Since the onset of peace negotiations until the present, movements opposing the Taliban have been speaking in a manner that suggests an inclination toward the Taliban’s transformation. At times, they extend the metaphorical branch of negotiation to the Taliban. In the media, the fervor and buzz surrounding these negotiations sometimes intensify, while the softening voices of some Taliban soldiers occasionally propagate their group’s inclination towards becoming more moderate. The world is closely observing the Taliban’s moderation efforts amid their prohibitions and acts of violence. Certain segments of the Afghan diaspora, human rights defenders, proponents of women’s rights, and even those who have endured life under Taliban oppression and experienced a period of darkness, all seem to exhibit optimism regarding the potential flexibility and transformation of the Taliban.
Throughout this period, various discourses and opinions have emerged. Some have hypothetically put forward the notion that a soft resistance movement from within the society could lead to change, while others believe that with time, the Taliban will integrate into society. However, as has been observed over these two years, the soft resistance movement has not significantly steered the Taliban away from their rigid death squads. The Taliban, rather than demonstrating a departure from their cruelty, have managed to establish a presence within society, eroding the resilience and determination of the resistance among the people. They have left the people dispirited and lacking hope. As it stands, their integration into society remains unlikely.
The question being raised is what has led to a significant change in the approach of the anti-Taliban movements toward dealing with this group during this period. Many are eagerly anticipating that the Taliban will align with their desires. While numerous reasons can be enumerated for this, including personal interests, opportunism, and ethnic motives, alongside this group are those who consider themselves entirely separate from the Taliban. They have no partnership or interests with the Taliban, even though they believe that the Taliban are not easily amenable to change. Nevertheless, they still find themselves caught in confusion and misdirection when interacting with this group.
Based on the context provided above, it can be said that issue analysis and a significant cognitive error in dealing with the Taliban are two predicaments that the anti-Taliban movements have grappled with from the outset until now. Since the time of the Doha negotiations, the anti-Taliban movements have been unable to effectively identify the issue and accurately prioritize it. Perhaps this very reason firmly contributes to the movement’s inability to create a unified and comprehensive narrative that would fortify it.
Ramin Kamangar, in an article titled “Peace Talks: What’s the Issue and Why Are We Struggling to Address It?” delves into the fervent and tumultuous atmosphere of peace talks in Doha. He explores why and how we are incapable of discerning the issue and what its underlying causes are. He points out that the core challenge faced by the anti-Taliban movements lies in the absence of theoretical foundations for framing the issue and the obscurity of theoretical fundamentals when confronting the adversary. As we lack theoretical foundations and discourse, our propositions remain limited, and becoming ensnared in tangential matters is both misleading and confusing.
Issue Analysis, identification, and framing can be achieved through discourse differentiation. Where do we stand discursively, and where does the Taliban position themselves? The Taliban’s stance is clear and explicit, lacking no ambiguity. Their discourse revolves around a closed, connected societal identity rooted in Afghan culture and Islam. Their discourse does not allow for dissent, pluralism, or alternative perspectives. It is inherently oriented towards maintaining Totalitarianism and includes claims like “I have the right,” “All rights are within my authority,” and “Others must follow my directives.” The theoretical foundation of their discourse, the intellectual bedrock from which they arise, and the structure they are associated with are evident and do not necessarily rely on oral or written statements from the Taliban. It is futile to await new statements from them to witness a change in their actions and ideological foundations. Even if, hypothetically, we were to seek common ground with the Taliban, as long as separate discourses dictate our actions, reaching such points of convergence remains implausible. Mr. Kamangar, in response to the Taliban’s rigid and closed societal discourse, introduces the discourse of a renewed open society. This discourse, contrary to the opposing discourse, possesses the potential to assimilate the rival’s discourse through its modifications. Clarity in addressing and defending the issue can only be achieved when it adopts a discursive form.
Another dilemma that the anti-Taliban movements are grappling with is a significant cognitive error. It seems that this group has fallen into a cognitive trap in dealing with the Taliban, one that has become more pronounced in various arenas over the past two years. This error and misjudgment run so deep that in some cases, it has led them to align with the Taliban. For instance, the acceptance of the Taliban’s authority and their intent to reopen girls’ schools under their rule.
Amidst the current surge of dialogue with the Taliban and the efforts to whitewash this group in a different light, opposing circles present their desires and responses towards the Taliban in a manner that suggests they are ready to be accommodated within the Taliban’s structure. This is even though the Taliban lacks such capacity and integrating into it would signify a lowering of their stance and conceding their demands. The reason is that conversations with the Taliban are not constructive. The experience of the Doha talks and the past two years indicates that in the Taliban’s domain, non-Taliban elements are not entitled to any rights; the Taliban seek to ‘Talibanize’ anything that comes their way. Even if slight behavioral changes were to occur, it doesn’t translate to a fundamental change in their overarching narrative. Their foundations are so deeply rooted and oppositional to others that shaking a leaf from their political playbook won’t disrupt their steadfastness.
If the approach lacks a fundamental basis – as it has in the past two years – and if the issue isn’t presented in a discursive manner, and merely revolves around a few limited demands, the problem will persist and not make any substantial progress. Even within their ranks, unity, and consensus around common values will remain elusive and ambiguous. In such a scenario, approaching with empty hands and weak roots, attaching oneself to a couple of demands, and grasping at a few primary rights will only serve to strengthen and sustain the Taliban’s power, as we have witnessed already.
Reductionist Approach to the Human Rights Issue
A prominent example of problems of perception is the inability to prioritize and the reductionist approach toward human rights in Afghanistan. Each time talks with the Taliban resurface, the focus shifts solely to women’s rights, portraying the Taliban as mere misogynists. Every discourse about agreements and negotiations with the Taliban has revolved around women’s rights. However, women’s rights, in their true essence, encompass all human rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression, dress, and other fundamental human rights. The discussion of women’s rights in this context is confined to education at best, and if expanded upon, it’s limited to work rights. In the article titled “Human Rights Crisis in Afghanistan: Is Women’s Rights the Sole Concern?” this matter is comprehensively explored. In today’s Afghanistan, plagued by human rights violations, is women’s education the only issue at hand? The United Nations, tasked with safeguarding human rights as a supervisory body, has labeled all the Taliban’s inhumane actions as gender-based apartheid, thus downplaying and mitigating the crimes committed by this group. This stance has been adopted by nearly all factions, providing an opportunity to hide the sinister face and actions of the Taliban.
The perception that leads women to respond based on a sense of victimization has a long history in civilization; however, what is noteworthy is the contrasting response from other segments, who approach the issue similarly: reducing all crimes of the terrorist group to the closure of girls’ schools. It appears as if the Taliban are only against women’s education while portraying everything else positively. The rights of the broader population have been overlooked. Boys who attend schools and pursue education seemingly have the right to learn, yet in reality, this is not the case. Education under the Taliban’s influence is distorted by their ideological agenda and promotion of terrorism. Even if we hypothetically assume that the Taliban are considering women’s education, it won’t lead to a significant improvement in the overall status of women. The structure the Taliban is aligned with is fundamentally against women and holds an essentialist view on women and their social responsibilities. Granting women’s education rights, even if the Taliban were to do so, is not driven by the inherent value of women’s rights, but rather by the Taliban’s willingness to do it for their own benefit.
Continuing to solely focus on women’s education is problematic from several perspectives. First and foremost, this strategy leads to the negligence of other people’s rights and diminishes the broader human rights issue within Afghan society. It can be seen as a form of appeasement that ensures the Taliban’s longevity. They might appear open to allowing girls to attend schools or even granting limited work rights within their defined framework for women. However, regardless of the scenario, women will remain under the grip of the Taliban, devoid of any true freedoms. That’s why achieving societal freedom and liberation doesn’t solely hinge on pursuing women’s education rights.
Marginalizing other issues in Afghanistan and focusing solely on women’s matters relegates women to beings worthy of special attention. Whenever a topic is brought up, it conveniently absolves men from their responsibilities and confines their participation to matters considered exclusively feminine. This observation holds true for those living under the shadow of Taliban oppression within Afghanistan. The amplification of one injustice overshadows the broader societal injustice of the Taliban, where the crucial notion that “women’s rights are human rights” has yet to find its place. As a result, men might relinquish their support for women in the struggle, thinking that the issue lies with women and that they should address it themselves, rolling up their sleeves to effect change. Such an approach could lead to the opening of school doors in a manner that symbolizes an endorsement of the completion of women’s rights in Afghan society. It’s not concealed that, intellectually, there are shared beliefs between the Taliban and a considerable portion of the Afghan society, and in the most optimistic scenario, they might consider access to education as the highest or perhaps the only women’s right.
Demanding Accountability from the Taliban
Every change is seeded by demand. The position of women in today’s world is a result of their tenacity, struggle, and demand. The question, however, is what kind of government does the demand fall under, and what makes its realization possible? Education for Afghan women has now become a universal demand from the Taliban. Yet, a demand is only meaningful when it is made under a legitimate government and within the framework of a legitimate state. A significant cognitive error has led some to align with the Taliban, in other words, “We accept you if you open the doors of education for girls.”
The demand for fundamental changes can only be viable when foundations shift from divine mandate to human reasoning. However, the Taliban have based/framed each of their action, words, and policies on a divine decree, and they don’t hold themselves accountable, as they haven’t risen from among the people to answer to them. Hence, under such circumstances, demanding change under a Taliban regime and an inflexible and unyielding structure won’t alter the situation. Demanding from the Taliban reflects a lack of problem awareness and a fixation on the sidelines. The blind and superficial approach towards the still-active Taliban undermines protests against the overall Taliban regime by narrowing the focus to accessing a few basic rights under their governance.
Read this article in Farsi here.