring the worker via the Labor Theory of Value. If the position goes unfilled, the capitalist loses because they handle less volume, can’t keep up with work or customers, or have to close early. No capitalist wants labor holes in his business. That right there is bad for business.
Labor holes in a business cost the capitalist big bucks. That’s why capitalists advertise for workers, pay them, and mark up their labor as profits. Sure, there’s increased costs with hiring workers, but they are generally less than the costs of having a labor hole. Anyway, you can pass on the increased costs of the workers to your customers and make up the difference. You can’t do that with a labor hole.
Another thing to consider is Fordism.
The best places to live in the US are where wages are high. Highly paid workers, not the rich, spend most if not all of their money. They buy not just necessities but luxuries, high item stuff and utterly frivolous things like gambling excursions to Las Vegas. Profit margins are high, and businesses don’t compete by price-cutting so much because people with good incomes don’t compare price tags so much. In fact, many are willing to pay a “luxury markup” just for purchasing goods in a luxury zone. Businesses tend to be long lasting, and the malls are full of shops.
Areas with low wages tend to have poor economies since workers spend every nickel of their paychecks on necessities like rent, cheap food, gasoline, utilities, insurance and other bills. There’s literally nothing left over, and they are typically broke by the end of the month, if not before. The few businesses that survive fight to make it by mass price-cutting to attract broke customers. Profit margins are slim, and businesses go out all the time. Result is urban blight, which causes further job losses via capital flight to wealthier areas.
If the extra workers or higher wages raise the costs of doing business, you simply raise prices. As the minimum wage laws apply to your competitors too (Assuming they don’t use illegal labor!), you don’t lose any business, since your competitors are operating under the same economic laws you are and have to pass on all of their increased labor costs too.
$8 an hour won’t break a single businessman anyway. And the US minimum is $7.25/hr.
You have to understand who is pushing this pro-worker argument. The capitalists! Sowell is an apologist and spokesman for the enemies of the workers – the capitalists. The capitalists are the workers’ enemies, through and through, 100%, all the way, always and forever. This is a Law of nature as hard and fixed as Newton’s. The capitalists never, ever, ever promote anything that is in the workers’ interests. Anything they push related to workers is always and only anti-worker.
If getting rid of minimum wage laws was cotton candy for workers, workers would be behind it in a New York minute. They’re not because it isn’t. Who’s it good for? The capitalists! Duh. That’s why they are pushing it.
C’mon people, really, this is economics 101 here.
It’s time to talk straight about this race-IQ stuff, painful as it may be.
One thing is crystal clear to me after dealing with countless US Blacks. Your average Black person in the US is, how to put it kindly? Pretty damn stupid. My heart sinks as I write this. Consider the policy implications of tens of millions of these idiots in our land. The White nationalists have a point. What to do?
Much as I like Hispanics, we really need to look them in the eye clearly as we can and call it like we see it is as far as their brains, or lack of them, go. Face it, your average Hispanic may be a bit smarter than a Black, but they’re still pretty damn stupid. In fact, most are really damn stupid! Ponder for a moment the consequences of 11-20 million of these idiots, all illegals, swarming our land, laughing at corny Mexican movies, gorging on fast food, and pumping out baby morons faster than you can blink. What to do? One throws up their hands.
Now let us look at the great, or not so great anymore, White race. The race that, believe it or not, created this wonderful country. I’ve been dealing with Whites my whole life, and one thing that hits you hard after dealing with a lot of Whites is their intelligence, or lack of it. Because, come to think of it, your average White person, is, well, pretty damn stupid! You know, kind of like the Blacks and the Hispanics? What to do? One wants to cry. There is always separatism.
Smart separatism now! Let’s form a smart separatist state in the US! Where? Utah! No wait. West Virginia! Um, no. Mississippi! Hmm, won’t play. Texas! No go.
Hmmm, back to the drawing board then.
Some good video of heavy duty riots in Kashmir in the past few days. Six people were wounded when security forces opened fire on the rioters, who were throwing stones and attacking the Indian forces with sticks.
There are few things more infuriating than discussing Kashmir with a typical Indian. I’ve discussed this subject with many Indians. Most of them were upper class Hindus, but a few were actually Punjabis. It’s a sad comment that after the failure of the Sikh Rebellion, many Punjabis have descended into the rank sewer of Indian nationalism.
The reaction when discussing Kashmir with an Indian is always the same. First, they start getting very angry, pounding the table, and raising their voice. They insist that all Kashmiris love India and want to be a part of India. The entire Kashmiri rebellion, such as it were, is being fomented from this evil behemoth called Pakistan. The Kashmiris themselves, loyal patriotic Indians, have nothing to do with it and even hate the Pakistani invaders.
One particularly brainwashed fellow insisted that there were no such thing as Kashmiris, there were only Indians. This brings to mind Golda Meir’s comment that there are no such thing as Palestinians.
Indians are about as stark raving batshit nuts on the subject of Kashmir as your average Israeli Jew is on the subject of Palestine. There’s no reasoning with them, no room for conversation, nothing.
Try to bring up the history of Kashmir and you get more defense, blockage, diversion and bluster.
Here is the history of Kashmir.
When India was granted its independence in 1947, there were about 5,000 princely states in India. Each one was in effect its own state with its own government, leadership, etc. The terms of the independence protocol were that each of the 5,000 states would have a right to decide their own future. Join India, be independent, join with some other princely states in another state, etc. The overwhelming majority of the states opted to join India. However, the entire Northeast, Kashmir, and a number of other states around India did not.
Very quickly, most of the small states that refused to join India were attacked by the Indian military and overrun. Many people were killed by the Indian military in these blatantly imperialist endeavors. The entire Northeast was invaded, overrun and occupied. Many Northeasterners resisted, and they have been fighting the state off and on ever since. Pakistan was partitioned off, which was a good idea (Who wants all those hostile Muslims?) and this resulted in horrendous massacres on both sides as Hindus fled Pakistan and Muslims fled India.
Kashmir, in the northwest mountains, had few natural resources and was mostly known as a vacation spot, the Switzerland of India. The population was 90% Muslim, but there were also Buddhist and Hindu minorities there. They practiced a tolerant, syncretistic form of Islam far removed from Islamic fundamentalism. The different communities had traditionally gotten along.
The people of Kashmir wanted to join Pakistan, but the ruler of Kashmir was a Hindu prince. The prince wanted to join India simply because he was a Hindu. No one seemed to be able to make up their minds about what to do.
In the midst of this steamy stasis, Pakistani propaganda rallied many Pakistani tribesmen, mostly Pashtuns, over the mountain passes into Kashmir. This was basically an armed invasion of Kashmir by Pakistani forces, but the use of “independent irregulars” absolved Pakistan of responsibility. The prince called for the Indian army to come in and help him and joined India so he could officially call the army in. The Indian line is, “We were only trying to help.”
A messy war ensued, the end result of which was that Kashmir was split in half between Pakistan and India. India placed Kashmir under a lockdown of military rule, a dictatorship, that lasted for decades.
In the following decades, Kashmiris patiently tried to petition the state with their grievances. Mostly they wanted a UN Resolution to be implemented which called for elections in Kashmir so the people could decide what to do – join Pakistan, stay in India, or go independent. India has been flouting this UN resolution since 1948. As far as outlaw rouge states go, shitty big India is up there with shitty little Israel.
Peaceful protest was crushed for decades by the Indian state in the Dictatorship of Kashmir and real elections were banned for fear that Kashmiri nationalists would win. During this time, all politicians in Kashmir were appointed by India. Finally, some controlled elections were allowed, but only India’s handpicked candidates were allowed to run.
After decades of repression, some small Kashmiri independence groups began to be formed. At one point, there were more than 50 different armed groups fighting the Indian state. They were Muslim, but they tended to be pretty secular within the Kashmiri tradition.
By the 1990′s, the repression from the Indian state was in full swing. At this time, it was estimated that 90% of Kashmiri Muslims supported the separatist insurgents.
There was mass rape of Kashmiri Muslims, death squads roamed the streets, homes were routinely invaded and either shot up or searched for captives who were disappeared never to be seen again. Kashmiris were rounded up in huge detainment camps. Entire neighborhoods would undergo lockdown, and hundreds of young men would be handcuffed to the ground while hooded informers roamed through the group, pointing out insurgents. It was a typical Hellish insurgency.
At the same time, there was almost zero reporting of this insurgency in the US, as the US has always been slavishly pro-India. There are various reasons for this, but the main one is that about 98% of the reporters on the Indian beat at any paper or mag are high caste, typically Brahmin, Hindus, who are always ferociously, utterly deranged, nearly psychotic Indian nationalists. Hence there is almost never any critical coverage of the Indian state coming out of the US press for decades now.
At some point in the 1990′s, Pakistan got involved in the Kashmir issue. Mostly the Pakistani state, nearly as vile as the Indian state, just used Kashmir to whip the public into idiot jingoism and support for a state that few Pakistanis in their right minds should support. In this way, support for Kashmir was used to defuse national tensions in the same sickening way that Arab dictatorships use the Palestine issue to rally support around an elitist state that avoids serving their people properly.
The Pakistanis funded radical Muslim jihadi groups who sneaked into Kashmir, set up bases in the area and engaged in armed fights with the Indian forces. Many of these groups were very hardline radical fundamentalist radicals who were not particularly popular with Kashmiris. But gradually the insurgency shifted from the local Kashmiri groups to the Pakistani jihadis.
Now, if you ask your average Indian dipshit, the entire phase leading up to the involvement of Pakistani jihadis in Kashmir simply never occurred. I tell them about this period of history and they act outraged, as if they are being told toweringly offensive lies. It’s clear that they have never heard of the entire phase of the struggle leading up to Pakistan’s involvement.
The only conclusion is that almost all middle class and higher Indians have been ridiculously brainwashed on this issue. One wonders how this occurred. Clearly, the Indian mass media, long controlled by an ultranationalist high caste Hindu elite, has never told the Indian people the real story of Kashmir. Nor has the school system, as I assume that Indian students are heavily brainwashed even in school on Kashmir.
The Pakistanis are not innocent on this issue, but most of the ones I talked to are a lot saner than the Indians. Pakistanis tend to be calm and level-headed about Kashmir, if somewhat deluded.
But most Pakistanis do not want Kashmir to go independent or stay with India. They only want it to go to Pakistan. So in their own way, they are as contemptuous of the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination as the Indians are. If you tell Pakistanis that Kashmiris don’t want to join Pakistan (only ~6% want to join Pakistan), you get sputters of denial and insistence that Kashmiris really do want to join Pakistan. Turns out the Pakistani state and press have been doing some brainwashing of their own.
Things have calmed down in Kashmir these days, and even the Pandits, the Kashmiri Hindus, are returning to Kashmir. They were ethnically cleansed, it is true, mostly in the early 1990′s. Most Kashmiris now seem ashamed of this act, and try to distance themselves from it, but it happened, and many Pandits were killed in the process. However, at the time, many Kashmiris opposed the ethnic cleansing of the Pandits.
The Pandits, 10% of Kashmir’s population, have since become a rallying cry for Hindutvas and idiot Indian nationalists. Many of them moved south of Jammu into refugee camps. Others scattered to the four winds. Even progressive Pandits are not too keen on Kashmiri self-determination as a consequence of their tribulations.
The insurgency is now at a very low level, but that’s because there are 500,000 Indian troops in Kashmir, which is not a large area. Keep in mind that at its peak, the US had 150,000 troops in Iraq which is twice as large as Kashmir. It would be as if the US had 1 million troops in Iraq.
Consequently, Kashmir is now one of the world’s pre-eminent garrison states. While the insurgency has died down, street protests have become the latest form of resistance in the past few years. The scene has an Intifada feel about it. Huge throng of Muslim youths fight it out in the streets with Indian forces on at least a weekly basis. This Intifada style rebellion is almost completely absent from the US press. On rare occasions, one glimpses a startling article to remind you that all’s not ok.
Try to tell an Indian about these huge throngs of Muslim youths regularly protesting and rioting and you will get a violent bluster. They insist, incredibly, that this is simply not occurring.
At some point, a sane state would give Kashmiris the right to vote on their self-determination. Support for independence has withered from 90% in the early 1990′s down to ~50% today. There’s about 45-50% support for both independence and staying with India. The option to join Pakistan, as noted above, is only 6%, which makes sense. Look at Pakistan. Why would any people in their right mind want to join that state?
There’s a little Kashmir backgrounder for you. You’re sure to never find that anywhere in the US or Indian media.
The year is 1885. It is winter, January 25th. The Mahdi Rebellion against the Egyptians, and really, the British, is over. General Charles Gordon, governor of Sudan, had only arrived a year prior. He died on the steps of his palace, fighting off the Mahdi warriors alongside his assistant, both firing pistols at the encroaching jihadis. His assistant was knocked unconscious.
When he came to, Gordon was dead, and his head had been cut off. When the head was placed at the Mahdi’s feet, he ordered it placed on a tree branch, where people would mock it as they walked by, children would throw stones at it, and hawks would circle it above.
The Mahdi Rebellion was one of the major Muslim jihads of the modern era. The Mahdi was a Sudanese Muslim who declared that he was the “Mahdi” or messianic redeemer of Islam. The Mahdi Army in Iraq is a recent reincarnation.
It was really an anti-Western jihad and an anti-colonial rebellion, as the British were controlling Egypt. The Sudanese Muslims actually defeated the British here, though the assembled army was not the actual British army, but more a collection of laggards, incompetents and mercenaries – 7,000 Egyptian soldiers. “Perhaps the worst army that has ever marched to war,” Churchill called them.
Gordon has several million rounds of ammo, artillery, cannons, thousands of men, but it fared him little well against the surging Mahdi warriors besieging Khartoum. In the winter, the Blue Nile receded, leaving muddy flats exposing the palace. The city was besieged, and food was running out. The civilians and troops were waylaid by cholera and starvation. After nearly a year of siege, Khartoum fell, and Gordon lay dead.
The Mahdi then ruled Sudan for the next 11 years until the British took it back under the fake cover of an Egyptian claim to the Sudan. This time the real British army invaded the Sudan. The Mahdi fought hard, but they were cut down with machine guns. A fake colonial entity called the Anglo-Egyptian administration administered the frank colony of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan until 1956.
Sudan got its independence in 1956, and the South immediately rejected joining the Sudan, a rejection which would culminate in decades of war. I figure that Sudan has so fucked up the business of running of a state that “Sudan” has no right to exist. Break it up into as many pieces as you wish, I say. Hardly anyone but the Arab Muslim ruling class around Khartoum wants to be part of the shithole called Sudan anyway.
There has to be some way away from this inviolability of borders crap, and it collides with the right to self-determination anyway. States are like parents, and the nations within them are like children. If you can’t manage your kids, they are taken away from you and given to someone who can. If you can’t manage the basic tasks of running a state, your right to run the state should be revoked, and the nations within should have the right to decide their destiny.