Militancy or a tribal backlash? — I

Is trouble in Fata caused by radicalisation of tribal society or is it a tribal backlash? I believe it's the latter.


Naveed Hussain August 14, 2010

Reams of columns have been written in newspapers and much has been said on television talk shows about the deadly insurgency in the northwest. Its political, religious and economic aspects have been discussed threadbare, but its cultural motives have largely been ignored thus far.

In retrospect, Pakistan's seven semi-autonomous tribal agencies, known as Fata, had cordial relations with the central government until 2002. The trouble started when the former military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, joined the US-led “war against terrorism”. Musharraf opted for indiscriminate use of force, against tribal ethos and ignoring lessons from history. The policy backfired. Result: a deadly insurgency.

What started as a little trouble in Waziristan in 2002 has become an exasperating insurgency since then. Is this caused by radicalisation of the tribal society or is it a tribal backlash? I believe it's the latter.

Geographically, Fata, running south to north, forms a wedge between Pakistan and Afghanistan. And around 3.5 million ethnic Pakhtuns inhabit the region with their kinsmen across the poorly-demarcated border in Afghanistan. If sub-clans are counted, there are around 600 Pakhtun tribes. Their lives are governed by Pakhtunwali, an unwritten ancient tribal code that dominates the Pakhtun culture and identity. Pakhtunwali includes, inter alia, ‘azizwale’ (clanship), ‘nang au gairat’ (honour and chivalry), lashkar (tribal legion), ‘badl’ (revenge), ‘pannah warkawel’ (offering shelter), jirga (tribal assembly) and ‘rogha’ (reconciliation).

‘Azizwale’ demands that any tribesman is offered full support by his clan, if he is wronged. Now if a Mehsud, Waziri or a Dawar is attacked in South or North Waziristan agencies, his fellow tribesmen are bound by Pakhtunwali to come to his help. This happened in 2002 when General Musharraf sent tanks into Waziristan to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda and their tribal cohorts. The reaction, by the general’s own admission, turned into a “people’s movement”. The Mehsuds and the Waziris, known for their bloody feuds, have always united to fight foreign aggressors or anyone challenging their lifestyle. And now they consider Pakistani troops as “aggressors” in their land. Pakhtunwali warrants ‘badl’ for every killing. This means the Taliban’s ranks will keep on swelling with the killing of each innocent tribesman because the “enemy of your enemy is your friend”.

Now, if a Wazir or Mehsud tribesman flees to the Khyber Agency to seek help, Pakhtunwali demands from the Afridis and the Shinwaris living there not only to give him ‘panah’ or sanctuary but also to help him against the enemy. And if they seek help invoking Pakhtunwali, Tarkhani, Utmankhel and Mohmand tribes in Bajaur and Mohmand agencies will come to their help. Anyone siding with the enemy would be considered a “traitor” — the worst possible indictment in Pakhtun culture. This is what has been happening in the Kurram Agency, where Turi and Bangash tribes, belonging to the Shiite sect, are paying the price for going against the largely Sunni insurgency.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 15th, 2010.

COMMENTS (9)

Dr.Ijaz Ali | 13 years ago | Reply I do not find any difference in the pakhtunwali of Saad and the author in terms of its essence. The writer has just elaborated a the term which is the need of the day. Bangash's claim of wahabism in the tribal areas and afghanistan seems plausible as well in a historical context. Arbization has also been in a problem in these areas and some people even predicted that if there were no intervention, the fate of afghanistan would have been just like Tunisia, Morroco or some african countries. Several countries in African and in Arabia were arbaized though originally they are not arabs. Is it good or bad? true or false? whatever,lack of commitment to improve on things only leads to more chaos and i agree with the writer that over times, the insurgency has slightly shifted from just only relegious extremism to a broader ethnic unrest. In tribal areas, over the past 60 years, nothing has been undertaken for the improvement of education, health or other infrastructure. Travelling in these areas is just like a trip to the seventeenth century. The only infrastructure they have is the mansion of the political agent and a few bungalows built by smugglers. How can one think of killing these people for a sin they haven't committed? If there were reforms in their legal status and education, they would have been different. These beautiful areas could have been heaven on earth for the tourists. Our inborn threat of being invaded by either eastern or western hostile nations has left us in shambles. For God sack do something to change the status of the tribal areas, otherwise fighting over there for a hundred years would prove a futile exercise.
ADIL | 13 years ago | Reply Absolutely agreed with bangash. The article starts with the author's opinion and failed to provide much analysis. If this is cultural backlash why were the Tribal maliks killed one by one by the taliban and why have the jirga which have always been considered sacrosanct been consistently attacked. Its about time that romantic view of taleban espoused by people such as the author and Imran Khan is shelved.
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
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