Solidarity with Afghan women
FEMINIST DISSENT STANDS IN SOLIDARITY WITH AFGHAN WOMEN AND WITH ALL THOSE FIGHTING FUNDAMENTALISM
Feminist Dissent sees fundamentalist movements as modern political movements of the far right which use religion to exercise authoritarian control, especially over women. The Taliban was never seen by us as simply a form of medievalist Pashtun tribalism, and certainly not as a liberation movement. The dominant views from the ‘anti-imperialist left’, Western ‘peace’ movements, Western governments and counter-terror establishments converge in ways that both stereotype and sanitise the Taliban.
…
The British Chief of Defence Staff Nick Carter’s claim that the Taliban want an ‘inclusive’ Afghanistan builds on the convenient myth that the Taliban are merely ‘tribal’, romantic men of honour who will keep order in the Badlands by controlling international jihadists so that they do not trouble Western capitals. Both US President Biden and UK Prime Minister Johnson share this view. It is a dangerous, racist, and self-serving fantasy. For the people of the region across the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, the twenty-year war that started in December 2001 is not ending but is being continued by other means.
The Taliban began as a creation of the Pakistani military establishment and could not have succeeded without its backing. The movement’s goal is the subjugation of Afghanistan, the erasure of women from public space, and the destruction of every positive aspect of Afghan culture, both traditional and modern. As Karima Bennoune, the UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights, has said, “Afghan cultural rights defenders have worked tirelessly and at great risk…to reconstruct and protect this heritage, as well as to create new culture. Afghan cultures are rich, dynamic and syncretic and entirely at odds with the harsh worldview of the Taliban”.
Via Gita Sahgal
Only one word is needed to describe the Taliban’s expectations: submission. And by a lucky coincidence, it dovetails perfectly with Islam.
What is the meaning of this?
How can a supposedly secular constitution rally women that belong to a particular religion for their right to citizenship?
And what is the need for constitution rallying a segment of the population for their right to citizenship?
Is it not the duty of a constitution to protect the right to citizenship of all citizens?
I think in context it’s clear enough.
It’s a list of ways secular universalists have disputed the claim that secularism and universalism are “Western imperial projects.” A secular constitution isn’t forbidden to mention religion.
Ophelia,
Thanks for the clarification. It makes better sense now.
You’re welcome. I found a lot of interesting history and discussion when I Googled for more information.