What was true, but not appropriate, in the statements of Atta Muhammad Nur?
Author: Yaqub Yasna, professor of history, culture, and literature, member of the Sangar Advisory Board
Atta Muhammad Nur is one of the well-known politicians of Afghanistan, who has been present on the political scene of the country since the days of jihad against the USSR. A few days ago, on the Voice of America TV show, he answered a question from the program host and said that during the fall of the republic, he did not hold a post in the government, he was a politician, and to fight with the Taliban was not his responsibility. Warfare was the responsibility of those who held official positions in the government. He pointed to a number of government officials who were from Panjshir province and said that the first vice president, defense minister, air force commander, commander of special units, army corps, brigade, etc. were from Panjshir. And he asked who was supposed to fight - these people or me?
The words of Atta Muhammad Nur caused a strong reaction, especially among the Panjshirs. Some said that Ustad Ata should not have said those words. Others said he was telling the truth.
I want to analyze the words of Atta Muhammad Nur based on the principles of truth and expediency:
What we say is true and real if it has an example. Do Atta Muhammad Nur's words about the government and military officials of the Panjshir province at the time of the fall have any basis or example? What Ustad Atta said is correct, the first vice president, the minister of defense, the commander in chief of the armed forces, etc. were from Panjshir. Therefore, Atta Muhammad Nur expressed reality and truth. Why should tell the truth cause a reaction? When the first vice president, minister of defense, commander in chief of the air force, etc. were from Panjshir, why they did not fight against the Taliban, and why they did not take responsibility? In my opinion, this question and criticism are not wrong and true, and also logical.
Ustad Atta's words are true and correct in terms of expressing the truth. But in terms of expediency, let's see if it was expedient to say these words or not. There is a theory and belief in social and political perception called expediency. According to the theory of expediency, sometimes the truth should not be told and expressed. Why? Because the common good does not require and it is not right to “let the secret behind the curtain”. What should not be said in expediency is a collective secret. Therefore, in terms of expediency, what Mr. Atta said was not a state secret, but an obvious fact about government officials in the Panjshir province.
The first vice president and secretary of defense sit at the decision-making table, while the secretary of defense is responsible for the command and control of the army. If these two understood before the fall that a betrayal was taking place, but did not have the power to prevent it, they should have humbled themselves and turned to the people so that the betrayal would be stopped. However, the first deputy, until the last day of the fall, said that the government was tactically retreating from the regions and provinces and luring the Taliban into a trap. After the fall, the Secretary of Defense said that I had no authority. Sir, since you didn't have the authority, you would have resigned, announced your position, and disclaimed your responsibility.
But what is very important in this situation is that the political leaders of our region should strive for dialogue, consultation, and mutual understanding in order to achieve political consensus. Building a political consensus will actually help strengthen the political position of our region in the world. We will be recognized and taken into account in the future political relations of the country, especially for the formation of an inclusive government.
And such disputes only show the lack of unity in the ranks of the anti-Taliban resistance. There is only one truth - neither Ustad Atta, nor the Panjshirs, in general Tajiks, and even other anti-Taliban forces from other nationalities alone in the jungle of this "big game" will not survive.
