The Pashtun Question: Khan Shaheed’s Fierce Battle Against Cultural Erasure, Structural Violence, and Marginalization

Abdul Samad Khan Achakzai, also known as Khan Shaheed was a Pashtun political leader whose life and work symbolize the struggle against both colonial and neo-colonial forms of oppression. Born in 1907 in Inayat Ullah Karez, Kila Abdullah, his commitment to Pashtun autonomy, democracy, and the rejection of authoritarianism offers a comprehensive narrative for understanding the complex nature of state power and its impact on marginalized Nations, particularly within Pakistan. Khan Shaheed’s activism and ideology, when viewed through the lens of political science theories, provide crucial insights into the nature of the Pakistani state, its relationship with its diverse populations, and the constant struggle for political autonomy and justice.

Under British colonial rule, Pashtuns were subjected to the oppressive Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR), a legal framework that denied them fundamental rights and institutionalized their subjugation. The FCR enforced collective punishment, holding entire communities responsible for the actions of individuals, and stripped Pashtuns of political representation, treating them as subjects of a peripheral zone of empire. This aligns with Edward Said’s theory of Orientalism, as the British administration perpetuated stereotypes of Pashtuns as “warlike” and “uncivilized,” using these narratives to justify harsh laws and suppress their political agency.

Frantz Fanon’s theory also sheds light on this dynamic, highlighting how colonial rule dehumanized indigenous populations through systemic violence and legal mechanisms designed to maintain control. In resistance, Khan Shaheed’s formation of the Anjuman-e-Watan in 1938, the first political party in Pashtun history, directly challenged these oppressive structures. His advocacy for self-governance, education, and political rights sought to dismantle the colonial narrative and restore the autonomy denied by laws like the FCR, making his efforts a profound act of defiance against both imperial control and dehumanization.

With the creation of Pakistan in 1947, Khan Shaheed hoped for a break from colonial oppression but quickly realized that the new state preserved many of the same imperial structures, albeit under a different guise. His efforts can be analyzed through Kwame Nkrumah’s concept of neo-colonialism, as Pakistan inherited a centralized, militarized, and elitist political system that continued to marginalize regional identities, particularly those of the Pashtuns.

Khan Shaheed’s resistance also aligns with Michel Foucault’s theory of governmentality, as he opposed the state’s use of power not only to govern through coercion but to shape the behavior, identities, and cultural expressions of marginalized groups. The suppression of the Pashtun language, cultural rights, and autonomy exemplifies Foucault’s concept of biopolitics, where power operates through institutions like the military, education, and media to regulate and assimilate identities. Khan Shaheed’s struggle, seen through these theoretical lenses, was not just against political oppression but also against the state’s attempt to erase the Pashtun Nation’s distinct cultural and political identity. His resistance embodied a challenge to the systemic mechanisms of control and the homogenizing impulses of a neo-colonial state.

Khan Shaheed’s vehement opposition to the One Unit scheme exemplified his commitment to federalism. Introduced in the 1955, this policy amalgamated all provinces of West Pakistan into a single administrative unit, effectively suppressing regional identities. For Khan Shaheed, the scheme symbolized an authoritarian effort to erase ethnic diversity in the name of national unity. Scholars like K.C. Wheare have argued that federalism thrives on decentralization and respect for regional autonomy—principles that the One Unit scheme outrightly violated. Khan Shaheed’s alternative vision for Pakistan proposed a democratic federal system, where provinces retained control over key areas such as education, health, and natural resources, leaving only defense and foreign affairs to the central government. His rejection of centralization was a clarion call for a pluralistic state that recognized its ethnic diversity.

Khan Shaheed’s advocacy for Pashtun autonomy, a unified Pashtun province, control over natural resources, and the recognition of Pashto as an official language resonates deeply with theories of self-determination, federalism, and the Pashtun question in Pakistan. His vision reflects democratic federalist principles, akin to John Locke’s idea that legitimate government derives from the consent of the governed, and the state’s duty is to protect individual rights and cultural identities. Additionally, his stance aligns with ethno-federalism, as proposed by Will Kymlicka, which argues that political systems should accommodate the distinct cultural identities of ethnic groups.

Khan Shaheed challenged centralization and sought to preserve Pashtun culture and language within Pakistan’s political framework, embodying Charles Taylor’s belief in the recognition of cultural rights as central to justice in multicultural societies. Beyond political autonomy, Khan Shaheed’s struggle was a fight for cultural survival and identity in a state that often viewed Pashtuns as peripheral. His Political activism also intersects with the theory of structural violence, as the state’s failure to recognize Pashto in education and public administration perpetuates a system of cultural erasure, denying Pashtun children access to their history, roots, and heritage

Khan Shaheed strongly criticized the Pakistani state’s policies for prioritizing military spending over the welfare of its citizens, especially marginalized Pashtuns. His critique, framed through Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, emphasized how the ruling elites maintained control by focusing on militarization and neglecting key sectors like education, healthcare, and economic development. The state’s policies reflected a hegemonic narrative that prioritized security and centralized power, marginalizing peripheral regions like Pashtun areas. In response, Khan Shaheed advocated for a federal Pakistan with decentralized power and provincial autonomy, calling for a reallocation of resources toward social welfare. His efforts aimed to challenge the dominant ideology of militarization and confronting the systemic inequality perpetuated by the state’s priorities.

During General Ayub Khan’s martial law, Khan Shaheed’s resistance was more pronounced. Unlike many political leaders, who sought compromises with the military regime, Khan Shaheed remained steadfast in his opposition, even when it meant spending nearly nine years in prison. His refusal to bend to authoritarian pressure exemplifies Antonio Gramsci’s concept of the “organic intellectual.” Gramsci defined this figure as someone who challenges the hegemonic power structures, offering an alternative vision for society. Khan Shaheed’s time in prison, therefore, was not simply a personal sacrifice but an act of defiance against the authoritarian state and a broader resistance against Pakistan’s transition into a garrison state.

Khan Shaheed’s initiative to introduce a distinct Pashto orthography and reduce the influence of Arabic and Persian on the language can be examined through the lens of phonological theory, which studies the organization of sounds within a language. By advocating for an orthography that prioritized Pashto’s native phonemes, he aimed to create a writing system that accurately represented the unique sounds and patterns of the language, rather than imposing foreign phonological structures. This approach not only preserved the integrity of Pashto’s sound system but also reinforced its cultural independence. His extensive translation work further contributed to this effort by ensuring that the phonological nuances of Pashto were consistently reflected in the written word, fostering a stronger connection between its spoken and written forms.

Khan Shaheed’s commitment to non-violence reflects his belief in the power of peaceful resistance , can be analyzed through Gene Sharp’s theory of challenging oppressive regimes. Through actions like his 21-day hunger strike, Demonstrations Khan Shaheed directly confronted the state’s injustices and highlighted its authoritarian nature. His use of non-violent methods not only exposed the regime’s reliance on force but also demonstrated his dedication to democratic principles, showing that peaceful resistance could effectively challenge and undermine state power.

Khan Shaheed’s social and political reforms can be analyzed through Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of social fields, as he sought to transform Pashtun society by challenging entrenched hierarchies of tribalism, patriarchy, and colonial influence. Within the social field, he redefined power dynamics by advocating for gender equity, such as promoting education for both boys and girls—even enrolling his daughter in a boys’ school—and urging Pashtun families to grant daughters their rightful share of inheritance.

These efforts disrupted the gendered and economic structures that perpetuated inequality, fostering a more equitable and unified society. Politically, Khan Shaheed reshaped the fragmented tribal landscape by uniting Pashtuns into a cohesive nation, transcending individual tribal identities to create a collective identity. By pioneering the first political party in this context, he transformed the political field, becoming a symbolic movement for unity and progress, redefining the structures of power and solidarity among Pashtuns.

Abdul Samad Khan Achakzai’s life and political struggle exemplify the tension between centralization and federalism, between authoritarianism and democracy, and between the exploitation of ethnic nations and the pursuit of self-determination. As a political leader, intellectual, and activist, he founded the first Pashtun political party, Anjuman-i-Watan, in 1939, and launched Istiqlal, a newspaper that became a symbol of Pashtun nationalism. His advocacy for Pashtun rights was grounded in his belief in a federal, democratic Pakistan where regional autonomy was respected, and ethnic nations like the Pashtuns could govern their own affairs. His opposition to the

One Unit scheme and his tireless efforts to preserve Pashtun identity and culture through his political activism were marked by personal sacrifice, including spending over 22 years in prison under both British and Pakistani rule. Khan Shaheed’s journey was cut short on December 2, 1973, when an unknown assassin threw a grenade into his Quetta residence, taking his life and silencing a fierce advocate for Pashtun Rights. His commitment to the political process, even in the face of immense adversity, demonstrated his determination to challenge oppressive regimes and advocate for the political and cultural self-determination of marginalized nations in Pakistan. His enduring legacy continues to inspire the fight for a more democratic, inclusive, and just Pakistan, emphasizing the need for Civilian Supremacy, Supremacy of the Constitution, and the protection of ethnic identities.