POLITICAL

GENERAL elections are hardly ever fought on foreign policy. Even the exceptions, such as one
in 1935, which pitted Conservative rearmament against Labour pacifism, and 1983, in which
Margaret Thatcher soared on the back of the Falklands war, were mainly about domestic issues.
Yet the absence of foreign policy debate in the 2015 campaign is nonetheless remarkable.
That is chiefly because the world is pressing. The takeover of eastern Syria and northern Iraq by
Islamic State has produced a jihadist haven, on the edge of Europe, more threatening than
anything Tony Blair or George Bush warned of. British warplanes are again bombing Iraq. And
whatever government is formed in May, that campaign will not end soon, not least because it has
an urgent counterterrorism purpose. Over 500 Britonsincluding the London-accented murderer
known as Jihadi Johnare among thousands of young Europeans with the death cult, and
Britains domestic spy agency, MI5, claims to have foiled over a dozen terrorist plots inspired by
it. It cannot be long before one comes off.
Russias attacks on Ukraine have meanwhile stirred the NATO alliance, of which Britain is, even
after recent defence cuts, probably the second-most capable member after America. This has
raised questions about not merely the scale of the cuts, but also the purpose of Britains armed
forces. The shrinkage they are undergoingwhich by 2020 will reduce the regular army to
82,000 and cost it most of its heavy armouris based on a notion that Britain no longer faces a
serious conventional threat. Yet that is what Russia represents to NATOs eastern flank.
There is more than this for the next foreign secretary to worry about. Among failing states, Libya,
northern Nigeria, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan all represent particular British interests or
responsibilities. Meanwhile Irans quest for a nuclear weapon, Europes to regain competitiveness
and Americas for new Asian allies are strategic issues Britain is struggling to understand, let
alone respond to.
The world has been busy before, of course, and it is not easy managing a power that is fated
despite Mr Blairs raging against the dying of the lightto decline in relative terms. These crises
nonetheless amount to an important test of Britains ambition to be an active, collaborative,
medium-sized Western power, which its leaders are flunking.
The Foreign Office is underfunded and demoralised. The Conservative foreign secretary, Philip
Hammond, is a competent manager with little enthusiasm for the wider world (a senior security
official describes him as not exactly a little Englander, but) Every other week a retired
British general denounces the defence cuts. These were supposed to shrink the defence budget by
8%, but thanks to a historic shortfall of 45.6 billion in the kit budget and a decision to shift
responsibility for maintaining Britains nuclear weapons to the defence ministry, the squeeze has
been closer to 25%. Sir Peter Wall, a former army chief, diagnoses a lower level of global
ambition for UK involvement in global security than ever before.
Neither the Tories nor Labour appear hugely troubled by this diminution. Bruised by economic
weakness, the failures of Mr Blairs hyperactivity and their own unpopularity, both parties seem
increasingly resigned to Britain playing a sharply reduced role in the worldwhich is much less
than the coalition government at first promised.
Though it had little choice but to cut the defence budget, the governments strategy review in
2010 promised a security policy with no less ambition for our country in the decades to come
and David Cameron at first seemed to mean that. He founded an admired National Security
Council, set William Hague, as foreign secretary, to pep up the Foreign Office, showed
enthusiasm for Britains military intervention in Afghanistan and launched a new one, alongside
France, in Libya in 2011.
Sparked by fears of a massacre in Benghazi, the Libya campaign was supposed to define a lighter,
more intelligent mode of intervention. Unlike Mr Blairs campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq,
which involved the deployment of over 50,000 British troops, it was limited to air strikes; it was
also blessed by the UN and Parliament. But Libya is now a mini-Iraq, a source of extremism and
regional instability, and Mr Camerons new model mainly looks like intervention on the cheap,

without responsibility. The alacrity with which the prime minister washed his hands of Libya has
done yet more damage to Britains reputation in the Arab world.
If that suggested a prime minister with a sporadic interest in foreign policy, he has reinforced the
impression. History must judge whether he was right to advocate bombing Syrias regime in
2013, after it used chemical weapons against its people. But it is already clear that, having failed
to win Parliaments approval for that campaign, Mr Cameron has lost much of his former appetite
for bold action abroad.
Having become convinced that the Afghanistan campaign was a profligate stalemate of which
voters had tired, the prime minister withdrew almost all Britains troops last year, leaving the
NATO force they were part of under-manned. Even a memorial to the 453 Britons killed in
Afghanistan was dismantled, stone by stone, and removed to an arboretum in Staffordshire, lest it
be desecrated in Helmand.
Britains latest Iraq campaign is tentativeand not only because, to sneak it through Parliament,
Mr Cameron had to make an incoherent promise to bomb IS in Iraq but not in Syria. British
warplanes have carried out only 6% of the strikes in Iraq and there are almost no British military
personnel in Baghdad, which arguably makes Britain a less important participant in the US-led
campaign than Australia. Were scepticism about the intervention behind this modest contribution,
it might be understandable. But Mr Camerons diffidence is more obviously explained by
flickering attention and fear of his domestic critics.
If the Tories return to power, even with a majority, there is no reason to expect a more ambitious
or coherent foreign policy. Mr Cameron would remain ready to go to war, but perhaps only if it
didnt involve difficult rows in Parliament or look too expensive. The rise of IS and Russian
marauding has made the threat assessment underpinning the strategic review look sanguine; but
they have not persuaded George Osborne, the chancellor, against making further cuts to the
defence budget. It is already bound to shrink below 2% of GDPthe level that NATO demands
and which Mr Cameron endorsed passionately at the alliances summit last year. He can do
passion, he can do intervention and, with his presentational gifts, he can look statesmanlike at
times. But in foreign policy, as otherwise, Mr Cameron lacks the sustained grip that strong
leadership requires.
The prime ministers Europe policy is further evidence of this. Having sworn to stop his party
banging on about Europe, he was bullied by those same head-bangers into promising a
referendum on Britains EU membership by 2017. This would be a costly distraction and, in the
event of an out vote, which Mr Cameron does not want, it would speed Britains global decline.
(That is even before contemplating the prospect of Europhile Scotland demanding a fresh
independence referendum, as it would, and seceding.) An in vote looks more likely. Even so,
the exercise would cast additional doubt over Britains global posture and offend old allies.
It already hasas witnessed by Britains no-show in a Franco-German effort to make peace in
Ukraine. If Britain is feeling increasingly averse to its European friends, the feeling is mutual. Yet
if it is not with Europe, where is it? The trans-Atlantic alliance is weakening with Britains
wilting military punchAmerica has also warned Mr Cameron against further defence cuts. The
Commonwealth, which Eurosceptic Tories dream of refashioning into an Anglophone trading
block, is a non-starter: almost none of its members wants that. Meanwhile the governments effort
to improve relations with China and India, though good in itself, has seemed more craven than
productive. Irked by its decision to join a new Chinese financial institution that might one day
rival the World Bank, America snapped at Britains habit of constant accommodation to China.
Labour should not find it too hard to improve on this record. And indeed, Ed Milibands refusal to
match Mr Camerons referendum pledge looks sensible. So does the gist (despite its annoying
name) of the progressive internationalism outlined by Douglas Alexander, the shadow foreign
secretary. This would include more effort to build alliancesby which he mainly meant in
Europeand uphold the UN.
Europe aside, in fact, there is not much to separate the two parties. Despite his refusal to support

action in Syria, Mr Miliband is not flat against force: he voted to bomb Libya and Iraq. Labour
shares Mr Camerons slightly quixotic commitment to spending 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid.
Perhaps Labour would spend a bit more on the armed forces, given its historic reputation for
being weak on defence. So the question is whether Miliband would be a stronger ambassador for
British values and interests than Mr Cameron has been; and the answer is, maybe not.
While instinctively comfortable in Europe, Mr Miliband shows little interest in Britains evolving
role there, as a big economy outside the euro zone. As Labour leader, he has made only a handful
of foreign trips. His critique of British capitalism takes such little note of global trends as to seem
naive. Perceived in Washington as the villain of the Syria vote, he faces an uphill road there. Ed
doesnt really do abroad, a member of Mr Milibands shadow cabinet has quipped.
Then there is the effect of the minnows to consider, in the event of a coalition or minority
government. Ironically, their biggest impact on foreign policy would be if the strongly Europhile
Liberal Democrats, back with the Tories, were to allow Mr Cameron his EU referendum. They
probably would. Another likely Tory (and possible Labour) ally, the Democratic Unionist Party,
has suggested it would demand a boost to defence spending as the price of support from its eight
or nine Northern Irish MPs.
The Scottish National Party, whose MPs would probably be required to prop up a Labour-led
government, is dedicated to ridding Scotland of Britains sole nuclear-weapons base. Given the
high cost and several years it would take to move it south, this would probably mean scrapping it
altogether. In practice, the SNP would probably settle for a review of the issuewhich Labour,
having no desire to rekindle its anti-nuclear past, would quietly provide. The potentially
damaging effect of the UK Independence Party has been similarly exaggerated. Nigel Farage has
suggested he would support a Tory government in return for an EU referendum before
Christmas. But that is unimaginable, and both parties would balk at such a tie-up.
That leaves the Greens, whose hoped-for seat or two would be available to Mr Miliband. Besides
pro forma things like slashing the defence budget and scrapping the nukes, they have plans for the
Foreign Office: One of the main purposes of embassies would be to learn about culture and
current affairs of their host countries by immersion in a wide variety of local activities. Funnily
enough, that is exactly what Britains desk-bound diplomats need.

ECONOMIC

MAZAR-I-SHARIF, Afghanistan Hajji Sher Mohammad tended his flock of sheep at the foot
of a northern Afghan mountain range, staring off into the distance and invoking what has become
a magical name: Finland. Over there, somewhere.
There is a country called Finland, and thats where lamb skins go, he said. Beyond that, Hajji
Mohammad added, only God knows.
Most Western countries import little from Afghanistan other than carpets and opium. But Finnish
fur buyers growing regard for the velvety pelts of Afghan karakul lambs has made them this
countrys largest export destination in the West for any product, according to Afghanistans
official export statistics.
Last year, Finland, a powerhouse in the global fur trade, imported nearly a half-million Afghan
lamb pelts, auctioning them off to fashion houses to be turned into luxurious womens coats,
among other items.

It is a niche product, to be sure, usually found only in high-priced boutiques or department stores
when it is sold in the West. (It is often marketed as astrakhan fur in those quarters.) But the trade
has remained vital to Afghanistans ailing economic sector.
The hub of the Afghan-Finnish fur trade is the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif. Fur traders gather
here each March and April with stacks of pelts of the karakul breed of sheep purchased from
shepherds across the countryside. The traders stand in doorways and along the walls of trading
floors, watching anxiously as middlemen one rung above them the exporters sort the pelts
by quality into three piles and decide how much each is worth.
The talk often turns to Finland, which, for Afghan fur traders, is another name for the big leagues.
Only traders who amass 20,000 pelts generally go on to Helsinkis fur auctions. Those who have
been there describe to those who have not a country of unimaginably cold winters, of people who
refuse to take bribes, and of angry animal rights activists.
They started shouting: Go back home! Why do you kill these animals? Amin Tawakaly, a
second-generation Afghan fur trader, recalled, describing the protesters who once confronted him
outside his Helsinki hotel. They were shouting in Finnish, so I had to ask what they were
saying.
Newborn karakul lambs are valued above other breeds for the luster and tight, soft curls of their
fur, which form mesmerizing patterns and curlicues. But within a day or two of birth, a lambs fur
grows woolier and loses its value.
A decision is made quickly whether to slaughter the lamb or raise it for its meat and wool, with
shepherds weighing how much rain and grass they believe will be available that year. Usually
about half of the lambs will be killed for their pelts.
It is not only European sensibilities that are offended by the killing of the lambs. The Taliban,
when they were in power in Afghanistan, tried to clamp down on the trade as well, particularly in
the cruelest top end of it: pelts from lambs that have not yet been born, requiring the killing of
pregnant ewes to harvest. Experts estimate they make up less than 10 percent of the pelts sold.
Mr. Tawakaly even empathized with his Finnish hecklers to some degree. As a child, he dreaded
the slaughter of lambing season and once ran away with a newborn lamb, hoping to save it.
After two days, my father caught me and he killed it, Mr. Tawakaly said, with a half-smile,
half-grimace. It was his business, and I couldnt stop him.
While most lamb pelts from Afghanistan and other Central Asian states are shipped abroad, a few
of the best are sent to Kabul, where furriers style them into the memorable peaked hats former
President Hamid Karzai made famous. A silvery or tan karakul hat can sell for more than $1,000.
The karakul sheeps fur was once so widely admired that President Theodore Roosevelt
personally involved himself in efforts to import a karakul flock to the United States in 1909. But
despite years of trying, American ranchers and the Department of Agriculture struggled to raise a
flock with the same quality of fur as those in Central Asia.
For decades, the Central Asian karakul trade continued to thrive, but suddenly plummeted after its
peak in the 1970s. Upheaval in Afghanistan and the broader region was part of the crash, but so
were global tastes and changes in the fur trade.
But if the West has in some part forgotten about karakul sheep, the shepherds of northern
Afghanistan have continued to hold them in the same high regard as always. Some zealous
shepherds tie banners of red cloth to the shaggy wool on the sheeps backs, or even directly paint
the fur red a shield against celestial forces, some say.
Thats for their protection, so the stars at night wont clash and make the rams ill, Mohammad
Hussain, a graying shepherd, 65 years old, explained as his flock nibbled on grass and small
yellow flowers, amid a wind so strong that it swept birds backward when they took to the air.
Although karakul has a far smaller share of the fur market than fox and mink, it has been growing
in recent years, said Kari Huotari, a manager at Saga furs, the major Finnish fur auction
operation.
In the last quarter of 2014, Afghanistan exported $3.6 million worth of karakul pelts to Finland.

In Mazar-i-Sharif, most of the pelts pass through the marble-floored office of Sayed Mohammad
Sultani, the largest Afghan fur exporter. With a karakul hat perched on his head and wearing a
blazer over a flowing shalwar kameez, Mr. Sultani kept a close watch on the sorting process on a
recent morning.
Nearby, one of his employees picked up the top pelt from the stack and ran his fingers on both
sides to test for softness and thinness. The man then held it in his outstretched hands and regarded
it as if he were farsighted, needing to see it at a distance to know what he held.
Then the man tossed it casually into the pile of middle-quality furs. Each of the furs there will
fetch about 1,200 afghanis, or about $21, from Mr. Sultani, the exporter.
Mr. Sultani explained that he insisted on being present to make sure his employees did not place
mediocre furs in the highest-quality pile, either as a favor to the trader who had brought them or
as part of a secret deal to split the proceeds.
Surveying the operation, he declared, to an audience of Afghan fur traders and a reporter, what a
relief it was to do business with the Finnish.
The Finnish people are very honest, Mr. Sultani said. He reached that conclusion through an
experiment of sorts: One time I offered to bribe the person in charge of the karakul auction in
Finland for his customer list, he recounted, trying to cut out the auction house so he might sell
directly to the customers.
I offered him 100,000 euros, Mr. Sultani recounted, about $108,000. An impressed note entered
his tale as he recalled that the Finnish auctioneer refused.

SOCIAL ASPECTS
KABUL, Afghanistan A wave of kidnappings followed by numerous beheadings of members
of Afghanistans Hazara ethnic group have spread alarm and anger among a people who
historically have been this countrys most persecuted.
The police in Ghazni Province confirmed Sunday that four Hazara farmers kidnapped by the
Taliban had been found beheaded in Ajristan District. Six more Hazaras from Daikundi Province
who had been kidnapped by unknown assailants were also found dead, dumped in Ajristan, less
than a week after their families began searching for them, officials confirmed on Monday.
Although the police have not yet recovered the bodies, local reports said they, too, had been
beheaded.
Beheading is not normally a Taliban tactic, but the insurgents seem to be trying to make an ugly
example of the Hazaras, in what some see as a bid for attention.
The Taliban are trying to send out a new message that they are similar in their brutality to ISIS,
said Shahgul Rezaye, a Hazara member of Parliament, referring to Islamic State extremists from
Iraq and Syria, who reportedly have been trying to recruit supporters in Afghanistan. Theyre
trying to show they are as bad as ISIS.
In what may prove to be the worst single episode, insurgents stopped a bus in Zabul Province in
February, separated out the 31 Hazaras and took them away, releasing those from other ethnic
groups. The victims have not been seen or heard from since.
Those and other attacks have galvanized the Hazaras. They have staged daily protests in Kabul
and blocked Parliament with demonstrators who stood and held empty bowls to signify their
unsuccessful effort to get the government to help. A logo with the number 31 has become
ubiquitous in displays here. Poetry and street theater are regular features at their protest tents,
pitched in three places around Kabul and drawing frequent coverage on local television stations.
Responding to the public pressure, President Ashraf Ghani invited relatives of the 31 missing men
to attend his weekly national security council meeting last Wednesday, but they left dissatisfied.

Advertisement
He said, Only God knows where they are, so only God can help them, said Zia Sahil, a
Hazara activist who said the families viewed the presidents answer as inadequate. It doesnt
answer why it took the government 48 days to come to the families and ask for descriptions of
those who are missing.
Afghanistans Hazara minority makes up 5 percent to 10 percent of the population. They have
long been derided by other Afghans as outsiders because they are
thought to be descendants of Genghis Khans Mongol invaders,
who subjugated Afghanistan in the 13th century. Hazaras were
long excluded from government jobs and education and once were
mostly concentrated in the remote mountains of central
Afghanistan, in an area known as Hazarajat.
But the Hazaras prospered after the American invasion, with many migrating to Kabul and
sending their young people, including girls, to school in much
greater numbers than any other group.
Much of Hazarajat escaped the warfare that has engulfed the rest of the country, which also
helped the Hazaras to prosper. In 13 years, there has never been one single Hazara suicide
bomber, Mr. Sahil said.
Often working or studying far from their Hazarajat homes, the Hazaras have had to travel long
distances on dangerous roads to visit family members, making the recent attacks all the more
disturbing for them. All of the attacks have been carried out against Hazara travelers, especially
as they have passed through Pashtun areas where Taliban insurgents are prevalent.
That was what made the case of the 31 missing men so worrisome. The insurgents stopped three
buses that passed within an hour on the countrys major highway, known as the ring road or
Highway 1, as it runs through Zabul Province north of Kandahar.
The mens abductors separated the Hazaras from Pashtuns and others, according to witnesses who
were allowed to leave, and stuffed them into cars and drove them away. What most infuriated
their families, however, were claims that the kidnappings took place on a stretch of highway
between two government check posts that were so close that the security forces must have seen
what was happening to the bus passengers.
They said they couldnt do anything to intervene because it was not their responsibility, said
Murtaza Farjad, 24, another Hazara activist in Kabul.
Since then, there has been no claim of responsibility for the kidnappings, no ransom demands and
no word on the victims fates. Most of them were Hazara laborers who had gone to Iran to find
work and had been deported, which frequently happens to Afghans there.
Mr. Farjad, a college graduate with a degree in diplomacy, has not been home to see his family in
Ghazni in two years, which is typical of many of Kabuls Hazaras. Hazaras cannot travel from
Kabul to Behsood in Wardak Province, he said, describing a journey to a Hazara area in the
province adjoining the capital. Even 35 minutes out of the city, its not safe for us. Mr. Sahil
said, It has become a crime to be a Hazara in Afghanistan.
Ms. Rezaye said Hazara leaders felt that the improvement in their circumstances in recent years
had suddenly begun dissipating. That is partly because of rising insecurity and the government
crisis under Mr. Ghani; there still is not a permanent defense minister, for instance, she said.
These are operations against a specific ethnic group, Ms. Rezaye said. Theyre trying to incite
ethnic issues in the country.
In addition to the ethnic difference, Hazaras are mostly Shiite Muslims, whereas the Taliban and
most Afghans are Sunnis. Islamic State fighters, as well as the Taliban, have often directly
targeted Shiites, whom they view as un-Islamic.
Some officials in Zabul say that the kidnappers there may have affiliated themselves with the
Islamic State. Amanullah Kakar, a community leader from the Khaki-Afghan District of Zabul

Province where the abductions took place, said it was well known locally that the kidnappers
were followers of Mullah Abdullah Kakar, a former Taliban commander who has gone over to the
Islamic State.
The Islamic State claims Quranic justification for its campaign of beheadings. Taliban followers
in Badakhshan Province in northern Afghanistan recently beheaded government soldiers, but the
Taliban issued a statement on Tuesday criticizing the practice as un-Islamic.
The four Hazaras whose bodies were found beheaded in Ajristan District on Sunday were all
farmers, kidnapped on their way to buy sheep, said Zaman Ali Hedayat, the governor of the
district where the victims were from.
Mr. Hedayat said the men were initially kidnapped by the Taliban as a potential exchange for six
Taliban insurgents taken prisoner by the government. Tribal mediators thought they had a deal to
swap them all, but then the mens bodies were found.
Whoever is responsible for the attacks, other ethnic groups should be just as worried by the new
tactics being used against Hazaras, said Hussain Noori, a prominent Shiite imam.
Such acts are not in the interest of any ethnic group, he said. Theyre just trying to create
sectarian problems between the Shiites and Sunnis in the country.

JALALABAD, Afghanistan The Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, blamed the Islamic State
extremist group for a suicide bombing here on Saturday that killed 35 civilians. If responsibility
is confirmed, it will suggest a major escalation of the groups activities in Afghanistan.
The bombing at the Kabul Bank branch here, in which a man wearing an explosive vest targeted a
crowd of people waiting to collect their pay, also wounded 125, making it the worst suicide attack
this year, Afghan officials said. All of the victims were civilians, the police said.
Today the deadly attack in Nangarhar Province who claimed responsibility? said Mr. Ghani,
speaking on national television during a visit to the northern province of Badakhshan, which has
been hit hard by recent Taliban attacks. Taliban did not claim responsibility, but Daesh claimed
responsibility. Daesh is the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
If Islamic State militants did carry out the attack, it will be the first time they have struck so far
from their Middle East home ground.
The blast at the bank was one of three separate explosions heard in Jalalabad, the capital of the
eastern province of Nangarhar, in quick succession around 8 a.m. Saturday, according to the
police.
The Taliban spokesman for eastern Afghanistan, Zabiullah Mujahid, disavowed the bank attack
soon after it happened, denying in three different languages on Twitter that Taliban insurgents had
been behind it. We condemn/deny involvement, Mr. Mujahid wrote in one post.
In 2011, the Taliban claimed responsibility for a similarly deadly attack on the same branch of
Kabul Bank in Jalalabad, in which seven suicide attackers killed 38 bank customers, also on a
payday. Many Afghans collect their salaries directly from banks as a safeguard against the
countrys rampant corruption.
Reached by cellphone at an undisclosed location, Mr. Mujahid repeated his denials that the
Taliban insurgents had anything to do with Saturdays bombing. He did not directly repudiate
reports circulating on social media that the Islamic State was responsible for it.
On ISIS we dont comment, Mr. Mujahid said. We havent commented on them in the past,
and we will not say anything now. We are responsible for the war in this country and that is all we
can comment and give views on.
He said the Taliban would investigate the attack and then I will comment and say who was
behind it.
Mr. Ghani did not elaborate on his statement that the Islamic State had taken responsibility for the

Jalalabad attack, and it was not clear where he had obtained that information. Pahjwok News, an
Afghan news agency, reported that a former Pakistani Taliban figure named Shahidullah Shahid
said ISIS had claimed responsibility for the attack. But there was no confirmation that Mr. Shahid
spoke for the group, whose nearest confirmed base of operations is 1,500 miles to the west, in
Iraq.
There have been reports of ISIS recruiting activities in Afghanistan, especially in the southern
part of the country. But the bombing on Saturday was the first instance of a significant terrorist
attack said to be claimed by the group anywhere in eastern Afghanistan. Jalalabad is only about
60 miles from the national capital, Kabul.
American military officials have expressed alarm about reports of attempts by the Islamic State to
make inroads in Afghanistan through taking advantage of splits in the Taliban ranks. There is also
discontent over the fact that even most Taliban commanders have not seen the reclusive Taliban
leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, in many years.
In February, an American drone strike in southern Helmand Province killed a former Taliban
commander, Mullah Abdul Rauf Khadim, who claimed to have switched his allegiance to ISIS.
Reports were circulating on social media in Afghanistan on Saturday showing a photograph said
to be of the Jalalabad suicide bomber before the attack. He was dressed in Afghan-style clothing,
with a crude, handmade ISIS flag behind him. The authenticity of the photograph could not be
immediately confirmed.
Local Afghan journalists in Jalalabad said they had received an anonymous text signed by
Wilayat Khorasan, a group claiming to be an ISIS affiliate in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and
claiming responsibility for the bombing immediately after it happened Saturday morning. The
text was signed by Mr. Shahid but was sent via an unknown cellphone number, and attempts by
journalists to reach Mr. Shahid at a verified number were unsuccessful.
Fazel Ahmad Sherzad, the police chief of Nangarhar Province, put the death toll at 22 and the
number of wounded at more than 50. But the head of the provincial health department, Najibullah
Kamawal, said that hospitals had already received the bodies of 35 victims, along with 125
wounded.
The first of the three blasts in Jalalabad on Saturday morning occurred at a religious shrine and
apparently involved a planted bomb, not a suicide attacker; only two people were wounded.
Seconds later, according to the police, the suicide bomber at the bank detonated a vest packed
with explosives.
A short time later, the police discovered a third bomb in a motorcycle parked in front of a branch
of the Central Bank of Afghanistan, they said. They detonated it under controlled conditions to
ensure that no one was hurt.
Pakistans prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, responded unusually quickly to reports of the Jalalabad
attack. Extending condolences on this tragic incident, he said in a news release issued by his
office. Terrorism is a common enemy of both the countries which are now taking joint steps to
eradicate this menace.
The top United Nations official in Afghanistan, Nicholas Haysom, condemned the bombing.
The continuing use of suicide attacks in densely populated areas, that are certain to kill and
maim large numbers of Afghan civilians, may amount to a war crime, he said. Those
responsible for this horrendous crime must be held accountable.
Last year was the deadliest year of the war for civilians caught up in the Afghan conflict,
according to the United Nations. The agency recorded a 22 percent increase in civilian casualties
in 2014 over 2013, when the previous record was set; the great majority of the deaths were
attributed to indiscriminate attacks by insurgents.

KABUL, Afghanistan In indignant tones, the Islamic law student told her family about the
superstitious practices she had witnessed earlier that day at a historic shrine in Kabul.
She had seen illiterate mullahs sell good-luck charms and visitors who were convinced that
prayers offered in the shrine were bound to come true.
Over a family dinner, the student, a 27-year-old woman named Farkhunda, vowed to return and
speak out against what she deemed superstitious and un-Islamic behavior.
That decision and what awaited her at the shrine has convulsed Kabul.
When she returned there last week and began chastising people for their ignorance, an attendant
at the shrine countered with a far more dangerous accusation: This woman, he shouted, was an
infidel who had burned the Quran. A sparse crowd quickly became a mob of hundreds, and the
men railed at her, beat her, set fire to her body.
Farkhunda was a true Muslim, a religious hero, said Shahla Farid, a law lecturer at Kabul
University and a member of a commission appointed by the Afghan president to investigate
Farkhundas death. Here a woman challenged a man and defended Islam.
The shrine attendant who falsely accused her of burning the Quran now sits in jail, as do more
than two dozen other men accused of a role in her death, which was captured in numerous
cellphone videos. There are growing calls for the public executions of those responsible.
Banners depicting Farkhundas face grace the spot where she was killed. And her family, first told
to flee the capital for their own safety, has proudly taken her name as their surname.
The countrys Religious Affairs Ministry has pledged to rid shrines of fortune tellers and peddlers
of good-luck charms, whom Farkhunda was preaching against when the crowd turned on her.
Although Farkhunda found recognition after her death, it is telling that, in life, she was silenced
when she spoke out.
After more than a decade of efforts to improve the standing of Afghan women, violence against
them occurs across much of the country with impunity. A mans accusation against a woman is
often the final word, as it was here last week.
For some women in Kabul, the despair and terror they felt upon watching Facebook videos of the
lynching have given way to a cautious hope.
She has improved the status of women in Islam and in our community, Ms. Farid said. I
believe Farkhunda is now giving more hope to more women.
But Ms. Farid allowed that her female students were less optimistic. When a new school year
opened this past week, only two of the 30 enrolled female students appeared for her class; male
attendance was better. Usually, she said, it is the opposite when the school year begins: female
students, who are more isolated, show up for the first lectures, while the male students skip class
to hang out.
Then she heard from female students who said they were afraid to be in public after watching
how quickly the mob had formed against Farkhunda. How can I sit here in class with boys? Im
afraid of them, Ms. Farid said, recounting what students told her.
And some women say that focusing on Farkhundas vindication in death, rather than her
victimization in life, is to miss the point.
This is heartbreaking she was innocent and she was a woman, said Fawzia Koofi, a womens
rights activist and politician who is also on the presidential fact-finding commission into
Farkhundas death. This happened to her because of her gender.
Many were struck that Farkhunda died in downtown Kabul, a city with a large police force, and
in broad daylight. Many of her assailants were young men, some teenagers, with little education
or employment.
Khaled Hosseini, the Afghan-American novelist of The Kite Runner, wrote on Facebook that
among the many things that left him depressed about Farkhundas

death was that the attack did not happen in, say, a remote
conservative village in southern Afghanistan but in Kabul, an
urban city embodying what passes for progressive thought in
Afghanistan.
Farkhunda herself came from an educated family, her father an engineer and her mother a high
school graduate, said her brother, Mujibullah, who has taken his
sisters name as his surname. She had studied math at a university
before switching to Islamic studies at a madrasa.
While her parents initially told reporters that Farkhunda was mentally ill, her brother said they
did so only at the behest of the police, who thought it would defuse
tensions. Mujibullah insists that his sister was of sound mind.
The police, as well as some members of the presidents investigative commission, maintain that
Farkhunda was under treatment by a doctor for depression or
another disorder.
Mujibullah said that Farkhunda first went to the shrine known as the Shrine of the King of
Two Swords and said to be where an early Islamic conqueror in
Afghanistan had died fighting Hindus out of generosity, to bring
clothing to the needy.
But she was appalled at what she saw as heretical or superstitious practices there, and she ranted
about them at dinner that night, vowing to return, her brother said.
When she went back to the shrine on March 19, she preached in the courtyard for hours, warning
visitors away, urging them to pray at the mosque across the street.
She denounced the attendants who cleaned the shrine some of
whom sold charms as two-rupee beggars.
Later, one of the shrine attendants, Zain-ul-Din, leveled his accusation against Farkhunda. He
may have even produced charred pages from somewhere, declaring
them to be pages of a Quran she had burned.
A deputy minister for religious affairs, Dai-ul-Haq Abid, said his investigation had clearly
established Farkhundas innocence.
The morning after Farkhundas death, he went to the shrine to confront Zain-ul-Din. Why did
you accuse this woman of burning the holy Quran? Mr. Abid
recalled asking.
The old man complained that Farkhunda had been driving people away. When Mr. Abid asked
again, the old man struggled to answer. Mr. Abid recalled that the
man looked down in shame before answering that he was full of
regret.
Mr. Abid said that the shrine attendants were clearing hundreds of thousands of rupees a month
selling good-luck charms.
This is a business, he said, one that Farkhunda had threatened. Now, he said, the authorities
have begun arresting people who peddle such charms at shrines.