The dominant discourse in mainstream Pakistani media on issues of foreign policy and national security has always been based on the narrative of the military establishment. Most Pakistani analysts, both right-wing and liberal, believe the Taliban is a nationalist movement motivated by Pashtun alienation in current power structure in Afghanistan. Be it the ‘experts’ of primetime TV talk shows or op-ed pages of Urdu and English newspapers, one always comes across that mantra.

This narrative is a product of the Pakistani military establishment’s ‘strategic depth’ policy, and was propagated internationally by former military dictator Pervez Musharraf. Addressing the European Union parliament in September 2006, he said the Taliban represent Pashtuns and they could spark a ‘national war’ in Afghanistan. Domestically, opinion makers say that the Afghan Taliban are representatives of the Pashtun.

They say the Afghan Taliban have grassroots support in the south and southeast, and the movement is a reaction to the lack of Pashtun representation. But they also say the Afghan Taliban are a genuine resistance force fighting an ideological war against foreign invasion. The two views do not coincide.

They would never say Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan represents Pashtuns of FATA, or that the insurgency is a nationalist movement motivated by the grievances of the tribes. They call TTP a terrorist organization. And this is where the contradictory notion of good Taliban and bad Taliban comes into play. The Afghan Taliban are a resistance force representing Pashtuns, while their ideological brothers TTP, who also claim allegiance to Mullah Omar, are terrorists.

Ironically, those who claim that the Afghan Taliban are a Pashtun nationalist movement are not Pashtuns, such as Hamid Mir and Orya Maqbool Jan of Urdu media, or Ejaz Haider and Najam Sethi among the liberal voices. Pashtun intellectuals and journalists from conservatives like Rahimullah Yousafzai and Saleem Safi to liberals like Farhat Taj and even some Pashtuns who have been part of the military establishment such as Asad Munir, former head of ISI and MI in FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, deny that.

The folklore of Taliban nostalgia prevailing in mainstream Pakistani media that Mullah Omar had brought peace to Afghanistan is also not shared by the Afghans. The Taliban killed thousands of people until there were no rivals and no one to resist their brutality, and there was rejoice in Kabul after their government was toppled in 2001.

Afghans do not see the Taliban as a nationalist movement based on the Pashtunwali code, but influenced by Deobandi madrassas in Pakistan. They are not even a unified group. Not even all Afghan Taliban call themselves Pashtun nationalists. Although they are predominately Pashtun, many among them are from other ethnic groups, particularly in Northern Afghanistan. Local insurgent groups have multiple motivations. Some join the resistance against the perceived foreign invaders, while others fight for local purposes, such as clan rivalries and personal interests. Then there are those who fight for money.

Working on a research project in Northern Afghanistan in August last year, I met some insurgents who were not ethnic Pashtuns, but Turkmens. They told me they were paid $500 to $600 a month by a Taliban commander in Mazar-e-Sharif. That is more than what some of my colleagues were being paid by an NGO. Some of the Taliban men are opportunists who benefit from the narcotics industry and seek Taliban’s shelter.

“Unlike the late 70s and 80s when Afghanistan experienced a national resistance movement against the Soviet occupation, the Taliban’s claim for Jihad against Americans does not resonate with a majority of Pashtuns,” according to Afghan political activist and former chief of staff at Foreign Ministry Wahid Munawar.

The central leadership of all major insurgent factions is based in Pakistan, be it the Quetta Shura of Kandahari Taliban, the Haqqani Network in Waziristan, or the Hizb-e-Islami of Hekmatyar. The commanding cadres of the movement have gone to madrassas in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Southern Punjab or Karachi. Balochistan and the tribal areas are recruiting centers for Afghan Taliban. While traveling on the two borders, I regularly meet Taliban who are on their way to Quetta for rest, after a month or two of fighting in Helmand or Uruzgan. Majority of the suicide bombers in Afghanistan are traced to the tribal areas or Balochistan. What cultural or political grievances can they have about the Pahstuns of Afghanistan? The Taliban have destroyed the very foundations of centuries old Pashtun customs such as respect for tribal elders and the Jirga system.

“Taliban draw their support mostly from a tiny minority of Pashtun partly based on ideological grounds,” says Rafi Fazil, an Afghan student and activist. “There is also an element of fear – given the vacuum created by the absence of government in Taliban controlled areas – that plays a key role. Not every Pashtun who sympathises with the Taliban actually subscribes to their violent ideology. Those who do, and are prepared to take part in violence, constitute a tiny minority.”

Though Afghan Taliban brand themselves as a nationalist movement fighting for ‘independence’ and withdrawal of foreign troops, they are not supported by majority of Pashtuns, let alone other ethnic groups in Afghanistan. If there are free elections, the Pashtuns of Afghanistan would reject the Taliban, like Pakistani Pashtuns vote for the liberal Awami National Party.

President Hamid Karzai received a large number of votes from the Pashtun south and southeast. The nationalist Afghan Mellat is a popular party among urban Pashtuns. There is no truth to the statement that Pashtuns lack representation in the current power structure in Afghanistan. In fact, non-Pashtun ethnic politicians complain of the opposite – that Pashtuns hold most key ministries in President Karzai’s administration.

Cartoon from Daily Afghanistan by Alizada.

Op-ed Outlook Afghanistan Jan 24

While inaugurating the new session of National Assembly after its winter break, President Karzai spoke in reference to the meeting of some Afghan politicians and US congressmen in Berlin. Leaders of National Front Ahmad Zia Massoud, Muhammad Muhaqiq, Rashid Dostum and former NDS Chief Amrullah Saleh met a bipartisan group of US congressmen in a session organized by Aspen Institute in Berlin recently. They released a joint statement calling for decentralization of power and parliamentary system in Afghanistan.

President took the opportunity at parliament’s inauguration, the house of peoples’ representatives, to strongly condemn the increasing calls for reforms. He used very strange language, with the cover of his usual punching bag when talking to public—the foreigners.   He said, “Afghanistan is not the political laboratory of foreigners to test new systems”. And went on saying he will defend the current system with his life. Inappropriate as it is in public, such a language shows the violent mindset of our political elite in the new era of a democratic Afghanistan, where unfortunately the traditional dictatorial attitude still prevails. It will take us long to reach to a normal political arena of harmony where debate and dialogue would push the cycle of our political evolution, not violent thinking.

The entire current setup in Afghanistan is running by the grace of foreign support. When President Karzai was called on his Thuraya satellite phone ten years ago to tell that he has been chosen as the leader of interim Afghan authority, to all expenses of the Government until very this moment and for years to come, all has been possible only because of foreign support. Absolute domestic power has made President Karzai a victim of selective amnesia and ingratitude towards the international community. His criticisms of foreigners are always selective, when and where it fits his political interests.  Much of the anti-foreigner sentiments among ordinary Afghans other than sympathizers of Taliban are as a result of President Karzai’s calculated accusations all the time.

By using the reference of unpopular tag of “foreign intervention”, President Karzai wants to distort public opinion about the calls of decentralization of power before there is a real mass mobilization campaign on ground by the opposition factions. Aside from the fact that Western countries involved in Afghanistan have sacrificed blood and money for the last decade supporting the Afghan Government, Karzai’s tricks of playing with public sentiments for personal political agendas making foreigners a punching-bag is no good for our own fragile society and the whole current setup.

Apparently it is portrayed as if the hellfire erupted after the Berlin meeting of Afghan politicians and some US congressmen.  But these demands are as old the current setup. There were deep disagreements about Afghanistan’s future political system among Afghan participants in the Bonn process of December 2001. And since then, it has been discussed. Some prominent presidential candidates in the last two elections had manifestos promising federal and parliamentary systems. Neither National Front leaders are calling for decentralization of power and constitutional reforms for the first time, nor are they the only ones with such agenda. NF leader Ahmad Zia Massoud was calling for parliamentary system even when he was Vice President. Once he openly said in a public gathering that Vice President has no power. It is a symbolic role. Very simple notifications of office of vice presidents have to go through the office of President Karzai’s Chief of Staff and approved.

National Coalition, an important opposition faction led by Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, former rival of President Karzai in election, calls for electoral, constitutional reforms and parliamentary system in their manifesto. Similarly, another important faction of opposition Right and Justice Party of intellectuals and former leftists also demands electoral reforms.

Are they all acting on behalf and pursuing agenda of “foreigners”?

President Karzai’s reaction saying “I will defend the current system with my life” is not only our example of what English historian John Dalberg-Acton said in 1887, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”, since we have that honor consecutively for the last several years as second most corrupt country in the world, but also, absolute power makes blind and self-destructive.

Our presidency enjoys absolute power. He controls appointment of governors, district chiefs, mayors, judges from supreme court to the lowest district level,  provincial and district police chiefs, one third of Senate, members of the Election Commission and even members of the ‘Independent’ Human Rights Commission of Afghanistan. The powers of parliament other than legislation are nonexistent in practice.

There is no respect for rule of law and constitution even in the current system. The list of violations of constitution just in last two years is long. In the parliament inauguration speech, President told MPs that cabinet nominees to replace acting-ministers will be sent for approval soon. It has been almost two years that six ministries are being run by acting-ministers. According to law, an acting minister cannot run office for more than a month, and a nominee rejected from parliament cannot serve as acting. The acting-ministers have been rejected thrice. In the Kingdom of Karzai, one could go to Supreme Court against such violation of law and mockery of the system, but the Chief Justice of Supreme Court himself is on acting-service, in violation of constitution, as his tenure has ended. This system has been made a mess undermining the very essence of the entire process of Afghanistan’s democratic journey. The over-centralized concentration of administrative powers has made the current setup more like a kingdom. Constitutional reform is inevitable.

But President Karzai with his remarks to defend the current system with his life is actually threatening the opposition parties calling for constitutional reforms. This is the self-destructive direction of absolute power when one thinks he is the king of jungle and can roar against political realities

The year 2012 is going to mark the start of a movement towards new political realities in Afghanistan. The increasing calls for reforms are reacted against with threats, which will result in opposition factions getting a united stance on their mutual demands, such as electoral reforms and rally mass mobilization and generate political awareness and activism to a new level among ordinary Afghans.

After Taliban’s confirmation of opening an office in Qatar, the domestic Afghan debate on talks with the Taliban has intensified among the political circles of Kabul, media, civil society organizations and ordinary Afghans. It is optimistic to see the efforts of talks for a political settlement with the insurgents to end the conflict in Afghanistan has opened up a broad and realistic debate among Afghans. Taliban have more problems of acceptability within Afghan society than with the international community. The direct US-Taliban talks are a significant improvement towards hopes of an end to violence. Whatever the result of negotiations and whether it can lead to a breakthrough by 2014 is early to say. However, the intra-Afghan reconciliation is more important for the end of conflict in Afghanistan. The Government has been emphasizing and attempting to control the current process of negotiations with the Taliban. The Islamic Emirate says only parties in talks are the United States and Taliban. They also renounce the Afghan constitution and have made it clear that opening of a formal office in Doha will not mean an end to suicide attacks and bomb blasts against Afghan National Security Forces and ISAF.

Even if the Karzai Government joins the negotiations process with the Taliban later, the Administration does not represent the real anti-Taliban constituency, as former Chief of NDS Amrullah Saleh says. And this has to be seriously considered by the international community, if a genuine reconciliation and end of the conflict in Afghanistan is to be achieved.

Nowadays the Government has launched a storm of criticism campaign against those who met some Republican and Democrat US congressmen in Berlin last week. The state-owned media outlets and analysts affiliated with Government supported think-tanks are all propagating in a malign campaign of distorting the agenda of meeting in Berlin. Four US congressmen, including Republicans and Democrat held a session with some Afghan politicians including prominent opposition figures and leaders of the National Front, Ahmad Zia Massoud, Muhammad Muhaqiq, Rashid Dostum and former NDS Chief Amrullah Saleh.

The session discussed the recent Bonn Conference and stability in Afghanistan beyond 2014. In a joint press release, the US congressmen criticized Obama and Karzai administrations for ignoring a huge segment of the Afghan society in the current process towards negotiations with the Taliban. They said forces that helped the US topple Taliban regime in 2001 are being sidelined. Such an approach without participation of all segments of the Afghan society will not result in stability beyond 2014. With the US and NATO withdrawal plan of 2014, Afghanistan needs a broad-based inclusive peace and genuine reconciliation process for stability.

Their joint statement pointed out the roots of governance and nation-building failure in Afghanistan. They said:

“our concern is that the present political system is dysfunctional because all the power is centralized in a way that no American would tolerate in the United States… This centralized power has led to massive corruption, disenfranchisement of a large segment of the Afghan people, obstacles to economic development, massive abuse of power, political instability, poor governance, and a vast undermining of law and order.”

The Afghan leaders called for “a national dialogue on a revised Constitution to correct the inherent flaws in the present power structure by decentralizing the political system, making it more compatible with the diverse political, social and cultural nature of Afghanistan.”  They further said that the current process of talks with the Taliban is flawed because it excludes the anti-Taliban Afghans. They also called for change in the electoral system, from Single Non-Transferable Vote to Proportional Representation.

All of the above demands have been discussed in media in Kabul, and often expressed by the mentioned politicians. But it seems the Karzai Administration wants to shut everyone up. There is an increasing domestic dictatorial attitude and approach from the Government. The President can dismiss the decisions of Election Commission and force them to change election results, bypass parliament by calling a Traditional Loya Jirga on national issues, and manage to go away with his acting-ministers for more than one year now. The Supreme Court Chief Justice is an acting-judge.  The President fires the most prominent human rights activists of this country, from what is an ‘Independent” Human Rights Commission.  All but some dictatorial and clear violations of the Constitution by the President that nobody should dare to question, otherwise they will be accused to be plotting “disintegration” of Afghanistan.

Participants of the Berlin meeting called for decentralization of power and a parliamentary form of government. I quoted most of their points in the joint statement released to media. There was no talk of federal system, or anything against constitution. The Deputy Foreign Minister Mr. Ludin knows it, but he needs some experience with diplomatic behavior and manner to talk with media. Some ethnocentric elements around President Karzai are advising him with the increasing dictatorial behavior.

Foreign Ministry slammed the meeting of Afghan National Front leaders and former NDS Chief with the US congressmen in Berlin, saying it was “against the Afghan Constitution”. Can it get more ridiculous than this? The Ministry has “warned” against repetition of such meetings in future, calling it an inference in Afghanistan’s internal affairs. One wants to laugh out loud at such idiocy. Taliban, who are sworn enemies of the National Security Forces of Afghanistan and slaughter innocent civilians, do not forgive women and children and blow up in mosques, are “brothers” for the Government, but when one talks about a national dialogue for change in constitution, which is allowed in the Constitution itself, you are accused of plotting partition of the country. And the Taliban who loudly say they don’t give a damn about the Constitution, the Government welcome decision of their office in Qatar with diplomatic privileges.

Soon after the Berlin discussion, Government media outlets and their “analysts” started planting distorted lies in media. The Government-supported Afghanistan Regional Studies Center held a session to denounce the calls of National Front leaders. The Center’s Chief Abdul Ghafor Lewal said the Berlin meeting was “a plot to disintegrate Afghanistan”. He believes federal system will lead to partition of the country.

There is nothing unconstitutional about such a discussion or demand for national dialogue and debate about any changes in constitution. Whenever one dares to discuss decentralization of power in Afghanistan, proponents of the Government react very strongly with propaganda. One wonders why? Even if the National Front leaders or any Afghan call for federal system, what’s wrong in it? Calling for a federal system is not an agenda to disintegrate the country, rather it strengthens our multi-ethnic and pluralistic society with political stability.  Many successful, pluralistic countries around the world have federal system including the United States or another perfect example is of our neighbor and biggest democracy of the world India.

A central system is against the nature of Afghanistan’s multi-ethnic pluralistic society. American academic Dr. Thomas Barfield in his book Afghanistan: a Cultural and Political History says the successive failures of monarchs, republicans and communist governments for the last century in Afghanistan have been because of the attempts of centralization of power. A strong central government has never had control over all parts of the country in history. A federal system would also be the only solution for reconciliation with insurgents and long-term political stability in Afghanistan.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid says it loud in his media statements that militants do not consider the Afghan Government as a party to the talks, let alone the current political opposition who are mainly the prominent and fiercest rivals of the Taliban. Optimists might say that these are initial game of words and will change when militants have a proper “address” in Doha, and responsible figures sitting there to talk to. As I have always said on these pages, the biggest problem of the conflict in Afghanistan when it comes to a political settlement will not be external, but rather internal factors and domestic stakeholders.

Whatever reasons have caused the positive change in thinking of the Taliban leadership to agree on direct talks with the US, it shows their extreme political immaturity still persistent to ignore the fact that Taliban have more serious problems of acceptability within Afghan society than with the international community.

Long before there were any foreign troops in Afghanistan, Taliban could not reach to an understanding with any faction of the forces resisting them, among whom the former Northern Alliance was prominent. Were they politically mature enough, the Taliban leader Mullah Omar could avoid the bloodshed at the peak of their victory in Afghanistan, when they controlled over 80 percent of the country, and the forces resisting them either retreated outside or fought to their last bullet and drop of blood, but could not, despite attempts, come to an understanding of the sort of political deal.

Today Taliban have the same mentality. In his statement, Taliban spokesman say Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban shadow government and the United States are only parties to the talks. The biggest problem is this mindset of the Taliban leadership with the fantasy that most people of Afghanistan support their brand of Sharia and extremist political ideology. They might enjoy some grassroots support in some insurgent-controlled parts of the country in South, but they will always be unacceptable for majority of the population in Afghanistan with their brutal ideology and Islamo-fascist mindset. If they are not naïve, and the change of mind for talks with Americans is an honest move, the Taliban leadership have to be open and transparent about the process. They have to consider the fact that they have been resisted in the past and will be fiercely resisted in future, if a political settlement of the US and NATO withdrawal narrative is imposed on us with current mindset of the Taliban.

The strategy of Obama Administration towards a political settlement has cracks in its very fundamental approach to ignore the fact that Taliban have more internal problems in Afghanistan than with international community.

Media leaks in Washington suggest that the White House has decided, on the Taliban demand, to release five notorious former Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay. In the first detailed media report about how western diplomats contacted with Taliban, the German Der Spiegel says Tayeb Agha, the secretary of Mullah Omar was taken to Munich from Qatar on a Falcon 900EX aircraft of German Foreign Intelligence BND in November 2010. The report further says the first deal towards opening of a Taliban office in Qatar include release of Bergdahl, an American soldier kidnapped by the Taliban in June 2009 from Paktika, to be exchanged for those five commanders from Guantanamo.

The release might take time in a long process of approval from the US Congress, but the reports suggest Obama Administration’s approach has no red lines or any principles of accountability and transparency. They will be releasing those notorious Taliban commanders who are wanted by the UN for war crimes.

All of the five commanders were in contact and cooperation with Al-Qaeda. One of them is Mullah Fazl, former Taliban Chief of Army and Deputy Defense Minister who is responsible for massacres of thousands of civilians in Mazar, Bamyan and Yakawlang from 1998 to 2001.

According to the Guantanamo files of detainees released by Wikileaks, Abdul Haq Wasiq, Taliban deputy minister of intelligence, “utilized his office to support Al-Qaeda…and arranged for Al-Qaeda personnel to train Taliban intelligence staff.” Another prisoner is Mullah Noorullah Noori, former Taliban Governor-General of Northern Zone. He is wanted by the UN for war crimes. The Wikileaks file says, he is “associated with members of al-Qaida.”

When these commanders will be released in a murky process, the exclusive approach of the Obama Administration will provoke the Afghan groups who fiercely resisted Taliban and oppose their extremist ideology today, to start preparing for worst days to come. Last week three prominent figures of former Northern Alliance in a meeting with some US congressmen in Berlin expressed these concerns openly to the international community.

On the other hand, President Karzai also needs to avoid overreaction. His order to transfer control of the Bagram Prison from international troops to Afghan officials is an attempt to create influence cards in the process of talks with Taliban. Many Taliban prisoners are in Bagram, and believing to have been left out, President Karzai has ordered transfer of the control of Bagram prison to be in position of influence against the Taliban. If the Taliban are honest about negotiations, President Karzai should avoid muddying the waters with reactionary moves. However, at the end of the day, most important is that Taliban realize and admit the fact that they have more internal problems than with external actors.

Meanwhile, there has been a mysterious silence from Pakistan. Analysts speculate ISI’s approval of the talks saying that there have not been any attempts to stop Tayeb Agha from meeting American officials in Germany and Qatar. The best that Afghans can expect of Pakistan is that Islamabad does not interfere in this process. Their support for the Taliban and prior interference during the civil war and Jihad against Soviet Union in Afghanistan has doomed us to the current situation for the last three decades. Now it’s time they keep away and let us resolve our conflicts.

Five months ago when the first preparatory meeting for Bonn II was held in Kabul under the auspicious of International Contact Group, I wrote on this page that there were no expectations of a breakthrough in the peace and reconciliation process. It was what organizers of the conference initially aimed all about to achieve on the 10th anniversary of the Bonn Conference of 2001 that established the Transitional Authority in Afghanistan and the set up later.

There was one big mistake at the time—absence of the Taliban on the table. The international community and the Karzai Administration tried to undo this mistake after 10 years again in Bonn, but despite all-out efforts, they could not make the least of progress on it.

Rather serious blunders were made, once again. For instance, the Afghan delegation was a Government delegation, completely bypassing the political opposition forces—none from the three strong opposition blocks Hope & Change, National Front and Right & Justice Party were invited.

They invited former Taliban figures such as Mutawakel and Hakim Mujahid for the sideline meetings. Whom the international community want to satisfy with such moves? Their media? These former Taliban are now Government’s Taliban of name. They no more represent or have any contact with the insurgency’s leadership based in Quetta and Karachi. It’s waste of time to engage with them. Militants say they will not talk to and through the Afghan Government, but Karzai Administration has been ineffectively trying with the mantra of “Afghan-led” and “Afghan-owned” peace process. This was even added as primary principle for peace talks and reconciliation process in the final communiqué of the Bonn Conference.

Seeing the result of three years of efforts so far, it is unlikely that the Afghan Government will succeed in the reconciliation process prior to NATO withdrawal in 2014. They are yet confused what to call it, “peace talks”, “reconciliation” or “political settlement”?

Since his second term in Arg, President Karzai—whose administration faces serious lack of political mandate and credibility compared to the political popularity after the first Bonn Conference in 2001—has made all-out efforts in this confused process of peacemaking with insurgents under different official programs of reconciliation and reintegration.

We have witnessed that so far nothing has come out of the efforts of Karzai Administration other than a shameful incident when a Taliban imposter and shopkeeper from Quetta deceived the entire intelligence apparatus of the Government taking handsome amount of money back to Quetta. The second blow was recently when a suicide bomber assassinated Ustad Rabbani . President Karzai has only read Fatihas for the martyred Ustad Rabbani on each official political occasions, no initial progress is made in the investigation. The delegation, who were denied visas for Pakistan, could finally go to Islamabad after Turkey persuaded Pakistan to cooperate on this in the Istanbul Summit.

After the tragic assassination of Professor Rabbani, President Karzai announced to halt the “process of talks” with the Taliban. Karzai admitted for the first time that all his efforts had failed and that Taliban had no address. But he changed mind quickly, without any clear vision of direction. The Traditional Loya Jirga of his hand-picked “elders” was staged and asked for “advice” on talks with the Taliban.

The Government has not the capacity and political mandate to be able to succeed in the peace process. The last three years have been ultimate failure. But unfortunately the international community has decided to ignore this. The Bonn Conference should have discussed a UN-led peace process involving regional countries and international stake holders which could be effective, transparent and dynamic.

The Bonn communiqué included nothing significant to undo the mistakes of last 10 years. It once again reiterated the uncertain assurances of the international community to continue supporting Afghanistan from a period of Transition to Transformation Decade of 2015-2025, but not discussed the reasons of slow progress and failure in many areas.

There is an increasing perception in the western media that the military operations have been complete failure. Analysts such as Ahmed Rashid advocate for talks. That has been what the Karzai Administration has desperately tried to do in the last three years, but failed.

The political system and civilian government is a measuring parallel for the success of military operations in Afghanistan. The Administration in Kabul has not only disappointed Afghans, but failed the entire efforts of the international community. The root cause is in the system which was imposed by the international community in Afghanistan focusing on individuals rather than institutions. The Bonn communiqué mentioned the following;

Afghanistan reaffirms that the future of its political system will continue to reflect its pluralistic society and remain firmly founded on the Afghan Constitution.

It was enforced by President Karzai in retaliation to the increasing demand for change in the system. A strongly centralized system of Government has been against the nature of Afghanistan’s political and social order.

During the last 70-80 unstable years of Afghanistan’s history, all regimes and ideologies that tried to impose a highly centralized system, contributed to instability. For turning the international efforts into quantum success before the withdrawal, it is important to bring fundamental changes in the whole system in Afghanistan.

Even analysts like Ahmed Rashid have started realizing this. In his latest article on the Financial Times mentioning the increasing demands for change in the system from a presidential to parliamentary form of government, he says, “these demands come from important segments of all ethnic groups and need to be addressed by the government and the foreign powers before they leave. Failure to do so could lead to civil war.”

I believe unless there are radical changes in our constitution before the international community leaves, Afghanistan will not be on path of stability. We need rapid institutional decentralization of power and change of system from highly centralized presidential to a federal parliamentary government. We need reforms in electoral system, judicial sector and much more. This could be the only recipe for the Taliban peace process, reconciliation or political settlement whatever you name.

Tarana, girl in the green robe, cries after the blast that killed over 80 people. She lost 7 family members, including a 7-year-old brother. Photo by Massoud Hossaini/ AFP

I wrote a piece on Guardian about the sectarian attack in Kabul last week. It was slightly edited for word limit. Below is full version.

The sectarian attack in Kabul on Tuesday was first of its kind in Afghanistan. Though the Taliban quickly disowned the attack, it doesn’t mean involvement by elements from different Taliban groups can be ruled out. Previously they have committed sectarian-oriented war crimes, such as the Mazar and Yakawlang massacres during their rule in Afghanistan.

In his notorious speech in Mazar in October 1998, Taliban leader Mullah Manan Niazi warned the Hazaras, who make up majority of Shias in Afghanistan, to either convert to Hanafi Sunnism or face the consequences. Following that infamous sermon, thousands of Hazara Shias were killed in a few days in Mazar. However, in the current war and insurgency during the last 10 years, militants have avoided sectarian attacks.

Whether such incidents can provoke sustained sectarian violence depends on who exactly is behind the attack. However, it will not cause larger Sunni-Shia violent conflict in Afghanistan for the time being. Even if such attacks increase, it will not be tit-for-tat violence since we don’t have trained militant groups from both Sunni and Shia sides – unlike Pakistan where sectarian violence has decades of history.

While militants from Pakistan with a sectarian background are in the rank and file of Taliban insurgents in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, there is no single militant Shia group in Afghanistan known to be involved in any previous act of violence.

Traces of Tuesday’s carnage in Kabul also apparently point to sectarian militants in Pakistan. An al-Qaida affiliated, Pakistan-based militant outfit called Lashkar-e-Jhangvi Al-alami (LeJ-Al-Alami) has claimed responsibility and previously it has been mentioned in media reports in connection with sectarian attacks in Pakistan.

Lashkar-e-Jhangvi Al-Alami is a splinter of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), which is the militant wing of Sipah Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) that has 17 international branches outside Pakistan including in UK and Canada.

It is possible that such groups are now focusing on Afghanistan under the patronage of some elements in Pakistan who want to open a new front. SSP and LeJ were banned in Pakistan in 2002 but the outfits soon resumed operations under new names, first as Millat Islamia Pakistan and later Ahl-e-Sunnat Wal Jamat (ASWJ).

Recently Pakistani Interior Ministry issued a latest list of banned outfits, and surprisingly ASWJ was not included.

These sectarian militant groups have a history of connections with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Qari Hussain, the notorious suicide bombing trainer of Tehreek Taliban Pakistan, has strong links with LeJ and SSP leadership. During the Taliban regime, LeJ militants were trained in camps such as Badr, Muawiyeh and Waleed in eastern Afghanistan.

SSP is an offshoot of Jamiat Ulema Islam (JUI), a religious political party in Pakistan, who provided the bulk of Jihadi recruits for Taliban in the 1990s. SSP founder Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi – to whose name the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (Forces of Jhangvi) refers – was vice-chairman of JUI-Punjab.

Prominent Pakistani journalist Amir Mir in his book True Faces of Jihadis says the entire LeJ leadership is made up of veterans who have fought in Afghanistan in 1990s. There is no detailed information about LeJ-Al-Alami and its leadership based in North Waziristan. These militant outfits have been changing names to avoid ban in Pakistan. Amir Mir says some experts believe SSP and LeJ are two faces of the same coin. And possibly LeJ-Al-Alami is not any different from LeJ.

LeJ is also involved in many attacks on westerners in Pakistan. According to intelligence reports, LeJ was behind an attack on a church in Islamabad in March 2002 killing five foreigners, including two Americans. In May 2002, 11 Frenchmen were blown up in Karachi. In January 2003, the US State Department added LeJ to its List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. State Dept. spokesman Richard Boucher said LeJ was behind the murder of journalist Daniel Pearl and 1997 killing of 4 American oil workers in Karachi.

The roots of these militant groups date back to the dictatorship of General Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan and the religious revolution in Iran. Pakistani academic Hassan Abbas in his book, Pakistan’s Drift into Extremism: Allah, the Army and America’s War on Terror, says the 1979 Iranian revolution changed the character and magnitude of sectarian politics in Pakistan.

The zealous emissaries of the Iranian revolutionary regime started financing their outfit Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Fiqa-e-Jafria, a Shia group in Pakistan. To counter this, the military dictatorship of Zia, says Hassan Abbas, “through intelligence agencies selected Haq Nawaz Jhangvi“, and Saudi funds started pouring in. Saudi-Iran sectarian rivalry reached a peak in the 1990s when the Tehran regime increased support for its Shia outfits in Pakistan and tit-for-tat attacks started. Iranian Council General in Lahore Sadeq Ganji was killed in Dec 1990 in retribution for Haq Nawaz Jhangvi’s assassination in Feb 1990. Later Iranian diplomat Ghulam Raza was killed in 1997.

The FTO listing of LeJ by the US has been symbolic without any practical actions against the terrorist organization involved in murder of many American citizens. Recently the Pakistani Supreme Court released Malik Ishaq, one of the founders and current leader of LeJ on July 14 because of “insufficient evidence produced by the prosecution”. He is charged for 44 cases of murders. Despite being in jail, he continued terror plots against Shias in Pakistan.

Following 9/11 attacks, SSP joined the Pakistan-based pro-Taliban Council for Defense of Afghanistan and condemned ouster of Taliban by the US. In an interview later with BBC, Azam Tariq, the then SSP leader said to support Taliban in resistance. Azam Tariq was also a frequent visitor of Afghanistan under Taliban rule, where he had set up the training camps for SSP/LeJ militants.

After the ousting of the Taliban, these sectarian terrorists fled back to Pakistan from the training camps in Afghanistan. In the following years, LeJ found new patrons and supporters in north Waziristan among al-Qaida operatives, who used the group to launch attacks in Pakistan.

Tuesday’s attacks in Kabul, claimed by LeJ-Al-alami, could not be carried out without some help from elements within the Taliban in Afghanistan, or the Haqqani network. But the question is whether this will lead to sustained sectarian violence. If targeted sectarian attacks increase, it might provoke retaliatory actions and the birth of Shia militant groups in Afghanistan. With the history of Iranian involvement behind creating such groups in Pakistan in the past, it will not be hard for them to grow such outfits in Afghanistan. But it will take time.

We have already seen increasing Iranianisation of Shia religious festivities in Afghanistan during the last couple of years. According to my former journalist colleague and a university professor Ali Amiri, Ashura has been a cultural commemoration observed both by Shia and Sunnis of Afghanistan equally. But it is increasingly gaining a political colour with monopolisation of pro-Iran clerics.

Amiri notes that the leading Iranian newspaper Kayhan supervised by their supreme leader reported the attack in Kabul as an “American revenge from Islamic awakening”. Ali Akbar Walayeti, former foreign minister of Iran, heads a commission that supports regional religious outfits, and influential Afghan Shia cleric Sheikh Asif Mohsini, who runs a TV and grand Madrassah in Kabul, is reportedly member of that commission.

Afghan leaders have to make all efforts to stop the rise of sectarianism, which started in Pakistan with similar attacks causing an extreme religious polarisation and plaguing sectarian harmony for more than three decades now.

The US-Pakistan relations seem to be well on its way of eventual demise after an ISAF airstrike across the border that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last week. In reaction, Pakistan has blocked the NATO supply from Torkham and Chaman, asked the US to vacate the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan and announced to boycott the Bonn Conference next week.

Earlier in May when the SEALs killed Osama bin Ladin in military town of Abottabad, Pakistani officials demanded the US to vacate Shamsi, but this time with the deadline of December 11, the US is reportedly preparing to leave the base. CIA ran the drone operations from there targeting militants in the tribal areas. However, the base is no longer in use as it ceased in April, and the closure will not affect militarily.

Blockade of the NATO supply route might continue for weeks given the extreme Pakistani reaction. Currently, only 48 percent of NATO supplies come through Pakistan, and 52 percent through the Northern Distribution Network (NDN). The US plan is to transit 75 percent of all non-lethal supplies through the NDN. And 30 percent of the supplies, mostly lethal weapons, come by air through Pakistani airspace. They have not placed restrictions of overflights.

Prime Minister Gilani rejected a personal request by President Karzai in a phone call on Tuesday, saying if Afghanistan officially condemned the ISAF airstrike, Islamabad might reconsider the boycott decision on the Bonn II. There is a fuss about this boycott in the international media, calling it a blow to the entire process. The question is what if the ISAF strike had not happened and Pakistan was in Bonn? Would it make the chances of a breakthrough in the peace process with Taliban more plausible? Of course not! The fact that Pakistan has significant influence over the Taliban leaders makes it an important player in the process, but there was no progress in the US efforts to persuade Pakistani military in this regard. Both countries have contrary objectives for the endgame in Afghanistan. Pakistani military is against long-term presence of US troops beyond 2014, which will be approved in a US-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement, supported by a Traditional Loya Jirga recently.

Though reconciliation with the Taliban was high on the agenda of Bonn Conference, no breakthrough was expected. Pakistan’s support and cooperation is indeed vital, as the Afghan Government or the US cannot approach militant leaders who are hiding in Pakistan. Rawalpindi has significant influence on the Haqqani Network and Quetta Shura. But they have not indicated to cooperate on this, and mere participation in Bonn will not ensure that.

The conference is not a debate forum to last for days. Agenda and decisions are taken behind the scenes following the Istanbul Summit. Pakistan gains nothing by boycotting a German-hosted and Afghan-chaired conference attended by representatives of about 90 countries to make pledges on the arrangements of post-2014 Afghanistan. Pakistan would rather isolate itself further with this boycott. Instead they could use the forum to raise their concerns.

Let me come back to the airstrike that caused the final blow to a relations based on lies and deceit between two so-called allies. There are conflicting and disputed reports based on claims from both sides. Pakistani military say the airstrike was unprovoked. While ISAF and Afghan officials say they received fire from the Pakistani side first. If there was no firing from the Pakistani side of the border, either insurgents or from the check posts, it would be beyond understanding why Afghan and ISAF commandos would ask for air support. Pentagon has appointed an Air Force Brigadier to investigate the incident. ISAF has said all future engagements on Durand Line have to be approved from their Headquarters in Kabul.

But such incidents are inevitable in future if militant incursions continued from across the border. Militants come to fight in Afghanistan and when the US troops chase, they retreat on the other side. It’s a daily business for them to move back and forth on the border.

Top Pakistani military officials have said they have “no expectation” from the ISAF inquiry. And it is expected that Islamabad will make further blowing decisions to reduce cooperation with NATO in Afghanistan after a joint session of parliament.

Now what?

The closure of Shamsi airbase does not debilitate overall drone operations, as it is based in Afghanistan. It’s likely that the supply routes will be restored. But the US should now increase focus on the Northern Distribution Network.

It is time for the US and Pakistan to put the game of distrust and deceit aside, get honest to each other and put their options clear on the table. There are two scenarios. Pakistan might continue the supply blockade and cease the limited intelligence and military cooperation with NATO. And eventually reduce ties with the US. In this case, we should expect increased suicide bombings in Kabul, and mass incursions of militants from across the border. In scenario two, if the US does not get tough on Rawalpindi, it will be business as usual after more concessions to tone down their overreaction. Pakistani Defense Minister said yesterday the supply routes will be restored if NATO apologizes.

If Pakistan decides to officially uncover the reality of this relation and cease their limited cooperation in the war on terror, the US should stop the military aid—$20 billion since 2001–and strengthen civilian supremacy in Pakistan. A small part of the military aid that the US gives to Pakistan Army could raise a Special Border Force in Afghanistan enough to be deployed all over the Durand Line to fight militant incursions. If insurgents have no Jihadi recruits, and weapon supply from across the border, it will not take long to wipe out the terrorists.

The ‘peace plan’ suggested by Pakistani military for the endgame in Afghanistan is simply not acceptable for Afghans and the international community. They want a big share in power for Haqqanis and Quetta Shura saying militants represent Pashtuns. Pakistan’s main objective is full withdrawal of US troops. They are against the US-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership agreement that allows presence of US troops long beyond 2014. Pakistani military has its reasons. They fear US military intervention from Afghanistan against their nuclear capabilities.

It’s time for both countries to stop lies and deceit and decide they are allies or not. The US should ensure Pakistani military that their presence in Afghanistan is not a threat. Washington should offer Rawalpindi a vital role in the peace process with Taliban exclusive among the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan should persuade the Taliban to come to table talks and give up violence and help the US and Afghanistan to eliminate those who continue terror. Similarly, the US and Afghanistan should assure Pakistan about their legitimate security and strategic concerns on the endgame in Afghanistan. But for this, General Kayani would have to compromise his current ‘peace plan’.

25th Nov is marked as the International Day for Elimination of Violence against Women. The day was designated by a UN General Assembly resolution on December 17, 1999. It urged governments, international organizations to generate awareness among public and organize events. The day marks brutal assassination of three female political activists in the Dominican Republic in 1960.

UNIFEM says at least one out of every three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime — with the abuser usually someone known to her. It says violence against women and girls is a universal problem of epidemic proportions.

Human rights organizations mark the 16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence from 25th November to 10th December. Activists run campaign and events to fight violence and generate awareness among public in this regard. First day of the 16 Days starts on 25th Nov, International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and ends on 10th December, International Human Rights Day. This year’s theme is “From Peace in the Home to Peace in the World” highlighting the key roles women play in the family and as peacemakers and peacekeepers in war zones.

Afghan women rights activists are also campaigning through public awareness events. In solidarity, those who join are wearing a purple ribbon, which symbolizes the fight against gender-based violence worldwide. Different organizations are airing public awareness messages through electronic and print media.

Afghanistan has worst records of violence against women. It is the worst place on earth to be women. Our extremely conservative male dominated society with radical socio-religious mindset still think of woman as the so-called symbol of honor for men. Domestic violence is so common that it is considered not only legitimate ‘right’ of men, but normal part of the harsh and corrupt culture.

Among the large part of our illiterate population, husbands consider it their natural right to harshly beat their wives over tiny disputes. Women face violence at every stage of their life, in every relation—as a daughter, as a sister, as a wife and even as a mother in some cases that I have personally documented.

The horrible state of affairs is not limited to the generally considered “normal” domestic violence which is part of life of many Afghan women across the country, but much more. Honor killings are illegal under the Elimination of Violence against Women law enacted by the Government in 2009. But its rarely implemented despite dozens of reported cases of ‘honor killing’. The law criminalizes child marriage, forced marriage, selling and buying women for the purpose or under the pretext of marriage, giving away women/girls to settle a dispute and 17 other acts of violence against women. The very word of “honor killing” shows the collective psychology of our sick society, where killing a woman for “honor” is part of a corrupt medieval cultural practice common today.

According to a report by UNAMA and UNHCR last week, the Government of Afghanistan has failed to succeed in applying the law to the vast majority of cases of violence against women. The report says “there is a very long way to go before Afghan women are fully protected from violence and their equality is properly supported through this important law.”

According to the report, about 290 cases were filed under the law. But the Independent Human Rights Commission of Afghanistan has documented 2299 cases of violence against women that are defined as crimes under the EVAW law from March 2010 to March 2011.

During a research study conducted for ActionAid the past summer in Northern and Central Afghanistan, I documented dozens of cases of violence against women such as murder (honor killing) and rape, that had not only gone unreported, but deliberately ignored by local prosecutors. During the interviews and visits in Balkh and Jawzjan provinces, I documented dozens of cases of extreme violence against women which had been “resolved” through the “informal justice” mechanisms of traditional dispute resolution. Such mechanisms do not give a damn to the law of Elimination of Violence against Women. Part of my research will be published under the theme of women rights with documented cases in a book form soon by ActionAid, an anti-poverty and human rights organization working in about 50 countries.

According to the UN report, many cases of serious crimes under the EVAW law were being prosecuted under the Penal Code or Sharia law. Georgette Gagnon, Director of Human Rights for UNAMA says,

“ensuring rights for Afghan women – such as their participation in public life, including in the peace and reconciliation process and equal opportunities in education and employment – requires not only legal safeguards on paper, but speedy and full enforcement of the EVAW law.”

UNAMA and UNHCR have recommended necessary efforts to raise awareness about the law among Afghan women and men, and that all relevant authorities must apply the law.

We have to admit that violence against women and abuse of their basic human rights is part of our corrupt culture and social behavior. It needs a very effective public awareness campaign and strict implementation of EVAW law by the Government, and intensive media discussions. Every year there are dozens of cases of honor killing documented by human rights groups. But hundreds of such cases never make its news out of the village. In my recent research, I heard stories from women rights activists in districts of Jawzjan and its capital Shiberghan city, where local officials and warlords who are involved in crimes such as rape and forced marriages suppress the cases to get out of the village. I met people who were afraid to talk because of the threats by the very people who are assigned from Kabul to protect rights of those villagers and provide them justice.

In our sick society, women are considered the property of men in their family.  Women are considered as sex tool or bearing machine created for serving their man. I was told about horrible cases and documented some, where young girls were sold or picked up on gun points by warlords. Women are considered as a commodity that can be exchanged, bought and sold in our society.

According to Government statistics, more than 50 percent of Afghan girls are married in early age, 99 percent of family violence cases go unreported. The Government has done nothing in reducing violence against women and improving their rights. Nowadays some friends on internet are campaigning through an online petition for the release of Gulnaz and her daughter from Badambagh prison. As the story has been reported in media, in 2009, 18-year old Gulnaz was raped by her cousin’s husband and impregnated. Later she was charged for adultery. She along with her baby daughter, who was born in prison, have been imprisoned for almost two years. The petitioners call for immediate release of Gulnaz and her daughter from prison. Hope President Karzai will take notice.

The Traditional Loya Jirga has issued a 72-article resolution with recommendations regarding the US-Afghanistan strategic partnership agreement and talks with insurgents. There is nothing new or unexpected in the long resolution than what President Karzai has already said. As discussed in my previous op-ed on this page, President Karzai’s inauguration speech made it clear what the Jirga resolution will look like. Overall, they have unanimously supported presence of American troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014. It comes to the utter displeasure of Tehran and Rawalpindi, who are against the strategic partnership between Afghanistan and the US. Pro-Tehran elements in Kabul have launched an intense media propaganda campaign to influence public opinion against the presence of US troops beyond 2014. One could see the Iranian displeasure in the way their media reported the Jirga resolution.

Though most of the Jirga demands are repetition of the “conditions” declared by President Karzai in his inauguration speech, some recommendations need to be debated, not because they come from the illegitimate and staged Traditional Loya Jirga (TLJ), but since these points are making the rounds in media as “Afghanistan’s demands” from the US regarding the strategic partnership agreement.

The conditions called “Afghanistan’s demands” by Karzai Administration, without any consultation in the parliament or a debate on it in the TLJ, need to be thoroughly debated in the Lower House and Senate. What seems to be the top of these demands is the call for end to night raids. How practical is it? Though the TLJ mentions it conditionally saying night operations should be “Afghan-led”, the question is, if insurgents continue attacking civilians, target Afghan and international security forces beyond 2014, and a peace process fails to make a breakthrough by then, why to end the night-raids? If night-raids do not cause civilian deaths, but eliminates terrorists in the surprise of the night, it should continue. Osama bin Ladin was killed in a night-raid. Many important militant leaders have been killed or captured in operations conducted at night. Afghan Special Forces could be trained to join the US troops for such night-raids.

Some of the conditions are in contradiction to other demands. For instance, President Karzai in his inauguration speech said the US should pursue terrorists in their safe havens and hideouts outside our borders–clearly referring to Pakistan. But at the same time, they demand that the agreement must mention that the US forces take no action outside borders of Afghanistan.

In article 19 of the Jirga resolution, it is recommended that the strategic partnership agreement between the US and Afghanistan should be “registered with the United Nations”. These conditions make it sound as if Afghanistan is gaining nothing and all goes to the US. It is more in the interest of Afghanistan that the US troops remain in our country than that of America’s. Why our geniuses of the Jirga think it’s important to make the UN privy of the agreement between the two countries? It’s not an strategic partnership agreement between Afghanistan and the world.

However, the TLJ was very specific in its recommendations on talks with militants. After all-out efforts of President Karzai to reach to Taliban, he finally admitted failure after assassination of Ustad Rabbani. His statement to stop the peace process had made quite a thunder, but as usual, he changed the rhetoric a week later. Stuck in his failed attempts that has led to nowhere, President Karzai particularly emphasized on “advice” and “recommendations” about the peace process from the TLJ, something that he did not mention regarding the agreement with the US, and declared the conditions in his inauguration speech before the Jirga participants know what they were supposed to talk about. The TLJ resolution has detailed articles on peace talks with militants. Following are the important lines:

• In order to get durable peace and solve problems in Afghanistan and the region, the Afghan Government should seriously talk with Pakistan.
• There should be clear definition of friends, opponents and enemies so that the process will be implemented accordingly.
• Negotiations should take place with those individuals who have Afghan identity, their address is clear and who want political solution in the country through a legitimate political process.
• All know that insurgent leaders live in Pakistan and specific networks [read it ISI] have close relations with them. There is a need for peace efforts in Afghanistan and for honest cooperation of Pakistan in this regard. Jirga members ask Pakistan to change its policy towards Afghanistan and honestly cooperate in eliminating security challenges.

The recommendations of the TLJ cannot be referred to the parliament because TLJ is not a legitimate body with constitutional status. President Karzai wanted to give the decision of strategic agreement with the US a cover of national support, which he could easily get through the parliament, but a show of the Jirga was staged for reasons beyond getting popular support. It was a sideshow of the political bargaining and agenda of setting ground for future manipulations.

Insurgents, who tried their best to disrupt the Jirga with attacks, have rejected the TLJ, saying presence of foreign troops will provoke regional sensitivities. In their statements, the Taliban and Hizb-e-Islami said the Jirga was not representative of Afghans. Now those who destroy their motherland under the patronage of regional intelligence agencies are talking about “regional sensitivity”. It clearly shows where their support comes from.

Meanwhile, there was a protest demonstration by students of the Islamic University in Nangarhar chanting slogans against the endorsement of the agreement with the US. In their resolution, they were calling for Jihad against all foreign forces in Afghanistan. It has been this democratic system that ensures their right to protest, they could not dare to do such a thing under the Taliban regime. It’s more than obvious that a huge majority of our nation support the agreement with the US about presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014. Even if major political opposition groups were against a manipulated Jirga, they support the strategic partnership agreement with the US. All the three major groups in the opposition block—National Front, Hope and Change and the newly found Right and Justice Party—support it. There is an overwhelming support in the parliament as well. The Senate has already welcomed the resolutions of the TLJ.

To the utter surprise of those students, many Mullahs of Kabul mosques in their Friday sermons discussed the Jirga resolutions positively saying the agreement with the US is in the national interest of Afghanistan. One even said, “The greatest Islamic country Saudi Arabia has also signed agreements with the US”. Though I am glad some Mullahs of the mosques are enthusiastic and supportive about the agreement, it would be better for Afghanistan if they remained limited to their religious guidance of the people, rather than political commentary in Friday sermons. It should be the job of politicians.

my Outlook op-ed published on Nov 19

Much has been said in media about the ‘Traditional Loya Jirga’ (TLJ) going on. I got to know two new things; that we were a nation of ‘lions’ living in a ‘jungle’, and that the ‘pimp number’ 39 has plagued the minds of our elders too. President Karzai started his speech with the controversy about the TLJ itself, given the serious questions raised by opposition groups as well as media regarding the ‘legitimacy’ of the Jirga. The President said Jirga was a “historic and desirable” tradition of Afghanistan. He mentioned a book titled ‘National Jirgas of Afghanistan‘ by Muhammad Alam Faizad, who represented Takhar Province in the Lower House of Parliament during Zahir Shah, and recommended the delegates to read it.

The history and tradition of the Loya Jirga is a broad topic to be discussed here. For my Afghan readers, you can check a latest article about it on BBC Persian’s Afghanistan page by an Afghan academic from Essex University in UK. What the Government has been doing is an obvious manipulation. Despite the fact that organizers of the TLJ says it has no legal authority, but just a ‘consultative/advisory’ Jirga, the question is, what is the legal base for calling a ‘consultative or traditional’ Jirga? The Constitution has one whole chapter (6) titled ‘the Loya Jirga’, in which, Article 110 says, “Loya Jirga is the highest manifestation of the people of Afghanistan. It consists of the following:

• Members of the National Assembly [Lower House and Senate]
• Chairpersons of the Provincial and district councils
• Cabinet members, Chief Justice and members of the Supreme Court (without voting rights)

The decisions of this constitutional Loya Jirga become law. But the constitution does not mention any Jirga with ‘consultative’ ‘traditional’ and all other words invented in this regard. Even if the TDL is not a legal body, the Karzai Administration can call it an ‘advisory meeting with elders’, why to create confusions with Loya Jirga? Well, who cares about the political implications of such mess in future. There are other ambitions behind such deliberate manipulations. Even the term ‘traditional’ is very vague to use. But they are mixing it all even in the official documentations of the Jirgas called by President Karzai, probably more in the last 10 years than all Jirgas during the entire period from King Amanullah to Zahir Shah.

The President calls it a ‘consultative’ or ‘traditional’ Loya Jirga, but all of more than 2000 delegates did not know what they were supposed to ‘advice’ about, before Karzai’s inauguration speech saying it was to discuss the agreement of strategic partnership with the US and talks with Taliban. The incomplete draft of the agreement distributed among the delegates to discuss does not include specifics of the pact.

The President only mentioned ‘advice’ from the delegates regarding talks with insurgents following the assassination of Ustad Rabbani. He explained, what sounded like his ‘demands’ from Americans regarding the agreement, and did not mention whether any advice or suggestion from the Jirga delegates will be considered. He declared following demands:

• The US and NATO should stop searching Afghan homes
• We cannot tolerate night raids of our homes
• We do not want foreign parallel structures to run alongside the Afghan Government institutions.
• We want our national sovereignty recognized by all means and from today!

Then the President declared, “these are the conditions of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is ready to sign strategic agreement with the United States, which is to our benefit.” If you have decided the conditions, why to bother with the Jirga? It’s a show staged for political bargaining and setting the ground for future manipulations.

In some parts of his speech, President Karzai sounded defensive about what the Taliban call his administration a “puppet”, by counting the tales of success during the last 10 years, saying his government made relations with the world. He used the line “Afghanistan [his Administration] has acted independently” repeatedly.Rest of the speech was an amalgamation of emotions and confusion. He asked questions and replied himself,

“Can we, ourselves, protect this land? We certainly can. Can we ourselves defend this country? Undoubtedly we can! With our own means? Surely, with our own means. Will we need more assistance? Absolutely!”

After praise and brotherly talk about Pakistan and Iran, he said the Afghan land will not be allowed to be used against any other country. Then in contradiction, but not clearly, he added, “the war on terror cannot be pursued in the villages of Afghanistan, but rather in its sanctuaries and safe havens.” Though not naming, President Karzai was obviously referring to Pakistan. Talking of Iran, he said Tehran was “more reasonable” than Washington in relations with us and understanding our needs.

The following statement was particularly confusing.

“After 9/11 -2001, the West returned to Afghanistan since their interest was threatened. They (United States) will not remain without reason. They too have their interests, and nobody will stay here for our sake alone. Now that they are seeking to maintain relations with us, it is not for our sake. They have their own interests, which is reasonable.

If you don’t allow them to arrest “anyone”, conduct any operation, why would the US need to stay in Afghanistan? I have been skeptical of the peace process and still believe it will not make any breakthrough with the Taliban by 2014. If insurgents continue the attacks, not only on Afghan forces and government installations, but also the US troops after 2014, how would we expect them not to make arrests or conduct operations at night?

Then came his comments after which Kabulis are calling each other lion, and Afghan online forums are hit with jokes and cartoons about it. President Karzai compared Afghans with an old, sick and feeble lion. Following are his exact words:

“Even if old, sick and feeble, a lion is still a lion! Other animals in the jungle are afraid of even a sick lion and stay away from him. We are lions, the United States should treat us as lions, and we want nothing less than that. We therefore are prepared to enter into a strategic agreement between a lion and America. A lion hates a stranger entering his home; a lion dislikes a stranger trespassing its space, a lion does not want his off-springs taken away at night. The lion does not allow parallel structures to operate, the lion is the king of his territory and he governs his own territory. The lion has nothing to do with others in the jungle.”

After this ridiculous comment, President Karzai with his emotional flow spoke something which I cannot make any sense about. He said his concerns are “non-interference in our home and internal affairs; our traditions, religion, customs, marriages, joys and sorrows and the like are our own affairs.” Who has interfered with our traditions, religion, customs? Expecting your Jirga to approve the strategic agreement, and giving such remarks goes in line with the propaganda of Taliban who say of such ‘invasion’ on our culture, traditions and religion. The international community and the US in particular have brought us democracy and universal values, there has been no interference in our culture, traditions and religion.

Then he continued the lion analogy getting more ridiculous,

“They [US presence] bring us money; train our soldiers and police, and provide security for the home of the lion. The lion does not have leisure time to do all these things. They should protect his surroundings but should not touch the lion’s home. They should protect the four boundaries of the jungle.”

I won’t comment about the jungle and loins. Then he moved on to the talks with Taliban. The President pointed particular emphasis on this and repeatedly asked the delegates for advice, a word which he did not mention at all during his comments about the US-Afghan strategic partnership. He praised efforts by Turkey and Saudi Arabia regarding the peace process and asked for more “transparency and clarity” on the US part. Then the President ended his speech saying he would talk to the delegates in the last day of the Jirga. For ordinary Afghans who were making remarks about the two days of the Jirga so far, it was about the lion analogy by President Karzai on day one; and the pimp story on day second.