A couple of days earlier a France's think tank – Foundation for Strategic Research (FRS) deliberated a conference at an undisclosed location near Paris, engaging government officials, representatives of opposition and Taliban.
The talks came against a background of accelerating efforts to draw the Taliban and other opponents of Afghan government into negotiations on how Afghanistan be run after Western troops withdraw at the end of 2014.
Afghan government has drawn up a roadmap for peace which involves persuading the Taliban and other insurgent groups to agree to a ceasefire as a prelude to becoming peaceful players in the country's nascent democracy.
As a first step in that direction, central administration has been attempting to secure the release of top Taliban prisoners held by neighboring country. This tireless effort is laudable concerning to draw back violent opponents (Taliban) to peace talks, well thought-out to assist the nascent democracy, furthering national cohesion and enduring developments, given that Taliban's opt for unanimous acceptance of Afghan constitution, vowing submission of weaponry, firearms and other explosives to governmental stocks and accept free trial against those fellows who are accused of serious human rights violation.
However, the declaration of Paris Conference released subsequently, read Taliban's demands as, "Afghanistan's present constitution has no value for us because it was made under the shadows of B52 bombers of the invaders. Islamic Emirate, for the welfare of its courageous nation, needs a constitution that is based on the principles of the holy religion of Islam, national interest, historical achievements, and social justice."
The people of Afghanistan are aware of what sort of constitution Taliban are asking for? They are hardly inclined to unlearn the tale of ferociousness carried out by Taliban regime with inclusion to massive human rights violation, women suppression, human trafficking, terrorism launched against innocent citizens and suspension of fundamental human. Whilst in power, Taliban enforced their strict interpretation of Sharia law, leading Muslims had been highly critical of the Taliban's interpretations of Islamic law.
On the contrary, the current Afghan constitution holds the aspiration of common citizens, approved by consensus in January 2004 after the 2003 Loya Jirga. The basic principles underlying the current constitution are recognition of the Almighty God, sovereignty of the people, preeminence of civilian authority over the military, guarantee of human rights, government through suffrage, separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, government of laws and not of men, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of movement and peaceful assembly.
Not constitutional change but amendment is crucial in order that modern state should be susceptible to progressive change or growth as errors of judgment in its framing are revealed by experience, as conditions change, and as the political aspirations and confidence of people undergo alteration. 'Can Taliban devise a better constitution safeguarding fundamental rights of citizens than the aforementioned one?' The partakers of peace talk should have asked?