afghanistanthe university reopened in early November. The students drew up a list of
demands, which included punishment for security forces who had shot
protestors, the release of jailed students, reductions in the pass rate for
examinations, the cancellation of obligatory class attendances, and the
right to form a Students’ Union and political societies. When the promised
enquiry came to nothing, no prisoners were released and no member of the
security services prosecuted for the 3 ‘Aqrab killings, the students called a
general strike. Maiwandwal responded by banning public demonstrations
and private newspapers. The following spring, when the next academic
year commenced, a new University constitution specifically forbade the
formation of political parties or student movements. The king then refused
to ratify a law that permitted the formation of political parties, despite both
Houses having approved the legislation.
Despite the storm of protests, the royal family and Muhammadzais in
general continued to believe that the king and the monarchy commanded
wide popular support. Like the Romanovs before them, they failed to real-
ize that the demonstrations and the stormy sessions in Parliament were
symptomatic of widespread dissatisfaction with the dynasty’s monopoly on
power and the lack of any real freedoms. All the so-called New Democracy
had done was to lift the lid on deeply rooted resentments that had been
suppressed by decades of autocratic rule. The government, which had not
the slightest idea how to deal with the situation, responded by reverting
to its old, repressive ways.
At the same time, opponents of the monarchy and the status quo were
divided by ideological differences, which meant there was no unified
front, let alone consensus about alternative forms of governance. As u.s.
Ambassador Ronald G. Neumann noted in 1970, the state-sponsored
democracy tended to ‘atomize the political forces in this country further,
gives real power to none but keeps everybody busy and puzzled, and thus
deprives the opposition of an opportunity to organize in a really dangerous
fashion’. 45 The absence of cross-party cooperation, statesmanship or any
concept of working for the national interest created the ‘very antithesis of
true freedom’. 46 Tragically, amid the turmoil, voices of moderation that
sought an orderly transition to an inclusive and more democratic society
were drowned out, shouted down or silenced by intimidation, not only by
the government but by Islamists and Communists, too.
In November 1966 the violence reached the floor of the Wolusi Jirga
itself. During an angry debate about dress code for schoolgirls, Muhammad
Nabi physically attacked Babrak Karmal while ‘Abd al-Rashid, Member for
Pul-i Khumri, hit Anahita Ratebzad with his walking stick. Karmal and