All projects proposed by Afghanistan's non-Tajik ethnic groups constitute a conspiracy against the Tajiks.
By Abdul Naser Noorzad Tajik, researcher in politics and geopolitics, especially for “Sangar”
This section examines the unifying foundations of the Tajik people—factors that call into question the necessity of a political alliance with non-Tajik forces. When an alliance is formed under special circumstances, with incompatible objectives and conflicting intentions, it not only fails to achieve its intended goals but may also produce the opposite outcome. Therefore, any alliance between the Tajiks and non-Tajik political forces requires renewed reflection and reassessment.
This approach is based on two fundamental principles: the genuine unity of the Tajik people and the preservation of their historical homeland.
The first principle is the achievement of genuine Tajik unity. Within this framework, affiliation with a particular province, district, region, or locality becomes secondary to the concept of geographical unity as the foundation of the Tajiks’ political strength and national prominence. Accordingly, localism and regionalism are viewed as obstacles to the nationwide consolidation of the Tajik people, while Tajik identity is defined primarily by shared civilization, history, and common ancestry.
From this perspective, Tajiks living in northern, northeastern, central, western, northwestern, and parts of eastern Afghanistan constitute a single historical and civilizational whole. The concept of the "Tajik" is not an abstract notion but a deeply rooted, indivisible, and enduring historical reality that has played an important role throughout the history of this land. In different eras, Tajiks have served both as statesmen and as political opponents of ruling governments, consistently remaining active participants in political developments and making significant contributions to the country's historical evolution.
The role of the Tajiks has never been confined solely to politics. They have left a significant mark in warfare, the economy, culture, education, intellectual thought, as well as in the arts and cinema. Today, however, the principal factor capable of transforming this fragmented identity into a unified and cohesive whole is the idea of resistance and resilience—a form of resistance regarded as the bearer of a historical and civilizational ideal.
Despite this potential, throughout their history, the Tajiks have faced challenges that have weakened their internal cohesion. Localism, political disagreements, ideological affiliations, reliance on fragile alliances with non-Tajik forces, and intra-group rivalries have all contributed to fragmentation and the erosion of internal unity. These divisions have repeatedly created favorable conditions for political opponents and rivals to exploit them for their own purposes.
Owing to their urban heritage, a tradition of tolerance, the absence of pronounced ethnic and religious fanaticism, and an inclination toward moderation in social relations, the Tajiks have historically been more open to cooperation with others. At the same time, their commitment to their own political and ideological convictions has often led many Tajiks—whether affiliated with leftist, Islamist, nationalist, or technocratic movements—to remain more loyal to their ideological principles than to a common program based on the broader national interests of the Tajik people.
At the same time, the events of recent years, particularly the collapse of the republic and its political consequences, have, on the one hand, created conditions for closer unity among the Tajiks, while on the other hand, fostering divisive voices and deepening internal fractures. At a time when political forces opposed to the Tajiks sought to limit their political and social role, certain internal mistakes and miscalculations also contributed to the weakening of the collective will and the historical unity of the Tajik people.
One of the most significant consequences of this situation has been the predominance of local and regional perspectives over a broader pan-Tajik vision. Although Tajik identity is understood as extending far beyond individual regions, much of the political competition and judgment continues to be shaped by regional affiliation. Rather than strengthening solidarity, this has contributed to the emergence of new divisions.
For this reason, it is essential that Tajiks—from Badakhshan, Panjshir, Takhar, and Baghlan to Parwan, Kapisa, Kabul, Herat, Ghor, and other Tajik-populated areas—place collective interests above local rivalries. No single region can represent the entire Tajik people on its own, because all of these territories together constitute the historical and cultural homeland of the Tajik nation. The success of any one region should be regarded as a success for all, and the development of one area should never be viewed as competing with the progress of another.
Such an approach can reduce opportunities for the exploitation of rumors, divisive propaganda, and various initiatives aimed at fueling internal discord. When a common national vision prevails over narrow local interests, the potential for creating divisions among the Tajiks will be significantly diminished.
It is equally important to move away from focusing on failures, defeats, and controversial historical narratives and instead emphasize the elements that unite the people. Differences in the interpretation of historical and political events are natural, but they should never become a means of undermining the shared heritage. A common language, culture, historical memory, and shared vital interests provide a solid foundation upon which lasting unity can be built.
In such an environment, criticism should be expressed within the framework of mutual respect. Differences of opinion are a natural part of political and public life; however, insults, mutual discrediting, and the personalization of disputes only deepen existing divisions. Dialogue, the exchange of ideas, and the acceptance of diverse viewpoints are the tools that can create the conditions for unity and cooperation.
The historical homeland of the Tajik people should likewise be regarded as a shared heritage. Every region where Tajiks have a historical and social presence forms part of the common national space of the Tajik people. Therefore, rivalry between regions and aspirations toward exclusivity ultimately serve the interests of political opponents.
At a time when the Tajiks face numerous cultural, linguistic, and political challenges, reliance on their shared historical heritage and collective achievements can provide the foundation for strengthening national unity. Badakhshan, Panjshir, and other Tajik-populated regions may be compared to the branches of a single tree, whose strength depends on the unity of all its parts. The stronger these bonds become, the greater the ability to withstand external pressure.
The second principle is the preservation of the Tajiks’ historical homeland. Within this approach, the historical geographical space of the Tajik people is regarded as indivisible and not subject to compromise or negotiation. From this perspective, any proposals that directly or indirectly seek to divide or redefine this historical space are viewed with serious skepticism. It is argued that certain political concepts and initiatives focus less on strengthening Tajik identity than on issues related to the historical geography of the Tajiks, a tendency that may itself give rise to new conflicts.
Accordingly, it is emphasized that civilizational identity should never become a tool for weakening or relinquishing the Tajiks’ historical homeland. Furthermore, the current difficult circumstances should not provide others with an opportunity to advance claims over this historical space under the pretext of cooperation, integration, or the restructuring of political institutions.
Ultimately, it is argued that intellectual unity founded upon Tajik identity, the preservation of the Tajiks’ historical homeland, and a critical approach toward certain political projects can help prevent the emergence of new divisions and ensure that internal disagreements do not weaken Tajik cohesion or lead to compromises over their historical interests.
