The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) in Pakistan has long been a source of heated debate among intellectuals in Afghanistan, including the leftists, gathering both supporters and critics. As ethnic politics deeply and decisively influence political movements in the country, an ethnic-centric approach toward the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) has become evident. Among leftists, the overwhelming majority of Afghanistan’s Pashtuns support this movement, while non-Pashtun leftists approach the issue with more caution and reflection, sometimes even criticizing it. At times, the positions of both sides are so biased and unfair that, despite their shared leanings in many areas, a profound and unbridgeable gap over ethnicity exists among Afghanistan’s leftists. This divide is so deep that there seems little hope for the formation of a unified political project.
The problem with Afghan leftists has always been their inability to strike a middle ground in their political activism. Throughout history, they have either been excessively extreme and radical or overly passive and complacent. Sometimes, they become so awakened and active that it seems a significant transformation is underway, of which you are unaware; at other times, they fall into such deep silence and isolation that it feels as if they no longer exist and have become relics of history. Unfortunately, Afghan leftists mostly awaken and become active only when an event related to ethnic politics occurs in the country or its neighbors. Ethnic chauvinism has become so widespread that even leftists who claim to champion class struggle and proletarian internationalism have been severely affected. Non-Pashtun leftists, having suffered extensively from the ethnic-linguistic apartheid rooted in Pashtun chauvinism, perceive every political movement related to Pashtuns as part of the ongoing supremacist project in Afghanistan. To them, these movements are not only devoid of any emancipatory or justice-seeking nature but are fundamentally reactionary. This approach can be as catastrophic and destructive as the chauvinistic stance of Pashtun leftists toward deadly ethnic events.
These very Afghan chauvinistic leftists, who go to great lengths on social media to defend the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) in Pakistan, were notably absent when social justice movements like the Tabasum Movement, the Enlightenment Movement, and the Uprising for Change emerged against the then-government of Afghanistan, led by a chauvinistic and ethnically biased Pashtun. They were rarely seen taking a stance in defense of these movements. Instead, chauvinistic leftists either remained silently complicit or, with biased and opportunistic positions aligned with the then-government, effectively sided with Ashraf Ghani and his corrupt and ethnocentric circle. Were the demands of those social movements unreasonable or wrong? If not, why didn’t leftist organizations that claim to champion freedom, democracy, and social justice offer their full and active support? Are only Pashtuns in Pakistan subjected to oppression and injustice by Punjabis, while in Afghanistan, wolves and lambs peacefully coexist? I am not saying that we shouldn’t criticize the oppressive policies of the Pakistani military, of which Pashtuns are major victims, or deem the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM)’s cause unjust. I believe we should support this movement. However, what we must not forget is that our stance toward justice movements must not be selective, biased, or tainted by ethnic chauvinism.
Selective Interpretation of Lenin
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the leader of Russian communists, is a well-known politician who launched an unrelenting struggle against all forms of chauvinism. He went so far as to defend the right of nations to self-determination, even to the point of secession from the Soviet Union. As a Russian, Lenin waged a fierce battle against Russian chauvinism and did not cease this effort until his death. Do the Afghan chauvinistic leftists, who proudly label themselves ardent Leninists, follow this revolutionary stance of Lenin? Not. They dislike highlighting this aspect of Lenin’s legacy. They only invoke Leninism when it serves their interests, not in all areas. These leftists still refuse to acknowledge the reality of Pashtun chauvinism, and by focusing on “class and capital contradictions,” “class struggle,” and “proletarian internationalism,” they attempt to sweep the ethnic supremacist nature of Afghanistan’s political sphere under the rug. They won’t even consider declaring war against their chauvinism, as Lenin did.
The chauvinistic left, while presenting itself as excessively revolutionary and devoted to Marx and Lenin, rarely leaves any trace of these two revolutionary thinkers in their actions. What is abundantly evident is caricatures of Marx and Lenin, invoked only when necessary to justify their claims. For them, merely quoting a few lines from Marx or Lenin is sufficient to validate their assertions. The Marx and Lenin created by these chauvinistic leftists are mere reflections of themselves: rigid, dogmatic, obstinate, deterministic, and reductionist. As if these two thinkers handed us the ultimate solution for humanity’s salvation, and all we need to do is use it. One of the solutions they proposed is reliance on class struggle to escape the exploitation of one person by another. But is reducing all conflicts, including ethnic ones, to class conflict a valid approach? Will it put an end to ethnic chauvinism? What if, given the deeply entrenched ethnic politics in Afghanistan, this reductionism exacerbates the current crisis? Is class conflict in our country severe enough to be taken so seriously? And now, the final question: Given Afghanistan’s chronic ethnic crisis and the deeply rooted Pashtun chauvinism in its politics, what guarantee is there that strengthening Pashtuns across the Durand Line won’t lead to an even worse situation for Afghanistan’s non-Pashtun ethnic groups, who are already suffering under Pashtun chauvinism, particularly in its Taliban form? These are important questions that the chauvinistic leftist supporters of the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) must answer correctly. Without providing reasonable and logical answers to these questions, no serious or significant step can be taken toward resolving the current, deep-rooted crisis in Afghanistan.
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here:
