Fallout of Swat military operation

Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Rahimullah Yusufzai

The writer is resident editor of The News in Peshawar.

The huge military operation launched in Malakand region in late April was meant to decisively defeat the Taliban militants and restore the writ of the state in Swat, Buner and Lower Dir districts. One doesn’t know how long the army action will continue in view of the fact that the federal and provincial ministers and the military authorities have been giving conflicting timelines for its completion. There is also no guarantee that militancy will be defeated once and for all as a result of this unprecedented undertaking by Pakistan’s armed forces within the country.

There is no doubt that the militants forced the hand of the government and the military to take action against them due to their unreasonable actions and strong-arm tactics. The militants’ strength has certainly been diminished following the military operation and it will take them a while and another period of government non-performance, inaction and mistakes to recoup and regroup. Despite the government’s claim that the Malakand military operation was initiated under strategic planning, there is little to suggest that it was ready for it.

Something that is far more obvious is the emergence of new problems and challenges for our already beleaguered nation. One is the issue of the internally displaced persons (IDPs) that is threatening to overshadow all other priorities of the state. The massive displacement of people caused by the military action wasn’t properly foreseen by those who planned, executed and backed the operation. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that all of them are now finding it difficult to cope with the situation. This is a man-made disaster that will require divine intervention because our governments have a poor record of helping people in need. Every uprooted family has suffered so much for no fault of its own that it will be impossible to compensate it for its loss, whether it is physical or emotional. Unknowingly, or rather callously, a humanitarian crisis has been created without having the foresight to realise its magnitude and understand its consequences.

The military operation and the large-scale dislocation of hitherto well-knit rural communities have also raised valid questions about the concept of nationhood and the federation of Pakistan. Already, two province-wide strikes called by rival groups of the ultra-Sindhi nationalists Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz (JSQM) have been held against the arrival of IDPs in Sindh. The JSQM and other Sindhi and Urdu-speaking nationalists may have strong reasons to oppose the influx of ethnic Pakhtuns in Sindh but the timing of their protest and the targeting of Pakhtun transport and other businesses during the strike carried a disturbing message that cannot augur well for the future of relations between the ethnic entities that make of Pakistan. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), which despite the change of its name still operates as the Mohajir Qaumi Movement, enthusiastically backed the first call for strike and withdrew its support for the second one on the request of its ruling coalition partner, the PPP. This also helps explain as to why the first strike on account of MQM’s active support on May 23 was more widespread and violent with two people, including a 50-year old woman who was burnt alive, getting killed and a lot more vehicles owned by Pakhtuns being torched.

By backing the recent anti-IDPs strike, a powerful MQM-linked segment of the PPP-led Sindh government became involved in the unconstitutional act of denying entry to genuine Pakistanis, that too uprooted and suffering households coming all the way from unliveable places like Swat, Buner and Dir, into a province with a substantial Pakhtun population. No thought was given to the repercussions of such an ethnic-based approach to the problem of displaced people in NWFP, from where they came, and also in Balochistan, home to a considerable number of Pashtuns. Also, there was no appreciation of the fact that the Karachi-bound IDPs weren’t going to be a burden on the Sindh government. They were heading to Karachi to live with their Pakhtun relatives and friends and seek means of livelihood in a city that is the obvious destination for most jobless and shelterless Pakistanis.

This is not to say that the PPP leadership, which we all know is dominated by the Sindhis, wasn’t supportive of the move to keep the IDPs out of Sindh. President Asif Ali Zardari, who is still the PPP co-chairman, and some of his party colleagues have been for quite some time advocating registering and controlling the IDPs coming to Karachi and the rest of Sindh. The MQM on its own could not have forced the Sindh government to take this decision. It needed sympathisers in the PPP to make the move and support the call for strike that was basically against its own government’s inaction for not stopping the IDPs from entering Sindh. The ruling PPP cannot absolve itself of the blame for blocking the trucks and buses bringing the IDPs to Sindh at the border town of Kashmore and for insisting that they go back to their native NWFP or stay in not-yet-ready tented camps there in the middle of nowhere. It was an insensitive act that added insult to injury and contributed to the pain suffered by the IDPs and felt by all Pakhtuns. More pain was inflicted on the Pakhtun psyche by certain PPP leaders, including its blundering spokesperson Fauzia Wahab, when the IDPs were equated to the Afghan refugees. If this isn’t a slip of tongue, then it obviously means that many politicians and also other likeminded people from different walks of life in Punjab and Sindh have come to believe that the Afghan refugees too are primarily Pakhtuns and all of them need to be kept out of Pakistan’s two biggest provinces to avoid harm.

The PML-N despite its praiseworthy relief work in support of the IDPs also damaged its growing reputation as a party sympathetic to the cause of smaller provinces by hesitating to allow setting up of IDPs camps in Punjab. Nawaz Sharif too backed the military operation in Malakand division after having pleaded earlier for a peaceful political solution of the issue of militancy and he cannot absolve his party now from the responsibility of the army action’s consequences. In fact, it was the PML-N’s backing for the military solution of the Swat issue that changed the course of the debate on the pros and cons of using the armed forces to solve a problem that emerged due to the unresponsive system of justice and governance and deteriorated when politicians failed to tackle it politically.

The apathy of some of the Sindh- and Punjab-based political forces to the woes of the IDPs looks all the more glaring when one compares it to the unparalleled generosity shown by the common people all over the country. In particular, the way the people opened their hearts and homes to the IDPs in NWFP was heart-warming to say the least. Nowhere was this magnanimity more visible than in Mardan and Swabi, the two districts that have received most of the displaced persons coming from neighbouring Swat, Buner and Dir. Villagers with little means have accommodated IDPs in their homes and hujras and those with a room or house to spare are still busy registering their names to show their willingness to take in the displaced families. Every village in Mardan and Swabi has become a camp for the IDPs. Little or no relief supplies have gone to these unknown IDPs’ village camps because most of the goods are going to the designated camps. In fact, almost 80 per cent of the IDPs are living outside the relief camps with relatives, acquaintances and even with strangers.

If ordinary Pakhtun villagers with few resources could do this on such a massive scale and lessen the burden of the government, is it asking too much from politicians who are in and out of power and are supposed to show the way to the nation to be sensitive to the plight of the IDPs instead of rubbing salt on their wounds? Or according to their interpretation the IDP issue should be a matter of concern for NWFP and the Pakhtuns only? If that is the case, then one should be worried about the damage this attitude is causing to the concept of nationhood in the federation of Pakistan.

Email: rahimyusufzai yahoo.com

This problem is not going to solve easily, after shocks will be filt for long time.

Re: Fallout of Swat military operation

Answer: provincial autonomy.

Yes! provincial autonomy according to Islam and to give full rights to provinces and whip the traitors out of Pakistani territory these two are the main answers and solutions and fully implementation of Islam as a whole without extremism and terrorism is it's solution which the traitors never want to be.

Re: Fallout of Swat military operation

What is provincial autonomy "according to islam"? How does religion come up here?

Correction!

What we see in Swat and FATA is the FALLOUT of tribalism and Talibanism.

People wanted to live like tribals and refused to pay taxes or allow 100% government control/setup.

The result? Same as any other region subjected to the outdated, uncivilized tribalism.

Case in point Afghanistan, Somalia, Sierra Leon, Congo, ....... (add your favorite tribal dimwit region/country in this list).

Blaming Pak law enforcement agents for FATA / Swat is an old ploy of tribals and their supporters.

Ok. Do you know how much Govt spending on the Admn of these area NOTHING only one PA(Political Agent) or APA(Assistent political Agent).they control the whole area with few khasadar(local police). frist you have to abolish this system (FCR)

these trible area was until recently a buffer zone, you have 1000 of km border with Afghanistan, so its not the people who are appose to the changes its the establishment who dont want to bring them in the main stream. i wants book for my kids insted of kashankof, i wants roads, electric city, job opertunity etc. i have traveled 15km daily for a high school for 2 years. We dont have a single colloge in the area.

so the peolpe are not oppose to the development rather its the Govt reluctence to develop these area.

Re: Fallout of Swat military operation

[note]Oleander, please add link to the article ASAP! [/note]

Re: Fallout of Swat military operation

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/arc_news.asp?id=9

Re: Fallout of Swat military operation

Gentlemen never ever join any potentially powerful position in the government of Pakistan. You will only aid in destroying the country.

Amen brother. let me hear the tribals protesting on major intersections, shouting to abolish the FCR.

Don't you know that any tribal can come to civilized (relatively speaking in the context of Pak) areas and open a business or buy a house.

How many businessmen from Lahore Islamabad and Karachi are allowed to buy land, or open shops etc. in Tribal area. Forget about opening businesses, they come out with their limbs attached, that would be a big achievement.

Don't give me crap about Tribals being good hosts. A peaceful area is the one where any citizen of the country can go if they want to.

Heck even the government employees have to hire body guards in order to go in the tribal areas to do the development work.

Even then they have been kidnapped and held for ransom throughout the last 60 years.

Even in peace time.

Now show me the pakhtunwali that would have kicked the criminals and kidnappers out. Or at least protested at the practice of kidnaping and ransom. or making weapon bazars or opening smuggling dens.

FYI. Tribals do not pay utility bills in general. If you shut down power as a result of non-payment, they come bomb the power infrastructure.

If the power theft in the cities is 30%, in tribal areas it is almost 100%. Tell me who would even want to go do the development if there is no income?

This is no stereotype, it is a fact that tribalism is the antithesis of development.

If you don't want your kids to carry AK-47 then you must start a struggle from the tribal areas.

No outsider can go fix anything unless people want to change.

Brother frist give me the political system or political parties should be allowed in the area, then i can have voice. dont you give me the example of these MNAs they are only representing elites from the area.

[QUOTE

Don't you know that any tribal can come to civilized (relatively speaking in the context of Pak) areas and open a business or buy a house.

How many businessmen from Lahore Islamabad and Karachi are allowed to buy land, or open shops etc. in Tribal area. Forget about opening businesses, they come out with their limbs attach.[/QUOTE]

If before partition HINDU business man can still and can do business, if Siks can do it in TERAH vally Why not Panjabi or Mohajer. but then their is a prob they can't servive that harash terrian.

Re: Fallout of Swat military operation

FYI. Tribals do not pay utility bills in general. If you shut down power as a result of non-payment, they come bomb the power infrastructure.

Well, the voltage which we have been supplied with can run a electric meter then we are ready to pay you, other wise we cant pay for 90voltage elecricity(normal voltage 220v)

Re: Fallout of Swat military operation

the bottom line is if these area are so dangerious and unproductive then cut it off from the rest of pakistan re draw your boundries.

No one can GIVE a political system to the tribals or anyone else.

They have to figure out if they want to continue living in 500 BC era, or select one from contemporary period.

There may be a price to pay in the form of revenge suicide bombings (as violence comes natural to these barbaric Talibs) in the short-term but military operation was a grim but necessary choice for our country


If anyone thinks that Maulana Fazlullah, Baitullah Mehsud or Mullah Omar are aware of, let alone familiar with, the basics of, say, macroeconomic policy, water distribution or fiscal budgets, that person has probably been living in the same cave as those militants. —Dawn/File photo

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/cyril-almeida-a-grim-but-necessary-choice-959


HERE’S the scorecard so far: a few thousand militants in Malakand division; one military operation; over a million people displaced in a matter of weeks; a few thousand – militants, soldiers and civilians combined – probably already killed in the fighting; a destroyed economy in the northwest; a third devastating terrorist strike in Lahore in three months; ethnic fault lines re-opened with a vengeance in Sindh, and to a lesser extent in Balochistan and Punjab; and another operation imminent in South Waziristan, which will in all likelihood unleash more mayhem.
It’s hard to avoid the question: is it worth it? When the blunt instrument that is the state is used to crush a nimble, shadowy enemy is the terrible fallout worth the aim? At one level, the calculation is simple enough: if we don’t defeat the militants today, they may defeat us tomorrow. But who is this ‘us’ and what are ‘we’ fighting for? And whatever the objective, is it acceptable for ‘us’ to sacrifice a swathe of the population as necessary ‘collateral damage’ in ‘our’ bid to defend that objective?
In short, who are ‘we’ to sacrifice the lives of so many ‘others’ at the altar of national interest? We better have a good reason, or else the blood, sweat and tears of the millions of victims of this ‘war’ will be our cross to bear, too. The physical burden will of course always be for the direct victims to bear, but by picking sides, by acting as cheerleaders in a defensive war without having thought about what exactly it is we are trying to defend, we may end up no better than the enemy we are trying to defeat.
Frankly, if we are just fighting to save what the Pakistan of today represents, then we’re probably better off not fighting to save it.
Today’s way of life? If endemic poverty, a declining agricultural system, sprawling urban slums, a towering mountain of uneducated under-25s, a mass of unemployed, a repellent gap between the haves and the haves-not is our way of life, then we’re probably better off without it.
Today’s class of politicians? The more I have seen them up close the more I have been revolted. They are venal, they are corrupt, they are unimaginative, they are incompetent. It’s not just difficult to imagine them fixing this country, it’s almost impossible.
Today’s state? Asphyxiated as it is by the army’s security paranoia, its trajectory has been wrong for a long time, let alone today. But for those who have fed at the trough of that paranoia, life hasn’t turned out too shabbily. If you’ve ever had the privilege to roam through the home of a retired general or superior court judge or grade-22 bureaucrat, you may wonder if colonisation had ever ended.
Juxtaposing the suffering of millions of Pakistanis as a result of a military operation against militants that the state nurtured or at least turned a blind eye to for a long time with the wretchedness of the Pakistan of today almost makes you believe that the operation isn’t worth it. Let those millions suffer so that a few can go on enriching themselves while the majority live out their lives, nasty, brutish and short?
But it’s worth it, paradoxically, precisely for the people of this country – if we think about what life can be like tomorrow. There are two foes of the people in this country: the militants and those who rule the people today. If it was simply a case of defeating one enemy – the militants – today so that we can live under the yoke of the other foe – our rulers – tomorrow and forever, it’s definitely not worth the cost in terms of the extreme suffering, even death, of a slice of the population.
But the real question is essentially one of frameworks: can the framework of governance offered by the militants provide a better future for the people as opposed to the present framework that we have?
Here’s what the militants offer: law and order and an ‘Islamic’ society. Hard to quibble with, especially for those oriented towards achieving a better abode in the after-life, which, let’s face it, is the majority of the population. But the militants offer a world with trade-offs that while permanent are not necessary. Why must living in a modern country with modern amenities, a functional economy and a healthy respect for fundamental rights be sacrificed permanently in order to live in an ‘Islamic’ society with law and order?
And if anyone thinks that Maulana Fazlullah, Baitullah Mehsud or Mullah Omar are aware of, let alone familiar with, the basics of, say, macroeconomic policy, water distribution or fiscal budgets, that person has probably been living in the same cave as those militants.
Yet, while dismissing the ‘alternative’ system offered by the militants is easy enough, it’s more difficult to build a case for defending the system we do have. For that, we need to forget for a minute about Zardari and Sharif and Kayani and Iftikhar Chaudhry and the rest of the characters in the pantheon of our leadership today.
At its core, the ‘system’ of governance we have today is a competitive system with the ‘leaders’ competing against each other for the support of the population. Any given civilian leader may be corrupt and incompetent, but he also knows that if he doesn’t give something back, build something, create a few jobs, right a few wrongs committed against a few in the population, he will be chucked out eventually, either by a rival politician or a military dictator. And any given dictator also knows that if he doesn’t do many of the same things, he will in turn be chucked out.
The ‘beauty’ in our ugly system is two-fold: no one group – civilian or uniformed – is all-powerful and there is little appetite in the system for total repression. Even under Zia, the possibility of a Burmese-style military junta emerging was low. And even under the most rapacious of civilian governments, as the excesses worsened the likelihood of a quick and unceremonious end always correspondingly increased.
Right there then is the reason why it is right to take on the militants and defend what we have. Unlike what the militants offer, we already have the kernel of a system that can work for us, the people, and not against us in the long term: competition among disparate groups of potential leaders for public support.
That system clearly doesn’t prevent exploitation, but it does prevent any given government from taking the country over a cliff, and, crucially, it contains the possibility of a leadership that will herald a better tomorrow emerging.
So, yes, grim as the fallout may be, it is right, if not necessary, to take on the militants today if we want to retain the possibility of a better tomorrow.

Re: Fallout of Swat military operation

http://www.aajkal.com.pk/news/2009/5/29/Fp_n10.jpg

Hang this Mullah for treason.

BS

This is called escape from Secularism which has diluted your childish brain upto an extreme.

OFF TOPIC AND HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD.