My paper published by CIDOB – Barcelona Centre for International Affairs

Even after more than six decades since its inception, Pakistan has been unable to establish its writ across geographical boundaries and several of its territories remain ungovernable. analysts have noted that such regions comprise nearly 60% of Pakistan’s territory.1 this phenomenon has consequences for regional stability and affects peace and governance efforts in neighboring Afghanistan, Iran, Central Asian Republics, and India.2
the reasons for lack of governance in Pakistan differ across regions.

In some cases, the non-state actors have succeeded in establishing their own writ, emerging as alternate power centers that have supplanted the role of state. the most notable of these are Federally administered tribal areas (Fata), Balochistan, southern Punjab and to some degree, the megapolis, karachi.
this paper seeks to examine three such regions, i.e. Fata, Balochistan and south Punjab, where the authority of Pakistani state has diminished to varying degrees and where non-state actors effectively govern these areas. In part, this situation is a result of willful abdication of authority by the central state (Fata), insurgency and regional dynamics (Balochistan) and nurturing of militant networks (south Punjab). the paper looks at the three regions in some detail, outlining the historical evolution of governance systems (or lack thereof) and the current situation, which has serious implications for Pakistan’s security and regional stability.

1. FATA & Areas of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa
Background: the Federally administered tribal areas (Fata) of Pakistan is a sub-autonomous tribal region in the northwest of Pakistan, bordering Afghanistan on its west, Pakistan’s Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) province on east and Balochistan on south. the area comprises seven agencies (tribal regions) and six Frontier Regions. It is home to a population of nearly 4.5 million3, consisting mainly of Pashtun tribes, who also inhabit eastern parts of Afghanistan. Fata is also the poorest of Pakistani regions, where nearly 50% of the population lives below the poverty line. years of war and insurgency have wreaked havoc with social serv- ices and impacted the social and physical infrastructure of the area.

Historically, the colonial state did not build governance institutions in this region and administered through a curious mix of traditional structures such as jirga, overseen by the central British authority through the infa- mous law, the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR)4 of 1901. the British used the law as a means of subjugation to ‘discipline’ the people of Fata and establish the writ of colonial authority across the region. after the independence in 1947, the FCR continued as the governance framework – with minor modifications – until 2011 when the Pakistani government initiated major reforms to its scope and application. however, in effect FCR reform is yet to be implemented and one can safely assume that the century-old law prevails.

Analysis of the present situation: the FCR is notorious for its repressive features against the people of Fata. It empowers the government to arrest anyone, without specifying crime, and permits collective punishment of family or tribe for crimes of individuals.5    Punishment can be meted out by unelected tribal jirgas, whose members are mostly nomi-nated by centrally appointed political agents.6    the law restricts convicts against appeal to jirga verdicts (although commission can review a case) and gives sweeping powers to tribal councils to impose penalty in criminal cases. While the FCR does provide a code of conduct for jirgas, the latter have operated free of these regulations and have given verdicts not permitted by the FCR. Furthermore, this legal framework encourages discriminatory practices towards the local people, as it allows the government to restrict entry of Fata residents into the rest of Pakistan. the provisions of the FCR are clearly in violation of the Universal Declaration of human Rights and the Constitution of Pakistan.7 there have also been frequent calls from the superior judiciary of Pakistan to repeal the law.

After a century, Pakistan’s current democratic government has revised the FCR by introducing pro-democracy amendments and allowing political parties to operate in the tribal regions. the most important amendments to the FCR limit oppressive sections by allowing only close male members of offenders to be arrested, instead of whole tribes. Women and individuals of minor age are barred from arrest. the amendments seek to curtail the powers of anachronistic laws by providing basic civil rights to the people of Fata.8 For the first time, the right of appeal has been granted to the local population against decisions of the political agent.9 the Political Parties Order of 2002 allowed political parties to form and operate in the region,10 making room for some form of political participation to people who have enjoyed little or no constitutional rights.

The amendments were welcomed by civil society and hailed as a step towards incorporating Fata within the democratic framework of the rest of the country.11 however, they are yet to be fully implemented. some tribal elders and lawyers have criticized the minor changes demanding that jurisdiction of high courts and the supreme Court must be extended to Fata and that the area should be governed according to the 1973 Constitution, rather than the FCR.12
the colonial-era administrative and judicial systems are unsuited to modern governance. the absence of credible and formalized participation…

Read the full document here–>Pakistan- Ungoverned Spaces

Ali Dayan Hasan, Pakistan Director, Human Rights Watch, was one of the few people who recently gave testimony to US Congress on the issue of Balochsitan province. I interviewed him for The News on Sunday.

Can you outline your testimony to the US Congress on Balochistan?

Ali Dayan Hasan: The hearing provided an opportunity to highlight the dire human rights situation in Balochistan and was used by HRW to that end. We take no position on the issue of self-determination and I clarified that Balochistan was an internationally recognised Pakistani province and not a territory over which there was any dispute over sovereignty. That said, HRW expects Pakistan’s constitutional protections for citizens to apply to those who live in the province. I explained that while the state — through the army, intelligence agencies and paramilitaries such as the FC — was the principal abusive actor, Balochistan presented a complex situation with multiple actors involved in human rights abuse.

While the state is responsible for illegal detentions, disappearances and targeted killings, it is also true that Baloch nationalists have targeted non-Baloch settlers and Sunni extremists are killing Shias in the province. HRW also called upon Congress to examine US complicity with former military ruler Pervez Musharraf in the disappearances of al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects, and how that enabled Musharraf to extend enforced disappearances to the menu of human rights abuses across Pakistan generally and in Balochistan in particular. I also explained that Balochistan was not a mono-ethnic province peopled only by the Baloch but that they comprised just over half the population and that any examination of the place of Baloch nationalism had to factor in the implications stemming from this reality.

Were you surprised at the outrage over the Congressional hearing in Pakistan? Do you think it was justified?

ADH: I made clear even before the hearing that HRW was only using the hearing as a platform to highlight the human rights situation in Balochistan and we viewed the politics surrounding the hearing in the US with discomfort. However, on balance, international groups such as HRW and Amnesty felt it important that an objective human rights analysis, based in international law rather than political rhetoric, be placed on the record. While I understand why Congressman Rohrabacher’s resolution asking for self-determination in Balochistan was negatively received in Pakistan, I have said before and I repeat that it is not within Rohrabacher’s or the US Congress’s capacity to create or dismember countries. Every sane minded person understands this both in the US and Pakistan. But these events have focused attention within Pakistan on the human rights crisis in Balochistan and that is a positive development. And now, knowing that it is on the international radar, it is incumbent upon Pakistan’s political and military leaders to end an untenable policy of denial and resolve this crisis speedily and meaningfully.  (more…)

There seems to be a serious dearth of imagination while searching for solutions on Balochistan

As Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy recently wrote, “Men like Rohrabacher are no friends of the Baloch. But what can stop their meddling? The answer can only come once we dump the myth of Pakistan being one nation, one people”. The continuous undermining of Pakistan’s pluralism, citizenship rights and quest for self-rule has led to a situation where Pakistani flag is not welcome in many parts of its largest and most neglected province.

This is not the first time that the country has faced a dire situation. In 1971, we were faced with a similar dilemma and the civil-military elites of West Pakistan bungled. Their mishandling was exacerbated by an external intervention and for years we have been fed with stories of how all was hunky dory in the more populous wing of Pakistan until the evil ‘Hindu’ India destroyed the ‘Muslim’ Pakistan.

It takes a questionable resolution tabled in the US Congress by Dana Rohrabacher, an extremist republican with a dubious past, to alarm the mainstream Pakistani politicians and media about the plight of Baloch people. Yet again, a “conspiracy” to disintegrate the land of the pure has been reiterated. The good part is that Balochistan issue — something that the media was afraid to talk about — has become a subject of prime-time, and sometimes ill-informed, discussions on national television.

We cannot absolve ourselves of the decades-long discrimination that the province and its people have faced due to a variety of reasons. Whether it is the misuse of its natural resources such as natural gas, gold, etc, or its leverage in the federal power structure, the scorecard is pretty grim. In real terms, the issue of provincial autonomy has only been resolved recently via the 2010 eighteenth amendment. But even that seems to fit the clichéd description of being “too little and too late” given how the Baloch nationalists view it. (more…)