An unwarranted agreement

The repatriation process of the IDPs of North Waziristan has started. The first batch of families belonging to the Spinwam area left on March 31and the remaining will follow suit, in different phases and in due course of time.
Their happiness over the end of the long awaited journey proved short-lived when the government came up with the novel idea of a document called the ‘Social Agreement for future Good Conduct’. The agreement is binding on IDPs and those living in the area. According to the agreement they (the people of North Waziristan) will abide by the constitution and the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR), not shelter or protect enemies of Pakistan, not allow their soil to be used by foreigners and not allow locals to destabilise the country. Anyone found involved in supporting or helping banned organisations will be captured and handed over to the law- enforcement agencies; locals will not be allowed to let any banned outfit operate in their areas.
The agreement further demands that identifying and handing over miscreants to law-enforcement agencies will be the responsibility of the locals, otherwise they (the locals) will be exiled and the property of the miscreants will be sealed by law-enforcement agencies.
This was not the time for such action. The IDPs have already suffered a lot. They needed words of sympathy more than any such agreement. They are not militants; they are not responsible for what happened in North Waziristan. They should not have been charge-sheeted for crimes they did not commit. Instead of welcoming them home and consoling them for the sufferings that they endured they are being asked to sign this agreement.
The agreement leaves the door open for making easy money in the days ahead. What a novel idea of shifting the onus of responsibility from government to the people in North Waziristan for all that happened or will happen in the area. Instead of appreciating their role for rendering the ultimate sacrifices as IDPs the government, through this agreement, places the blame for everything on them. With one stroke of the pen they were declared culprits – if not outright militants.
Had Gen Musharraf not spilled the beans nobody would have believed that the people in the tribal areas were not responsible for what happened in that region. He is on record to have said that in response to what the former Afghan president did to Pakistan’s interest in that country he (Musharraf) took steps to counter that move in a befitting manner.
The statement of the former dictator has absolved the people of the accusation that they had a hand in the spread of militancy in that region. Safe havens or the spread of militancy there were the net result of such policies. When those who had the power and could take effective action against militants turned a blind eye to what was happening there then why blame the poor people there?
The need for the agreement would not have arisen had the government considered other available options. The FCR and Regulation in Aid of Civil Power could have taken care of what was happening there or is stipulated in the agreement now but this was not done. The agreement, if studied carefully, is nothing but repetition of the clauses of the two.
Another important point that needs to be looked into is the clause of joint tribal responsibility. That clause of the FCR was incorporated by the British when their forces were not stationed at the border with Afghanistan or covering each and every village in Fata. They made the tribes living there responsible to guard against anti-state elements. Demanding the same of the tribes now when our forces are stationed at the border with Afghanistan and present all over Fata is unjustifiable and unwarranted.
What we saw happening in North Waziristan could have easily been tackled had the government taken steps as stipulated in the FCR but that was not done and shelter was sought in strengthening even further the existing laws of the FCR. Then came into force yet another set of harsh laws under the name of Regulation in Aid of Civil Power. Imposed in 2011 it gave immense powers to law-enforcement agencies under which they can take anyone to task if found guilty or suspected to be found involved in activities against the state; a replica of the Rowlatt Act of 1919 with no sunset clause.
What was the need for this agreement in the presence of the existing harsh laws. Was it meant to insult the residents of North Waziristan for the actions of others? Who is responsible for creating militants and who provided them with safe havens? The easy way out seems to have been to make the locals scapegoats.
The governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, who happens to be a representative of the federal government in that province and the tribal areas, should not have agreed to the imposition of this agreement. He should have consulted political activists of his party from that area, if no one else, to have arrived at a correct assessment as to whether its signing was truly in the interest of the people.
Instead of wasting time on the agreement he should have paid attention to the implementation of the National Action Plan which included one important point for Fata also – which states that steps would be taken to develop and mainstream that area.
Had he focused on that and started some developmental projects it would have earned him respect and gone favourably into building his government’s image in the area. Instead of winning the hearts and minds of the people there the agreement has created further wedge.
This was the time to extend every possible help and assistance to the IDPs. It was the time to reconstruct their homes and other properties destroyed in the operation on priority basis. It was the time to redress their grievances. That opportunity of winning them over may have been lost in asking them to sign such an agreement.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Email: waziruk@hotmail.com