Yesterday I was invited to an important meeting with the close advisors of General Petraeus in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The question was the security situation in Afghanistan, peace talks with the Taliban, withdrawal of NATO, and future of Afghanistan.
The session was headed by Daud Muradian, Head of Strategic Studies of MoFA. There were two other Afghans too: one General Hadi Khalid, ex-deputy minister for the ministry on interior and a security expert; the other, Najia Hanafi, a women rights activist.
NATO fellows had specific questions. Every one expressed their views and concerns which were interesting and educative. The session went for around two and a half hours.
My points were as following:
A. Who the Taliban are and what is to be done with them:
I categorized the Taliban insurgents into four layers:
1) The top leaders with ideological claims. They regard themselves as the soldiers of God with the mission of implementing Shariah Law and establishing “Pure Islamic Government”. They regard themselves in the right path and call others as the “Pagans”, “Kafir” and “Enemies of Pashtun and Pashtunwali (the codes of Pashtun)”. They are in close link with Alquaida and regard that as their religious duty. They may have a wrong belief, but it is very strong and they expect all their rewards from the God. They want nothing other than the content of God in the Heaven and the ruling of Sharia on the earth.
2) The second layer with ‘political agendas’ and ‘religious slogans’. They are not confined to Cleric Taliban. There are a lot of figures who have the dream of monopolistic/totalitarian political power. They are pressing for more shares in the system. They are not happy with the idea of democracy and devolution of power. They want to have the old model of authority based on ethnocentric assumption. They may be shaved or unshaved. They may have tie or turban. Doesn’t matter. They want to have their traditional clinch on power and apply their wish at will.
3) The trouble-makers and bandits who profit from the insecurity. They are drug lords, highway robbers, killers, thieves, and all other kinds of criminals.
4) The oppressed ordinary people on the ground. They are the victims of corrupt administration. They have been suffering from the retaliation, corruption, intimidation, poverty, insecurity, etc. They have no choice other than finding shelter under the Taliban gun/money/religious demise.
Any of these layers need a separate solution:
1) For the first ideological group we can have no means other than providing the people with good message of our democratic and civil values. This has not (or at least rarely) been done in the past. The president calls his international allies as “Kharejian” (the foreigners/outsiders). What does it cross to the people other than saying that Taliban are right and ‘foreigners’ are wrong? The message is clear for the ordinary people: The NATO soldiers are not sacrificing their lives and time for our security and betterment. They are invaders, and they have to leave the country. The term “Kharejian” has the negative meaning in Afghan culture. It is not showing friendship or loyalty. It shows being stranger and alien. This is why the Taliban gets so strengthened and we are getting so weakened. We have not managed to cross even one simple message to the people: Taliban are not right when they are killing innocents, burning schools, beheading, spraying acids on the faces of the girls, making blind suicidal attacks… We have not said to the people that the international soldiers have come to save us from terror and insecurity. They are building schools to allow our kids learn and get education…. This is the conceptual gap that needs to be addressed. The terms such as “upset brothers” are not enough to counter Taliban misleading message for the villagers. “Upset brothers” cannot be blamed for their deeds at all!
2) For the second layer, we have to be ready for any kind of dialogue and political dealing. They have shown readiness to get integrated into the system. We have tens of them already in the system. They are ministers, MPs, governors, advisors, etc. They are not dangerous, but they want monopolistic power. You can address them with democratic political means. You can put them on the legal democratic procedure and ask them to gain their due share through sane political participation.
3) The third and fourth layers can only be addressed through good governance. Rule of law is their answer. When you have sane and sound government administration, you can maintain law and order and you can keep every thing in control. You cannot pay tolls and bribe to calm these layers. The ordinary villagers need safety, security and job. You have to reach them with your good authority. The bandits and criminals need to be caught and punished. You can do that with good police and good security forces.
B. Reconciliation or reintegration?
I said reconciliation means reaching to some sorts of agreement from both sides. Reintegration means bringing insurgents to the system and existing political structure. Now, president Karzai is insisting on reconciliation while the international community is aiming at reintegration. If we are to reconcile with the Taliban, what should we give to them to get their content and satisfaction? Their demands are clear: withdrawal of the “foreigners” and abolition of the constitution. Do we accept that? Our position has put us in a paradoxical status: Accepting that means that we have submitted to the Taliban. Rejecting that means there is no way to deal and compromise or “reconcile”. Taliban feel themselves in the victorious position. It is the government who offers peace and reconciliation to appease them. This is the government who calls them as “upset brothers” and they answer its call with repeated suicidal attacks, bomb blasts, and excommunicating decrees. We should fix our minds prior to offering reintegration or reconciliation to the Taliban.
C. Is accepting the Constitution a good condition for peace talk with Taliban?
I said, the third article of the Constitution says that no law can be passed if it is opposing Islamic Sharia. Now it is not as dangerous. Because we have different interpretation from Sharia that can be adjusted to the civil, democratic and human rights of the people too. But if it is mentioned as the condition for Peace Talk with the Taliban, that can be highly dangerous. Let’s say the Taliban may accept that and come to the government. What will happen then? … They will interpret Sharia and will abolish all the democratic and civil norms as “anti Sharia”. Who is then to oppose them?
I said this is not a good and wise condition. Sharia in the third article of the Constitution is the base and backbone of every other article in this document. The government is bringing the Taliban with this pre-judgment that they are “right” and we are “wrong”. Hence, they will be the one to interpret Sharia not we. Sharia leaves no ground for women rights nor does it accept democratic norms and values.
D. What will happen after the withdrawal of NATO?
I said, nine years ago, we were not well-known. But now, we are. We have worked and talked and campaigned for the new democratic process and now every one of us is famous for our works and activities. Still we are not at the position to help ourselves. We are simply helpless when our government and president are submitting at any cost to the traditional fanaticism. Let me ask what will happen to me and my hundreds of kids who have believed in the process and who have worked and come forward? …
Can we fight? … What are the means? …
Should we submit? … What is the guarantee for our safety and security? …
Can we flee? … To Where?
I gave the example of fanatical Shiite Clerics who attacked Marefat High School in 2009 because the students and teachers had opposed to the controversial Shiite Personal Law. Tomorrow if there is the rule of Taliban and Shariah, what will be the fate of these kids and teachers?
The same is the situation of the ethnic and religious minorities, the women, the media, the civil society activists, etc.
E. Can Afghan Army and Police stand on its own feet after the withdrawal of NATO?
I referred to the experience of Afghanistan after the withdrawal of the Soviets. Dr. Najibullah had a strong army of around 400,000. They resisted strongly, but only for three and a half years. They were not weak in terms of their military might. They were defeated in their ideology. The Jihadi forces came and toppled their regime at length. Tomorrow, by the current move of the government, we will have a strong army but it will have no faith and trust in its righteousness. It will be defeated by Taliban, because the Taliban are right and the government is regarded as wrong.
F. What is the solution?
I said, despite all dark pictures from the side of the government, the solution is not something difficult if we are to show will and determination. My suggestions are as follows:
1. We have to choose between the old and new Afghanistan. New Afghanistan is the big change in the lower ground. Millions of people are profiting only from the opportunity and context they are given. This new Afghanistan is much deserving and powerful than the old one.
2. Civil society should be supported. Civil society is the people of the country who have developed greatly after the fall of the Taliban. Health, education, job, good governance, rule of law is the main and right demand of the people. Paying attention to these demands means the supporting of the Civil Society.
3. Shifting our reliance from individuals to institutions. President Karzai is an individual. He is your friend today and your enemy tomorrow. You don’t have any means to hold him accountable.
4. Strengthening democratic institutions against traditional tribal institutions. Parliament, media group, political parties, civil society groups, and modern schools should be supported against tribal Jirgas, grey-headed elders, mosques and traditional Madrassas. Now more then 95% schedule of the president is full of his meeting with the old guys: elders, Jihadi leaders, drug lords, warlords, etc. This is a symptom of attempted fortification of the old system and undermining of the new generation.
5. Theoretical gap in crossing our due message to the people should be fixed. Tomorrow you are leaving Afghanistan. But your leaving should not be interpreted as your defeat and as the Taliban victory. You should not be regarded as the “foreigner”. You should be called and remembered as the loyal and sincere friend of people who have sacrificed their lives and time for the good of Afghans. Your withdrawal should not leave a negative message as if the Taliban have defeated you in your mission and values. It will enhance the wrong vision of this country that we have smashed all the invaders! This is not good, not true and not fair. You have to be hauled and saluted whenever you leave this country. It can be done and it should be done.
6. Don’t forget that we are not weaker than nine years ago. This is the government and the president who depicts everything as that. We are much and much stronger now. We have thousands and thousands of educated people that were missing nine years ago. We have tens of active democratic groups who didn’t exist nine years ago. We have the people who have experienced democracy, human rights, free environment, freedom of speech and expression, etc. These elements were not existing nine years ago. The notorious leaders and gangsters of nine years ago are no longer as powerful and justified among the population. New Afghanistan and new generation has come forward. We should trust them and we should help them gain the realm of leadership and management. We should not give ground for fanaticism, tribalism, prejudice, discrimination, anti-democratic visions and activities.
G. What is your big concern?
My big concern is that by your withdrawal from Afghanistan, the resistance and war will gain other façade. The resistance to the Taliban is a must and unpreventable. But it will not be the same as the past. It will be much more bloody and tragic. Your role will be questioned then: what did you do when you came to Afghanistan and what did you accomplish when you left it with this bloody quagmire? … This will have the most dreadful and unacceptable consequence. All the insurgencies are not necessary to be fanatical and Taliban-type. It may be otherwise, however, your effort and sacrifice will prove counterproductive. This is my big concern.
G. What would you say if you had a short advice to the president?
Every one had an advice:
Najia said: respect women rights and empower them.
Khalid said: strengthen the national army and national police and get rid of the big fishes around your table.
I said: Time has changed, you have to change! With your change, everything will get changed and fixed!
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
How to have a responsible dedicated generation? ...
Dear Rob,
I am sorry. I think I have completely forgotten to reply this post of yours. It seems that we both shifted to other groups and forgot our own!! However:
1) You are about the Pashtun fear of losing power. This is one of the characteristic of all totalitarian powers, especially those with ethnocentric bases. The Pashtun rulers have not only done nothing for the other ethnic communities, they have also been catastrophic for their own Pashtun groupings too. Two and a half centuries of militaristic war, looting, revenge, and monopoly over the political power has put a negative impact on their vision and patterns of behaviors.
2) The Western world has not much effort to understand the complexity of the Afghan issue. Perhaps it has not been so important for them. However, since their full engagement after the fall of the Taliban, they would need more attention on the realities of the ground.
3) King Zahir ruled the country for more than 40 years. His ruling was at a time when there were big influential rulers around: In Iran, Jordon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia, Malysia, etc. While his counterparts were leading their respective countries towards a big civilized change, he was busy with hunting birds in the mountains, watching the fighting of the dogs, cocks, and enjoying his king-size life. He did not play a positive role in the time of resistance against the Soviets. He did only one good thing: he himself did not kill any of his opponents. Before him, his uncles were the real people behind the realm of power and they did horrifying things to the people. From the time that he got his control, the chain of killing stopped for a while. This is why most people compare his ruling with the successors and prefer that.
4) You are right that some of the foreigners have picked allies instead of solutions. But I think most of the blame goes to Afghans themselves. There is a lack of sane and positive role from the Afghan side. They are showing to be terribly irresponsible.
5) My concern is more on having a generation of responsible dedicated people. That can fill the vacuums. I have a fear that tomorrow when you decrease your attention in Afghanistan and return back home, the country would fall back at the tragically statues that held in the past. I think I had said this point before too: when you see the huge building with millions of dollars cost, but in front of that the road is drastically bumpy and there is no inclination to asphalt that, you would discover the sense of irresponsibility and tastelessness of the people. This needs to be changed. But how? … Let’s wait!
Perhaps we can debate on the solutions in our coming debates.
Aziz
I am sorry. I think I have completely forgotten to reply this post of yours. It seems that we both shifted to other groups and forgot our own!! However:
1) You are about the Pashtun fear of losing power. This is one of the characteristic of all totalitarian powers, especially those with ethnocentric bases. The Pashtun rulers have not only done nothing for the other ethnic communities, they have also been catastrophic for their own Pashtun groupings too. Two and a half centuries of militaristic war, looting, revenge, and monopoly over the political power has put a negative impact on their vision and patterns of behaviors.
2) The Western world has not much effort to understand the complexity of the Afghan issue. Perhaps it has not been so important for them. However, since their full engagement after the fall of the Taliban, they would need more attention on the realities of the ground.
3) King Zahir ruled the country for more than 40 years. His ruling was at a time when there were big influential rulers around: In Iran, Jordon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia, Malysia, etc. While his counterparts were leading their respective countries towards a big civilized change, he was busy with hunting birds in the mountains, watching the fighting of the dogs, cocks, and enjoying his king-size life. He did not play a positive role in the time of resistance against the Soviets. He did only one good thing: he himself did not kill any of his opponents. Before him, his uncles were the real people behind the realm of power and they did horrifying things to the people. From the time that he got his control, the chain of killing stopped for a while. This is why most people compare his ruling with the successors and prefer that.
4) You are right that some of the foreigners have picked allies instead of solutions. But I think most of the blame goes to Afghans themselves. There is a lack of sane and positive role from the Afghan side. They are showing to be terribly irresponsible.
5) My concern is more on having a generation of responsible dedicated people. That can fill the vacuums. I have a fear that tomorrow when you decrease your attention in Afghanistan and return back home, the country would fall back at the tragically statues that held in the past. I think I had said this point before too: when you see the huge building with millions of dollars cost, but in front of that the road is drastically bumpy and there is no inclination to asphalt that, you would discover the sense of irresponsibility and tastelessness of the people. This needs to be changed. But how? … Let’s wait!
Perhaps we can debate on the solutions in our coming debates.
Aziz
Thhreat to Pashtun donminance....
Dear Aziz,
It would appear then that the biggest issue now facing the Pashtun in Afghanistan is the threat to their previous dominance. It would mean that they would loose control of the country, which you have so rightly pointed out they have not done a very good job of managing. I find it somewhat interesting that the Western world still does not comprehend the consequences of their actions while trying to unify the country.
As a side, how did the non-Pasthun respond to the late king Zahir Shah? I have heard many conflicting stories. Although I know he had little real power in the country, he supposedly tried to appeal to the greater population.
I agree that all participants need to change, however, I am not sure, with the amount of outside players currently in Afghanistan, that will happen. It appears that some of the international community has picked allies instead of solutions. The prime example is the Germans, who will only operate in the north. This would suggest they find the Tajik to be a group whose interest they would advocate, thus giving the Tajiks the sense they can demand more than they should. Unfortunately I fear the Hazara would be the minority group.
Do you sense that there are groups who wish to establish such alliances?
Thanks,
Rob
It would appear then that the biggest issue now facing the Pashtun in Afghanistan is the threat to their previous dominance. It would mean that they would loose control of the country, which you have so rightly pointed out they have not done a very good job of managing. I find it somewhat interesting that the Western world still does not comprehend the consequences of their actions while trying to unify the country.
As a side, how did the non-Pasthun respond to the late king Zahir Shah? I have heard many conflicting stories. Although I know he had little real power in the country, he supposedly tried to appeal to the greater population.
I agree that all participants need to change, however, I am not sure, with the amount of outside players currently in Afghanistan, that will happen. It appears that some of the international community has picked allies instead of solutions. The prime example is the Germans, who will only operate in the north. This would suggest they find the Tajik to be a group whose interest they would advocate, thus giving the Tajiks the sense they can demand more than they should. Unfortunately I fear the Hazara would be the minority group.
Do you sense that there are groups who wish to establish such alliances?
Thanks,
Rob
Sectarism is enhancing the isolation of the groups...
Dear Rob,
1) Yes, one of the reasons for Pashtuns rigidity seems to be their Pakhtunwali. They have a huge respect to their Pakhtunwali customs and code of rules. But it would not be fair to call that as an exclusive characteristics of the Pashutn community. In my previous emails I pointed that nearly all Afghan ethnic communities have been/are somehow living with tribal sensitivities. The others, especially the Hazaras, have been more flexible in terms of their changing, because of many reasons. You can count on the historical prejudice and discrimination against Hazaras as one of the reasons for their flexibility to adapt changes. Pashtuns are now afraid of losing the power which may result in their further backward status.
I want to insist that in our world no one can live and sustain as an island. Sectarism in all its forms, be religious or ethnical, is enhancing the isolation of the groups. I don’t feel if one can underestimate the negative role of Pashtun intellectual and political groups in fueling the sectarian sensitivities of the Pashtun community. They usually talk in a negative deviating manner about the past and about the realities. For example they are insisting on being independent and anti-foreigners in a negative way. They rarely explain the inter-connected relations between the world communities. They always refer to the history in a way that preaches hatred and hostilities against the foreigners. It may good in some places, but it caused lots of misunderstanding and misbehaviors in lots of other cases.
One thing is clear: no one is right in an exclusive way. You can find the truth with speaking and discussing the realities from different perspectives. This is a good practice. One has to criticize the past in a scientific manner. You cannot change the past, but you can turn it into enlightening lessons. The past rulers have gone, good or bad. The question is how to live in our time and how to deal with all the exigencies of our own time.
Pashtuns do need to change their views and behaviors, the same as Hazaras and others. Perhaps all of us have big responsibilities in this regard.
Aziz Royesh
1) Yes, one of the reasons for Pashtuns rigidity seems to be their Pakhtunwali. They have a huge respect to their Pakhtunwali customs and code of rules. But it would not be fair to call that as an exclusive characteristics of the Pashutn community. In my previous emails I pointed that nearly all Afghan ethnic communities have been/are somehow living with tribal sensitivities. The others, especially the Hazaras, have been more flexible in terms of their changing, because of many reasons. You can count on the historical prejudice and discrimination against Hazaras as one of the reasons for their flexibility to adapt changes. Pashtuns are now afraid of losing the power which may result in their further backward status.
I want to insist that in our world no one can live and sustain as an island. Sectarism in all its forms, be religious or ethnical, is enhancing the isolation of the groups. I don’t feel if one can underestimate the negative role of Pashtun intellectual and political groups in fueling the sectarian sensitivities of the Pashtun community. They usually talk in a negative deviating manner about the past and about the realities. For example they are insisting on being independent and anti-foreigners in a negative way. They rarely explain the inter-connected relations between the world communities. They always refer to the history in a way that preaches hatred and hostilities against the foreigners. It may good in some places, but it caused lots of misunderstanding and misbehaviors in lots of other cases.
One thing is clear: no one is right in an exclusive way. You can find the truth with speaking and discussing the realities from different perspectives. This is a good practice. One has to criticize the past in a scientific manner. You cannot change the past, but you can turn it into enlightening lessons. The past rulers have gone, good or bad. The question is how to live in our time and how to deal with all the exigencies of our own time.
Pashtuns do need to change their views and behaviors, the same as Hazaras and others. Perhaps all of us have big responsibilities in this regard.
Aziz Royesh
There exists extremists in both groups....
Dear Aziz,
Thank you for the very good insight. It goes to show that the problems that exist in Afghanistan cannot be distilled down to something simple as is the West continually tries to do. We Westerners generally like things simple so we can better understand them. It would be better for us to understand the people and context of the situation, while complicated, it would at least help us to help you better.
As to the Pasthun, it would appear that Paktoonwali actually holds them back from furthering their progress in a modern world. Is that a fair statement?
Afghanistan has been a key between the East and West for centuries. The Silk Road met with the European trade routes in Afghanistan. The people have been conquered as you not and subject to tremendous outside pressures for generations. As the Pasthun have generally been the power, their "selling out" of the country because of their perceived lack of resources and value has not allowed the full integration of all the Afghan peoples from what I have been able to read.
The West's lack of understanding is the result that we have never looked at Afghan history. Until this conflict I would suggest that most Americans did not even know the country existed. It has also astounded me that the works by Louis and Nancy Dupree, Sir Olaf Caroe, Hassan Kakar, Charles Allen, and James Spainare unknown to the vast majority. We know of the Soviet intervention but not many people understand what surrounded it, the political climate in Kabul or what happened after the Soviets withdrew. I am always amazed to find people who don't know what have during the 30 years of conflict that has gone on in Afghanistan or the impact of that conflict on at least two generations of Afghans.
I appreciate your insight about the Sunni and Shiite. I concur with the fact that there exists extremists in both groups, just as there exists extremists in almost ever grouping of people in the world. We see the same in religious circles here too, as those who standfast to views and dogma without fully understanding the position. I am not sure that we can overcome that and as a result we will continue to find conflict when intolerance is practiced. This should mean that tolerance is necessarily extended to all thinking, it is striking the balance that we find as difficult as you in Afghanistan.
Thank you again,
Rob
Thank you for the very good insight. It goes to show that the problems that exist in Afghanistan cannot be distilled down to something simple as is the West continually tries to do. We Westerners generally like things simple so we can better understand them. It would be better for us to understand the people and context of the situation, while complicated, it would at least help us to help you better.
As to the Pasthun, it would appear that Paktoonwali actually holds them back from furthering their progress in a modern world. Is that a fair statement?
Afghanistan has been a key between the East and West for centuries. The Silk Road met with the European trade routes in Afghanistan. The people have been conquered as you not and subject to tremendous outside pressures for generations. As the Pasthun have generally been the power, their "selling out" of the country because of their perceived lack of resources and value has not allowed the full integration of all the Afghan peoples from what I have been able to read.
The West's lack of understanding is the result that we have never looked at Afghan history. Until this conflict I would suggest that most Americans did not even know the country existed. It has also astounded me that the works by Louis and Nancy Dupree, Sir Olaf Caroe, Hassan Kakar, Charles Allen, and James Spainare unknown to the vast majority. We know of the Soviet intervention but not many people understand what surrounded it, the political climate in Kabul or what happened after the Soviets withdrew. I am always amazed to find people who don't know what have during the 30 years of conflict that has gone on in Afghanistan or the impact of that conflict on at least two generations of Afghans.
I appreciate your insight about the Sunni and Shiite. I concur with the fact that there exists extremists in both groups, just as there exists extremists in almost ever grouping of people in the world. We see the same in religious circles here too, as those who standfast to views and dogma without fully understanding the position. I am not sure that we can overcome that and as a result we will continue to find conflict when intolerance is practiced. This should mean that tolerance is necessarily extended to all thinking, it is striking the balance that we find as difficult as you in Afghanistan.
Thank you again,
Rob
Individualism can develop only among progressive communities...
Dear Rob,
1) It seems normal in the backward communities that people would try to hide/change their original identity. Individualism can develop only among progressive communities. Individual rights and dignity is the evidence of self awareness. In tribal communities people judge themselves in the eyes of the others not with their own criteria. Most of the Hazaras would change their identity, even their names, merely to hide their Hazara lineage. Hazara was a term of crime and insult throughout the century.
This was the same for the Pashtun. Most of literate educated Pashtuns would call themselves as Farsi-speaking or urban to escape their Pashtun lineage. Look at the colloquial titles of the Afghan ethnic communities: Hazara-e-Khar (the donkey Hazara), Hazara-e-Moshkhor (the mouse-eater Hazara), Uzbek Kala Kham (raw-minded Uzbek), Awghan-e-Ghool (the ogre/hobgoblin/Ghoul Pashtun). Or the language of Pashtu was named as the language of fart. This unfortunate phenomenon was mostly because of linguistic insults by urban Farsi-speaking population.
Hence, it was natural for most of the Pashtuns as well to hide their ethnical identity and take another guise on themselves. Ismaiel khan and Atta Noor are only the least examples.
For the Hazaras, it is only the recent years that they have taken pride on themselves. One of the famous quotes of Abdul Ali Mazari, the Hazara leader, was that he wished Hazara not to be a crime! Hazaras would call themselves as Tajiks, Pashtuns, Sayeds, Bayats and stuff like that.
2) You are right that the history of Pashtuns are mostly that of a militaristic one. That also a tribal militarism. The culture of revenge, hatred, looting, levying, taking pride of fighting, … these are the characteristics of tribal militarism. Pashtuns have been the defenders of the country, but all the rulers who have sold the country have also been Pashtun. You know that monopoly over political power in the backward countries cannot continue without depending on the foreigners. Only democratic regimes can call themselves independent. Non-democratic regimes either kill their people or surrender to the foreigners. Calling for being independent or defenders in the face of war and hatred can mostly be as a means of blackmailing. The situation in the South is overtly a blackmailing attempt. They are trying to blackmail both national and international fellows. This can be another characteristic of the tribal militarism: pay toll or I would kill you!
3) The Pashtuns of the north have double problems: 1) they have to follow all the polities of their southern brethren. 2) as they have been settled in the north by force and military might, they always feel themselves vulnerable in front of their northern neighbors who would at any time revenge and push them back to the south. The hostility of General Dostom and some prominent Tajik figures against Pashtuns are the indications of that fear. Ahmad Shah Masould did a lot of ethnic-pressuring attempt against northern Pashtuns. The literacy rate among northern is as low as among the southern. Now, Taliban have great influence among them and they have shown no resentment towards Talibanism at all.
4) We have lots of great Sunni scholars who have tried to interpret Islam and the holy text with a liberal perspective. But they have rarely succeeded to cross their message and ideas deep into the grassroots level of the communities. You can name Iqbal Lahori, Nasr Hamid Abuzaid from Agypt, Mohammad Arkon, and the likes. They are some exceptionally great Sunni scholars. But they have not managed to cross their views to the community. While, in the Shiite community the debate and discourses on very critical Islamic issues have been normal throughout the history. You have thousands of books among the Shiites who are discussing very serious religious issues. These books are easily found in all the Shiite families. Of course, there are lots of fanatical rigid-minded clerics among the Shiite as well. You cannot ignore the being of Khamenei or his folk in Iran. Just two weeks ago an Iranian Ayatullah said in the Friday prayers that the earth quake is because of the bad Hijabs of the women and the increase of adultery!! This is true. But you have tens of great clergies who denounce such superstitious claims and preach scientific findings. This is the reason that Shiites are comparatively progressive in their views and behaviors. Nonetheless, it should not lead us into stereotypical judgments at all.
Regards
Aziz Royesh
1) It seems normal in the backward communities that people would try to hide/change their original identity. Individualism can develop only among progressive communities. Individual rights and dignity is the evidence of self awareness. In tribal communities people judge themselves in the eyes of the others not with their own criteria. Most of the Hazaras would change their identity, even their names, merely to hide their Hazara lineage. Hazara was a term of crime and insult throughout the century.
This was the same for the Pashtun. Most of literate educated Pashtuns would call themselves as Farsi-speaking or urban to escape their Pashtun lineage. Look at the colloquial titles of the Afghan ethnic communities: Hazara-e-Khar (the donkey Hazara), Hazara-e-Moshkhor (the mouse-eater Hazara), Uzbek Kala Kham (raw-minded Uzbek), Awghan-e-Ghool (the ogre/hobgoblin/Ghoul Pashtun). Or the language of Pashtu was named as the language of fart. This unfortunate phenomenon was mostly because of linguistic insults by urban Farsi-speaking population.
Hence, it was natural for most of the Pashtuns as well to hide their ethnical identity and take another guise on themselves. Ismaiel khan and Atta Noor are only the least examples.
For the Hazaras, it is only the recent years that they have taken pride on themselves. One of the famous quotes of Abdul Ali Mazari, the Hazara leader, was that he wished Hazara not to be a crime! Hazaras would call themselves as Tajiks, Pashtuns, Sayeds, Bayats and stuff like that.
2) You are right that the history of Pashtuns are mostly that of a militaristic one. That also a tribal militarism. The culture of revenge, hatred, looting, levying, taking pride of fighting, … these are the characteristics of tribal militarism. Pashtuns have been the defenders of the country, but all the rulers who have sold the country have also been Pashtun. You know that monopoly over political power in the backward countries cannot continue without depending on the foreigners. Only democratic regimes can call themselves independent. Non-democratic regimes either kill their people or surrender to the foreigners. Calling for being independent or defenders in the face of war and hatred can mostly be as a means of blackmailing. The situation in the South is overtly a blackmailing attempt. They are trying to blackmail both national and international fellows. This can be another characteristic of the tribal militarism: pay toll or I would kill you!
3) The Pashtuns of the north have double problems: 1) they have to follow all the polities of their southern brethren. 2) as they have been settled in the north by force and military might, they always feel themselves vulnerable in front of their northern neighbors who would at any time revenge and push them back to the south. The hostility of General Dostom and some prominent Tajik figures against Pashtuns are the indications of that fear. Ahmad Shah Masould did a lot of ethnic-pressuring attempt against northern Pashtuns. The literacy rate among northern is as low as among the southern. Now, Taliban have great influence among them and they have shown no resentment towards Talibanism at all.
4) We have lots of great Sunni scholars who have tried to interpret Islam and the holy text with a liberal perspective. But they have rarely succeeded to cross their message and ideas deep into the grassroots level of the communities. You can name Iqbal Lahori, Nasr Hamid Abuzaid from Agypt, Mohammad Arkon, and the likes. They are some exceptionally great Sunni scholars. But they have not managed to cross their views to the community. While, in the Shiite community the debate and discourses on very critical Islamic issues have been normal throughout the history. You have thousands of books among the Shiites who are discussing very serious religious issues. These books are easily found in all the Shiite families. Of course, there are lots of fanatical rigid-minded clerics among the Shiite as well. You cannot ignore the being of Khamenei or his folk in Iran. Just two weeks ago an Iranian Ayatullah said in the Friday prayers that the earth quake is because of the bad Hijabs of the women and the increase of adultery!! This is true. But you have tens of great clergies who denounce such superstitious claims and preach scientific findings. This is the reason that Shiites are comparatively progressive in their views and behaviors. Nonetheless, it should not lead us into stereotypical judgments at all.
Regards
Aziz Royesh
Pashtuns have been militants for centuries...
Dear Aziz,
Your English is very good. I am glad that you are participating, although I must say you are providing much more depth to the conversation than I am. I am very appreciative of your answers though.
Before I begin, you are right, Bamyan is a very beautiful place. I used the Buddha statues because, unfortunately, that is what most of the Western World associates with the province. People do not know about the blue lakes, the very good climate, the friendly people, or the overall beauty of the Province. I shall add some more pictures to my album for people to see.
Also, I was not aware that Dr. Spanta was a Tahiri. I had heard something about Atta Mohammad Noor, and the problems between him and General Dostum.
It is interesting that there exists a grouping within the Pashtun that prefer to distance themselves from the crowd so to speak. If we can find why the Pashtun wishes to remain stuck in time we may be able to overcome their zealous fighting mentality. I am not sure it would be successful though. History shows that the Pashtun has been militant for a few centuries and that they have often seen themselves as the defender of the country. This still does not explain why they choose to remain backward.
From your descriptions, the Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek and Tahiri all place an emphasis on bettering their social condition, often through education and cultural advancement. This is the sign of a strong nation, provides for national pride and provides the ability to live and cooperate.
For those pockets of Pashtu that live in the North, do the they share the same desires as their neighbors or do they hold to the same stubbornness of the people who live in the South?
I have noticed the Shiite seem to be more focused on developing their abilities than the Sunni. The Sunni appear to want Allah to provide everything and they do little in return. If this mindset is true, can it be the reason that the Pashtun has not advanced as the rest of the country?
Look forward to your insight,
Regards,
Rob
Your English is very good. I am glad that you are participating, although I must say you are providing much more depth to the conversation than I am. I am very appreciative of your answers though.
Before I begin, you are right, Bamyan is a very beautiful place. I used the Buddha statues because, unfortunately, that is what most of the Western World associates with the province. People do not know about the blue lakes, the very good climate, the friendly people, or the overall beauty of the Province. I shall add some more pictures to my album for people to see.
Also, I was not aware that Dr. Spanta was a Tahiri. I had heard something about Atta Mohammad Noor, and the problems between him and General Dostum.
It is interesting that there exists a grouping within the Pashtun that prefer to distance themselves from the crowd so to speak. If we can find why the Pashtun wishes to remain stuck in time we may be able to overcome their zealous fighting mentality. I am not sure it would be successful though. History shows that the Pashtun has been militant for a few centuries and that they have often seen themselves as the defender of the country. This still does not explain why they choose to remain backward.
From your descriptions, the Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek and Tahiri all place an emphasis on bettering their social condition, often through education and cultural advancement. This is the sign of a strong nation, provides for national pride and provides the ability to live and cooperate.
For those pockets of Pashtu that live in the North, do the they share the same desires as their neighbors or do they hold to the same stubbornness of the people who live in the South?
I have noticed the Shiite seem to be more focused on developing their abilities than the Sunni. The Sunni appear to want Allah to provide everything and they do little in return. If this mindset is true, can it be the reason that the Pashtun has not advanced as the rest of the country?
Look forward to your insight,
Regards,
Rob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)