Can the FATA Reforms Break Colonial Legacy?


*Originally published on Tanqeed.

(This article is essentially a watered-down version of a research paper I penned examining the question of how colonial is the post-colonial in terms of the FCR in FATA)

September 05, 2015 — In order to return to their homes from which they were forcibly displaced, the Pakistani government demanded that the people of North Waziristan sign a compulsory and non-negotiable social agreement. That contract demands their allegiance and loyalty to the Pakistani constitution and to the Frontier Crimes Regulations, the colonial era law that is still used to govern the countries Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Most crucially, the agreement entailed that should the tribes fail their responsibilities as categorized in the FCR, they will be subject to severe punishments that include cancellation of their national identity card, passport and other legal documents as well as possible confiscation or razing of their homes. While alarming, the origin of the obligations and punishments in this contract rests in a longer colonial history. In that regard, far from being unusual, it is a window into what has been the normal state of affairs for FATA since at least the British colonial era.

With the FATA reforms process now underway, it is critical to examine the basic logics which have functioned in the governance of this territory. Only by analyzing them can we undo them.

Essential to this analysis is the link between the long history of modern imperialism and Orientalism. As Edward Said expounded, Orientalism is a “a style of thought based upon ontological and epistemological distinction made between “the Orient” and (most of the time) ‘the Occident’.” It constructs an essential difference between the East and the West, and imagines the “Orient” as the absolute Other of the “Occident,” in the process stereotyping the customs and “minds” of the former.

That reasoning is evident in colonial documents. For instance, in his 1933 book, The Martial Races of India, General George MacMunn, a British general classified the Pashtuns as a “martial race” but an “untutored” people leading “a wild life….carrying out a blood feud that has been in progress for generations, ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Such writing was not mere description; it could be codified into law. The Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 defined entire tribes as criminal and punished them accordingly on the basis of a racialized and essentialized understanding of criminality. Where “frontier law” was concerned, in particular the Murderous Outrages Regulations that were the forerunner of the FCR, historian Mark Condos writes that, “Arguments for the creation and preservation of…law invariably centred around claims about the purportedly ‘exceptional’ character of frontier governance, particularly the idea that this was a region that existed in a perpetual state of war and crisis.”

Some scholars have also pointed out that, in addition to Orientalist attitudes, the FCR was established in FATA because the British made a cost-benefit analysis. Scholars Sarfaraz Khan and Abdul Hamid Khan note that one of the reasons that the standard legal and administrative system that the British empire sought to institute in the rest of India was not extended to the frontier was “because of its worthlessness in the context of procuring raw material or generating revenue.” Other experts have also pointed out that, at the time, much of that territory was operating at a deficit because of low crop yields and security problems. Instead, the British developed what came to be known as “indirect governance” by co-opting local tribal elders and maliks to collaborate with colonial officials.

Since 1947, there have been a number of amendments made to the FCR most of which have been insignificant in terms of substantial reform. In 1996, the people of FATA were given the right to vote. Since then, the most substantive set of amendments have been the presidential package of 2011 introduced by then president Asif Ali Zardari. It removed women, children below 16, people above 65, and entire tribes, from the clause of collective responsibility, arrest and punishment; provided appeal mechanisms and time frames for the disposal of cases; allowed for inspections of jails, and introduced provisions for bail. The amendment package also introduced checks on the powers of political agents, punishment and compensation for false prosecutions and extended the Political Parties Act 2002 to FATA. For the first time, political parties could operate in FATA.

But despite these amendments, some core issues remain. Article 247 of Pakistan’s constitution, which states that FATA is to be governed by federally, invalidates the application and operation of laws made by the national parliament in FATA, unless the president intervenes and consents. It also removes FATA from the jurisdiction of Pakistani courts. The president is the ultimate authority for the creation of ordinances and the passage for amendments in FATA. Such a set-up essentially excludes FATA from the political, social and economic mainstream of Pakistan.

This system of governance in FATA produced the conditions for the current quagmire. Several analysts have argued that the Pakistani state has kept FATA under the FCR for the purpose of fostering the growth of strategic assets of the state, namely Islamist fighters who can be called upon to do the bidding of the establishment. Additionally, its use as a battleground for policies of “strategic depth”, which aim to diminish Indian influence in Afghanistan, has created an environment suitable for criminals, thieves, smugglers and terrorists.

Since 9/11, FATA has acquired new significance, and the political discourse has further entrenched essentialist ideas about the territory and its people. The place is still treated as “exceptional” and in a “state of war”, which bears a degree of resemblance to the colonial assumption of the frontier belt as a periphery of exceptional circumstances and conditions in need of exceptional legal-political regimes. It is the entrenched interests in FATA that have furthered this view. As Sarfraz Khan and Abdul Hamid Khan write, “those powerful having stakes in status quo, prefer [the] existing arrangement in the name of tribal autonomy and preservation of its culture.” These powerful include the political agents, other bureaucrats appointed in FATA and the maliks, all of whom enjoy a considerable degree of power, status and authority which would be diminished, if not entirely terminated, if the FCR is abolished in FATA in favor of the mainstream constitutional order.

Arshad Afridi, the provincial senior vice president of the Qaumi Watan Party’s youth wing, concurs. “Maliks, MNAs [member of national assembly] and bureaucrats in the FATA Secretariat are the ones propagating that the people of FATA want FCR to be retained because it has empowered them. [The] MNA brings a political agent of their choice and they collectively rule the agency. Maliks are the so-called elders who misuse their power in jirgas.” Afridi also adds that apart from the legal power vested in these groups under the existing framework of the FCR, these people also thrive through the illegal activities available in FATA.

The retention of an anachronistic colonial instrument like the FCR was condemned by the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Justice Alvin Robert Cornelius as “obnoxious to all recognised modern principles governing the dispensation of justice”. The people of FATA are still bound by a colonial set of relations, barred from the share of any political, social or economic development and participation in the rest of the country; dehumanized and virtually treated as second-class citizens. And while Pakistan’s use of the FCR may be informed by the post-colonial state’s own dispositions and distinct reasons, in that they differ from the exact imperial calculations of the British in implementing the FCR, but for the people of FATA the post-colonial has only been a continuity of the colonial. It is clear that the FATA reforms will only be successful if they can constitute a break from this lingering colonial continuity and its relics.

– Hafsa Khawaja

Advertisements

The Problem Isn’t With Pakistan’s Name Mr.Hitchens!


Dear Mr. Hitchens,

It was only some weeks back that I came to stumble upon an excerpt from an old piece of yours, which was basically an ‘analysis’ of yours [ and that too, quite a typical one considering it was related wholly to Pakistan] on the origin and meaning of the word Pakistan, by which you imply that all the reasons that make it a menace for the world today, have always stood as the cause and aim behind its very creation.

Although, knowing your eager inclination for sparing no opportunity to bash the country, I should’ve ignored the piece but your absolute  insolence of going to the extent of reasoning Pakistan’s existence as some vile plot on the basis of your twisted perceptions, made it perfectly beckoning for me to straighten them out for you and those who read it.

In your words;

‘The very name “Pakistan” inscribes the nature of the problem. It is not a real country or nation but an acronym devised in the 1930s by a Muslim propagandist for partition named Chaudhary Rahmat Ali. It stands for Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, and Indus-Sind. The stan suffix merely means “land.” In the Urdu language, the resulting acronym means “land of the pure.”

To start with, Pakistan was intended to be, is and will always be the name of a country and a nation.

The British Imperialist Government in India never regarded it as a homogenous nation.

Lord Morley wrote to Lord Minto ‘Not one whit more than you do I think it desirable or possible, or even conceivable, to adapt English political institutions to the nations that inhabit India.’

It may be significant to remind you of the dispatch from the Government of India that described the ‘Brightest Jewel in the British Crown’ as ‘essentially a congeries of widely separated classes, races and communities and divergences of interests and hereditary sediment.’ And this was back in 1892.

Pakistan was never intended to be an ‘acronym’ or an adjective for anything else. Now, it is up to you, whether you choose to accept reality or not as you clearly seem to deny it here.

 

The manner in which you have mentioned Chaudhri Rehmat Ali, as some kind of unlettere or ignorant who blindly instigated a dangerous ‘propaganda’ – is deplorably exasperating.

You have plainly reduced all figures of the Pakistan Movement as mere ‘propogandists’ but must it be reminded to you that propagandas do not result into separate countries?
Mr. Hitchens, Pakistan was an ideology, not a propaganda.

An ideology that was never inevitable but was made inevitable by a series of events.

Yes, Pakistan’s creation was largely based on religious demographics that played a great role in the history of the subcontinent. And that, I might as well like to think of as the cause behind your evident penchant for penning down your antagonism and bias towards it, wherever and whenever possible – taking into account that those religious demographics were directly tied to Islam which you opine : ‘The real axis of evil is Christianity, Judaism, and Islam”.

Moving on, you write ‘It can be easily seen that this very name expresses expansionist tendencies and also conceals discriminatory ones. Kashmir, for example, is part of India.
The Afghans are Muslim but not part of Pakistan.
Most of Punjab is also in India. Interestingly, too, there is no B in this cobbled-together name, despite the fact that the country originally included the eastern part of Bengal (now Bangladesh, after fighting a war of independence against genocidal Pakistani repression) and still includes Baluchistan, a restive and neglected province that has been fighting a low-level secessionist struggle for decades.
The P comes first only because Pakistan is essentially the property of the Punjabi military caste. As I once wrote, the country’s name “might as easily be rendered as ‘Akpistan’ or ‘Kapistan,’ depending on whether the battle to take over Afghanistan or Kashmir is to the fore
.

You Sir, need to enroll in a school as soon as possible and one that teaches the history of this country for your understanding of it is even poorer than that of a 10-year old Pakistani child.

To state that Kashmir is part of India is a shameful travesty of history, facts and an insult to the thousands of martyrs of this Asian Palestine so I reiterate, that you seriously contemplate over my suggestion above.

The word ‘Afghania’ was used for Pakistan’s province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa [Previously known as North West Frontier Province ] and not Afghanistan as you seem to have fatuously believed so.

Startling, you are quite correct on the two counts of Bangladesh and Balochistan.

Indeed, it is an undeniable truth that the birth of Bangladesh was made inevitable by the behavior and actions of the governments of those time and an accumulation of political, cultural, social and economic reasons along with the military operation that was unsuccessfully carried out there when it was East Pakistan. And about Balochistan, the very campaign of atrocities that was executed in East Pakistan in ’71 by the Army is being repeated there.

As I deem that you may have not studied this quote of Chaudhri Rehmat Ali, I post it here:

“Pakistan’ is both a Persian and an Urdu word. It is composed of letters taken from the names of all our South Asian homelands; that is, Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Balochistan. It means the land of the Pure. It symbolizes the religious beliefs and the ethnical stocks of our people; and it stands for all the territorial constituents of our original Fatherland. It has no other origin and no other meaning; and it does not admit of any other interpretation.”

Oh and just for your imperative enlightenment, the ‘TAN’ in Pakistan is taken from Balochis-TAN.

 

Pardon me Mr. Hitchens for all the neck-craning you must be doing from reading this letter, but now that I have written this far, I might just seize the opportunity and address you on your latest piece on Pakistan.

Although I should have known better of what your article must be comprising, bearing in mind it began with the praise of Salman Rushdie’s judgments and opinions on Pakistan yet I felt compelled to read it after all the ‘praise’ you had elicited from many Pakistanis for it.

For your comfort and my sanity, I will be skipping on refuting much of your inane comments in it.

One of the lines in ‘From Abbottabad to Worse’, that had me much in shock was :

‘Everybody knew that the Taliban was originally an instrument for Pakistani colonization of Afghanistan’

I wonder who this ‘everybody’ is. For all one remembers, wasn’t it Reagan who said “These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” after his meeting with the Taliban that took part in the Soviet War in Afghanistan.

Maybe, this ‘everybody’ should accept that these Taliban were the illegitimate child, a Frankenstein created by the West and thrusted to the Pakistani Hitler of that time, Zia-ul-Haq, for nurturing and breeding more to combat the Russians in the War.

It was at that point in history, that Pakistan was prepared as the hot-bed of terrorism and the USA’s part in it can certainly not be overlooked.

 

Surely, the USA is a prisoner of shame. The ‘betrayal’ that you speak of, by the puissant in Pakistan is more painful for the people of that land than any other nation and it is none other than America itself who is also responsible for this. By its incessant and brazen support and assistance to the military dictatorships in the country, which have spanned almost four decades in its 64-year old history and uprooted the plinth layed by Jinnah for the state through myriad actions intended to solely to consolidate their power and strengthen the military along with sowing all the seeds that have reaped today, from Ayub to Musharraf – the military establishment’s dead hand became unimaginably great in the affairs of the state, controlling the rudder of the ship even as civilian captains came and went.

This was, what gave them the audacity to play double games and ‘decieve’ its own allies. This was, what gave them the liberty to execute an idea as dirty as the ‘Strategic Depth’ doctrine.

Yet through all this ‘betrayal’, the games and the and reactions to it by the US, it was only the Pakistani masses who suffered from it. Either in the form of drone attacks, Raymond Daviss’ or global censuring.

Oh and Mr.Hitchens, I marvel at your ignorance! This land has much, much to be proud of.

 

At the end of this letter I lend you some honest advise that you leave the task of analysing the world’s problems, whining over them and instead listen over and over again to Pakistan’s Coke Studio, throw up the vitriol inside of you that you fill your pen with before writing to be finally relieved of the pain of knowing a wretched country like ours exists and troubles and distresses you so much – because the problem isn’t with Pakistan’s name, its with your hate-sricken mind, Mr. Hitchens.

 ~ With love from Pakistan.

Nawaz Sharif : No Pious Priest Himself


With the unfurling of a series of events since the Judiciary Movement, Nawaz Sharif has surfaced as the ‘Saviour’ of the nation and a torch-bearer of a free judiciary. No doubt, that his popularity was on great rise especially after 16th March 2009 and he has once again come out to lambast the Government, but Mr. Sharif is no righteous priest himself.
Like most politicians and ‘leaders’ of Pakistan, he has no clean slate.

In his tenure as the Prime Minister of Pakistan, he is believed to have received kick-backs for contacts handed out for the Lahore-Islamabad Motorway and the Yellow-Cab Scheme. Also his family business, Ittehad Group also took hefty loans from banks that were never returned. Ittehad had taken huge loans from Bankers Wquity Limited and after the dismissal of the NS Government, he made the group’s chairman, Saeed Sadiq, the secretary of the PML-N Secretariat.

It is also reported that Sharif freezed all his foreign currency accounts after the nuclear tests of 1998. He was accused AND convicted of refusing to pay taxes on a helicopter he had purchased. Nawaz and his brother Shahbaz Sharif were also accused of using Hudaibya Paper Mills to launder money they had made illegally and using it to get a loan from the British-based Investment Funds Limited which they didn’t repay until the Company filed a law-suit in a British Court. In March 1999, when NS was the PM, the brothers were ordered to repay $450 million and when they still didn’t pay, the court ordered that the Sharifs’ four apartments in Park Lane be seized. Sharif claimed that nearly half a billion dollars were paid by an Arab ‘friend’. This very case is currently with NAB and Ishaq Dar, a former finance minister and a top aide of Sharif had testified before NAB in 2000, confirming the charges. The PML-N however says that Dar made the confession under pressure.

One of the most important cases that are against the Sharifs’ today is their non-repayment of huge loans that had once taken. After all, if he askes Zardari to bring back the nation’s money from the Swiss Banks then this money also belongs to the nation and is tantamount to the money in foreign accounts.

Mian Nawaz Sharif today voices his concern for harm to the ‘system’ and democracy and portrays himself to be a man who laid the foundations for a free judiciary, seeming to forget what he did to Ex CJ of Pakistan’s Supreme Court Syed Sajjad Shah and the attack he orchestrated on the SC Buliding in his tenure by PML-N jiyalas.

As Wikipedia contains and I quote :

“The first confrontation by Nawaz Sharif was the establishment of special Courts, which were established in contravention of the Chief Justices judicious advice. These special courts, which were established to benefit the Prime Minister’s allies and supporters, eventually proved to be a humiliating blot on the face of justice in Pakistan. Later on when the Chief Justice wanted to fill the five vacant positions of judges to be able to carry out the business of dispensing justice in a speedy manner, the Prime Minister not only refused to grant the request but went ahead and abolished those vacancies altogether. He had to restore the positions under pressure but refused to fill them up.”

About the attack on the SC :
“Pakistan grappled with its worst-ever constitutional crisis when an unruly mob stormed into the supreme court, forcing Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah to adjourn the contempt of court case against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Hundreds of PML-N supporters and members of its youth wing, the Muslim Students Front (MSF), breached the police cordon around the courthouse when defence lawyer S.M. Zafar was arguing his case. A journalist rushed into the courtroom and warned the bench of an impending attack. Whereupon, the chief justice got up abruptly, thanked Zafar and adjourned the hearing. While judicial members left the courtroom soon after, the mob entered it shouting slogans, and damaged furniture.The unruly mob, led by ruling party member from Punjab Sardar Naseem and Colonel (retired) Mushtaq Tahir Kheli, Sharif’s political secretary, chanted slogans against the chief justice.”

Where was the concern for the system then?

Nawaz Sharif had roared against bringing Musharraf back and facing the courts but one visit to the Saudi Palace had ‘tamed’ the so-called Punjabi lion. Not only did he excuse himself from running for a seat in the Parliament by saying that he wants to give a member of his party a ‘chance’ in his place, which is in accordance with the reported contract he signed with the Saudis which restricts him from running in the elections for 10 years (it ends this year) but his party is no where near the definition of an opposition in the National Assembly, acting as a ‘friendly opposition’ (an oxymoron itself) which many political analysts see as a way to secure their place as the next government. Neither has he spoken about inflation and shortage of gas and sugar with such passion as he speaks about the 17th Amendment and the removal on the ban on third time Priemership.

My intentions behind writing this are not to malign a leader or be part of a smear-campaign but to remind all that Mr.Sharif, no matter how much he might be seen as a saviour and ‘true’ leader of Pakistan, he is once again, from the same seed and breed of politicians.

– Hafsa Khawaja