The vast majority of the rulers of Afghanistan were the servants and slaves of the invaders.
Author: Dr. Fazlmanullah Mumtaz, especially for "Sangar"
In the photo: Beirut CIA students - Ghani, Khalilzad, and others.
Who is faithful, master or slave?
Slavery is a universal and historical phenomenon, but with the change of time and place, its form and nature are different. Being a slave is one of the disgusting and hateful qualities, but many people accept this role under the influence of lust, fame, wealth, and lust for power, while others just unconsciously serve the occupation, colonization, and its plans.
In the history of slavery and cooperation with the invaders, the name of Shah Shuji (English protege, King of Afghanistan (1839 - 1842)) is often repeated in the speeches of people and on the pages of history books, although the vast majority of the rulers of Afghanistan were servants and slaves of the invaders in recent decades. Since we ourselves are living witnesses of the history of the last 50 years, we know firsthand who is the occupier and who is the slave. But no occupier has ever admitted that he came to Afghanistan to capture it, and not a single slave has admitted that he is a slave.
In some televised debates that I participated in during the republic when I said that Afghanistan was under occupation and that this government was a puppet government, everyone was afraid and surprised. I was repeatedly asked: “Do you consider Afghanistan occupied?” and some people considered my words an insult to the Afghan people.
But the future generation will read in the pages of history that Ghani, an American protege, the president of Afghanistan, who fled the country, once admitted himself: "We trusted the United States, but we were mistaken." In addition, he said at Kabul University: “I love Amanullakhan, but I was saddened by his escape. I'm not a fugitive." With this word, he denied the attribute of his humanity.
The issue I want to raise is that after the recognition of Ghani, Babrak Karmal, and even Shah Shoji, slaves are more faithful than masters. Slaves are a means for pursuing the goals of masters and occupiers, and not their goal, as stupid slaves think.
At the same time, the occupiers had many slaves that each of them could be used and hired for various missions and at different stages of history. In turn, these slaves compete with each other to give more satisfaction and contentment to their masters.
Ghani, Khalilzad, and their friends at the American University of Beirut maintained a father-child relationship with the CIA for more than 50 years. Each of them tried to serve the master more. They have always been in competition. Since studying in Beirut, they have always tried to interfere with each other's plans, which is directly evident from the interviews of both parties and the statements of Rula Ghani.
In this article, I refer to the words of Iranian Assistant Foreign Minister Rasul Mousavi, who said: “Khalilzad's plan was not a peace process, but a regime change. Ghani understood this, but it was too late. Knowingly or unknowingly, Ghani thwarted Khalilzad's script by running away."
Masters and slaves in Afghanistan always suffer the same fate - historical disgrace. But this ominous union always ends with the fact that the night of Afghanistan does not reach dawn and he does not see the face of peace and freedom. The fate of this oppressed country always passes from hand to hand of masters and slaves, and it is not known how long this will last...
