XXX Международный конгресс ИИСАА. 19–21 июня 2019 г. Т. 1

Секция IX 402 XXX Международный Конгресс по источниковедению и историографии стран Азии и Африки The language policy of the Sudan contrasted remarkably with the traditional language policy of the Soviet Union, as described in 1977 by M. I. Isayev when he published National Languages in the USSR: Problems and Solutions. At that time the Sudan had only one official language, Arabic, and well over 100 languages with no official status. In the Soviet Union there was a very different situation. When Lenin first came to power, he declared all the languages of the Soviet Union to be equal. There was to be no compulsion such as there had been during the Tsarist era with the policy of Russification. No longer would Russian be the official language. There was to be no official Soviet language, but rather 130 ‘national languages’. In 1978 the contrasting situations in the Sudan and the Soviet Union were exam- ined in a postgraduate course which I conducted at the Institute ofAfrican andAsian Studies (IAAS) of the University of Khartoum (Bell, 1995). This course involved an extensive investigation of the Soviet Union in terms of its numerous languages and its language policy with Isayev 1977 as a textbook. The single ‘official’ language of the Sudan had become embroiled in controversy. Early Soviet policy served as a reminder that there was a different paradigm available for dealing with a multiethnic country. Could some effective form of recognition be granted to the multitude of non-Arabic languages of the Sudan? The Language Survey of the Sudan at the IAAS of the 1970s operated in terms of 136 languages, a number that would be constantly altered by linguistic analysis and further fieldwork (Hurreiz and Bell, 1975, 159–162). Would Sudanese languages ever be recognized as ‘national languages’ (cf. UNESCO, 1988)? Could this ever become a step toward achieving a goal of reconciliation? Lenin’s policy of respect for 130 ‘national languages’was practical. Early Soviet policy offered respect to the languages and cultures within its borders as a measure to achieve greater tranquility. How would this policy be assessed at the present time both in the Russian Federation and within the Nubian lands and diaspora? It is worthwhile today to consider the positive and conciliatory aspects of a policy of ‘national languages’, especially since an unfortunate term ‘minority languages’ is now widely used internationally. In the Sudanese context the term ‘minority languages’ ( lughāt al-aqalliyyāt ) can be construed as pejorative. It is not ideal for a situation calling for greater respect for other languages. This was pointed out by Hashim and Bell (2005) in a contribution to the GeoNames 2005: Conference on Minority Names/ Indigenous Names andMultilingualAreas. Ljouwert/ Leeuwarden, Frisia, The Netherlands. Certain Sudanese scholars concerned with the issue have opted for other terms such as ‘national ethnic languages’ or simply ‘national lan- guages’. The latter terminology was agreed by the Government of Sudan in the Najvasha Comprehensive Peace Agreement of 2005: