Introduction
Hello everyone. Welcome to another exclusive interview from Sheesha Media. Today’s guest on the “At Sheesha” Podcast is Mr. Abdul Adl Daifoladi. Contrary to the usual tradition at Sheesha Media, besides the normal interview with him, I prefer that today we get to know Daifoladi, his personality, thoughts, and experiences that he conveys under the title of “knowledge for today’s and tomorrow’s generations of society”.
Recently, Mr. Daifoladi presented the “strategy of restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara”. We will start our discussion with Mr. Daifoladi from this point. We want to know what this strategy is, and whether he wants to imply that Hazara Ethnicity had ethnic power that was taken away from it at a specific time in the past and for specific reasons and that now it’s time for this power to be restored. If so, what was this power? Where was it? And how and with what solutions can it be restored to the Hazara Ethnicity?
New Era, New Strategy
Sheesha Media: Hello, Mr. Daifoladi. We are happy to have you with us in this episode of “At Sheesha” Podcast of Sheesha Media. We usually start our interviews in Sheesha Media with a short introduction of the guest; But today, I prefer that we get to know you better with the new theory/strategy that you presented and called “the strategy of restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara”. What do you mean by this strategy?
Daifoladi: Greetings to you and everyone who watches or follows us through this program. If we go through history, Hazaras had some power during the time of Amir Abdur Rahman. According to history – written history – in the three years of war with Amir Abdur Rahman, Hazaras showed so much power that later, we can see its fear in the intensity of violence against the Hazaras. This power was destroyed due to many reasons. First, the intervention of colonialism and Abdur Rahman’s gain of power with the agreement of the two colonial powers of the Russian Empire and British India. Abdur Rahman received lots of financial aid and arms at that time from British India. Secondly, of course, internal mistakes or betrayals were affecting Hazara’s power negatively.
After that, in a century that I have named the “Qarn-e Khamoosh for Hazara” [The Quiet Century for Hazara”, we have power through the resistance of the west of Kabul. That power was eventually established and recognized. That power established one strong stance that without the consent of Hazara, a political system cannot be formed in Afghanistan.
Mazari was the leader, and the people were the core of that resistance [West of Kabul’s Resistance]. If we credit the resistance or the power of the west of Kabul to Mazari, I think it will not be a correct judgment. This is because people made resistance what it was, and you were a witness that the central council of Hezbe Wahdat was a weakness for Mazari and his relationship with the People.
Almost thirty years after Mazari until now, we once again witnessed the decline and collapse of Hazara’s power. The politics of Hazara lost the meaning that politics has. As a politician or a student of political science, my definition of politics, and it is not a definition that contradicts the principles of political science, is that politics is the management of power for the benefit of people’s rights and freedom. If you make politics empty from the category of power in favor of people’s rights and freedom, there is nothing left for politics.
In Hazara’s political literature in the last thirty years, what we do not possess is power with the leaders who came in the name of Hezbe Wahdat and divided it into pieces and the academics who came and did politics under the political umbrella of the mullahs, based on the model of Iran’s “Velayat-e Faqih” [Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist]. The power of Hazaras was limited to a few secondary positions in the government.
When it comes to power, you cannot be the sixth finger, and you say what you have to say. After Mazari, in the last thirty years, Hazara politicians did not say a word that Hazara should have said, and that word is the fair management of power for the benefit of the rights and freedom of all the ethnic groups of Afghanistan.
If the profit-seeking non-Pashtun politicians separated the issue of power from politics, the unreasonable Pashtun politicians – I am talking more about Karzai and Ghani – wanted to monopolize the national power with a kind of deal. Let us be careful that the solution to the issue of national power in Afghanistan is not achieved by Pashtun monopoly nor by avoiding the issue of power in the politics of non-Pashtuns. Unfortunately, whatever we call it – ignorance, treason, or lack of wisdom – it took place in the last 20 years, and we saw the result in the collapse of the republic. Of course, other factors such as corruption, the issue of the Durand Line, and such were involved in this collapse, which we will ignore for now.
Now I have presented “the strategy of restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara” and for this strategy to become a reality, we need political unity. Of course, there is no absolute political unity. But what they say in the name of pluralism is good in the framework of a nation and a modern country. However, in the framework of an ethnicity that is under discrimination and oppression, this was a concept that the likes of Mohaqiq, Khalili, and their kinds presented among Hazaras, which is supposed to be democracy and pluralism. In this way, they [Mohaqiq and Khalili] wanted to justify the political hypocrisy that they brought in Hazaras by presenting modern values. This comes as you are living in a tribal society, in a society where the entire system will collapse with a compromise between America and England with the Taliban, and you will be under the national oppression of a regressive regime.
The Political Unity of Hazaras
Sheesha Media: When you mention the political unity of Hazaras, you want to say that your strategy to restore the ethnic power of Hazaras to Hazaras starts with the creation of cohesion and political unity among Hazaras. Do you think that this is an easy mission ahead of you considering the reality of Hazaras, taking into account the background of political growth and the movements that exist in society as a result of the interaction of different powers?
Daifoladi: If you have read my writings, I always describe the political unity of Hazaras as a difficult purpose to achieve; Because the internal collapse of ethnic groups is an intelligence phenomenon from a political point of view. That is, as much as Pakistan is sensitive to the political unity of the Pashtun people, Iran is sensitive to the political unity of the Hazaras. Why in the last 44 years, Iran gave us eight political parties [created or supported several Hazara political parties] instead of a single political party? Or why did the West create and strengthen the brotherhood with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for the Sunnis in the framework of seven parties? The nature of proxy wars is that they should divide Afghanistan’s politics into groups so that if one group becomes rebellious, it will be governed by another proxy group.
When society unites in politics, it achieves the power of independent choice and decision. Iran tasted the bitterness of this unity in the west of Kabul. We saw that Iran had to listen to the West Kabul resistance rather than dictating its demands to the resistance. You remember that Mazari slapped an Iranian intelligence officer named Khodadadi. Why? Because he was dictating Iran’s orders. Perhaps no one has said to the people of Afghanistan that Mazari was the first leader who slapped the Iranian intelligence officer, fired him from his office, and told him that we are not servants for you [Iran] to rule us.
Well, you see that Iran destroyed Hazara’s political unity at a time when it was so vital for the Hazara resistance in west Kabul. As a live history, you saw where the work eventually led. It led to the “23rd of Sonbolah month in 1373 Hijri Shamsi (HS)”, which we defined as a coup in the West Kabul resistance and an explosion in history.
Next, you will understand why I say that the political unity of Hazaras is difficult to achieve. Iran did not fail in the resistance west of Kabul only in the political arena. Iran experienced failure in all of the strategies that this country followed among Hazaras in the name of the sect [Shiism]. The reason for Iran’s defeat was the political unity that had emerged between the people and Mazari. You witnessed that the Central Council of Hezbe Wahdat always acted like a wall against this unity by creating obstacles.
Fortunately, you and I have a common share in reviving the name of Hazara in the political and religious literature of the society. With the publications of “Emroze Ma” and “Asre Baraye Adalat” which were accepted by the generation of that time and led to success, this operation was effective to a large extent to maintain Iran’s defeat. Iran’s failure was that it could no longer do politics among the Hazaras using the ‘Shia sect’ as a tool. Iran was forced to produce extremist Hazara individuals in the politics of Hazaras who would act in line with Iran’s interests.
In the last 20 years, you can see that a certain number of Hazara immigrants who had studied in Iran returned to the country and with the support of Iran’s intelligence, they reached high-ranking positions in the ministries and parliament of Afghanistan. These people tried not only to implement the ‘Velayat-e Faqih’ government model of Iran in the Hazara society but also fueled the political collapse of Afghanistan in a large way. Do you think it is not surprising that a university professor, with all the claims of science, rationality, wisdom, etc., is so unwise in politics that he falls under the political hegemony of an uneducated leader?
Sheesha Media: Well, one part of what you are saying, which of course you consider important, is the role of intelligence, there is no doubt about it. Because Afghanistan, with its special situation, with the poverty that dominates this society, has problems that in itself create a platform for these proxy wars; But another part of the collapse of the political unity of the Hazaras is caused by the structure and composition of the layers of the society and even its internal relations. Let me mention here the three sects of Jafari Shiites, Ismaili Shiites, and Hazara Sunnis, which after long historical experiences, are just now coming together under the umbrella of Hazara identity. This fact, despite other factors such as group and ethnic interests or ideological orientations and various wars that have arisen in the society, makes the path of the political unity of Hazaras more difficult. I would like to know what is your strategy here in gathering this scattered society that is subject to all these political games.
Daifoladi: As Afghanistan’s politics, at least in the last half-century, is a policy that is mostly led from outside, we cannot simplify the issue of the role of intelligence in disrupting ethnic politics. This point is very important. At the same time, we cannot make this factor absolute and say that if the foreign intelligence role did not exist, Afghanistan would have been perfect. No, it’s not like that. When you talk about political hypocrisy, personal interests also come into action. Politics should have collective leadership in nature and be managed by collective rationality and experience; But when individual interests are raised in politics, you see that political hypocrisy becomes a favorable platform for securing individual interests. In the last 30 years, we see that due to individual interests, Hazara politics, Pashtun politics, and Tajik politics moved away from solving the national power issue and relied on individual deals.
If individual interests are raised behind politics and those who should unite and lead politics with a collective rational management towards justice, work for their interest, then the responsibility of the collapse of Hazara Unity goes back to Hazara’s politicians and does not remain exclusive to foreign intelligence purposes. You see how united people were in the ‘Enlightenment movement’. Especially in the Tabassum Movement [Shukria Tabassum, 9 years old, was beheaded in Zabul province alongside other 6 Hazara passengers in 2015], we see the roaring flood of people united behind an emotional, security, and human rights issue. However, all led to failure with individual preferential deals of leaders.
In politics, if we had the model of social unity that we had in the emotional, security, and human rights sectors, would our situation be as pathetic as it is now?
In Tabassum Movement, you witnessed how Khalili and Mohaqiq sat down on the ground and joined the movement, but after some shakings, they returned to their line of personal interests. In the Enlightenment movement, you saw that the Hazara leaders and their followers realized that if they are not with the people, the Tabassum Movement Scenario will be repeated on them. However, we saw how these leaders scattered and defeated the Enlightenment movement again for their personal interests. In that “enlightenment” failure, you also see the role of Iran’s intelligence and the role of the leaders who came, made deals in the 90th minute, and abandoned the movement. At the same time, we also have the mistakes of the young leaders of the movement.
What is the Practical Solution?
Sheesha Media: Well, now with the situation you see in the Hazara society, what is your practical solution to bring together this scattered society? Where should we start? For example, if you say that we consider three steps to be the basic steps through which we can reach the political unity of society, what are these three steps?
Daifoladi: In my opinion, let’s look at this issue from an intellectual and moral perspective. The first step towards Hazara’s political unity is the removal of stones [referring to leaders] that have stood in the way of the political unity of the Hazara and have created obstacles. These stones should wisely join the political retirees and walk away from the way of the Political Unity of the Society for their honor. I specifically mean Mohaqiq, Khalili, Dr. Sadiq Mudaber, and those who, in the last 30 years, have degraded Hazara to the lowest point in politics and the issue of national power. I have said many times that if you [Hazara leaders such as Mohaqiq and Khalili] love Hazaras in you, please stop loving yourself in Hazaras. It is enough! You loved yourself a lot in Hazaras, and you showed that you don’t love Hazaras in yourself.
Please stop this bad tradition. If these men don’t stop this bad tradition, the wave that has started will hit them in the chest and take them out of the way. They have no choice but to cope with the new wave of society. The strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara” is not aimed at the individual benefit. It has social benefits in mind, and if any of these politicians or these big stones in the way of Hazara political unity want to stand in the way, this new wave will not tolerate them for the interests of Hazara.
Sheesha Media: Well, this request of yours may be presented as a moral recommendation in the field of politics; But these politicians may not follow the moral advice and do not obey it. Now, if they really did not pay attention to your moral advice, what are your next steps? If they don’t give up their powers/privilege, or if other powers see their benefit in dealing with these leaders, how do you restore the ethnic power of Hazaras, while these big stones are on the way?
Daifoladi: I told you before that we need political unity in the first step to make the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara” a reality. Well, we argue that political unity is a long and difficult task. Then, other questions came and the conversation was interrupted.
I said that political unity as an absolute phenomenon is impossible. But when we talk about political unity, we expect at least political unity above 50%; That is, if, for example, 60 percent of the elites of Hazara agree that the way to salvation, the way to honor, the way to dignity, and the way to power is political unity of the elites in the first step, we have come closer to our goal.
Let us remember that people are united. People are always waiting for a message. A message that Hazaras received once in the west of Kabul and stood behind that message at all costs. People stood united at all costs, despite the poverty, the loss of loved ones, the psychological pressure of day and night bombardment and the sound of explosions and rockets, the massacre of Afshar and Chindawol, and the destruction of everything. With all these losses, people stood behind this slogan or goal that said “Where is our place in power?”. At the same time, we saw that Ayatollah Mohseni reduced this claim to ‘position’ and said that these people are fighting for position and power. No! In the world of politics, which is about securing the rights and freedoms of the people, when we talk about ‘key position’, its purpose is to directly share power and to participate in the process of managing national power. “Where is our share in national power?” you ask. And for this reason, Mazari said that “demanding the right does not mean enmity.”
Well, the monopoly of power is an undesirable phenomenon. It doesn’t matter if this monopoly of power is done by Jamiat-e-Islami, Karzai and Ghani, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, or the Taliban. This single and powerful voice against the monopoly of national power rose from the back of an honest and strong leader and brought the society to relative unity and cohesion.
Therefore, today, considering the new conditions, when you talk about relative political unity in politics, you urgently need one more thing, which is the creation of a modern political party. If the political unity is not organized in the framework of a modern party organization and the movements are not managed and led based on previous predictions or the strategies and tactics of the party, what is the use of political unity? The modern party is a party that does not have the sect as a wall against the unity of the Sunni, Ismaili, and Jafari sects. This does not mean that everyone should leave their sects and join a political party. No, here we can refer to the famous expression that says “Jesus in his own religion, Moses in his own religion”. One of the requirements of modern and democratic politics is to recognize and respect people’s religious beliefs. In modern and democratic politics, you think about the better fate of all the people who share a common social destiny with you.
In politics, the issue of power is raised, and for this reason, political unity is an indisputable phenomenon to enter into the process of managing national power; Because strength is in unity, and weakness and humiliation are in hypocrisy and multiplicity.
Challenges of the Political Unity of Hazaras
Sheesha Media: Well, when you come to this part of the discussion, the reaction against Hazara’s political unity among other ethnic groups and communities is also raised; For example, what do you think will be the reaction of Afghan Tajiks to this Hazara political unity? Since the Sunni Hazaras within the Tajiks were exactly partners and united for the political interests that were calculated in the Tajik name. Now, it is true that the Sunni Hazaras themselves did not benefit from the political privilege of this commonality under the umbrella of being Tajiks, but the privilege goes to the Tajiks under the title of unity and harmony of being Persian-speaking and being Sunnis, and naturally, this privilege causes the political and privilege-seeking elites of this society to react. In the same way, Pashtuns, who have benefited from the ethnic monopoly of power, see the political unity of Hazaras as a challenge for them; Because the monopoly of power, even if it is represented in the face of individuals, has an ethnic background in Afghanistan, and that is why the Taliban are mobilizing ethnic army or Karzai and Ghani were mobilizing ethnic support. I want to ask that when you follow the strategy of restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara, the complexity of the road becomes more visible. I want you to focus again on the line through which you will cross this difficult path of Hazara’s political unity so that your movement does not fuel the division and hostile fragmentation within the Afghan nation.
Daifoladi: First of all, I would like to make an amendment to your quotations. Please do not say Pashtuns and Tajiks. The problem of the tribes is separate from the politicians of the tribes. It is better to say Pashtun politicians, Tajik politicians, and Hazara politicians. We see that each of these politicians has pursued a special individual and group advantage in the name of the nation. No one else has done the betrayal that Pashtun politicians have done to Pashtuns. Is consolidating ethnic power behind the Taliban as a proxy army really a service to Pashtuns or a historical betrayal to Pashtuns? Because the power of the Pashtun Taliban does not come from the Pashtun people, it comes from Pakistan and other countries.
Today, when the Taliban has closed the gates of education and knowledge on the women of Afghanistan, don’t Pashtun intellectuals and people feel and understand the pain of this damage? In whose name will this black tragedy be written in history? In the same way, have Tajik politicians, which we can say are mostly Panjshiri politicians, not imposed the same disaster on the Tajik society? I would like to reduce Tajik politicians to Panjshiri politicians because Tajik politics has been almost monopolized by Panjshiris in the last thirty years. What does it mean when you have several hundred generals from a district or province [referring to the number of generals from Panjshir]?
Similarly, you reach Uzbek politicians. You see that the disaster similarly repeats itself. Can Uzbek politicians be excused from this situation that has happened to Uzbeks?
Sheesha Media: Well, whatever you want to say, the allegory of the power of the society is in the form of these people who are at the top of the society’s leadership. That is, you cannot separate these politicians and their efforts to monopolize political privilege under the umbrella of ethnicity, religion, and language from the fate of the entire society under their guardianship. I want to ask; how do you evaluate these reactions in the strategy of creating the political unity of Hazara?
Daifoladi: I am answering your question. If you don’t interrupt the conversation, your question is in my mind and I will answer it. When you raise the issue of the political unity of the Hazara, you are actually showing Pashtun, Tajik, and Uzbek the cure and solutions behind the same strategy. If we think carefully, the audience of the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara” is not the political leaders of Hazara, but the political elites of Hazara. The elites who felt the pain of hypocrisy, not those who gained wealth from hypocrisy. I know that the political leaders of Hazara never want unity, and they also sabotage it. You can see that right now all of them have reduced the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara” to one person and started propaganda against the person [referring to himself]. While political unity does not belong to one person, it is the responsibility of each person in society. See how they distort this clear message to ensure their individual interests and privileges behind the political hypocrisy of society.
I make the same request to those Pashtun elites who love Pashtun in themselves, not that they love themselves in Pashtun like Ghani, Karzai, and others. To these dear ones, I say that you who love Pashtun in yourself, know that Pashtun ethnic political unity is the way to save Pashtuns. To Tajiks, whose politics have been monopolized by Panjshiri sectarianism for years and decades, you should pursue your political unity with the long-term goal of the rights and freedoms of the Tajik people. The politicians who have dealt the biggest damage to the people of Panjshir are the cause of your historical destruction. Now, this is as clear as day. If you do not achieve Tajik political unity, you will never be able to show your place in solving the issue of national power. You can never reach where you deserve.
It is true that the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara” has a specific audience, but the same strategy can be adjusted and made effective by anyone within their own ethnicity. Obtain the Pashtun ethnic power or the Tajik ethnic power, you will see if this strategy will cure the pain of all these oppressed and disempowered ethnic groups or not. This strategy will save us from hypocrisy and misery because of which we are occupied by the neighboring countries.
It is obvious that as much as this mission is difficult and long for us [The Hazaras], it is also difficult and long for Pashtuns and Tajiks. Implementation of this strategy takes time. For example, how many years did Mazari and his like-minded people work to create Hezbe Wahdat? It took three years or so. We have just proposed this strategy for the political unity of the Hazaras, but fortunately, in a short time, a group is ready to work on this strategy. Very honest, compassionate, and committed personalities have joined hands to implement this strategy. The widespread acceptance of this strategy is a sign that now this [strategy] is not the voice of an individual, it is the voice of a group, and we hope and work that it will become the voice of the whole nation.
For this reason, I say we should wait patiently and see where we will be in three years. The issue of power is not a tactical issue that you deal with on a daily basis and rush to realize it. The issue of national power is a vital issue that we have had a conflict with in Afghanistan for centuries and we have not been able to solve it until now. So, how can we consider the political unity of Hazaras as an instantaneous phenomenon and hope to achieve it very soon? No. That is why I say that this mission is difficult and long, and awareness and patience are needed to pass this difficult road.
You must be patient when you are trying to heal the greatest pain of a nation. Our big pain is not having a national strategy to solve the national power issue. Much work and enlightenment need to be done so that this strategy is accepted by the people and the public. That is, at the same time that you are working for unity, you are making contacts, you are having conversations, you are satisfying the minds at the ethnic and national levels, you should also advance the process of enlightenment. This work has many sensitivities regarding Hazaras, which we must be careful about. We can never ignore simple and superficial issues. You very accurately said that Tajik politicians always use Sunni Hazaras under the cover of the so-called destiny of the Tajik society, but they are not ready to let this community [Sunni Hazaras] participate in determining its destiny or to benefit from the privileges and benefits that are obtained due to the society’s politics.
Let me bring an example here that shows what signs politics shows when it is used for individual interests and privileges. When a woman is raped, they [Tajik Politicians] immediately publicize and advertise that this woman was Hazara. Why do they do that? Because the issue of honor creates a lot of sensitivity in the tribal society of Afghanistan. Tajik politicians behind these sensitive advertisements have their political goal to provoke Hazara in Tajik’s power resistance against the Taliban; But when Sunni Hazaras are killed in Andarab, they don’t say even once that there are Hazaras in the ranks of our resistance and these people who resist in Andrab are Hazaras? My question is, why do Tajiks hide this reality and not say anything about it? This example, in confirmation of your words, shows how the privilege of Tajik politicians is managed against the rights and freedoms of ethnic groups.
Sheesha Media: Well, it is a very delicate point and attention should be paid to it. My question is, how do you consider the sensitivity of this issue in your strategy?
Daifoladi: Let me mention another example. Panjshiri politicians change the name of ‘Hazara Valley’ to ‘Abshar Valley’, and in this way, they completely destroyed the name of Hazara. You have to ask what purpose of anti-democratic, anti-rights, and anti-freedom of the people is hidden behind this policy of removing the historical name of Hazara from Panjshir?
Now, when we talk about the political unity of Hazara, we have in mind the sensitivities of the monopolizing ethnic politicians and for this reason, we say that the dialogue of political unity should start from the elites of Sunni, Ismaili, and Jafari Shiite Hazara. Our message is currently addressed to the elites of society. In this message, we are talking about elites. We still have nothing to do with the mass. In recent days, I had a detailed conversation with one of the elders of Sunni Hazaras in Badakhshan Province. In this entire conversation, he disagreed on nothing with me. He declared his general preparation to work for the implementation of the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara”. This is the beginning of the work and our strategy starts from this exact point in order to achieve the steps to bring unity and integration to the masses by creating agreement and coordination at the elite level.
Now, when we talk about the modern political party, we must be careful that one of the characteristics of the modern party is that there is no ethnic border, no ideological border, and no religious and linguistic border. There is one thing that the competence of people is at the center of work for the sake of collective destiny, collective interests, and human rights and freedom. We must build a party that tomorrow a Turkmen, a Baloch, an Aimaq, a Nuristani, a Pashtun, a Tajik, or an Uzbek can be at the head of the party and lead it better than a Hazara [if competent]. A party with such a composition and structure can implement our agenda and strategy, and naturally, we surrender to anyone who shows intellectual and scientific competence. Well, an example is the Prime Minister of England, Rishi Sunak. He has not reached this position with his individual capability and qualifications. His modern party has brought him to this position. In the same way, Obama did not reach the presidency of the United States with his individuality. His modern party made him the president of the White House as a black man.
Therefore, you see that the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara” is a unifying strategy at the ethnic and national levels, even if it shakes the monopolistic politicians and provokes their sensitivity. That is, when you pay close attention, you will see that political unity is the salvation of Pashtuns, as well as Hazaras, Tajiks, and Uzbeks.
Modern Political Party
Sheesha Media: Now that we have reached this point, I want the discussion to be a little more specific. You are faced with such obstacles in practice, which every day, in any case, affect the form and content of your strategy. Now, I want you to clarify what concrete solution you have to create a modern political party that can, in the beginning, in the level of discourse or negotiations, raise this idea among the elites and let them feel that the discussion of building a political party is not a one-night or two-night discussion. This discussion of a political party rather means to modernize each other’s mentality, ideas, outlook, and strategies at the same time, to reproduce everything, and present everything according to the new conditions. This takes time. We would like you to explain this point more clearly and tell us how you reduce the vulnerable points of this strategy in order to build a political party. Where should the first step in building this modern political party be taken in order to create confidence for your audience and make the road map clear for them?
Daifoladi: Let’s understand that the topic of creating a political party is still too far for us to talk about. Now we are in the stage of describing a strategy and we have to say what the goal is, what we are doing and where we want to reach at the end of the day. Until we reach political unity, we cannot raise the issue of the party. Because forming a party is not the work of one person. I cannot sit down and gather some elites around me and announce a party tomorrow. This is the wrong thing that has been done throughout the political history of Afghanistan’s intellectuals, and we are witnessing its bad results and consequences.
Creating and forming a party is collective work. Writing the mission statement, constitution and organizational system of a modern party is not the work of one person, it is the work of a group. Different elites in different brainstorming rooms should sit and work to achieve this goal. For the party, a strategy should be made in the social sector, the economic sector, and the national and international relations sector. In the current situation, it should be said how this party enters regional games and global relations. These are issues for which different bureaus should be built and the elites of the society should work in them based on their expertise. My major is political sociology, and it is difficult for me to be on the same level as someone whose major is international politics. A person, whose major is history, can provide insight for the party in the history department, which I alone cannot provide. In the same way, someone whose field is education can determine the party’s strategy for reforming and developing the country’s education system.
See that the work towards the implementation of this strategy is very extensive. The concepts that we have of the party until now are the result of very small experiences and interactions. Experiences of a party and a leader, the leader being educated or not, and the circulation of all the activities and strategies of the party around family and individual interests. These experiences cannot be attributed to political parties. These are nothing for us to model our new strategy upon.
Sheesha Media: Well, I want you to describe this strategy a little more clearly and tell us how and where you start that is different from the usual party patterns in society.
Daifoladi: If you allow me a moment, the answer to your first question is remaining and I am still in the first part of it to explain. You see, when we say that the political unity of Hazara is a difficult and long road, we are right at the first steps of this mission. We have started from the point of socializing the idea of political unity. That is, we want to turn political unity into a certain idea in public opinion first. That’s why I said that don’t reduce political unity to a specific person or group of elites. Political unity does not belong to an individual or a group of elites. It is the responsibility of each person. I ask all Hazara elites, Pashtun elites, Tajik elites, Uzbek elites, and all ethnic groups of the country to raise the issue of the political unity of their people. Make the discourse of the political unity of their people dominant in public opinion. And when a phenomenon dominates and takes place in public opinion, then you see that these people who have fueled political division in society because of personal interests will be silent. When they fight against public opinion, they destroy themselves. This means that we are now at a stage where we have to expand the discussion at the level of public opinion.
Sheesha Media: I got your point. I want to conclude this part of the discussion right here to enter the second stage. When we talk about strategy, we naturally say that strategy is the phasing of time to achieve a goal. You create your strategic line. You consider the time in this strategic line and say that Hezbe Wahdat was able to create political unity according to the conditions of that time in the space of three years.
Daifoladi: Dissolving the 8 parties…
Sheesha Media: Yes, let’s take at least three years ahead of us and say as a sign that we will reach a stage where our strategy will find its practical steps in society. I want to tell you; how do you phase these three years? For example, say that we need this amount of time to spread our idea and concept so that it becomes common in society and people realize that our discussion is not just a mental discussion that lasts indefinitely. Finally, we have to save the society that is facing the danger of genocide, repression, poverty, and hunger. We should save society from these dangers. This is a very concrete discussion of an example that must be adapted at a given time. I would like you to describe the same phase of time in the strategy you are talking about.
Daifoladi: You see, at this stage that we are at the moment, to keep everyone informed, as a clear sign of honesty, I want to tell them that I have called most of the friends I know in the community. I told them about the strategy through a private request. That is, before I enter the press and publicize the strategy, I told them about the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara”. Some friends took action, but most of these friends promised to consider the strategy. However, after those phone calls, none of these people followed up on actions and progress from their side or my side. How far have I gone?
As a strategic point, I realized that the hypocrisy and desperation of the society are due to the high-ranking politicians, who in the last twenty or thirty years have dealt with politics for their individual benefits. This hypocrisy is also due to another segment of people who are living by this hypocrisy. These people are not ready to let go of their position and reputation for the political unity of Hazara. That is, they are happy and satisfied with the dignity they have in the hypocrisy of society and they don’t want to leave this corner of their safety and immunity for the sake of the interests and goals of society.
This is the reality or a difficult situation that I think we should surrender to. Well, look what I did. In politics, you always have plan A and plan B. My plan A was to talk with people [Hazara elites] who have always been telling me to enter the political field. They were telling me that if I don’t enter the political field, history will not forgive me. These people brought the example of Mazari and what happened to him claiming that I am not a man of my word. You all witnessed this. First, I talked to these elites about the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara”. I realized that these elites were not the prominent Hazara figures they should be. They are not corrupt either, but they are captives of their fame in the hypocrisy of society.
After that, I started plan B. In plan B, my task was to go beyond the level of the famous elite of Hazaras. When I entered this stage, the work gradually reached the place we see today. We have friends who have sincerely started their work for the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara” with great motivation. There are characters at the level of university professors, students, and even young people who apparently have no name or address, but they are no less than others with their initiative. We had considered at least one and a half to two years to reach this stage. The work had to start from different ranks and communication with academia who have no name and fame, but have enough knowledge and honesty was needed.
If those who were famous and not corrupt would have gathered on our side, surely our plan A would shorten the time to achieve political unity. But when this group did not cooperate, we had to change our strategy. In politics, there is timing or a time constraint for strategy. Sometimes the timing of the strategy is out of your control. Time and circumstances determine many things. For example, we had planned to start the activities of the “Haq movement” (Government, Law) in Kabul in the form of street campaigns during the republic. But the situation developed in such a way that all activities were stopped, and we could not implement our campaign. In politics, the demands of time and circumstances against your will create a situation where you do not understand what will happen tomorrow.
What matters to you is what you do towards a certain goal. We are currently at the stage of introducing the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara” into public opinion. We initially considered one and a half to two years for this strategy, but we saw that the same operation went a long way in almost three weeks, and today it has become a common discourse. I read an article written by a dear person that referred to this strategy as the “Daifoladi Discourse”. Of course, I never like the issue to be raised in the name of the individual. Anyway, this friend wrote that the discourse of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara” is becoming dominant.
Sheesha Media: Very well, Mr. Daifoladi, we will end this part of the conversation here. In the second part, we will look at the practical aspects and practical solutions of this thesis from other angles. In a very short summary, based on what you have said so far, what do you really expect from the Hazara society, from the political elites of Hazara in publicizing this message? What do you expect from the elites of the Pashtun community, the Tajik community, and the Uzbek community so that everyone can get a compact message from your conversation and feels obliged to adapt it to their specific contexts?
Daifoladi: First, I will repeat that political unity is the responsibility of each person; Because unity is a collective thing, unity does not happen with one person, it happens with individuals, and if individuals do not feel responsible for the unity of the society, unity will never occur.
As we experienced, due to selfishness, we had to adapt our plan B in the last three months. Pashtuns have the same problem. Conscientious Pashtuns and Tajiks who feel the pain of Tajik humiliation in the field of politics and power should start their work with academic elites who are not famous but are honest. What is important in politics is honesty. Politics is the field of collective leadership and collective leadership is effective with collective consultation and participation. According to Rumi’s words, consultation brings perception and alertness.
When you enter into the process of collective leadership in politics, you see that those whose level of knowledge is low, but who have honesty and motivation, are very helpful. I suggest the same solution to Pashtun, Tajik, and Uzbek brothers. When we started our work with Hazara, we soon found our audience. Let us also remember that in the political unity of Hazara, those who are stigmatic and infamous [already have a bad reputation and career] in politics and regional and global games, if they come in any political movement, the political movement will be defeated in the first day. They will ruin the picture of the movement.
That is why we have asked them to get out of the way of society and its political unity for the sake of the people and ethnicity they represent. Below this first level of political leaders, I think that anyone who has been in any party and stream, can come with a new internal reform and join this process [the political unity]. The more people leave previous political parties and streams, the sooner the political unity of the society will be achieved. To the extent that there is a loss of power from that side, it helps to speed up the process and move toward the structure of a modern political party.
New Strategy; Ethnic or National Version?
Sheesha Media: Very good, thanks for this discussion. We will return to the second part of our conversation with you. You are talking about the strategy of restoring the ethnic power to Hazara. In this way, you pointed out some dangers. Especially, you stated that you are not in the stage of establishing a political party, and in the current stage, it is more important to plan and spread the idea so that society realizes the importance of the strategy. You naturally help society to know its existing realities and adapt to them, and by this understanding, take steps to ensure political unity.
Currently, we have wide experiences in society, which in many cases are the hurdles in the way of society’s movement. Contrary to the saying that experience is the best teacher, many times experience is also the worst and most misleading teacher. Because you forget that the experience belongs to the past and the experience of the past does not help in the present. Many people work with the same experience. Let’s start from this point to say that the experience of each society is special anyway. You say that the strategy that you propose has a Hazara audience at first, but it can also have an audience among Pashtuns, Tajiks, and Uzbeks.
Naturally, the experience of each of these ethnicities in dealing with their environmental realities is different. You cannot prescribe the Hazara version for Tajik or Pashtun either. I want you to open this point a bit in the discussion that we have after this. Where your words have a general audience that the entire Afghan nation should take care of in this common geography thinking that we cannot break this geography anyway. And we have to live together in this geography; where does this message become special so that, for example, the Pashtun does not feel that what you say to Hazara, he can adapt it in the Pashtun community, or the Tajik, for example, does not feel that the model you say to Hazara community, he can also adapt in Tajik community. I want you to open the points of commonality and points of difference in your talks. What are these points?
Daifoladi: What you mentioned was accurate. I would like to give the example of Karzai’s last move so that we know what Hazara’s view of power is, and how different it is from the view of a Pashtun politician who was the president and worked with NATO and the United States and had coped with them on the issue of the Durand Line. Karzai has finally fallen from power. From what I see from the outside, I can say this much for my Pashtun brothers that Karzai’s policies have always been useless. Karzai has brought up the topic of the national discourse saying that it does not matter if Afghanistan is a republic or an emirate, it does not matter. Let’s get together. Well, now look when the Taliban closed all the universities to women, is there anyone else who will respond to Karzai’s message?
Why does Karzai always take a bite from the back of his neck to his mouth? Karzai, instead of presenting the idea of national unity and intra-Afghan dialogue, should present the intra-Pashtun dialogue instead. Karzai should answer the Pashtun community about what is his problem with Ghani, Atmar, the Taliban, Haqqani, and Mullah Yaqoob [Mullah Omar’s son]. According to the reports we have, when Karzai came to Berlin, he made people laugh about Ghani the whole night. Why? Why Pashtun Politicians are not answering these questions to the Pashtun Community?
Karzai can succeed in creating national unity in Afghanistan when he ensures Pashtun unity first. In the politics of Pashtun and the unity he secured, he should determine its strategy like us. Creating a modern party breaks all ethnic, religious, political, linguistic, and other boundaries and brings people together based on merit, knowledge, and citizenship rights. But Karzai still interacts with the same people who give one tweet and receive hundreds of humiliations in response. This is because it is easy for Karzai to deal with such people. But the strategic solution that we give to make Afghanistan stand on its feet, to bring the country to independence, political stability, and national security, is to ensure the political unity of your people first.
Why don’t Pashtun political leaders sit together to set an example for all of Afghanistan and say that we came together so that the rest of the ethnicities should also sit down and get along? This is the approach we recommend for you, the approach behind a collective goal, not an individual deal.
Look, what is the pain that comes from Pashtun politicians to the Hazara people, Tajik people, and the Pashtun people? The pain is that all these Pashtun Politicians think about personal interests and the monopoly of national power, and the effort is towards the long-standing tradition that the ownership of national power is in the name of Pashtuns. This is an outdated version. All pieces of this version have collapsed and stopped working. To collect this dispersion, first of all, this dispersion must be collected from within the Pashtun, the Hazara, and from within the Tajik and Uzbek.
The same situation exists within Tajik society. When I see the Tajik society from the outside, I notice that intelligent people like Amrullah Saleh grow up and become the first vice president. And when he escapes, millions of dollars have been found in his house. This question should be asked, where did he get all this money? If he stole from people, he should also answer, and if he got it from intelligence channels, he should also answer.
Again, the specific question that the Tajik elites ask the likes of Saleh is, what is Saleh’s problem with Atta? What’s Atta’s problem with Rabbani’s son? What is Rabbani’s son’s problem with Ahmad Masoud? Do these politicians have to answer why politics has become a legacy in their family?
These are questions that I see from the outside and as a Hazara, I want all enlightened Tajiks to raise these questions and make these questions common in Tajik public opinion. At the same time, they should work for the political unity of their ethnicity. They should get together and work. Just like our plan A didn’t work, and with our plan B, we started political unity by coming together with honest but not-so-famous academic elites. The Tajiks should also take this approach so that the political unity of the Afghan nation will be ensured with the gathering of their elites.
Sheesha Media: Well, you address these points among Pashtuns or Tajiks from an outsider’s view.
Daifoladi: Exactly. I do not feel the pain that Pashtuns feel inside their own people.
Sheesha Media: Yes.
Daifoladi: I can’t convey and show the special pain the way a Pashtun elite can show for Pashtuns. My words are just to show the collective pain that we all feel in common.
Sheesha Media: Yes.
Daifoladi: A Pashtun does not understand the pain that I feel as a Hazara in the Hazara people. A Pashtun cannot help me to understand the internal problem of Hazara. I also cannot help a Pashtun to understand its internal problem.
Sheesha Media: Very well, now we will discuss more on your strategy, which is a unifying strategy among the entire nation of Afghanistan. You see Afghanistan as a single nation, But this single nation cannot be united in its illusion. You have to separately study the very specific facts that are inside this society, then separate the visions or the so-called general views from specific strategies.
Daifoladi: Exactly.
New Strategy; A Path to Political Unity or A Field for Social Hypocrisy?
Sheesha Media: According to your point of view, we should create unity, but the first step of this unity is creating a discourse. Those who talk to each other in these big groups are put against each other by politics. At least in the last 20 or 30 years, we have seen that between them, the Pashtun-Hazara war, the Tajik-Uzbek war, and its likes have arisen. This war, according to your interpretation, is the war of politicians; But the same war has its reflection in society and it has caught society in dangerous and bloody confrontations. So, in your view, we must first unite these communities as separate divisions of the Afghan nation within themselves, so that after that we can pave the way for the strategic unity of the Afghan nation.
Now, I want to make the same point about Hazaras that you raise from the outside about the Tajiks or the Pashtuns. Hazaras are currently facing two political trends that when you look at it from a distance, can still be dangerous or at least it can be a big challenge to the strategy you have within the Hazara community, which is to return the ethnic power of Hazaras to Hazaras. Of these two political trends, one is related to the majority of people in the society, who have distanced themselves from their political elites with a very clear vision and experience and have crossed them.
The overwhelming majority of the Hazara society knows how its political leaders sacrificed collective capital for individual ambitions, it doesn’t matter how honest these leaders were or not in their individuality, but at least what they have accumulated as capital, they have taken its credit from people. And they have consumed it for themselves and their families. As a result, at the end of the day, they have made both themselves and society miserable. These leaders are now separated from society and this general body of society has turned their eyes away from them, and by the way, they have also turned their eyes away from society. That is, these great political elites whom you call the hurdles on the way of society, no longer expect that people will really shoulder them or blindly follow them like a decade ago or two decades ago. People have a hundred questions that these elites are not able to any of these questions. These political elites did not answer these questions in the Tabassum Movement, specifically, or in the Enlightenment movement.
In this new period, which is very difficult and is considered a period of political hardship for the Hazaras, these leaders are silent and do not say anything to express their political experience and lesson and help the society to understand it clearly. But on the other hand, this fact has divided society. A group of Hazaras feels that they have found their policy line in line with the international community and in line with modern values, with democracy and pluralism and the concepts of human rights and the like. They also know it as a practical example that without a party or political movement, it is not possible, and we have to build our own modern party. An example is the Democratic Republic of Hazaristan, which is now in its earliest stages as a plan, like the idea you mentioned in the strategy of restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara. As these people are pragmatic, they did not wait for the theoretical parts of their work. They very easily talk about the Democratic Republic of Hazaristan, its flag and currency, the electronic government, and the electronic parliament. This is a serious process that has started in the lower spectrum of society. On the other hand, you have the political elites, who are still the address for any political deal and political traders. When Mr. Karzai leaves Afghanistan, he does not go to the address of any of the elites of the society who have a word to say; But he goes to the address of those political elites whose language he understands. In Berlin, Turkey, or anywhere else he goes, he finds such people to start talking and dealing with them. The Hazara society now moves between these two lines. Apparently, it is understood from your strategy that you do not consider any of these two paths as a rescue solution, at least in your strategy. But, in any case, these are actual facts that have occupied the minds of society. I want to know what is the specific solution that you are talking about within the Hazara society and that you imagine will protect the destiny of the society in the middle of these two dangerous pits that stand in its way. In your opinion, with what tact and language can your strategy be introduced as an inspiring strategy that can be accepted and understood by Hazara and a guide for a Tajik, Pashtun, and Uzbek who separates the old generation and the new generation or connect their actual realities with the ideals they have in front of them so that they don’t get mixed up?
Daifoladi: You see, many plans are proposed in today’s Hazara society. Democratic Republic of Hazaristan, federalism or separation is among the plans that are expressed at different levels and in different languages in different ways. I think that they have not understood one thing well, and that is that politics cannot be done without thinking, and political thinking cannot be done without a strategy. If you are building the Democratic Republic of Hazaristan, if you are building federalism, or even if you want to divide Afghanistan, you need political unity in the first step. Even the plan of non-violence resistance that you propose, for this plan you need political unity first. You can see that a Hindu and Muslim nation was mobilized behind Gandhi and the peaceful resistance worked and succeeded. Can you build a democratic republic with the same scattering that Hazare has? Well, these things at the level of a claim soon become symbolic issues, not an agenda that becomes a reality. When you say federalism if you don’t have the support of your public opinion with a political alliance and in the framework of a modern party, can you achieve your desired result? Of course, you can’t. We came and started right from the point where any plan that is decided for in the future should be taken by the collective, not by a number of people who have just entered politics or entered politics superficially and have reached a certain point today. We saw that some of these people even reached Ghani’s office by criticizing Khalili and Mohaqeq and ethnic-treason; But what after that?
The most important characteristic of unthinking pragmatic politicians is their illiteracy. When they open their mouths and speak, you understand how illiterate this person is. He himself says that I am not politically literate. Well, when you have no political literacy, why did you come and present yourself as a leader and expect to become a leader?
One of the advantages of the modern party is that it eliminates the category of leader and transforms it into leadership. Now the problem is that in the Hazara community, everyone considers themselves a leader and tries to become a leader. As soon as each one comes, he puts Mazari’s picture behind him/her, in fact, it means that Mazari is first and I am after him! This is why idealism is one thing and pragmatism in politics is another. The strategy and the way that I propose, its pragmatism is in this political unity. I say whatever way want, first come to unity, after the academic elites are gathered, we will sit down and decide which way is reasonable that we can use to get to real salvation and which way is unreasonable and for the individual interests of a few people.
Well, a politician’s duty is to use people’s thoughts, but a politician who is committed to people’s rights and freedoms directs people’s thoughts for the benefit of their self-determination and helps people to determine their political destiny with a fair and reasonable assessment.
Is the New Strategy a War Strategy or an Anti-war Strategy?
Sheesha Media: Well, right here as you’re talking, some people are saying, with the fatigue that the urgency of the situation may have brought on them, we don’t have the patience to wait three or four years for your work. They say that they will be massacred in three or four years by the insurgent groups [The Taliban, ISIS, etc], therefore, we must act soon and protect our collective destiny. For example, in the west of Kabul, when the people felt the danger, they soon took action, resisted and defended, and got the result.
I want to show two emergency situations in society as an example. On the one hand, there are political leaders who understand the fatigue of society and see their own fatigue as well. These leaders invite the people to calm down so that they can find an opportunity to say that they will find a political solution and involve you in the big power deal. On the other side, there are the pragmatists who are tired and disillusioned with the political leaders who are trying to show resistance and work in order to pull society out of desperation and helplessness in their own words. Now, so that your pragmatism does not descend to the level of pragmatism that lacks thought and vision, and to prevent the preferential trading of political leaders, what should you do to differentiate your specific line with the specific strategy you have in front of you? In other words, on the one hand, your invitation for people to calm down and think should not be misused by the politicians. Politicians also invite people to calm down, refer them back to their address and say you wait, and we will do work in these big circles. And on the other hand, your combative pragmatism does not put rapid and urgent solutions in front of the people. How do you act in the middle of these two audiences and claimants of politics in the society, both of which mislead the historical experience of the people, so that your strategy becomes a successful strategy?
Daifoladi: You see, I repeat again that we have never said that we will not fight against the Taliban. I have told the Taliban many times, and now I say wisely, away from emotions. Do not bring us [Hazaras] to the point where we have to answer bullets with bullets again. This is my word; At the same time, for those who emphasize armed struggle, I say that when you want to achieve your goal through war, start tomorrow, your way is open. But the question is that the economy is the nerve of war. Where do you get your war economy? War money does not fall from the sky. So, let’s calculate on the ground from whom to get money to move your war machine. You have seen that England, NATO, America, Pakistan, Israel, and the Arab countries, in addition to Russia, Iran, and China, agreed that the corrupt ethnic republic would be removed and the Taliban would come to power in Afghanistan. That is, the Taliban has come to power with a general regional and global consensus.
Today, when it is mentioned that the North of Afghanistan is considered as important as North Waziristan due to the transfer of fundamentalism to the Middle East and involving Russia and its economy in the Middle East war on the side of the Ukraine war, will America, England, NATO, and Pakistan pay you to fight with the Taliban? Do you think these powers are crazy to fund and equip your war front against the Taliban? Those who delivered eighty billion dollars worth of weapons to the Taliban, are they willing to give you weapons to come and fight?
Well, you should give up on these powers and give up hope. Russia is currently involved in the dangerous war in Ukraine and knows that if it loses this war, it will split into seven other countries. At the same time, if this situation continues, the cost of war on this country will become heavier every day. Russia has a budget deficit of fifty billion dollars this year. With this in mind, is this country willing to give us [Hazaras] money and weapons in Afghanistan? At the same time, what reason does the war in Ukraine give Russia to come and help us fight a war with the Taliban in which Russia has influence?
Similarly, China will never add fuel to the fire of regional conflicts with its weapons and money. Because China is looking for economic hegemony in the region and the world. China’s economic hegemony needs peace; Whether it is peace in Afghanistan or in Pakistan and the Middle East. You see that an attack on the hotel where the Chinese were staying made them leave Afghanistan. Or when the demonstrations started in Iran, we saw that China went to Saudi Arabia and almost broke the 24-year-old contract with Iran.
Well, in the meantime, the only option left for us is Iran, and we have to ask questions about that country as well. Will Iran give us money and weapons to fight the Taliban? We should see that Sayed Essa Mazari and other Iranian spies such as Latif Nazari, Jafar Mahdavi, and Akbari campaign more than any other Pashtun for the recognition of the Taliban. It is clear that these campaigns are not their own. This statement comes from the source [Iran] and seeks to implement the strategy of Iran’s religious system in Afghanistan. So, the other place we have to rely on to finance the war with the Taliban is the fragile economy of the few Hazaras living in the West with many problems. We know that there are no rivers of money in these countries that anyone can take and send to the war front. They work hard to support their family or their relatives. Can they finance a war where the price of each bullet should be taken from their livelihood?
Even if we answer all these questions with a positive and optimistic view and claim that we have an independent economy and have found the necessary source for all our expenses, still when we go to war with the Taliban in Afghanistan, we are actually going to war with Pakistan, Iran, Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, America and all other countries that are involved in this conflict in some way. Countries that are looking for certain interests in this war. Is a war logical that is financed by my and your personal money and puts Hazaras in an unequal and unlimited battle with all the policies and interests of the powers of the region and the world? A good example of such a phenomenon was Mawlawi Mahdi. We saw that he killed himself in a few days [claiming that Mawlawi Mahdi himself was the reason he was killed]. Mawlawi Mahdi and his encouragers did not understand the simple fact that the war with the Taliban is a war that no one wants, and our engagement with it will only result in wasting our lives, property, and opportunities.
Let’s be careful that the war in Ukraine messed up all the equations in the region. With the start of the Ukraine war, other games have been proposed at the regional and world level, which have led all policies to reconsideration. Rebellion in Iran is another reality that makes most of the powers involved in the conflict in Afghanistan prefer the Taliban to dominate the situation so as not to create additional headaches for others. For these powers, all required is a dominant power. It doesn’t matter if this power is bad, wrong, reactionary, medieval, or anything, it doesn’t matter. Under the rule of this group [The Taliban], Afghanistan has indirectly become a buffer state, at the head of which is a deadly iron power, such that Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns cannot raise their heads. This so-called buffer country under Abdurrahmani’s autocratic rule is in the interest of both Iran and Pakistan, and it is also in the interest of other involved powers until the Ukraine issue is solved.
It is natural that the crisis in Ukraine is not out of three consequences: either the West will win, Russia will win, or at the end of the day, they will somehow compromise and reach an agreement. When we reach this point, see again whether they [the West and international community] will return to Afghanistan or not. They will definitely come back. That is, the Taliban project depends on the outcome of the war in Ukraine. This is where the question arises, why should we fight against a temporary project? Every project has an expiry date. When the history of the Ukrainian war project or the Taliban war is over, the whole equation will be reconstructed and reproduced.
Now we return to the main point we had in our discussion: even if we start a war, before we start the war, to get the money for the war and to take up arms and get support, we must have political unity. War is not possible without political unity. You cannot fight this political hypocrisy. If you want to fight or if you want to get external support, you must have a modern political party and act in the framework of a party in an organized and professional way so that the world sees and recognizes you and is ready to work with you from the address of a party with an intellectual framework and a certain idea and strategy to establish a relationship. It is the political unity of the people that creates effective power for you at the national, regional, and global levels. That is after you have secured your political unity and established your political party, that is the time when you will find someone in the world who will value your words and help you to win.
I repeat again. The beginning of any other work and action is to reach political unity. Until the political unity of the ethnic groups is achieved, talking about national unity is a dream, an illusion, and impossible!
New Strategy; A New Path amid Two Existing Roads
Sheesha Media: You make your points, especially when you refer back to the specific experience of the Hazara community, which is appreciated. But do you think that your audience in general, in order not to fall into this pit, will understand your speech only with these enlightened dialogues? Aren’t you afraid that your words may also be limited at the level of elites who seem to have the power to understand your words? If this speech is not understood by the general public so you can take a step to implement your strategy, the front you fear may be created or the deal that is supposed to be made at the level of political leaders will be implemented?
If this happens, even if it is anywhere, it will make a part of society a victim. Also, a political deal may be made at the level of the senior leaders of the society. In this case, a new situation will be created in society, which will force you to rethink your approach and strategy. I want to ask, what concrete work do you do to remove these obstacles and challenges from your way so that the two gaps or two holes that are in front of your work at the community level do not damage your strategy?
Daifoladi: Look, I told you that one part of our work has a practical aspect; But another part is enlightenment. The words that I said in my analysis of the special situation of Hazara society explained the conditions of war and the impossibility of war. This part is considered enlightening. The currents that want to be adventurous, my first word about them is that they can’t do anything and, in the end, they will remain limited to the same slogan. The reason is that none of them have a support field, they do not have a field of action among the Hazaras, and they do not enjoy the ethnic support of the Hazaras. Ethnic support to the extent that you can mobilize social mobilization for war or costly adventures is a difficult task that the Hazara community, after more than forty years of experience with war and the costs of war, is not willing to pay for. Here are some people who raise mottos to entertain their minds and a few of their audience, but they can’t actually do anything. Let us remember that the Hazara society is poor, deprived, and suffering, but it has a high level of intelligence and judgment that any current circle cannot manipulate and use their social capacity for the benefit of its temporary interests and slogans.
In addition to enlightenment and awareness, we also have practical works. I told you earlier that we have found our target audience and our practical work is going on in implementing the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara”. Our friends from Australia to Europe, America, Canada, India, and inside Afghanistan are working in a serious and organized manner. We are not in a hurry. We have a long way to go in order to be able to intellectually and practically dominate the situation and convert the necessity of political unity into public opinion. I think that with the patient continuation of work and activity in this field, the unity and cohesion of our forces will increase day by day.
Sheesha Media: There is a paradox in your statements. On one hand, you consider the political unity of the society as an important necessity that works must be done to achieve it. On the other hand, there are political elites who are, in any way, effective within society. The way you address these elites shows that there is less tolerance and the possibility of collecting them together. It is possible that people agree with you in general terms and general talk, but when it comes to the practical step, each of them feels panic, as if in which category they are in your practical strategy. Do they fall into the category of leaders [leaders who traded Afghanistan] who are again negated by this strategy or do they fall into the category of pragmatists who lack insight? Pragmatists who, after moving forward, are told that they are incapable. I would like to ask what is the tolerance you intend to create in your language and strategies in a practical way, in order to prevent the creation of chaos and panic within society. The tolerance that doesn’t have political dogmatism under the name of the strategy of restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara?
Daifoladi: You see, unity is not achieved by expediency and pragmatism. Unity is possible by telling the truth. A unity based on pragmatism will neither give results nor survive. That unity can survive in which you and I know each other’s truth. When knowing what my truth is, I will understand how to deal with you or how to talk to you. Is it not true? When I know what your truth is, you can’t talk to me about conventional politics. Because our goal is political unity. If there is bitterness in my words towards certain people or groups, don’t consider this bitterness to be caused by my language, consider it to be caused by the truth. Anyone who understands the truth in my words and feels bitter about this truth is because of him/herself, not me.
Politics: Expediency or Reality?
Sheesha Media: Ideological words always contain truths that can actually be persuasive or at least convincing for people; But in reality, they fuel demarcations and divisions within the society. You talk about the political unity of the Hazaras. You talk about the problems that exist within the society, which are all intertwined with the history and experiences of the society; But at the same time, when you present your strategy, you fuel the fear that instead of reaching a consensus around this strategy, we will again enter a new ideological line. A line that has a strong ideology and demand, but it makes the society even more disintegrated and divided.
Daifoladi: No, the reality is quite the opposite of your impression. What I think is different. I have a very simple question for those who are behind the Hazara political hypocrisy, have they reached the moral courage to come and admit that they had a bad past for the sake of Hazara political unity? Are they willing to admit that they are responsible for today’s humiliation are Hazaras? Not only do I have the right to ask this question as a person who is a victim of this hypocrisy, but they also should ask themselves this question whether they did good or bad in the role they were given.
Reform occurs when the moral stage of confession takes place. If I haven’t reached the stage of confession, can I make corrections? My clear answer is that it is not possible. Therefore, for the sake of the political unity of society, let’s accept this risk, let’s give ourselves the moral courage to admit and say that we have not done well and we are ready to step aside from society and let others do their work. If by any chance you come and say that I have made a mistake, will I not trust you?
Sheesha Media: You are right at this level. At the same time, I sense a danger in your words that I would like to hear described by yourself. You are talking about an ideological line. Intellectually, your plan has been revised for you and maybe it is clear enough and now you want society to understand it. You also talk about points that society cannot deny based on its experiences. But, with the same words and the same way of raising the issue, you can fall into populism that looks for an audience or gullible followers. The kind of audience who will readily say yes and accept your strategy without challenging it. An audience that would not spend that amount of energy and time to understand this line of thinking and strategy and take steps to implement it. As a result, after a while, you will again create an ideological trend that will fuel new discipleship within society and further divide it, rather than contributing to political unity. Don’t you feel this danger yourself?
Daifoladi: No. This is entirely your opinion. I meant something else. You interrupted my speech; Otherwise, this question would not have been raised. First, we need reform for the political unity of Hazara. Well, reform starts with those who have made mistakes in the past. Is it not true? Now, if we say that no, even if you make reform, you are no longer acceptable to us, or because of your bad past, we deny your good today, this is where we have resorted to an ideological movement or hypocritical dogmatism.
Earlier I mentioned that when we started Plan A, we talked to many people in the community. I told you earlier that some people prefer hypocrisy because of their false reputation, But I advise them to get over their false reputation. Now, when I bring this up, I am sure that some of these friends may be offended; But let them be offended. Because the issue of the fate of society is not the issue of the annoyance of individuals. Next, we come to the issue of ideology. I have not raised any ideology yet. Now, for example, if I came and said that you should come and unite around the axis of this ideology, you would have been absolutely right.
Now we have presented the necessity of the political unity of society as an undeniable matter. We say that political unity is a must for the realization of any ideology, any political party, and for any subsequent action, you want in the form of the Hazaristan Democratic Republic, federalism, or anything. Political Unity, for what you want to do in the future, is an urgent necessity. With any way of thinking you want to move towards the future, you need political unity first.
Therefore, people who want Hazaristan, should come and support political unity. Because when political unity takes place, the academic elites of the society will gather and you will have the opportunity to implement the plan of Hazaristan. Now we are talking about the unity and unity of academia. So far, we have not reached the stage to propose the unity of the common masses. When the academic elites of the society with different agendas and different thoughts are side by side, everyone comes and presents their own thoughts and ideologies. Here is the discussion of various theories that emerge from the context of a single thought for the fate of society. Is it not true? When this single thought is created, it is based on this strategy that you build a modern political party. It is in this modern political party that everyone gathers and chooses a single path based on a common decision.
Now we are stuck with a situation where everyone goes their own way. Everyone can have several audience members in the community, But the problems of society are not solved with a few like-minded audience members. Many friends suggested that you should build the party first, then start gathering people and party members. Well, this is a model of traditional party building that unfortunately has not worked well for us. If you create a party first, you have created a new division besides another division. It is true that everyone finds a number of audiences in the radius of their existence, personality, and thoughts, but this circle [party] causes new hypocrisy to form in society.
Our point is to use the same influence we have in society to implement and achieve the political unity agenda of society. When political unity took place and the academic elites of the society gathered together, then we all gather together, negotiate, present our ideas, and speak to each other. When the goal is the political unity of the society, the goal is to return the ethnic power of Hazaras to Hazaras. In this goal, the discussion of ‘I’ and individuality is not relevant here. Whoever spoke the truth should be followed.
New Strategy; Enlightenment or Stating Truth
Sheesha Media: That’s right. One of the points that I want to say in support of your words and maybe make the discussion clearer in my mind is a quote from Mr. Mostafa Malekian [Iranian Philosopher]. He says that the mission of an intellectual is to explain the truth and reduce bitterness, But he says that sometimes the presentation of the truth and the reduction of bitterness may be in conflict. Here, according to him, the intellectual prefers the presentation of the truth to the reduction of bitterness. Because reducing bitterness reduces suffering, but it may lead us down the wrong path. He says that in this case, you must tell the truth. Is it true?
Presenting the truth and reducing bitterness are actually two sides of the same coin that distinguish you as an intellectual from any other scientist who only talks theoretically. The non-enlightened scientist speaks his words, But he does not consider himself obliged to emphasize the practical aspect or its social effects. As Hafez says, “Don’t be bound by what you don’t hear or what you hear.” But the intellectual says no, we should pay attention to the practical aspects of our speech in society. Now, if we have reached a point where we feel that reducing the bitterness and suffering of society ends at the cost of sacrificing the truth, then we should prefer the presentation of the truth.
As if you want to say that we are now at the stage of explaining these points. Expressing this word more clearly may make my mind clearer in this regard. I would now like to open the way for another different discussion, which again goes back to your personal experiences within the community.
Daifoladi: Let me clarify a little more about the part of the presentation of the truth that you mentioned. The strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara” is the principle of the work we have before us. You see, you need political unity to end the suffering of the Hazaras. To achieve political unity, you must tell the truth. When you tell the truth and reach political unity based on truth, you show that you have achieved a tool that reduces the bitterness and pain of society. I can tell you for sure that when the modern political party of Hazara is established after the political unity of Hazara and declares its existence, the next day you will have created a security cover for all Hazara inside Afghanistan. Because then everyone will understand that they are facing a group that is a decision-maker. When this group [modern political party of Hazara] decides to engage in war, they fight, and if they decide to engage in interaction and talk, they have constructive and decisive interaction and talk. Be sure that then every power will take you seriously. These powers will think that if they compromise with this group, it will be like compromising with the whole society.
Therefore, you can see that in the process of the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power Hazara”, by ‘enlightenment’ we mean telling the truth. Enlightenment is impossible without telling the truth. You must tell the truth in all its bitterness to achieve political unity. Anyone who gets offended is their own business. Society is like the sea that moves with long waves and the success message in society finds its audience and goes forward with a new experience every day.
Sheesha Media: Well, we will open this point further in the third part of our conversation. As a summary of this part of your words, it seems that you are clearly stating that now we are at a stage where society should be familiar with the dangers and realities that it faces. Society should not ignore the facts ahead of it and do not do politics in illusion.
These are your words for society and you emphasize that when society understands these words, it will become like a doctor who diagnoses the disease and after the diagnosis, he reaches the stage of treatment. Of course, the accurate diagnosis of the disease in most cases may also provide you with an unlimited number of solutions. Because you don’t treat the term pathologically. You don’t just see the pain and give medicine for the same pain as the doctors in Afghanistan so that by treating one pain, it causes five more pains. You pay attention to the pain or problem in its context. It is after this attention that you see that your problem is not the same, there are hundreds of them, and it requires hundreds of solutions, not one.
I want you to have a brief summary of what you have said so far regarding the presentation of the truth and the reduction of bitterness, according to Malekian’s interpretation, or your so-called enlightenment, so that in the next turn, you will have a way for the practical and pragmatic tasks that you have in mind. Open up and describe the issue in your own personal experiences. Your experiences of enlightened work and struggle in society will naturally affect your speech, either in a negative or positive way. I want you to have a short summary of what you have said so far.
Daifoladi: If you allow me and my words don’t come across as selfish, I would like to divide my personality into three categories. You can see these three personality categories in my work strategy.
As an enlightened person, I am responsible to the best of my ability, to tell the truth, and not put any interest before the truth. The purpose of telling the truth is to provide social benefits and general public awareness. Here I have to fulfill my responsibility as an intellectual. It is good to say enlightened instead of intellectual. Because an intellectual who is not enlightened is not intellectual.
Then, as a small politician who has at least produced a book in the field of the political sociology of Afghanistan on the level of authoritarianism, I have to help my people to adopt a strategic move so that the politics of my people can be saved from the control of this and that person. For Hazara society, a political system should be created that will work for hundreds of years like the parties we have in the modern world.
Then, as an individual, when I come to invite everyone to political unity, in order for the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara” to become a reality, I as an individual must keep my word. It is not possible to invite others to a work, but you do nothing for it.
You can see that I have entered the practice field with these three personality traits. Now we either fail or succeed in this process. If we fail, I have a book called ‘my political memoir’ in my, and in this book, I will write all my impressions and life as an intellectual and a politician. In this book, I will explain how we have come up with this strategy, its implementation, our action points, and who did we talk to about this strategy, but at the end of the day, we failed. I will write about the reasons for our failure. If we win in this process and this collective movement takes place and a political party is created that will work for years, I will include my experiences from this success in the book and explain that this was a successful way to unite a fragmented society that had fallen due to the utilitarianism of its political elites. I will write about the plan, theory, strategy, logic, reasons, and these truth-telling, and strategic pragmatism that created political unity in society. A society that is now the owner of a modern political party at the level of national, regional, and global games. Reaching this stage is a huge achievement in itself I hope every Hazara elite will make themselves a part of this success, rather than reducing themselves to a part of failure in the form of an individual.
Sheesha Media: Well, in the next part of our conversation, we may review this point again in more detail and we will go back to your experiences and analyze these three categories of your personality in the form of the works and influence you had in the society.
Politics: Knowledge, Character, and Action
Sheesha Media: Welcome to the third part of this conversation. Mr. Daifoladi, in this part, I want you to pay attention to the effects of your work in society in more detail. You mentioned the three stages of the effective development of your character in society. These three categories of personality naturally create a story and a historical line for you, which affects society both negatively and positively. Some may be unhappy with the effects of your work in the past or have a negative perception and feel that the strategy of restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara, is the continuation of the same division and dispersion and so-called fueling disunity within the society.
Another group sees this movement of yours as the beginning of a transformation or the entry of the Hazaras into a new era, a period that has brought a re-reading of its experiences and led to a new awareness of the Hazaras. This group may also look at the new strategy with an optimistic view and welcome it. I want you to talk a little more about these three stages that you talked about in the effective development of your personality as a person, and then describe how you relate to your audience in this regard. That is, how do you help the audience to realize that Daifoladi in 1401 HS is not without connection with Daifoladi of the years 1374 and 1375 HS? That is, Daifoladi who wrote “Emroze Ma”, “Asre Baraye Adalat” or even “The Realm of Tyranny” magazines is different from Daifoladi who, after thirty years, proposes the strategy of restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara. How do you help your audience see that these two ‘Daifoladis’ are in two different stages, but follow one line?
Daifoladi: Yes, different stages in a line of personal growth and intellectual development and adopting experiences to the level of understanding. Look, when you talk about politics, politics has three bases: the first base is knowledge of politics. The second base is the character, and the third base is action. These three bases of politics are interconnected and are in a cause-and-effect relationship. Your knowledge affects your character, your character affects your knowledge, your knowledge and character affect your action, and your action affects your knowledge and character.
In politics, if you have the knowledge, but lack personality and action, you are worthless. If you have character but no knowledge and action, you still lack value. At the same time, if you have action, but no personality and knowledge, you will still be useless. What led Hazara’s politics to deviance were actions lacking character and knowledge. An act that does not have the support of a person’s character and honesty or honest character and is deprived of accurate knowledge, becomes against the person’s character. It means that with every action a person does, he destroys his character more than before.
In this case, I leave the judgment to my audience to see if I have these three foundations of politics in me when I enter the process of political action. Do they see the necessary knowledge in me or not? Do they see the honest character of Hazara in me or not? Do they see the honest character of humans or not? Also, in the practical fields, when I invite others to political unity, do I adhere to this idea in practice or not?
I have put forward the strategic plan of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power from to Hazara” as a scientific and political plan. After years of thinking and trying to know where is the way to save society, especially in the current situation in Afghanistan, I have presented this strategy. Now I leave the judgment to others and I don’t need to judge myself. I hope that before others, first of all, you, who were with us from the hard past, write your judgment on whether you notice these three elements of knowledge, character, and action in Daifoladi of 1401 HS.
New Strategy; Non-violent Civil Resistance
Sheesha Media: I want to start from this part to reach your other discussion. Exactly in this growth of the triple stages of your influential personality in the society, you talk about the resistance of the west of Kabul and you never mention this resistance as a negative point in the growth of the Hazara political movement. You feel that with all the propaganda against the resistance in west Kabul or with all the difficulties this resistance had in its time, the Hazara community started a right and healthy path in west Kabul, which then grew and developed during the two years and ten months of this resistance. Then with the enlightening movement of “Emroze Ma” and “Asre Baraye Adalat” [magazines], this experience became a consciousness and awareness in society; But after that, when you progress step by step, you naturally consider the experience of the West Kabul as a classic experience or a primary experience in the political movement of the Hazara, and you do not want to consider it as a full-fledged model for all periods and advertise it with all conditions.
When you wrote “The Realm of Tyranny” [A book written by Daifoladi], you exposed the grounds for the growth of tyranny within the society in such a way that the resistance in the west of Kabul can no longer be considered a perfect model to save society from this tyranny. In this book, you said that if society does not reach a stage of growth in all its relations that itself makes a distance from tyranny, tyrants will grow again every day. You showed that the West Kabul resistance, with all its achievements, took a cost like Mazari from the society, or it cost us all the grandeur and majesty we had.
After that, in the new stages, naturally, your experiences will be combined with the general experience of the Afghan nation in the field of familiarity and movement with the norms of democracy, human rights, and modern values. These twenty years indeed brought up a series of values in a rapid form in Afghanistan and intelligence support and mafia movements penetrated influenced those values; But at the same time, in the developmental stages of society, the gap between 2001 and 2021 is a long way; It means that the society has become familiar with many new concepts and norms in the context of this movement, and your growing movement has reached a point where, for example, you do not consider armed struggle as a solution, at least for the Hazara society, considering the reality of this society, or war. You don’t prescribe war to save society and you say that before the war, you need these other components. Finally, if one day you even decide to fight, your war won’t be a war like the Jihad period. Your war should not be like the war in the west of Kabul or the war in Mazar, it should be something different. People should feel that they have reached this stage after a deep experience and growth over time.
Now, based on this growth process, you are at a stage where you are proposing a different theory of resistance that is very similar to the non-violent civil resistance that you mentioned earlier and that we have talked about in Sheesha Media before. I want you to express your own interpretation of non-violent civil resistance in society; A struggle that makes the society achieve its goals, without imposing unwanted and unnecessary costs on it in intelligence warfare and proxy wars. I would like to say a little more that if you want to show or explain the concept of non-violent civil resistance in the strategy of restoring the ethnic power of Hazara to Hazara, in which language and with what interpretations would you do this? Basically, how do you see the place of this type of view and opinion in your strategy?
Daifoladi: As a personal experience, I want to talk about thirty years ago. Thirty years ago, the Hazara society was a platform for the clash of different ideologies: Velayat al-Faqih, Maoism, and the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PTPA). Our academic minds were occupied with these issues such as Islamic and democratic government, the proletariat, class conflict, and such.
At the same time, I came and started right where no one noticed. I came and said that you are a Hazara. It is a crime to mention Hazara.
When you say you are a Hazara, they call you an infidel. There have been a hundred years of psychological war on Hazaras. The silent century has been imposed on Hazaras. The policy of silence has been imposed on Hazaras. Hazaras have been defamed in the minds with psychological warfare. Hazara has been humiliated with defamatory jokes such as Hazara the mouse-eater, ‘Hazara-e Jowali’ [Jowali is referred to a person who carries goods], Hazara smelling like raw fish, Hazara the dog’s navel, Hazara – Shimr’s ribs [Shimr was the killer of Imam Hussain], and such. Everyone, in turn, used a bad prankster in this psychological war against Hazara to completely destroy Hazara’s image, even to humiliate Hazara in their own minds.
We came and started here. Later, there were campaigns to revive the name of Hazara; Intellectual struggles started and gradually spread to the community level. You see, where I started was completely separate from the issues raised in the discussion of ideologies and the clash of ideologies in the Hazara society. You saw that behind these issues that we raised, that is to revive the name of Hazara and that the name of Hazara should not be considered synonymous with blasphemy and crime for others, a collective unity was formed. For example, Ayatollah Naseri in Qom used to pay his tuition so that “Emroze Ma” or “Asre Baraye Adalat” magazines would be printed and distributed. Likewise, a generation joined us, and we reached that strategy and goal that today, thank God, the name of Hazara is in the national anthem, and even the Taliban also says, Hazara. There is no longer any sensitivity to saying, Hazara. As you know, Sarem had researched and calculated in Hezbe Wahdat magazine that I had repeated the ‘Hazara’ word 204 times in a short article, and he had written this fact as a document of my crime and infidelity. But today you see that everyone has become a disbeliever by saying, Hazara!
You see, today I have nothing to do with the theoretical aspects of the discussion that is being raised. Now, this struggle is non-violence. As you say, be it the Hazaristan Democratic Republic or federalism, I have nothing to do with these issues. I want to say that whatever stage you reach, whether you want to fight or whatever, the first step is your political unity. You have to become united to become a power. In terms of politics, I don’t agree with the thesis of non-violent resistance, because the types of struggles may work in one place, but it cannot be a general formula for everywhere. In Afghanistan, you have an absolute ethnic division, you don’t have a national unity where everyone can agree with you behind your thesis. What pain does the non-violence struggle of Hazara heal without the Tajik or Pashtun non-violence struggle? Next, who are you up against? This is an important point to note.
Sheesha Media: When you propose a non-violent civil resistance, you actually negate the taboo of violence and hatred that has dominated the mind and behavior and all aspects of society’s life. When you reject this violence, you reach civility.
A Special Model of Non-violent Resistance
Daifoladi: Why do I want to say that the model of non-violent struggle cannot be applied in Afghanistan?
Sheesha Media: You don’t have a general model that fits everywhere, But non-violence means that you consider violence and hatred as a plague that burns everything like a fire. In Afghanistan, you at least have the experience of this and you know what violence and hatred have done to this society. You may present your own model of non-violent resistance in Afghanistan, which is completely different from what was in India or, for example, what Ghafar Khan, Mandela, or Luther King had. Either way, you’re talking about a thesis that somehow doesn’t allow violence and hatred into your strategy. You are one of those who are careful to stay away from this plague.
Daifoladi: Exactly.
Sheesha Media: I want you to present your model here, which makes this fight special in Afghanistan. A model that makes the Hazara resistance even more special than the Pashtun or Tajik struggle. What is this model?
Daifoladi: Look, I have said many times and I will say this now and leave it to the public judgment that the war of power in Afghanistan is not in Kabul. People! Afghanistan’s power conflict is in Islamabad, Tehran, Moscow, London, Washington, Berlin, and Paris. If you look carefully at the political history of Afghanistan for 130 years after Amir Abdurrahman, you don’t have a political system built by the people or intellectuals. All these systems are imposed and designed from the outside. The same bloody centralized system of Amir Abdurrahman, which the Pashtun Monopolists are proud of and talk about its centralism, was itself an export of British India, which was created based on the colonial interests of Russia and England. Both colonial powers agreed on Amir Abdurrahman so that they could create a buffer land between them against the Ottoman Empire of Turkey. A land through which both of the colonial powers could attack the common enemy.
The central government is an external production for us. Don’t we remember how Nader Shah came to power? Wasn’t the ‘royal system’ decided by the British to come to Afghanistan and remove Amanullah from power? Well, this royal system worked and progressed until it reached the republican system. Dawood’s republican system had changed its name, but in its essence, it was the same royal system that was inherited from Nader Khan. After that, the April coup happened. Didn’t the democratic party system come with Soviet support? In the same way, wasn’t the period of terrible anarchism of Jihadi parties in Kabul an external production that was imposed on the people of Afghanistan? Wasn’t the Taliban and the Emirate system itself an external production for us that was imposed on us? Didn’t the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan come to Afghanistan with the arrival of the US and NATO armies? Where did we play a role in these systems? Where did we have the will to say that these systems were domestic products? Where did the theories that we used to fight for have entered the structure of our political system? Now, didn’t the same Islamic Emirate in its second round come again at the request of external powers and with the Doha agreement?
So, see that if we want to play a role in Afghanistan’s politics, we must play our role in regional and global games. We return to the principle that until we have political unity and this political unity is not secured in the framework of a modern party, you have no influence in regional games, nor in global equations. This is why I say that the power resistance is not in Kabul, but it is destroying Kabul. So, let’s win this war on the outside. We should win this war in places that design and export war to us. If I go to Tehran as the Hazara leader [Mohammad Mohaqiq] and thank Qasem Soleimani for organizing the Fatemiyoun army which took Hazaras to war in the Middle East for their own interests against Israel, England, America, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, I also expect that the ISIS proxy army of these powers will come to Kabul and blow up our school, hospital and sports clubs.
We could not be effective in the war of power, a part of which is in Tehran and decides for us. What did Iranian spies do? Yes, they secured Iran’s interests in Hazara, but could they also secure Hazara’s interests in Tehran? Were they able to create a guarantee that we, as an ethnicity under discrimination and oppression, in the name of Shiism and religion, will not be included in Iran’s regional war in the Middle East? This is when we see that Tehran’s policy in Afghanistan has always been racial and acted against the interests of Hazaras.
New Strategy; Regional and International Variables
Sheesha Media: Well, the policy that is formed outside of Afghanistan naturally has its big supporters. That is, those who wage a proxy war in Afghanistan, take over the political systems that rule over us. These systems indeed come from outside, but we are their audience in Afghanistan. What do you think is the place of the war in Afghanistan in your strategy to influence these external factors, and what are the things that should be done so that the voice of the society is raised in these external power circles? Otherwise, external macro-strategies may not wait for our micro-strategies at the local Hazara, Pashtun, and Tajik levels. External powers do their work, and we always remain mere analysts of the incident, nothing more, after a period of transformation managed from the outside.
Daifoladi: Look, when you talk about political unity, you are talking under the umbrella of the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara”. When you become a power with political unity and the modern formation of a political party, you enter the regional and global games with an established power. My question is why you are fueling Iran’s war in the Middle East? Because there is no authority within Hazara to make a decision and be power to prevent playing this game against the interests and strategic wishes of Hazara. On the contrary, your leader [Mohaqiq] goes to thank Qasem Soleimani, or your other leader goes to sit next to Ahmadinejad in the eulogy of Qasem Soleimani, who was killed by America and spread his photos to the world. Well, one of these leaders says that he went as the deputy head of the executive and the other says that he went as the head of the High Council for National Reconciliation. Your position is of no importance, but what right did you have as the political leaders of Hazara to thank Qasem Soleimani?
I ask that when the leader of Hazara is this much senseless that he does not consider the interests and security of Hazara inside Afghanistan and the region, what will be the result? Is it not the result that we are of zero impact in the regional games? See with what approach and policy have we entered into the regional games. What is the result of ignorance, impersonality, and bad behavior? The result is what we have now which is humiliation and vulgarity in national, regional, and global politics.
I can say with confidence that common sense also dictates that when you become a coherent power, it is impossible for regional and world political circles not to pay attention to you. There is no possibility. When you become an organized ethnic power, you present your thoughts, plans, and ideas at the national, regional, and global levels, you will be noticed.
Now that you are doing politics in the form of scattered people, who is willing to interact with you? Can you enter regional and global games with the design of the Hazaristan Democratic Republic? Yes, this plan of yours undoubtedly has ethnic consumption, but no one will hear your voice in the regional and global games. Anyone who faces you, if he doesn’t tell you, will tell himself that you are talking nonsense.
Sheesha Media: Have you considered regional and international games in the platform where you have proposed your new strategy of restoring the ethnic power of Hazara to Hazara? Another part of the society’s experience that remains from the era of ideological policies and makes everything black and white, in international relations, is either absolute servitude or absolute enmity. That is, if you were a friend, you are surrendered and you are considered to be an agent of foreign policy. If you deny it, you will face it and you will be hostile at any cost. Just as the Hazaras reach some kind of interaction in their intra-social relations and all the political elites gain their unity as a result of their interaction. In the larger context of Afghan society, they interact with each other when they talk with the ethnic groups or so-called elites of the ethnic groups. There should not be a dispute between a master and a servant or between an elder and a younger brother.
In international interaction, you also speak from the stance of power, partnership, and cooperation. Your interaction with the world is two-way. You have your goals and strategies; the world has its goals and strategies. In international relations, no one negates anyone else. Each power follows its strategies. But they find the point of interaction in the conditions or the specific context of their society. I would like to hear your summary in this section, to tell us how the phasing of your strategy has been considered in the field of interaction with national, regional, and international powers, which is becoming very wide. In other words, what measures have you taken so that the theoretical work or what you call enlightenment does not fall behind the practical needs in society? In such a way that one time regardless of your will, your proposed strategy reduces to a theoretical discussion, and you say that we had proposed this strategy, but no one acted on it.
That is, what plan have you considered so that your role and your work will not be reduced to the level of an observer who can say that we said this and predicted this, but no one acted on it, and we also had no more responsibility to impose our word on the society. How do you explain these steps in the extensive work ahead of you? If you want to change this barren process in society so that society does not fall into the dangerous pragmatism without vision that it is now suffering from. On the other hand, to prevent society from not falling into the trap of failed experiences of leaders who deal with their destiny besides finding a way to enter constructive interactions in the national and international arena calmly and methodically to keep the distance between the different components of its strategies less. In a specific way, as much as the society tries and pays attention to its political unity, it will also plant the initial seeds of its international relations and deliver its message to international circles. How do you explain these steps in the extensive work ahead of you?
Daifoladi: You see, you become an intelligence player when you deal with these entities individually. When you deal as an individual, others expect certain services from you in exchange for money; But when you become a power in the framework of the political union of a nation and a modern party, it is no longer a matter of dealing, it is interaction. The meaning of interaction is that you take something and give it something. That too in the framework of the interests of both parties, not that one side is the master and the other the slave. This is the difference between an individual transaction and a modern political party that represents a nation.
What you said about being just like an ethics teacher who said things but no one acted is no more a discussion now [partially]. Because now we are in action. Tomorrow we will say yes, we acted; But this action does not belong to one person. But if you say that I am a dirty person, a traitor, and a hypocrite, well, I will reply that why do you reduce the political unity of a nation to the moral and character traits of a person?
I promise all my friends right now through this speech that whenever the day comes when the first congress of the Modern Hazara Party is held after its political unity, I will bid farewell to everyone in the same congress with my words. Because I am no longer worried that Hazara is not the owner of a stable political system. If necessary, I will remain as a consultant and then I will come and return to creating ideas in society with my talent. I have important books to write. If you want this bad person, who has now become a leader for you, to return to his home, please answer his simple but vital question, what should we do to save the fate of the Hazara nation? This is not an individual question and it is not aimed at individual interests, it is a question for the strategy of “restoring Hazara’s ethnic power to Hazara”. I understand that this is difficult and time taking, but if we all move with awareness, honesty, and firm determination, this difficult road will be easily covered. I always tell my friends to consciously step on the path of political unity in the first and move patiently in the second. This path cannot be followed without patience and awareness. It cannot be done with emotions. The way to achieve results with awareness and patience is not destructible.
New Strategy; A hope for the Future
Sheesha Media: When you talk about the strategy of restoring the ethnic power of Hazara and show the gaps and errors of the path, at the same time, you encourage us to be patient and move with awareness in walking this path you convey hope in your words. I want to make the discussion here a bit more personal and ask how hopeful you are about the future. When you look at the future, despite the difficulties and hardships that exist, how optimistic you are that these storms will pass and this darkness that dominated the mind and psyche of the society will not remain stable and will be even shorter than in the past?
It is good to have more clarity on where your hope comes from, to warn society and say that we will not miss the opportunities that we missed in the past. Let’s be careful so that we don’t fall into a pit once again with an illusory hope that the current experience will be repeated five or ten years later. We have to move a bit more intelligently and have this intelligence so that our experiences don’t come back and repeat themselves. Pashtuns should have this intelligence within themselves, Tajiks and Uzbeks should have this intelligence within themselves, and all sections of the Afghan nation should consider it as a whole. I want you to describe your optimism to us from your point of view and tell us what you think are you sure that these storms will pass or that when they pass, they will leave nothing but ashes in their place?
Daifoladi: Look, at the beginning of the work, you should not be optimistic or pessimistic. Because you are in the process of action and optimism and pessimism are revealed by the development of events and developments that are coming. But I told you before that when you set a time for work between one and a half to two years, but once you see that the same work is achieved in three or four weeks, it is natural that it creates optimism for you that one can hope to do this great work; But apart from optimism and pessimism, I promise one thing to everyone, and that is that there may come a day when I can’t move forward; But we will never go back. We may get to a point where they can stop us there [political unity is not achieved], but they can never take us back. Because there is at least this interview behind us. This interview will remain in history and future generations will not judge me based on my positivity or negativity or the optimism and pessimism of others. Based on their rationality, they judge that at a certain point in history, on the worst day of the political turmoil of Hazara, a group came with the background of “Emroze Ma” and “Asre Baraye Adalat” and with their honesty, they reached the ethnic power of Hazara, but in the end, the enemies of Hazara’s political unity stopped them. But then they didn’t give up, they stood in their place so that the next generations can start from there. I say that nothing can stop the truth. The right path will surely reach its conclusion. There are problems. There are difficulties. There are huge challenges, But it is good to understand that success is achieved by overcoming danger. You have to risk and pass the risk to achieve success!
Message to Three Audiences: Hazaras, Afghan Nation, International Community
Sheesha Media: What are your last words for three specific audiences: your audience among the Hazara people, your audience among the Afghan nation, and your audience in the international community?
Daifoladi: My message to my Hazara audience is to listen carefully to this video and carefully read these written texts. If necessary, listen and read many times. All my words have been said in this interview.
My message to my audience among other ethnic groups is that you should not occupy your mind with secondary things. For example, Karzai keeps his mind busy in the name of intra-Afghan dialogue. Go and challenge your politicians and ask them why they don’t have political unity. What is the problem that you cannot unite? Even a very uneducated person understands that unity is better than hypocrisy. But these elites who claim so much knowledge, why have they not reached the rationality of unity? What is the problem?
For the global audience, I again address the two countries of Pakistan and Iran. I say that you should not treat Hazaras as you have done so far. This is not in the interest of your political future and your relationship with future Afghanistan. Be sure that Hazara and every ethnicity of Afghanistan will stand up and unite. Hazaras will have a modern political party sooner or later, but it’s better to treat us like human beings, not like a slaughterhouse that you consider your right to sacrifice us for your interests. We are not against anyone. But whoever imagines us in the framework of reactionary group games, as fuel for his interests, we have the right to stand up to him and speak our minds.
Sheesha Media: Thank you, Mr. Daifoladi. I hope that once again when these discussions are reflected in society, we will find an opportunity to review this feedback in the society and see how thoughts and experiences will change [becomes more refined, organized, and coherent] from this conversation that you and I are having now to the next conversation.
Daifoladi: Thank you and thank you to friends who patiently listened to these words. I hope that everyone will judge these talks rationally and not with political prejudices or trivial personal assumptions that cannot be used to prevent serious discussions in society. I hope that these words will be judged with a rational standard and when they see that reason confirms it, they will take action so that this process will succeed with collective action and will and Hazara will reach the power it deserves. thank you.
Sheesha Media: Thank you again.
