Memory as a Weapon: How Sudan’s April 2023 War Is Fought Through History
Abstract
Sudan’s April 2023 war is not only a military confrontation between rival armed forces but also a struggle over historical memory and identity. Competing actors mobilize selective narratives of the Mahdist state and the Battle of Karari 1898 to legitimize violence, mobilize support, and claim political authority. This article argues that Sudan’s conflict has been fought through historical narratives as much as through weapons. Ignoring this “war of memory” risks misdiagnosing the drivers of violence and undermining any effort toward a durable political settlement.
Introduction: A War Fought with History
In April 2023, as fighting erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a senior RSF political adviser claimed in a televised interview that the force was more than 130 years old and rooted in Sudan’s state-building history. The statement was less about historical accuracy than about how the Mahdist legacy is invoked to frame contemporary violence as part of an unresolved national past.
This framing is not incidental. It reflects a broader struggle over how Sudan’s history is remembered, narrated, and weaponized. Rather than presenting the war as a contemporary contest over power, command, or institutions, armed actors recast violence as the continuation of unfinished historical struggles. In doing so, responsibility shifts away from present political choices and toward inherited historical necessity.
Rather than viewing Sudan’s April 2023 war solely as a struggle over territory or command structures, it is more accurately understood as a contest over historical meaning and political legitimacy. Historical narratives, particularly those surrounding the Mahdist state and the Battle of Karari, are selectively mobilized to justify violence, define enemies, and claim legitimacy. Understanding this dimension is essential for grasping why the conflict has proven so resilient and why narrowly technocratic approaches to peace have repeatedly failed.
Memory, Identity, and Violence in Civil War
In divided societies, history rarely functions as a neutral record of the past. Collective memory, the shared and socially constructed understanding of historical experience, plays a central role in shaping political identity and patterns of violence. It determines which grievances are elevated, which injustices are remembered, and which episodes are strategically forgotten.
In civil wars, memory often becomes a political resource. Armed actors selectively reinterpret the past to draw rigid boundaries between “us” and “them,” transforming political disputes into existential conflicts. Violence, in this context, is not merely instrumental; it is moralized. It is framed as defense, retribution, or historical correction rather than as a contingent political choice.
Violence linked to identity is not inevitable. It emerges when plural and overlapping identities are reduced to singular, exclusionary categories that claim moral superiority and historical entitlement. Once embedded in public discourse, such narratives normalize violence and render compromise illegitimate.
Sudan’s war reflects this dynamic clearly. Historical narratives are not mobilized to explain the conflict after the fact; they are propagated in real time to sustain mobilization, justify atrocities, and harden social boundaries.
Memory does not merely reflect violence, it actively shapes its trajectory.
Sudan’s Fragmented Historical Landscape
Sudan’s modern political history is marked by repeated cycles of state formation, collapse, and reconstitution. Each phase has left behind unresolved grievances and competing memories. Rather than producing a shared national narrative, Sudan’s past has generated layered and often contradictory interpretations of authority, belonging, and legitimacy.
Colonial rule institutionalized many of these divisions, but it did not create them from nothing. Earlier experiences of coercion, resistance, and internal domination shaped how communities interpreted later political developments. As a result, history in Sudan functions less as a unifying story and more as a contested terrain.
These historical fractures help explain why contemporary conflicts so easily activate older narratives. When state authority collapses or loses legitimacy, actors turn to the past for alternative sources of justification. In Sudan, the Mahdist period occupies a particularly powerful place in this symbolic economy.
The Mahdist State: Resistance and Repression
Few historical episodes occupy Sudan’s collective memory as powerfully or as ambiguously as the Mahdist state (1885–1898). For some, the Mahdist movement represents a heroic uprising against Turco-Egyptian domination and a rare moment of indigenous sovereignty. For others, it symbolizes authoritarian rule, internal repression, forced displacement, and deep social fragmentation.
These competing memories coexist rather than cancel each other out. The Mahdist state was both a project of resistance and a period of profound internal violence. Under Khalifa Abdullahi al-Ta’aishi, governance increasingly relied on coercion, forced mobilization, and tribal favoritism, alienating large segments of Sudanese society and provoking sustained internal revolts.
Rather than consolidating a unified national identity, the Mahdist rule entrenched hierarchies and grievances that survived its collapse. These divisions were not erased under colonial rule; they were reorganized and institutionalized through new administrative and security structures. The result was not historical closure, but the preservation of unresolved tensions beneath a new political order.
This unresolved legacy explains why the Mahdist’s past remains so politically potent. It offers symbols that can be selectively emphasized or suppressed, depending on the needs of the present.
Karari 1898: Defeat, Division, and Memory
The Battle of Karari in 1898, which ended the Mahdist state and ushered in British colonial rule, remains one of the most symbolically charged events in Sudanese history. Militarily decisive, it was politically and socially complex.
Karari was not simply a confrontation between a colonial army and an indigenous state. Thousands of Sudanese fought on both sides of the battle, reflecting internal divisions often overlooked in simplified nationalist narratives. Many who opposed the Mahdist army did so in response to internal repression rather than allegiance to colonial rule. This ambiguity has never been fully reconciled.
For some, Karari represents martyrdom and resistance against imperial violence. For others, it marks the collapse of an internally oppressive regime.
These interpretations coexist uneasily, resurfacing during moments of crisis.
In the current war, Karari functions less as a historical event than as a symbolic mirror. Its memory is mobilized to frame contemporary violence either as justified resistance or as necessary defense against internal tyranny. The battlefield, in symbolic terms, never truly closed.
April 2023: Narratives at War
The April 2023 war unfolded alongside an intense struggle over narrative control. RSF leaders have drawn on historical symbolism to frame their role as part of a longer struggle, portraying contemporary violence as historically justified rather than politically contingent.
By invoking the Mahdist legacy, the RSF seeks to situate itself within a lineage of resistance and marginalization. This narrative resonates with communities carrying long-standing grievances against the riverain-centered state and its institutions. Violence, in this framing, appears not as a rupture but as continuity.
Conversely, constituencies aligned with the SAF mobilize different historical readings. They emphasize the Mahdist state’s authoritarian excesses and internal violence, framing the RSF as a modern reincarnation of a destructive historical force. Terms such as Jalaba and Awlad al-Bahr re-emerge, echoing the language of nineteenth-century conflicts.
These narratives shape recruitment, justify atrocities, and reinforce cycles of retaliation. Language itself becomes a weapon, transforming political rivals into existential enemies and narrowing the space for compromise.
Memory as a Tool of Mobilization
The weaponization of memory has direct operational consequences. Historical narratives influence who joins armed groups, how violence is justified, and which targets are deemed legitimate. When violence is framed as historically necessary, restraint becomes betrayal, and compromise becomes surrender.
This dynamic helps explain the intensity and brutality of the current conflict. Atrocities are not only strategic acts; they are symbolic performances meant to affirm identity and signal loyalty. Memory supplies the moral vocabulary through which such acts are understood and defended.
Even when military momentum shifts, these narratives persist. Ceasefires may reduce fighting, but they do not dissolve the symbolic foundations of violence.
As long as historical grievances remain unaddressed, armed actors retain powerful tools of mobilization.
Implications for Policy and Peacebuilding
For international mediators and policymakers, Sudan’s war is often framed as a security-sector dispute or an elite power struggle. While these dimensions are real, they are analytically incomplete. The conflict is sustained not only by weapons and institutions, but by narratives that render violence morally legitimate and historically necessary.
Ceasefires, force integration, and power-sharing arrangements risk addressing symptoms rather than drivers if they ignore the politics of memory. When historical narratives remain unchallenged, armed actors retain symbolic legitimacy even after formal agreements are reached.
Peacebuilding efforts that privilege a single “national” narrative may inadvertently reinforce exclusion. Communities whose historical experiences remain unrecognized are likely to view political settlements as extensions of past domination rather than as genuine compromises.
Addressing Sudan’s conflict, therefore, requires political processes capable of accommodating plural memories without allowing any single version of the past to monopolize legitimacy. This does not mean adjudicating historical truth, but acknowledging that unresolved memory is a security issue, not merely a cultural one.
Conclusion
Sudan’s April 2023 war demonstrates that conflicts are not fought and resolved on the battlefield alone. They are sustained by stories societies tell about their pasts, identities, and enemies. In Sudan, collective memory has become a weapon, mobilized to legitimize violence and entrench division.
Wars may subside when guns fall silent, but conflicts endure when memories remain unresolved and politicized. Any serious attempt to move Sudan beyond recurring cycles of violence must therefore engage not only with armies and institutions, but with history itself.
The post Memory as a Weapon: How Sudan’s April 2023 War Is Fought Through History appeared first on Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University.