Afghanistan must shed the myth of independence

[graveyardofempires]

you are filth and not afghan just someone who is talking crap on a forum.
you can take your fantasies to hell.

[شمله ور خراساني]

the woman who wrote this article must shed blood.

[Nick]

Afghanistan's myth of independence legitimised rebellion against King Amanullah, whose Darulaman palace now lies in ruins. Photograph: Paula Bronstein/Getty Images


In an interview with the Guardian, Afghan human rights activist Orzala
Asharf-Nemat said it was the responsibility of the Afghan people to create
their own national identity. Her point is absolutely valid. But since
transnational concepts such as socialism (1980s), Islam (1990s) and
democracy (2000s) have all failed to create a stable nation, we need to
ask ourselves what is the single idea that resonates with all Afghans?

Unfortunately for Afghans, the idea that makes them feel that they are
part of a distinct nation is the myth of their independence. This myth was
the narrative upon which the Afghan state was founded in the late 19th
century. Since then, it has continued to serve as the key story for
political legitimacy and nation-building.

But the myth of independence is a double-edged sword that can be
turned against foreign invaders and legitimate local governments alike.
When turned against local governments, the myth of the Afghans' natural
right to independence turns into licence to riot and rebel but without any
sense of wrongdoing.

The myth of independence is the sole idea that resonates with all
Afghans, regardless of their age, gender and ethnicity. The jihadi leaders,
their Taliban enemies and vocal dissidents such as Malalai Joya all draw on
this myth for legitimacy and popular appeal. In the mood for rebellion,
Afghan MPs at times have threatened to "hit the mountain", a euphemism
for justified rebellion against an oppressive state.

The strong sense of independence has historically served to legitimise
many acts of anarchy and subversion which is why even the president
sometimes threatens to join the Taliban rebels.

A myth that is as old as the country itself is obviously hard to shake off.
Most Afghans are emotionally helpless against the call for independence
which is why they desert the army, rally around subversive clerics and
plant bombs that blow up their own people. The myth's power is such that
it makes the legitimate question of what will happen once independence is
achieved sound ridiculous.

Afghans should be forgiven for allowing the myth of independence to
deprive them of their only chance to rebuild their country with the help of
international allies. After all, generation after generation were raised with
the idea that what made them unique was their martial qualities, their
ability to be independent even to the point of defeating empires.

In reality, Afghans did not defeat any empire, as both the British and the
Soviet empires were already in decline and in the process of
disintegration. But Afghans could not let go of the myth and were instead
encouraged to take pride in their country as the graveyard of empires. But
Afghanistan remained a graveyard while the capitals of the former
empires, Moscow and London, thrived and flourished after their so-called
defeat by Afghans. The myth persisted even after the entire country had
turned into a giant cemetery.

Afghan jihadi leaders still talk proudly about a nation that gives birth to
independence-seeking martyrs. The myth is politically useful as it turns
subversive rebels into heroes, thieving highwaymen into politicians.
Ironically, international writers and journalists have also adopted the
myth, perpetuating it by publishing books and articles about "the
graveyard of empires".

At times, it feels as if the whole world wants Afghanistan to be just that:
a massive graveyard and symbolic two fingers to superpowers. That a
country incapable of sustaining itself is further destroyed in the process
seems to matter little. Neither does it seem to matter that those who
destroy cannot rebuild and hence expect the population to live in ruins
and feed themselves with the pride of a myth rather than actual food.

The uncomfortable truth is that Afghanistan has never been a truly
independent country and has always relied on outside resources and
expertise for survival. Historically, much of the country's limited wealth
came through control of trade routes by local tribesmen who also acted as
highwaymen, making travelling in Afghanistan a famously dangerous
endeavour.

Other sources of income included military raids into richer neighbouring
territories and foreign subsidies in return for implementing superpower
policies. The government in Kabul has always received foreign aid and
subsidies to implement modernisation projects. The border tribes have
always been hard to control and repeatedly undermined the central state,
refusing to pay tax or supply soldiers to the army, again drawing on the
unspoken right to independence.

The myth of independence also legitimised internal rebellions. Hence, in
1919, King Amanullah was declared a ghazi in recognition of his jihad
against the British which won Afghans' independence. But in 1929, new
rival strongmen had emerged, contesting Amanullah's power. They called
the amir an infidel, which amounted to a declaration of war.

That a heroic Muslim leader could willy-nilly be declared an infidel is
alarming, but not in Afghanistan where the clergy has always been
subversive, often siding with the enemies of the state. After all, the
absence of a strong state empowers both clerics and rebels, which is why
both groups traditionally join hands, appealing to the myth of
independence to mobilise the masses against the state. The recent riots
in Mazar, Kandahar and Kabul were a continuation of this historical trend.

Independence, the national narrative that binds Afghans together, is
simultaneously the force that helps mobilise rebellions, undermine the
state and destabilise the country. If there is one lesson Afghans should
learn from the past, it is that the inclusion of the myth of independence in
their national narrative has to be done with great care, or the endless
cycle of internal independence-seeking rebellions will never end.



The article was written by Nushin Arbabzadah for The Guadian.







I personally completely disagree with her. If Afghanistan had been full of people who think like this we would all have been ruled by a brutal repressive Soviet Socialist Republic. Sure we may not be much worse off than we are right now but we atleast still have the opportunity to self determine how we live.



What are your thoughts on this article?
Is our heroic military history just a myth?
Was Afghanistan never a gaveyard of empires?
Do we need to rid ourselves of this myth to build a better Afghanistan?

She BS pro-Iranian too much, she came out as a free modern so called modernizing Islam. She used to be anti-Muslim, BS and crap with spelling mistakes was posted all the time. I know her from an old Afghan forum, she knows nothing and yet made her way into the sound of wild Western Drums, sure some would say well for her. Well I say anybody writing anti-Islam, anti-Afghan, ok forget anti-Afghan just write pro-western and see how famous you would get. She thinks she knows too much and yet nothing even a little kid reading Wikipedia would pick up some thing. To my view I have read this article some weeks ago and didn't bother to finish it, I though she grew up, same old crap. This is good only from an outsider/anti-afghan point of view and that article is naive. Haris don't post such BS. Yet just another propaganda, of Afghan freedom into Myth. I remember her first article which was accepted in Indian times as she wrote of anti-Pakistan.

[khashayar]

She must know something. Why else is she published in guardian?

[faye]

the woman who wrote this article must shed blood.

oops, another mufti, giving fatwa

[Nick]

She must know something. Why else is she published in guardian?

What? What are you talking about? my dear I was asked so many times, and I am sure those who have been posting articles in the forums, as well opinion based websites etc were also invited as well to post pro-western articles, and work for news agencies. I was even told that I get paid every time my article was sold to another News agency---Yes so.



I was so surprised when I got like 3 offers from unbelievable huge and famous news agencies. I was young and curious and so I remember making so much excuses to decline those PM. I even told one of them famous news agency that my English was not in the academic level, and I don't have any experience in journalism nor any degree. After all it was old days and I was almost done college (2006) in a totally different field from writing.
You know what they responded with? Ohh dear its aright we have professional editors who will look and fix, and that it should not be a problem, cause every article posted comes with some sort of error, which their own professional editors always fix. Nothing is posted without going some approvals.

The whole point was, as long as you claim it was yours... in other words my names shell be sold because I had an Afghan-muslim name.

Son there is so much you have to learn. I too used to think just like you and said "wow this person must be this, and that master's degree or some sort of higher educated person etc" the whole question comes down to what you know. Not what you consider yourself. Paying some extra money under the table can get you degrees of all kind within sort period of time. Mostly from 3rd world countries and even developing countries like Pakistan, but if you know nothing what use of all those degrees you have? My point she knows ZERO.

[Albani_Rahmat_Kabulzada]

"But
Afghanistan remained a graveyard while the capitals of the former
empires, Moscow and London, thrived and flourished after their so-called
defeat by Afghans."

this mad woman. Afghans dealt major defeat to British and Russia, and there empires fell after. Gandhi also gave nice punch. both their economies are in shambles while India is great.

Do you have actually a bit logic? Are you aware what you are talking here?

LONDON


MOSKAU



Afghanistan 2008




+ 1.8Mio deaths, 12 mio victims of Posttraumatic stress disorder, many hundred thousand orphanes, homelessness, jobless people, aids addicted people, drug dealers, child dealer ....oh yes, we defeated.

[Albani_Rahmat_Kabulzada]

She must know something. Why else is she published in guardian?

Nick is a troll. For him everyone is a Shia who talks about negative facts and reality. He accuse everyone everytime beeing ''ghali'', shia, ismaeli or anti-afghan if you say in Afghanistan milk is black in fact, this kid does not know anything.

[Albani_Rahmat_Kabulzada]

What does your article to do with the topic? Mullah Omar is dead. 1800 integrated Taliban and new targets for their old brothers. But there are more than only 1800 Taliban fighters. America will have it´s permanent bases. You can be sure Americans are by far smarter than you. They know what they do there and why they are there. They just won´t leave so easily. How many times Taliban claimed to negotiate with NATO? Majority of the people know who the Afghan government is and why it is known as world-second corrupt and criminal group. Don´t worry, before America ''leave'' the country there will be many new decisions. As you can see on TVs, the majority are against Taliban in the country and they will do their part to show their hate. America claimed living Iraq and what happened? Vitnam and Korea? ... America will always concentrate on it´s own national and ally´s interests.

[Alchemist]

from such a strict view as this naive author's, no nation is then truly "independant". Look to the European nations at each others throats, drowning in debts...to who? International Bankers, like Goldman Sachs. The Common Wealth Countries - Canada and Australia, pledging allegiance to a supposed "figure head monarch" in another country could hardly be said to be "independent" when their foreign policies are dictated to them.
Even America isn't truly "free" as it's President has to go to a conference and pledge loyalty to a foreign entity - Israel - so much so that it buries it's head in debt for the protection of an entity that is parasitic to it.

So really the "myth of independence" is shared by almost every nation.

In fact it was out of this "myth" that America was created - they rebelled against the King of England. The French Revolution, which is considered to be a great act of independence from the Tyranny of the Monarchy was done so in the name of this "myth of indepedence". Almost every war waged in the past century by the imperialists has also been in the name of "indepedence"... so why should Afghans abandoned when the world hasn't?

I think the author is naive and confused.