“Do not do to others what you would not want for yourself.”
Author: Sahebnazar Muradi, researcher of literature and history (Afghanistan), especially for “Sangar”
The change of the country’s historical name from “Khorasan” to “Afghanistan” took place through an agreement between two colonial superpowers of the world — Britain and Tsarist Russia — with the consent of the cowardly Emir Abdurrahman Khan. Today, all people of the country regard this identity as imposed and as a great injustice against themselves, and they unanimously advocate a return to the authentic historical identity of Khorasan.
Another example was the idea of “Pashtunistan,” promoted for more than half a century by Daoud Khan and his circle. The refusal to recognize the Durand Line without taking the will of the people into account dragged the country into dependence on Pakistan under the pretext of revenge for Pashtunistan claims. The idea of Pashtunistan, from beginning to end, was an empty and impractical concept that corresponded neither to the logic of politicians nor even to that of illiterate subjects. It was supported only by advocates of the “Lar-o-Bar” concept. This slogan, devoid of practical substance, failed to generate broad interest.
“South Turkestan” in northern Afghanistan, which has been widely discussed in recent days, is a repetition of the same failed and futile experiments of the past based on imposing oneself upon others. It pours water onto the mill of old radicals and ethnic hegemonists, while such games with wooden swords merely inflame emotions.
The idea of “Hazaristan” on a territory where not only Hazaras live, but where other peoples also possess movable and immovable property and historical heritage, pushes the discourse of coexistence toward the abyss of distrust and ultimately, as the Uzbek saying goes, “every head has its own opinion,” leading the issue toward fruitless ethnocentrism and separatism.
The issue of the “right of peoples to self-determination” is entirely legitimate in conditions where identity-based, legal, political, and economic justice is absent in the country. However, it must also be bound by a series of legal regulations. A people claiming the establishment of its own ethnic state on a shared territory must possess, from historical, cultural, and legal perspectives, its own legitimate and historically homogeneous geography so that others do not suffer from the realization of its aspirations for self-determination.
Today, under the conditions of ethnic intermixing in Afghanistan, no ethnic group possesses a completely homogeneous territory to fully realize the ideal of self-determination. Where is the land inhabited solely by Turkic peoples? Do not numerous other ethnic groups, often exceeding the Turkic population in number, also live in northern Afghanistan alongside the Turkic brothers? If realism turns into coercion, then what should ethnic groups such as Tajiks, Aimaqs, Pashtuns, Hazaras, Sujanis, Larkhobis, Nikpais, Baloch, Tatars, and Pamiris do, and where should they go so that the personal dream of the supporters of Turkestan may be fulfilled? The same applies to the Hazara brothers and every other ethnic group as well.
If you consider the name “Afghanistan” to be ethnic in nature and do not wish to accept this imposed identity, then why do you so openly and shamelessly “throw the snow from your own roof onto your neighbor’s roof”?
The imposition of identity and unilateral behavior are not flaws exclusive to Pashtuns; any hegemonic slogan, no matter in which language it is proclaimed, is misguided and deserving of criticism.
Why is there no serious reflection on the “Khorasan discourse” — a discourse in which all the peoples of the country have, to one degree or another, lived and left their mark; a discourse that neither lays claim to the geography of others nor seeks the disintegration of the country, but instead serves as a common umbrella of coexistence for all of us?
The Khorasan discourse is a cultural-historical concept that can become a suitable foundation for building a nation-state, provided that the legal and civic status of the country’s ethnic groups is redefined and enshrined in present and future legal agreements. Therefore, this approach represents the most important and realistic alternative deserving serious and responsible attention in resolving issues of ethnic identity and capable of putting an end to identity-based conflicts.
Within the Khorasan discourse, all the peoples of the country are participants from the perspective of culture and historical experience. Moreover, due to its cultural significance and historical foundation, this discourse itself serves as a symbol of the common denominator among the peoples of Afghanistan within the country and represents the rich history and culture of all of us in the world of knowledge and culture.
In order to overcome the current stage of fragmentation and disintegration, it is necessary, in the spirit of justice and fraternal coexistence, to rely on the principles of mutual acceptance and shared national values, unite together, and seek a common destiny precisely within the framework of the Khorasan discourse.
