In a rare victory for Afghan women, Kabul to include mothers’ name on IDs

A man waves an Afghan flag during Independence Day celebrations in Kabul, Afghanistan. (AP/File)
Short Url
Updated 07 September 2020
Follow

In a rare victory for Afghan women, Kabul to include mothers’ name on IDs

  • Follows concerted campaign by 28-year-old graduate to change decades-old law

KABUL: Laleh Osmany says that she was shocked when one evening, three years ago, she received an invitation from a renowned writer to attend a religious ceremony in honor of his wife who had died a few days earlier.

While the invitation card had his name on it, it did not include any details of the woman who had been his life partner for several years.

“I could not understand the logic behind this and why a renowned writer and teacher like him felt ashamed of mentioning his wife’s name on the card, which was for an occasion dedicated to her,” Osmany told Arab News by phone from the western Afghan city of Herat.

The next day, the 28-year-old graduate of Islamic law from Herat University decided to launch the #Whereismyname social media campaign to call out Afghanistan’s “misogynistic” culture.

A crucial part of her efforts, Osmany said, was to have authorities include the names of mothers next to those of fathers on all national IDs, especially for women who were divorced, had lost their husbands to the decades-old Afghan war or whose spouses were missing or had disappeared.

“They faced tough times sorting out legal issues such as the right to inheritance, guardianship or issuance of passports for themselves or their children in the absence of a father,” Osmany said.

After the hashtag went viral, and armed with a flood of support from social media users both at home and abroad, Osmany says her efforts finally bore fruit when the Afghan government — after several days of deliberations with religious scholars — amended the census law and accepted the proposal last week.

“I was thrilled to see the amount of support people showed for the cause, both from within the country and outside. I’m really happy that our campaign and push for a right cause, which has no contradiction with Islam, our culture and tradition, has finally been accepted,” Osmany said.

The next step is for the parliament to endorse the move which, according to several lawmakers, could happen as soon as it resumes after the summer break.

“We also joined the #Whereismyname campaign and talked about it in parliament, and to our constituencies who welcomed it greatly. Both men and women in the parliament and outside support this to a large extent,” Fawzia Naseriyar, a legislator from Kabul, told Arab News.

It is a rare win for women’s rights activists in the deeply conservative and male-dominated country, where due to deeply ingrained taboos a woman’s name is often missing from her wedding invitation or even her grave.

In public, young children and, at times, adult men, often get into fights if someone even mentions the name of their mother or sister — an act which is seen as an attempt to bring dishonor and shame to the family.

According to estimates shared by the Statistics and Information Authority, women make up 49 percent of the total population of 32.9 million.

And while there are 68 women in the 250-member parliament and several serve as cabinet members, a majority have struggled for years to assert themselves as legal guardians of their children, both in government offices or to carry out business transactions in their names, in the absence of a man.

The government’s endorsement is amid preparations to hold the much-awaited intra-Afghan talks with the Taliban to end more than 40 years of war and facilitate the total departure of US-led troops from Afghanistan by next spring.

The Taliban banned women from seeking education or procuring jobs during its five-year rule until it was toppled from power in late 2001. It has, however, pledged to uphold women’s rights as part of the peace process and negotiations.

Mary Akrami, the chairperson of Afghanistan’s Women Network, described Osmany’s efforts and the government’s endorsement as a “positive step toward establishing women’s identity.”

“Even if you go to graves, you hardly find the names of a deceased woman on the tombstone. Women have been born here obscurely and will die obscurely too,” she told Arab News.

Second Vice President Mohammad Sawar Danesh, who worked to change the law, agrees and said in a statement last week that the endorsement was “a big step toward gender equality and the realization of women’s rights” in the country.

The move has been applauded by the US and British ambassadors to Kabul who called it a “significant boost for women’s status and rights in Afghanistan.”

Osmany, however, said that the endorsement is just the first step in what could be a long and arduous journey. 

She should know. Since launching the campaign, she has faced challenges and “received threats from unknown people,” asking her to abandon the cause. Several have openly protested against it. 

Irfan Talash, a school student, mocked the move, saying that the government’s acceptance of the proposal was “as if it had managed to resolve all other problems in Afghanistan and the inclusion of mothers’ names on the ID was its last problem.”

Experts said that while it may be a small step for women in the country, it is a giant one for gender equality in Afghanistan.

“It’s a very positive development without any doubt, but there are some conservatives and traditionalists who may oppose the idea,” Taj Mohammad, a former journalist and currently an analyst, told Arab News.

Nasratullah Haqpal, another expert on regional affairs, disagrees and said that Kabul had accepted the proposal to “appease America and Europe.”

“Afghan women do not rejoice with the inclusion of their names on ID but will want to see the end of blood-shedding of their children. They want nothing more.”


US House of Representatives passes war powers resolution backing Trump’s attacks on Iran

Updated 8 sec ago
Follow

US House of Representatives passes war powers resolution backing Trump’s attacks on Iran

WASHINGTON: The House narrowly rejected a war powers resolution Thursday to halt President Donald Trump’s attacks on Iran, an early sign of unease in Congress over the rapidly widening conflict that is reordering US priorities at home and abroad.
It’s the second vote in as many days, after the Senate defeated a similar measure. Lawmakers are confronting the sudden reality of representing wary Americans in wartime and all that entails — with lives lost, dollars spent and alliances tested by a president’s unilateral decision to go to war with Iran.
While the tally in the House, 212-219, was expected to be tight, the outcome provided a clarifying snapshot of political support for, and opposition to, the US-Israel military operation and Trump’s rationale for bypassing Congress, which alone has the power to declare war. At the Capitol, the conflict has quickly carried echoes of the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and many Sept. 11-era veterans now serve in Congress.
“Donald Trump is not a king, and if he believes the war with Iran is in our national interest, then he must come to Congress and make the case,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
House Speaker Mike Johnson warned that it would be “dangerous” to limit the president’s authority while the US military is already in conflict.
“We are not at war,” said Johnson, R-Louisiana, a close ally of Trump, contradicting others. He said the operation is limited in scope and duration, and the “mission is nearly accomplished.”
Republicans largely back Trump, and most Democrats oppose the war
Trump’s Republican Party, which narrowly controls the House and Senate, largely sees the conflict with Iran not as the start of a new war, but the end of a government that has long menaced the West. The operation has killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which some view as an opportunity for regime change, though others warn of a chaotic power vacuum.
Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, publicly thanked Trump for taking action against Iran, saying the president is using his own constitutional authority to defend the US against the “imminent threat” the country posed.
Mast, an Army veteran who worked as a bomb disposal expert in Afghanistan, said the war powers resolution was effectively asking “that the president do nothing.”
For Democrats, Trump’s attack on Iran, influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is a war of choice that is testing the balance of powers in the Constitution.
“The framers weren’t fooling around,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., arguing that the Constitution is clear that only Congress can decide matters of war. “It’s up to us.”
Crossover coalitions emerged among those in Congress. Two Republicans joined most Democrats in voting for the war powers resolution, while four Democrats joined Republicans to reject it.
The war powers resolution, if signed into law, would have immediately halted Trump’s ability to conduct the war unless Congress approved the military action. The president would likely veto it.
Trump officials provide shifting rationale for war
Trump has scrambled to win support for the nearly week-old conflict as Americans of all political persuasions take stock. Administration officials spent hours behind closed doors on Capitol Hill this week trying to reassure lawmakers that they have the situation under control.
Six US military members were killed over the weekend in a drone strike in Kuwait, and Trump has said more Americans could die. Thousands of Americans abroad have scrambled for flights, many lighting up phone lines at congressional offices as they sought help trying to flee the Middle East.
Trump said Thursday he must be involved in choosing Iran’s new leader. Yet Johnson, R-Louisiana, said this week that America has enough problems at home and is not about to be in the “nation-building business.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the war could extend eight weeks, twice as long as the president first estimated. Trump has left open the possibility of sending US troops into what has largely been a bombing campaign. More than 1,230 people in Iran have died.
The administration said the goal is to destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles that it believes are shielding its nuclear program. It has also said Israel was ready to act, and American bases would face retaliation if the US did not strike Iran first. The US said Wednesday it torpedoed an Iranian warship near Sri Lanka.
“This administration can’t even give us a straight answer of as to why we launched this preemptive war,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, the Republican from Kentucky, an outlier in his party.
Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who had teamed up to force the release the Jeffrey Epstein files, also pushed the war powers resolution to the floor, past objections from Johnson’s GOP leadership. Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio, a former Army Ranger, also voted for it. Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Greg Landsman of Ohio and Juan Vargas of California voted against.
“Congress must stand with the president to finally close, once and for all, this dark chapter of history,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas.
Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Arizona, said that as the daughter of Iranian immigrants who fled their homeland, she opposes the regime but is concerned that a democratic transition for the people of Iran never seems to a priority for Trump or the officials who briefed Congress.
“War carries profound and deadly consequences for our troops, for the American people and for the entire world,” she said. “It’s the most serious decision that a nation can make.”
Other Democrats have proposed an alternative resolution that would allow the president to continue the war for 30 days before he must seek congressional approval. The House also approved a separate measure affirming that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
Senators sit in their desks for solemn vote
In the Senate, Republican leaders have successfully, though narrowly, defeated a series of war powers resolutions pertaining to several other conflicts during Trump’s second term. This one, however, was different.
Underscoring the gravity Wednesday, Democratic senators sat at their desks as the voting got underway.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that every senator will pick a side. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East?” he asked. Or with Trump and Hegseth “as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”
Sen. John Barrasso, second in Senate Republican leadership, said, “Democrats would rather obstruct Donald Trump than obliterate Iran’s national nuclear program.”
The legislation failed on a 47-53 tally mostly along party lines, with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, in favor and Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pennsylvania, against.