Table Of ContentProduction and Domination
Afghanistan, 1747-1901
Ashraf Ghani
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
Columbia University
1982
@ 1984
ASHRAF GHANI
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ABSTRACT
PRODUCTION AND DOMINATION AFGHANISTAN
1747-1901
My objective in this work is to provide an anthopo1og
ica1 analysis of the historical processes through which
structures of production and domination were reproduced
as a totality from 1747 to 1901 in the present territory
of Afghanistan. To bring the changing articulation of
structures in the total system into sharper relief I have
opted for a combination of temporal and spatial frameworks.
The period from 1747 to 1901 forms the unit of long
duration for the first part of the study. Within that
period, depending on the changes in one or several of the
elements within a structure, I have chosen an appropriate
conjunctura1 unit - such as 1840-1901 for the changes in
the system of inter-territorial communication - to high
light the relevant changes. In part two I deal with two
f
main units of long-durat~~n, roughly 1500-1722 and 1747-
1901. The choice of the conjunctura1 units within each
of these periods is, again, determined by changes in the
systematic relations among elements composing the struc
ture. Thus, for changes in the patterns of long-distance
trade, the years 1500-1622 are demarcated as being signi
ficantly different from the following one hundred years.
The second unit of long-duration, being the main focus of
analysis and an era of rapid restructuring and destructur
ing, is broken into four conjunctural units: 1747-1818;
1826-1839; 1843-1878; and 1880-1901.
Spatially, instead of taking the whole territory of
the state as the unit of analysis I have focused on six
regions. Within each of these regions I distinguish be
tween central and marginal ecological zones and then ex
plore the interrelations among these elements within re
gional, inter-regional and inter-territorial units.
In the first part of the study I provide an analysis
of geography and ecology; labor-process and technical or
ganization of production in agriculture; social organiza
tion of production; and circulation, transportation, and
markets. In the second part I first provide an histori
cal overview of the social relations and then analyze the
formation and reproduction of the Afghan state. I:n each
chapter the relevant theoretical literature is discussed
and in the conclusion the interrelation between structures
of production and domination is viewed from a comparative
perspective.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Dedication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. iii
Preface................................. ............. iv
PART I
Chapter I:
Geography and Ecology: The Historical Setting ••••••• 1
Chapter II:
Labor Process and Technical Organization of
Production in Agriculture ..............•.....•..•... 32
Chapter III:
Social Organization of Production •.•••••••••••••.••• 82
Chapter IV:
Circulation, Transportation, and Markets ..•••.•••••• 158
PART II
Chapter V:
Social Relations - An Historical Overview •••..•••.•• 226
Chapter VI:
The Afghan State: Formation and Reproduction .••••.•• 292
PART III:
Chapter VII:
Conclusion .......................................... 415
Bibliography ......................................... 427
i
ACKNOVlLE DGEMEN'l'S
As my research on this work has taken almost a decade
my debts to individuals and institutions are numerous, but
I will only name a few. I am grateful to the members of
my committee: Professors C. Arensberg, R. Bulliet, M. Cohen,
E. Embree, M. Fried, R. Murphy and J. Vincent who were all
generous with their time and patient with my style of
thinking and writing. I am also deeply indebted to
Professors Marvin Harris, Richard Lee, Jane and Peter
Schneider, Gerald Sider and other members of CUNY seminars
for intellectual stimulation. Many of my ideas were ham
mered in discussion with my fellow students at Columbia.
I will only name A. Barstow, L. Brock, G. Mescher, B.
Miller, and D. Nugent as a sample.
The straint imposed on Rula Saade Ghani since 1975
has been continuous. I am grateful to her for not com
plaining more than she did. My daughter Mariam was more
cheerful than she could have been. I cannot thank Susan
Mescher adequately for typing the final version of this
work.
ii
To the memory of Fouad Saade
iii
PREFACE
In his discussion of history and dialectics, Claude
Levi-Strauss argues that IIscientific explanation consists
not in moving from complex to the simple but in the re
placement of a less intelligible complexity by one which
is more SOli (1962/1966:248). Yet, in a moment of frustra
tion, the eminent anthropologist declared that "for me as
a European, and because I am a European, Mohammed inter
venes with uncouth clumsiness, between our thought and
Indian doctrines that are very close to it, in such a way
as to prevent East and West joining hands, as they might
well have done, in harmonious collaboration ••• The two
worlds are closer to each other than either is to the Mos
lem anachronism. Rational evolution would have been the
converse of what actually occured historically; Islam cut
a more civilized world in two. What appears modern to it
belongs to a bygone age; it is living with a time lag of
a thousand years" (1955/1974:466-467).
I have no desire to examine the motives that led
Levi-Strauss to his proclamation. At issue are his use of
the notion of structure and the relation between anthro
pology and history. Social structure, in his view, has
IInothing to do with empirical reality but with models which
are built up after it" (1963:279). Social relations pro
vide the raw material out of which the model is constructed
iv
but the social structure can not be reduced "to the ensem
ble of the social relations to be described in a given so
ciety" (Ibid). A model must meet several requirements.
Exhibiting the characteristics of a system, the elements
in the structure are related in such a way that changes in
one effects changes in others and, for any given model,
there should be a possibility of ordering a series of trans
formations resulting in a group of models of the same type.
These properties should make it possible to predict the re
actions of the models if one or several elements are sub
mitted to change (Ibid). Lastly, it should be possible to
"experiment" on models (Ibid:280).
Experimentation is closely linked to observation. He
affirms that "on the observational level, the main -- one
could almost say the only -- rule is that all the facts
should be carefully observerd and described, without allow
ing any theoretical preconception to decide whether some
are more important than others, This rule implies, in turn,
that facts should be studied in relation to themselves (by
what kind of concrete process did they come into being?)
and in relation to the whole (always aiming to relate each
modification which can be observed in a sector to the glob
al situation in which it first appeared)" (Ibid).
From the last observation, it might be inferred that
time should constitute an important element of the defini
tion of structure, but this is not so. Levi-Strauss in-
v
sists that "anthropology uses a 'mechanical' time, rever
sible and non-cumulative .•• On the contrary, historical
time is 'statistical'; it always appears as an oriented and
non-reversible process" (Ibid:286).
Fernand Braudel, in an essay on history and social
sciences, states that "for historians, a structure certain
ly means something that holds together or something that
is architectural; but beyond that it means a reality which
can distort the effects of time, changing its scope and
speed. Certain structures live on for so long that they
become stable elements for an indefinite number of genera
tions: they encumber history, they impede and thus control
its flow. Others crumble away faster. But all operate si
multaneously as a support and an obstacle" (1958/1972:17-
18). Responding specifically to Levi-Strauss's notion of
non-temporal structure, he writes that "the essential thing
is to define the role and limits of the model (which cer
tain ventures run the risk of over-extending), before set
ting up a joint programme for the social sciences. Hence
the need to confront models, too, with the idea of duration;
for their depth of meaning and explanatory value depend, in
my view, largely on the duration they imply" (Ibid:27).
Furthermore, Levi-Strauss's emphasis on the non-reversibil
ity of historical time misses the essential point that, in
fact, it is history that provides the greatest examples of
transformation as well as breakdown of social structures.
vi
Description:Ashraf Ghani. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.
