Thank you so much.
Chair and members of the committee, today I stand before you to address a complex and troubling chapter in the history of Afghanistan that continues to haunt us.
I am a researcher dedicated to issues of law, human rights and scholarship, and it is my duty to unravel the intricate threads of history, analyze its lessons, and apply this knowledge to advocate for human rights.
The late nineteenth century brought significant transformation to Afghanistan. It was a time when power dynamics shifted from a decentralized tribal monarchy to a centralized one. Amir Abdur Rahman played a pivotal role in this transformation as he embarked on a ruthless campaign to bolster his authority. His objective was clear: to eliminate any perceived threats to his monarchy, be they ethnic chiefs or individuals in positions of power who might challenge him. In his pursuit of power, he employed a range of strategies, from deploying religious arguments to wielding tribal and even brute force. None, regardless of their ethnic or religious background, were spared from these methods.
While some people found protection, others, including groups of people of the Hazaras, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Nuristanis and various other ethnic groups, were marginalized, punished and subjected to oppressive rule. The atrocities committed against the Afghans, including the Hazara people and other ethnic groups, cast a sombre shadow over our history, raising the question of whether it was a genocide or a brutal campaign against all.
It is here that I must address a critical debate surrounding this dark chapter. Some argue that applying the term "genocide" to these killings would be retroactive, as the concept of genocide didn't exist at the time these events occurred. They contend that it would be inappropriate to retroactively apply a modern legal concept to historical events that took place before its formulation and establishment.
Others argue that Amir Abdur Rahman Khan's campaign against all whom he considered a threat to his power consolidation, including the killing of Hazaras, may not meet the legal definition of genocide as defined by the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. They maintain that the killings, while undoubtedly brutal and a gross violation of human rights, were not motivated essentially by ethnic, religious and racial hatred; a defining characteristic of genocide.
In conclusion, history is a multi-faceted and complicated tapestry, demanding a meticulous examination and profound understanding of context and contributing factors. It serves as a sombre reminder of how power can be misused through religious and other means.
As we strive for a more just and equitable world, further critical examination of history is essential. It requires experts well versed in historical intricacies to determine whether the term “genocide” is appropriate in this context and what may offer appropriate remedies.
Simultaneously, the establishment of an accountability mechanism that provides justice to victims from diverse ethnicities and groups who have endured unspeakable abuse and atrocities serves as a vital stepping stone toward sustainable peace. In our pursuit of justice and human rights it is imperative to remember the lessons of the past and to learn from them. We must strive to ensure that such atrocities never happen again, regardless of the terminology we use. The guidance offered by history should lead us toward a more just and equitable world in which human rights are cherished and protected above all else.
Thank you.