Before I end this discussion, I want to make something very clear.
Mr. Daoud Malikyar and I simply have mutual respect for each other. We do not have a close personal or political relationship. I live in Orange County in the Los Angeles area, and Mr. Daoud Malikyar lives in San Diego. Even though we do not live very far from each other, I do not think we have ever spent even half an hour sitting together and discussing politics, history, Daoud Khan, or this subject.
I am saying this because I do not want anyone to think that I am writing this because of friendship, a personal relationship, or loyalty to Mr. Daoud Malikyar.
I am not defending a person. I am defending the right to search for the truth.
As I have always said, truth is more important to me than any leader or political figure. I will never put my knowledge, faith, reason, or conscience at risk to defend any leader.
Leaders come and go. Some are loved and some are hated. But history remains, and future generations should be able to learn from both the good decisions and the mistakes of every leader.
What Is a Coup and Why Is It Dangerous?
A coup is taking political power by force instead of through a legal process and the will of the people.
This is where the danger begins.
Once we accept that one person or one group has the right to take power by force, we open the same door for another group to do the same thing later.
Daoud Khan ended the monarchy and took power through a coup in 1973. Five years later, he became the victim of another coup.
The 1973 coup could also have become bloody. One reason it ended without widespread bloodshed was that King Zahir Shah was outside Afghanistan. After learning about the coup, he did not call on the people or forces loyal to him to fight in order to save his throne.
If Zahir Shah had ordered resistance and his supporters had fought against the coup, who can guarantee that Afghans would not have been killed?
Perhaps one important difference was that in 1973 one side chose not to fight to keep power. In 1978, Daoud Khan chose not to surrender.
This is exactly why coups are dangerous.
The future of an entire country can suddenly depend on the decisions of a few people. Who will surrender? Who will resist? Who will pick up a gun?
The fact that the first coup did not cause widespread bloodshed does not change the fact that it was still a coup.
If we accept a coup when it brings our favorite leader to power, then on what moral basis can we reject another coup simply because it removes the leader we love?
If a coup is wrong, it should be wrong for everyone.
I See Four Groups in This Discussion
I believe we need to understand that not everyone is looking at this story from the same place.
The first group is made up of people who love and respect Daoud Khan.
For many of them, Daoud Khan is not simply a historical figure. They see him as a strong, patriotic, and honorable leader. Because of this, any story that challenges the image they have carried for many years may be difficult and painful for them to accept.
The second group is made up of the victims of the Saur Coup and their families.
This group carries a very deep pain.
Some were imprisoned. Some had family members who suffered terrible torture in Pul e Charkhi prison. Some died under torture. Others disappeared, and their families never learned what happened to them. Others were buried in mass graves.
For these people, hearing the names Khalq and Parcham is not simply a political or historical discussion.
It may bring back the memory of a father, mother, brother, sister, husband, child, or another loved one who was taken away one day and never came home.
We cannot dismiss this pain. We have to understand it and respect it.
The third group is made up of people who participated in the Saur Coup or who still defend it.
Some people from this side have spoken over the years about their role in bringing down Daoud Khan’s government, attacking the palace, and what happened that night. Some have even presented their role in the death of Daoud Khan and his family as part of the victory of their coup or revolution.
The fourth group is made up of people who want to stand outside these three sides and simply search for the truth.
They do not want their love for Daoud Khan to stop them from asking questions. They do not want the suffering caused under Khalq and Parcham to be forgotten. And they do not want to accept the stories of those who participated in the Saur Coup without examining them.
I consider myself part of this fourth group.
My main question is not which side will benefit from the truth.
My question is simple. What really happened that night?
Three Accounts That Are Important to Me
There are three accounts that I believe are especially important in understanding what happened.
The account of the late Mrs. Gulalai Omar Daoud, the account of Mr. Daoud Ghazi, and the account of Imamuddin.
These accounts are not identical in every detail. But when we place them next to each other, they give us pieces of what happened during that terrible night.
Mr. Daoud Ghazi says that during that night he heard his grandfather, Daoud Khan, clearly say:
“I will surrender to no one except God.”
In Imamuddin’s account, Daoud Khan was also asked to surrender and refused. According to Imamuddin, Daoud Khan fired at him and wounded him. After that, the attacking forces opened fire.
Then we have the recording of the late Mrs. Gulalai Omar Daoud.
To me, this recording is more than just a historical voice.
It is the voice of a woman who lost her husband and children, who was herself wounded, and who described a night when members of the family believed they might never see another morning.
We Cannot Ignore the Psychological Side of That Night
Today, we are sitting safely in our homes and judging decisions made by people who were surrounded by armed coup forces that night.
There was almost no way out.
Help was not coming.
There was gunfire and explosions.
Death was getting closer.
The family did not know what would happen to them if they were captured alive.
Daoud Khan had a very strong personality. He was not a man who would easily surrender.
I cannot say exactly what was going through his mind. None of us can.
But we can imagine that for a man with his personality, being captured, being humiliated in front of his country, seeing his family humiliated, or even fearing that the women of his family might be abused could have been more frightening than death itself.
If the account of the late Mrs. Gulalai Omar Daoud is correct, then the decision made during those final moments was not a decision made under normal circumstances.
It was a decision made during the final moments of life.
I am not trying to justify that decision from a religious point of view, and I am not trying to condemn it.
I am simply saying that a person who sees death only a few steps away and believes his family may fall into the hands of his enemies is under a level of psychological pressure that those of us sitting safely today cannot easily understand.
Not everyone could make such a decision.
I would never wish for any human being to be placed in such a situation.
One Part of the Recording Is Especially Painful to Me
From what I understand from the account of the late Mrs. Gulalai Omar Daoud, members of the family knew that this might be the last time they would see each other.
According to her account, the late Mrs. Gulalai Omar Daoud even asked Wais, Daoud Khan’s son, not to allow her daughter to be captured alive.
This is very important to me.
It shows that the fear was not only Daoud Khan’s fear.
A mother was so terrified of what might happen to her daughter that she made such a request.
There is another point that I find extremely important.
Nowhere in the recording did I hear the late Mrs. Gulalai Omar Daoud blame Daoud Khan or Wais for the tragedy of the family.
From a psychological point of view, this matters to me.
She described a family that seemed to understand that the end was near. Their fear was not only about dying. They were also afraid of what might happen if they were captured alive by the people surrounding the palace.
If her account is correct, then we should try to understand the decisions of that night within that atmosphere of fear, hopelessness, and being surrounded, not from the comfort and safety we have today.
Then Why Is So Much Anger Directed at Mr. Daoud Malikyar?
This is the part I have difficulty understanding.
If supporters of Daoud Khan believe he was a strong, honorable man who refused to surrender, why should they be so angry about hearing the account of one of the surviving members of his own family?
Why has Mr. Daoud Malikyar become the main target instead of the recording itself being seriously examined?
If someone says the recording is fake or was created with artificial intelligence, that is fine. Then prove it through evidence and an independent technical examination.
But this raises an important and logical question for me.
If any group should be most concerned about this recording and want to prove that it is false, would it not make more sense for that group to be the people who defend the Saur Coup and the actions of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan, rather than the supporters of Daoud Khan?
Why?
Because some people connected to that coup have spoken for years about their role in the fall of the palace, the final resistance, and the killing of Daoud Khan and his family. Some have treated this as part of the victory of their coup or revolution.
But the account of the late Mrs. Gulalai Omar Daoud brings another very important question into the historical discussion.
Who died inside the palace, how did they die, and under what circumstances?
If her account is correct, this is not something for the coup participants to celebrate.
It is the story of a family that, because of a coup, reached a point where they were terrified of being captured alive.
This is why I find it strange that some supporters of Daoud Khan are among the people trying hardest to discredit the recording.
If they believe Daoud Khan was brave, honorable, and unwilling to surrender, this account does not necessarily make him smaller.
It may instead show how terrible the situation had become for him and his family.
So why direct all the anger toward Mr. Daoud Malikyar?
Mr. Daoud Malikyar did not carry out the coup.
He did not surround the palace.
He did not place that family in that situation.
If the recording is authentic, he simply brought forward an account many years later that could be one of the most important pieces of evidence for understanding what happened that night.
Should Others Be Apologizing Instead of Mr. Daoud Malikyar?
I am not saying that everything Mr. Daoud Malikyar says should be accepted without question.
Absolutely not.
He should be questioned like anyone else. The recording should be examined, and other accounts should be compared with it.
But there is a big difference between asking questions and putting labels on someone.
In one program, several people took a position against Mr. Daoud Malikyar, questioned the account he presented, and even called on him to apologize to the Afghan people.
My question is very simple.
What happens if one day a credible independent examination confirms that the recording is authentic and that the voice of the late Mrs. Gulalai Omar Daoud was not fabricated and that she was truly telling her own story of that night?
Would the same people who labeled Mr. Daoud Malikyar and his family be willing to appear before the same Afghan public and say:
We rushed to judgment. We should have investigated before accusing. We apologize to Mr. Daoud Malikyar and his family.
Justice cannot only apply to the people we like.
Justice is only justice when we apply it equally to everyone.
My Final Words
In the end, I do not care whether the truth benefits one side or hurts another.
If the truth supports Daoud Khan, we should accept it.
If it supports Mr. Daoud Malikyar, we should accept it.
If new evidence comes forward and proves that our understanding today was wrong, we should accept that too.
Truth is really truth when we are willing to accept it even when it goes against what we believe or whom we admire.
Leaders come and go.
Daoud Khan is gone.
The leaders of Khalq and Parcham are gone.
One day, our generation will also be gone.
What will remain is the history we leave for the next generation.
We should not leave them a history where truth was hidden because we loved one leader or hated another group.
Our responsibility is not to protect our favorite leaders from the truth. Our responsibility is to protect the truth from our own bias.
And if one day the evidence proves that what I believe today was wrong, I should have enough courage to say:
I was wrong.
To me, having that courage is more important than defending any leader.
With these words, I am ending my discussion on this subject.
Noor Wodjouatt
