Stop Chasing the Past and Start Building the Future?

 

Over the past few days, social media has once again been consumed by arguments over history. Who killed Sardar Daoud Khan? Who poisoned Amir? Who was responsible for the death of Hafizullah Amin? And who did what a century ago?

I want to be careful here, because history matters, and these are not trivial questions. Understanding what happened, and why, is part of how a society learns from its mistakes and holds power accountable. My concern isn't that we ask these questions. It's that we seem to only ask these questions — the same accusations, recycled every few months, rarely moving an inch closer to resolution, and almost never followed by the harder question: now what?

Watching one of these threads unfold this week, a man in his sixties and a young university student were trading the exact same arguments their fathers likely traded thirty years ago — same accusations, same certainty, same dead end. Neither walked away from the conversation with anything new. Neither will look up next week and ask what to do about the schools in their own city.

That's the pattern I want to name: we relitigate the unchangeable past with more energy than we discuss the changeable present. How much longer will we keep chasing our own tails, while neglecting the conversations that could actually shape Afghanistan's future?

Imagine if even a fraction of that energy went instead toward questions like: What would it take to get more girls back into classrooms in a given province? What does a functioning judiciary look like given the constraints we're actually operating under? How do we build economic opportunity for a generation that has known almost nothing but instability? These aren't easier questions. But they're ours to actually work on, and arguing about them moves something forward. Arguing about who poisoned whom in 1979 does not.

Instead of asking only "Who was responsible?" — we should also be asking "What is my responsibility today?"

Part of what keeps us stuck, I think, is a habit of conversation where questioning an elder, a leader, or a long-settled narrative is treated as disrespect rather than as a normal part of thinking. I've watched a young person raise a reasonable question about a widely accepted account of events and get shut down — not with a counter-argument, but with silence, or a version of "that's not for you to question." That habit is small in any single instance, but it adds up to a culture where very few ideas ever get pressure-tested, including the ones that badly need it.

We don't need to abandon history to fix that. We need to add something alongside it: a willingness to challenge assumptions, follow evidence, and treat disagreement as useful rather than disloyal.

That is why I've made a personal commitment to publish at least one article every week focused on where we go from here — not instead of history, but in addition to it. To me, that's what a space like Facebook should be used for: not just airing opinions about the past, but building the habit of thinking together about the future.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Iran's war on Afghan Refugees

Taliban's Illusion of Exceptions

Surprisingly, I Was Wrong Not to Vote for Trump