Previous parts:
- Part One – On the Issue of Language
- Part Two – On the Issue of Language
- Part Three – On the Issue of Language
- Part Four – On the Issue of Language
Response to Several Criticisms
It is said: “If Pohantoon (University) truly is a center for promoting knowledge and technology for all, it is admirable and precious. But if my “Danishgah” (university) and yours become centers for promoting sinister fundamentalism and divisive ideology, I detest such universities.” This argument appears quite benevolent on the surface, suggesting the arguer has delved deeper into the heart of the matter than you have. Yet, upon closer scrutiny and with more conscientious doubt, we realize the claimant is attempting a roguish defense by using the term “Pohantoon” instead of “Danishgah”. In the first part of this writing, we were reminded how soft chauvinism has appeared in wolf’s clothing, presenting itself as more tender than a mother, even as it follows the same path as hard chauvinism. The discussion of the influence of Islamic fundamentalism in universities has nothing to do with the language issue and is simply raised to confuse the opposition. If the liberals, who claim to advocate for democracy and human rights, and the leftists, who claim to fight for equality and “class struggle,” had not been engaged in betrayal, theft, corruption, and NGO-ism during the twenty-year military presence of Western countries led by the United States in Afghanistan, universities would not have fallen under the control of extremist Islamic groups, and the country would not have been handed over to terrorists. If chauvinistic and ethnic politicians, instead of fueling linguistic apartheid, had provided the grounds for the growth and development of all languages, we would not now be witnessing the spread of ethnic-linguistic discord in Afghanistan.
They say that by highlighting the language issue, you are attempting to downplay class struggle in Afghanistan and thereby serve capitalism and religious conservatism. This argument is mostly put forward by the old-fashioned left, which remains backward in political, cultural, and social realities and never wishes to relinquish its outdated political orientation and conservatism. Except for a few instances, class struggle in Afghanistan has been less pronounced compared to places like the Soviet Union and China. This country has either been engaged in wars against occupiers or consumed by internal conflicts, which have been either power struggles among ruling elites or rooted in ethno-linguistic identities.
Marxists of Afghanistan have diligently tried to present class struggle as the primary contradiction in society, but they have yet to succeed. One reason for this failure, in my belief, is the starkness of other contradictions, including ethno-linguistic conflicts. The Khalqis and Parchamis made significant efforts to establish socialism according to their beliefs. However, Afghan nationalism is so deep-rooted and powerful that it absorbed their internationalism, leading to the rise of Taraki-Amin Pashtun chauvinism. Whether you accept it or not, this is the bitter reality of Afghan society. Now, if a Stalinist or Maoist reads this discussion, they will immediately denounce me for heresy, primarily because I have overlooked class conflict.
As a leftist activist, you can advocate for the importance of class struggle to workers and the underprivileged, but you must not approach this issue dogmatically or absolutize it. The dynamics of class struggle are tangible and vary in degree and scope across different societies, thus it cannot be universally interpreted as playing an identical and uniform role in all societies. In contemporary Afghan society, due to widespread poverty and unemployment, workers are more concerned with finding employment to feed themselves and their families than anything else. These workers are not inherently interested in class struggle because they fear losing their current unstable jobs and falling back into hunger. Only workers who have stable and permanent employment can realistically engage in class struggle, and the government must have laws in place to defend workers’ rights and enforce them effectively.
They say that words like “Danishgah for university”, “Danishkada for faculty”, “Dadsitan for prosecutor”, “Dabir for secretary”, “Khaabgah for dormitory”, “Zayishgah for maternity ward”, “Khaanish for interpretation”, etc., are Iranian terms and a “Dari-speaking” person should not use them. The issue becomes more interesting when these same individuals use words like “Foroshgah for Superstore”, “Tarmimgah for Repairing Center”, “Aarayishgah for Beauty Salon”, “Parwarishgah for Nursery”, etc., daily without considering “Iranian terms.” However, when it comes to terms and words like “Danishgah, Danishkada, and Dadsitan”, they suddenly invoke their “national terminology” sense and create a commotion. Some raise this criticism knowingly, while others do so unwittingly. Those who truly understand that these words are Persian, not “Iranian,” intentionally engage in such acts to reinforce linguistic apartheid. You cannot expect to elevate the literacy level and enhance understanding for those who deliberately obscure the fascist and supremacist ideologies underlying this argument. It becomes a grave responsibility to educate those who are unaware of the fascist and supremacist ideologies hidden behind these arguments.
When we were young and reduced being leftist to the empty rhetoric of certain “organization leaders,” instead of thinking about why they mocked pure Persian words like “Danishgah for university”, “Danishkada faculty”, “Khaanish for interpretation”, “Dabir for secretary”, “Dabiristan for high school”, “Rooykard for approach”, “Bishtarina for maximum”, and so on, and why they criticized Persian-speaking poets and writers (though I do not agree with the political views of these poets and writers) for using these words, we considered their criticism to be a cornerstone of leftist literature. We boasted to others that our “leader” was a fiery critic, a master of literature, and a capable writer. Now that we have gained some sense and realized the malicious intentions behind these “insightful” and “class-based” arguments, we laugh at our childishness. Unfortunately, the tragedy is that some “revolutionary” and “capable” youth in leftist organizations and groups have yet to awaken to this understanding, or, due to their different ethnic-linguistic roots, they have no interest in better understanding linguistic fascism.
Previous parts:
- Part One – On the Issue of Language
- Part Two – On the Issue of Language
- Part Three – On the Issue of Language
- Part Four – On the Issue of Language
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here: