Error occured during this request! Please try again later.
Lotfullah Najafizada, director of Afghanistan’s biggest private news network Tolo News, speaks to Rudaw in the Afghan capital Kabul, September 2019. Photo: Hassan Nikzad / Rudaw
Lotfullah Najafizada, director of Afghanistan’s biggest private news network Tolo, participated in the preliminary inter-Afghan talks between civil society leaders and the Taliban in Doha earlier this year. He believes young Afghans will not accept a return to the strict Islamist society the Taliban wishes to reestablish in their country, predicting a “backlash”.
Speaking to Rudaw English correspondent Robert Edwards in the Afghan capital Kabul in early September, Najafizada said both the Afghan government and the Taliban will have to “swallow some bitter pills” in order to reach a sustainable peace agreement.
However, press freedoms – a notable success of post-2001 Afghanistan – are not something Najafizada believes Afghans are prepared to compromise on.
Although Afghanistan is among the world’s most dangerous places to be a journalist, the country enjoys a vibrant media landscape. In this interview, Najafizada discusses how the murder of his colleagues by extremists has impacted the work of Tolo and what he expects from the stalled peace process.
Click here to watch Rudaw’s feature length documentary – Afghanistan: The Missing Peace
READ MORE: Afghanistan: The Missing Peace – Part III: Press freedoms and the Taliban revival
Rudaw: Independent media is rare in the region. How does Tolo defend its impartiality?
Lotfullah Najafizada: The Afghan media is a very, very successful achievement of Afghan society in the past nearly two decades. What happened post-9/11 with the new Afghanistan, the country for the first time recognised free press as a fundamental human right in its constitution. And since then the media has developed this culture of free reporting across the country and today we’re talking about nearly a hundred TV channels, hundreds of radio stations, newspapers, throughout the country. And as you said, Afghan media is the freest in the entire region – not just our immediate neighbours, all of them, but also beyond this region. That is something we are very, very proud of. Tolo is certainly a player, a member of the Afghan media family, and also the largest. Tolo is the first and largest 24 hour news channel and we have been here for the past decade, Tolo News. The company owning Tolo News has been operating for the past 15 years.
It’s the first anniversary of the death of your colleagues Samim Faramarz and Ramiz Ahmadi. How are you marking the anniversary? What message are you sending?
Exactly, tomorrow a year ago (September 5, 2018), what happened to two of my colleagues, Samim Faramarz and Ramiz Ahmadi were killed in a twin bombing in Kabul when they were reporting from a previous attack in Kabul. It’s very tragic. We’ve lost 11 colleagues in the past three and a half years in many, many attacks. Two or three of them are claimed by the Taliban and others are claimed by Daesh (ISIS). It’s very, very tragic. Tomorrow there’s going to be some coverage. Last night we had some coverage about Samim and Ramiz. But that’s almost a tradition now that every year on a particular date in the calendar we are marking their anniversaries, recognising their sacrifices and remember that the place we stand today comes after so much effort and sacrifices, and this is such a hard won gain. And of course we remember them. They remain part of the boat. It is very tragic that we have lost them, but they are a part, at least their memory, of the success of the Afghan media.
Afghanistan is among the world’s most dangerous places to be a journalist. The Taliban and ISIS explicitly target them. Why is that? How does that impact the work culture at Tolo?
Afghanistan is certainly, as you said, the most dangerous place to be a journalist but also one of the freest environments for journalists to work. There are no political journalists in prison at the moment in Afghanistan. Their relationship with the government is tense, but we don’t have our government imprisoning journalists, coming after journalists. We had a very tense interview with the Afghan president just last week here in our studio, and a lot of people were concerned about the safety of some of our colleagues, myself included, because I conducted the interview. But we believe that Afghan society, the government included, have embraced the fact that free press is an asset, it is part of the collective achievements of us as a society. Why we have so many enemies? I think it’s because of our success, because of the strength of the media. It’s not just Daesh, it’s not just the Taliban, but mafia, drug lords, strongmen. And Afghanistan is also one of the countries where the rule of law is least implemented. So that’s where you get not only journalists but also other professions and professionals get targeted, kidnapped. So it’s difficult to report on people who might not like the way we report, and they have the means to harm you and hurt you. So this tells you that working in a country where it is the most dangerous place to work but at the same time it’s free and has vibrant and strong media, that means the journalists should be very, very brave. And this is such a unique environment to operate.
And how does that impact the work culture?
I think there are two aspects to it. One is the fact that the society is going through so much violence on a daily basis. Just two days ago or the night before last there was this huge bomb. And we have this WhatsApp group of our colleagues around Kabul, and then from all corners of Kabul people, colleagues were texting they were. There was a huge blast just next to their house, and that tells you the country is going through so much violence. I’m not saying that they have developed this resilience because sometimes you really hate that word, working in places like Afghanistan, and a few years ago in Iraq maybe too, but it’s different when it becomes personal. It’s different, it’s more impactful when it’s your loved ones, your colleagues, people you work with very closely like Samim and Ramiz. So I think it has changed the culture, we’re more cautious with how to do reports on security stories, so we think twice whether we should cover or not. But at the same time we are also reminded on a very usual basis that this is our job, this is what we subscribed to. We’re doing it, not to that someone has asked us to do it, this is our choice, this is our very well informed choice. And I think I can speak on behalf of all of my colleagues because the people who work in media, particularly in Tolo, they may have the options of going abroad, taking their families out, do something much different, much easier. But their commitment to the cause of freedom and freedom of expression I think is something that contributes to the success of where we are. But every time we lose someone, every time, there is constant threat, I am sure you have witnessed when you came to the compound that we have a lot of security, and that’s unusual for a private, small news organisation.
Afghanistan is blighted by official corruption and warlordism. Do your reporters face threats from other non-terrorist sources for trying to expose abuses? Is there an element of self-censorship?
I think the threat is very, very widespread. You have a lot of concerns when you not just walk out of this building but also being here. We’ve had rockets landing in our compound and we have had constant threats from many, many elements. We’ve had police in the old days, ten years ago, coming to our compound trying to arrest people. But on the other hand you have a lot of public support, which also is giving you some sort of security and you feel safe when you travel. People recognise you, people understand the importance of your work and try to help you. Does a threat sometimes ever really make you do self-censorship? I can’t say it doesn’t come in our thinking. It probably affects us when there’s constant threat. But I would be exaggerating if I say it’s detrimental and decisive in our editorial decision making. I don’t think the magnitude is that large. There are subjects in this country that’s probably culturally taboo to talk about, whether it’s religion, whether it’s ethnic issues, whether it’s a small tribal and language issue. Not that somebody will put you in jail or come and kill you, but you may not to try and help trigger an ethnic clash, a societal clash, and for that reason we may think about certain subjects which we think is probably controversial right now. But, let’s not forget the Afghan media has always pushed boundaries. Today we talk about a peace deal with the Taliban and the fact there are genuine concerns about losing some of our freedoms. But there are women singing live on our programmes every night, and some people might think that that’s too risky and that’s too unnecessary. But that is what Afghanistan of today is. So if you look from that angle I don’t think that we are not just dismissing feelings of self-censorship, but we are on the offensive trying to change the culture, trying to help Afghanistan progress much further.
The promotion of press freedoms in Afghanistan since 2001 is widely seen as a success story. What was the media environment like during the Taliban period?
There was no TV channel during the Taliban, no private and free print publications, no free and private radio stations. I think there was just one state owned, or Taliban run I would say, radio station, which was helping them with their narrative, with their messaging, which we cannot say was a part of, it was a significant part the journey of the Afghan media for us, that was a silence period. I don’t remember journalists, apart from foreign journalists, some foreign journalists who had access coming to the country. I don’t remember good reporting from those years. So if you look at Afghanistan’s history from the past five, six decades, from monarchy to communism to civil war to Taliban to no government to Islamic system and now to democracy, so much political change and so frequent, but what you had in common with the people was they were not allowed to express their views. So post-2001 I think that culture has changed. People were given voices. Fifteen-hundred people come in the studio every month and probably we interview another 1,500 people every month for our news stories. So this is just one TV channel. You talk about giving loud voices to 3,000 ordinary Afghans. And this is happening throughout the country. So this is not just a success story. This is a revolution itself that has revolutionised our society, the way think, the way we work, the way we even talk to our parents, the way we challenge social issues, we address them, and the way we are now empowered to express our feelings and our thinking. So I think from that perspective I think it has been more than just a success story. But coming back to the Taliban time, and this was a very sad period, and now with peace talks some people are worried about what will happen. Do the Taliban, have they really changed? Do they carry the same sets of values that they were representing 20 years ago? These are questions which are out there. I probably don’t have very accurate answers. But I believe for a peaceful Afghanistan, going forward, there has to be a strong protection for the gains of the past 18 years.
Are you concerned press freedoms could be rolled back if a deal is struck with the Taliban?
I think a lot of it comes from this great sense of misunderstanding. I think conversation will help resolve some of these issues. I was part of the inter-Afghan dialogue in July in Doha and we sat down with the leaders of the Taliban for two days back to back and discussed some of these issues and realised that probably, despite the strong differences in the way we think, that probably there are breakthroughs. The moment that we engage with each other, I am hopeful that Afghanistan’s gains will be protected. And will be understood as a success story and as an achievement. Compromise? To be honest, Afghanistan today, two-thirds of the country are under 25. Do they remember how the Taliban era looked two decades ago. Do they really remember how it feels to not have a free press, not be free enough to post a comment on Facebook or Instagram or Twitter? Can they really imagine, this generation, the two-thirds of Afghans, 60-70 percent of the entire country, can they really imagine that they will be asked what to wear, how to act, how to travel. I think there will be a big backlash because this generation owns some of these achievements, these are not introduced to them. It’s not that they learn a language when you’re in your twenties, or thirties or forties. This is the only language they know. And you can’t take it away from them. So I believe that it’s in their DNA what we have achieved in the past 18 years, it is something that an entire new generation has grown up with. So, what will happen if you deprive them of all these rights and gains? You won’t get peace. That’s civil war. That’s conflict. That’s continuation of violence. So, on the road to peace, I don’t think that can me a smart calculation, that you introduce a new political system, a new culture, and then you expect everybody to accept that.
Tolo hosts regular television debates and public forums. What role can the Afghan media play in the peace process?
I think media is part of the game. They have a say in what the future of the country should look like and they are involved. You have journalists not just reporting on the peace talks, but they are involved in shaping the narrative and influencing both sides, talking to the Afghan government and other political groups, the Taliban, the international community. So, Tolo included, I think the entire Afghan media understands the sensitivity of the situation and the circumstances we are in. And in order to maintain the success of free press, it’s for media to engage directly as a pillar of the democratic Afghanistan, with the Taliban, with others, to ensure that the peace deal is just and fair and inclusive. If the Taliban represent some of the Afghan values that we may have forgotten, we should understand that. There should not be a total rejection of clashing values. There has to be engagement and understanding. And I’m quite hopeful that once Afghans sit down, because all sides are tired of the four decades of conflict, there is a great sense, that is my personal understanding, that people want to put an end to the bloodshed, a hundred people lose their lives every single day. That’s too much for a society. And that for so long. The media can play a big role not just to generate that debate, which is their primary job as free media, should give voices. We’ve had former Taliban here in the past couple of months to talk about why Islamic emirate system is not a bad system. And then we have had the president of the country and the chief executive in the past week who were saying that a republic system is their red line. And then we had Ambassador Khalilzad a couple of days ago who was saying that there has to be an understanding among all Afghans. So, we do play that role of presenting multiple options to the society, but at the same time, as a member of the society, as a strong pillar of democratic Afghanistan, I think media should also do more than just reporting when it comes to the peace process and should engage and express their views.
Any final words?
I think the media is in a very strategic location to not just create the environment for peace by reporting and expressing views, allowing Afghans to debate different ideas, but also as a very strong pillar of democracy and the new Afghanistan. It has to engage with all parts. And I’m quite optimistic because this is the closest we’ve got to a potential peace deal. We have never come this close, at least in the past two decades. So dismissing the opportunity would not be wise. But rushing to a not sustainable peace is probably not wise either. So I think we should give it a try and try to see if we can put an end to the very, very tragic and very long history of conflict and Afghans killing each other. Almost all of us have people in our families who have lost their lives to this conflict. I think the entire nation is tired of it so we should certainly give it a try and embrace the opportunity, even if it comes to swallowing some bitter pills.
Speaking to Rudaw English correspondent Robert Edwards in the Afghan capital Kabul in early September, Najafizada said both the Afghan government and the Taliban will have to “swallow some bitter pills” in order to reach a sustainable peace agreement.
However, press freedoms – a notable success of post-2001 Afghanistan – are not something Najafizada believes Afghans are prepared to compromise on.
Although Afghanistan is among the world’s most dangerous places to be a journalist, the country enjoys a vibrant media landscape. In this interview, Najafizada discusses how the murder of his colleagues by extremists has impacted the work of Tolo and what he expects from the stalled peace process.
Click here to watch Rudaw’s feature length documentary – Afghanistan: The Missing Peace
READ MORE: Afghanistan: The Missing Peace – Part III: Press freedoms and the Taliban revival
Rudaw: Independent media is rare in the region. How does Tolo defend its impartiality?
Lotfullah Najafizada: The Afghan media is a very, very successful achievement of Afghan society in the past nearly two decades. What happened post-9/11 with the new Afghanistan, the country for the first time recognised free press as a fundamental human right in its constitution. And since then the media has developed this culture of free reporting across the country and today we’re talking about nearly a hundred TV channels, hundreds of radio stations, newspapers, throughout the country. And as you said, Afghan media is the freest in the entire region – not just our immediate neighbours, all of them, but also beyond this region. That is something we are very, very proud of. Tolo is certainly a player, a member of the Afghan media family, and also the largest. Tolo is the first and largest 24 hour news channel and we have been here for the past decade, Tolo News. The company owning Tolo News has been operating for the past 15 years.
It’s the first anniversary of the death of your colleagues Samim Faramarz and Ramiz Ahmadi. How are you marking the anniversary? What message are you sending?
Exactly, tomorrow a year ago (September 5, 2018), what happened to two of my colleagues, Samim Faramarz and Ramiz Ahmadi were killed in a twin bombing in Kabul when they were reporting from a previous attack in Kabul. It’s very tragic. We’ve lost 11 colleagues in the past three and a half years in many, many attacks. Two or three of them are claimed by the Taliban and others are claimed by Daesh (ISIS). It’s very, very tragic. Tomorrow there’s going to be some coverage. Last night we had some coverage about Samim and Ramiz. But that’s almost a tradition now that every year on a particular date in the calendar we are marking their anniversaries, recognising their sacrifices and remember that the place we stand today comes after so much effort and sacrifices, and this is such a hard won gain. And of course we remember them. They remain part of the boat. It is very tragic that we have lost them, but they are a part, at least their memory, of the success of the Afghan media.
Afghanistan is among the world’s most dangerous places to be a journalist. The Taliban and ISIS explicitly target them. Why is that? How does that impact the work culture at Tolo?
Afghanistan is certainly, as you said, the most dangerous place to be a journalist but also one of the freest environments for journalists to work. There are no political journalists in prison at the moment in Afghanistan. Their relationship with the government is tense, but we don’t have our government imprisoning journalists, coming after journalists. We had a very tense interview with the Afghan president just last week here in our studio, and a lot of people were concerned about the safety of some of our colleagues, myself included, because I conducted the interview. But we believe that Afghan society, the government included, have embraced the fact that free press is an asset, it is part of the collective achievements of us as a society. Why we have so many enemies? I think it’s because of our success, because of the strength of the media. It’s not just Daesh, it’s not just the Taliban, but mafia, drug lords, strongmen. And Afghanistan is also one of the countries where the rule of law is least implemented. So that’s where you get not only journalists but also other professions and professionals get targeted, kidnapped. So it’s difficult to report on people who might not like the way we report, and they have the means to harm you and hurt you. So this tells you that working in a country where it is the most dangerous place to work but at the same time it’s free and has vibrant and strong media, that means the journalists should be very, very brave. And this is such a unique environment to operate.
And how does that impact the work culture?
I think there are two aspects to it. One is the fact that the society is going through so much violence on a daily basis. Just two days ago or the night before last there was this huge bomb. And we have this WhatsApp group of our colleagues around Kabul, and then from all corners of Kabul people, colleagues were texting they were. There was a huge blast just next to their house, and that tells you the country is going through so much violence. I’m not saying that they have developed this resilience because sometimes you really hate that word, working in places like Afghanistan, and a few years ago in Iraq maybe too, but it’s different when it becomes personal. It’s different, it’s more impactful when it’s your loved ones, your colleagues, people you work with very closely like Samim and Ramiz. So I think it has changed the culture, we’re more cautious with how to do reports on security stories, so we think twice whether we should cover or not. But at the same time we are also reminded on a very usual basis that this is our job, this is what we subscribed to. We’re doing it, not to that someone has asked us to do it, this is our choice, this is our very well informed choice. And I think I can speak on behalf of all of my colleagues because the people who work in media, particularly in Tolo, they may have the options of going abroad, taking their families out, do something much different, much easier. But their commitment to the cause of freedom and freedom of expression I think is something that contributes to the success of where we are. But every time we lose someone, every time, there is constant threat, I am sure you have witnessed when you came to the compound that we have a lot of security, and that’s unusual for a private, small news organisation.
Afghanistan is blighted by official corruption and warlordism. Do your reporters face threats from other non-terrorist sources for trying to expose abuses? Is there an element of self-censorship?
I think the threat is very, very widespread. You have a lot of concerns when you not just walk out of this building but also being here. We’ve had rockets landing in our compound and we have had constant threats from many, many elements. We’ve had police in the old days, ten years ago, coming to our compound trying to arrest people. But on the other hand you have a lot of public support, which also is giving you some sort of security and you feel safe when you travel. People recognise you, people understand the importance of your work and try to help you. Does a threat sometimes ever really make you do self-censorship? I can’t say it doesn’t come in our thinking. It probably affects us when there’s constant threat. But I would be exaggerating if I say it’s detrimental and decisive in our editorial decision making. I don’t think the magnitude is that large. There are subjects in this country that’s probably culturally taboo to talk about, whether it’s religion, whether it’s ethnic issues, whether it’s a small tribal and language issue. Not that somebody will put you in jail or come and kill you, but you may not to try and help trigger an ethnic clash, a societal clash, and for that reason we may think about certain subjects which we think is probably controversial right now. But, let’s not forget the Afghan media has always pushed boundaries. Today we talk about a peace deal with the Taliban and the fact there are genuine concerns about losing some of our freedoms. But there are women singing live on our programmes every night, and some people might think that that’s too risky and that’s too unnecessary. But that is what Afghanistan of today is. So if you look from that angle I don’t think that we are not just dismissing feelings of self-censorship, but we are on the offensive trying to change the culture, trying to help Afghanistan progress much further.
The promotion of press freedoms in Afghanistan since 2001 is widely seen as a success story. What was the media environment like during the Taliban period?
There was no TV channel during the Taliban, no private and free print publications, no free and private radio stations. I think there was just one state owned, or Taliban run I would say, radio station, which was helping them with their narrative, with their messaging, which we cannot say was a part of, it was a significant part the journey of the Afghan media for us, that was a silence period. I don’t remember journalists, apart from foreign journalists, some foreign journalists who had access coming to the country. I don’t remember good reporting from those years. So if you look at Afghanistan’s history from the past five, six decades, from monarchy to communism to civil war to Taliban to no government to Islamic system and now to democracy, so much political change and so frequent, but what you had in common with the people was they were not allowed to express their views. So post-2001 I think that culture has changed. People were given voices. Fifteen-hundred people come in the studio every month and probably we interview another 1,500 people every month for our news stories. So this is just one TV channel. You talk about giving loud voices to 3,000 ordinary Afghans. And this is happening throughout the country. So this is not just a success story. This is a revolution itself that has revolutionised our society, the way think, the way we work, the way we even talk to our parents, the way we challenge social issues, we address them, and the way we are now empowered to express our feelings and our thinking. So I think from that perspective I think it has been more than just a success story. But coming back to the Taliban time, and this was a very sad period, and now with peace talks some people are worried about what will happen. Do the Taliban, have they really changed? Do they carry the same sets of values that they were representing 20 years ago? These are questions which are out there. I probably don’t have very accurate answers. But I believe for a peaceful Afghanistan, going forward, there has to be a strong protection for the gains of the past 18 years.
Are you concerned press freedoms could be rolled back if a deal is struck with the Taliban?
I think a lot of it comes from this great sense of misunderstanding. I think conversation will help resolve some of these issues. I was part of the inter-Afghan dialogue in July in Doha and we sat down with the leaders of the Taliban for two days back to back and discussed some of these issues and realised that probably, despite the strong differences in the way we think, that probably there are breakthroughs. The moment that we engage with each other, I am hopeful that Afghanistan’s gains will be protected. And will be understood as a success story and as an achievement. Compromise? To be honest, Afghanistan today, two-thirds of the country are under 25. Do they remember how the Taliban era looked two decades ago. Do they really remember how it feels to not have a free press, not be free enough to post a comment on Facebook or Instagram or Twitter? Can they really imagine, this generation, the two-thirds of Afghans, 60-70 percent of the entire country, can they really imagine that they will be asked what to wear, how to act, how to travel. I think there will be a big backlash because this generation owns some of these achievements, these are not introduced to them. It’s not that they learn a language when you’re in your twenties, or thirties or forties. This is the only language they know. And you can’t take it away from them. So I believe that it’s in their DNA what we have achieved in the past 18 years, it is something that an entire new generation has grown up with. So, what will happen if you deprive them of all these rights and gains? You won’t get peace. That’s civil war. That’s conflict. That’s continuation of violence. So, on the road to peace, I don’t think that can me a smart calculation, that you introduce a new political system, a new culture, and then you expect everybody to accept that.
Tolo hosts regular television debates and public forums. What role can the Afghan media play in the peace process?
I think media is part of the game. They have a say in what the future of the country should look like and they are involved. You have journalists not just reporting on the peace talks, but they are involved in shaping the narrative and influencing both sides, talking to the Afghan government and other political groups, the Taliban, the international community. So, Tolo included, I think the entire Afghan media understands the sensitivity of the situation and the circumstances we are in. And in order to maintain the success of free press, it’s for media to engage directly as a pillar of the democratic Afghanistan, with the Taliban, with others, to ensure that the peace deal is just and fair and inclusive. If the Taliban represent some of the Afghan values that we may have forgotten, we should understand that. There should not be a total rejection of clashing values. There has to be engagement and understanding. And I’m quite hopeful that once Afghans sit down, because all sides are tired of the four decades of conflict, there is a great sense, that is my personal understanding, that people want to put an end to the bloodshed, a hundred people lose their lives every single day. That’s too much for a society. And that for so long. The media can play a big role not just to generate that debate, which is their primary job as free media, should give voices. We’ve had former Taliban here in the past couple of months to talk about why Islamic emirate system is not a bad system. And then we have had the president of the country and the chief executive in the past week who were saying that a republic system is their red line. And then we had Ambassador Khalilzad a couple of days ago who was saying that there has to be an understanding among all Afghans. So, we do play that role of presenting multiple options to the society, but at the same time, as a member of the society, as a strong pillar of democratic Afghanistan, I think media should also do more than just reporting when it comes to the peace process and should engage and express their views.
Any final words?
I think the media is in a very strategic location to not just create the environment for peace by reporting and expressing views, allowing Afghans to debate different ideas, but also as a very strong pillar of democracy and the new Afghanistan. It has to engage with all parts. And I’m quite optimistic because this is the closest we’ve got to a potential peace deal. We have never come this close, at least in the past two decades. So dismissing the opportunity would not be wise. But rushing to a not sustainable peace is probably not wise either. So I think we should give it a try and try to see if we can put an end to the very, very tragic and very long history of conflict and Afghans killing each other. Almost all of us have people in our families who have lost their lives to this conflict. I think the entire nation is tired of it so we should certainly give it a try and embrace the opportunity, even if it comes to swallowing some bitter pills.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment