Free expression can’t be conditional: A Response to a Commenter

In my previous post titled ‘There is no limit, it is coming for us!’ I wrote about the unquestionable power extremist has been given by Islam; I was writing in the context of the latest parliamentary decision to ban music from parties and wedding ceremonies. My argument was primarily concerned with the freedom of expression; I contended unless we raise our voice the transgression of few self-called leaders into our lives is going to continue. I believe Islamic extremism will bully us no matter who we are and irrespective of our willingness to confront the phenomena or not. A reader wrote the below comment:
“kabul was isolated from the rest of the country in the 70s and 80s culturally. The answer to your anger towards a potential ban to music is not to diss what most afghans cherish, regardless of your stance. your just creating an aristocratic secularism that most disagree with. most people would disagree with a ban on music, and most people would disagree with your stance. amanullah's rule came to an end because he lacked respect for people. changes need to be made by steps, not by people who feel their countrymen are susperstitous bumkins.”
It is clear from the argument structure and the English writing of the comment that the commenter is a western Afghan if not a westerner; but interestingly the comment is very similar to what I hear on daily basis from Afghans from politician to people on the street, the need to progress step by step and not to ‘insult’ ‘people’. I would like to respond by explaining the central point of my argument, the free expression.
I believe it is necessary for Afghans to keep evaluating their progress, to connect with its pain and to its past. And thus to cultivate a sense of humility and empathy; much needed in a society raged by anger created by Islamic violence. The fallibility of human nature means that the simple Afghan principles of generosity, compassion and modesty are sometimes discarded in favour of outward appearance, wealth and the quest for power. I feel that distortion in practice must be confronted. Moreover, only by challenging fixed ideas of correct and incorrect behaviour can institutionalised hypocrisy be broken down. Often, those who err from the norm are condemned and marginalised, regardless of right or wrong, so that the community will survive. However, such survival is only for the fittest, and the weak are sometimes seen as unfortunates whose kismet is bad. Much store is set by ritual rooted in religion – though people’s preoccupation with the external and not the internal often render these rituals meaningless.
We need to be provocative and relevant. If one expresses opinions freely it provides courage and self confidence, irrelevant of the society the individual live. We can present truths and dare to take risks whilst living with their fears. We lack free expression in Afghanistan that is why the most talented youth and the future of the country have become idealists and romanticists. I am annoyed often by Afghan’s over-optimism which I think is a byproduct of their unwillingness to challenge hypocrisy. Free expression enable us to tell life is ferocious and terrifying, that we are imperfect and only when we embrace our imperfections honestly can we hope.
We shouldn’t be so afraid of offending people, that is what democracy is but there is a fine distinction between offending and harming, to speak at all these days, to attempt to tell any kind of truth means offending someone. The words which carry no offence of any kind may carry as little meaning.
Contrary to what the commenter suggests healthy society is not formed when member reach anonymity or when all individual are equipped with the best idea. Society is a melting pot where conflicting groups put ideas forward, revise idea, are knocked off and then they seek new ideas. We need courageous people who are not afraid to speak their minds and can upset the rest of the society by challenging their principles as well as practices. This does not automatically lead to aristocracy as suggested by the commenter. I am not part of the government to drive the change and determine the steps and the speed of the change neither I intend to be; I believe modern government in Afghanistan is a failure and given the sociocultural structure of Afghanistan it is going to be a failure. The failure of well resourced western intervention to build a state in Afghanistan explains the difficulty of building a government in Afghanistan. I genuinely believe that the exchange of offensive ideas and the confrontation of offensive ideas is what make a vibrant society. The only type of regime which can subdue Afghanistan is a Taliban style Emirate but that is not acceptable for international community. Taliban managed to bring the country under control and tackle corruption. I do not diss the values Afghan cherish but I diss the liberals in Afghanistan, the self dubbed leaders and the Islamist fanatics. I oppose hypocrisy and corruption in principle and I believe the self proclaimed leaders, the Islamists and the liberals who make up the technocrats of the government are corrupt and hypocritical. Step by step change means nothing, the Islamists and the leaders claim a step by step progress so they can justify their corruption. The Islamists can continue their rule if they keep change at bay and silent protesters by painting them as a group which opposes steady change. The liberals are collaborators with the Islamists and so are the westerners, they are hypocritical and they oppose people who cry for justice and truth.
We need to explore our emotions behind religion. Society need to find ways to explore ideas seen as dangerous such as misgivings about Islam and the leaders. Even the very open minded people in Afghanistan oppose free expression which offends the so called leaders. Malali Joya, a strong critic of warlords, has been strongly criticised by open minded liberals. Afghanistan needs to establish a stream or channel which is inherently provocative, it is often called free media in the rest of the world and I am angry to see how it is curbed in Afghanistan. Free media actively prompt the humanist point of view to a society still gripped by religious absolutism.
Authorities also discourage change by urging to adopt a ‘STEP BY STEP’ approach. There is something potentially dangerous about a large number of people, a communal group, charged by the immediate need to change. Free expression and free hearing might move the group to go behind the traditional reasoning imposed by Islamic fanaticism, to affect them emotionally, to inspire them by love and hope, by ideas which subvert the arrangements which hold the state together. Or simply they rearrange the speed of the pace they want change.

There is no limit, it is coming for us!

The Afghan parliament has passed a bill making it a criminal offence to play music in parties and wedding ceremonies. For awhile a couple of years ago I believed that the battle for music was won by emergence of up to a hundred radio station across Afghanistan playing regional and Afghan music, but after the legislation I was disappointed. A latest article in Kabul weekly tackles the voyage of TV programs into entertainment domain. Barely 10-15 per cent of shows aired on the country's stations are about the major problems facing Afghanistan today. The airing of a single "Round Table" and one serious report per week on any popular Television station proves that television stations in this country are becoming ineffective. This change is materialising under the pressure from authorities and religious figures. There is no limit for the sphere of life where Islamists will adamantly venture. Something experienced under Taliban. Once disguised Islamists in Karzai administration brought women and media under control then they will address how to build our houses and how to walk in public.

For those of us who grew up in Afghanistan or for this mater any other conflict zone, during the years of wars; the shadow of that slaughter has remained as a dreadful warning of what men will do in the name of God. Communalist politics have become a powerful force, in the form of the extremist Islamic ‘Trivialism’ which is wrongly nicknamed ‘Fundamentalism’, there is nothing fundamental about the Islam practiced in Afghanistan, it is primary concern is with footwear, beard and things of such calibre and they don’t have any fundamental value; things like love, respect, happiness and freedom are fundamental to me. The ignorant youth recruited by Sayyaf, Mazari, Massood and Gulbodin killed, destroyed and tortured the public indiscriminately. For several years the capital was deprived from reaching any residents’ basic needs from food and water to electricity. Residents had to travel on bicycles or on foot to the outskirts of the city where the warlords had established their bazaars. On the way back anything could happen from getting captured by another ethnic group and being used as PoW to do hard labour; but that was if the commander of the checkpoint is a nice person which was rare, warlords in an attempt to intimidate their rivals were recruiting the most brutal commanders who would use methods such as dead dancing which is cutting of the victim head and then pouring hot oil on sever neck. Travellers often were caught in fires from two belligerents aimed at them. One wonders whether any lessons have been learned.

No, in the depressing condition of Afghanistan people turn to religion for the answers to the two great questions of life: where did we come from? And how shall we live? But on the question of origins, Islam and all other religions are simply wrong. No, the universe was not created in six days by a superforce that rested on the seventh. Nor was it churned into being by a sky-god with a giant churn. If you look around everything is a creation of science today and science clearly disproves God and religion and Islamist make equal use of science as those who believe in science. And on the social question, the simple truth is that wherever religion, with their narrow moralities gets into society’s driving seat, tyranny results. The Inquisition result. Or the warlord of the early 90s or their slightly better version the Taliban.

And yet Islam continues to insist that they provide special access to ethical truths, and consequently deserve special treatment and protection. And they continue to emerge from the world of private life, where they belong, like so many other things that are acceptable when done in private between consenting adults but unacceptable in the town square, and to bid for power. I sometimes wonder if the idea of private does not exist in Islam, there are things which exist and things which don’t exist. Ideas and beliefs do exist and Muslims will not hesitate to display their belief in the form of banner or poster on their car. Things which don’t exist, such as sex. it is never talked about and never referred to, as though it doesn’t exist.

I know plenty Afghans who are champions of freedom and have dedicated a lot to the cause but they can’t come out with a criticism of the root problem so is the problem with the western support. The west supports democratic values but not dares to scrutinise what Islamic politics mean. The government and their fanatic authorities’ paint up a democratic face to the west but explain their tyrannies by Islamic justification. At the end we are all playing with the politics of communalism and by it is nature it is doomed to failure. Whether you want to confront religion or not, it is coming for you and it is good to be prepared and start thinking about our response.

Hypocrisy: The cover for the failures of Islamic Politics

I was talking with a friend in Kabul over the phone earlier today as he was walking out of Indra Gandhi Paediatric Hospital in Kabul. My friend signed in her daughter who is seriously ill into Indra Gandhi hospital a few days ago but she has not received the appropriate treatment and the hospital condition is dire. He could not get his daughter to Charsad Bistar hospital which is slightly better condition because it does not admit children. He was on his way to ISAF hospital where a foreign friend offered to help him get his daughter signed into the hospital. ISAF hospital is not open to general public and the condition is very good as it is for treating foreigners. After I got off the phone I was thinking about the hospitals in Kabul and there is one thing strikingly similar about all Kabul hospitals: they are founded and funded by foreign countries. Indra Gandhi Hospital, obvious enough from the name, was established and mentored by Indians. Charsad Bistar was founded by Russians. It is modern and big and rival any US funded public building. ISAF hospital is run by NATO and the administration rotates between European nations. All these hospitals were built at the time when the Afghan government developed close ties with the country of sponsors. Kabul hospitals date back to fifty years and it shows how the country always relied on foreign support. Afghanistan has always relied on foreigners to sustain some sort of government. It was true fifty years ago and it is true today. Doud Khan leaned toward USSR in the 70s because he needed money to bridge 70% deficit in his government budget; huge chunk of Afghan governments came from abroad and the reliance has been increasing ever since while the politics of Afghanistan is pervasively becoming ‘Islamic’ which means militancy and violence has been encouraged though Jihadi ideology. Jihad in its essence is xenophobia, Jihad is nurturing an attitude of hatred toward foreigners and they do not have to be non believers. Jihad in Afghanistan has been mostly concerned with massacring the next village or the other tribe. Below I will try to analyse how Jihadi groups, which are strongest ever in Afghanistan today, are subdued to Americans and international community.

I argue that Jihadis and Islamic politics which means no state affair could be contrary to the principles of Islam, as stated in the Afghan constitution, is based on hypocrisy. Islamic politics are so vulnerable to interpretation that it lacks any principle. Afghan politicians interpret Islam in the way to suite their purpose; it could be argued that Islam as a state mechanism provides a cover for tyranny. Afghan Jihadi leaders have killed thousands fighting an opponent because they believe the opponent has links with a foreign state while they are also supported by a similar foreign government. Islamic politics is not the only source of evil in Afghan society; the society inherently is closed and rejects any change except when it is forced up on it.

Change is an important concept of any society. Change means to exclude everything that is predictable. This means that only events that could not be expected in accordance with the prevailing state of knowledge qualify as change.

Afghanistan is a tribal society and tribal morality gave rise to a closed society, which confers rights and obligations on members of the tribe and discriminates against outsiders. Tribal morality doesn’t recognise certain fundamental human rights. Rights differ based on tribal, ethnic or religious affiliations. Afghan society, being a tribal society, is built on the absence of change. In such a society, the mind has to deal with one set of conditions only: that which exists at the present time. What has gone before and what will come in the future are perceived as if they were identical to what exists now. There is no need to distinguish between thinking and reality. This traditional mode of thinking has only one task: to accept things as they are. Islamist can get away with their actions until they admit they are devoted muslims which appeals to the status quo. The public would not challenge them because that is a change. This supreme simplicity extracts a heavy price: it generates beliefs that may be completely divorced from reality. Abdul Rassool Sayyaf commander who is famous for beheading ethnic Hazaras and then pouring boiled oil on their scored necks to watch what he called ‘dead dance’ is driving in a smart car in Kabul today. Perhaps the reason Afghan society does not protest actively against such gruesome action is they are detached from reality. The traditional mode of thinking can prevail only if members of a society identify themselves as part of the society to which they belong and unquestioningly accept their place in it. a better term than traditional or tribal to explain Afghan society is to call it ‘organic society’, a society in which individuals are organs of a social body. This explains why a women is killed if the husband is taunted about her. Paighure is tribal code and it is to punish a woman if she is misperceived by some other person in the society. She is not an individual but rather an agent of the society/tribe. Afghan society being an organic society does not function along side a working government. Afghan society is vulnerable to forms of social organisation that had a better grasp of reality.

Change as it occurs in Afghan society causes uncertainty. There are two ways to deal with uncertainty: we can accept it or deny it. the former leads to a critical mode of thinking; the later to a dogmatic mode. Each approach has its merits and drawbacks. The state of affairs in Afghanistan constantly changes, people are confronted by an infinite range of possibilities. Understanding what is going on from the haze of possibilities requires critical thinking. Critical thinking has a major drawback that it does not satisfy the quest for certainty. In a rapid changing place like Afghanistan critical thinkers can rarely provide answers because of the amount of uncertainty. On the other hand Islam and Islamic politics offers certainty through dogmatic thinking. The dogmatic thinking gives people the illusion of certainty but it distorts reality. Islamic leader despite their atrocities continue to appeal to society as oppose to any other form of politics because they are dogmatic in their action and Islamic in their ideology.

Hypocrisy: The cover for the failures of Islamic Politics

I was talking with a friend in Kabul over the phone earlier today as he was walking out of Indra Gandhi Paediatric Hospital in Kabul. My friend signed in her daughter who is seriously ill into Indra Gandhi hospital a few days ago but she has not received the appropriate treatment and the hospital condition is dire. He could not get his daughter to Charsad Bistar hospital which is slightly better condition because it does not admit children. He was on his way to ISAF hospital where a foreign friend offered to help him get his daughter signed into the hospital. ISAF hospital is not open to general public and the condition is very good as it is for treating foreigners. After I got off the phone I was thinking about the hospitals in Kabul and there is one thing strikingly similar about all Kabul hospitals: they are founded and funded by foreign countries. Indra Gandhi Hospital, obvious enough from the name, was established and mentored by Indians. Charsad Bistar was founded by Russians. It is modern and big and rival any US funded public building. ISAF hospital is run by NATO and the administration rotates between European nations. All these hospitals were built at the time when the Afghan government developed close ties with the country of sponsors. Kabul hospitals date back to fifty years and it shows how the country always relied on foreign support. Afghanistan has always relied on foreigners to sustain some sort of government. It was true fifty years ago and it is true today. Doud Khan leaned toward USSR in the 70s because he needed money to bridge 70% deficit in his government budget; huge chunk of Afghan governments came from abroad and the reliance has been increasing ever since while the politics of Afghanistan is pervasively becoming ‘Islamic’ which means militancy and violence has been encouraged though Jihadi ideology. Jihad in its essence is xenophobia, Jihad is nurturing an attitude of hatred toward foreigners and they do not have to be non believers. Jihad in Afghanistan has been mostly concerned with massacring the next village or the other tribe. Below I will try to analyse how Jihadi groups, which are strongest ever in Afghanistan today, are subdued to Americans and international community.

I argue that Jihadis and Islamic politics which means no state affair could be contrary to the principles of Islam, as stated in the Afghan constitution, is based on hypocrisy. Islamic politics are so vulnerable to interpretation that it lacks any principle. Afghan politicians interpret Islam in the way to suite their purpose; it could be argued that Islam as a state mechanism provides a cover for tyranny. Afghan Jihadi leaders have killed thousands fighting an opponent because they believe the opponent has links with a foreign state while they are also supported by a similar foreign government. Islamic politics is not the only source of evil in Afghan society; the society inherently is closed and rejects any change except when it is forced up on it.

Change is an important concept of any society. Change means to exclude everything that is predictable. This means that only events that could not be expected in accordance with the prevailing state of knowledge qualify as change.

Afghanistan is a tribal society and tribal morality gave rise to a closed society, which confers rights and obligations on members of the tribe and discriminates against outsiders. Tribal morality doesn’t recognise certain fundamental human rights. Rights differ based on tribal, ethnic or religious affiliations. Afghan society, being a tribal society, is built on the absence of change. In such a society, the mind has to deal with one set of conditions only: that which exists at the present time. What has gone before and what will come in the future are perceived as if they were identical to what exists now. There is no need to distinguish between thinking and reality. This traditional mode of thinking has only one task: to accept things as they are. Islamist can get away with their actions until they admit they are devoted muslims which appeals to the status quo. The public would not challenge them because that is a change. This supreme simplicity extracts a heavy price: it generates beliefs that may be completely divorced from reality. Abdul Rassool Sayyaf commander who is famous for beheading ethnic Hazaras and then pouring boiled oil on their scored necks to watch what he called ‘dead dance’ is driving in a smart car in Kabul today. Perhaps the reason Afghan society does not protest actively against such gruesome action is they are detached from reality. The traditional mode of thinking can prevail only if members of a society identify themselves as part of the society to which they belong and unquestioningly accept their place in it. a better term than traditional or tribal to explain Afghan society is to call it ‘organic society’, a society in which individuals are organs of a social body. This explains why a women is killed if the husband is taunted about her. Paighure is tribal code and it is to punish a woman if she is misperceived by some other person in the society. She is not an individual but rather an agent of the society/tribe. Afghan society being an organic society does not function along side a working government. Afghan society is vulnerable to forms of social organisation that had a better grasp of reality.

Change as it occurs in Afghan society causes uncertainty. There are two ways to deal with uncertainty: we can accept it or deny it. the former leads to a critical mode of thinking; the later to a dogmatic mode. Each approach has its merits and drawbacks. The state of affairs in Afghanistan constantly changes, people are confronted by an infinite range of possibilities. Understanding what is going on from the haze of possibilities requires critical thinking. Critical thinking has a major drawback that it does not satisfy the quest for certainty. In a rapid changing place like Afghanistan critical thinkers can rarely provide answers because of the amount of uncertainty. On the other hand Islam and Islamic politics offers certainty through dogmatic thinking. The dogmatic thinking gives people the illusion of certainty but it distorts reality. Islamic leader despite their atrocities continue to appeal to society as oppose to any other form of politics because they are dogmatic in their action and Islamic in their ideology.