Why should Pashtuns make a 'historical apology' to non-Pashtuns?
By Fayaz Bahraman Najimi, Regional and International Affairs Analyst, Member of the Sangar Advisory Board
For some time now, in my conversations with Afghans raised in Persian culture, I have come across the concept of “humanism” interpreted in a somewhat banal sense. In their identical repetition, the discourse of “humanism” is presented as an alternative to what they consider the “ethnocentrism” or “nationalism” of non-Afghan ethnic groups, and they pretend that ethnocentrism is ugly and reprehensible. At first glance, the Afghan discursive project of “humanism” is inspired – consciously or unconsciously – by the theory of Clausewitz, who said: “The best defense is a good offense!” This thread uses a mild form of an old accusation, the label of “national treason,” which suddenly stuns the audience.
For over a century, Afghans have been using the concepts of “popular misconceptions,” “baseless claims,” and “false assumptions.” Other ethnic groups are unaware of this cognitive game and are constantly immersed in traumas and social psychoses. This is a cognitive or perceptual war that needs more attention.
In the past, misconceptions and baseless claims were spread such as “national culture,” “Afghan culture,” “Afghan music,” “Afghan food,” “Afghan pride,” “common homeland,” “majority and minority,” “fathers,” and even fictitious personalities such as “Malalai” and hundreds of other examples. The majority not only accepted them but also believed in them. But now they are putting forward a new philosophical concept, like those woven from the same cloth at the very heart of Pashtun habits and ethics!
It seems that the issue of humanism that has flared up among Pashtuns, especially the “anachronistic left” of Afghanistan, has no moral basis and does not stem from any real intellectual development, but rather can be considered a cover-up tactic. The baseless claim “we should not be ethnocentrists but humanists” becomes legitimate when the inhuman crimes committed by Afghan governments over the past 270 years are criticized and the historical responsibility that flows from them is acknowledged. Not only did nothing of the kind exist, but they also shamelessly accuse non-Pashtun ethnic groups of ethnocentrism and want to hold them accountable for nothing.
Afghanism and Afghanness a cultures based on violence, tyranny, bloodshed, destruction, and disorder, which do not tolerate otherness. Therefore, an Afghan or a Pashtun who has learned Persian rarely believes in humanity and uses the issue of “humanism” to shirk responsibility for his historical crimes and ethnic exceptionalism. This is a red herring, not a genuine intellectual transformation.
How can this baseless argument be refuted?
First, humanism without historical justice is a fraud.
- Humanism means defending human dignity, human rights, and social justice.
- If Persian-speaking Pashtuns are true humanists, they must first mercilessly criticize their own ethnic crimes, abandon the policy of exclusivity, and recognize the equal rights of other ethnic groups based on a willingness to enter into a “social contract.”
- Those who, in the name of “humanism,” want to ignore the issue of historical justice are in fact using modern concepts to justify the pre-modern tribal past and the crimes of their rulers.
Second, the denial of identity is a colonial policy.
- The dominance of Afghans or Pashtuns in the territory known as Afghanistan has always been colonial.
- The fact that Afghans regard ethnicity as something bad and say, “Let’s all become humanists,” means in practice: non-Pashtun ethnic groups must renounce their identity and become “Afghans,” but Pashtuns do not need to change or criticize themselves.
- This is the same policy that many colonial powers used in the past: on the one hand, projecting their ethnic identity as superior, and on the other, demanding that others renounce their identity.
Third, European humanism began with self-criticism, not with a denial of the past.
- Humanism arose in Europe when the church, feudalism, and repressive institutions were criticized openly, not covertly.
- If the Persian-educated Pashtuns, especially the leftists, really want to defend humanism, they must acknowledge their historical crimes, just as Westerners criticized their own slavery, colonialism, and imperialism, and then apologize to other ethnic groups.
- Otherwise, their statements are nothing but lies and demagogy.
Fourth, the experience of other countries shows that justice is more important than humanism.
- After World War II, the Germans first criticized Nazism and its crimes, and then began to talk about Europeanism or cosmopolitanism.
- German intellectuals in the 1950s and 1960s took criticism to the next level, which led to the 1968 revolution and the establishment of democracy.
- White Americans first condemned slavery and carried out serious reforms, and then were able to talk about equality, which led to the civil rights movement for blacks, led by Martin Luther King.
If humanism is to make sense in this false geography, Pashtuns must first honestly criticize their own exclusivity and ethnic policies of their tyrannical and criminal rulers and take steps to right the historical wrongs of their people for the benefit of the majority of non-Pashtuns, rather than fleeing justice by hiding behind “humanism.”
Humanism without historical justice is a cover for maintaining power.
Pashtuns who hide behind humanism are demagogic ethnocentrists.
The alternative to such a discourse is to accept the historical truth, administer justice, and then move towards true humanity rather than a false humanism that is only meant to hide the past.
I see this debate as a new stage in the continuation of ethnofascism waged as a war of perceptions. First, we must fight back against ethnic fascism in the false geography called Afghanistan!
The first answer is the historical right of Persian and Turkic-speaking peoples to determine their own destiny.
The silence of the Pashtun “humanists” in the face of the claims of their own ethnic fascists that “Afghanistan is the land of Afghans” and that Persian and Turkic speaking peoples should migrate to other countries is not only baseless and illogical, but also has its roots in the colonial project of exterminating non-Pashtun peoples. This way of thinking can be rejected on historical, cultural, and legal grounds. But have the “Afghan humanists” refuted this claim? The answer is always negative.
On the contrary, they have turned the Persian language into a tool for further domination and are producing more and more forgeries to preserve it.
Is Afghanistan the historical name of this geographical territory or a product of colonialism?
The answer is clear: this unnatural geography was shaped by foreign colonialism and was never a territory for the coexistence and cohabitation of all ethnic groups. Before 1880, there was not a single Afghan in two-thirds of this territory!
The vast majority of cities in Afghanistan are linked to the culture, language, economy, and history of the Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras. From Kabul to Badakhshan, from Balkh to Herat and throughout the central regions of this country, alongside its Turkic roots, there was and is a Persian-language identity. On this land, Tajiks and Uzbeks lived side by side for more than a thousand years, and there was not a trace of Afghans among them until the occupation of their regions by Afghans as part of foreign projects and the implementation of the policy of “settlers” (naqilin).
Now the settlers consider these lands their own, which has no historical basis. And they brazenly want to impose their ethnic name on others, saying: “Tajiks should go to Tajikistan”, “Uzbeks to Uzbekistan”, and “Hazaras to the cemetery”!
Did the "Afghan humanists" criticize this? No. Because their ethnic fascism, as an ideology, is a reality.
The ethnofascism of Pashtunism is a colonial ideology that was systematically developed and spread by the German Nazis since the 1930s. The origins of this thinking lie in the colonial discourse that began during the time of Amir Abdurahman, who, through the genocide of the Hazaras and the forced displacement of non-Pashtun tribes, tried to transform the vast occupied geography of the annexed lands called Afghanistan into a Pashtun country.
During the reign of Amanullah, on the model of pan-Turkism, Mahmud Tarzi, with the support of the Turks and Germans, created the theory of pan-Afghanism and the "Afghan language". During the reign of Zahir Shah, the policy of Pashtunization was carried out in stages, and the language, culture, and identity of other ethnic groups were severely suppressed.
During the American republic, the Afghanization project was revived and implemented with greater focus, since the non-Pashtun, Persian intellectual forces of the 1930s-1960s no longer existed. The forces that arose in the name of ethnicities had no concept of identity, language, and historical justice, and they saw ethnicity and jihad as a tool for wealth accumulation and power sharing at the lower echelons of power, and they still do.
The atmosphere of confusion strengthened Pashtunism and paved the way for the return of the Taliban, the true heirs of Pashtun fascism. The Taliban whip is the main tool for the de-identification of non-Pashtuns in the direction of a “Pashtun Afghanistan”.
In the current situation, the only new paradigm emerging in philosophical theory is the discourse on the right to self-determination of Persian-speaking peoples, which challenges the path of colonial domination of Afghanism and presents it as a failed project.
But what is the real alternative to the survival of a geography without the name Afghanistan, and how can it be created?
I see this alternative as one based on historical truth, social justice, human dignity, and the free participation of people in building their common future. An alternative whose first step is the recognition of the historical right to self-determination of Persian-speaking, Turkic-speaking, and other cultural minorities in this crisis-ridden geography. This alternative is born not from hatred, but from truth and awareness; it is not vengeful, but liberating and based on historical conscience.
My alternative is a “social contract” in which no ethnic group is superior to another; Neither the Afghanism of Pashtunism, nor the most despotic historical figures of past monopolistic regimes and their current successors should be the criteria for regulating collective relations, but, on the contrary, everyone should be absolutely equal within the framework of the "social contract"!
My alternative is to build a multi-ethnic, multicultural, and multilingual political system in which the historical, linguistic, and cultural identity of the various ethnic groups is not only not denied, but is recognized and flourishes as a common heritage.
I defend a "humanism" that flows from the essence of historical justice; a humanism that recognizes the right to protest, the right to rethink history, the right to self-determination, and the right to equality of languages and cultures, and not a false humanism that becomes an instrument for suppressing dissenters.
I want a "critical humanism", not propaganda and empty humanism.
I want a future in which:
- No child should be humiliated or discriminated against just because he is a Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek, etc..;
- No mother tongue should be excluded from the education system, official local government bodies, and the media in places where there is a clear ethnic and linguistic majority;
- No non-Pashtun elite should be deprived of political, academic, and cultural opportunities just because of their ethnicity;
- No small ethnic group, except large ethnic groups, should feel that it cannot be placed at the highest pinnacle of power;
- And no historical truth should fall victim to Afghan and Pashtun fascist ideologies.
My alternative is not revenge, but a path of rethinking power based on justice, restoring historical memory, as well as the social and political relations of non-Afghans. This alternative is in opposition to the dominant discourse of “Afghanism,” which focuses on the right of self-determination of non-Afghan ethnic groups, cultural and political pluralism, and equal and fair redistribution of power among all ethnic groups and regions.
Finally, it should be said that until historical justice triumphs for all peoples, there will be no freedom, no peace, no true humanism.
True humanism begins with a clear critique of oneself, not with the denial of the other. Until "Afghan fascism" falls from its pedestals of power, no peaceful and humanitarian discourse will be successful in this false geography called Afghanistan.
The only way out is to overcome the irreconcilable and false Afghan order. This transition is not only a political duty, but also a moral and historical responsibility of all truly inflexible elites of non-Afghan ethnic groups.
In my opinion, instead of succumbing to "demonstrative humanism", we should choose the path of awareness, resistance, and reconstruction of the truth!
*This article is the beginning of a series of my thoughts on the topic of why it is impossible to live together with Afghans in the false geography named after this ethnic group!
