| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| After Ismail Khan, miniskirts and dating in Herat |
| 2005-11-29 |
| Despite the increased freedoms in the city of one million people, many are still conservative. There may be miniskirts in the shop windows but not on the street WITH a flawless face and marble-smooth arms, a busty blonde mannequin dummy displays a miniskirt in a boutique in Afghanistanâs western city of Herat, where most women wear the bag-like burqa. In the war-scarred capital Kabul, the dummy would hardly attract a second glance. But in Herat, once ruled by powerful warlord Ismail Khan who oppressed women almost as much as the fundamentalist Taliban, the display is a revolution. âHer name is Venus,â says shopkeeper Aresh Azizi of the mannequin in a glittering window display in his newly opened Western-style shop. âUnder Khan you had to cover the faces of mannequins just as women cover their faces,â recalls the 25-year-old who has himself had a style change, recently abandoning the traditional shalwar kamiz of baggy trousers and a long shirt for a Western-type suit. Since the former holy warrior was transferred to Kabul by US-backed President Hamid Karzai in September 2004, more women visit Aziziâs shop. Most would have not dared to enter just over a year ago. The removal of Khan, who ruled Herat as his own personal fiefdom, was part of a plan secretly backed by the United States and the United Nations to reduce the power of Afghanistanâs regional warlords and their private armies. Karzai ordered the silver-bearded Khan to the capital to serve as energy minister, a sector in which he has some experience. He guaranteed 24-hour power to Herat, much of it from Iran, while Kabulâs supply lasts only a few hours a week. Khanâs departure met with resistance. Several people were killed in riots and the offices of UN and other aid agencies were torched by his supporters opposed to the appointment, which Khan took several months to accept. While the ethnic Tajik strongman was criticised by rights groups for his strict stance on women, including barring them from being alone with men who were not relatives, he won local support by putting money into public works. One such project is Bagh-i-Milat park on a hillside on the outskirts of the city. Young men and women now visit its several fountains and restaurants on dates; in Khanâs time they would have been arrested. âI come here with my girlfriend - itâs fun,â says a 22-year-old student, who asked not to be identified. âIsmail Khan would have killed me if I was seen here with a girl,â he told AFP. Sitting cross legged in one of the restaurants, filled with smoke from bubbling chilams (pipes), two students sip from Pepsi cans filled with vodka smuggled from a base of about 800 mainly Italian NATO-led peacekeepers in the city. Drinking alcohol is prohibited by both Islam and by Afghanistanâs constitution, a ban Khan enforced strictly. Despite the increased freedoms in the city of one million people, many are still conservative. There may be miniskirts in the shop windows but not on the street. âYoung women wear them only to wedding parties,â Azizi said. Men and women sit in separate rooms at weddings in Afghanistan. âGod knows what women wear inside their room,â jokes a director of a popular wedding hall. Despite being cut off from his regional power base, Khan remains an important figure in Herat. About 10 of his supporters made their way into the parliament elected in September, said university lecturer and journalist Ahmad Saeed Aqiqi. âHe will have his own men at the parliament,â he told AFP. Many in the well-ordered city miss Khan. âHe built streets, clinics and schools. He brought us electricity, good security - he was good, but Karzai took him away from us,â says car parts salesman Ali Reza. âHe is a good Muslim. He was working for the good of his people,â says 34-year-old teacher Mohammad Shafiq. Khan, now in his 60s, declared himself governor of Herat province after he and several other former mujahideen helped the United States topple the Taliban in late 2001. While governor he refused to hand over to the central administration millions of dollars in tariffs from trade with neighbouring Iran and Turkmenistan, annoying Karzaiâs cash-strapped government. Instead he used the money on roads, schools, hospitals and factories, turning the war-damaged city into the most prosperous in Afghanistanâs 34 provinces. âHe was bad at limiting our freedoms and he was good because he worked on reconstruction,â recalls Shaker Payman. âI like him for the one and I donât for the other.â |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #4 England at that time was more or less ethnically and linguistically homogenous (pace the Scots and the Welsh). This is most certainly NOT the case in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has only a limited identity as a country and needs a coherent Afghan identity to be constructed. In the United States, that occurred in part through (believe it or not) the creation of West Point, where future military and political leaders identified with the nation as a whole and not with their original state. Until that sort of common identity is formed, federalism is a recipe for conflict and corruption rather than for accountability. |
| Posted by: lotp 2005-11-29 15:35 |
| #3 Anonymoose: This individual is also needed at the national level for the best of all reasons: he is efficient with public works. Efficiency in government is the most stabilizing factor around, to help keep a government in power. I don't think this suggestion would go over too well stateside. The fact is that a governor appointed by the central government will try to please the central government, not the people of his province. A federal system is a better idea for the same reason that a feudal system worked better for England back in the day - the nobility kept the king in check, first forcing upon him the Magna Carta, while retaining the right to defy him by force of arms if necessary. These weren't mere formalities - Oliver Cromwell finally defanged the English monarchy by taking off Bonny Prince Charlie's head. A governor appointed by the central government is worse than no governor at all. |
| Posted by: Elmenter Snineque1852 2005-11-29 14:03 |
| #2 Historically, warlords have been the bane of Afghanistan. They were the flip-side of invasion by foreigners, evolving decentralized power to combat the foreigners. However, when the foreigners left, the warlords were at each others' throats, each wanting to be the Khan. This resulted in constant warfare that lasted for unending centuries. They really need to evolve beyond the warlord system, to have a national presence before they can evolve a federal presence. This individual is also needed at the national level for the best of all reasons: he is efficient with public works. Efficiency in government is the most stabilizing factor around, to help keep a government in power. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-11-29 09:14 |
| #1 Article: While governor he refused to hand over to the central administration millions of dollars in tariffs from trade with neighbouring Iran and Turkmenistan, annoying Karzaiâs cash-strapped government. Instead he used the money on roads, schools, hospitals and factories, turning the war-damaged city into the most prosperous in Afghanistanâs 34 provinces. This is too bad - I've always thought Afghanistan was better off with warlords ruling the provinces. What I don't get is why State Department people always seem to think the foreign countries are better off with Chinese-style central government rule where the capital appoints local officials instead of the federal model we have stateside. At the very least, the governor of Herat should have been elected. Afghanistan's traditions were ripe for a federal-type government, but State seems to have either bowed to Karzai's overbearing instincts or insisted upon centralized government. Either way, State is paving the way for tyranny. |
| Posted by: Elmenter Snineque1852 2005-11-29 01:56 |