Kabul Education University has a new name. At this stage, and for the purposes of this blog note, I am not stuck with what the new name is. It is not about the person whose name, from now on, will be taken home by every graduating student of this University. So it is not about THE PERSON. (Excuse the shout!) Besides, in the larger scheme of things, what I may think of this change of name, as a person, doesn't really matter. Our likes and dislikes are subjective. We have the right to have them, but we don't have the right to expect others to share them.
However, I wonder how the Afghan society will react to this change? My interpretation of the underlying assumption and potential impact that this change of name may have on our society makes me worry.
Let us begin with the underlying assumptions, which could be that, naming a university after a person who is no longer with us pays homage to him, keeps his memories alive, reminds his followers of the values he stood for (as best as the followers understand them of course,) adds credibility to the institution, symbolizes the continuation of the legacy he has left behind or brings unity. None of these assumptions are wrong. Yet, they could be questioned.
For instance, what is the guarantee that the mere change of a name would ensure genuine homage to the deceased? What is the guarantee that the institution would genuinely represent and propagate the values that he stood for? What is the guarantee that by naming an institution after him, we are actually not running away from building in-depth understanding of those values, let alone acting on them? I don’t think there is a guarantee, and this is why I think this is only superficial homage, and not real.
If those assumptions hold true, then why not pay genuine homage to him by establishing a new university, based on the values that he stood for, with financial support from the family of the deceased, and proudly name it after him? Given our severe lack of good quality higher education institutions, this may also represent productive public private partnership and ensure quality public service delivery, no?
So what is next?
Our people are divided into many factions. We are pretty diverse. So we have many heroes and role models. If we make a list of our heroes, and compare it with a list of public institutions, we may run out in the case of the latter. It is technically impossible to ensure that every hero is celebrated genuinely by naming an institution after him or her. (I cannot, but express my hesitance in adding “or her” because as it happens, most of our heroes are men.)
So here is what I see coming next: By this change of name, a precedent is set, which, like it or not, will be followed by others. Some are happy with the change of name, and some are not. The happy ones go merry. The unhappy ones will go merry if they get their share of homage paid to their heroes as well. And there you go: in the middle of so much that goes on in this country, you have a new tension: fight over names.
You might say, “This is not a new thing. We have been fighting and literally hurting each other over names before as well. Should we, for Kabul University, have a Dari name or a Pashto name has been a tussle for quite sometime.” But guess what, now it may get even worse. So far, the tension was between the two national languages. At least they were only two. Now, the tension would be between hundreds of names coming from tens of political orientations, ethnic groups and religious sects.
This exercise has personalized the debate and the tension, further. Languages could be de-personalized, in the name of national unity. But how would you de-personalize when the subject of the tension are none other than personalities? How do you de-personalize a personal tension?