The writer has served as ambassador to Afghanistan and chief secretary of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. He is a nominee of the Government of Pakistan in talks with the TTP
Was there a history of uprising in the tribal areas after Partition? Were the people of the tribal areas ever found wanting in their patriotism for the country? Were it not the tribesmen who took over parts of Kashmir in 1948 as volunteers and enabled the new state to hoist its flag on Muzaffarabad and lay claim to the valley of Kashmir? Were there even ripples of discontent in the tribal areas when an epic struggle was underway in Afghanistan in the 1980s and did that war, in any way, impact the tribal areas or its systems or the way of life of its people? Was there any evidence of any movement towards Talibanisation of the tribal areas when the Taliban movement took control of Afghanistan in 1996?
The answer to all these questions is an emphatic ‘No’. What, then, caused the otherwise peaceful tribesmen to suddenly take up arms and cause devastation in their own country? Tolerance was a virtue embedded in the tribesmen’s psyche. For thousands of years, Hindus and Sikhs have been living side by side with the tribes in Buner, Khyber, Orakzai, Kurram and Waziristan. Never ever have the majority tribesmen insulted or caused any pain or anguish to the Hindus and Sikhs living in the same villages and abiding by the same traditions, norms and codes as the majority Pashtun tribes.
Musharraf committed a historic blunder by inducting the army into the tribal areas as a means of placating the Americans, but in his ignorance, forgot that the move, as unwarranted as it was, also altered the fundamental character of the tribal areas from a bastion of peace and stability to one of insecurity, clashes, militarisation and almost eternal instability. There was no need whatsoever to induct the military into the tribal areas in 2002. The Frontier Corps units were well-positioned and extensively deployed along the border with their own formidable network of informers, having good knowledge of the area. They had a close rapport with the local Khasadars, the political administration, as well as with the local people. To stem the influx of some leaders of the Taliban movement, brigade after brigade of the military was deployed and this ended up militarising the whole region with devastating consequences. Was the influx of the Taliban stopped or prevented? The few hundred people who wanted to cross over into the tribal belt did so any way and got firmly entrenched. This move has left a terrible aftermath from which generations of tribesmen will suffer.
The military’s induction upset the fundamental administrative infrastructure of the tribal areas. The deployment was not confined to a few specific border stations but was extended to the whole hinterland and eventually led to the manning of the barriers, which multiplied manifold as the deployment expanded in scope. This resulted in the displacement of civilian institutions, which held the tribal areas together. Furthermore, the Maliks were swept away by the tide of militarisation. The principle of collective or territorial responsibility — the linchpin in the management of the tribal areas — was dismantled, as the forces moved into the interior and occupied all the hilltops. This not only created a complete administrative vacuum but also generated deep distrust and led to a widespread belief that the military’s induction was intended to advance the security interests of the coalition forces across the border. The cumulative effect of these actions was the evolution of an insurgency that has disfigured the tribal areas and robbed them of their basic character, premised on egalitarianism, tolerance and a spirit of accommodation. Minus the military’s induction, there would have been no reaction to the events across the border, just as the war of the 1980s did not have any impact on the region.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 17th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (15)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1722586547-0/Untitled-design-(73)1722586547-0-165x106.webp "article")
@seema: can our army enter OUR OWN LANDS and weed out the foreign terror elements without the possibility of creating a humanitarian crises (IDPs)? If you think that it is possible then we should definitely send our troops.
The seeds of insurgency is off course embedded in the deployment of armed forces in Tribal areas. But in my opinion and many other people that i know are also of the view that it was not only the deployment of forces but the bad policies of the forces and government that led to the enhancement of insurgency. Deployment of the forces is one of the tactics to prevent the insurgency from spreading, but there is grand strategy as well to address the root causes of the insurgency. No such grand strategy can be found in Military as well as government circles. I would rather blame government and not the armed forces for not having the grand strategy. Because these strategies are designed and implemented by the government concerned and not by the forces. The militancy in Pakistan have been dealt very badly in Pakistan. No instance of Bad governance and ill treatment can be found in the history of Pakistan.
I only feel sorry for those who are misled by these type of commentaries that are full of at best half truths. Its so easy to blame Musharraf but I think (and judging by comments here) people know facts better than Mr. Rustam. Shall we remind the author that in the immediate aftermath of 911 there was a UN resolution passed that authorized attack on Afghanistan and obligated all member countries to cooperate, that all the terrorists in Afghanistan that were responsible for not only 911 but most of the attacks around the world were going to cross over and did into Pakistan's tribal areas, that the UN Colaition forces required Pakistan to send military to stop and arrest them, that the taliban had a choice to turn over the terrorists but decided to protect them effectively forcing Pakistan's hand? It is preposterous to claim taliban were pro Pakistan but turned against it just because we sent the military into the tribal areas. The miltary was sent to get the terrorists not the peaceful taliban. Finally, to state Musharraf's decision (which under the circumstances any ruler would have taken) was a blunder it is assumed that Pakistan could have said no thank you but we will not send our forces after these foreign terrorists - another preposterous claim. Does Mr. Rustam really believe America and the rest of the International community would have accepted it? They already had India chomping at the bit waiting for Pakistan to make that stupid decision. Thank God Musharraf had the intellect to make the right decision. In the end it was a no win situation for Pakistan but the alternative would have been far worse with foreign forces marching in.
Well said.
Dear Author: you state - Minus the military’s induction, there would have been no reaction to the events across the border, just as the war of the 1980s did not have any impact on the region.
Well, in the 1980s, you guys pumped resources in destabilising Afghanistan. With uncle Sam on your side, the Russians were in no position to hit you. So, your nefarious activities went unchecked. Hence the impact was less obvious. You cannot say there was no impact. Refugees came in and became a fertile ground for radicalisation later on (but you still benefitted from it, in the short term, as you diverted some into Kashmir). Drugs and guns became part of the culture - the effects are so visible now.
This time, you guys tried to be too smart (or were reckless) given that Uncle Sam was not on your side. So, you tried to play the old game hoping to get advantage by sacrificing the lives, peace, and happiness of the tribals and Afghans. The rules of the games were changed and so were the players.
You gatecrashed into what you thought was a fancy dress party. You have now realised that only you were dressed as a joker and the others in suits. Everyone is looking at you and it isn't comfortable - is it? !!!
Yes, there was. See Faqir of Ipi.
that would be: "Jaisi karni, waisi bharni"
Pakistan played with fire now that fire is burning in their own house. Karma
The advisors like Rustam shah made IK confused on national security issues, if everything were going right then what was the activities and interests of foreigners(Azbek, Chichens etc) in tribal area? Why should our army not enter in those areas badly infiltrated by foreign militant groups and eradicate the roots of militancy which caused irreparable loss to our nations?
The one factor that author does not address is why did the US ask Musharraf to move the army to the tribal areas? Well - the taliban were air lifted from afghanistan during the US attack and helpfully settled in the tribal areas by the ISI and the army. These guys then began to launch attacks against the US forces.
The truth is double games of this sort will ultimately hurt you - precious tribal traditions notwithstanding. The author should realize that you cannot turn the clock back now to a wonderful era when all religions coexisted in these areas.
The insurgency in Pakistan can be explained by observing the trends across the Muslim world. Somalia, Afghanistan, Mali, Yemen, Indonesia, the list goes on, have experienced different forms of Islamic Militancy in various degrees.
Pakistan is just at the forefront because of its history of supporting Islamic Insurgency in its neighborhood which has put Pakistan ahead of the curve of the countries of the Muslim world.
Even in resource rich, non-colonized Saudi Arabia Osama Bin Laden was born, to a very wealthy family.
Neither Poverty, nor Education, nor injustices explain the fire of Islamism raging across the Muslim world.
There is one thing which can explain all this, but since its not politically correct, it will never be discussed openly. Non-Muslim world will discuss it in its drawing rooms, in fact it has already come to a conclusion.
The Army was deployed because the Al Qaida and a host of other foreign militants found refuge in the tribal areas after the US invasion of Tora Bora. The author fails to mention that once that happened, the FC deployed in that area and even the moderates in the tribal areas became hostages to those from outside now calling the shots in the FATA.
This was the reason the Army was deployed. Secondly, this 1800 anachronism of leaving the FATA be is something that needs to be discarded with. FATA needs to be integrated into the mainland Pakistan. It cannot be a place where all sorts of murderers, terrorists and militants find refuge after committing their ghastly crimes against the citizens of Pakistan and those in the neighbouring countries.
The author is wrong on this count too. The war of the 1980s had a massive impact on Pakistan. All sorts of weaponry and drugs were pushed down south from the tribal areas which were the staging areas against the Russians. This influx of weapons and the space given to extremists in the FATA has given Pakistan the trouble that we are faced with. Its nice to discuss the glamorous aspects of the tribals being "loyal" Pakistanis in 1948, but in this day and age it means very little when its clear that the tribal loyalties of these people are stronger than their consideration for Pakistan.
How do you say reap what you sow in Urdu?
@TooTrue:
Truth hurts, eh?
Well why should the Pakistan army not deploy on its own territory? If the military can deploy elsewhere in Pakistan than why not in the tribal areas? They're not special. If they want to become terrorists then eventually they will be neutralized. And @RD Sultan you can quit your whinging.
For decades, Pakistan's military has used proxy groups to foment insurgencies in India and Afghanistan.
Now the extremists target the same country that encouraged and armed them.