What kinds of suffering afflict the Persian-speaking society of Afghanistan?
Author: Fayaz Bahraman Najimi, analyst of regional and international affairs, member of the Advisory Council of Sangar
This text offers an ethical and introspective critique of the political culture of Persian-speaking society. Its focus is neither on the conceptual proliferation of the notion of domination nor on confusing the reader with its multiple forms, but rather on the analysis of a single, central mechanism: inner slavery as the voluntary renunciation of reason and collective judgment. The reference to Afghan domination in this text is made because that domination has been able to exploit precisely this internal vacuum, not as an independent and separate phenomenon, but as a superstructure built upon an already existing inner weakness.
The purpose of this critique is neither to accuse society nor to deny its historical suffering, but to point out the fact that the Persian-speaking society, despite its vast cultural, linguistic, and historical capacities, has not yet fully overcome the logic of adherence to the culture of “pirhood” (elder-guidehood), the cult of the leader, and commander-centrism.
This essay is an attempt to return questioning, reason, and ethical responsibility to their collective place—where politics is not a predetermined fate, but a conscious action subject to evaluation and judgment.
***
The experience of recent decades shows that the fundamental problem of Persian-speaking society is not primarily political or security-related, but cultural and ethical. What has made this society vulnerable to Afghanism and its various forms of domination is neither a lack of awareness nor an absence of historical experience, but an inability to transcend the logic of “pirhood and mentorship” within its own intra-communal relations—a logic in which collective reason is constantly sacrificed in favor of a single individual, a commander, or a powerful figure.
By reason here we do not mean mere knowledge or formal education, but what Kant called “the courage to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another.” This courage has been chronically suppressed in the political culture of Persian-speaking peoples, especially among Tajiks. Society has grown accustomed to obedience instead of reflection, belief instead of questioning, and reliance on personalities instead of criteria.
In this context, over the past three decades—when a large portion of the Persian intellectual elite either emigrated or passed away—jihadi commanders became not only military actors but also political “pirs-elders,” uncontested leaders.
Those who derived their legitimacy from the power of weapons not only demanded obedience from their own society but also coerced it into submission for the sake of their personal interests. Each commander, within his own territory, became an unconditional, extralegal, and even extra-normative authority. The relationship that emerged between society and these figures was not one of citizenship or representation, but that of master and slave. In such relationships, questioning was seen as a sign of disloyalty, and criticism as equivalent to betrayal. Numerous examples exist of inquisitive young people being expelled from the community in various ways. Thus, collective reason entered a state of suspension that continues to this day.
Inner slavery begins precisely here—not with violence or direct repression, but with the voluntary transfer of judgment to the powerful individual. A society that entrusts its fate to a “political elder” preemptively renounces its right to think, considering it dangerous, useless, or even indecent.
Jihadi commanders, especially during the republican period, were not the product of the society’s historical reasons. They did not emerge from rational dialogue, nor did they carry a political, social, or ethical vision for the future. Their power was the result of war, foreign intervention, and geopolitical bargaining.
Instead of critically reflecting on this imposed power, society sacralized it. Their weapons, wealth, and political influence—products of external support—were mistakenly interpreted as signs of moral merit, and the commanders were accepted as leaders and saviors, even though they never possessed the “illuminating heart of Danko.”*
In the culture of “pirhood and mentorship,” the elder is neither accountable nor responsible; he is an object of faith. This very logic led to the fact that anachronistic and demagogic pseudo-elders and pseudo-leaders repeatedly entered into deals with dominant Afghan rulers, suffered defeats, or even sacrificed their own society to personal compromises, without their “legitimacy” being seriously questioned. Whether they succeeded or failed, society justified it; betrayal was explained away, and silence was interpreted as “realism.” These are precisely the mechanisms I call inner slavery.
Here, slavery is not merely obedience, but first and foremost the suspension of questioning. Members of Persian-speaking society do not ask: Why this commander or this powerful individual? On what grounds? According to which moral criteria should he be our leader?
Engagement with such questions has long been paralyzed—on the one hand due to the trauma of Afghan domination, and on the other due to entanglement in relationships of pirhood and mentorship. The disciple has no right to question the elder and regards it as a grave transgression. This condition has led to profound moral erosion—what can be called “inner futility”: a state in which society, even before external defeat, abandons the practice of questioning and judgment and confronts an internal crisis.
Afghanism has exploited this condition for years, and Afghan rulers, by building upon it, have consolidated their domination. The strength of Persian-speaking peoples becomes possible only when their societies are questioning ones; otherwise, they move along the path of exclusion and elimination. For example, the majority of Persian speakers do not ask those groups who call themselves “leaders”: why should we be “Afghans,” when we have our own people, language, and identity rooted in Persian culture? For various reasons, this question is not raised.
These figures, for the sake of their own survival, force people into slavish obedience; in essence, they are collaborators of Afghan domination and provide inner slavery as a condition for the continuation of outer—Afghan slavery.
Most of those who, over the past twenty years, self-appointed themselves as false representatives of Persian speakers, while believing in Afghanism and submitting to it, have in fact become the architects of the inner slavery of their own society.
Having understood this negative moral and psychological phenomenon, we advance the theory of the “right to self-determination for Persian speakers” not as a political slogan, but as a systematic intellectual and philosophical program for breaking with the culture of pirhood. We believe that this right acquires meaning only when society transcends the logic of discipleship and restores reason as the supreme criterion of judgment.
The right to self-determination for Persian speakers means ending the politics of personalized “salvation” and beginning a rational politics based on programs and responsibility.
As long as Persian speakers chase after “political elders” and regard commanders as leaders, no theory—even one named self-determination—will be able to halt the reproduction of the same cycle of inner slavery.
Slavery may change its appearance, but its logic remains the same: the transfer of collective reason to an ignorant and self-interested individual, and the silencing of questions.
Liberation, before being political, is an ethical and rational event—an act of inner purification and even a “shedding of skin,” inspired by Simin Behbahani; it is the moment when society dares to think without an “elder,” make decisions without a commander, and assume responsibility. From this very moment begins the awareness of the right to self-determination, which can then be transformed from a theory into a real possibility of liberation.
In place of a note: the story of Danko
Danko is a symbolic character from the short story of the same name by Maxim Gorky. In it, Danko takes upon himself the leadership of a lost and despairing people who have lost their way in a dark forest. To save them, he tears open his chest, pulls out his heart, and raises it like a blazing torch to illuminate the path. The people, following the light of his heart, escape the forest and are saved, but Danko himself dies from self-sacrifice, and after the crowd’s liberation, his heart is trampled underfoot by those very people.
In the interpretive tradition, the “illuminating heart of Danko” symbolizes ethical, enlightening, and self-sacrificing leadership—a leadership grounded not in force or blind faith, but in responsibility, awareness, and self-giving. The reference to Danko in this text serves to distinguish between ethical, awakening leadership and personalist, power-centered domination—a distinction that is often ignored in the contemporary experience of Persian-speaking society.
