Afghanistan: Taliban tolerate free speech, but only by some ‘big fish’

For the two decades of Western intervention in Afghanistan, during which freedom of speech blossomed, the Taliban waged an insurgency whose tactics included bombing media outlets and assassinating journalists.

in addition after their return to strength, Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen declared, “We believe in freedom of speech.” Indeed, senior Taliban officials have since submitted to being grilled on TV by some of the journalists they once sought to kill.

Why We Wrote This

The Taliban returned to strength professing a belief in freedom of speech. But in practice, they are silencing critics consist with their approach to imposing control over Afghan society.

But the example of Naveed Jan, who was killed after social media posts that were modestly basic of the Taliban, illustrates the risks of criticizing the new order in Afghanistan. The Taliban are showing a fierce determination to snuff out dissent. Those Afghans wanting to freely express basic views have been placed under months of intimidation and fear. Analysts say that’s consist with the Taliban’s approach to imposing control over society.

“The problem, when it comes to criticism, is the Taliban don’t go for the big fish; they go for the small fish,” says Rahmatullah Amiri, a Kabul-based expert. “They are very systematically targeting those small fish to close the chapter on freedom of speech. The Taliban belief is always that … if you don’t control community from the grassroots, you won’t be able to control it at the national level.”

LONDON

For the Taliban, seemingly, Naveed Jan had proved himself too dangerous to be allowed to live.

Despite limiting himself to modestly basic social media posts after the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan, the civil society activist was hauled away by the Taliban in late November.

Mr. Jan was never to be seen alive again by his family, who have posted photos of his body online and mourn him as a “martyr of free speech.”

Why We Wrote This

The Taliban returned to strength professing a belief in freedom of speech. But in practice, they are silencing critics consist with their approach to imposing control over Afghan society.

For the two decades of U.S.-led intervention in Afghanistan, during which freedom of speech blossomed, the Taliban waged an insurgency whose tactics included bombing media outlets and an assassination campaign that targeted civil society activists and journalists.

in addition in August, Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen declared, “We believe in freedom of speech.” Indeed, since taking control, senior Taliban officials have submitted to being grilled on nationwide television channels by some of the journalists they once sought to kill.

But the lethal consequence for Mr. Jan illustrates the risks of criticizing the new order in Afghanistan, already as the Taliban demonstrate an range of differing standards over what they consider permissible levels of free speech – from taking tough questions on TV, on the one hand, to stamping out women’s rights protests and beating, jailing, and already killing Afghan activists and media workers, on the other.

Those Afghans wanting to freely express basic views have been placed under months of intimidation and fear, often being hunted by the Taliban, according to a multitude of testimonials.

Grassroots control

Taliban actions so far show both a rare commitment to freedom of speech and a fierce determination to snuff out local voices of dissent – no matter how marginal – in the service of the Taliban’s self-declared Islamic Emirate. Analysts say that’s in keeping both with the Taliban’s thin skin, and with their approach to imposing control over Afghan society.

“The problem, when it comes to criticism, is the Taliban don’t go for the big fish; they go for the small fish,” says Rahmatullah Amiri, a Kabul-based independent analyst and expert on the Taliban. “They are very systematically targeting those small fish to close the chapter on freedom of speech.

“The Taliban belief is always that you have to work from the low level, that if you don’t control community from the grassroots, you won’t be able to control it at the national level,” Mr. Amiri says.

“If you want to make sure there is no future forest, you don’t cut the big trees; you [instead] don’t allow the little trees to grow,” he adds. That strategy has evoked little international outcry and has been used effectively for years to “unprotected to broader aims,” he says, compared with the “easily noticeable” targeting of higher-profile people.

See details