@ Fatman17: Hi, thanks for the compliment but hate to disappoint you: this stuff is exclusively off Elmo’s piggins and not off SWJ and WAB!
@ Blain 2:
I am not sure if I saw the Malakand div. reference earlier. I think there is nothing "unfortunate" about the current operations. Things go on in phases. We have discussed Kinetic and non-Kinetic operations. Initially the military has to push in, build its presence and along with it public affairs and economic uplift happens. Currently what we see is that PA is right in the middle of this transition in most of Swat and adjoining areas and we will see the developmental activity pick up pace as well.
Well the thread was on Swat so I stuck to the region and found the suggestion about reviving the tribal system out of context. The unfortunate in my statement had referred to the major chunk of our overall strategy: while the military elements is being dispensed of right now there are no short-term or long-term socio-politic-economic elements figuring in the strategy. What developmental activities will be picking up pace once the military has a significant presence… besides the building of the cantonment and the induction of policemen (both of which come under the security aspect, the latter too is only for two years), the government has failed to even initiate planning on development. Promises abound nevertheless.
I do not think so. The tribal framework exists as it was before. Surely tribal leaders have been martyred, however there are others willing to take over the leadership. The tribal culture has existed there for centuries. It cannot just disappear because some leaders have been murdered over the past few years…. However once the pressure builds on the militants, you can and will find allies in the tribes willing to get this militancy problem sorted out as their tribes are losing out. The PA system has to be done away with. With what has to be seen. You have to revive it because you do not have anything better currently (eventually the FATA has to be integrated into the federation, but that cannot be done overnight).
I digress with the contention that the tribal framework exists. To my knowledge, the central government works with the political agent who works with the maliks and the khasadars serving as the police force. The maliks have been murdered, most political agents stay within the agency headquarters rarely venturing out or are based outside in the provincial headquarters while the khasadars are too scared to resist the Taliban. The FC has been unable to contain the Taliban and so has the army — when this militancy will be done away with is anyone’s guess. There is no “system” like this in place right now — it’s a clean slate to work on.
Secondly, currently no one may want to challenge the militants in the absence of the military.
“Absence of military” is factually incorrect. The military went in 2003 and has gone in many times. It is in there as of now!
Also while this term "Draconian" is always used with FCR, you should realize that its the tribes that agree to the punishment. They do the same to each other within the tribes to keep things straight. FCR is not something that has been "imposed" on them without their input. Its a regulation that is enforced by the tribes on their own first and if not then Khassadars/FC etc. take action.
Even if the tribes agree to the punishments, no way does it justify the kind of punishments given under it. So it stays “draconian”. Agreed, the FCR has not been imposed but was based by the British on the tribal structure in vogue till a century back, but there have been calls for change from the tribal regions only.
As for why the FCR was introduced in the first place and it’s implications, here is what The News columnist Asad Jamal wrote:
However, what is puzzling is the opposition and criticism to the policy announcement made by Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gillani regarding the abolition of FCR, 1901. One pretext for the opposition is that any change in the law will leave vacuum and make things more difficult. FCR is also defended on the ground that tribal areas are special geographical regions with peculiar customs and traditions and have to be dealt with special laws.
The critics have either not read the law and considered its implications for the people subjected to the law or are acting in cahoots with the retrogressive institutions and forces moulded in the colonial mindset. Even a plain reading of the draconian law lays bare the methodology the British colonialists adopted to rein in the 'wild horses.'
FCR in its original form was first enacted in 1848, then re-enacted with modifications in 1873 and again in 1876 and lastly in 1901. We inherited the FCR, 1901 and have retained it with some modifications. The preamble to the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901, states: "Whereas it is expedient further to provide for the suppression of crime in certain frontier districts. It is hereby enacted as follows". The original object of the enactment may, therefore, have been taken as suppression of crime in certain 'frontier districts.' The third schedule to FCR mentions the areas where it is to be applied, which include tribal areas.
Several provisions of the FCR are violative of several articles of the constitution including Article 8 of the constitution, which provides that any law or custom or usage having the force of law, in so far as it is inconsistent with fundamental rights shall be void; and Article 4 (the right of an individual to be dealt with in accordance with the law), Article 9 (security of person), Article 10 (safeguards as to arrest and detention), Article 13 (protection against double jeopardy, self-incrimination), Article 14 (inviolability of the dignity of man, prohibition of torture for the purpose of extracting evidence) Article 24 (protection of property rights) and Article 25 (equality of citizens).
Justice A. R. Cornelius -- in a judgment as far back as in 1954 (entitled Sumunder versus the State and cited as PLD 1954 FC 228) -- has referred to proceedings under FCR as "...obnoxious to all recognised modern principles governing the dispensation of justice."
……………
On the one hand this clearly discriminates against Pathans and Baloch populations, on the other it gives blanket authority to the executive to decide inclusion or exclusion of any group of people as a class. This provision is violative of the equality-before-law clause (Article 25) of the constitution which provides that: "All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law."
This provision was first assailed as far back as in 1957 in a case entitled Malik Toti Khan versus The State [PLD 1957 (WP) Q 1] in which it was held that the discrimination was "...based principally on racial or tribal considerations, and to the extent that there is provision for other classes being added to the Pathans or Baluchs for attracting the provisions of the Regulation, the classification may be wholly arbitrary and capricious at the sweet will of the executive. These provisions are, therefore, ex facie discriminatory and do not rest on any classification such as could take the enactment out of the mischief of Article 5 [Article 25 of the Constitution of 1973] of the Constitution [of 1956]."
On the face of it, the law was enacted to incorporate and accommodate the customs and usage of the tribal people but in fact it was meant to control the people of tribal areas while using the facade of tribal culture and custom. Under sections 8 and 11 of FCR the hearing or trial is supposed to take place before a Jirga (Council of Elders) but the selection of jirga members and the power of final decision is vested the executive authority. The jirga envisaged under the FCR is therefore a mere advisory body, and since the executive authority does not have the case presented before him through counsel, his decision can be nothing but wholly arbitrary.”
By the way, there is more to tribal culture than law and order. Sindhi, Punjabi or Baloch culture hasn’t changed over the years.
Agreed. However lets be practical instead of idealistic. It takes time to do such things. This will require the tribes to agree, the parliament to pass a bill, constitution amended etc. etc., garrisoning of law enforcement agencies etc. (issues which may not be palatable to the locals).
Change is rarely palatable but that is no reason to not go for it.
Not really. There is quite a bit of other work being done which is under the category of Public affairs works. There is road work going on, the Army is facilitating the return of refugees, the Army is providing security to the homes of the people, helping with crops, bringing medical relief and food supplies to the locals etc. etc.
That above examples are of relocation and rehabilitation for the displaced not development work which will improve the economic conditions in the long-term.
Although I have no idea about your age, but given the statement you make, I think you need to simply look at some of the older archives of Pakistani newspapers. From the time of Ayub Khan, promises have been made by the government to uplift the areas that comprise FATA. The Political Agent’s sole ace card used to be the federal funding which he would use at his discretion to reward certain tribes and build wells or kacchi road, or a dispensary near by. The fact that we want to preserves the tribal traditions does not mean the GoP has no responsibility. The FATA are Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The question is what sort of administration has been provided to the FATA in the past by the various administrations in Islamabad?
I am nearly a quarter of a century old and doubt if I can lay hands on archives from Ayub Khan’s era. The promises are being made by this government and were made by the last government as well — that’s just politician-speak. In fact, in a 2004 interview, General Musharraf had extensively talked about “development” work his government is initiating in the region. The three Ds mantra (Dialogue, Deterrence and Development) has turned out to be nothing but rhetoric.
Secondly, the political agent is merely a bureaucrat and last checked the equivalent of a deputy commissioner. He has no political support base whatsoever and so if he failed to deliver, the tribes could not ask or vote for his removal. He was federally appointed. What needs to be done is that the Political Parties Act needs to be implemented in its entirety and not parts of it whereby “independent” MNAs are elected.
What tribal traditions do you want to preserve, please elaborate.
You are hearing this for the first time because you may be getting all of your information from the western media or may have never been to the area. I was there in 94 (last time I visited) and the FWO and Army were working overtime to put in roads and basic infrastructure in. The only problem is the scale. That area requires a much bigger effort.
Yeah I have never been there but my sources of information are actually the local media — what they say about the region. As for the scale, come on we can develop Punjab, lay down a road network all the way from the north of the province to the south, develop Gwadar, but are unable to deliver in FATA, where the population is sparse in any case.
Just wondering, were you in the army, a Scout officer?
Yes but the Brig is talking about when we first went into Waziristan back in 2002. Quite a lot has changed in terms of tactics and even the training being provided to the regular infantry now. Secondly, SF like the SSG cannot maintain presence in these areas. You have to put regular infantry and local constabulary to do this job. Even now the SSG is operating at the spears edge being pushed out to Peochar valley etc. so the militants can be paid back in coin. Eventually the regular infantry will be deployed to maintain presence in the area which eventually will become FC responsibility in the tribal areas.
I thought you were talking about the army’s failure in 2002 when you mentioned remoteness and vastness so added on that with the brigadier’s analysis. Nevertheless, what has always struck one as odd is that why didn’t the military apply these strategies before. Why were they not able to gauge what was happening on ground… it’s not the first time the Pakistan Army was quelling an insurgency.
However the hard terrain is nothing unusual for the Army and especially for the SSG.
Again the SSG were not on the front lines earlier…
I never said the entire Army. All I said was that the operation is large enough to require infantry bns from other formations which would potentially include those that are part of the FCNA. I know for a fact that NLI elements have been active in these operations.
Patriot’s original quote was “PA Units stationed at Kashmir side are certainly not trained to fight in Plain Areas so i am sure they have considerable exp in Mountain Warfare.”… my point to counter his was that the entire army is not in Kashmir etc etc… I know you weren't referring to the entire army.
SSG were reconnoitering the entire tribal area in the 50s and without a shadow of doubt did the same for the higher command to make decisions about where to put the troops in and where to put the pressure on the militants. However the problem is a bit more complex than one that can be fixed by just throwing special forces at it. SSG can go in, conduct recce, take action and then leave. What happens after that? Who stays behind? How would the tribals respond to your presence? How do you maintain effective and timely communication with the remotely deployed troops given the paucity of air transport? How long do you stay there?
