In the political landscape of Afghanistan, a notable phenomenon revolves around the taboo associated with engaging with the Taliban, especially among individuals of good reputation and social standing. The mere presence of such figures alongside Taliban members often triggers widespread criticism from Afghan citizens worldwide, leading them to issue apologies. Consequently, fewer esteemed and credible figures are willing to publicly associate with the Taliban, even in non-cooperative or non-supportive contexts, due to the immediate social ostracization that follows. Conversely, any public criticism of the Taliban in such situations tends to gain popularity, as evidenced by recent remarks made by Ayatollah Va’ezzada and Mawlawi Abdul Shakur Kunduzi.
This sensitive issue has been underscored by two recent events, highlighting the ramifications of even unintentional and coincidental proximity to the Taliban. One instance involved Mohammad Kazem Kazemi’s presence at the Afghan Consulate in Mashhad, while the other concerned Amirjan Saburi’s visit to the Afghan Embassy in Tashkent. Mohammad Kazem Kazemi, a prominent Persian poet revered beyond Afghanistan’s borders, attended a gathering where Amir Khan Muttaqi, the Taliban’s foreign minister, was also present. Despite Mr. Kazemi’s passive role and lack of supportive gestures toward the Taliban, his mere presence sparked severe criticism domestically and internationally, prompting him to publicly defend himself and disassociate from any Taliban affiliations. Similarly, Amirjan Saburi, a renowned Afghan singer-songwriter with significant fame among Persian-speaking audiences worldwide, faced intense backlash when photographs revealed a Taliban representative present during his farewell visit to the former Afghan ambassador at the embassy. This incident was perceived as a betrayal of artistic values and missions. Mr. Saburi, not known for expressing opinions on social and political matters, was compelled to address the accusations and criticisms to protect his reputation. He clarified the reasons for his presence at the event, emphasizing his lack of affiliation with the Taliban and reiterating his commitment to art, reaffirming his opposition to the Taliban’s stance on art while confirming that his position remained unchanged.
In the extensive discussions that ensued, some literate individuals defended Mr. Kazemi and Mr. Saburi, arguing that their mere presence did not warrant such harsh criticism. They pointed to their illustrious track records in literature and art, asserting that minor lapses should not tarnish their valuable legacy or diminish their stature. Conversely, critics emphasized that popularity in the realms of literature and art carries responsibility, with the least of these being to draw a clear line between oneself and a group whose enmity towards the Persian language and hostility towards art and culture are undeniable components of its identity. They argued that being in the presence of the Taliban and remaining silent in the face of a group that considers enmity towards the Persian language and opposition to art and music as part of its mission and identity constitutes a form of betrayal of Persian poetry and literature, akin to renouncing commitment to art and culture and surrendering to the enemy.
The purpose of this discussion is not to arbitrate between the correctness of the critics’ or defenders’ positions, as readers have witnessed these arguments sufficiently in recent days. Instead, the aim is to highlight the discordance between the Taliban and the fabric of Afghan society, especially in the realms of poetry, literature, art, and culture. This indicates that even if the winds in the realms of politics and security may blow towards engaging with this group, as seen in the past two years, in the realm of public opinion in Afghanistan, interacting with the Taliban is a costly endeavor, and any recklessness in this regard can lead to the social demise of the most beloved figures. The widespread wave of criticism showed that public sentiment in Afghanistan is so averse to the Taliban and so resentful of its violent and discriminatory track record that it will not tolerate any association, not even a soft approach, towards the Taliban from its most cherished personalities.
Media outlets and social media in the virtual space, despite their shortcomings, offer the valuable advantage of reflecting public sentiments. In the past, government media and propaganda outlets held a monopoly on narrative construction, shaping narratives according to government policies. During the Taliban’s previous rule, there was no means to understand the people’s perspective. However, the current landscape is markedly different. Within hours, one can discern the public’s stance towards a group or interaction with it. Public opinion has gained significant power through social networks, enabling it to assert its position without waiting for official government stances. Despite severe suppression and the risks associated with expressing opinions, public opinion in Afghanistan has found a voice through social networks, acting as its court and bringing to trial anyone who disregards discrimination in Afghanistan, ignores Taliban misogyny, dismisses their hostility towards Persian, or belittles their enmity towards art and literature, without showing any mercy.
This power of public opinion has silenced some suspicious figures from the republican era who pledged allegiance to the Taliban, to the extent that even after two years, they still lack the courage to appear in any public assembly. Similarly, it has made certain figures affiliated with other ethnic groups, who claimed to be in service of this group through interaction, aware of public wrath, prompting them to continuously convey messages to others that their interaction with this group was a temporary tactic and they will return to the embrace of their people. The public reactions to beloved literary and artistic figures, even if accompanied by harshness, have the merit of showcasing public awareness and demonstrating the high cost of interacting with the Taliban, even if it remains silent. If we pay attention to the semiotics of public opinion, the Taliban in current circumstances appear as outcasts in the political arena, from whom everyone popular and honorable refrains from proximity, and if anyone unknowingly slips into their circle, they quickly repent to avoid tarnishing their entire reputation overnight. This semiotics is promising.