Following the rise of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan, ethnic and linguistic discrimination has entered a more serious phase; a phase that, while not necessarily new, is undoubtedly perilous and deadly. The Taliban openly display their hatred towards languages they consider alien, and to the extent of their power, they have sought to replace languages other than Pashto, including Persian. The Taliban group represents linguistic chauvinism, a trend that has been experienced in Afghanistan’s history before, and therefore, this group is not and will not be the sole or final political movement to perpetuate this racist and inhumane ideology in the country. The Taliban group represents blatant linguistic chauvinism; a tendency that, the more vehemently it acts against other languages, will provoke equally strong reactions in the opposing faction and undermine national unity in society. However, there is another form of linguistic chauvinism that does not present itself openly and overtly, instead, it attempts to achieve the same goals through a seemingly benevolent and soft approach, which the Taliban’s blatant linguistic chauvinism pursues. Thus, even forces who consider themselves enemies of the Taliban and other radical Islamic groups stand alongside the Taliban with hidden and invisible support for linguistic chauvinism. Especially when they try to conceal this reactionary tendency, they reveal more of their true nature and become more spectacular. Below, I delve into this matter in detail.
Soft Chauvinism
In the era of the agility of liberal democracy over other ideologies and the elevation of levels of awareness and knowledge, many ideological and political movements, more than ever, resort to soft and “democratic” approaches to survive. It is true that we also have clear examples of fundamentalist Islamic violence resisting neoliberalism; however, these examples, alongside violent and war-oriented approaches, also strive to be active and up-to-date on the soft front. This means we are in an era of soft and proxy games, and we are less likely to witness major confrontations between state and nation-centric forces. It is also true that soft games are not a new phenomenon and have been used as a political infiltration tool in the past; however, in the current era, the extent of utilizing soft approaches is significantly broader and more pervasive than before. The most significant factor in this major change is the increase in levels of awareness and, consequently, the rise in skepticism towards any phenomenon. In the current era, the cost of political persuasion and gaining citizen satisfaction is higher compared to the past, and the art of capturing hearts is more expensive than ever. It seems the era of rigid rhetoric and inflexible positions has passed, and there is an attempt even to present superstitious beliefs and biased views in the guise of seemingly “scientific” and “humanitarian” arguments.
For example, in the past, a chauvinist would openly and overtly speak of the superiority of their own ethnic or tribal group and explicitly demand other ethnic or tribal groups submit to their authority. However, this approach is no longer predominant and simply invites negative reactions to the extent that the individual feels isolated and rejected. Chauvinists must find a new and more skillful approach to have greater persuasive power. I call this new approach “soft chauvinism”: resorting to soft, logical, and rational arguments to justify linguistic and ethnic chauvinism. Soft chauvinism operates in various directions, but it has a single goal, which is defending a particular ethnic and linguistic identity. In the right wing of soft chauvinism, all arguments revolve around “Islamism,” “Afghanism,” “cultural invasion by foreigners,” and “national terminology.” Chauvinists attempt to argue based on these concepts that Islam does not recognize any concept of ethnic or linguistic identity; we are a unified nation and have our own “national terminology,” and therefore, we should not resort to “foreign” terminologies to express our beliefs. This category of chauvinists, whose expertise is unclear, imposes linguistic and terminological constraints with literary pretensions and considers pure Persian words as “Iranian” and foreign terms, and against the “Dari language”!
In the left wing of soft chauvinism, however, arguments are based on “Marxism,” “class struggle,” and “proletarian internationalism.” The argumentative play of this group of chauvinists is more interesting and comic. For example, they believe that conflict over linguistic and ethnic identity is reactionary and deviant because it distances “workers” from “class struggle”! These chauvinists, under the pretext of leaders’ instrumental use of ethnic issues and opportunism, consider any discussion of language and ethnic identity as “counter-revolutionary” and “anti-Marxist.” Therefore, the left-wing chauvinist also restricts certain Persian words in a very childish manner and instead uses Arabic, Pashto, or English equivalents. The situation becomes even more surprising and comic when our dear left-wing has no problem with the use of Arabic and Latin words, but when it comes to Persian words, their inferiority complex awakens. In their writings, left-wing chauvinists mockingly enclose Persian words like “Dabir for secretary,” “Dabiristan for school,” “Danishgah for university,” “Danishkada faculty,” “Dadsitani for prosecutor’s office,” “Raahbord for strategy,” “Khanish for interpretation,” etc., in small brackets and consider them “Iranian.”
Soft chauvinism, whether right-wing or left-wing, is hypocritical and built on an irrational basis. Soft chauvinism is more dangerous than hard chauvinism because it does not openly support superiority but rather tries to act under the cover of enticing ideologies and pseudo-humanitarian claims, which are not easily recognizable by everyone, and its destructive and divisive nature cannot be easily discerned. Hard chauvinism, unlike soft chauvinism, simply, declares its beliefs openly and has no qualms about its consequences. However, soft chauvinism outwardly stands against such superiority and considers it contrary to human values, In this regard, it seeks to assume a symbolic and metaphorical guise.
Hard chauvinism, unlike sof chauvinism, simply separates friends from foes, declares its beliefs openly, and has no qualms about its consequences. However, soft chauvinism outwardly stands against such superiority and considers it contrary to human values, while pursuing the same path as hard and traditional chauvinism. Despite the ideological differences between left and right-wing chauvinism, one of the points that brings them together is soft chauvinism. “National terminology” is one of the pillars that chauvinists in both wings use to intimidate their critics. The left wing ostensibly does not admit it, but in practice, it shows that it accepts such a thing. However, the right-wing chauvinist has no qualms about using the principle of “national terminology” to argue that a particular word can be used in speech and writing while another cannot. In this regard, the left-wing chauvinist is more dangerous.
Part One:
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here: