Egyptian Sudan 36 For the reasons we have mentioned, and given the preceding facts, Wingate Pasha succeeded with the Sudanese on the day of his appointment as Governor of Sudan and Sirdar of the Egyptian Army. Wingate Pasha, who was the greatest expert on Sudanese inclinations and sentiments, did not tell them that he was appointed to administer their country by the government of His Majesty the King and the Khedive. Instead, he began his proclamation with the following phrase: "His Highness Prince Abbas Hilmi II, Khedive of Egypt, may God protect him, has chosen me to be the Sirdar of his army and the Governor of the Sudanese territories, after his agreement with Great Britain on this matter." etc. He concluded his proclamation by saying, "And God is the one I ask for assistance in carrying out the will of His Highness the Great Khedive."

The agreement with England was phrased ambiguously regarding his appointment, so that the Sudanese would understand that the Khedive had appointed him alone to this position, as was their custom in political rivalries. Any statement beyond this statement would refute the claims of those who say that Sudan is averse to Egyptian rule and that the Sudanese are a nation separate from the Egyptian nation. If General Wingate had not been confident in the Sudanese inclinations and sentiments, he would have opened his proclamation in the name of His Majesty the Queen and would have mentioned the name of the Egyptian government or its Khedive in the same manner as he mentioned the name of "Great Britain." If we refer to General Wingate's own book and to other authors, we will know that those who are relied upon in Sudan and are considered the Sudanese nation are the Arabs who came to Sudan from Egypt. They are the masters, they are the influential ones, and they are the "Sudanese." If we accept their word and the word of their scholars, then let those writers who claim that Egypt is one nation and the Sudanese are another nation tell us how to reconcile the statements of the expert English historians themselves with their claims. Do we not have the right to say that it is a claim?