Wednesday 15 May 2019

A hope at the hearth of violence

After more than one and half decades of international collaborations, still, violence and insecurity are the major challenges in Afghanistan. In early 2013 I was condemned to death because my novel was found blasphemous by a clergyman in Kabul. Since then further intolerance has been reported.

In Afghanistan decades of war have seen millions of people escaping for overseas and Hazaras particularly to Australia. I am one of those, in 2012 I published a novel which tells the story of a young couple from Uruzgan whose lives are changed by education. The man challenges dogmatism and violence and writes for open-mindedness and tolerance, while the young woman tries to stand up as the Uruzgan’s first ever female MP.  The novel, somehow represents the perspective of a bitter hope in the future of the country.  Titled Gumnaami (Anonymity), the novel soon became controversial and in January 2013, I was accused of blasphemy and a death fatwa was declared upon my life. I escaped to India, where I was granted refugee status by UNHCR, and later I was granted a humanitarian visa by the Australian Government to reside in this country with my family. 

In Afghanistan, religious textbooks are imposed on the curricula from the first year to year 12. These texts preach sectarian dogma. One example is “Mahdaweyat” which is taught in a year 12 subject, teaches that 'after 14 century Imam Mahdi is still alive, waiting to return and expand Islam worldwide following the Liberal Democracy being defeated'. It is a matter of fact that a curriculum which encourages tolerance, avoid violence, and allows open discussion on everything including belief systems is essential. As for Afghanistan that is the only way for long-lasting stability and peace.
In March 2015 a false accusation of burning the Holy Book led a young woman to death. Her name was Farkhunda. She was beaten brutally and her body was burned a few hundred meters away from the presidential palace in capital Kabul. There has been a long history if atrocity but there is a hope of change through education in Afghanistan.

The insurgency bounds on lack of education and ignorance. The high rates of illiteracy and poverty forces vulnerable youths to insurgency groups. This is one reason the Taliban continue to violently campaign against schools and education. According to Mr. Habib Ulrahman the head of Provincial Department of Education of Uruzgan: “The number of schools in that province has increased from 34 to 284 since 2002. By 2013 more than seventy thousand students attended school, around ten thousand of them females.” The Ministry of Education of Afghanistan announced that there are currently 10.5 million boys and girls attending schools throughout the country and 1.7 million students are enrolled by late March 2015. These are very encouraging figures but the question of the quality of education remains experimental. In last March a survey from 13 main provinces of Afghanistan conducted by the Australian Council for Educational Research found out that: “More than one-third of students in Class 6 cannot answer questions that require them to add two-digit numbers (eg 22 + 49).” It appears that Afghanistan’s educational achievements are mostly quantitative rather than qualitative. Insecurity is a major contributing factor to the poor standard of education, but this is exacerbated by the lack of a competency-based secular system of education.

On March 15th, 2015 in a school surrounded by muddy houses in a slum of Kabul, a man drew the world’s attention. Aziz Royesh was awarded as one of the ten best teachers in the world. Aziz who himself is only educated until year five founded his school 13 years ago and has been successfully educating young Afghans in one of the most dangerous places in the world for teachers.

Following the Soviet invasion in 1979, Aziz left Kabul for his village in the central highlands. In the village, he was one of the few who were not illiterate. With the assistance of local people, Aziz started teaching the alphabet to a small group of boys. By the mid-1980s, with the support of the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, Aziz had successfully established six schools with a total attendance of more than 2,000 male students. At the time no girls were culturally allowed to attend these schools or literacy courses.

After the 9/11 attacks in the US when International forces cracked down on the Taliban regime a new era began in Afghanistan. Aziz moved back to Kabul and launched the Marefat High School. This time he challenged cultural norms and enrolled girls together with boys. In his newly established school, Aziz built close relations with the parents of his students. Aziz was not only a teacher but a community activist who lived and worked amongst the local people and his students. This progressive approach resulted in trialing new methods of teaching. Aziz wrote his own textbooks in an attempt to modernise the training and replace the traditional religious-based curriculum. Using the new textbooks helped the students to gain self-awareness, self-confidence and an insight into contemporary thinking. Aziz became a lever for social mobility providing information and support for paving the way towards a new society.

In a conservative society where the Taliban and other fanatics are still killing teachers, destroying schools, burning books and imposing violent actions against public education; Aziz has always faced multiple threats in his efforts to provide education. In 2009, the religious Shia Family Law legalizing marital rape was repealed due to an enormous public pressure including a demonstration mainly organised by the female students of Marefat High School. This demonstration was unique as it brought quality education together with social interaction. In reaction to the demonstration, Marefat High School was ransacked by bigoted clerics, shouting: “We want to kill him (Aziz) and burn his school”. Thankfully, the police intervened and the school and Aziz remained unscathed. The day after the attack almost all the students attended school, many of them accompanied by their parents offering flowers to the teachers.

In 2012, the first group of students graduated from year 12 from Marefat High School. Many of them went on to higher education. By the end of 2014, 163 students of Marefat High School won scholarships in overseas including 17 in the US. The Marefat is currently ranked as one of the best schools in Afghanistan.

I am one of many who have left to seek safety. Many journalists, writers have been killed in Afghanistan and hundreds or maybe thousands of Afghans have died on the way. Risking the journey takes courage and there are many different factors pushing people out of their home countries, for Hazaras these include historical injustice, systematic discrimination, fanatic violence, and the Taliban insurgency.

Aziz’s story demonstrated by the public challenge through his female students against the Shia Family Law exemplified how civic education can help people to react peacefully against the laws that affect them one way or another.

Bringing change to this war-torn country through education is more effective and cost-efficient than using guns. Expanding the Marefat model of education is a strategy for rebuilding Uruzgan. With a literacy rate of 8 percent for men and 0.6 percent for women, Uruzgan needs qualified teachers. Australia’s continued support to Uruzgan could be complemented by piloting a scholarship for Uruzgan’s potential students to do their tertiary studies in Marefat. In this way, young people could be exposed to new ideas and return to Uruzgan to expand their potentials of knowledge to peace.

If the story of hope in my novel comes to reality in a larger scale through educating young Afghans, the current violence and persecution against women, minorities, and those who think differently can be reduced and all Afghans will be able to stay safely in their home country.


Note: This piece was written in 2015, but somehow remained as a draft in this blog.


Tuesday 14 May 2019

Official Uses of Political Correctness

The widespread intention to avoid using discriminatory language has been going on for decades. Euphemism has been used along with creating alternative terms to blunting the prejudicial undertone in the language. The “attempt to artificially manipulate language use for a social goal” (Hale & Basides 2013, p. 77) is called Political Correctness (PC). 
As an established purposeful effort to “camouflage life’s harsh realities” (Halmari, 2011, p. 828), PC dates back to the 1990s.  Since then, PC has expanded extensively and governed the language in various parts of societal discourses including the official uses of language. This essay identifies the approach toward the official uses of PC and discusses the ways in which PC has been utilised as a pretext to manipulate other people’s language use. Although the legacy of equality and use of non-discriminatory language have sustained PC, the idea of prescribing people how to use the language is intrinsically unequal. 
Political correctness is powerful (Hale, 2016); it means that PC can affect people in various ways. Through governing the use of language, PC changes the way in which people think about one another as well as affecting how they perceive themselves. The very fundamental consent of PC as the “idea of appropriateness” (Hale, 2016) was appeared to be sound at the beginning and accepted extensively upon as beneficial.  Nevertheless, the power of PC, in practice, has not been complying its initial intent as Rojas-Lizana (2014) contends “it centres on those who have the power to impose their views and how their discourse is used to perpetuate and ‘normalize’ dominant ideologies” (p. 3).  Consequently, the influence of PC is exploited to manipulate the use of language and PC has utilised in favour of power rather than in avoiding discrimination. Thus, to some extent, PC is being criticised because of various reasons. One of the foremost critiques of PC is that it is imposing an adverse effect on equality, therefore, it has lost its credibility. Allan & Burridge (2006) argue that “something supportive of equal opportunity, tolerance, sensitivity, open-mindedness, courtesy, and decency, become so disparaged?” (p. 91). Discussing the official uses of PC could be of assistance to identify its power and effects in society.
The idea of scepticism and freedom of questioning everything including the official uses of PC is highly important. Emerging as a commanding force of society, PC has been challenged not only through authoritative critiques but also by public resistance “because it is seen as highly arbitrary and imposed and without wide social conventionality” (Hale & Basides 2013, p. 77). The instance of referencing to gender in a discourse of official language shows a perfect pattern of official uses of PC while resisted by others.  According to Yoong (2014), “term chairman, the male generic, can be used to denote either a man or a woman. But feminists have argued that male generics are not generic at all. Maleness is presumed and women are rendered invisible when it is used” (p. 1). While the resistance based on gender or any other social categories is continuing, the more important issue which still remains experimental is that how far the PC can really improve the social inequality in favour of those who suffered.  
The official uses of PC are more observable in the speech of politicians.  Following the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the US President said: “Islam is peace” (The Press Secretary of the White House, 2001). In fact, Islam is not peace, it is a religion for worshiping God, and seeks peace after the resurrection rather than in the actual reality of the contemporary world. In some extent the desire of political aspiration has always been the force behind euphemism, therefore, PC is stretched beyond its original intention which was avoiding discrimination. Following the massive publication for euphemism and attempts in bringing syntactic and lexical change in referencing social categories as well as the renaming of various organisation departments and institutions (Halmari, 2011), official uses of PC have been remarkably successful in forcing people to change their linguistic behaviours. 
In conclusion, PC will continue to be utilised as an excuse of manipulating the use of language, unless the intention of prescribing people how to use the language does not replace euphemism.



References:

Allan, K. & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. New York, USA: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://uwsau.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=307385
Hale, A. (2016). Week 9 lecture, Western Sydney University
Hale, A. & Basides, H. (2013). The keys to academic English. Melbourne: Palgrave Macmillan.
Halmari, H. (2011). Political correctness, euphemism, and language change: The case of ‘people first’. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(3), 828-840.
Office of the Press Secretary. (2001). "Islam is peace" says president: Remarks by the president at Islamic centre of Washington, D.C. Retrieved on 23/04/16 from http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
Rojas-Lizana, I. (2014). Perceived discrimination in LGBTIQ from Australia: A typology of verbal discrimination. Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies, 11(1), Retrieved on  25/04/2016 from https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/portal/article/view/3303/4363
Yoong, Y. (2014). Pull up a chair, we need to talk about sexist language at work. The Conversation. Retrieved on  25/04/2016 from  https://theconversation.com/pull-up-a-chair-we-need-to-talk-about-sexist-language-at-work-31869