Why is Amanullah not a hero of independence? He legitimized the betrayal of his grandfather Abdul Rahman and his father Habibullah.
Author: Dr. Fazlmanullah Mumtaz, former spokesman for the Islamic Party of Afghanistan
Dozens of books have been written about the independence of Afghanistan and Amanullahan. With extremist views and his praise. But so far not a single historian has been able to convey to future generations that independent, scientific, fair, impartial, and free from ethnic and political tendencies judgment about events that history requires.
While it is not possible to discuss all aspects in this brief article, I would like to briefly draw the attention of those interested in these historical events to a few limited points.
Firstly, the question is who sold Afghanistan and who signed the treaties of submission to the British? How limited was the actual geography of the country?
What should we call the people who signed these shameful treaties? Traitor, mercenary, slave, or recreant? This should be clarified.
Another question is, what was the position of the Afghan troops during the War of Independence? Why did they retreat from the conquered positions? If Dera Ismail Khan and Atal were Afghan territories, why did Amanullah order the army to return to the Afghan side of the Durand Line?
This means that Amanullah, by officially signing the British map, thereby officially legitimized the Afghan territories sold by his grandfather. That is, he approved of his grandfather’s betrayal from a legal point of view and appealed to the international community with a request to recognize Afghanistan, which was done.
In this case, logic requires that the people who signed the shameful and treasonous treaty be called traitors, mercenaries, and slaves, and the people who subsequently used the next map and geography unconditionally approved by the international community were called traitors, mercenaries, and slaves. In this case, Amanullah should be called the heir, the grandson, and the son of the traitors.
Otherwise, the two opposing logics of slavery and heroism cannot be interpreted in the same way by history.
