Marwa Dashti on Afghan Women’s Rights Under Taliban Rule

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/16

Marwa Dashti, Afghan advocate and co-founder of the Fahim Dashti Foundation, about the devastating state of women’s rights in Afghanistan under Taliban rule. Dashti highlights systemic oppression through bans on education, employment, movement, and public expression, driven by fear of female empowerment. Despite the extreme danger, Afghan women resist through anonymous journalism and quiet defiance. She stresses that the situation is a human rights crisis and a societal collapse. International frameworks help, but change must come from continued global pressure and Afghan resilience. The Foundation stands as a beacon of advocacy, truth, and hope.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re here with Marwa Dashti, Afghan advocate, daughter of the late journalist Fahim Dashti, and co-founder of the Fahim Dashti Foundation, which focuses on press freedom and women’s rights in Afghanistan.

The focus of today’s conversation is the condition of women’s and girls’ rights in Afghanistan. I chose this topic because the contrast between Afghanistan and much of the world is stark, and the regression happened in such a short period. Multiple actors—nation-states and groups—bear responsibility for the current state of affairs. These were not accidents; they were conscious choices.

Yet, even setting that aside, we are left with the very real and dire conditions facing women and girls in Afghanistan today. Within that context, what metaphor, image, or symbolic portrait best captures the reality for Afghan women right now?

Marwa Dashti: For Afghan women, I think right now, many are going through what is understandably a period of deep mental and emotional distress. They have been stripped of their most basic human rights. That kind of trauma takes a toll, especially over time.

However, the most accurate and powerful portrait of Afghan women today is one of resilience. Their strength in the face of everything—the fact that they still hold on to hope, that they continue to resist, to speak out even in whispers, and to process life under this brutal regime—that courage defines them. So yes, the most honest image of Afghan women today is one of strength and defiance against all odds.

Jacobsen: What is the role of journalism in that context? Whether we’re talking about anonymous or pseudonymous guerrilla journalism—those trying to tell difficult stories from the inside—or traditional reporting focused on the Taliban’s public policies and their effects on women and girls, what does journalism look like under such conditions?

Dashti: The contrast between journalism in Afghanistan and the West is enormous. In Western societies, journalism is vital, but here, people can access information through social media and other platforms. Everyone is connected, and many people engage in journalism without realizing it. Even influencers, in their way, can contribute to public awareness—something I’ve said before in interviews. I do think that in today’s media environment, being an influencer can amount to a kind of journalism.

But in Afghanistan, it is completely different. You cannot just openly speak your mind. Freedom of speech does not exist under the Taliban. You cannot critique the government. You cannot expose injustice without risking your life.

And yet, despite the overwhelming danger, some people—especially women—still take that risk. They document what is happening. They share stories. They try to show the world the brutality of the regime: the arrests, the torture, the disappearances, the killings. And they do it anonymously, knowing they will not receive recognition or reward—only risk.

They could be caught. They could lose everything—the very little they have left. And still, they continue.

That, to me, is extraordinary. Without them, we would not know much of what we know about what is happening inside Afghanistan. Their courage is the heartbeat of resistance, and their work is vital for understanding this crisis.

Unfortunately, the news inside Afghanistan is heavily censored by the Taliban. Without independent journalists working in the country, we would receive false or manipulated information. The fact that there are journalists—men and women—fiercely committed to truth, working under constant threat, without any personal gain, and to get the real story out there is incredibly important right now.

They speak the truth about their people. Without them, the situation could have been a hundred times worse. Even the minimal global attention Afghanistan receives today is largely thanks to their efforts. Without them, we would not even have that.

Jacobsen: According to the Women, Peace, and Security Index (2023), Afghanistan ranked 177th out of 177 countries regarding women’s status, evaluating inclusion, justice, and security. Similarly, the Global Gender Gap Report (2023) placed Afghanistan 146th out of 146 countries, with only 40.5% of the gender gap closed—across areas like economic participation, education, health, and political empowerment.

Do these numbers reflect what you are seeing and experiencing in your analysis?

Dashti: Unfortunately, yes. That is not surprising at all. I do not think there is any country in the world right now where the situation for women is as dire as it is in Afghanistan.

We live in the 21st century. Elsewhere, people are talking about colonizing Mars—and yet we have an entire country where the government forbids girls from attending school beyond the second grade. It is absurd.

How can anyone justify that? How is the international community tolerating this? It’s beyond comprehension.

Half the population—women—are barred from school, from contributing to society, and from pursuing careers. They are controlled in every aspect of their lives: what they wear, how they present themselves, what they say, where they go, and even whether they can sing or hear their voices publicly.

It is oppressive beyond belief. And no, I do not think there is a worse situation for women anywhere else on Earth right now.

Jacobsen: The United Nations has described Afghanistan today as “the world’s most repressive country for women.” UN experts have stated that the situation resembles conditions before February 2002—effectively erasing twenty years of progress in education, employment, Freedom of movement, public participation, legal protections, and protection from violence.

Many people find this a sensitive subject. So, for documentation and clarity, let us go through some of these factors factually, as identified by the UN. On education: Girls are banned from secondary and university education. The Taliban has issued edicts denying access to school beyond the sixth grade, as reported by UN Women.

Why the restriction on secondary and university education? Why is the focus on cutting off access beyond sixth grade?

Dashti: From what we observed, when the Taliban first took over, there was a very brief window during which women were still allowed to work and continue their education. But that didn’t last long.

Initially, this notion was circulated—”Taliban 2.0″—the idea that they had changed, that they were no longer the same as the Taliban of the 1990s. People wanted to believe they were more modern, more moderate. I think what the Taliban tried to do was gradually restrict women’s rights so that the international community—and even local communities—would become accustomed to the changes little by little.

First, they banned secondary education. Then came the restrictions on universities. After that, they began dictating what women could wear. Then came limits on where women could go. Now, we are seeing women silenced even in public spaces—not allowed to speak or have their voices heard in public forums.

There’s no particular reason they drew the line in sixth grade. It was just the beginning of a strategy to systematically dismantle the education system for girls, slowly enough that people would not react all at once. Their end goal is to eliminate female education, but they’re doing it step by step, trying to normalize it.

Jacobsen: Are there any comparable cases in your mind—either in your travels to Albania, Pakistan, and Canada or in conversations with others—where you’ve encountered subcultures or conditions reflecting this kind of oppression? Or is this truly a uniquely severe case of women’s education?

Dashti: Simply put, women’s rights have been a global issue. This is not exclusive to Afghanistan. However, the severity of the situation in Afghanistan today is unlike anything we see anywhere else.

Yes, other countries have problems when it comes to gender equality. However, the total and deliberate rollback of women’s rights—especially education—to this extent in the 21st century is unique. Afghanistan stands out because of how systematic and ideological the oppression is.

Jacobsen: Regarding employment, Women have been prohibited from working in most non-governmental organizations since December 2022, and by April 2023, the ban was extended to include even United Nations missions. The European Parliament highlighted these restrictions. Why do you think the Taliban would even ban women from working in international organizations like the UN?

Dashti: I think it’s very simple. The Taliban are afraid of the power Afghan women possess. They are afraid of their strength, their resilience, and their ability to organize. Banning women from working with NGOs—and even from participating in UN missions—is an attempt to suppress and isolate them. The Taliban fear what women represent: education, progress, and Freedom. And so they’re trying to silence that power in any way they can.

It comes down to this: anything unknown is often perceived as dangerous. That is human nature. And the Taliban see the strength Afghan women possess. They see our potential. And because they do not understand how to coexist with that strength, they fear it. They label it as dangerous.

Their only way to deal with what they perceive as a threat is to suppress it and oppress it as much as they can. As a government, they do not want to be represented by women in any context, including domestic governance and international diplomacy. So when they extended these bans even to United Nations missions, it became clear: they are not just enforcing rules. They are enforcing a worldview in which women are deliberately excluded from visibility and power.

Whether it is because they believe they are inherently superior to women or simply because they fear what women are capable of—I think it is both—they are determined to control us through exclusion.

Jacobsen: Another factor raised by the international community is Freedom of movement. Since 2021, Afghan women have been prohibited from travelling without a mahram—a male relative. Let us explore both the physical and psychological aspects of that restriction. What does it mean in both tangible and symbolic terms?

On a physical level, it is very straightforward: women cannot go anywhere unless accompanied by a male relative. That includes necessities—going to work, visiting a doctor, or travelling between cities. It is a profound logistical barrier.

But psychologically, the restriction is even more damaging. It is a direct assault on a woman’s autonomy, on her right to exist independently. 

Dashti: It sends a message that women are not full human beings—that we are incomplete without a man beside us.

This rule is part of a much broader effort to strip women of independence, piece by piece. And it overlooks a critical reality: many women do not have male relatives. There are orphans. There are single mothers, widows, and women whose families have been torn apart by decades of war. What happens to them?

Many of these women are also the sole providers for their families. If they cannot move freely, they cannot work, and their families suffer. This rule isn’t just oppressive—it is inhumane.

But again, the goal is clear: the Taliban want to condition women into believing that they cannot function without male oversight. They want to dismantle any remaining sense of independence.

Jacobsen: And that ties into public participation, perhaps the most visible aspect of rights. You have to be able to be seen in public to participate in public life.

Formal laws—published as recently as August 2024—now restrict or outright prohibit women’s voices from being heard publicly. I do not think they mean “public” in the sense of parliamentary buildings or being on the news. They mean it literally—your voice cannot be heard in the street, even in passing conversation. So, for example, if a woman is speaking and a man walks by, that is considered a violation. Is that accurate?

Dashti: Yes, that is very much accurate. The rule is meant to prevent women’s voices from being heard by any man, not just in official or professional settings but in everyday life.

So, for instance, if you are a woman shopping in a market and the shopkeeper is a man, you are no longer supposed to speak to him. This is interpreted literally—your voice cannot be audible to men in public. That is how far the restrictions have gone.

Jacobsen: And now we come to legal protection from violence, which people in the West might more readily recognize because it is an issue every country still struggles with—though reporting varies.

For example, Japan is often cited as having lower rates of reported violence, but those statistics may be shaped by how the country defines violence and how well incidents are documented.

In the case of Afghanistan, gender-based violence is high. According to UN Women, 34.7% of women aged 15 to 49 reported physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner in 2018. Forced marriages are common.

Of course, data reliability becomes an issue under a theocracy that is increasingly cut off from the outside world. So, we often have to treat these statistics with caution. But based on your experience—particularly among refugees, asylum seekers, and others you’ve worked with—does this track with what you hear from women in that age range?

Dashti: Absolutely. We saw a sudden surge in these cases right after the Taliban takeover. There were credible reports of girls as young as eight being sold into forced and child marriages—for as little as a few hundred U.S. dollars. That is horrifying.

And even outside of Afghanistan—while I was in Albania, I worked with an organization that aimed to provide safe spaces for female Afghan refugees. Many of them reported experiences of domestic violence—not just back home but also in displacement.

So, while we must focus on the erasure of women’s rights inside Afghanistan, we also need to pay attention to Afghan women in exile—refugees, asylum seekers, and others—who are often still vulnerable to abuse and exploitation, even in host countries, including those in North America and Europe.

Jacobsen: Regarding political empowerment, it is effectively 0%. To round the data, women are not represented in political decision-making structures in Afghanistan today.

Are there any areas in which women in Afghanistan still have decision-making power—whether in the home, in the economy, in employment, or otherwise, regardless of whether they have children?

Dashti: No—honestly, I cannot think of a single situation where an Afghan woman holds meaningful decision-making power, especially not at the government level.

That said, I want to emphasize that while women may not currently make the decisions, they are fighting against those who do. The absence of power is not because Afghan women lack strength or capability—it is because they are being systematically oppressed.

But in terms of actual decision-making authority today, I cannot think of any context where an Afghan woman would be allowed to exercise it.

Jacobsen: In the absence of formal power, how do Afghan women realistically rebel or resist?

Dashti: I think a lot of it happens quietly—within the home, in their communities, and through subtle, daily acts of defiance. Feminism in Afghanistan is fundamentally different from feminism in Western countries.

In the West, feminism often works within the state—pushing for rights, representation, and reforms. But in Afghanistan, feminism is about challenging the very existence of the regime. It is about opposing the structure itself.

That takes strength beyond words. And the fact that so many Afghan women are risking their lives to resist is incredibly inspiring.

Jacobsen: What do people in places like Toronto or other relatively free societies take for granted?

Dashti: A normal life.

A free life where you can express your thoughts without fear, speak your truth openly, go for a walk alone, talk in public, go to school, go to work, and spend time with your family without the fear that something—or someone—will take all of that away from you.

Jacobsen: How important are international frameworks on gender parity—such as the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action from September 1995—for defending Afghan women’s rights?

That document is still considered the most comprehensive global policy on gender equality, signed by nearly every UN member state. Beyond that, what other frameworks are you aware of, and how important are they—beyond the symbolic statements issued at UN events like the Commission on the Status of Women?

Dashti: These reports and frameworks influence policymaking and the international community’s reactions.

Let me rephrase that a bit. If we look at this through the lens of universal rights, the concept is simple: every human being is entitled to basic human rights, regardless of where they live.

So when organizations like the UN, UN Women, or other global bodies issue reports, declarations, or resolutions, they do more than make statements. These documents become points of pressure—tools that activists, governments, and civil society groups can use to hold nations accountable.

They set global standards, influence funding, diplomatic engagement, and policy, and while they may not immediately change conditions on the ground in places like Afghanistan, they provide the language, evidence, and international consensus needed to continue the fight.

However, when you look at the concept of universal rights in practice, they only apply within a functioning state and are only enforceable within a state framework. That is the paradox—rights are considered universal, but their application requires a state structure willing to uphold them.

The same goes for these global declarations and reports. The reports are often accurate, but the actual conditions are far more severe than what is reflected in the data.

That is partly due to the political and logistical restrictions in Afghanistan. But it is also because the international community is, to some degree, trying to normalize the situation. They do not want to admit how bad it has become or lack the will to confront it directly.

That said, I recognize the importance of these reports. They influence policymakers and lawmakers and serve as reference points for diplomacy, foreign aid, and advocacy. But they need to be more truthful—more precise. They must reflect the actual lived experience of Afghan women today.

Jacobsen: When I look at the current Taliban leadership—the men in power now—I see something tragic. They will eventually pass away, and younger generations may take over. But the ones leading now, I do not just see as oppressors, sometimes; I sometimes see them as victims of fate, chaos, and trauma.

Their extremism, both religious and political, seems to reflect something psychological—perhaps PTSD or complex post-traumatic stress disorder—the long-term effect of living in endless war.

It is heartbreaking, in a way, how this unresolved trauma gets twisted into repression and then imposed on everyone else.

I once interviewed a major Afghan journalist who said he was open to speaking with Taliban members. I found that remarkable—not because he agreed with them, but because he believed dialogue should always remain possible in a neutral space, maybe something like the Doha Debates format.

I would be interested in sitting down with them—not to endorse their ideology, obviously—but to understand, in a visceral way, what happens to men who are so deeply broken. Not their policies—we already know those—but the psychology beneath that extremism.

What do you think about that? What is your take on the psychology of people who become this repressive?

Dashti: Honestly, I believe the only emotion that could drive people to such extremes—to such complete repression—is fear. It is fear of losing control, fear of what women represent—education, progress, equality, fear of change, fear of anything they cannot dominate or contain.

They know that Afghan women are strong, educated, and capable—and they are terrified of that. So, they suppress it in every way they can. But deep down, I think you are right: it comes from a place of damage, of psychological injury. That fear becomes ideology, and then ideology becomes violence.

Jacobsen: So, the only emotion driving this is fear?

Dashti: Yes—fear is the only emotion I can think of that would produce such an extreme, controlling reaction. When we look at the psychological state of the leaders currently in power in Afghanistan, it becomes clear that their obsession with stripping away women’s rights comes from deep-seated fear.

The fact that the government is so singularly focused on erasing women’s presence from public life shows that they fear the power of Afghan women. And that fear manifests in these increasingly oppressive laws and boundaries. It is fear of what we represent—education, progress, autonomy—that drives their repression.

Jacobsen: Now, there was a third international metric I want to mention, complementing the Global Gender Gap Report 2023 and the Women, Peace, and Security Index 2023. This one is from a few years earlier—the 2019 Gender Inequality Index (GII). While the Global Gender Gap ranked Afghanistan 146 out of 146 and the WPS Index ranked 177 out of 177, the GII ranked Afghanistan 157 out of 162 in 2019.

This index focused on reproductive health, empowerment, and labour participation. More recent data would likely show an even lower ranking. And this type of change can happen fast—as we saw in the United States with the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, setting a precedent that reshaped reproductive rights nationwide.

We’re not just living in a post-Roe world but in a post-Dobbs world. That reversal was swift and far-reaching, affecting millions of women.

So when the GII refers to reproductive health, what were they specifically measuring?

Dashti: May I add one point before answering?

Jacobsen: Of course—please do.

Dashti: Most people do not realize that Afghanistan’s situation can have a ripple effect beyond our borders. It is not isolated.

Our lives were overturned in a matter of two weeks. That kind of rapid collapse could happen anywhere in the world, depending on who is in power and what ideologies they hold.

As you mentioned, we saw something similar to reproductive rights in the United States. The overturning of Roe v. Wade through the Dobbs decision stripped away rights from millions of women overnight. If it can happen there, that kind of rollback can happen elsewhere and in more extreme forms.

It is a stark reminder of how fragile women’s rights and human rights are globally. We cannot afford to take them for granted—not in Afghanistan, not in the West, not anywhere.

Jacobsen: What is the most sensitive or critical area regarding women’s rights? Is it political participation, economic opportunity, reproductive health, Freedom of movement, or psychological autonomy? Which of those categories stands out to you within the context of Afghanistan?

Dashti: I think they are all extremely damaging—every one of them. But if I had to choose the most damaging, I would say the ban on education.

That is why it was one of the first restrictions imposed after the Taliban regained power. Education is power. Knowledge is power. And by taking that away from half of the population, the Taliban are eliminating women’s ability to resist, grow, and lead.

So, yes—while reproductive health, empowerment, and labour market participation are all critical, the education ban is the most dangerous. It underpins everything else.

Jacobsen: Continuing with that list—reproductive health, empowerment, and labour market participation—these categories can sound vague. So let me ask more specifically: What has been the Taliban’s response to any form of resistance from Afghan women?

Dashti: Unfortunately, the backlash has been extremely severe. Most people outside Afghanistan are unaware of how serious the situation is.

The number of women leaders, advocates, and protesters who are currently in prison—being tortured, even killed—is horrifying. The forms of torture they endure are unspeakable.

Part of the reason more people do not know this is that the international community’s focus is elsewhere right now. The other part is the difficulty in getting accurate information out of Afghanistan due to the intense restrictions on journalism and the threats faced by reporters still trying to work there.

The backlash to resistance is beyond what most people can imagine.

Jacobsen: The Gender Inequality Index (2019) identified maternal mortality and adolescent birth rates as key reproductive health indicators. So, if you reduce or eliminate quality reproductive care, more women die during childbirth. Simultaneously, with rising child marriage, you see an increase in teen pregnancy.

When those conditions are coupled with the ban on education, you have the building blocks of a long-term cycle of poverty, early motherhood, and large families with low educational attainment—a dynamic most societies aim to mitigate. Do you see any way out of that cycle, which is now being explicitly constructed?

Dashti: Right now, it might seem impossible to break that cycle from the outside. The situation is too far gone.

But we have already seen that cycle broken. Afghan women have made incredible progress in the last twenty years—hard-won and transformative gains. So, while it feels like we are back at square one, I believe Afghan women have the strength to overcome this, too.

We have endured worse. We have risen before. And even in the face of this situation, I believe we will rise again, and the cycle will be broken—just as it was over the past two decades.

So yes, it might seem impossible right now—but we’ve done the impossible before, and I believe we will do it again.

Jacobsen: Another key factor is labour market participation. This one is a bit more nuanced. It is not just a drop in workforce involvement—it is, in many ways, an absolute collapse. There is now minimal to zero formal workforce participation for women.

The others compound this restriction. If women cannot speak in public, cannot sit in parliament, are limited to a sixth-grade education, and are likely to be married as teenagers or children, then even if a woman were to dodge all of those restrictions somehow and achieve the maximum education currently permitted, what employment options would exist?

Dashti: From what I can see, there are none.

There are a few exceptions. Undercover schools and organizations are operating covertly, some supported by the Afghan diaspora or Western allies. These are often run by women who fled Afghanistan and now operate remotely. A handful of women are involved in underground educational initiatives or small-scale projects that are tolerated for now because they fly under the radar.

However, outside of those, I do not see any viable employment opportunities for women. And to be completely honest, dodging all of those barriers is practically impossible under the current regime.

If a woman cannot speak in public, move freely, or pursue education, how is she supposed to work—in any capacity? So, right now, there are no real employment pathways available for women in Afghanistan.

Jacobsen: Not even allowed to enjoy One Direction.

Dashti: [Laughing] No. Not.

Jacobsen: Two additional metrics are worth mentioning. One is the Human Development Index (HDI) 2023–2024, one of the newest outside of Freedom House, which we’ll get to in a moment.

According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Human Development Index 2023–2024, Afghanistan ranked 182 out of 193 countries, with an overall HDI score of 0.462.

The disparity becomes clearer when the data is gender-disaggregated: the female HDI is 0.406, while the male HDI is 0.547. That is a massive gap in an already extremely low development context.

Two of the clearest drivers behind this are the restriction on education and near-zero income levels due to the collapse in female labour force participation—which, as you’ve pointed out, aligns directly with your observations.

This brings us back to the Beijing Declaration, which repeatedly emphasizes the value of unpaid work—such as childcare, elder care, and community-building—which forms much of any society’s invisible infrastructure.

In most parts of the world, women predominantly build this kind of social capital. It is unpaid, unrecognized, and underappreciated, but it is essential.

Do these Afghan policies also damage the country’s potential to build or sustain social capital?

Dashti: Absolutely. These policies are not just harming women—they are harming the entire society.

When women are prevented from participating in education, employment, public life, and even in informal caregiving roles with autonomy, they are destroying the very Foundation of the community.

Women raise children, care for older people, build networks, and stabilize communities. Even when unpaid, their labour generates enormous social and economic value. But when you silence, isolate, and prevent them from contributing, you don’t just lose workforce participation. You also lose trust, connection, and social cohesion.

So yes, Afghanistan is not only losing the opportunity for women’s economic empowerment, but it is also losing its social capital, piece by piece.

Jacobsen: Another relevant report is the Freedom in the World 2024 by Freedom House.

As with the other data we’ve discussed, Afghanistan’s classification won’t surprise anyone. It was designated as “Not Free,” scoring 8 out of 100 overall—not a ranking, but a numerical score. Specifically, it scored 1 out of 40 for political rights and 7 out of 60 for civil liberties.

I am unsure how they arrived at the “7” for civil liberties. Given the ban on education and employment, exclusion from public participation, severe restrictions on movement, mandatory male guardianship, and public silence edicts, it is not easy to imagine what civil liberties remain.

That report encapsulates all the elements we’ve covered through the other indexes.

Then there’s the UN Women Gender Snapshot 2024, produced jointly by UN Women and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Afghanistan wasn’t assigned a numeric ranking, but it was explicitly identified as the worst performer on gender equality among 166 countries assessed.

For those unfamiliar with UN systems—such as model UN participants or those without a background in international relations—when the UN refers to “countries,” it typically means member states. These can include full member states, non-member observer states, small island developing states, and other special classifications with varying voting and veto power levels.

So even within that limited scope of 166 countries, Afghanistan was highlighted as the worst in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 5: Gender Equality.

And consistently, across these global indexes, the newer the data, the more reliably Afghanistan is positioned at the bottom in terms of gender equality—for both boys and girls, men and women.

Afghanistan is, therefore, a critical case study for discussion, analysis, and advocacy. It urgently reminds us that while every country has its gender parity challenges, there is value in calibrating outrage, contextualizing progress, and recognizing that some places—like Afghanistan—are facing an existential human rights crisis, especially for women and girls.

Looking through this data, one question stands out:

Where does the Fahim Dashti Foundation situate itself in light of this overwhelming body of evidence collected by serious international experts—statisticians, economists, and human rights monitors?

Dashti: The Fahim Dashti Foundation was born because of this crisis—it was created after the Taliban’s takeover in response to what we saw unfold in Afghanistan.

Our Foundation exists to honour my father’s legacy as a journalist, advocate for free expression, and continue his vision for a free, inclusive, and just society in Afghanistan—one where women are protected and empowered.

In the face of these reports—whether it’s the Freedom House rankings, the Human Development Index, the Gender Inequality Index, or the UN Gender Snapshot—we are grounded in reality. We know what is happening because we live it and hear it from people back home daily.

We position ourselves as a voice for truth, a platform for advocacy, and a network for resilience—especially for Afghan women, journalists, youth, and those in exile who still want to support their communities from afar.

We may not have the scale of the UN, but we have clarity of purpose, moral urgency, and a global community that is slowly but surely mobilizing.

Even without these reports, we already knew the situation was severe. We were living it and knew it was unlike anything else happening in the world.

But once again, the Afghan people—especially Afghan women—have faced hardship before. And in some ways, they have faced it even more severely. And every time, they have fought back. They have resisted.

The Dashti Foundation has always been public about the hope we carry—for a brighter Afghanistan. We are fully aware of the immense challenges our people are facing right now. But at the same time, we see their strength, their resilience, and their refusal to give up.

We wholeheartedly believe we will overcome this—but only if we continue fighting.

Jacobsen: Narges Mohammadi: What about her? She is a prominent and highly respected human rights activist. But what do you know that I might not?

Dashti: Honestly, the situation with Narges Mohammadi is very public, especially now. She is imprisoned, even though she is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

That fact alone—being a Nobel laureate and still being imprisoned—tells you everything you need to know about how authoritarian regimes view powerful, outspoken women.

And I believe what we are seeing in Iran, while it predates the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan, has in some ways intensified after the fall of Kabul. When the focus of the international community shifted to Afghanistan, I think Iran’s regime saw a window to escalate its repression.

We all remember what happened a couple of years ago with the death of Mahsa Amini, which triggered the Women, Life, Freedom movement. That movement echoed far beyond Iran’s borders.

It shows that what happens in Afghanistan does not stay in Afghanistan. It affects and influences neighbouring countries—and eventually the world.

When you look at someone like Narges Mohammadi, you see what these regimes fear most: a woman who leads. A woman who speaks truth to power. And because they fear women’s strength and potential, they try to suppress it by any means necessary.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Marwa.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.