1,500 days without school: Afghan girls trapped between lost futures and forced marriages – Amu TV

Report on the Educational Exclusion of Girls in Afghanistan and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

As of today, 1,500 days have passed since the de facto authorities in Afghanistan barred teenage girls from accessing secondary education. This prolonged exclusion directly contravenes several key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), severely impeding progress towards gender equality, quality education, and overall societal well-being.

Violation of SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality)

The ongoing ban on secondary education for girls represents a fundamental breach of international commitments to inclusive and equitable learning for all.

• SDG 4 (Quality Education): The exclusion of over 2.2 million girls from secondary schooling is a direct violation of the goal to ensure lifelong learning opportunities for all. The policy has dismantled the educational infrastructure for half the population, creating a generational loss of knowledge and skills.
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): By specifically targeting girls, the ban institutionalizes gender discrimination. This policy not only denies girls their right to education but also empowers systemic inequality, undermining all targets related to the empowerment of women and girls.

Consequential Impacts on Other Sustainable Development Goals

The denial of education has created a cascading crisis, negatively affecting health, economic stability, and social development, thereby hindering progress on multiple SDGs.

SDG 5.3: Elimination of Harmful Practices

A direct consequence of the school closures is a reported increase in child and forced marriages, a harmful practice targeted for elimination under SDG 5.3.

1. Forced Marriage as an Alternative: Educators report that families, seeing no educational path forward for their daughters, are resorting to early marriage. A 16-year-old girl from Badghis province stated, “My family said that since there was no school, I had to marry.”
2. Loss of Agency: Girls are being pushed into domestic roles against their will, stripping them of their childhood and future aspirations. The same girl added, “Now I spend every day in the kitchen, waiting for a future that doesn’t match my dreams.”

SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) & SDG 1 (No Poverty)

The ban has severe repercussions for both the mental and physical health of adolescent girls and perpetuates cycles of poverty.

• Mental Health Crisis: Local NGOs and individuals report a sharp rise in depression, anxiety, and emotional distress among girls who are now isolated and without purpose. One girl from Balkh described her state as feeling “sick inside, like hope has left our lives.” This decline in mental well-being is a critical challenge to achieving SDG 3.
• Poverty and Health Outcomes: The UN has warned that excluding girls from education accelerates a cycle of poverty (SDG 1) and endangers public health. Lack of education is linked to poorer maternal and infant health outcomes, further jeopardizing the targets of SDG 3.

Projections and International Call to Action

The long-term forecast for Afghanistan’s development is bleak if the current policy remains in place, making the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development unattainable.

Failure to Meet 2030 Targets

The United Nations projects that if the ban continues, nearly 4 million Afghan girls could be denied access to secondary and higher education by 2030. This would represent a complete failure to meet the targets of SDG 4 and SDG 5 and would severely impact the nation’s potential for achieving SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

Upholding Fundamental Rights for Sustainable Peace

International bodies continue to urge the Taliban to reverse the ban, emphasizing that education is a fundamental human right and a prerequisite for achieving SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Without the full and equal participation of women and girls in society, sustainable peace, stability, and economic recovery remain out of reach. The plea from affected girls is a call to uphold these goals: “Let us wait. Let us learn again. That’s all we want.”

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on the ban of girls’ education in Afghanistan and its consequences directly addresses or connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These goals are interconnected, as the denial of education has cascading effects on health, gender equality, and economic stability.

• SDG 4: Quality Education: This is the most central SDG discussed. The entire article revolves around the denial of access to secondary and higher education for more than 2.2 million girls in Afghanistan.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality: The policy specifically targets girls, making it a profound issue of gender-based discrimination. The article highlights how this exclusion from education leads to other forms of gender inequality, such as child marriage and restrictions on movement and work.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article explicitly mentions the severe negative impact on the mental and psychological health of girls, citing “mental anguish,” “emotional distress and depression.” It also points to risks for physical health, noting that the ban endangers “maternal and infant outcomes.”
• SDG 1: No Poverty: The connection to poverty is made clear when the article states that the UN and humanitarian agencies have warned the ban is “accelerating a cycle of poverty” by limiting future economic opportunities for half the population.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article touches on this goal by framing the education ban as a violation of a “fundamental human right,” as stated by the United Nations. The Taliban’s policy reflects a failure of institutions to protect these fundamental freedoms and ensure inclusive governance.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues detailed in the article, several specific SDG targets can be identified as being directly undermined by the situation in Afghanistan.

1. Under SDG 4 (Quality Education):
   • Target 4.1: “By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education.” The article’s core subject is the violation of this target, as it states “teenage girls in Afghanistan were last allowed to attend school beyond the sixth grade,” effectively blocking them from secondary education.
   • Target 4.5: “By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education.” The policy creates an absolute gender disparity in secondary and higher education, directly contradicting this target.
2. Under SDG 5 (Gender Equality):
   • Target 5.3: “Eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage.” The article provides direct evidence of the regression on this target, stating that the school closures are “fueling a spike in child and forced marriages” and includes the testimony of a 16-year-old girl who was forced to marry.
   • Target 5.1: “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.” The ban on education is a systemic form of discrimination. The article adds that girls are also “barred from work, education, or even travel without a male escort,” which are further examples of discrimination.
3. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.4: “By 2030, …promote mental health and well-being.” The article describes the widespread “mental anguish,” “fading sense of purpose,” and a “sharp increase in emotional distress and depression among adolescent girls,” indicating a severe decline in mental well-being.
   • Target 3.1: “By 2030, reduce the global maternal mortality ratio.” The article implies a direct threat to this target by quoting warnings that the ban is “endangering public health, especially maternal and infant outcomes.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article contains several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure the status and impact of the education ban, thereby tracking the lack of progress towards the SDG targets.

• Quantitative Indicators:
  • Duration of the ban: The article opens by stating it has been “1,500 days” since girls were allowed in secondary school, a clear metric of time.
  • Number of affected individuals: It specifies that “more than 2.2 million girls” are locked out of classrooms.
  • Future projections: The UN forecasts that by 2030, “nearly 4 million Afghan girls could be denied access to both secondary and higher education,” providing a forward-looking indicator.
• Qualitative and Implied Indicators:
  • Prevalence of child marriage: The article indicates a negative trend with the phrase “a spike in child and forced marriages,” supported by anecdotal evidence from a 16-year-old victim. This serves as an indicator for Target 5.3.
  • Mental health status: Descriptions such as “mental anguish,” “fading sense of purpose,” and NGO reports of a “sharp increase in emotional distress and depression” act as qualitative indicators for mental well-being under Target 3.4.
  • Restrictions on freedoms: The mention of girls being “barred from work, education, or even travel without a male escort” is an indicator of the regression on fundamental freedoms and gender equality (Targets 5.1 and 16.10).
  • Poverty cycle: The statement that the ban is “accelerating a cycle of poverty” is a qualitative indicator related to SDG 1.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: amu.tv