To some, Ambassador Munir Akram’s credentials as an astute diplomat are strong enough to earn him due respect in Islamabad and also the honour to represent Pakistan abroad even after years of retirement. To many, Akram figures amongst the top ten professional multilateralists the country has produced since independence. Last week, he was in the news but for an entirely different set of reasons. His expertise and knowledge about the Pashtun culture in Afghanistan was seriously put to test. Akram’s remarks that the ban on women’s education and work in Afghanistan was rooted in Pashtun culture, raised several eyebrows and questions. As Pakistan’s PR at the United Nations, he opined that the Pashtun culture and not the religion would require women to stay at home.
It was then no surprise that his remarks made during the humanitarian briefing on Afghanistan were met with sharp criticism by Pashtuns both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Former Senator Afrasiab Khattak called these remarks an ‘insult to Pashtuns’ while asking if Pakistan represented the Taliban? Terming the remarks, a ‘shameful act’, former Dy Minister of Afghanistan Shah Mahmood Miakhel observed that ‘millions of girls in the Pashtun areas on both sides of the Durand line attend schools and are active members of their society.’
Lamenting the factually incorrect perception about Afghan women, a junior Pashtun officer in the Foreign Office reminded us of the pre-Taliban era when girls freely attended schools, colleges and universities. In this regard, he mentioned the admirable level of education in Urban Afghanistan and quoted a few names of prominent Afghan women who excelled in their respective fields. For instance, the names of Fatima Amiri, Zahra Joya, and Tamana Zaryab Paryani, three Afghan ladies, were included in the BBC 2022-list of 100 influential women. In addition, the visibly disturbed young officer mentioned Fawzia Koofi, Habiba Sarabi and Maryem Rayed, three more Afghan ladies, who served their country as the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Minister of Women’s Affairs and Deputy Director for Foreign Affairs respectively.
A day after Ambassador Akram drew flak from Pashtuns and human rights activists, he offered ‘regrets’ and subsequently apologized for the hurt caused by his comments, adding, ‘I misspoke & my words did not accurately reflect Pakistan’s position.’ Simultaneously, the Foreign Office clarified that ‘enterprising and innovative Afghan women should not be deprived of their rights to progress’ while reiterating what the Ambassador might have reflected in his remarks. ‘Pakistan is a country that accords equal status to women.’ As the Ambassador of Pakistan, he was required to spell out Islamabad’s policy rather than commenting on Kabul’s or for that matter the Pashtun culture.
Looking at the statement from the diplomatic point of view, a few questions could be raised. However, to put the matter in context, let us first see what the Ambassador actually said. This is what he said: ‘From our perspective, the restrictions that have been put by the Afghani interim government, flow not so much from a religious perspective as from a peculiar cultural perspective of the Pashtun culture which requires women to be kept at home. And this is a peculiar distinctive cultural reality of Afghanistan which has not changed for hundreds of years.’
When a Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary Ambassador says something at a formal forum such as the UN, he or she voices the country’s policy. In this case, saying that ‘from our perspective’ meant ‘from Pakistan’s point of view’. In reality, by no means was it Pakistan’s view. The question is: can a diplomat of a country officially represent another country or try to defend another country’s case at the UN and that too by mentioning certain contours of their culture, customs and usages? More importantly, can the restrictions imposed by any government as a policy, be vindicated through morally justifying arguments?
Instead of dwelling on the ‘distinctive cultural reality of Afghanistan which has not changed for hundreds of years’, we might be focused on the prevailing ground realities in order to try finding a pragmatic way forward. Come to think of it, what good would this ‘argument’ do to either extend legitimacy to the government in Kabul or return the frozen Afghan assets of around nine billion dollars?
In a politically charged atmosphere whereby the Taliban interim government says Islamabad should not blame Kabul for the recent Peshawar suicide bombing while Islamabad expects ‘sincere cooperation’ from Kabul to address the ‘challenges of terrorism’, it is advisable to at least avoid additional diplomatic irritants or casting aspersions on the already complicated Pak-Afghan relations. Instead of shedding light on Pashtun culture, we might be drawing the world’s attention to the presence of more than four million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and seek additional assistance. Or, take follow-up actions in Washington and New York on Ned Price’s recent announcement of extending help to Pakistan in its counterterrorism endeavors.
Defending Kabul while not recognizing the Afghan interim government creates a paradoxical situation. Additionally, sending high-level delegations to Kabul to devise ‘new mechanisms of cooperation’ also shows the inability of Pakistan’s Foreign Office to come up with a clear-cut policy on Afghanistan. A paradoxical situation in international relations must first be understood before endeavoring to clear the air. In the case of Afghanistan, such a situation could only be understood by recognizing the imperatives of realpolitik, ground realities and the prevailing regional environment. To begin with, Islamabad needs to realize that Afghanistan is an independent sovereign country with a ‘peculiar distinctive culture’ and history. The rest will be easy.