"VAN" (Afghanistan Bureau) :: In Afghanistan, certain people are usually giving specific perspectives to objections, having links with ethnic and other issues. It is not important what basis an objection has, certainly, it has links with social, ethnic… issues. What is more important is the criticism itself and it must be asked why an objection has been raised against a certain event. I pointed towards this issue as a pre-emptive step to prevent the linking of objections to certain issues.
The main question is: “Is nomadic life a way of life or nomads are ethnic armed groups?” If a nomadic life is a way of living then what is the standard of such a lifestyle? Could this lifestyle be attributed to Pashtuns only or people from other ethnic groups like Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and… have a similar lifestyle? If the standard for such a lifestyle is owning sheep and sheep herding, people from other ethnic groups including Uzbeks, Hazaras and Tajiks have a similar lifestyle. Why the people of other ethnic groups have similar privileges?
It is said that the nomads have no properties, therefore they are entitled to go anywhere and live anywhere they want to live. I and many others have no properties in any part of Afghanistan. We live in rented houses in Kabul. If the lack of ownership of a property is a standard then the government should give us similar privileges that the nomads enjoy from.
We are all aware that the government has implemented projects of resettlement and distribution of lands to nomads. It should be investigated how much land the government has distributed to nomads in Kabul, Parwan and other provinces. The question arises regarding the population of nomads as compared to the amount of land distributed to them.
If the government is committed to distributing lands to those who do not own land under the name of ‘Nomads’, then why it is not it is not distributing homes to others who also lack ownership of land? The Wakhanis in Wakhan district of Badakhshan live in one of the coldest and mountainous regions of Afghanistan, why do not have the privileges which they should have? The Kojars still do not have the right to obtain national identity cards and their children have no right to be enrolled in schools, why the government is not paying attention to them and why the Kojars do not have the right to citizenship?
The nomads have 11 concessive seats in the parliament, why such a privilege has been given to them? Their statistical number in terms of the population of Afghanistan is clear! Do they have more population than the residents of Parwan and Kapisa? Parwan has 6 preventives and Kapisa has 4 provinces in the Lower House.
Article 5th of the Elections Law states that the voters participate in the election with their free will. It is prohibited to impose direct or indirect limitations on voters and candidates considering their language, religion, ethnicity, gender and social standing.
The question arises once again that why the government is not considering to impose the limitation on nomads as per the Article 5th of the Elections Law? Meanwhile, Article 2 of the Elections Law states that the elections are held through open, general and direct votes. Why the nomads are not included in general elections?
If being a nomad is the way of life then such a way life cannot be exclusively attributed to specific individuals of an ethnic group. Individuals in other ethnic groups have a similar lifestyle. Since the issue of goodwill is not considered, why such individuals are included in such political, social and legal privileges, for which the government must be held accountable.
As per the citizenship rights, offering political privileges to certain people under the name of nomads is against the principle of equality considering the political and social values. The nomads of Afghanistan have similar rights to vote or run for a post, equally as the other Afghan citizens. The elections are held in Afghanistan on a general basis therefore the nomads can vote or run for a post.
The issue of nomads and political privileges being offered under the name of nomads are not understandable considering the citizenship, social, ethnic and political rights, doesn’t matter from what angle it is looked. The issue of nomads is against the rights of citizenship and national unity.
Let us think about the national unity considering the principles of rights of citizenship and interests of the nation, side-lining the specific affections and hatred.
Do nomads have more population than the residents of Parwan and Kapisa provinces who have more political rights in the parliament?
It is not only the issue of Citizenship and Political Rights of ethnic groups which should be addressed but the issue of violation of citizenship and political rights of the whole nation since the privileges being offered to nomads violate the citizenship and political rights of the whole nation of Afghanistan.
It would be better that the government would act with transparency when it comes to the issue of the nomads considering the basic principle values. Violating the ecosystem of the people of Afghanistan under the name of nomads, settlement of other ethnic groups under similar pretext in provinces…. is not accurate. The people of Afghanistan have the right to live in any part of Afghanistan but it would be better that such resettlements take place considering the modern social and urban principles including the need for resettlement including employment and trade. The ethnic tensions would rise if the government continues to its policies of supporting nomads and ethnic dominance, which would have negative consequences on social affairs in Afghanistan.
KP
Responses
Leave your comment