How the ban on girls’ education will hamper Afghanistan’s development

The Taliban, which returned to power in Afghanistan in August 2021, has outlawed secondary and higher education for women and girls based on its skewed interpretation of Islam. (AFP/File)
Short Url
Updated 08 April 2025
Follow

How the ban on girls’ education will hamper Afghanistan’s development

  • The Taliban’s refusal to educate girls is considered among the biggest barriers to Afghanistan’s recovery and growth
  • Experts say denying girls an education only entrenches gender inequality and limits workforce productivity

LONDON: With the Taliban’s ban on secondary education for teenage girls now in its fourth year, the dreams of millions across Afghanistan remain on hold. If the policy continues, experts say it could have serious implications for women’s health and the nation’s development.

The ban, reimposed in September 2021, has already deprived 2.2 million Afghan girls of secondary education as of 2025, according to the UN children’s fund, UNICEF. If the ban persists until 2030, this number could rise to more than 4 million.

“The consequences for these girls — and for Afghanistan — are catastrophic,” Catherine Russell, UNICEF’s executive director, warned in a statement, adding that the ban “negatively impacts the health system, the economy, and the future of the nation.”

The ban is among the harshest measures imposed by the Taliban since its return to power in August 2021. It bars girls from attending school beyond the sixth grade and from universities. Afghanistan is the only country in the world to enforce such a ban.

The Taliban claims its policy aligns with its interpretation of Islamic law, mirroring similar measures during its initial rule from 1996 to 2001.




The ban is among the harshest measures imposed by the Taliban since its return to power in August 2021. (AFP)

The ramifications of the ban extend far beyond the immediate exclusion of girls from schooling. Its effects are likely to reverberate through Afghan society for decades unless the policy is reversed.

Salma Niazi, editor in chief of the Afghan Times, told Arab News the ban “will have devastating, multi-generational effects,” risking “a profound brain drain, economic stagnation, and increased poverty.”

Economically, Afghanistan loses an estimated 2.5 percent of its annual gross domestic product due to the exclusion of girls from secondary education, according to a 2022 UNICEF report.

Niazi said educated women are vital to a nation’s progress, contributing to healthcare, governance, and community resilience.

“Denying them education entrenches gender inequality, limits workforce productivity, and exacerbates cycles of vulnerability, including child marriage and maternal mortality,” she said. “The societal and economic costs will be felt for decades.”

IN NUMBERS

  • 2.2m Afghan girls currently out of school
  • 4m Projected to lose out if ban persists to 2030

Dr. Ayesha Ahmad, a global health humanities scholar at St. George’s University of London, echoed these concerns. “Even if boys and men can access education, there is no foundation for a country’s flourishment without equality in education,” she told Arab News.

“Most significantly, for the forthcoming multiple age groups affected by the education ban, there is a generational impact that will take designated efforts to heal the collective traumas that are being enforced and imposed onto the lives of Afghan girls and women.”

The Taliban’s December 2024 closure of medical education programs for women has intensified these risks. UNICEF’s Russell warned that fewer female doctors and midwives will leave women without critical care, estimating “an additional 1,600 maternal deaths and over 3,500 infant deaths.”

She said in her March statement: “These are not just numbers; they represent lives lost and families shattered.”

Afghanistan already has one of the world’s highest maternal mortality rates, with at least 600 deaths per 100,000 live births — nearly triple the global average.




Economically, Afghanistan loses an estimated 2.5 percent of its annual gross domestic product due to the exclusion of girls from secondary education, according to a 2022 UNICEF report. (AFP)

The Taliban’s requirement for male guardians to accompany women seeking healthcare further endangers those in labor. UN Women projects that by 2026, the education ban could increase early childbearing rates by 45 percent and maternal mortality risks by 50 percent.

Ahmad accused the Taliban of “weaponizing discrimination into genocide” through barring women from medical training. “Girls and women simply will die,” she said.

With nearly 28 percent of Afghan girls married before they are 18, UNICEF warns the education ban will only heighten the risk of child marriage, threatening girls’ health and agency.

“With fewer girls receiving an education, girls face a higher risk of child marriage with negative repercussions on their well-being and health,” Russell said.

It is through such policies that the Taliban systematically erases women’s autonomy, said Ahmad, “deliberately shrinking spaces that girls and women can occupy through their growth, individuality, wishes, and agency.”




After Taliban closed medical education programs for women in December 2024, UNICEF’s Russell warned that fewer female doctors and midwives will leave women without critical care, estimating “an additional 1,600 maternal deaths and over 3,500 infant deaths.” (AFP)

Beyond physical harm, the mental health toll is severe. Ahmad said the ban fosters “hopelessness, despair, depression, and suicidality” among Afghan girls and women.

She called for greater awareness of what she described as “a gender apartheid,” urging action against the Taliban policies that erase women’s autonomy.

The policy also threatens Afghanistan’s global standing.

Hasina Safi, Afghanistan’s former minister for women’s affairs, said the ban on girls’ education “will further isolate Afghanistan and Afghan women” while deepening “inequality and instability at all levels — from grassroots communities to policy making.”

She told Arab News: “When you educate a man, you educate an individual; when you educate a woman, you educate an entire family. The first school of a child is a mother.

“The first word of the Qur’an revealed was ‘Iqra,’ which means read — which clearly reflects the importance of education even in Islam.”




Dr. Ayesha Ahmad, a global health humanities scholar at St. George’s University of London, said the ban fosters “hopelessness, despair, depression, and suicidality” among Afghan girls and women. (AFP)

Despite these challenges, families are seeking alternatives to ensure their daughters receive an education. Some are turning to illegal underground schools, the former minister said.

Ahmad explained that although underground schools provide some relief for Afghan girls desperately seeking an education, they remain informal and poorly resourced. “Unfortunately, these are not of an adequate standard,” she said. “They operate in silence.”

Online programs offer another avenue but come with obstacles such as high overseas fees and limited internet access. Afghan students also struggle with power outages and technological barriers while trying to meet academic expectations.

Even if Afghan women complete their education through such means, employment opportunities remain scarce under Taliban restrictions.

“One student I know from Afghanistan had to write her dissertation whilst managing electricity power cuts and not being able to charge or use her laptop to work or access student systems such as lectures,” said Ahmad.

“And to what end? There is no employment for women to develop a career from their education.”




Hasina Safi, Afghanistan’s former minister for women’s affairs, said the ban on girls’ education “will further isolate Afghanistan and Afghan women.” (AFP)

Niazi of the Afghan Times said that in addition to underground schools, Afghan civil society, educators, and international organizations “have shown remarkable resilience,” discretely operating digital learning platforms and community-based initiatives.

“Some NGOs are providing scholarships for Afghan girls to study abroad, while advocacy groups continue to pressure the Taliban through local and global campaigns,” she said. “However, these efforts are often fragmented and operate under severe constraints.”

Highlighting efforts by her independent news outlet, Niazi added: “At the Afghan Times, we’ve launched an Open Mic Podcast where young women share how they’ve clung to hope through online education.

“Their stories — of studying secretly via Zoom, accessing smuggled e-books, or teaching younger sisters at home — reveal both resilience and desperation.”

The three women urged the international community to play a greater role in pressuring the Taliban to lift the ban, which remains a stark violation of fundamental rights and continues to draw widespread condemnation from international organizations and activists alike.




The education ban remains a stark violation of fundamental rights and continues to draw widespread condemnation from international organizations and activists alike. (AFP)

Safi noted that while the international community has responded to the issue, including “condemnations and advocacy,” these actions have “yielded no results.”

She added: “The international community can play a pivotal role at multiple levels of engagement with the Taliban by implementing short, mid, and long-term programs to restore access to education through conditional funding and other proven strategies.”

The international community has strongly condemned the Taliban’s actions. Organizations like UNICEF, UNESCO, and the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan have repeatedly called for the immediate lifting of the ban, emphasizing its catastrophic impact on Afghanistan’s future.

Countries like the UK have taken a firm stance against the restrictions, and Islamic nations have sought to pressure the Taliban into reversing the policy.




Afghan women hold placards during a protest in front of Kabul University in Kabul on October 18, 2022. (AFP)

While the Taliban remains resistant to outside pressure, Safi said sustained international efforts could still create pathways for Afghan girls to access education — even under restrictive conditions.

The Taliban stance is further complicated by its lack of recognition from the international community, primarily due to its systematic oppression of women and girls. No country has granted formal diplomatic recognition to the Islamic Emirate since its 2021 takeover, with ongoing human rights violations cited as the central obstacle.

Niazi called for consistent diplomatic and economic pressure on the Taliban, advocating for increased funding to alternative education programs, including online learning and cross-border initiatives.

The Afghan Times editor also stressed that “global media, like Arab News, play a crucial role in keeping this issue visible,” while “neighboring countries and Islamic leaders could leverage their influence to advocate for change, framing education as a religious and moral imperative.”




The international community has strongly condemned the Taliban’s actions. Organizations like UNICEF, UNESCO, and the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan have repeatedly called for the immediate lifting of the ban. (AFP)

Ahmad criticized what she believes to be the international community’s selective engagement. “When there is a perceived threat to ‘Western’ populations, it is justified to intervene, even if that intervention destroys generations of lives and hope,” she said.

“Yet when there is a structurally violent threat to girls through the institution of education, there is global silence. This is another form of violence.”

She urged nations to prioritize a unified response to ensure educational equality, warning that the continued ban on girls’ education could mean Afghanistan’s “destruction.”

Indeed, she added: “Nothing can be created without education.”

 


Ahead of strikes, Trump was told Iran attack is high risk, high reward

Updated 6 sec ago
Follow

Ahead of strikes, Trump was told Iran attack is high risk, high reward

  • Experts caution that the unfolding conflict could take dangerous turns and the first official said ‌the Pentagon’s planning did not appear to guarantee the outcome of any conflict

WASHINGTON: Ahead of the US attack on Iran, President Donald Trump received briefings that not only delivered blunt assessments about the risk of major US casualties but also touted the prospect of a geopolitical shift in the Middle East in favor of US interests, ​a US official told Reuters. The launch of what the Pentagon called Operation Epic Fury on Saturday plunged the Middle East into a new and unpredictable conflict. The US and Israeli militaries struck sites across Iran, triggering retaliatory Iranian attacks against Israel and nearby Gulf Arab countries.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the briefers described the operation to the president as a high-risk, high-reward scenario that could present a once-in-a-generation opportunity for change in the region.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Trump briefings included risks, opportunities in Middle East 

• Diplomatic efforts with Iran fail to avert ‌military confrontation 

• Iran vows retaliation, targets US and Israeli interests

Trump himself appeared to echo that sentiment when he acknowledged the stakes at the onset of the operation, saying “the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost.”
“But we’re doing this not for now, we’re doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission,” Trump said in a video address announcing the start of major combat operations.
“For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted death to America and waged an unending campaign of ‌bloodshed and mass murder ... We’re ‌not gonna put up with it any longer.”
The briefings from Trump’s national security team help explain ​how ‌the ⁠president decided ​to ⁠pursue arguably the riskiest US military operation since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Ahead of the strikes, Trump received multiple briefings from officials, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe, US General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
On Thursday, Admiral Brad Cooper, who leads US forces in the Middle East as the head of Central Command, flew to Washington to join discussions in the White House Situation Room.
A second US official said that before the strikes, the White House had been briefed on risks associated with operations against Iran, including retaliatory strikes on multiple US bases in the region by Iranian missiles that could overwhelm defenses, as well as Iranian proxies attacking US troops in Iraq and Syria.
The official said that despite the massive military ⁠buildup by the United States, there were limits to the air defense systems that had been rushed into ‌the region.
Experts caution that the unfolding conflict could take dangerous turns and the first official said ‌the Pentagon’s planning did not appear to guarantee the outcome of any conflict.
Trump called on Iranians ​to topple the government but that is easier said than done, said ‌Nicole Grajewski with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“The Iranian opposition is pretty fragmented. It’s unclear what the population is willing to do in ‌terms of rising up,” Grajewski said.
Both US officials requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the internal discussions.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Pentagon declined to comment.

TRUMP’S SWEEPING GOALS

In the weeks leading up to the attack, Trump ordered a major military buildup in the Middle East. Reuters reported military planning to carry out a sustained campaign against Iran, if that is what the president chose. Plans included targeting individual officials, officials said.
An Israeli official said Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah ‌Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian were both targeted but the result of the strikes was unclear. Speaking on Saturday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there were many signs indicating that Khamenei “is no longer” and ⁠called on Iranians to “take to the streets ⁠to finish the job.”
Trump made clear on Saturday that his objectives in Iran were sweeping, saying he would end the threat posed by Tehran to the United States and give Iranians a chance to topple their rulers. To accomplish this, he outlined plans to lay waste to much of Iran’s military as well as deny it the ability to build a nuclear weapon. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon.
“We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground... We’re going to annihilate their navy,” he said. “We’re going to ensure that the region’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces.”
Trump’s decision demonstrates an increasing risk appetite, far greater than when he ordered US special operations forces into Venezuela last month to seize that country’s president in an audacious raid.
The unfolding campaign against Iran is also riskier than when Trump ordered US forces to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites in June.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards threatened all US bases and interests in the region and said Iran’s retaliation would continue until “the enemy is decisively defeated.”
Experts warn that Iran has many options for retaliation, including missile strikes but also drones and cyber warfare.
Daniel Shapiro, a former senior ​Pentagon official for Middle East issues, said that despite the US ​and Israeli strikes, Tehran would still be capable of causing some pain.
“Iran has many more ballistic missiles that can reach US bases than the US has interceptors ... some Iranian weapons will get through,” said Shapiro, also a former US ambassador to Israel. “(The strikes are) a major gamble.”