After the publication and circulation of “Majidnama,” written by Mohammad Shah Farhood, the name of Majid was once again widely echoed, and an account of Majid told in the words of others took on a fresh hue. It was not long before this freshness became mixed with prejudices, optimism and pessimism. In the meantime, a large number of people reacted. Some, on the basis of circle and party loyalties, opened other fronts, and some turned to memoir writing on the basis of lived experience. In this way, reading “Majidnama” became a pretext for one group to avoid being left empty-handed, while others spun tales that had little to do with the matter at hand.
But it did not take long for these judgments, in the reactive atmosphere of an easygoing and simple-minded society, to take the form of past group and organizational score-settling, and under the guise of optimism and pessimism, to assume another shape and appearance. Regrettably, most of these responses reflected a traditional approach, less methodical in the modern sense of the word. In any case, the written portion of these readings is a noteworthy effort when set against backbiting and unwritten conversations.
The author has based his reading of the text on a post-structuralist, hermeneutic and interpretive approach, in order to give a jolt to the way audiences read and write about the text, and to the chiaroscuro of the writing. In the author’s view, the manner of reading a text and the differing methods lead us to different results in encountering it, and the theory or philosophical and literary apparatus with which we approach the text plays a decisive role in shaping the final meaning of the reading.
The Key and Code to Opening the Text of “Majidnama”
From a premodern perspective, on page nine of “Majidnama,” the author introduces his research method as based on “interviews, narratives, observations, documents and related texts” as well as “memoirs and indirect evidence.” If this definition of method is assessed from a traditional and premodern perspective, it faces several fundamental challenges.
First, there is a lack of structural and methodological coherence. In the premodern tradition of authorship, whether in historiography or in the writing of biographical anthologies, there is a kind of internal order, a hierarchy of sources and coherence in the presentation of the narrative. By contrast, the text in question, relying on diverse and heterogeneous sources, has moved away from this coherent pattern and suffers from narrative and conceptual fragmentation. This fragmentation, particularly in the absence of a rigorous methodological framework, can weaken the overall credibility of the work.
Second, there is reliance on sources considered invalid or of low credibility in the classical tradition. In a premodern reading, the credibility of a text rests mainly on reliable written documents, documented citations and trustworthy chains of narration. In this work, however, the use of “observations,” “memoirs” and “indirect evidence,” which belong more to the field of oral history or modern approaches, has taken a prominent place. Such sources are often relegated to the margins in the classical tradition and cannot by themselves form the main pillars of a credible work.
Third, there is a blending of a legendary approach with a claim to research. The stated aim of the work is “to describe and consolidate a legendary hero,” which shows that the text, instead of maintaining a critical distance from its subject, moves toward consolidation and myth-making. In the premodern tradition as well, although mythical elements are present, they are usually placed in specific forms such as epic or religious narrative, not in a text that claims to be research.
On this basis, it can be said that from a premodern perspective, “Majidnama” is a text with a fragmented narrative structure, a methodological reliance on sources that are unconventional in the classical tradition, and a tendency toward myth-making rather than critical analysis. It should be noted, however, that these same characteristics may be regarded within modern and postmodern frameworks not as weaknesses but as a kind of polyphony and methodological openness. Hence, the final evaluation of the work depends on the theoretical horizon from which the text is viewed.
The key and code to opening a text is, namely, knowing the text. Until we know the text together with its features and characteristics, every critical approach and every reading by the audience leads astray. For a better understanding and critique of “Majidnama,” I begin with the views that have been reflected at various and diverse levels, and then turn to the methodology and the method of construction.
Perspectives and the Epistemology of the Text
A postmodern approach has cast its shadow over a major part of this text. The narratives have taken shape as scattered and disjointed fragments, judgments have moved away from certainty and tended toward suspension, the boundary between literary forms and genres has faded or even disappeared, and ultimately the diversity of content and themes in the narrative has produced a multilayered and plural structure.
Nevertheless, a central signifier has cast its shadow over the different parts of the text and created a kind of hidden convergence, so that a number of the text’s internal paradoxes have been pushed to the margins and in some cases have faded. This dominant signifier has, at the same time, concealed a kind of certainty and judgment, both in the headline of the text (the title) and in its underlying layers. Thus, instead of the questioning openness of “Majidnama?”, we face the fixed and definitive form of “Majidnama.”
For this reason, the ending of the text also takes shape amid myth and epic, without the slightest critical approach, and instead of expanding the horizon of interpretation, it pushes it toward a kind of closure of meaning. Although the text has not sought ready-made answers and has managed to bring plural tones and voices from different social positions and guilds properly into the space of the narrative, even this plurality is, in the end, somewhat contained beneath the shadow of the central signifier and pushed out of view.
“Majidnama” has been written from such a perspective and approach that it has left a particular chiaroscuro of its own. Among the points one can single out is the exposure of the general atmosphere of the text, the place where the existence of the text comes to life and gains identity. This critical approach will discuss and examine these points, as well as others, under various headings.
From Reading to Reading of “Majidnama,” and the Author-Centered Reading of “Majidnama”
In the author-centered reading, greater attention returns to the intention of the author, Mohammad Shah Farhood. In this view, the main effort rests on understanding the author’s purpose and intent, and the text is considered a carrier of meanings that originate in the author’s mind and experience and move in line with the author’s intention.
In this type of reading, the moments of preparing and creating the text, the author’s purpose and intent, and the goal he had in mind, which is the result of his direct or indirect experience, are taken into consideration. As a result, understanding of the text comes closer to the author’s intention when we have a multilayered knowledge of him, including his knowledge, worldview, interests and even psychological needs and the hidden layers of his mind.
This view makes understanding of the text more dependent on knowledge of the author, and without knowing the author, understanding the text becomes less possible. Grasping the nature of the author and discovering his intention is the most important issue in this type of reading. In some cases, this can make understanding the text more difficult and place it beyond the reach of the audience’s comprehension.
Of course, there are no completely closed and separate boundaries between author-centered reading, form-and-structure-centered reading and free reading. Rather, these approaches are to some extent close to one another, and the relativity in them is understandable in advance.
In contrast to this view, Roland Barthes speaks of the concept of the “death of the author” and reduces the role of the author to that of one of the readers of the text. That is to say, after creating the text, the author is no longer the final authority on meaning, and in the process of reading, the text can acquire various and different meanings.
The Chiaroscuro of “Majidnama”
The central signifier of the text has cast its shadow over many paradoxes and defines itself in opposition to them, whereas there is no need to push these paradoxes to the margins. On the contrary, these paradoxes could have remained afloat within the text in multiple plays, so that the audience could read the vast horizon of the text in a paradoxical existence. In such a horizon, on the one hand, the romantic and metaphysical shadow of the text is to some extent desacralized and “Majid” is redefined in a more worldly realm, one in which the struggle for survival, confrontation with power in its various dimensions, and a mental life based on reflection and deliberation, not merely emotion and reaction, come to the fore. In this reading, Majid, as a subject engaged in continuous tensions, becomes a bridge between power and idealism, a place where the orbit of rationality, deliberation and struggle are present in him simultaneously, and the secret of survival is sought in the heart of these conflicts.
Nevertheless, understanding Majid, and in general any political, historical or artistic figure, is not possible through the path of “purism” and “pure idealism.” Such an approach, instead of clarifying, leads to myth-making and drains the text of its real and contradictory layers. Majid is comprehensible only in a horizon in which weaknesses, doubts, errors and limitations are taken as seriously as ideals and actions. For this reason, Majid is not a pure and unattainable hero, but an activist who, in the midst of reality, is engaged in difficult and sometimes contradictory choices.
Contrary to the image of the “lone guerrilla,” he is not defined in absolute isolation; rather, the secret of his survival is formed in “alignment with others.” Whether when he emerged tooth and nail from beneath the rubble of despotism, or when he stood in the predicament of choosing between aggressor powers, he was always compelled to redefine his relationship with others, with forces, groups and coalitions. In this sense, Majid is a junction of closely connected, interlinked and intertwined relations, a network of relationships in which individual action cannot be understood without grasping collective ties.
He is present in the midst of the political scene, and amid the twists and turns of tactics and maneuvers, he adjusts his position not in a vacuum, but in relation to others. This alignment does not mean dissolving into the group; it is a kind of “conscious coalition” in which survival and activism become possible through interaction with the other. He moves in the orbit of deliberation, not in the orbit of mere passion, and this very fact elevates his presence from an emotional action to a strategic one.
In this sense, Majid is always on the scene, as a conscious subject who, amid the struggle of power, survival and ideals, and in connection with others, opens his own path through contradictions.
In the theoretical horizon of this reading, the distinction between the views of Umberto Eco and Jacques Derrida is illuminating. From Eco’s perspective, the boundaries of meaning are formed in the structure of the text, its semiotic capacities and symbolic layers, and within the horizon of plural but limited readings; in other words, the text is open, but not boundless and without rules. In contrast, in Derrida’s thought, meaning is formed in an endless process of deferral and difference, and the reading of a text tends toward an unlimited horizon.
“Majidnama” can be rethought between these two theoretical horizons; neither in the monopoly of a closed and definitive meaning nor in complete liberation from any semantic limit or boundary, but in an intermediary realm in which paradoxes are not eliminated but remain active, and meaning gradually reveals itself in the tension between structure and escape.
In the end, Majid, in the position of a “text,” goes beyond the level of an individual narrative and becomes a possibility for rereading the contemporary human being. As a contemporary human being, he becomes attainable among us, a subject who lives not at a mythical distance but at the heart of reality. At this level, his “Achilles’ heel” and his “Isfandiyar’s eye” also take shape not in the realm of myth but in the scaffolding of a society entangled in chronic crises, a society caught in despotism, structural weakness, a scattered opposition, and a youthful force that, though energetic, suffers from inexperience.
From this perspective, Majid no longer belongs merely to a specific time or geography, but becomes a transhistorical subject who is defined, introduced and critiqued within the context of multilayered crises.
He is at once a “possibility” and a “problem”: a possibility for thinking about conscious action in the midst of crisis, and a problem for rethinking the relationship between the individual, power and structure. On the basis of this approach, the main components of the text are explained, interpreted and examined below under specific headings, components that, each as a semantic junction, play a role in shaping “Majid” as a text/subject and make possible a multilayered and critical reading of it.
“Majidnama,” in this horizon, is not only the narrative of an individual but the reflection of a situation, and Majid, in the position of a text/subject, becomes a mirror for understanding the complexities of the contemporary human being, a human being who, amid contradictions, creates the possibility of survival and activism not in purification and pure idealism but in accepting contradictions and in connection with others.
Majid and the Struggle for Survival
On page 9 of “Majidnama,” with reference to the view of Claude Lévi-Strauss, myth is introduced as a reflection of the dreams of the collective conscience and an expression of fundamental human emotions such as love, hatred and revenge, a definition that regards myth not as something fabricated but as a way of thinking and the unconscious structure of the human mind.
In contrast, in Roland Barthes’s thought, myth is a secondary semiotic system that turns historical reality into something natural and self-evident, and in this way reduces history to nature. In light of these two approaches, Majid can be reread in the horizon of the “struggle for survival,” where survival is not merely an external action or a political reaction but is rooted in the existential condition of the subject.
Fear of death, as the ultimate horizon of meaning, stirs his action and elevates living from the level of choice to the level of necessity. For this reason, in the text, Majid is defined not merely within the framework of a political fighter but in the arena of the struggle between death and life, an arena that later finds ideological formulation in the slogan of freedom.
This struggle for survival takes shape from the beginning of his life, particularly in the experience of the death of his father and those close to him, and becomes part of his hidden and manifest conscience. Subsequently, not only the ruling system but the entirety of the dominant structure and surrounding environment encircle his existence, a situation that, like the “sword of Damocles,” hangs constantly over his head and redefines him at every moment.
In such a context, the ruling law, the dominant order and even popular narratives and the dominant social discourse all contribute to shaping this situation and turn Majid into a subject for whom survival is not a choice but an inescapable and existential necessity.
Nevertheless, this narrative of the struggle for survival in “Majidnama” is to some extent pushed to the margins in the shadow of idealism and a set of moral and metaphysical themes. Instead of highlighting the existential condition of the subject and the fundamental fear of death, the text rewrites it in a layer of transcendent values, moral virtues and idealistic horizons.
As a result, what could have been understood as a bare and existential experience of survival is transformed, in the process of myth-making, into a moral and ideological narrative, a narrative that, in Roland Barthes’s phrase, naturalizes history and, instead of revealing the urgency of survival, conceals it under the cover of loftier meanings.
Majid, Chronic Tyranny and the Crisis of the Opposition
Majid is a continuation or consequence of that same contemporary Afghanistan, the same Afghanistan that is rooted in yesterday’s Khorasan but, in its historical course, has distanced itself from its cultural eminence and its tradition of prudent and well-ordered bureaucracy, and has gradually been severed from it, a rupture whose consequence has been the weakening of the continuity of a coherent and efficient cultural and administrative system amid political and social developments.
This is the same Afghanistan that has had the least critical approach toward its own past and has remained for the most part at the level of general, non-analytical narratives. This Afghanistan watched the ideological polarization of capitalism and socialism from afar, without having understood and experienced it deeply. In fact, its presence in these intellectual and political arenas was, more than the product of lived experience, a reflection of an indirect and mediated entry into the modern world.
It is an Afghanistan that, with the exception of a brief royal period, has always been exposed to the fire of rivalries among the great powers, from Britain and Russia to Russia and America, and has been affected by these external tensions.
It was after the 1960s (the 1340s in the Solar Hijri calendar) that the fruit of nearly three decades of effort by a number of intellectuals and fighters came to the stage. Nevertheless, this dominant educated current, rather than being rooted in the internal and historical context of society, was a reflection of the outside world and imported ideologies.
From the affiliates and circles named the “Democratic Party” to organizations such as the “Progressive Youth Organization,” the “Eternal Flame” and the “Muslim Youth circles,” all were formed in an atmosphere in which ideology had overtaken historical experience, and individuality, instead of being anchored in democratic mechanisms within the organization, operated in the form of circle-centered and person-centered relationships; as a result, collective decision-making and the principle of voting were pushed to the margins within these structures.
In the inner layers of these circles, imported ideologies, the inexperience and youth of the leaders, together with political incompetence and the absence of legal and organizational formality, meant that these currents lacked the capacity for independent initiative and maneuver within the power structure. As a result, without reliance on external factors, neither the courage nor the readiness for a serious, deep and structure-breaking struggle took shape in them.
Although later some of these currents reached the throne of power with the backing of external support, the consequences led neither to political stability nor to an improvement in the social situation; rather, they reproduced the crisis and brought the country’s fate to the situation we witness today.
Amid all this, Majid cannot be regarded as separate from this crisis-ridden and tyranny-ridden context. He too was formed within this same historical and political structure, but within the limits of his individual capacity and potential, he appears as a different kind of activist. He grew to stature within the context of this same historical and political structure and, despite limitations, acted bravely, fearlessly and in a people-centered manner, and at moments managed to give a jolt to this despotic order and, within the heart of that same structure, reveal the possibility of resistance and another manifesto as a thinkable and presentable possibility, a possibility that finds meaning not outside the structure but precisely in its internal fissures.
A Derridean Reading
From the perspective of Jacques Derrida’s reading, what is formulated in this text as “chronic tyranny” is not a uniform and external structure but a network of signs, narratives and discourses that produce meaning within themselves and at the same time defer it. In this framework, the history of Afghanistan is not a closed and linear whole but an open, fragmented text that is always being rewritten. In this view, oppositions such as tradition/modernity, inside/outside, resistance/tyranny or indigenous/ideological are not fixed and definitive binaries; rather, each penetrates the other and their boundaries are constantly shifting.
For this reason, Majid too is not outside this historical text but one of the effects of the slippage and instability of meaning within it. On this basis, the “possibility of resistance” also does not take shape outside the despotic structure but emerges in the fissures, contradictions and internal deferrals of that same structure. What is called “another manifesto” is not a final and fixed alternative but a kind of temporary opening in the order of meaning, an opening that carries within itself both the possibility of emergence and the possibility of closure. As a result, Majid is not the end point of an order but a moment of the slippage of meaning within that same order, a moment that shows no structure, not even the most despotic, is free of internal fissure, deferral and the possibility of transformation.
Majid and Expediency
Focus on Utilizing Indigenous Possibilities
Here, what is meant by utilizing indigenous possibilities is that under conditions of suffocation and chronic pressure, together with a kind of tactic and implicit orbit with power, and without surrendering to it, available and local capacities are used instead of relying on external prescriptions, capacities that provide the possibility of continuation and survival within limitation. This view does not regard being indigenous as a kind of isolation but as a way of acting and living under conditions of pressure and limitation.
Seek the secret of life from the stream’s water:
Where it sees an obstacle, it does not linger;
It contends, it yields, it gathers pace,
And among the stones it opens a path. (1)
The General Condition of Society
In a society like Afghanistan, even the minimum level of economic, social, political and cultural order has not taken shape in a lasting and institutionalized manner. This society, despite its structural fragmentation, has witnessed the growth of layers of appointed officialdom and the simultaneous presence of several heterogeneous modes of production and economic relations, a situation that has led neither to consolidation nor to a clear transition.
Class and Historical Explanation
In class terms, it can be described as a “semi-colonial, semi-feudal and pre-feudal” society, and even, in some layers, explicitly “pre-feudal,” a description that, although it explains part of the reality, appears inadequate for explaining the later complexities, particularly in the periods of the Mujahideen, the post-2001 government and Taliban rule. It is still not clearly established what kind of dominant economic and social relations took lasting shape in these periods and what was merely transient and temporary.
Peripheral Position and Global Structure
From another perspective, Afghanistan can be regarded as a premodern and peripheral society, a society that, on the margins of the global capitalist system and without a full experience of modernity, is engaged in a heterogeneous coexistence of tradition and modernity. From yet another angle, this society has a tribal-colonial structure in which a dependent colonial consumer economy, together with informal networks of power, including the narcotics economy and smuggling, plays a decisive role.
Crisis and Instability
In such a framework, Afghanistan can also be seen as an unstable society on the verge of successive collapses, an arena of accumulated crises that has become a stage for the intelligence games and incursions of great and regional powers. This situation has not only prevented the formation of a modern nation-state but has also postponed any lasting order.
Allegory and the Logic of Survival
Nevertheless, as stated in the allegory of the “stream,” life in such a hard and stony context finds its own path, sometimes in struggle, sometimes in yielding, and sometimes by opening paths that pass through the stones.
The Structure of Power and Scattered Islands
In this same complex and fragmented context, Majid knew the secret of this structure well and understood clearly that in such an “order of disorder,” society turns into a collection of scattered islands of power, islands made up of individuals and groups disconnected from one another, flailing in individual autocracy and unruliness. In such an environment, the name of a locality and tribe becomes a cover for personal goals and ends; values, whether national or human, are pushed to the margins, and no commitment toward them is felt.
This structural rupture not only prevents the formation of social solidarity but also fuels the continuous reproduction of crisis and instability.
Majid’s Understanding of the Structure
Majid, with his grasp of this reality, had reached an understanding, not at the level of appearances but in the depth of this fragmentation and the unruliness of forces, that went beyond description and was aimed at grasping the internal logic of this situation.
Political Action and Coalitions
For this reason, he was able, from a combination of several scattered circles, to seize upon a congress for raising and pursuing the country’s major demands, which itself demonstrated the height of his political understanding and his ability to deal with diverse and mutually opposed political spectrums and groups.
To realize these great goals, Majid adopted his own particular way and method even with opponents and enemies: opening the circle of acquaintance, meeting and dialogue; an effort to cross ruptures and turn confrontation into the possibility of understanding, even if only at the minimum possible level. Within this framework, his meeting with Daoud Khan and then, in another period, with Taraki, arose from this same intellectual origin and showed his sharp and up-to-date grasp of power and politics, a grasp that did not consider mere confrontation sufficient and also tested the path of influence, dialogue and direct acquaintance with the centers of power.
In other words, one can hardly find a layer of power and politics that Majid did not penetrate and in which he did not have a presence, both at the theoretical level and in the field of practice, a presence that went beyond knowing structures and led to testing them in the real arena of politics.
In such a context, the coalition of these scattered groups and circles for a universal, national and vital cause, namely the struggle against the Russian invasion, also took shape, an effort that, within the framework of a historical and political necessity, took place in the form of a convergence of diverse political and social forces.
A Critique of the Narrative of “Majidnama”
Nevertheless, it must regrettably be said that in “Majidnama,” these kinds of approaches and the complex layers of political action have been pushed to the margins and, in the shadow of the paradox of the text’s “central signifier,” have been omitted; it is as if what could have been highlighted as one of the keys to understanding Majid and his relationship with power and politics has been faded or ignored amid the dominant narrative. This is because highlighting such approaches would inevitably have challenged the sanctifying and purist reading of Majid, a reading that tries to represent him as a uniform, contradiction-free figure above the complex relations of power, whereas the reality of his political action speaks of an active and conscious engagement with these very complexities.
The Slaughterhouse of Colonialism: Organized Violence and the Cycle of Elimination
In analyzing power structures in societies such as Afghanistan, colonialism cannot be understood merely as an external intervention or a historical event; it must be recognized in the form of a “mechanism,” one in which violence is systematically produced, distributed and reproduced. This mechanism, in organic connection with regressive forces and indigenous power structures, leads to a kind of internalized order of domination that operates beyond the direct presence of foreign powers.
In this framework, the “slaughterhouse of colonialism” can be considered an analytical metaphor for describing a space in which elimination, whether physical, symbolic or discursive, becomes the rule. This elimination takes place not only through naked repression but through a network of signifiers, codes and representations that place the subject in a position constantly exposed to elimination.
At the heart of such a structure, “Majid” takes shape as a liminal subject at the intersection of conflicting forces, a subject who is at once the product and the victim of this mechanism. But what allows “Majidnama” to be distinguished is not merely the representation of this situation but a kind of ontological openness in the text, a space in which plurality, diversity and polyphony find room to emerge and the text strives to free itself from the dominance of prejudices and fixed clichés.
The maneuvering power of “Majidnama” goes back precisely to this ontological level: to the possibility the text provides for the play of signifiers, the deferral of meaning and the opening of interpretive horizons. In this space, meaning is not something fixed but is always slipping and suspended, and this in turn makes possible plural readings and the crossing of discursive blockages.
Nevertheless, in a Derridean reading, this same pristine and profound text, for all its openness, also faces a kind of internal closure. The paradoxes of the text, despite their presence and prominence, are not freed from the dominance of a “central signifier,” a signifier that, like an unquestioned center, limits the field of play of signs and prevents the radicalization of the deferral of meaning.
In other words, although the text submits to the play of signs at one level, at another level it restrains this play within the orbit of a fixed center. As a result, the movement of signs and codes in “Majidnama” does not proceed fully toward rupture and opening but in many cases returns to reproducing that same center. This return limits the possibility of raising more fundamental questions and beginning more radical openings, and keeps the text in a kind of controlled suspension.
From the perspective of Jacques Derrida, it can be said that “Majidnama” stands on the threshold of deconstruction but does not fully submit to it, because it still remains loyal, if implicitly, to a semantic center. This loyalty, although it gives the text a relative coherence, at the same time prevents the complete release of signifiers and the opening of the infinite play of meaning.
Nevertheless, the importance of “Majidnama” lies precisely in this tension: the tension between openness and closure, between plurality and center, and between the desire for liberation and the return to order. This tension turns the text into a living field for critical readings, a field in which meaning is not discovered but is always being made and collapsing.
Conclusion
Ultimately, “Majid” must be considered not merely a character but the text itself, a text that, in the heart of the slaughterhouse of colonialism, brings about the possibility of liberation through the action of its self-sacrifice, by writing with his own blood. This liberation takes shape not outside the text but in the very process of writing and on the border between elimination and presence, where the subject, even as he collapses, opens another possibility of being.
“From my own blood I draw a line toward the dawn”
Original Poems
(1)
رمز زندهگی از آب جو، جو
چو بیند مانعی، آنجا نپاید
ستیزد، نرمش آرد، پویه گیرد
میان سنگها راهی گشاید.
You can read the Persian version of this article here:
مجید کلکانی؛ اسطورهای جاودان یا چریکی در نبردی نابرابر؟
The post Majid Kalakani: Immortal Legend or Guerrilla in an Unequal Battle? appeared first on Hasht-e Subh.