RASC News Agency: Dr. Mohiuddin Mehdi, a former member of Afghanistan’s parliament and a political researcher, has sharply criticized the views of Anwar-ul-Haq Ahadi, the former finance minister of Afghanistan, regarding what he describes as the “superiority of Afghans (Pashtuns) and their exclusive right to political rule.” In a critical note published on his Facebook page, Mehdi argued that such claims have no scientific, historical, or legal basis.
According to Mehdi, Ahadi portrays “Afghans” (Pashtuns) as superior to other ethnic groups in Afghanistan and, on that basis, considers them uniquely entitled to govern the country. Mehdi writes that Ahadi justifies this position through several arguments: the alleged longer historical presence of Afghans (Pashtuns) in the territory, their larger population size, the lack of a “common denominator” among other ethnic groups, and the claim that since other ethnicities have independent states in the region, Afghans (Pashtuns) are therefore entitled to define Afghanistan as their exclusive ethno-political domain.
Mehdi, however, argues that these claims have already been repeatedly challenged by scholars and critics and are, from the perspective of history, sociology, and political science, “scientifically invalid.” He stresses that this narrative is nothing more than a reproduction of the traditional discourse of an “Afghan (Pashtun) nation” a discourse that relies on ethnic myth-making and the appropriation of the concept of nationhood rather than on a realistic analysis of Afghanistan’s social structure.
Yet, Mehdi considers the most dangerous aspect of Ahadi’s argument not these classical claims, but Ahadi’s final assertion: that the legitimacy of Afghan (Pashtun) rule is based not on citizenship rights or a social contract, but on “military conquest.” According to Mehdi, Ahadi effectively argues that Afghanistan is a land conquered by figures such as Ahmad Shah Durrani, Dost Mohammad Khan, Abdur Rahman Khan, Mullah Mohammad Omar, and ultimately Mullah Hibatullah and therefore constitutes the political property of Afghans (Pashtuns).
Mehdi describes this claim as “the complete collapse of political (rationality)” in Ahadi’s discourse. At this level, he argues, neither history nor logic is relevant anymore; instead, “force, coercion, and displays of power” replace any form of political reasoning. In Mehdi’s words, this worldview defines Afghanistan not as a pluralistic civic society, but as a war trophy.
He adds that the core problem with such a narrative is that it cannot be meaningfully addressed within a rational dialogue, because its language is the language of (force), not argument. For this reason, Mehdi believes confronting this discourse requires a fundamental shift at the level of political concepts.
According to Mehdi, only two real tools exist to break this logic of domination: first, rejecting the imposed “Afghan (Pashtun)” identity as a universal political identity; and second, redefining the country’s name and political framework in a non-ethnic form, such as “Khorasan.” He emphasizes that these should not be treated as slogans, but as a “political strategy” against the project of ethnic monopolization.
Overall, Dr. Mohiuddin Mehdi’s note is not merely a critique of one individual, but a critique of an entire intellectual tradition a tradition that, in his view, sees Afghanistan not as a diverse society of equal citizens, but as the historical property of a single ethnic group. A tradition that ultimately, instead of building a nation, has consistently produced violence, exclusion, and instability.
