Aftermath of disaster and conflict: Army filling the void in Swat

Army eyes permanent bases in valley, insists it will handover control to civilian administration in several months.

Afp August 14, 2011


Two years since the army stamped out a Taliban insurgency and restored peace in Swat valley, new threats risk delaying a handover of the valley to civilian leaders.

After years of extremist violence, a military offensive and devastating floods, local tourists this summer started coming back to the lush valleys, bubbling rivers and superb mountains of the famed north-western district. But if the scenery hasn’t changed, visitors from Islamabad, Lahore or Karachi need to negotiate a more recent fixture: the omnipresent uniformed soldiers and beige military vehicles.

In the summer of 2009, the army sent 30,000 troops into battle against Taliban fighters controlled by Maulana Fazlullah, who since 2007 had terrorised people with a campaign of beheadings, violence and attacks on girls’ schools. By July 2009 the army declared the region back under control and said the rebels had all been killed, captured or had fled. Other than a suicide bombing in the main town of Mingora in July 2010, Swat has since lived in peace.

But two years on, there are still more than 25,000 soldiers in Swat filling the void left by years of conflict. Former administrative offices, luxury homes or hotels with panoramic views, from Mingora to the northern reaches of the valley, the army has requisitioned dozens of buildings to house its troops.

Locals make fun of the army’s prolonged stay in a beautiful landscape with a climate far less punishing than the heat-blasted plains of the south.

“They’re taking advantage. The clear air, the countryside, the luxury homes are better than ordinary camps,” smiled Iftikhar Ali, 24, a student in the suburbs of the town of Madyan.

Everyone knows, however, that the army came to save them twice in the last two years: in kicking out the Taliban and during floods last year, which cut off 80 per cent of the population of Swat from the rest of the country.

“The army did a lot for us. They cleared roads, rebuilt bridges, gave us food rations, while the government was all promises and didn’t give us a single penny,” said Mohammed Iqbal, who sells clothes in Behrain, a tourist town partly devastated by the floods.

But the population of Swat, for a long time an autonomous princely state and without any military bases before 2009, is getting tired of the overt military presence, particularly the numerous checkpoints which hinder free movement.

Sardar Ali, 30, a worker in Mingora, acknowledged that checkpoint practices had eased in recent months, but said he was still fed up. “Soldiers don’t listen to people’s complaints. Sometimes they are brutal and cruel; they beat people who rush to go through, even when it is for a medical emergency.”

Meanwhile a 40-year-old peasant, Inayatur Rehman, said, “The army should stay in Swat, because the Taliban can come back. But soldiers have to stay in cantonments, not on the streets” — a view shared by a number of Swatis.

The army says 80 per cent of its checkpoints have been dismantled or handed over to police in the last year. It also insists it will hand over control to the civilian administration.

General Javed Iqbal, commander of the area, talked about a civilian transfer within “several months” as part of a “gradual process” in which “several steps still have to be taken”.

But it seems a return to normal could take much longer.

The army is planning to move into three or four cantonments, said Iqbal, adding that the construction of the buildings alone will take two years.

Then there is a spike in unrest in the neighbouring district of Dir, where the Taliban assaulted a police post in early June killing 10 policemen. Dir borders the Afghan provinces of Kunar and Nuristan where a number of security officials believe Fazlullah and some of his fighters sought refuge.

“I am concerned,” admitted Iqbal. “It is going to impact the process, but will not derail it.”

The head of the civilian administration in Swat, Kamran Rehman, said he is ready to take over immediately, but that it’s up to the army. “Maybe in the coming one year,” he mused.

But one security official dismissed that out of hand. “My guess is it will take two or three more years,” he said.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 15th, 2011.


demosthenes | 12 years ago | Reply

When the Army leaves Swat, the Taliban and the local currupt officials will return to what they did before. Before the Army leaves, Swat must have new elections, along with a change in laws limiting terms of public officials, and most importantly an independant Judiciary that can prosecute corruption and ensure prompt and legal fairness. When the Army leaves it should leave behind a trained local militia that can offer emergency services, continue public works and serve a reminder to the Taliban that Swat is protected,

Voiceless Observer | 12 years ago | Reply

ANP leaders were trying to be over clever.

First they exaggerated threat of ordinary landless Mullahs, and any peace making move by honest civil administration was deliberately sabotaged.

After that they successfully blackmailed weak government of Zardari and asked forces of Pakistan and USA to eliminate their traditional and religious rivals.

Now they are trying to be clever again and asking Army to leave Swat, so that ordinary public will again be at the mercy of corrupt government employees and ruthless and greedy Khans.

We can clearly see that Army is not going to leave Swat and they are going to develop that area , which may include DHAs.

ANP made another greedy and cunning move by changing the historic name of Frontier and now they are going to Lose Hazara.

Name change process will eventually cost tax payers a lofty amount of 20 billion Rupees.

After creation of a new province , Green areas of Hazara will be plundered by local vultures and plunderers hiding as government officials and their patron politicians.

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ