Nearly two centuries on, quiet settles on Afghanistan's British Cemetery

Aynullah Rahimi's family has for decades tended the old cemetery in Kabul reserved for non-Afghans, but since the country's latest war ended and foreigners left in droves, he says few now enter the oasis of quiet in the capital.
Dating back to the Anglo-Afghan wars of the 19th century, the small plot of land in the city centre has interred and memorialised foreign fighters, explorers and devotees of Afghanistan who have died in the country over some 180 years.
In the two decades of war between Western forces and the Taliban that ended in 2021 with the latter's victory, there were a handful of burials and memorials attended by ambassadors and dignitaries at the British Cemetery.
But these days, Rahimi quietly tends to the garden of roses and apricot trees, the calls of caged partridges louder than the rumbling traffic beyond the high stone wall that secludes the cemetery.
"Before the Taliban came to power, many foreigners used to come here to visit every week," he told AFP.
"No one visits here much now, only sometimes a few tourists," he said.
The paint on the walls -- hung with commemorative plaques for the dead of NATO countries who fought the Taliban, as well as journalists who covered the conflict -- has chipped and weathered since the Taliban takeover in 2021, when Western embassies emptied.
Where Kabul was once teeming with Western soldiers, diplomats, journalists and humanitarians, their presence has thinned dramatically.
Adventurers from around the world are increasingly travelling to the country, despite lingering security risks and Taliban-imposed restrictions primarily targeting Afghan women -- including a general ban on women entering Kabul's parks.
For those who know what's behind the wall marked only by a small sign reading "British Cemetery", they can pause in the shade in one of the few green spaces in the city fully open to foreign women.
"This is a historical place," Rahimi said, noting he hasn't had interference by the Taliban authorities.
Those whose countrymen are memorialised there are welcome, he added -- "it's their graveyard".
- The Ritchies -
The last time the cemetery was full of the living, Rahimi said, was the burial of the latest person to be interred there -- Winifred Zoe Ritchie, who died in 2019 at the age of 99.
Ritchie's family brought her body from the United States to Afghanistan to be laid to rest next to her husband, Dwight, who was killed in a car crash in southern Afghanistan 40 years earlier.
The Ritchies had worked and lived in Afghanistan, one of their sons later following in their footsteps -- cementing the family's ties to a country far from their homeland.
The couple's daughter, Joanna Ginter, has memories of her family wandering through markets, flying kites and raising pigeons in Kabul years before the city was engulfed by the first of many conflicts that wracked the country for 40 years.
Their mother's burial "was the first time (we visited) since we were there for my dad's funeral", Ginter told AFP, having travelled back to Kabul with relatives.
"I was very happy to get to go there, even though it was for a funeral."
Her mother's grave marker stands out in light marble among the headstones, wobbly letters next to a long cross -- a rare sight in Afghanistan.
Older gravestones of some of the more than 150 people buried there bear the scars of conflict, names pockmarked into near unrecognisability by weapon fire that breached the wall.
Other than thieves who broke through a fence where the cemetery backs onto a hill dotted with Muslim graves -- "our graveyard", Rahimi calls it -- the caretaker says he is left mostly alone to his watch.
The 56-year-old grew up helping his uncle who raised him tend to the cemetery, taking over its care from his cousin who fled to Britain during the chaotic withdrawal of foreign forces as the Taliban marched into Kabul.
He had in turn taken up the post from his father, who guarded the cemetery and dug some of its graves for around 30 years.
"They also told me to go to England with them, but I refused and said I would stay here, and I have been here ever since," Rahimi said, certain one of his sons would follow in his footsteps.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

West Australian

12 hours ago

• West Australian

Israel-Iran war: Deputy PM Richard Marles confirms nearly 4000 Australians are seeking evacuation

Deputy Prime Minister Minister Richard Marles says nearly 4000 Australians have sought evacuation support from the Israel-Iran conflict, as the Middle East war intensifies in the wake of US-led airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. US President Donald Trump said on Sunday the US military had struck three sites in Iran, marking a direct entry into Israel's campaign to dismantle Tehran's nuclear program. Mr Marles on Sunday struggled to explain Australia's position on whether the government supports potential US strikes, instead continuing to urge 'de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy'. 'The Iranian nuclear ballistic missile program is most definitely a threat to the peace and stability of not only the Middle East,' Mr Marles said. 'We have used our voice to urge de-escalation. And that's our position in respect of both the Iranian program, but also, more specifically, in respect of this conflict.' He said Australia had ramped up their support network in the region and were ready and willing to evacuate stranded citizens out of both nations with charter flights at the ready. However, he said a key obstacle to evacuation efforts was that Iranian airspace remained closed. 'The numbers of Australians, both in Iran and Israel, seeking assisted departures has grown,' he told Sky News on Sunday. 'This number is probably already out of date, but the last briefing is around 2600 Australians in Iran are seeking assisted departures, and around 1200 in Israel. Australia has deployed consular officials to Azerbaijan to assess how they can assist citizens trying to cross the border out of Iran. The government has also positioned civilian charter planes and military aircraft — a C-17 and a KC-30 capable of carrying hundreds — at the El Minhad base near Dubai, where its usual team of 40 personnel has been boosted to around 300 to support a range of scenarios. 'So, we really are poised to provide whatever assistance we can in the event that airspace opens up,' Mr Marles said. 'We have had a couple of groups leave Israel by land through Jordan. We're hoping to do a couple of more groups today.' Mr Marles said he has been in contact with the United States and that Australia would continue to maintain communication on the Middle East situation, though he declined to disclose further details. He also mentioned that the upcoming NATO meeting in the Netherlands he will attend instead of Prime Minister Anthony Alabnese will focus on strengthening strategic alliances and defense spending. Mr Marles said rearranged plans for a meeting between the PM and Mr Trump after they one-on-one was canned on the sideline of the G7 in Canada would occur in the 'not too distant future'. 'We continue at ministerial level and at official level to have pretty real constant contact with the United States, as you would expect,' he said. 'Our alliance with the US is the cornerstone of our strategic and foreign policy. 'We are managing all the equities associated with that relationship, and it is fundamentally going well.' Shadow energy minister Dan Tehan said the Albanese government has isolated itself from Israel and needs to show clearer moral resolve on wanting Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. 'One of the real problems with the way the government has pursued the current issues in the Middle East is they seem to have isolated themselves from the Israeli government,' Mr Tehan told Sky News. 'I think that has left them in a situation where they're really trying to walk two sides here. 'I think what we need to see from the government is greater moral clarity as to whether they do, once and for all, want to see Iran rid of its nuclear weapons program.'

ABC News

18 hours ago

• ABC News

As the media works to win trust, people say they want the truth

Why are people turning away from mainstream media and seeking alternative sources of news? Last week, the University of Canberra released its annual survey of trust in the media, which made fascinating reading. Among its results, it found Australians' concern about misinformation was the highest globally. It said Australia "urgently needed" a national media and digital literacy campaign to help news consumers feel confident about their ability to spot misinformation. But what would that campaign look like? Let's take a very quick look at the news-gathering model, think about what makes stories "true", and consider some of the pressures journalists face to stop them telling certain stories. It's a huge topic, but it's necessary to talk about. Journalists are taught that news stories should contain the "Five Ws": If a news outlet covers an event, its coverage should contain those basic elements. Who is this story about? What has happened? Where did it happen? When did it happen? Why did it happen? (And why is it important?) The first four Ws can be simple enough. They're the building blocks for basic stories like this: There is a huge flood (what) in outback Queensland (where) right now (when) and more than 100,000 head of livestock are estimated to be dead or lost (who). The last W in the model — Why — can be more complicated, because that's how you apply "meaning" to an event. Why has something happened? Why is it important? Because we're human, the interpretation of events can be hotly contested and lead to accusations of bias and everything else. But according to the way it works in theory, journalists are trained to gather the facts and seek expert opinion to help them make sense of the facts, to tell us what they mean. When you put those elements together, you'll hopefully have a decent story. Now, that's an oversimplified description of the way the news-gathering model works in reality. The conceptual boundaries between the Five Ws aren't always clear-cut. There's a lot of interplay between them. For example, depending on the type of story you're covering, you might need an expert's help to know what the facts of certain phenomena are before you can even start writing about them (re: the science of climate change). But you get the gist. If you wanted to teach someone how news was generated, you'd start with a bare-bones, idealised model like that. Then you'd take the next step. You'd say we always need to remember that they're just stories, at the end of the day. They're trying to turn the chaos and confusion of reality into a comprehensible "story" that helps the human brain to make sense of a very complex world. And what sets the media's stories apart from other kinds of stories (such as fairytales, or novels, or films) is they're supposed to be "true", or an honest attempt to "tell the truth" about reality. That's the implied social compact. And given that assumption about the media's stories, people who consume "the news" are more willing to let the media's stories shape their perception of the world in ways they wouldn't dare allow for other kinds of stories (like fairytales). So, cognitively, readers let their guard down a little. And that makes the media's stories uniquely potent. It's why there's a global multi-billion-dollar industry dedicated to capturing, controlling, and confusing the "trusted stories" the media tells every day. Or better still, stopping the media from telling certain stories at all, by harassing, intimidating, and killing journalists in their hundreds. Is everyone in the media industry a good person pursuing a noble cause? Of course not. It's like any industry. If you work in the media long enough, it's unsurprising to learn that the "father of apartheid" in South Africa, Hendrik Verwoerd, was a former newspaper editor. Some media companies behave like the media-arm of their preferred political party, do hit jobs on their enemies, and always seem ready to manufacture consent for the next war. That's been the reality of the industry for hundreds of years. Who owns the world's media companies? But there are plenty of journalists and editors that really try to tell the truth. In independent media and the legacy media. They appreciate that they have to keep demonstrating to their readers that their stories can be trusted. They know if readers start to notice that their stories are omitting crucial facts, including basic facts of history and law, while downplaying some voices and elevating others, their readers will lose trust in their ability to tell truthful stories. And that would be dire for their news outlet. They know if they allow the powerful to dictate how stories are told, they'll be allowing the powerful to kill their stories and their audience. So they really try to stop bad-faith actors from confusing their Five Ws with waves of misinformation and intimidation: We're living in a dangerous moment in history. In the last 12 months, arms and weapons manufacturers, and cyber intelligence and security companies linked to the global war machine, have been making extremely handsome profits. The share price of Palantir Technologies has exploded by 447.57 per cent (to $US139.96) in the last year, and the value of Elbit Systems shares has surged 144 per cent (to $US438.47). Australia's sovereign wealth fund, the Future Fund, is making multi-million-dollar returns from its investments in such companies. Governments, militaries, and different lobby groups are trying to stop people speaking up about the atrocities they're witnessing and the concerns they have about the future. How should journalists report on these events? When it comes to media literacy, Australian audiences might be shocked to learn how difficult it is for the media to write about the world in plain language sometimes, given how strict defamation law is in this country (among other laws). They might be shocked to learn about the orchestrated bullying that goes on, which is designed to discourage editors and journalists from reporting on certain topics and framing stories in certain ways, even speaking to certain people. Would it improve media literacy if the media wrote about these issues openly and regularly? Do we want the media to speak matter-of-factly about propaganda too? Every military engages in it, including the Australian Defence Force. Governments and lobby groups engage in it. They use different propaganda strategies for different audiences (whether domestic or foreign), and apply different tactics to try to control the media narrative at different times. Consider Australia's public relations efforts in the Asia-Pacific. Our government is spending a lot of diplomatic effort cultivating relationships with our island neighbours and encouraging their people to come to work in Australia on special working visas. It would like them to think Australia is a trustworthy ally, one they can trust more than other countries in the region. But one wonders what the people of Timor-Leste think about that. Have a read of Hannah Arendt's famous essay from 1971, on the Pentagon Papers, where she expressed amazement at the degree to which the United States government deliberately lied to its citizens about the reality of the Vietnam War, and about its reasons for invading and bombing Vietnam. Or have a read of the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe's most recent book, Lobbying for Zionism on both sides of the Atlantic, which goes into great detail explaining the tactics used by pro-Israel lobbies in the US and UK, including their campaigns against the BBC and the Guardian, and their campaign to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming Britain's prime minister. The former Israeli minister Shumalit Aloni, in an interview in the United States in 2002, stated plainly that pro-Israel lobbies used accusations of antisemitism to stifle criticism of Israel. "Well it's a trick we always use. When in Europe somebody is criticising Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticising well, then they are antisemitic," she said. These are all things the media has to navigate. In last week's media survey, respondents said they wanted journalists "to be more courageous and ask tough questions". They wanted the media to "report the facts" and "tell the truth". But let's raise some adjacent issues. Do we want journalists to have morals? Do we want their work to be guided by their morals and ethics? Do we want them to speak up about the injustice they see around them, or do we want them to stay quiet? Is it courageous to sit in silence? George Orwell is considered one of the greatest journalists and writers of the 20th century. In 1940, he wrote a book review of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. In his review, he was scornful of the British elite for their earlier support for Hitler. He was objective. He said he understood Hitler's charismatic appeal and he could see that Fascism and Nazism were tapping into something primal in the human brain. He also shared a personal opinion about Hitler: "I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him." Was that OK for a journalist to write that he would like to murder a public figure? It would probably be difficult to find many people who'd have a problem with that opinion of his, given he was talking about Hitler. But what did it mean for Orwell's journalism? One might argue that it showed it was possible to write with objectivity while feeling a deep moral disgust at the same time. Let's wrap things up with a final question. Sometimes you'll hear people saying journalists shouldn't be activists. But what they're really saying is: "Journalists shouldn't be regularly writing and talking about the issues I don't want them to be talking about, but I'm happy for them to campaign on the issues I personally think are important." All journalists are activists, in a sense. An editorial decision to run a story (or ignore a story) is based on multiple decisions, but many of those decisions relate to what they think is important. But "important" is a dangerous word. Why? Because it's impossible to define the word "important" without referencing human judgement. If you say something's important, it begs the question: important to who? At the moment, some of Australia's major news organisations are reporting very critically on the Albanese government's superannuation plan. There's an obvious media campaign going on. What's motivating the campaign? Why isn't that considered a form of activism? If we embarked on a national campaign to improve media literacy in this country, it would be fascinating to see how these topics were tackled.

Canberra Times

18 hours ago

• Canberra Times

Australia's enduring love affair with the US is at a critical point

It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms.