I take issue with the term Westernization when it comes to Amanullah Khan’s rule because it was so polar in many ways.
He went from considering calling Afghanistan the seat of the Khalifah to emulating Atatürk’s secularist tendencies, how can that all be encompassed in one term?
Amanullah Khan has done some phenomenal things for Afghanistan and other things were questionable. Under him, the first Afghan constitution came into being. This constitution enfranchised all Afghans - beyond ethnic or religious lines - as citizens of the country. It abolished slavery and torture. Is this Westernization or were we ahead of the West at the time? He fought the third Anglo-Afghan war and got complete independence from the British. He had pan-Islamist tendencies in so far as he helped Muslims from Bukhara to India in their struggles against Empire.
He messed up. He went to tour Europe and came back as a changed man. He tried to emulate Turkey and did not see the ways in which the two countries were so drastically different - he did not have the military Atatürk had to back up the acceleration of reforms. He was a changed man. He changed his title from Amir to Padshah at some point. He designated something like a third of his annual budget to the construct of the Dar-ul-Aman Palace which was to be connected to Kabul City by a train (?). He put a ban on the veil, he forced men in the capital to wear Western clothes. All of this led to his demise - he was soon overthrown.
To put it in Mahmoud Beg Tarzi’s words, who was his advisor, a visionary well ahead of his time, the father of the Afghan press, a mastermind in his time and Amanullah Khan’s father-in-law, “If only he had waited two years and built up the army as Atatürk suggested, what might he have done?” This is not to say that Amanullah Khan implemented those faulty policies too soon - this is to say he lost it towards the end. But does this undo the good he’s done? The evil of his father, Habibullah Khan’s, rule he’s undone? No.