Tweet
Originally posted by Azmal
View Post
That is the dilemma then….the Orwellian concept of ‘ doublethink’--- the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one mind, and accepting both of them. lol
Or it was nuanced. Take for instance the Socialist semi Marxist leanings of Archbishop Romero of Latin America:
El Salvador: The Assassination of Archbishop Romero
He fused the concept of social justice and humanism he gleaned from religion with an attack on injustices perpetuated by the oligarchy that he derived from semi Marxist philosophy.
Was it not The Christ that said it is "as hard for the wealthy man to enter Heaven as for the Camel to pass through the needle's eye"?
I agree with notation of deep understanding, however I would love to hear your alternative to “nationalism”….
Why must one take on the arduous and uphill gradient battle that renders concepts mutually exclusive?
how are we to gather our people out of this misery?
I think the answer lies in mass media and information dissemination. If we take the two population of Pashtuns, one thing Pakistan has definitively proven (and not merely Pakistan by also American where some 2/3 of Americans were led to believe Saddam perpetrated 9/11 via the media blitz) is that if you take the Pakistani Pashtuns as the experimental and Afghan and tribal Pashtuns as controls ---> the former have been manipulated by mass media to somehow view Musharraf as a nation savior, Benazir as a modern Joan of Arc (despite the irony that these two hated one another) and that the very same people that were called freedom fighters and holy warriors are now Indian agents and terrorists.
So i would posit that gathering them out is not so much in infusing them with a new quasi - dogmatic ideology - but rather increasing awareness of reality.
Political Islam which Pakistan preaches has already leaded to genocide of Pashtuns in Wazeristan, Swat, and destruction of Afghan state and decline of Pashtuns by strategic depth and Kabul must burn policy.
See, this is the issue that I have with this topic. It begins to border on an Ataturkian, "throw the baby out with the bathwater" solution even though the attempts to extricate religion out of the conversation is really akin to an Elphinstonian and orientalist revisionist rendering of the hujra vs mullah paradigm.
It also completely dismisses the same successes that Ahmad Shah Abdali and Mir Wais before him had with tactics that did not buck the natural order of things and that utilized politicization of religion to galvanize a nationalistic fervor instead of assuming that the two had to be mutually exclusive forever and always. And when the latter paradigm is attempted (mutual exclusivity and subordination of religion out of the conversation in a region where no matter what revisionists say - there was never a purist Jeffersonian separation of Church and state) ---> this nearly always sets up the situation for internecine conflict and creates two polar opposites (militant secularists and militant religionists) who are prone to taking outside comfort and aid.
As I have stated before the underlying reason for the Islamist enterprise in Pakistan owes itself to the fact that in the absence of any national coherence, political Islam has been the ONLY means at the government's disposal for keeping their synthetic nation glued together.
Well then you should also take from this a very important lesson - that no matter how much elites and the western educated scoff at the masses and attempt to insinuate Islam as the ultimate opiate of the masses - that its galvanizing and uniting characteristics are potent and not to be dismissed out of hand. It is also a practical lesson on how one should be very careful to not stampede roughshod over the religious sentiments of the region and people (even if they are only culturally religious) and instead work within that fabric toward a goal.
That is, why permit Pakistan to be the sole arbiter, jury, judge, and executioner of a religious tradition that spans over 1400 and sum years?
Hence the underlying reason for Pakistan's support of Islamist movements in Afghanistan have nothing to do with religion or any pretense to moral virtue.
Once again I think its complex. My assessment of it is that there are cross border links and that the record evidences something far more miserable. I think there are generals and agencies that contain folks that truly think they are arm chair intelligence and Machiavellian in some sort of war of attrition (death by a thousand cuts) that puts the Afghans front and center a battle that both bleeds outside powers in the theater of war but also bleeds them economically via duplicity. I would contradict your statement by saying that none of the juristic schools have weighed in on whether a single state can somehow decide to utilize another state without informing its people of this mosquitoes vs The Elephant brand of warfare.
I agree that ideologies, whether nationalist, religious, or sectarian, prevent people from using their brains and thinking clearly. Subjects thus become veiled by preconceived notions of good and evil… However, I’m not preaching to get Mohmand or Khil’s land or have any imperial design…I want Pashtuns to raise above sum of their individual or tribal ambitions-- as a nation…
I wish this was an easy thing to do. I really do. And like I said perhaps the combination of education and some sort of mass media effect could help move this forward. But if I had to estimate, I would say we are about 2 generations off from any ability to do this.
Lets talk about two examples of why this is an uphill battle. Across the border in Peshawar the Arbab clan of Khalil (they are the Khan Khel of that tribe) have a political family embedded into the Pakistani political class for generations. I encountered a member of the family in DC. The nepotism runs rampant and the overwhelming majority of the Pashtuns in that region look to that specific family for leadership despite known corruption. Their clan leader says jump, they say how high.
Or more recently the way Noorzai and Atzakzai clans of Kandahar have local conflict that is very bloody and very tumultuous that inherently feeds militancy.
this is the only way to our survival as people.
Well this is true as is the observation by some of the Marxists of the prior era that feudalism inherent to tribal hierarchy can hold a nation state back from developing due to an inability to enact "imminent domain." The issue though is how one enacts change. And we both see the outcomes of their attempts and how unfortunate they were. They did not even have the patience and wherewithal of other Socialist-Marxist groups like the Sandinista.. they just thought they could insult, disparage, beat, and murder their way to a new Afghan state.
When a society has an abysmal literacy rate coupled to a strong village-centric mode of life - and the local economy is the economy then regionalism prevails and stability resides in these heirarchies.
It is not about Nationalistic tendencies, it is about coming out of tribalism.
It is more than just tribalism from my medical travels across all the regions. Its about my house>>my local family>>My village>>My set of villages>>Tribe>>Province>>Country region (sometimes even cross border region will take precedence)>>Country. And this relates to the set of circumstances above that are beyond the notion of "isms" of any sort.
In my opinion a confederacy is the only way for us tribal Pashtun to consolidate our identity as a people, develop our culture/language…which hopefully our state eventually will evolve and privileges personal autonomy over group identity, and assumes a neutral, non-ethnic state acting for the good of greatest number.(natural evolution of state.)
Sure, this is how all great powers develop... but this takes time, blood, conflict, civil war, and most importantly - pure unfettered autonomy. No one from the outside can accomplish this and no one has ever done this for anyone else in history.
The alternative to confederacy is tribalism and due to our geopolitical location it means endless war in our own land . . . war of every tribe against every other tribe…or against invaders/foreigners. Mind you…just a simplified observation not criticism…. All our wars…even our Jihad which I must say were mostly motivated or lead by non-Pashtuns like Indian Ahmad Shah Barelvi, Uzbek/Tajiks likes of Termezi, Mullah Darwaza and Gujar rather than Yousufzay Akhund of Swat did not lead to positive results… in a sense combat was really no more than the prelude to the bargaining that always followed and there were always rival tribes on side of enemy. This is because for a khan or tribal chieftain what counts is his prestige in the eyes of his equals and not victory won against an external enemy.
Yes, similar to the example I gave above - we see folks in history like Kuli Khan Khattak doing what is best for his set of circumstances. This is no different than the way the native American tribals operated. They crafted treaties that would pit some tribes and colonizers against other tribes to the detriment of all the native peoples and their cause. We agree on the fact that our leaders or often short-sighted.
Political intrigue within the tribe takes place behind closed doors, for tribes it is better to come to some agreement with an enemy who recognizes your local standing than to gain jihad and risk losing your identity within the tribe or against rival tribe. This fact was well understood by all the invaders be it British, who maintained their power by strengthening tribalism, is also the policy being followed by Pakistan.
I would say the last part regarding Pakistan is not completely true. While Pakistan made a show of permitting FATA to exist before this war - the sense I got from the Pashtuns there is a very poor understanding of their tribal lineage, clan division, and tribal linkages. Very few knew who Ahmad Shah Durrani was or that he and Ahmad Shah Abdali was the same person. Some confused Nadir Afshar with him and fused him and Abdali into some sort of single person... Sher Shah Suri was known but minimally. The poetry of Khushal Khan and Rahman Baba was known. So I would say that Pakistanism has actually deteriorated the condition of the tribe. Some of the FATA tribes that have cross border links that retain their identities (e..g Wazir and Mahsud) are the only ones I met that indicate they maintain statehood based on benefit to their tribe and that if Kabul became their economic benefactor they may consider a switch.
I disagree, respectfully with notation Pashtuns tribes being distinct… even antagonist historian Sir Olaf Caroe only used socio-economic interest to segregate Pashtun of Pashtunistan from Afghanistan.
I agree with you that they are not genetically distinct or culturally... I meant that the tribes on that side have political affiliation in their leadership structure that intertwines them into the state. What is interesting is that it is not always the true hereditary leader of the tribe that is the current big-wig. For example - Behram Khan Arbab was killed in holy war against the Sikhs I believe as was others of his family against Brit proxies. This family was a leadership family but deprived of land rights and the current ruling family has been in power since the British elevated their prestige.
I do not doubt of many internal upheavals before, during and after Ahmad Shah baba’s rule…but it cannot agitate the foundation that Ahmad Shah baba created for Pashtun. Some western historian also makes some claims of distinct sociopolitical tribal structure of Gilzay/Durrani vs Eastern Pasthun based on centuries of Saffavid rule Vis a Vis Mughal rule. If I remember correctly Barnnett Rubin in one of his books claims Safavid Shahs imposed elements of the Turo-mongolian Tribal structure on to those Pashtuns living in their territory and it was due to Safavid Turks effort that Abdali(later Durrani) and Ghilzai Pashtuns developed Turkic-style confederation. While the Mughals treated east Pashtuns quite differently, and under Mughals eastern Pashtuns never developed a broad confederation. In my opinion it does not really matter, we can label Baba’s achievement as pure luck or accidental or as result of outside influence but it does not reduce the significant of his achievement for Pashtun as a people.
I am not denigrating his amazing accomplishment. I am pointing out that it was transient for important reasons. Just as I cannot take away from Alexander's accomplishments but I can with certainty note that his empire was transient for reasons we both know. What we can do is understand these reasons to help in the future.
This is why all Pashtuns regardless of tribe consider him a hero and many parents, even uneducated one make a point to name their offspring after him.
As I said, I had unfortunate experiences with the Pakistani Pashtun folks regarding their general on the street lack of knowledge of Ahmad Shah Abdali as an important personage. To the credit of ANP, one thing they did do during their term was distribute literature about these important figures to re-educate the populace.
I would love to hear how religious groups in current shape led by the Mullahs that want Pashtun population to remain uneducated and docile, which is a similar political tactic used by European rulers during the dark ages---Find a religious base, support it according to your own interpretations and ruthlessly attack innocent people who defy your will---can achieve emancipation of the Pashtuns? Or at least prevent bloodshed of Pashtun?
Once again we have to be careful to not consider important galvanizing concepts as mutually exclusive. Mir Wais and his fatwa are an important allegory for us today. In modern events, the return of the Anatolian elite to religious power in Turkey shows that an Ataturk can try his best but that he will inevitably fail to destroy the religious character of a people. In fact if he and his inheritors try - they will see blowback eventually, if even almost a century later.
I would say that ceding Islam and its message to charlatans, fools, and morons while dismissing innocent madrassah orphans as a part of the problem will not be a solution.
Also, confusing cause and effect (i.e. radicalization being falsely claimed as perpetuating the war as opposed to the more proper correlation of war inevitably radicalizing) will not help matters.
Democrats here in the US figured this out the hard way. Religion even here where you and I are plays in an important implicit role in politics. You now have Trump actually saying he will repeal the law that prohibits religious institutions from taking politically apparent stances or lose their tax exempt status.
My view on it is that Ghani and others should not try to somehow take Western standards and a view of Jeffersonian democracy and try to demarcate some sort of separation of church and state that took a millennia to accomplish in Europe and expect it to happen in even a century in Afghanistan.
And Pashtuns need leaders that wont try to appease the world at the expense of rubbing their people the wrong way. Pashtun leaders that are for, by, and of the people may not resemble suit wearing Westerners and Ankara Turks for that matter... they may be something altogether different and we should be OK with that.
In my estimation, it will be some sort of fusion of native nationalism that does not run counter to religion and actually galvanizes under its banner that will hold the day and produce sustainable results.
In summary I would say that it is dangerous to simply cede religious ground to political Mullahs the same way it is dangerous to simply cede ground to their counterpart like Jerry Falwell. But it is equally dangerous to assume that Falwell does not channel some sort of real religious undertone in the society that can be claimed by his betters.
Or it was nuanced. Take for instance the Socialist semi Marxist leanings of Archbishop Romero of Latin America:
El Salvador: The Assassination of Archbishop Romero
He fused the concept of social justice and humanism he gleaned from religion with an attack on injustices perpetuated by the oligarchy that he derived from semi Marxist philosophy.
Was it not The Christ that said it is "as hard for the wealthy man to enter Heaven as for the Camel to pass through the needle's eye"?
I agree with notation of deep understanding, however I would love to hear your alternative to “nationalism”….
Why must one take on the arduous and uphill gradient battle that renders concepts mutually exclusive?
how are we to gather our people out of this misery?
I think the answer lies in mass media and information dissemination. If we take the two population of Pashtuns, one thing Pakistan has definitively proven (and not merely Pakistan by also American where some 2/3 of Americans were led to believe Saddam perpetrated 9/11 via the media blitz) is that if you take the Pakistani Pashtuns as the experimental and Afghan and tribal Pashtuns as controls ---> the former have been manipulated by mass media to somehow view Musharraf as a nation savior, Benazir as a modern Joan of Arc (despite the irony that these two hated one another) and that the very same people that were called freedom fighters and holy warriors are now Indian agents and terrorists.
So i would posit that gathering them out is not so much in infusing them with a new quasi - dogmatic ideology - but rather increasing awareness of reality.
Political Islam which Pakistan preaches has already leaded to genocide of Pashtuns in Wazeristan, Swat, and destruction of Afghan state and decline of Pashtuns by strategic depth and Kabul must burn policy.
See, this is the issue that I have with this topic. It begins to border on an Ataturkian, "throw the baby out with the bathwater" solution even though the attempts to extricate religion out of the conversation is really akin to an Elphinstonian and orientalist revisionist rendering of the hujra vs mullah paradigm.
It also completely dismisses the same successes that Ahmad Shah Abdali and Mir Wais before him had with tactics that did not buck the natural order of things and that utilized politicization of religion to galvanize a nationalistic fervor instead of assuming that the two had to be mutually exclusive forever and always. And when the latter paradigm is attempted (mutual exclusivity and subordination of religion out of the conversation in a region where no matter what revisionists say - there was never a purist Jeffersonian separation of Church and state) ---> this nearly always sets up the situation for internecine conflict and creates two polar opposites (militant secularists and militant religionists) who are prone to taking outside comfort and aid.
As I have stated before the underlying reason for the Islamist enterprise in Pakistan owes itself to the fact that in the absence of any national coherence, political Islam has been the ONLY means at the government's disposal for keeping their synthetic nation glued together.
Well then you should also take from this a very important lesson - that no matter how much elites and the western educated scoff at the masses and attempt to insinuate Islam as the ultimate opiate of the masses - that its galvanizing and uniting characteristics are potent and not to be dismissed out of hand. It is also a practical lesson on how one should be very careful to not stampede roughshod over the religious sentiments of the region and people (even if they are only culturally religious) and instead work within that fabric toward a goal.
That is, why permit Pakistan to be the sole arbiter, jury, judge, and executioner of a religious tradition that spans over 1400 and sum years?
Hence the underlying reason for Pakistan's support of Islamist movements in Afghanistan have nothing to do with religion or any pretense to moral virtue.
Once again I think its complex. My assessment of it is that there are cross border links and that the record evidences something far more miserable. I think there are generals and agencies that contain folks that truly think they are arm chair intelligence and Machiavellian in some sort of war of attrition (death by a thousand cuts) that puts the Afghans front and center a battle that both bleeds outside powers in the theater of war but also bleeds them economically via duplicity. I would contradict your statement by saying that none of the juristic schools have weighed in on whether a single state can somehow decide to utilize another state without informing its people of this mosquitoes vs The Elephant brand of warfare.
I agree that ideologies, whether nationalist, religious, or sectarian, prevent people from using their brains and thinking clearly. Subjects thus become veiled by preconceived notions of good and evil… However, I’m not preaching to get Mohmand or Khil’s land or have any imperial design…I want Pashtuns to raise above sum of their individual or tribal ambitions-- as a nation…
I wish this was an easy thing to do. I really do. And like I said perhaps the combination of education and some sort of mass media effect could help move this forward. But if I had to estimate, I would say we are about 2 generations off from any ability to do this.
Lets talk about two examples of why this is an uphill battle. Across the border in Peshawar the Arbab clan of Khalil (they are the Khan Khel of that tribe) have a political family embedded into the Pakistani political class for generations. I encountered a member of the family in DC. The nepotism runs rampant and the overwhelming majority of the Pashtuns in that region look to that specific family for leadership despite known corruption. Their clan leader says jump, they say how high.
Or more recently the way Noorzai and Atzakzai clans of Kandahar have local conflict that is very bloody and very tumultuous that inherently feeds militancy.
this is the only way to our survival as people.
Well this is true as is the observation by some of the Marxists of the prior era that feudalism inherent to tribal hierarchy can hold a nation state back from developing due to an inability to enact "imminent domain." The issue though is how one enacts change. And we both see the outcomes of their attempts and how unfortunate they were. They did not even have the patience and wherewithal of other Socialist-Marxist groups like the Sandinista.. they just thought they could insult, disparage, beat, and murder their way to a new Afghan state.
When a society has an abysmal literacy rate coupled to a strong village-centric mode of life - and the local economy is the economy then regionalism prevails and stability resides in these heirarchies.
It is not about Nationalistic tendencies, it is about coming out of tribalism.
It is more than just tribalism from my medical travels across all the regions. Its about my house>>my local family>>My village>>My set of villages>>Tribe>>Province>>Country region (sometimes even cross border region will take precedence)>>Country. And this relates to the set of circumstances above that are beyond the notion of "isms" of any sort.
In my opinion a confederacy is the only way for us tribal Pashtun to consolidate our identity as a people, develop our culture/language…which hopefully our state eventually will evolve and privileges personal autonomy over group identity, and assumes a neutral, non-ethnic state acting for the good of greatest number.(natural evolution of state.)
Sure, this is how all great powers develop... but this takes time, blood, conflict, civil war, and most importantly - pure unfettered autonomy. No one from the outside can accomplish this and no one has ever done this for anyone else in history.
The alternative to confederacy is tribalism and due to our geopolitical location it means endless war in our own land . . . war of every tribe against every other tribe…or against invaders/foreigners. Mind you…just a simplified observation not criticism…. All our wars…even our Jihad which I must say were mostly motivated or lead by non-Pashtuns like Indian Ahmad Shah Barelvi, Uzbek/Tajiks likes of Termezi, Mullah Darwaza and Gujar rather than Yousufzay Akhund of Swat did not lead to positive results… in a sense combat was really no more than the prelude to the bargaining that always followed and there were always rival tribes on side of enemy. This is because for a khan or tribal chieftain what counts is his prestige in the eyes of his equals and not victory won against an external enemy.
Yes, similar to the example I gave above - we see folks in history like Kuli Khan Khattak doing what is best for his set of circumstances. This is no different than the way the native American tribals operated. They crafted treaties that would pit some tribes and colonizers against other tribes to the detriment of all the native peoples and their cause. We agree on the fact that our leaders or often short-sighted.
Political intrigue within the tribe takes place behind closed doors, for tribes it is better to come to some agreement with an enemy who recognizes your local standing than to gain jihad and risk losing your identity within the tribe or against rival tribe. This fact was well understood by all the invaders be it British, who maintained their power by strengthening tribalism, is also the policy being followed by Pakistan.
I would say the last part regarding Pakistan is not completely true. While Pakistan made a show of permitting FATA to exist before this war - the sense I got from the Pashtuns there is a very poor understanding of their tribal lineage, clan division, and tribal linkages. Very few knew who Ahmad Shah Durrani was or that he and Ahmad Shah Abdali was the same person. Some confused Nadir Afshar with him and fused him and Abdali into some sort of single person... Sher Shah Suri was known but minimally. The poetry of Khushal Khan and Rahman Baba was known. So I would say that Pakistanism has actually deteriorated the condition of the tribe. Some of the FATA tribes that have cross border links that retain their identities (e..g Wazir and Mahsud) are the only ones I met that indicate they maintain statehood based on benefit to their tribe and that if Kabul became their economic benefactor they may consider a switch.
I disagree, respectfully with notation Pashtuns tribes being distinct… even antagonist historian Sir Olaf Caroe only used socio-economic interest to segregate Pashtun of Pashtunistan from Afghanistan.
I agree with you that they are not genetically distinct or culturally... I meant that the tribes on that side have political affiliation in their leadership structure that intertwines them into the state. What is interesting is that it is not always the true hereditary leader of the tribe that is the current big-wig. For example - Behram Khan Arbab was killed in holy war against the Sikhs I believe as was others of his family against Brit proxies. This family was a leadership family but deprived of land rights and the current ruling family has been in power since the British elevated their prestige.
I do not doubt of many internal upheavals before, during and after Ahmad Shah baba’s rule…but it cannot agitate the foundation that Ahmad Shah baba created for Pashtun. Some western historian also makes some claims of distinct sociopolitical tribal structure of Gilzay/Durrani vs Eastern Pasthun based on centuries of Saffavid rule Vis a Vis Mughal rule. If I remember correctly Barnnett Rubin in one of his books claims Safavid Shahs imposed elements of the Turo-mongolian Tribal structure on to those Pashtuns living in their territory and it was due to Safavid Turks effort that Abdali(later Durrani) and Ghilzai Pashtuns developed Turkic-style confederation. While the Mughals treated east Pashtuns quite differently, and under Mughals eastern Pashtuns never developed a broad confederation. In my opinion it does not really matter, we can label Baba’s achievement as pure luck or accidental or as result of outside influence but it does not reduce the significant of his achievement for Pashtun as a people.
I am not denigrating his amazing accomplishment. I am pointing out that it was transient for important reasons. Just as I cannot take away from Alexander's accomplishments but I can with certainty note that his empire was transient for reasons we both know. What we can do is understand these reasons to help in the future.
This is why all Pashtuns regardless of tribe consider him a hero and many parents, even uneducated one make a point to name their offspring after him.
As I said, I had unfortunate experiences with the Pakistani Pashtun folks regarding their general on the street lack of knowledge of Ahmad Shah Abdali as an important personage. To the credit of ANP, one thing they did do during their term was distribute literature about these important figures to re-educate the populace.
I would love to hear how religious groups in current shape led by the Mullahs that want Pashtun population to remain uneducated and docile, which is a similar political tactic used by European rulers during the dark ages---Find a religious base, support it according to your own interpretations and ruthlessly attack innocent people who defy your will---can achieve emancipation of the Pashtuns? Or at least prevent bloodshed of Pashtun?
Once again we have to be careful to not consider important galvanizing concepts as mutually exclusive. Mir Wais and his fatwa are an important allegory for us today. In modern events, the return of the Anatolian elite to religious power in Turkey shows that an Ataturk can try his best but that he will inevitably fail to destroy the religious character of a people. In fact if he and his inheritors try - they will see blowback eventually, if even almost a century later.
I would say that ceding Islam and its message to charlatans, fools, and morons while dismissing innocent madrassah orphans as a part of the problem will not be a solution.
Also, confusing cause and effect (i.e. radicalization being falsely claimed as perpetuating the war as opposed to the more proper correlation of war inevitably radicalizing) will not help matters.
Democrats here in the US figured this out the hard way. Religion even here where you and I are plays in an important implicit role in politics. You now have Trump actually saying he will repeal the law that prohibits religious institutions from taking politically apparent stances or lose their tax exempt status.
My view on it is that Ghani and others should not try to somehow take Western standards and a view of Jeffersonian democracy and try to demarcate some sort of separation of church and state that took a millennia to accomplish in Europe and expect it to happen in even a century in Afghanistan.
And Pashtuns need leaders that wont try to appease the world at the expense of rubbing their people the wrong way. Pashtun leaders that are for, by, and of the people may not resemble suit wearing Westerners and Ankara Turks for that matter... they may be something altogether different and we should be OK with that.
In my estimation, it will be some sort of fusion of native nationalism that does not run counter to religion and actually galvanizes under its banner that will hold the day and produce sustainable results.
In summary I would say that it is dangerous to simply cede religious ground to political Mullahs the same way it is dangerous to simply cede ground to their counterpart like Jerry Falwell. But it is equally dangerous to assume that Falwell does not channel some sort of real religious undertone in the society that can be claimed by his betters.
Comment