Kabul blast:

[pashtanajan]

I don't think Hekmatyar had anything to do with this since the Hesb-i Islami is mostly run by his generals. Blame them not him, he would defiantly condomed this attack i know. I think this is all a hoax to prevent him for running in the upcoming Afghan elections.

This is all propaganda but R.I.P. to those kids.

My grandfather personally knew Hekmatyar. How could I put this nicely? Well... he's a tad unintelligent and impulsive. And holds a slight hatred for anyone not Pashtun.

[Joey_Gladstonezai]

^ How could that be possible when a considerable amount of his followers were non-Pashtuns?

[Kushan Prince]

My grandfather personally knew Hekmatyar. How could I put this nicely? Well... he's a tad unintelligent and impulsive. And holds a slight hatred for anyone not Pashtun.

And Ahmad Shah Massoud didn't?

He hated anything BUT tajik. I'm not sure about Mr. Hekmatyar's ethnic preference but he is from the north where half the non Pashtun population lives so wouldn't it make sense for uzbeks, tajiks, hazaras etc. to vote for him?

[MostafaM]

Yet nationalists or Mellatis are reality
based?

No, extreme form of nationalism is an exaggerated sentiment.

My point is that from the times when the human beings left the woods, settled in villages and towns and started to become peasants instead of being hunters and gatherers, natural borders have emerged.
Thats why cultures, languages and religions have been created based on how segregated those populations from others were.

There is a famours picture of the earth with a question:
"I don´t see any borders, do you?"

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/306/5/4/do_you_see_any_borders_by_party9999999-d3210xf.png

Yes, I can see more borders on that picture than current political borders exist today.
Natural borders are that between land and sea, desert and land, moutainous regions and flat lands, rivers, climatic different regions etc.

All those borders have created barriers for people to interact thus they have formed different cultures.

We can´t deny the obvious.

Lets apply some historical fact and logic to the Afghan/Pashtun problem to show that if they are guilty of this on a global level then these folks and the Kabul emigre technocrats are guilty of this on a local level.

1) Heavy infighting occurred and is well documented in the Safavid era between Ghilzai and the Dorani confederacy. Each would garner the support of outside powers to balance the power of the other. Afshar routed the Ghilzai from Qandahar and gave Dorani tribes land. Before that when Gurgin was routed Ghilzyaan had taken lands from Abdalis as well. To illustrate the point Hussain Hotak imprisoned Ahmad Shah to blunt the confederacy's unity before Nadir came on the scene. These are well recorded in the Tarikh.

2) Yusufzai and Khattak and their differences are enshrined for eternity in the poetry of Khushaal Khan though modern situations have blunted this rivalry - yet historically it is a famous one.

3) Lar and Bar's early differences were highlighted when a Khalil tribal leader tried to assassinate Timur Shah in Peshawar's fort

4) Achakzai and Noorzai continue to assassinate eachother's folks (e.g. Razeq and Shin, Noorzai affiliating with the Taliban to combat Achakzai affiliation with governmental forces

5) Popalzai and Mohammadzai fighting over the throne

6) In the modern era local families and clans grabbing land and using outside force to kill opponents have incidents that are replete in the investigative news literature.

So yet despite these variances and historically documented differences - a group of people advocate what H-metyar advocates on a global scale - a shang ri la concept of sorts that defies existing realities and recent historical improbabilities.

You will counter with: yes but a thread of commonality exists and in the right circumstances and tweaking that can be catalyzed into an uncontrollable reaction.

If you look at H-Metyaar's logic he would argue commonality on a different scale as well.

This is not an endorsement of who he is or was but a commentary on how incorrect global thought processes do not excuse incorrect local thought processes which may be as detached of reality.

The one and sole historical personality to overcome this gradient was Ahmad Shah Baba who was skillfull in crafting a loose confederacy of tribes that benefited from his excursions. Yet the Mellatis and others refuse to even consider the only past success and instead are somehow focused on using an outside power to build a corrupt military for a kleptocrat and his cronies in Kabul. As if centralization except in the context of even murdering Pashtuns (see AburRahman's treatment of ishaqzai in Qandahar as an example) is somehow historically legitimate.

For that matter the western brand of pluralism is advocated for without an understanding of the history of that western brand in the first place.... so how now with all of this he Hmetyaar less detached from reality than these boys like Ahadi?

Or for that matter - what of the belief of the integrity of the modern Afghan state as defined by UN borders? Does the antagonism to Bachaaq Saqo in the modern era - or the Hazara issues we have spoke about - or the historical aspect of repeated rebellions in the North against Dorani kings including Ahmad Shah not count under "natural borders of language, history, religion and ethnicity that are there for hundreds of thousands of years" that Karzai and the technocrat emigres are trying to "overcome" emphasis on the quote unquote?

Ahmad Shah Abdali led a confederation because he, as a politican and as a leader, was charismatic and could bring people of different interests and background together by pointing out them that they had more in common than they thought.

His political system was modelled around him.
Right after his death his confederation fell apart because his sons weren´t him.

Political systems should be created around the interests of the common man who lives under that system and not around a certain person, a caliph, king or president. The system shouldn´t be attached to the fate of the leaders but should be sustainable because of it´s institutions.

The current regime and its technocrats are building Afghanistan that had always relied on a Abdali-type of a system....a leader who forms sociaty from above....but Afghanistan has changed.
It´s people have seen the world, they have been refugees all around the world and the normal people aren´t sheeps anymore. They want to be heared and participate in that policial process that creates the boundaries of their life.

So why should those Mellatis even consider the system of the past?

Why not creating a system that is not dependent on a few but on the masses?

There is absolutly no doubt that the current regime is corrupt but that arguement is just not sufficient enough to go a different path.

This regime and it´s cronies will be gone one day.
But a functioning state should remain and be optimized by those who follow.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

No, extreme form of nationalism is an exaggerated sentiment.

My point is that from the times when the human beings left the woods, settled in villages and towns and started to become peasants instead of being hunters and gatherers, natural borders have emerged.
Thats why cultures, languages and religions have been created based on how segregated those populations from others were.

There is a famours picture of the earth with a question:
"I don´t see any borders, do you?"

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/i/20...99-d3210xf.png

Yes, I can see more borders on that picture than current political borders exist today.
Natural borders are that between land and sea, desert and land, moutainous regions and flat lands, rivers, climatic different regions etc.

All those borders have created barriers for people to interact thus they have formed different cultures.

We can´t deny the obvious.



Ahmad Shah Abdali led a confederation because he, as a politican and as a leader, was charismatic and could bring people of different interests and background together by pointing out them that they had more in common than they thought.

His political system was modelled around him.
Right after his death his confederation fell apart because his sons weren´t him.

Political systems should be created around the interests of the common man who lives under that system and not around a certain person, a caliph, king or president. The system shouldn´t be attached to the fate of the leaders but should be sustainable because of it´s institutions.

The current regime and its technocrats are building Afghanistan that had always relied on a Abdali-type of a system....a leader who forms sociaty from above....but Afghanistan has changed.
It´s people have seen the world, they have been refugees all around the world and the normal people aren´t sheeps anymore. They want to be heared and participate in that policial process that creates the boundaries of their life.

So why should those Mellatis even consider the system of the past?

Why not creating a system that is not dependent on a few but on the masses?

There is absolutly no doubt that the current regime is corrupt but that arguement is just not sufficient enough to go a different path.

This regime and it´s cronies will be gone one day.
But a functioning state should remain and be optimized by those who follow.

I see your vantage point and appreciate the feedback but that doesn't address the particulars of the cited history which are namely that:

You took issue with Hekmetyaar's "international outlook" citing his lack of reality in trying to overcome thousands of years of clan and ethnic differences yet those instances I cited showed the same argument works against Afghan emigres and technocrats on a LOCAL level. In fact the same argument devastates the loya Afghanistan argument and the Pashtunistan argument. Its basically like you are saying at the end of the day: I prefer the latter view because I like it better not because it has more historical reach or more powerful evidences buttressing it than Hekmetyaars.

Also, Kabul is not attempting to model Abdali's governance. Instead, the whole aggressive and backfiring approach (e.g. the Wardag fiasco) they are taking is centralizing everything by using the country as testing grounds for the ANA/ANP/Protection forces. Its lunacy because these drugged up thugs are shipped to non local areas and variant ethnic areas and inflict harm on locals. Karzai is not even a shadow of Lincoln in his attempt to centralize. Union troops may have committed some harm here and there in the South (hence the war of northern aggression is the name for the Civil War in the South) but they were professional soldiers and not mercenary thugs - hence their success in actually centralizing federal authority.

[MostafaM]

I see your vantage point and appreciate the feedback but that doesn't address the particulars of the cited history which are namely that:

You took issue with Hekmetyaar's "international outlook" citing his lack of reality in trying to overcome thousands of years of clan and ethnic differences yet those instances I cited showed the same argument works against Afghan emigres and technocrats on a LOCAL level. In fact the same argument devastates the loya Afghanistan argument and the Pashtunistan argument. Its basically like you are saying at the end of the day: I prefer the latter view because I like it better not because it has more historical reach or more powerful evidences buttressing it than Hekmetyaars.

Also, Kabul is not attempting to model Abdali's governance. Instead, the whole aggressive and backfiring approach (e.g. the Wardag fiasco) they are taking is centralizing everything by using the country as testing grounds for the ANA/ANP/Protection forces. Its lunacy because these drugged up thugs are shipped to non local areas and variant ethnic areas and inflict harm on locals. Karzai is not even a shadow of Lincoln in his attempt to centralize. Union troops may have committed some harm here and there in the South (hence the war of northern aggression is the name for the Civil War in the South) but they were professional soldiers and not mercenary thugs - hence their success in actually centralizing federal authority.

I understand your point but what I refered to was a somehow larger picture. The Pashtuns weren´t a homogene group back in those days because natural barriers had separated them into three major blocks but they still had language and religion in common. Nowadays Pashtuns of Afghanistan consider themselves as "Afghans/Pashtuns" and clan-mentality is diminishing rapidly.

Your historical analogies are from my perspective not accurate.

There are alot of inner-tribal conflicts but thats because tribes and tribal leaders still hold try to hold on power by rallying people around them for selfish reasons. But when people have access to education and understand the politics on the ground, they won´t let themselves be used in that way anymore.

We can see this process in the Mashreqi area very well. The Mashreqi Pashtuns are statistically (lowst percentage of illiterates amongst Pashtuns) the most educated Pashtuns. Tribal feuds, inner-tribal problems and historical enmeties aren´t that common there anymore.
On the contrary, Pashtuns of Junubi (Paktia, Paktika, Khost etc) are still sitting in their trenches and day-dream of tribal wars. But even they change rapidly. They want schools and hospitals. They are tired of getting their kids get shot or lose limbs by land mines.

Hekmatyar´s and Najib´s internationalism were based on ideology. They thought that becoming part of a Caliphat or a Soviet Union sytel of a confederation was in the interest of the people.

The "internationalism on local level" isn´t based on ideology nor does it try to overcome barriers that can´t be overcome.

The inner-Afghan conflict is a conflict between people of the same heritage and background (except for the Hazaras). They speak the same languages and understand each other very well. They follow the same religion and have had contact with each other for thousands of years.

Hekmatyar´s internationalism is that he thinks that an Arabic speaking Maroccon is as close to him as a Badakhshani is. That is clearly not the case. And we shouldn´t try to make people equal but try to accept and respect diversity.

Abdali´s model was that of a person who didn´t have any power of the local chiefs. He united them by promising a good share in booty if they supported his adventures across the Indus River.

I think that local fiefdoms are a relict of the past and that tribal councils who do not respect their own people´s well-being shouldn´t have anything to say on the fate of the people.
A true representation of the people should be modelled around a system that advocates equality and access to public and political life for everyone.
The Taliban System doesn´t allow anyone to participate politically.

Alot of crimes are committed by "thuggish troops", that´s a fact.
The question remains: what´s the alternative?

The alternative are Taliban troops who will sweep across Afghanistan and commit even bigger atrocities than Sebrenica. I am sure that specially Central Afghanistan and Mazar will be a big pool of blood and to be honest, that´s an idea I am definitly not 100% against (lol), but the alternative has no future. It will be a collapsed state with one good thing: security.
Every other sector of life will be dead.

Who wants that?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I understand your point but what I refered to was a somehow larger picture. The Pashtuns weren´t a homogene group back in those days because natural barriers had separated them into three major blocks but they still had language and religion in common. Nowadays Pashtuns of Afghanistan consider themselves as "Afghans/Pashtuns" and clan-mentality is diminishing rapidly.

Your historical analogies are from my perspective not accurate.

There are alot of inner-tribal conflicts but thats because tribes and tribal leaders still hold try to hold on power by rallying people around them for selfish reasons. But when people have access to education and understand the politics on the ground, they won´t let themselves be used in that way anymore.

We can see this process in the Mashreqi area very well. The Mashreqi Pashtuns are statistically (lowst percentage of illiterates amongst Pashtuns) the most educated Pashtuns. Tribal feuds, inner-tribal problems and historical enmeties aren´t that common there anymore.
On the contrary, Pashtuns of Junubi (Paktia, Paktika, Khost etc) are still sitting in their trenches and day-dream of tribal wars. But even they change rapidly. They want schools and hospitals. They are tired of getting their kids get shot or lose limbs by land mines.

Hekmatyar´s and Najib´s internationalism were based on ideology. They thought that becoming part of a Caliphat or a Soviet Union sytel of a confederation was in the interest of the people.

The "internationalism on local level" isn´t based on ideology nor does it try to overcome barriers that can´t be overcome.

The inner-Afghan conflict is a conflict between people of the same heritage and background (except for the Hazaras). They speak the same languages and understand each other very well. They follow the same religion and have had contact with each other for thousands of years.

Hekmatyar´s internationalism is that he thinks that an Arabic speaking Maroccon is as close to him as a Badakhshani is. That is clearly not the case. And we shouldn´t try to make people equal but try to accept and respect diversity.

Abdali´s model was that of a person who didn´t have any power of the local chiefs. He united them by promising a good share in booty if they supported his adventures across the Indus River.

I think that local fiefdoms are a relict of the past and that tribal councils who do not respect their own people´s well-being shouldn´t have anything to say on the fate of the people.
A true representation of the people should be modelled around a system that advocates equality and access to public and political life for everyone.
The Taliban System doesn´t allow anyone to participate politically.

Alot of crimes are committed by "thuggish troops", that´s a fact.
The question remains: what´s the alternative?

The alternative are Taliban troops who will sweep across Afghanistan and commit even bigger atrocities than Sebrenica. I am sure that specially Central Afghanistan and Mazar will be a big pool of blood and to be honest, that´s an idea I am definitly not 100% against (lol), but the alternative has no future. It will be a collapsed state with one good thing: security.
Every other sector of life will be dead.

Who wants that?

Thank you for the thoughtful commentary Mostafa. I will think about this and ruminate on it and get back to you. Some good points. I think your and mine opinions are forged by our own life views/experiences/readings of history and likely we are both as stubborn as folks come - but I can at least think about this conceptually. I must applaud your nonarrogant way of discussing this.

[MostafaM]

Abdali Saib,

it´s a pleasure to exchange views with you and to have a look on the same topic from a different angle.
I can clearly say that it helps me alot to understand a topic better and deeper and erases the illusion of having understood it fully. In that light the discussion are very much appreciated.

And there should be no room for arrogance or this "I am totally right"-mentality as you mentioned.

Exchanging views between Afghans/Pashtuns is a must to achieve a common ground amongst our nation and it´s good even if it starts on a micro level here.

I am sure alot of readers can benefit from the thoughts expressed here as well.

[pashtanajan]

And Ahmad Shah Massoud didn't?

He hated anything BUT tajik. I'm not sure about Mr. Hekmatyar's ethnic preference but he is from the north where half the non Pashtun population lives so wouldn't it make sense for uzbeks, tajiks, hazaras etc. to vote for him?

Gulbudeen doesn't have a clean slate, and neither does Ahmad Shah Massoud. And being born in the north doesn't suddenly garner affection from minorities, lol.

[Kushan Prince]

Gulbudeen doesn't have a clean slate, and neither does Ahmad Shah Massoud. And being born in the north doesn't suddenly garner affection from minorities, lol.

Actually it does. In the 2009 afghan elections, majority of hazaras in daykundi and Bamyian voted for Karzai at 50 % and Abdullah Abdullah at 10%. I'm pretty sure that says something so the same thing can apply to the north.

[khushal]

There are alot of inner-tribal conflicts but thats because tribes and tribal leaders still hold try to hold on power by rallying people around them for selfish reasons. But when people have access to education and understand the politics on the ground, they won´t let themselves be used in that way anymore.

We can see this process in the Mashreqi area very well. The Mashreqi Pashtuns are statistically (lowst percentage of illiterates amongst Pashtuns) the most educated Pashtuns. Tribal feuds, inner-tribal problems and historical enmeties aren´t that common there anymore.
On the contrary, Pashtuns of Junubi (Paktia, Paktika, Khost etc) are still sitting in their trenches and day-dream of tribal wars. But even they change rapidly. They want schools and hospitals. They are tired of getting their kids get shot or lose limbs by land mines.

Mushreqis have always been the most stable Mostafa regardless of education and that is because feudalistic land structures have been able to take hold there because of large valleys much like the peshawar valley and the other settled areas of KP and the Junabis have always lived in tribal structures because of its rugged geography and feudalistic land structures are close to impossible to take hold similar to FATA. People in Junabi and FATA view autonomy and the tribal way of life as in their best interest, its hard for an elite class of feudal landlords to develop.
Societies evolve from tribal to feudal to industrial and you need certain variables to go from ones stage to the next. Remember when Nadir shah was put on the throne by Paktiwals tribals, all paktiawals asked for in return was autonomy, an agreement that Kabul would not interfere with them much like FATA with the Brits and later on pakistan.

Paktiawals(junabis) are a very educated class of people just like the mushraqis, the problem is that most paktiawals that get their education migrate to the jalalabad valley, Kabul valley, peshawar valley, etc. Its very hard for them to stay in the rugged highlands to properly exercise their new skills, in other words its more difficult to build institution with that kind of structure, its much easier for them to migrate to a place that has a structure where institutions are easier to build. One of the reasons that the Capital was moved from Kandahar to Kabul was because Kabul was mostly detribalized and it was easier to administer from Kabul.

I think that local fiefdoms are a relict of the past and that tribal councils who do not respect their own people´s well-being shouldn´t have anything to say on the fate of the people.
A true representation of the people should be modelled around a system that advocates equality and access to public and political life for everyone.

The tribal councils are democratic so everyone participates and everyone well being is heard and the fate of the people are directly decided by the people themselves. The problem is that the tribal councils are autonomous and putting them under a centralized system is creating a violent backlash. What most American soldiers would tell you including the forum member Siinnii is what they witness is the villagers demand that everyone including the government and the taliban stay out of their affairs.

[khushal]

Actually it does. In the 2009 afghan elections, majority of hazaras in daykundi and Bamyian voted for Karzai at 50 % and Abdullah Abdullah at 10%. I'm pretty sure that says something so the same thing can apply to the north.

The hazaras hate the panjshiris. Masood was considered as the butcher of hazaras in the 90's.

[Toramana]

No one explained why do Pukhtuns of Mashriq or Peshawar Valley happen to be more progressive even if they are relatively less literate and why do southern Pukhtuns appear to be more tribal.

The reason is the availability of resources especially fertile land and water necessary for creating relatively more advanced agrarian economy (based on extensive agriculture) in northern Pukhtunkhwa compared to the subsistence-level economy of the hilly southern Pukhtunkhwa that is based on cattle herding and some rudimentary agriculture. Some strong-willed, ambitious, and power-seeking individuals with leadership qualities usurped more land in the process of occupying Mashriqi and Peshawar Valley thus securing themselves the opportunity to have food surplus and the means to keep/mobilize small militias at times of need. They imposed a hierarchical order on the people working for them. Sometimes, they were able to establish even states (could afford to keep permanent armies). Sometimes, they were appointed local rulers by neighboring emperors and kings and collected taxes for them.

Relative prosperity and food surplus created demand for skills and professions and arts and crafts. The institution of Jarga weakened because the choice of the feudal lord or the emperor or king who had the means to enforce his decisions mattered more now. Pashtunwali still determined the individual behavior but no more controlled the collective behavior of people as strongly as it did during the tribal phase.

The southern Pukhtuns had to defend the scarce lands, grazing pastures, and water resources they had for which a tribal social order was necessary. Tribal social structure was necessary for defense against invaders as well as fellow Pashtuns competing for resources ownership. The poor economic potential excluded the chance of an effective state order internal or external because maintaining a permanent military and other administrative structures was too costly in terms of available resources. Any consensus on macro issues had to be developed through the institution of Jarga where the tribal chiefs played the role of arbitrators. Some rule of the game was necessary to prevent the society from descending into a total chaos. Pashtunwali provided a strong base for that.

[Toramana]

Strangely, in Pukhtunkhwa, Pashtun states first arose in northern Pukhtunkhwa. The first such states were the states of Dir, Swat, Chitral, and Amb, whereas the Khanat of Khar (Bajuar) was also a semi-state. States didn't emerge in Charssada, Sawabi, Peshawr, etc. That is because these areas were less fertile compared to Swat etc. Secondly, they provided trade routes between empires, which couldn't tolerate any independent state in these areas for strategic and economic reasons.

It was when British constructed the canal system in the end of 19th and beginning of 2oth Century that the lands of Sawabi, Charssada, Mardan, and Peshawar became fertile and productive.

[Toramana]

Hard terrain that prevented large-scale and frequent communication and thus exchange of relatively advanced ideas, skills, and professions between southern Pukhtun tribes lead to segregation, social stagnation, and prolongation of tribal phase of Pashtun social evolution. One thing is changing though now with the rise of modern technology and global market and economy that made possible increased communication between these tribes; the changes are changing life-style, break-down of tribal structures, and physical mobility.

There is a rise in education. Southern Pukhtuns also are making inroads in trade, business, transportation, etc. Probably, they make better traders than the rest of Pukhtuns. And increasing number of them is now in services.