The Regional Institute of Policy Research and Training Peshawar have prepared this report in furtherance of its charter, which mandates it to examine policies and recommend measures for conflict reduction in the region. Waziristan is in the center of a storm again; in many ways it is a repetition of a parallel situation, which prevailed there from 1936 to 1946.

This study examines Waziristan in the context of nation building begun in 1947. It highlights the factors, which led to the strengthening of a culture of violence, which prevails constantly in Waziristan and is now spreading rapidly to NWFP and other parts of Pakistan.

Issues threatening the Pakistan state and peace in Afghanistan are identified. The report concludes by suggesting measures for strengthening of Pakistan and reduction of violence in Waziristan. The boards of RIPORT hopes that the report contributes in some measure to the reduction of violence and thereby enlarge human freedom in the region. Policy analysis contained here is not meant to embarrass any person or institution but to improve governance for conflict reduction.

Khalid Aziz,

Chairman

22^nd Feb, 2007

Peshawar

CAUSES OF REBELLION IN WAZIRISTAN

“Of all the ills afflicting men the worst

is lack of judgment”, (Sophocles)

Introduction

This report examines the long and short-term causes leading to the rebellion in Waziristan, and resulting in the devastation of parts of Afghanistan as well as crippling state institutions in FATA[1], and NWFP. It argues that the cause of the rebellion lies in events far back in history and Pakistan’s initial exposure to threats from India and Afghanistan. It turned the mind of the Pakistani establishment towards state protection and security rather than the development of its people. It forced Pakistan to adopt the policy of using proxy warriors, which has come to haunt it in Waziristan. The Afghan policy towards Pakistan also led to Afghanistan’s own destruction.

The report highlights Britain’s post World War II need to maintain a presence in Pakistan for protecting its oil interests in Iran; here the Pakistani military and the British interests were mutually beneficial. Pakistan needed weapons for its army and Britain wanted the army to protect its interests; a decision, which pushed us into becoming a rentier state. In hindsight, it appears that the faith in proxy warriors has turned out to be a significant reason for making Pakistan a dangerous place to live and pushing it further towards the abyss of state failure (Rashid: 210)[2]; relying on non state warriors has proven a grave error of judgment. In the backdrop of these factors, the report suggests that there are also certain autonomous reasons for radicalization in Waziristan, linked to demographic causes with which the state has not kept pace. The report concludes by offering suggestions for meeting the challenge of Waziristan.

In order to find a pattern in what is happening in Waziristan, it is important to understand the nature of asymmetrical war, where states fight non-state combatants like the Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. In Waziristan, we are seeing another low intensity conflict in FATA, where many of the current weapon systems maintained by the military are redundant. Size and weaponry possessed by an army and which normally provides a tactical advantage will not be decisive in Waziristan. Creveld (207)[3] predicts that combat in low intensity conflict causes regular forces to degenerate into a police force and if the struggle lasts longer, then into armed gangs. It is unavoidable that in the struggle in Waziristan and Afghanistan, the advantages available to Pakistan, NATO and the U.S through their respective armies is neutralized.

Secondly, as witnessed during the months of December 2006 and January 2007, the Waziristan insurgents have brought the war to the districts of NWFP; policemen have been assassinated in Tank, D.I. Khan, Lakki and Peshawar. Suicide bombers have been used to cripple the morale of the police and the public. Judges have received warnings not to adjudicate identified cases. Society has been asked to comply with strict rules pertaining to shaving of beards, music, TV and VCR; women in districts adjoining Waziristan have been asked to wear the “burqah” or the shroud. Non-conformists have been made to either comply after being warned, or killed. It is thus a war of belief and conviction. It has no state boundaries or military targets; the people of contrary belief are the object of conversion. It is war with different rules. There are no physical objectives to be over run.

Apparently, the rules governing this war are different and citizens are combatants in this battle of conviction. The Talibans feel that the US forces are “Kafir” or non-Muslims, who must be removed from Afghanistan through Jihad. The Pakistan army and Gen. Musharraf are identified by the Talibans as comprador of the US and to be dealt with under the doctrine of “Takfir”[4]. Within the critical province of NWFP and Baluchistan, which border Afghanistan, the governments are managed by a religious political alliance headed by Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s JUI (F) a conservative religious party with links to armed surrogates. Fazlur Rehman is also the leader of the opposition in the lower house of Parliament. Many of the religious students, who are in the Taliban fighting units, have attended JUI madrassas and Fazlur Rehman is a person of considerable influence with the Taliban. The existence of such an ambivalent situation, where on the one hand, the Pakistan government is fighting the Taliban yet on the other hand it permits the functioning of the religious alliance governments in NWFP and Baluchistan with close links to the Taliban has puzzled Rubin (16-17,22,16)[5], many others hold the view that the Pakistan authorities are responsible for rising casualties amongst troops in Afghanistan. Grare (1)[6] thinks that Pakistan’s military stage manages the threat from the Taliban and creates this show of resistance to derive benefits and prolong the life of the Musharraf government. The U.S, on the one hand characterizes Pakistan as a strong ally. The presence of two religious governments in NWFP and Baluchistan raises many eye brows; these governments encourage Islamist programmes which in turn foster the growth of the same creed as imposed by the Taliban in Waziristan. Many observers are further surprised by the military’s use of JUI (F) influentials in Waziristan for brokering two agreements with the hostile Talibans in South and North Waziristan (ICG: 12)[7].

The Secretary General of NATO, and General Ekenberry, who is commanding the US forces in Afghanistan, expressed strong misgivings about the existing state of affairs and are predicting a bloody spring in Afghanistan and Waziristan. The U.S government has formally complained that Pakistan has failed to reign in the Taliban, who are operating from its territory[8].

It is evident that the time has come for Pakistan to concede that it does not have adequate security capacity to keep a lid on Taliban activity in Waziristan and protect the sanctity of the Afghan border in the framework of the existing arrangements of polcy and administrative structures. The confusion is providing both time and space for the creation of another Hamas or Hizbullah in Waziristan and Eastern Afghanistan in the near future. When that happens, Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s JUI (F) and its military wing Harkatul Ansar will be in the forefront (Shahzad 2004)[9].

Another aspect of the present war in Waziristan is its nature. As stated earlier, this is a war of conviction. The side that believes it has won wins. There is a lot of weight in the statement that in this war the state is not the fighter. This is a war of opinion of entire populations. The state is more like a prize and a weapon wielded by this or that population and guided by this or that doctrine. It is a war, whose outcome will be decided in a battle of minds and in a battle of collective resolve. It is foremost a battle in the court of pubic opinion (Pai: 2006)[10]. The outcome of this war in Waziristan and eastern Afghanistan will be decided in the court of public opinion. The finality of this war will be what public opinion wants it to be. This is war of the long haul. There will be no battles for the capture of symbolic citadels or destruction of “enemy” infrastructure as in Yugoslavia. It is only human beings and their convictions that must be won. It is impossible even to identify who the corporeal enemy is in this conflict.

Objectives Of States In The Region

There are some who believe that the real purpose of the invasion of Afghanistan was not the removal of Al-Qaeda only. There were other reasons also. This view held by many which states that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were planned not to spread democracy or to make the world save from terrorist threats, but to control the petroleum resources; that these wars were conceived much before Sept 11 2001. A Washington think tank headed by William Kristol, called. “The Project for a New American Century”, is allegedly the source of President Bush’s doctrine of pre-emptive war paving the way for the U.S to dominate the oil and gas resources around the world. Afghanistan is strategically located near the Caspian Basin, which contains up to $ 16 billion worth of oil and gas reserves. It is also in the path of the most direct pipeline route to the richest markets in the world.

In Nov 1996, Bridas an Argentinean company had acquired production and exploration leases and contracts in the region and had signed contracts with the Taliban and the Northern Alliance’s Rashid Dostum to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. An American firm Unocol, contested Bridas all the way and hired a formidable collection of powerful consultants including Kissinger, Richard Armitage, Zalmay Khalilzad and Hamid Karzai to use their influence for Unocol. The Afghan Taliban was invited to Texas and Washington and met officials there.

However, they did not accept the entreaties of the Unocol officers. On Feb 12^th 1998 Unocol’s Vice President Maresca formally requested the House Committee of International Relations to have the Taliban government removed and a stable government installed in Kabul. After the missile attack by Clinton in July 1999, the Taliban assets in the U.S were frozen.

After President Bush took office, pressure was put on the Taliban to review the contract with Bridas; for this the parties met three times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad but the Taliban refused to budge. In the spring of 2001, the U.S consulted and obtained consent from India and Islamabad to attack the Taliban in July. The UK Guardian, reported that Christina Rocca told the Taliban in the last pipeline negotiation in August 2001, just five weeks before 9/11, that, “Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs” (Behan: 4)[11]. Is this just another conspiracy theory or is there a grain of truth in it? The events may have coincided with one another or there can be a conspiracy of sorts. Only time will tell.

The stated U.S national security objective on the other hand is to ensure the eradication of all terrorist organizations, which are a threat to peace and trade. It has also been noted that such non-state organizations flourish when countries are isolated and barely surviving. Al-Qaeda has shown its preference for a foothold in near failed Muslim states. This is the reason why the U.S wants to remain in this and the central Asian region for the foreseeable future.

This U.S objective however is being challenged by an equally formidable and battle hardened opponent, the Taliban. They have used the Islamic rhetoric to organize resistance to the U.S and NATO forces. The tribes of Waziristan have throughout history been closely involved with matters in Afghanistan, as we see later. They view the U.S presence as a threat to their way of life and as in 1897, are organizing themselves for a fight on Jihadist principles. Pakistan is viewed by them as a collaborator with non-Muslim forces and is thus classified an enemy. The Islamist combatants are veteran of civil wars since 1978 and will be hard to defeat in battle given their mastery of the terrain.

The US wants to change the situation to protect itself and its interests. It has a 30,000 strong military operating in Afghanistan; 22,000 troops are assisting ISAF and NATO while 8000 are under direct US command for special operations. The primary policy goals before the US are; building of Afghan state institutions particularly its army and related security framework and to develop the Afghan people. This they hope will lead to the re-creation of a strong and a viable Afghanistan. Secondly, it is the larger U.S war aim to eliminate radical Islamists in Afghanistan and Pakistan who are a threat to Afghanistan and international peace. The difficulty facing the achievement of these goals is the absence of an effective administrative structure in Afghanistan, which could assist in early pacification. Warlords, drugs and weapons entrap Afghanistan. This is an area that must be cleansed if state formation is to be fast tracked in Afghanistan.

The objective of the Pakistan military is to secure pacification of Waziristan, so that the Taliban are prevented from assisting the hostiles in Afghanistan. The situation on the ground shows that the pendulum is in favour of the tribesmen and they are nowhere near being pacified. They are slowly eroding the stock of administrative and security assets of the military and the police, and have now become a grave threat to the future of the state.

It may be noted that both Afghanistan and the Pakistan lack institutional capacity to deal with challenges arising in FATA and Afghanistan. The principle cause for this institutional degradation in Pakistan has been the continuous embroilment of the military in civilian spheres and the experimentation with the civilian administrative structures. It has led to militarization of foreign and domestic policy and has eroded civilian capacity to deal with security issues.

Secondly, the removal of the assistant commissioners, deputy commissioners and commisioners has abolished three tiers of administrators essential for dealing with the insurgency and crime situation in the volatile NWFP districts. It has given the Islamists plenty of space to organize themselves without resistence. It is one of the reasons for their rapid growth and extension of influence; one would like to believe that this happened because of hasty local government reforms without a full comprehension of implications at the ground level. Similarly, there has been a failure to rapidly develop Afghanistan’s governance capacity. Its army has not been recreated to fully undertake operations in eastern Afghanistan even after five years of U.S assistance. If the Taliban face the Afghan army then their rallying cry of Jihad against the infidel weakens considerably.

Both Pakistan and Afghanistan, though for different reasons, have decaying state structure confronting a resurgent radicalized Islamist movement in FATA and in the eastern Pukhtun provinces of Afghanistan. The ranks of the Islamist have grown considerably because of Pakistan state failure to provide jobs and develop FATA socially and politically; FATA has been put into a time lock of the imperial past. The only difference is that Pakistani officialdom has replaced the imperial British political agent. Furthermore, the Islamists in FATA have been strengthened by support from Jihadi sympathetic organizations both nationally and internationally as well as the addition to their ranks from the Diaspora emanating from repressive Central Asian States and now from Iraq.

Impact of Partition on Pakistan

In the previous section we identified the serious problems facing Pakistan, in Waziristan. How did this happen? The answer lies in history; what we are seeing unfold before our eyes in Waziristan began a long time back and is a part of our history. It will be helpful to the analysis to understand it.

On 6^th February 1946, Lord Wavell the British Governor General in India, telegraphed the Secretary of State for India recommending that a part of India comprising NWFP, Baluchistan, West Punjab and Sindh would be adequate to protect British interest in Asia after the partition of India. These interests were principally meant to maintain control over the sea-lanes in the Gulf and to protect the oil interests of Britain in the Iranian oil fields and prevent the intrusion of the Soviets towards the warm waters of the Indian Ocean (Sarila: 1)[12].

Earlier in 1939, Mr. Jinnah had pledged the loyalty of the Muslim troops to Britain during World War II. The Muslims composed 40% of the British Indian army. Mr. Jinnah’s commitment won Britain’s gratefulness. When Khaliq ul Zaman of the Muslim League met Lord Zetland the Secretary of State for India, he obtained the latter’s support for the creation of Muslim states within an Indian Confederal arrangement; this later led to the passage of the Muslim League Resolution of 1940 demanding independent states for the Muslims. On the other hand, as time passed Congress’ relationship with Britain worsened (Sarila: 1, 2)[13]. In 1942, when Congress passed the Quit India “resolution”, the contrast of this act with pledges of Muslim loyalty became favourably apparent to the British. Thus, when the Cripps Mission visited India latter, the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill announced that the option of creating a Pakistan and Princestan was very much on the table for division of India (Sarila: 2)[14].

The Muslims of British India became convinced in 1946, when Nehru the Congress leader stated that his party was at liberty to amend the Cabinet Mission Plan after Congress formed the government under it. The Muslims now knew for certain that Congress was unwilling to provide political space to them in India. The Mission Plan had called for the grouping of the Indian provinces into three categories, in which some of the provinces would have Muslim League governments. However, Nehru’s ambivalence was the final death knell of a united India. His subsequent maneuvering to successfully replace Lord Wavell with his friend Lord Mountbatten hardened Jinnah’s demand for Pakistan, (Munir: 1-10)[15] As later events proved, Britain and India’s actions gave birth to a still born Pakistan. The new state was placed under constant threat both from India and Afghanistan. The early death of Jinnah and recanting of his dream of a secular Pakistan, by none other, than his closest lieutenant Liaquat Ali Khan soon afterwards, through the introduction of the Objectives Resolution in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly in1949; stated that Pakistan was to be an Islamic state. This gave space to the right, which advanced in subsequent years to turn Pakistan into a full fledged religious state.

The threats to national solidarity in Pakistan’s formative years led her to adopt certain policies of survival, which made its reliance on Islam and Jihad essential; in the absence of a broad based movement like the one developed by the Congress party in India, the organizing principle of religion was used in Pakistan: the state was constructed likewise in the following years. Unfortunately, mid course corrections could not be made, since powerful elements in the military and the religious right had occupied the space and would not permit a revision. As state formation proceeded, the purpose of the new state began unfolding through the measures adopted. In all respects the purpose of the Pakistani state was to serve the strategic interests of the west. (Jalal: 121)^{^[16]}.

Pakistan was born in an atmosphere of Indian ill will. Both Kriplani the President of the Indian Congress and Patel a senior Congress leader proclaimed angrily that sooner than later, Pakistan will be part of India again (Burke: 9)[17]. Not only was Pakistan beset with the burden to resettle 8.3 million refugees, who had come from India, it did not have the institutional or administrative infrastructure to cope with such a large human catastrophe. Tragically, it was also not permitted to have the financial and security capacity to meet its obligations. This capacity had to be provided by Britain as the implementer of the Partition of India.

Britain’s inactivity in the face of this tragedy cannot be explained. While Pakistan was still in its birth pangs, Britain did India a favour by agreeing to the wishes of the Indian cabinet on a matter of vital security interest to Pakistan. The responsibility for dividing the assets of a united India including equipment of the Indian army was agreed under the instruments of the Partition plan, to be the responsibility of the joint Commander in Chief of the armies of Indian and Pakistan, and for this purpose Gen. Claude Auchinleck was selected. His command was to last until 1 April 1948. However, on the request of Baldev Singh, the Indian defence minister, Britain without Pakistan’s agreement unilaterally dissolved Auchinleck’s command on 30^th November 1947. Auchinleck while departing predicted that Pakistan will not get its share of defence assets, which rightfully belonged to her (11)[18].

By removing Auchinleck, Britain provided India with the additional territorial gain in Kashmir. It previously allowed her to use her army to occupy Junagadh and Hyderabad. Some British historians have explained this patent partiality towards India and harm to Pakistan, by trying to avoid problems where two dominions may end up fighting under the same Commander in Chief. A very queer logic indeed! Whatever, her reasons, Britain sowed the seeds of many of the problems that we witness today including Pakistan army’s taste to fight proxy war through jihadi groups.

Pakistan in 1947, witnessed hectic efforts by Indian leaders to conspire for the cessation of Kashmir to India. It is not the intention here to go into the legality of Kashmir’s accession to India. What occured was that the Kashmir war forced Pakistan to protect its vital interest, since Britain was not neutral as witnessed in the movement of British commanded Indian army into Hyderabad on 13^th September and Junagadh on 19^th September 1947. It may be recalled that Auchinleck relinquished his office as Commander in Chief on 30^th November 1947. Since Auchinleck was the commander he obviously knew about the preparation of the move of the Indian army into Kashmir, which occurred in the last week of October 1947.

Pakistan bereft of justice and threatened by Indian expansionism, took the only step it could. In the absence of weapons and in possession of a weak army; it organized armed tribesmen and launched them into Kashmir. Official resources and army officers were provided to lead the tribesmen from Waziristan into Kashmir; the NWFP’s Chief Minister Qayyum Khan organised the dispatch of the tribal warring parties from his office in Peshawar. (Khattak: 60)[19]. Whether she was justified or not in doing so, is not at issue; Indian hostility coupled with tacit British complicity, forced Pakistan into de-institutionalized behaviour, which her army perfected to excellence in furtherance of her defence strategy in the years to come. Pakistan relied on a Jihadist intervention model in 1947 in Kashmir and later this model was used in the 1960’s for the ill-conceived operation Gibraltar, in Kashmir again (Gauhar: 209-215)[20]. It led to the 1965 war with India. As if that war was not lesson enough, we pursued the Jihadist approach during the Mujahideen war in Afghanistan from 1978-2001 as well as Kashmir in 1998-99 in Kargil. In a sense the London tube and bus bombings can be attributed to this first cause.

Indian threats and intransigence traumatized Pakistan. When in 1950 and 1951 India repeatedly massed her troops on Pakistan’s borders in West and East Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, the Prime Minister was so stressed that he told Ayub Khan, the army chief that he would accept India’s challenge and fight it out once for all. Ayub Khan pleaded with him not to do so, since he had only thirteen tanks with fifty hours of total engine life to defend against an attack. (Burke: 61)[21].

In order to fill this capacity gap Pakistan pleaded for western defence assistance. At the same time Pakistan army’s British officers were designing the force as the West’s policeman in this region. We thus see a crippled Pakistan made dependent on assistance outside its own budget. Obtaining outside help forced Pakistan into a rentier mould as early as 1949, when Maj. Gen Tottenham, the Pakistani divisional commander in Quetta received orders from the Pakistani army commander Gen Gracy, to be prepared to move troops for controlling the Anglo Iranian oil fields in Iran in case of nationalization (Jalal: 122)[22]. There was even a war game called “Exercise Stalin” undertaken in 1949 to fight an imaginary war against the USSR. The Pakistani military and political leadership did not demur.

It is thus clear from evidence and conduct of Pakistan’s ruling elite that the primary purpose of the state since its inception was generally accepted to be as a strategic outpost of the west rather than serving its people. Brig Latif, in 1948 questioned the wisdom of becoming a tool of imperial forces and Ayub Khan, the senior most Pakistani army officer, who later became the Commander in Chief, reprimanded him. Subsequently, quite a few senior officers including Gen Akbar and Brig Latif, who thought in nationalist terms were involved in a “conspiracy” case created by the army and Iskander Mirza the Defence Secretary; this was the first purge of the army and paved the way for the military to become a rentier force divorced from the interests of the people of Pakistan and reliant on the good will of those who plied it with money and weapons. Pakistani military has stood firm on this commitment to the west since the early years of independence. It was such a commitment from the Pakistan military that convinced the U.S State Department to say in 1951, that the kingpin of U.S interests in Pakistan was its army (Jalal: 127)[23]. Pakistan’s subsequent membership of CENTO and SEATO and its role in funneling the Jihad against Soviet supported Afghanistan in 1979, was a link in the same chain. It can thus be stated safely that Pakistan is a rentier security state. Its action is rarely guided by feelings of altruism for its people. Putative threats precede the priority of developing the country or dealing with conflict in society from the peoples’ angle.

As we have noted Pakistan was forced to become a security state due to threats from India; however Afghanistan joined India and also showed early hostility to the new state. It voted against the entry of Pakistan into the UN on 30^th Sept 1947. In November 1947, Sardar Najibullah Khan visited Pakistan as a special envoy of King Zahir Shah. He made three demands on Pakistan; FATA & NWFP should be constituted into a sovereign state, Pakistan must provide Afghanistan access to the sea by giving her either a special corridor through western Baluchistan or creating a free Afghan zone in Karachi, and Afghanistan and Pakistan should sign a treaty that in case of war each would remain neutral and not attack the other (Burke: 74)[24].

Matters between Afghanistan and Pakistan worsened when Afghanistan raised fighting groups and with Indian help created Pakhtunistans in various parts of FATA. Afghanistan also diverted her trade route from Pakistan to the Soviet Union, with whom she signed a trade and transit agreement in 1950. Then in 1954, the Soviets gave Kabul a loan of $ 18 million further entrenching her within its influence. A religious leader from Waziristan, the Fakir of Ipi became the President of the southern Pakhtunistan assembly in 1960. Afghan forces entered Pakistan in Bajaur agency in the 1960s when fighting took place with Pakistani forces. Acrimony with Pakistan led Afghanistan into the influence of the USSR, when in 1978 it invaded her to protect the socialist revolution of the Afghan communist party.

When these threats arose Pakistan lacked security, friends and finances to meet the challenges of survival. To tackle these very serious deficits, it became focused on state survival rather than development of its people. Secondly, it introduced religion into statecraft for dealing with internal and external threats. For instance to defeat the ethnic pressure from Afghanistan for the creation of a Pathan state incorporating the Pashtun of NWFP, FATA and Baluchistan, Pakistan supported the concept of global Islam contained in the idea of a Ummah (all the followers of Islam are one irrespective of national boundaries), followed by Islamists everywhere. Simultaneously, the lack of compassion for Pakistan by both India and Afghanistan led to the creation of a Jihadi security infrastructure as extension of the official policy of Pakistan for confronting the challenges; it compromised state institutions, led to islamization of society and finally encouraged the birth of the Waziristan Taliban, who is a threat to Pakistan.

The word Taliban needs definition for the purpose of this report. The Waziristan Taliban is different from the Afghan Taliban. The former are sympathetic towards the Afghan Taliban but their objectives are largely confined to Waziristan. Some groups of Waziristan fighters may participate in Jihad in Afghanistan, but they are not the same as the Afghan Taliban which is political movement associated with Mullah Umar. Secondly, the Waziristan Taliban is a term, which has been applied without precision. Groups like Baitullah Mahsud are basically Islamists with links to Al-Qaeda and the freedom movements of Uzbekistan.

It is ironic to note that Afghanistan’s acrimony towards Pakistan led it to its destruction through the long civil wars of 1978-2000; she is still crippled, and barely surviving, thanks to U.S assistance. Pakistan too has burnt her fingers by playing with the Jihadist fire to fulfill its objectives in Kashmir and Afghanistan. In following this policy Pakistan began sliding rapidly into institutional decay and state failure; it has gathered momentum after the war in Waziristan. It has brought the influence of Islamists to all the southern districts of NWFP and the future remains bleak.

Pakistan’s former protégé the Taliban of Afghanistan disintegrated in the 2001 U.S attack. They dispersed and after considerable re-building, with assistance from an international Islamist movement, resurrected itself in southeastern Afghanistan, with a support base in Pakistani tribal area, NWFP, Baluchistan and Karachi. The Waziristan Taliban is now fighting against the Pakistani and the U.S forces. The Taliban are a serious embarrassment for Pakistan. The later used the Islamic rhetoric for state building, but now the same rhetoric has transformed itself under the Taliban who are challenging Pakistan: Ill judged state policy based on expediency has lead to unintended consequences damaging the state.

It was discussed earlier that Pakistan had become a rentier state. What is this concept? A rentier state is one, which depends on funds provided by other countries for achieving (their) objectives. A rentier state may also be based on earnings derived from the sale of natural resources that do no need labour of its people for production. Most of the well functioning states have strong direct taxation systems, which generate resources for carrying out the multitudinous functions of a state. A state which is dependent upon taxes paid by its people is strong and co-opts the citizen in its functioning, through a process of democratic consultation. Such states are normally peaceful with prevalence of the rule of law, respect for human rights and gender equality. In the case of Pakistan a large part of its income is earned through pricing mechanism or indirect taxes or transfers by foreign countries. Pakistan also earns money from the exploitation of resources like oil, gas or hydel resources.

A substantial amount of money is earned by Pakistan by obtaining funds under military agreements with foreign countries, for which Pakistan in return provides security related services. Over a period of time the normal state institutions like the parliament or the judiciary and the constitution become irrelevant since the military is not beholden for support for money or equipment to the people or the democratic institutions. It has been calculated that since 9/11, Pakistan’s GDP growth due to direct U.S financial transfers on account of military service provided by Pakistan has amounted to about 2% of Pakistan’s total GDP in a year, since 2002. (Saleem: 4)[25]. This is indeed a substantial sum of the total. Afghanistan too has remained a rentier state par excellence throughout its history. It has been argued that Afghanistan cannot exist unless it has rentier arrangement with benefactors (Rubin: 64-65)[26]. It is ironic that both Pakistan and Afghanistan, who are facing a Taliban revolt, are both rentier states. Is there a message contained in this similarity?

It is the Pakistan military’s intent to be pro western in its outlook because the west has provided funds for its functioning. Because of this support the military did not feel a need to associate the parliament of Pakistan since it is financially independent. This has made it autonomous in its decisions. It has been argued that the reason the military has achieved this supremacy is not because of superior skills but due to foreign support; that is the reason why the pendulum of power has shifted away from the political leadership (Jalal: 124)[27]. If the state does not have autonomy and has an abridged sovereignty over certain parts of the country like Waziristan then it cannot bring into play the advantages accruing to a sole decider of policy, because the superior partner will always override it depending on its own compulsions. It also gives inkling into the real problem of administering Waziristan. The tribal administration in turn is facing a similar situation of disempowerment. It has been dominated by the military, ever since 2002, after the military moved in and which makes negotiations with tribes difficult, since the political agent has been sidelined.

The Coalition forces are waging operations in Afghanistan; on occasions when some of the Pakistani hostiles assist the Afghan rebels, the Coalition forces have attacked them inside Waziristan with missiles; Pakistan being a rentier state is unable to condemn such attacks. The tribes of Waziristan have come to realize that the Pakistan military does not have autonomy of decision making. It makes meaningful talks with it or the political agent futile. That is the main reason that the peace agreements signed by the government lack credibility. On the other hand a state, which always relies on coercion for problem solution on the behest of others, invites radicalization of the people and slowly leads them to the path of rebellion and finally revolution. Rentier states encourage violent state behavior, which in turn invites reactions based on Jihad or the suicide bomber.

As noted earlier, Pakistan’s post 1947 security and political developments were heavily influenced by deficit in its military capacity. The military built its capacity by negotiating Pakistan’s strategic location to global players. The military’s distance from the citizen and parliament permitted it to dictate security and foreign policy. Pakistan used the military for foreign policy formulation relating to Afghanistan and India; today the ISI leads policy creation for India and Afghanistan, and the Foreign Office is relegated to the background. This creates de-institutionalized behaviour and a conflict of interest since an implementer becomes policy creator.

Nature Of The Pakistani State

It is always salutary to classify the type of state, whose policies one is examining. It can help in anticipating the type of route that Pakistan is likely to take in its dealing with the problem in Waziristan and Afghanistan. The communalist basis of Pakistan has been adumbrated in religious terms. The creation of Pakistan has been depicted as the struggle of Muslims to have a homeland of their own. However, the communalist justification falls to the ground, when the Partition in 1945 did not lead to the shifting of all the Muslim population from India. The majority remained in India, and only a portion shifted to Pakistan.

A counter hypothesis states that the movement for Pakistan was a combination of the ambitions of the Muslim elite to obtain political power, which they could not get in a united India. In this version it is argued that the Muslim League was supported by the Muslim feudal land lords as they feared the Congress’ social platform in which land reform was promised. After independence Pakistan has shied away from genuine land reform except the cosmetic and non-functional one introduced by Gen Ayub Khan in 1958. The failure to carry out genuine land reforms in Pakistan is now considered as the single most important cause of rampant poverty, absence of democracy and the policy capture by the rich. It is apparent that the fruits arising out of the creation of Pakistan have accumulated to the rich landlords since they have captured policy making.

Pakistani has also been classified as a state-nation in contra-distinction to nation state. A state-nation believes in putting people at the service of the state; the people are to serve it and do not have a purpose other than this. On the contrary a nation-state is supposed to serve the people within its borders; their welfare is the principle objective of the state (Bobbit: 175-177)[28]. The history of Pakistan leads one to the conclusion that it is a state-nation. It is governed to achieve doctrinaire and global objectives instead of the welfare of its people. If it is accepted that the purpose of the state is greater than its meanest citizen, then violation of human rights and penury of the citizenry is understandable. It is a corollary of state-nation syndrome for its ruling elite to treat the citizens with disdain. Such a state can legitimize imperialism, foreign adventure, Jihadism, minimization of democracy and poor record of human development.

Investigative reporting has uncovered the soft under belly of state sponsored terrorism by Pakistan during the period 1980-99. The ISI with the approval of the not fully aware CIA recruited youth from the Pacific to Africa and trained whole generation of youngsters in Jihad. The youth were drawn from the Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines and from the Arakan in Burma. An al-Badr facility was organized in Khost in Afghanistan. Out of this camp, the Palestinian Hamas and the Arab sponsored Moro movement led by Abu Sayyaf emerged. The Al-Badr was originally organized by the ISI to keep the Arab movements under check while the Al-Badr itself was created with the assistance of the Pakistani Jamaat-i-Islami’s Bakht Zameen Khan. The Pakistan Army in Kargil used the Al-Badr fighters. Being close to Waziristan, the Al-Badr was used to train the tribesmen for jihad and to assist the Taliban gain control of Kabul in 1996. If one wanted to find the reason for radicalization in Waziristan this is a good example to remember

When the Deobandis under Maulana Fazlur Reman, of the JUI (F), felt threatened by the increase in influence of the Jamaat-i-Islami through the Al-Badr, they raised their own Jihadi outfit the Harkat-i-jihad-i-Islami under Akhtar, which was soon cultivated by the ISI and provided it with special training facilities in South Waziristan and Khost. This organization’s conservative credentials won it adherents from Bangladesh and Myanmar and was grouped under its international arm Harkat-i-Jihad-i-Islami al-Alami, again led by Akhtar, who was the brain behind “Operation Caliphate”, in which several senior Pakistan army officers like Maj Gen. Zaheer ul-Islam were involved and were later arrested for trying to carry out a coup against Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto in 1995. When Musharraf came to power in 1999, he released the coup leaders including Akhtar, who went to Kabul and was welcomed by Mulla Umar and entrusted with the training of police and the armed forces (Shahzad)[29]. It is only but natural that this radicalization by the Deobandis in Khost and in Waziristan strengthened the JUI (F) and its leader Maulana Fazalur Rehman immeasurably in Waziristan. This has been used to good advantage by him and he claims openly that if the government wishes to solve the problem in Waziristan it must speak to him (Naqvi)[30]

We have seen one example how Pakistan propagated Jihadist policies and trained people who are now fighting against the same establishment that created them in the first place. There are many other similar cases. However, it is clear that Faustian policies lead to very unpleasant consequences indeed. These non state forces are close to tearing the state built which has been built on the doctrinaire bedrock.

It is fair to suspect as latter events have proved that the weaknesses surrounding the functioning of the new state of Pakistan in 1947, were purposively created so that a need was created for establishing Pakistan’s dependency on Britain and which by the late 1958 stood fully transferred to the U.S. Heavy defense expenditure resulting from maintaining sophisticated equipment having a high cost further eroded its meager resources. It forced the state to borrow more and left meager allocations for human development in education and health. It sowed the seeds for the break away of E. Pakistan, (Jalal: 49-135)[31] and the creation of other anomalies like the Taliban in Waziristan.

Since the main goal of the state was to concentrate on acting as a surrogate security provider to the western alliance, it has resulted in unhappy results, which can be traced to the militarization of state and society in Pakistan. Today Pakistan is suffering from advanced state and institutional decay; for instance: the judiciary and the executive including the bureaucracy are not independent and are an adjunct of the military; political parties in Pakistan have no independent role since actual power to make policies does not reside in them; instruments of state oppression including the intelligence services and the judicial process is used for prolonging military rule and not enhancement of individual or state security; Pakistan’s external and domestic institutions are suborned by compulsions of defence and prolonging rule by the military; provincial rights and people focused development are not priority areas; intelligence agencies have an over blown role mainly to help the status quo; religion is used to create a consensual basis for the existence of the as since human development is not encouraged; religion is also used to battle the ethnic pulls of the state instead of political negotiations; since overt use of military in foreign policy areas can lead to war and international condemnation reliance is placed on secret ‘Jihadi’ organizations which are state created. It has created a full blown sectarian crisis between the Shias and Sunnis and the creation of the MQM as a foil against the PPP in Sindh province. FATA is used as the launching pad for pursuing great power agendas in Afghanistan. Tribal area was used during the Afghan campaign when the US and Zia-ul-Haq destroyed the Soviet ambitions in Afghanistan. The 1978-92, Afghan war caused a regional and human rights catastrophe, and in its aftermath created Al-Qaeda, the 9/11 tragedy in New York and the existing war in Afghanistan and Waziristan.

When the West used a Jihadi model for evicting the Soviets from Afghanistan, little thought was given to its after-effects in Waziristan and Afghanistan. From 1978-1992, $ 66 billion worth of weaponry was introduced into the region, which works out at $. 134 million per person (Coll: 238)^{^[32]}. It is evident that as a result of Pakistan’s reliance on the Jihadist intervention model, it led to the creation of a worldwide network of Afghan war veterans of all nationalities. They spread their message and the response was positive. It led to the creation of organizations like the Al-Qaeda and others.

There has been a steep internal cost paid by Pakistan for its policies. Jihadist were officially supported they began to proselytize the army and society. Pakistan army officers began leading Jihadi raids in Afghanistan and as far deep as the Soviet controlled Central Asia. Civil society in Pakistan was dealt with in the same doctrinaire approach. Madrassas and religious seminaries blossomed. In 1971, there were only 900 Madrassas in Pakistan. By the end of Gen. Zia’s era in 1988, there were 8,000 registered Madrassas and 25,000 were unregistered (Rashid: 89)[33]. To coordinate Jihadist activities, the Pakistan Inter services Intelligence in 1994, created an umbrella Jihadist coordinating organization called the Muttahida Jihad Council (MJC) composed of thirteen leading organizations. By early 1999 their number rose to fifteen. Elements of this organization fought alongside the Pakistan army in Kargil. These organizations also operated in Kashmir by undertaking terrorist raids against Indian forces, (Wikipedia: 1)[34]

The linkage of armed groups with the army degraded and severally compromised Pakistan’s internal security apparatus and its ability to act with neutrality. The Sunni - Shia violence in Pakistan is a direct consequence of this de-structuring. (Abbas: 1-3)[35] It also led to the increase of pressure from this state created lobby during Gen. Zia’s rule and he obliged by wholesale Islamization of the law, state and society. Radicalization prevailing in Waziristan has created a nexus between the local Jihadist and the ordinary unemployed youth. The pressure for employment and creation of a niche for existence has led to the rise of the Taliban movement in Waziristan. A more detailed discussion of this phenomenon in its demographic aspect may read below.

Thus the policies followed by Pakistan has crippled civil society and brought it the gun and narcotic culture. These evils are now beyond the capacity of the state alone to control (Musharraf: 276)[36]. The current president of Pakistan has made this statement. If the head of state gives such a pessimistic account what else can one add? It will however do everyone a lot of good if the interferences and aberrations are exposed and their evil on state formation under scored. It may prevent a repeat of the same mistakes in the future.

When Pakistan is castigated or accused of failing to do enough, it is not only because Pakistani officials are compromised (some of whom may have been), but more so because they are unable to control events any longer. Pakistan’s capacity in internal security has been seriously crippled. The world must not lose sight of this factor when criticising Pakistan. The recent statements made by the US Assistant Secretary of State, Boucher, during his recent visit to Pakistan is an example of such criticism. (Baabar: 1)[37]

Influence Of Religion In Waziristan

Let us now examine briefly the role of religious groups in Waziristan and Pakistan. There are allegations that Gen. Musharraf and the military are complicit in the revival of Islamist by secretly giving them official patronage and sponsoring Jihadist groups including the Talibans in Waziristan. Senior U.S military planners and intelligence agency heads have spoken how the Taliban of Waziristan, while operating under the very nose of the Pakistan army is able to launch hostile operations against U.S forces in Afghanistan, (ISI: 5)[38].

Pakistan has denied these allegations and says that it is doing all it can to prevent the hostiles from attacking the U.S troops. Pakistan’s creditability suffers badly, when an incident like the one that occurred in January 2007 takes place. A group of hostile Talibans began collecting in the Mahsud area of South Waziristan and about four truck and busloads of fully armed men began their journey increasing in size as the convoy picked up Jihadis on the way. It entered Razmak in North Waziristan and added in strength. It next came to Spinwam via Mirali exiting into the town of Thall in Hangu district. It held a public meeting in Thall, while being fully armed and in full view of the military and the police. This war party then entered Kurram Agency, where it collected more Jihadis. Finally, a large convoy of about forty buses and truckloads of full-armed fighters entered Afghanistan through Kurram Agency. In Afghanistan they were confronted, where fighting took place. Many Jihadis were killed or martyred before returning by the same route. There were also casualties on the Afghan side. The U.S authorities presented proof of the movement of this large group of men through army and scout checkpoints. The U.S sought an explanation for the failure to stop them. The Pakistani authorities were embarrassed; they did not have an answer. Pakistan ought to have come clean and told the U.S frankly that the guards on check points were out gunned and out manned. They could thus not prevent the party from proceeding.

After more than three and a half years of fighting in Waziristan, the military decided that military pacification was not possible. It allowed the signing of the North Waziristan accord on 5^th Sept 2006, with the tribes. After the agreement there have been persistent reports of increase in Taliban attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan near the border with Waziristan. U.S commanders have shown their desperation and concern in the surge of attacks there. They have also criticized this policy of reaching agreements with the Taliban as according to their view it compromises the war effort against them. Media has reported U.S commanders reporting that after the accord there was more than a three fold increase in attacks on coalition troops in the Afghan districts of Khost and Paktia, which border Waziristan, compared with the situation prior to the North Waziristan accord (Cloud: 1)[39].

The charges against Pakistan of supporting Talibans and the consequent allegations of military support to them arise out of circumstances of Pakistan’s early history and its reliance on Islamic rhetoric for dealing with of Pakhtunistan irredentism. Islamization of the state and the Jihad against the Soviet Union has radicalized Waziristan.

Pakistan did not have any worthwhile security structure in 1947, to defend its interests against India in Kashmir. It led to reliance on proxy warriors, who fought in Kashmir under the command of Pakistan army officers, a majority of these proxy warriors came from Waziristan. One of the consequences of this early experience was a weakening of the military institution and indulgence in the gray region of intelligence operations. Ever since then, Pakistan has placed heavy reliance on proxy warriors. The 1965 war with India began with a Special Forces Pakistani led operation in Kashmir. The point to note here is that as time passed the links between the military and the proxy warriors increased. The military began more active proxy penetration into Kashmir and Afghanistan after the start of Jihad in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union from 1978-92.

If a watershed has to be determined when Pakistani proxy operations mushroomed, then one must conclude that it occurred during the military rule of Ziaul Haq. Once President Reagan took the lead in fighting the Soviets, through well-supplied proxy warriors of Islam in Afghanistan the seeds were sown for the rapid growth of Islamist warriors worldwide. The birth of Al-Qaeda and subsequently the Taliban, 9/11, and the bombings by Islamic groups and increase of radicals throughout the world can be attributed to this single decision.

The war in Afghanistan during 1978-1992 drastically changed the way of managing the Pakistani state; Gen Ziaul Haq did not have political backing. Therefore, to gather support for remaining in power he aligned himself and the military with the Pakistani Islamist groups. The Jamaat-I-Islami with links with the international Islamic movement became a potent force in his government. In the NWFP similar support was obtained from the JUI of Maulana Mufti Mehmud, which after his death split into two, his son’s faction under Maulana Fazlur Rehman came to be known as the JUI (F) and the other faction was the JUI (S) of Maulana Samiul Haq of Akora Khattak. The later specialized in providing madrassa education. Most of the 3.5 million Afghan refugees who came to NWFP after becoming refugees sent their youth for education to seminaries / madrassas run by the JUI (S) in NWFP.

A similar role was performed by the Jamia Banuri, a society of Islamic madrassas in Karachi and parts of Baluchistan. The about 2 million Afghan refugees settled in Baluchistan or Karachi was influenced by the Binori variant of madrassa education. Thus, almost all the children born in camps or in villages and cities of Pakistan, especially in NWFP, tribal areas of Pakistan, Karachi or Baluchistan were provided grounding in Islamic education of the Deobandi School.

It may be noted that while the Jihad against the Soviet Union was going on, there was rapid radicalization of Muslim communities around the world. Muslims from the Pacific to the Atlantic came to join the war. Others contributed charity to the cause. This created many who were trained in the art of guerilla war and also the principles of radical Islam. International Islamic charity gave financial strength to Islamists in Pakistan. It created a financial base both for the Jamat-I-Islami and the JUI. A considerable amount of funds meant for the Afghan war ended in the coffers of the Islamists. They accumulated large properties in Peshawar, Quetta, Islamabad and Karachi.[40]

The JUI driven madrassas were fed with funds and not only to teach Afghan refugee youngsters but a considerable number of Pakistani homes began sending their wards to schools and madrassas run by Islamic parties. At the same time, the world was undergoing changes brought by globalization and miniaturization. The Internet provided an instrument for advocacy, training and mobilization on Islamic basis. Miniaturization of technologies made it possible to confront organized military through asymmetric techniques.

The Washington Consensus which was a model framework for creating wealth in the fast changing world of globalized economics, based on trade and free markets and a small public sector reduced public spending and subsidies for education. It drastically increased poverty. Families in the rural areas did not have money to afford education for their children. Many families on or below the poverty line sent their children to madrassas. Some Islamist had an incentive scheme of a sort; if a family provided one of its sons for Jihad, not only all the other siblings received a free education, but the family was also be granted a subsistence allowance. The state was unable to meet this challenge in a climate of diminishing investment in public education because funds were pre empted by defence and elitist expenditures. Failure to provide high-class public education has further fragmented Pakistani society; the rich attend private schools while the less poor attend government managed deteriorating schools. The very poor go to the madrassa.

While everyone was focused on the war in Afghanistan, Pakistani society like in many other countries was being re-born with a specific Islamic identity built within a historic framework, which viewed the woes and stagnation of the Islamic world as a bye product of western imperialism; a world which was interested in taking away Islam’s oil resources, while imposing dictatorial regimes on an impoverished people. To make the comparison biting it was noted that U.S assistance went more to the militaries, which were instruments of maintaining the unrepresentative regimes in power rather than helping civil society. In comparison Islamic NGO’s put people first and became substantial providers of services in health and education; this also provided them with political space.

What was happening to Islam globally was also affecting Waziristan in the same manner but to a larger degree. The tribal areas more than the districts of NWFP have remained extremely back ward. Today, the literacy level is below 20%. In Waziristan it will be surprising if it is above 10-12%. For more than 80% of the boys education at the primary and the secondary level is provided by the madrassas. There is one hospital bed for approximately 6000 populations. There is no industry or agriculture to speak of. The tribal areas of Pakistan are an abject picture of poverty and misery. Superimpose extreme isolation on this description and one would not be surprised when the people of this region rebelled so violently. The state has only a coercive link with the population and not a benevolent one. On the other hand the Islamic charities and social workers have done better.

One other ingredient deserving mention in this brew is that the madrassas in Waziristan are under the control of the JUI (F) of Maulana Fazlur Rehman. 90% of the madrassas in North and South Waziristan are under scholars, who adhere to the Deobandi school of thought. What does it signify?

The Deobandis arose as a progressive Islamic movement during the early 19^th century in colonial India. Its aim was to reform and unite Muslims of British India as they struggled to live within the confines of a colonial state. Deobandis believed in education as the route to salvation of the Muslims of India; they emphasised focus on Sharia as a method to harmonize classic Quranic teaching with current realities (Rashid: 88)[41]. The JUI was purely a religious movement aimed at mobilizing the Muslim community. It was in 1962 that the JUI was formed into a political party in Pakistan. (89)[42]

Pakistani military owing to Gen Ziaul Haq’s preference for the Islamists, routed the Afghan Jihad funds through the Jamaat-e-Islami. The JUI was ignored but due to charity from international sources the JUI grew. It concentrated in providing madrassa education everywhere specially where there were refugees and also to the tribes of Waziristan. The seeds of the JUI (F) and JUI (S) links with Taliban were sown at this time. The Jamaat-i-Islami on the other hand, built its connections with Gul Badin Hikmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami. It may be mentioned that although Pakistan’s ISI, the military intelligence service, had created a nine party alliance to run the anti Soviet Jihad, yet it’s favourite was the Hizb of Hekmatyar, which received a major portion of weapons and funds obtained from the CIA. The ISI was certain that Hikmatyar would be the future Afghan leader after the Soviets left Afghanistan. Thus the ISI had at the back of its mind a final solution of the Afghan irredentist claim on behalf of the Pakhtuns of NWFP, tribal areas and parts of Baluchistan, once for all.

Once the U.S decided to launch a Jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan, it handed the task over to the ISI. The later thought it to be a God given opportunity to plan the Jihad in such a manner that it would result in bringing to power a government in Kabul favourable to Pakistan. It made its major judgmental error, when it decided not to partner traditional mullahs leading the Jihad; like the Harqat-e-Inqalabi Islam of Maulana Nabi or Hazbe Islami of Moulvi Khalis. Both these stalwarts were educated at the Haqqania Madrassa of Maulana Samiul Haq at Akora Khattak. By partnering the traditionalists, ISI would have transacted in the Pukhtun rhetoric; first a Pukhtun and then a Muslim. The thinking within the ISI was to avoid the Pukhtun nationalist, who it feared would combine into a powerful ethno-nationalist force. Instead they chose those, who were Islamists like Gulbadin or Ahmad Shah Mahsud. The later was dropped in favour of Gulbadin. This decision of the ISI may have damaged Pakistan and the world permanently. It was a very costly lapse of judgment.

Thus we had a situation of Jihad in Afghanistan in 1979 where the Afghan Islamists due to the Jamaat-i-Islami factor looked at the Egyptian Akhwanul Muslimeen or Islamic Brotherhood for leadership. Their beliefs were anti Pukhtun, anti nationalist, anti feudal, anti traditional Pukhtun leadership and Pro Pan Islamic; to coin a phrase it was an institutionalized system concentrating on creating Islamic universalism like Communism or Catholicism.

One of the basic beliefs of the Afghan Islamist is their hate of the neo-colonial elite. A large part of the violence by the Islamist parties in Afghanistan and subsequently borrowed by Taliban of Waziristan is based on this Islamist precept. It is important to understand this doctrinal dispute. Islamism is basically a reaction by Muslims to the challenge of the western model of development. It wants state power to enact an ideologically defined programme (Rubin: 86)[43]. To Islamists it is obligatory for Muslims to wage Jihad against governments promoting western models or supporting the West. To them Muslims living in such non-Islamic states are apostates; a belief known as “Takfir” is borrowed from the early Islamic group the Kharijites (87)[44]. The Taliban in Waziristan borrow from this doctrine and consider it lawful to wage war against fellow Muslims, since they are apostates by not waging ‘Jihad’ against a government (Pakistan) for supporting the Coalition of non-Muslims.

A remaining ingredient, which needs to be factored for understanding the Taliban rebellion in Waziristan in all its ferocity, is the influence of Wahabism. Saudi Arabia introduced Wahabi influence into Afghanistan, when it organised a pro-Wahabi Mujahideen group under the leadership of Abdur Rasul Sayaf. His Itehad e Islam was one of the Jihadi outfits against the Soviets. Wahabism is a conservative interpretation of Islam, which does not recognize intermediation between a believer and Allah. It is closely aligned with the Saudi family and is the Saudi Arabian version of Islam. Although Saudi Arabia is conservative at home but uses its charity and exports its firebrands internationally into Muslim trouble spots. Before the Taliban came to power in Kabul in 1996, Maulana Fazlur Rehman of the JUI (F) used his good offices to introduce the Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki, to the Talibans in Kandahar in 1995. It is a fact that the Saudis provided the Talibans funds, vehicles and fuel for the attack on Kabul (Rashid: 201)[45]. However, due to lack of governmental discipline and the making of policy by regional cabals, when Taliban rule ended in 2001, they had annoyed the Saudis, Iranians and the Pakistani!

As early as 1995, pro Taliban parties had sprung up in NWFP (194)[46], and tribal areas due to radicalization by the Afghan Taliban. The working of the Taliban was hidden from public view but they were known to be completely de-institutionalized and worked in secret regional cabals. There were no formal institutions as in the Iranian model and one never knew who made the decisions. But by their simplicity they had set a model, which is now eagerly followed in Waziristan and NWFP.

So what is an apt description for the Taliban of Waziristan? They are composed of tribesmen who have been radicalized by the rhetoric of Jihad due to the invasion of Afghanistan by the coalition forces. They are the product of a tradition of resistance, which began in the 1860’s and lasted till 1947, when the British departed from the sub-continent. After 1947, began another phase in the relationship of Waziristan with Pakistan in which the state used tribal warriors to fill a capacity gap. During the Jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan the people of Waziristan were introduced to radical doctrines by the presence of committed fighters in their midst. This developed further during the Taliban rule. By then the example of Taliban had favourably captured the imagination of the people and local parties mimicking the Taliban arose. Many of the Waziristan tribesmen took part in the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets since 1989 and latter joined the Taliban in their civil war.

After the disintegration of the Taliban in 2001, the people in Waziristan say they are now fighting the second Jihad war against the U.S and Gen. Musharraf. It is ironic to note that instead of buying security for Pakistan, the ISI driven plan of fighting the Jihad through Islamists has misfired. It has neither doused the fire of sub nationalism nor given security to Pakistan. As a matter of fact both the tribal structure in Waziristan and Afghanistan has been seriously damaged. Warlords like Baitullah Mahsud in South Waziristan and Sadiq Noor in North Waziristan or the Iraqi Arab Abu Kasha, in Mirali or Najimuddin Uzbek have more power. The ISI strategy atomized power into the hands of gangs. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, has influence because a great number of Waziristan Taliban have been educated in madrassas managed by his supporters; Fazlur Rehman justifiably remarked recently that he holds the key to peace in NWFP, tribal areas and Baluchistan (Naqvi: 4)[47]

Whilst the institutional structure in Waziristan has collapsed, matters in the districts of NWFP are rapidly deteriorating. Taliban pockets have appeared in the southern districts of Tank and Bannu. In Tank police posts from Tank to Jandola have been abandoned since the police are out gunned and cannot face the Waziristan Taliban onslaught. The Indus highway connecting Karachi with Peshawar and used by truckers is no longer safe. A convoy of ten trailers was hi-jacked and vanished, a couple of days ago. Suicide bombers have struck Peshawar, killing the head of city police along with fourteen other senior police officers in January 2007. It is suspected that the suicide attacks are emanating out of Waziristan. The policy begun by Ziaul Haq in 1978 and followed by the security services subsequently led to the destruction of Afghanistan and has brought Pakistan itself very near an implosion or a Taliban-style revolution (Rashid: 210)[48]. It is time for the Pakistan authorities to realise what is happening. It will be wise to segregate Waziristan from Afghanistan as a first in seeking a viable solution. Secondly in designing the way forward it must be noted that the rebellion in Waziristan is driven by the same fear that was in the imagination of the tribes in 1897. They fear that if they do not fight, their identity will be lost when the state begins to control them by force.

As a result of a strategic review after the end of the 3^rd Afghan War in 1878, Britain decided that in case she was to stop a Russian Invasion of India there were two defensible positions; either in the plains east of the Indus or in the plains of Afghanistan. The decision was taken that the British forces would confront a Russian advance inside Afghanistan. In order to do so she moved forces into Waziristan, Kurram, Chitral and the Black Mountains region of Hazara. This led in 1897, to a revolt throughout the Pathan belt of FATA, NWFP and parts of Baluchistan. The fear then was also that they will lose their identity.

Similarly, today the whole tribal area and NWFP has been beset by an identity crisis. The people of these regions, although at different levels of development, maintain one common perception, that their way of life is under threat. They see this threat to their religion, to Pashtunwali or the Pathan way of life and thus to their identity. It has become obvious that neither the Coalition forces in Afghanistan nor the military in Pakistan have the capacity to make a meaningful difference to the unfolding of events as they occur. Resistance under the existing circumstances will increase and Pakistan will lose control over Waziristan and southern districts in the D.I. Khan region.

The Coalition has frequently said that Pakistan is not doing enough; another allegation against Pakistan is that somehow the military itself is involved and supports the Taliban and has used Islamic organizations for its own ends and actually there is no danger from an Islamic peril to Pakistan (Grare: 1)[49]. One agrees that no Islamic organization in Pakistan has the capacity to challenge the military at the moment. This is not always true as was witnessed so many times in the fighting in Waziristan; the Taliban did confront the military and inflict heavy casualties. So Grare’s argument is not wholly realistic. There is a degree of peril.

It is also likely that in the weeks to come as matters worsen in Afghanistan; the U.S will use air power to neutralize the hostiles. That is the time when matters will become very critical for Gen. Musharraf. Air attacks on Waziristan will lead to retaliation against NWFP, Islamabad, Lahore, and Karachi. Law and order will worsen and this will suffocate life in this marginalized province further.

It is time for Pakistan to accept that it does not have the capacity to put off the fire lighted when the policy of using proxy warriors was first adopted. After gaining nuclear capability we should have depended on building institutional capacity of the foreign office and civilian authorities to deal with international affairs. We should have ended building Jihadis as extension of official policy. We did not do so in the past, but we must do so now. At this point in time we are near a melt down. We must now evolve a strategy that will address the causes of the rebellion in Waziristan, which have been addressed in this report.

In the final analysis a good leader is one who uses policy instruments with fine judgment and in proper measure; one size fit all approach is destined to fail since it will definitely lead to errors of judgment, which Sophocles termed as the cause of our greatest tragedies.

The JUI (F) Connection In Waziristan

In the previous section we observed the role of religion in Waziristan and touched upon the connection of JUI (F) with the Madrassas. Here we look a bit deeper into this party’s role in Waziristan in order to find solutions to the problem.

History is replete with examples where past decisions have come back to haunt decision makers. The connection between Pakistan, US and JUI (F) during the Afghan Jihad against the USSR and later between the Pakistani intelligence and JUI (F) in support of the Taliban administration in Afghanistan became an albatross around the Pakistani neck.

Can one blame Pakistan? The Taliban it has been said is not a Pakistani creation. It is recorded that they arose as a result of a spontaneous uprising against the immoral and tyrannical conduct of Afghan Mujahideen and warlords. In 1992 and 1994, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran tried to convince the Mujahideen to form a unity government. However, the attempts failed because the Afghans would not unite (Sattar: 180-186)[50]. Pakistan’s former foreign secretary also said that by 1998 the Taliban had captured most of Afghanistan but the states including U.S had lost influence with them by having previously washed their hands of Afghanistan, it left only Pakistan to cope with the Talibans. He further added that Pakistan lacked the power and resources to force the Taliban in Afghanistan to rectify their fatal policies (186)[51]. It was not because Pakistan had lost influence with the Taliban that Afghanistan failed to form a broad based government; the failure to assist the Afghans was mainly due to internal politics in Pakistan.

History shows that during Benazir’s second stint as Prime Minister, Gen. Babar her highly regarded interior minister was master minding the creation of a broad based government in Afghanistan, after the Taliban had emerged as a force. Gen Babar had obtained the commitment of the Taliban and Gen. Dostum of the Northern Alliance to create a joint political commission to administer Afghanistan. It was to have representatives from all provinces based on population. The idea of managing Afghanistan by a political commission was not supported by the ISI.

President Farooq Leghari, held a meeting on 3^rd November 1996, regarding the installation of a broad based government in Kabul and which was attended by Benazir, the army Chief, ISI and Gen. Babar. It was agreed that Gen. Babar should leave for Kabul on the 5^th and assist in the formation of a broad based commission since the Afghan leaders had requested his intermediation. However, before Gen Babar could leave the next day, the President removed Benazir’s government! It is possible that had Gen. Babar visited Kabul, the chances of installing a broad based government in Kabul was a definite possibility. Unfortunately, the new caretaker government, which followed, had neither the influence nor the back ground to make a meaningful contribution. Secondly, after the new set up was installed in Pakistan, the ISI was again in the driving seat on Afghan policy. Had the commission been established, there might not have been an Al-Qaeda or 9/11. It is one of the great ifs of modern history (Babar: IV)[52]. Apparently, Pakistan could do more only if it had kept its own political house in order. Sattar is therefore not completely right in stating that Pakistan could not influence events in Kabul. It could, if only the pettiness of its politics was shelved.

Gen Musharraf’s personal hostility to the major national secular parties and partnership with the religious right to deny political space to secularist has worked in JUI’s (F) favour. This became visible when the speaker of the national assembly, the lower house of parliament, selected Maulana Fazlur Rehman of JUI (F), as leader of the opposition. As a result of governmental support in the 2002 national election, 10 out of the 12 parliamentarians elected from FATA belonged to JUI (F) (ICG-II)[53]. The JUI (F) linkage with the military thus paid considerable political dividends.

Senior US officials have commented on the close Pakistani links with Al-Qaeda and Taliban organization. US Director of National Intelligence, Negroponte, during a recent congressional hearing stated that Al-Qaeda was still active in Pakistan (Baabar: 1)[54] he also said that Pakistan was not doing enough. Senior U.S and NATO officials have criticized Pakistan’s lack of support for anti Taliban action. The Secretary General of NATO issued a warning to Pakistan to stop militants from incursions into Afghanistan. (NATO: 1)[55]. Mike Rogers of the US House of Representative termed the North Waziristan agreement between the tribes and the Pakistan government, as a failure and a detriment to US security. Gen Eikenberry, leading the US forces in Afghanistan has also criticized the North Waziristan agreement saying that after the agreement, attacks by Taliban inside Afghanistan have increased by 300% in two months (Cloud: 1)[56]. Afghanistan has alleged that Mulla Umar is living in Pakistan under the protection of its intelligence. Pakistan’s President has denied any such involvement (News: 1)[57]. This is quite a barrage of criticism. Most of it though is based on the links of the JUI (F) with the Taliban.

General Facts About Waziristan

Lets us first get a glimpse of this rugged and inhospitable land and its equally brave and hardy people. Waziristan occupies about 5000 square miles of mountain land; its mountains and valleys are like jigsaw pieces. The region extends 120 miles from north to south and 60 miles from west to east. The Wazir hills leave the Indus plain abruptly and rise towards the Afghan frontier reaching altitudes of 10,000 feet or more. Apart from the Tochi valley in North Waziristan and the Wana plain in South Waziristan, there is hardly any arable land (Warren: 5)[58]. The population of Waziristan today is about 785,122. About 15% of this population is between the ages of 15-25 years. There is no industry or agriculture to offer employment to the youth (DCR 1998). Coupled with this demographic youth bulge is the fact that from 1978 to 2000 this region was the launching pad for radical activity connected with the Afghan Jihad against the Russians and later the war waged by the Taliban to resist the U.S in Afghanistan. Waziristan is held by the most powerful Karlanri Pathans, the Darwesh Khel Wazirs and Mahsuds [Caroe: 392][59]. There is an ancestral link between the Wazirs and Mahsuds but for practical administrative purposes the Mahsuds are a separate tribe. Caroe compares the Mahsud to a wolf and Wazir to a panther [393]. The Mahsuds live in the central block of mountains of Waziristan, surrounded by Darwesh Khel Wazirs to the North, West and South. Their main centres of population are small clusters of villages around Kaniguram and Makin around the 11,500 ft Preghal Mountain. Historically, the Mahsuds hold aloof and are continuously at war against the Wazirs.

Both North and South Waziristan are of strategic importance because of geography and location close to the Afghan districts of Khost, Paktika and Paktia. Historically the Daurs, Wazirs and Mahsuds who live in Waziristan have played defining role in Afghan dynastic struggles in the past. For example it was with the tacit support of the British, that Nadir Khan returned from France and raised a tribal warring party of Wazirs and Mahsuds from Waziristan to snatch the Afghan throne from King Amanullah. Nadir Khan became the Afghan king in 1929, mainly due to the effort of the tribes from Waziristan. Since Nadir Khan did not have money to pay the warriors, he allowed the Wazirs to loot Kabul for five days. This experience provided the Wazirs the opportunity to earn money from raiding Afghanistan and in 1933 they again attacked Matun in Khost. Britain finally used air power demolishing the houses of the attacking tribesmen to stop the incursion. Even Hitler in 1938, wanted to foment trouble in Waziristan by using his link with the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin Hussaini. The later sent a Syrian relative to create rebellion in Waziristan and to work for the restoration of the former king Amanullah. Britain had to use force and bribe to obtain the surrender of the Syrian, who was better known as the “Shami Pir” or Syrian Pir in Waziristan.

It is obvious that the Wazirs consider Afghanistan as their back yard; they have moved into Afghan territory at will in the past and feel no hesitation in going there now especially since they consider it their religious duty to fight a holy war for the removal of “foreigners”, from an Islamic land. It was for this reason that the prescient British tribal administrator, Caroe said, “Kabul will always need the good will of Pakistan to keep Wazir ebullience within bounds”. (409)[60]

There are certain localities around the world, which are difficult to govern since they resist control. Waziristan is one such region and has defied all attempts to control it. Britain in it’s hey day was the only super power in the 19^th century and it failed to stabilize Waziristan. The future does not provide any optimism whether Pakistan will succeed on this score. Interestingly, Waziristan has been at its most peaceful, when the army was not present as in 1947; when it was withdrawn due to manpower shortage in the war against India. Perhaps, there is food for thought in this observation.

The tribes in Waziristan have resisted control and pacification during most of their history. The reason for the failure of Britain to pacify Waziristan was due to the peculiar socio-cultural nature of the region. For lack of a better explanation, the genetic make up of the tribes makes them remarkably brave, fearless and revengeful (badal)[61]. We will examine briefly the milestones in the pacification policies, especially during the period 1936-47, so that some insights are gained for making policy recommendations.

When in 2004, Pakistan was persuaded by the US to act strongly in Waziristan the area had by then become a center of ‘Jihadi’ activity. Military operations were started and the tribes resisted it. There was severe loss of life on both sides. But the operation failed to evict the foreigners who had gathered in Waziristan. According to some estimates more than 500 soldiers lost their lives.

One other adverse consequence of the use of military in Waziristan has been the loss of authority of the chief civilian administrator, the political agent. The military did not anticipate this loss of control. The loss of administrative capacity snowballed and provided space to Taliban to become a parallel authority with its own taxation and administrative structure today.

Current Ground Situation

The world community has since the last couple of years focused its attention in finding reasons for decay of the state. It has led to the establishment of indicators, which can indicate state weakening. Carnegie Endowment and Foreign Policy have published a list of 12 indicators, which provide early warning of state failure. Out of the 12 indicators, Waziristan and parts of NWFP exhibit symptoms relating to the following indicators of state failure: mounting demographic pressure, legacy of group vengeance, economic decline, criminalization of the state, deterioration of public services, violation of human rights, a security apparatus which acts as a “state within a state, rise of fractured elites and intervention of other states”.[62]

The move of the Pakistan army into Waziristan was aimed to arrest the remnants of the Taliban. As a result 80,000 troops were ultimately deployed here. Since 2001 when the military first moved in it has immobilized civil institutions used for administering Waziristan and FATA. The military commander superceded the Governor NWFP, who under the Constitution of Pakistan is the President’s agent for the tribes, in policy matters. It was doubly unfortunate. The authority of the political agent[63] was compromised and at the same time the military did not understand the tribal dynamics, which can be used for finding a solution. The military would use guns rather than allow the diplomatic processes that a political agent normally uses to attain his objectives.

It may be noted that administration of tribes in FATA is based on an indirect method. The tribal elders act as middlemen for their tribes. Government policies are implemented through advocacy in face-to-face meetings, with the tribes. This advocacy becomes more ‘appealing’ when the message is sugar coated with patronage distributed by the political agent. A sizeable portion of the patronage was taken away from the political agents, when junior military functionaries either gave contracts for development works themselves or used army work teams for construction. The tribesmen simply stopped listening to the political agent. (Khan: 1)[64]

Another step taken by the military was to use military intelligence services in handling negotiations and persuading the Taliban instead of the political agent. Reportedly, not only large sums of money remain unaccounted but more serious is the fact that the political agent of South Waziristan for instance, was not even aware of such parleys. Secondly, Pakistan’s military intelligence system is influenced by its past Jihadist networks, which have favorites amongst the Afghans and tribesman, and may have compromised advise.

When the military began operations in South Waziristan in March 2004, the understanding was that it would lead to the surrender or eviction of the about 500 foreign Uzbek, Chechens and Arabs, who were the left overs from the destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. It was a poorly planned operation, which caused high military casualties in Angoor Adda, Azam Warsak, Kalusha and Shakai area; the Taliban executed government troops and staff of the political agent. Another, dimension was added, when some government soldiers who were non-Pukhtun, were executed. (ICG: 14)[65] It brought to the fore the ethnic dimension of the rebellion. In Afghanistan, the Pukhtun majority has been side lined by the Northern Alliance government of President Karzai; although a Pukhtun himself but marginalized within his own set up.

In South Waziristan, the tribal sentiment was further inflamed by the return of detainees of Guantanomo, who narrated tales of torture and insult to the Quran. The Islamists of Waziristan were incensed and motivated. They not only fought furiously but also began proselytizing to add to their strength. In the process, the system of administration collapsed, casualties were high. The stories of violence from the ham handed and uncoordinated operation travelled to North Waziristan, where more tribes promised support to the Taliban. The previous military operations and the Taliban sympathizers from North Waziristan who frequently cross the Durand line to harass the Coalition troops in Afghanistan radicalized this region further.

Pakistan apparently had underestimated the size of difficulty facing it. The military realized that it did not have the capacity to suppress the Islamists. Military morale plummeted and Pakistani authorities who would previously meet the tribes in their villages were now confined to the forts; traveling by road became unsafe. For senior officers travel by helicopter remained the only mode of physical movement both in South and North Waziristan.

The militarization of Waziristan led to weakening of political administration. The maliks, who were the middlemen, were being executed at will by the Islamists and continue to die even today. The Islamists executed Malik Faridullah, a former senator from tribal areas and a leading Ahmedzai Wazir. Knowledgeable tribesmen say that his assassination is linked to a matter of money promised to some of the ringleaders of the South Waziristan conflagration, which never reached them; a sum of $540,000 is reported to be involved. As matters spiraled out of control in late 2003, the military commander Lt Gen Safdar Hussein pushed for peace parleys with Islamists heading the Mujahidin Shura of South Waziristan through the JUI (F) leader, Maulana Fazlur Rehman.

On 24/04/04 the Shakai agreement was reached between the military and the militants of South Waziristan. It legitimized the pro-Taliban militants and demolished the civilian political system of administration. Secondly, the agreement left only two forces in the area. A bruised and demoralized military and a buoyant radical force and a weak political agent who was the key institution for political management, was by passed. He ceased to matter. The agreement had said that foreigners would surrender and be registered, after which they would be allowed to stay as guests of the tribe. Unfortunately, none was arrested by the tribe or surrendered to the political agent. In November 2004 some militant commanders of the South Waziristan shura surrendered to the authorities after receiving hefty payments, discussed earlier.

The situation on the ground today is tenuous. On paper, some militants have promised good behavior and non-support to Talibans; on the ground, forays by tribesmen into Afghanistan continue. The US has used a number of Predator missile attack against Shura leaders. Nek Mohammad was killed in one such attack in June 2004.

The use of independent U.S initiative is another major weakness in the strategy of containment and interdiction followed in Waziristan. On many occasions U.S Predators have struck targets right at the time that Pakistani authorities were seeking to end hostilities through negotiated settlement. This happened in Bajaur and in North Waziristan. The message coming out of this lack of coordination is that Pakistan is not sovereign in its area of operation. Any agreement reached between Pakistani authority and the Islamist does not extend to the U.S authorities, which continue to react based on their own judgment. Tribesmen indicate that agreements with Pakistani military or political authorities do not carry much weight. In some instances the Taliban shuras of South and North Waziristan have told their supporters that battles with the Pakistan army should be avoided and that the real enemy was the foreign forces in Afghanistan.

Analysts have deduced from this that perhaps the Pakistan military has a secret understanding with the Taliban. My discussions and observations point to a different conclusion. Historically, Waziristan has remained the most complex tribal security issue even for Britain to solve, when she was the supreme power in India. The nature of Waziristan calls for political handling supported by rare use of military force. Waziristan is comparatively better managed through “loaves” interspersed with adroit manipulation of tribal fissures, rather than using the military steam roller; if Britain failed to subdue Waziristan, surely the Pakistan military is not more capable.

There is reason to believe that military fiascos will continue to abound in Waziristan unless Pakistani capacity for the political handling of the tribal areas is recognized as the only long-term solution. It is also noted that on many occasion the Pakistani military is prodded into hasty operations to deflect the constant encore of U.S and NATO complaints that Pakistan is not doing enough or that it should do more. This is evidently not the solution. There is a need to examine the total lay out of the institutional capacities of all the state actors involved in Waziristan and avoidance of hasty agreements with the tribes. It is though recognized that enforceable agreements are the best way forward. (Aziz: 4)[66]

History Of Pacification In Waziristan

Waziristan was the faucet, which since 1947 has provided the military establishment with a steady dribble of Jihadists for achievement of its objectives in India and Afghanistan. The tribes of Waziristan amply met Pakistan’s security needs because they were natural fighters and had dealt with the military since the 1860s. The first time that the Britain entered the Mahsud country was in 1860 as punishment for their raid on Tank. Military expeditions and operations in Waziristan continued till Independence. Major operations took place in 1899-95, 1919-21, 1930, 1933 and 1937-40. An environmental historian will probably attribute the people’s toughness to the area’s isolation, lack of resources and strategic location between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which permits them to move from one jurisdiction to the other and thus difficult to control.

Both the countries have weak institutions and elites who are interested in short term returns leaving succeeding generations to rue their fate. The first time that the tribes of Waziristan were used by Pakistan was in 1947, during the Kashmir war with India. Pakistan did not have the military to deal with the crisis as has already been described. The Pakistan army contingents were withdrawn from Razmak and Wana to bolster the forces in Kashmir (Warren: 261)[67]. Incidentally, as soon as the army was withdrawn, violence disappeared from Waziristan.

Let us look at the policies followed in Waziristan. Henry Lawrence, the Lieut: Governor of Punjab in the middle of the 19^th Country dealt indirectly with Waziristan through middlemen and a policy described as the “Closed Border Policy”. The Khan of Tank handled the Mahsuds of Waziristan. This was a period of Wazir and Mahsud raids on the border districts of British India. The British retaliated by counter raids called expeditions, in which the tribes were punished by demolition of habitations and imposition of fines. From 1857-81 there were 26 expeditions to punish the tribes, some of them were in Waziristan (Caroe: 348)[68]

After the 2^nd Afghan war in 1878, a strategic committee was formed to plan what strategy was necessary if Russia intervened in Afghanistan. This committee recommended that India should push its border as much forward towards Afghanistan as possible. This made the presence of forces inside tribal area inevitable. In 1889, the policy was implemented when the British moved to Zhob in Baluchistan, later they quickly occupied Kurram, Waziristan, Chitral, Black Mountains of Hazara, the Malakand pass, Samana range in Kohat and Buner. By 1897, the whole of the Pathan area rose in revolt against the British (Warren: 28)[69]. This revolt was due to the forward push by Britain. It was obvious that the forward movement and location of troops within Pathan areas was seen as a prelude to an attack on the Pathan identity. The same feelings prevail today.

Lord Curzon became viceroy in 1898, and began his policy of containment. The army was withdrawn from Waziristan and two Pathan militia corps introduced. The Mahsuds continued to raid and army columns had to be sent to punish them in 1902 (32)[70]. Curzon’s formula failed in Waziristan and regular army had to be redeployed (34)[71]. However, in 1919 Waziristan was engulfed in a conflagration of a serious nature, which continued as a minor war from1920-1930 (54-59)[72]

After this policy of military pacification had been tried with mixed results, civil pacification was attempted and comparative peace was attained. The idea was to create income through road construction as well as to provide education and health cover in some parts. In the last years of the 1920’s, lashkars again cropped up, but were quickly suppressed by the military, which had been located at strategic points such as Razmak and Wana. It meant that the presence of military force was essential in Central Waziristan to interrupt the formation of hostile groups. To that extent the 1923 Waziristan policy was a limited success, though below the expectations of the NWFP Chief Commissioner, Ralph Griffith, who desired peaceful control up to the Durand Line (65)[73]. In 1936 another eruption leading to the revolt of the Faqir of Ipi against the British took place. The Faqir’s rebellion engulfed Waziristan and was a mixture of lashkar[74] and guerilla activity. However, by April 1939 matters had stabilized and Waziristan reverted to civilian control.

Waziristan policy always absorbed the attention of top Indian officials. They wanted to find an answer to the intricate puzzle of tribal control. Lord Linlithgow’s Report of 1939 divided the tribal area into two groups. For controlling Waziristan his recommendation was to maintain forces within it, otherwise insurrectionary feelings led to attacks on districts. For the remaining tribal areas he approved their control from outside the agencies. However, his Waziristan proposal demanded the presence of two army divisions. In Feb 1940, Lord Zetland the Secretary of State for India approved this expensive recommendation to avoid the loss of control in Waziristan as had occurred in 1897, 1919, 1930 and 1936. A permanent activity of gang warfare is an accepted fact of life in Waziristan (Warren: 248-249)[75], and a strong military component is needed which can be provided by the Scouts and some elements of the army mixed together.

World War II saw contradictory sentiments expressed when the Wazir and Mahsud contributed to the war effort of their enemy, the British against the Axis. The Mahsuds contributed enough for Britain to buy one fighter aircraft yet at the same time the Wazirs attacked Gurkhas for being non-Muslims! From Jan 1944, Britain maintained control over Waziristan and Faqir of IPI by the use of air force only (Warren: 257)[76]. There are obvious lessons in this for today’s administrators.

In 1945, another review of Frontier Policy was undertaken under the chairmanship of Maj. Gen Francis Tuker. The committee chair humorously remarked that the Axis had the cheapest concentration camp in Waziristan, where the allied service men were interned. The authorities both civil and military felt that they had the tribesmen in control, yet Tucker felt it was the tribes who had confined the forces within camps and forts (258)[77]. The Tucker committee recommended that the solution to the deadlock in Waziristan was a drastic reduction in the garrison by a counter balanced increase in the number of Scouts and improvement in their equipment.

In 1946, fever of independence also infected Waziristan. The rhetoric of the tribes began to take the colour of the dispute between Congress and the Muslim League. In Oct 1946, Nehru toured Waziristan. He was sniped in Razmak and his aircraft fired at, where ever he travelled. At Wana, the tribal spokesman demanded a Muslim state, Pakistan (259)[78]. In Sept. 1947, Pakistan withdrew its garrison from Waziristan, thus implementing the Tucker Committee recommendation by default, because Pakistan withdrew her troops to fill the shortage for soldiers created by the war in Kashmir, (261)[79]. Cunningham, who returned as Governor, NWFP on Jinnah’s request, had been a skeptic of pacifying Waziristan through the military. He concluded that occupation had been a failure. He was of the opinion that the occupation policy tied up too much manpower and also increased tribal aggression (261)[80]. He was so right in his assessment. But he did not give a solution how to prevent the formation of gangs in the Waziristan heartland.

Did the birth of a Muslim Pakistan influence positively the tribesmen of Waziristan? When the Tochi Scouts withdrew from Datta Khel in 1948, the Faqir of IPI sent a lashkar to occupy the site. Pakistan used its air force to disperse the tribes. The Faqir promptly joined the new ethnic movement for Pakhtunistan in 1950 and with Afghan assistance he became the first President of the Waziristan branch of the Pakhtunistan National Assembly. Matters since then have progressed with periodic hostilities involving the tribes and the government interspersed with periods of peace, which were much longer than in the British era, before 9/11.

Reasons For Insecurity

Experience has shown that when a new generation of tribal youth attains maturity, which in Waziristan happens around the ages of 30-35, the tribal status quo is disturbed, and there is violence within the tribe. The reason for it lies in the age-bulge. When enough of these youth have collected, there is fierce competition to excel either in tribal “Jirgas”[81] or to gain renown by confronting authority. When these episodic waves arise, the traditional leadership headed by the leading elder, like Malik Khandan, Madda Khel in North Waziristan in 1976 or of Malik Wali Khan, Kuki Khel in Khyber Agency in 1985, is forced to lead a youthful force against a myth creating opponent. The easiest way to create a myth (in Waziristan) is by attacking a superior and a more powerful enemy. In a honor based society, status is dependent upon bravery; a tribesman from Waziristan cannot achieve honor and respect unless he is thought brave or skillful in a recognised field. Influencing opinion in a Jirga is considered as a status symbol. If one becomes good in Jirga processes, it ensures honor and wealth for a person. So does bravery against an enemy.

There is a parallel here with the Red Indian tribes of North America who exhibit a similar need for acclaim in its youth. “Counting coup” was a system for grading special acts of bravery and war aggressiveness. It was an act, which consisted of a young Indian brave returning unharmed after touching an enemy with a “Counting coup” stick. The warrior who counted the most coups was in first place in an honor system and so on down the grading list. Each coup was narrated before the tribal council and eyewitnesses were interviewed to corroborate the deed. The warrior who had the most coups was considered to be the foremost man of his tribe and was given the most honor and the most lavish gifts. He also led the warriors. Through his prestige he could become rich and receive the hand of the fairest maiden. All this special treatment was meant to drive young warriors to greater aggressiveness in battle (Oracle: 2)[82].

In Waziristan, the social customs relating to bravery and recognition are no different from the ‘Counting coup’ tradition of the Red Indians. Some videos released by the Taliban of Waziristan show fighting groups of 8-10 men going into battle against U.S forces. The videos have scenes of skirmishes fought by youth who are barely 16 years old. What is evident is the sheer fun, which the fighters exude. As if they were on a college picnic or an initiation ceremony of a high-school fraternity. The strategic location of Waziristan next door to Afghanistan and the presence of an “aggressing” foreign force have multiplied the opportunities for a youth to gain honour.

Overlay the honor system with the religious icing of “Jihad”, which means exerting in a righteous cause and you have a highly volatile mixture prompting many of the young men to go to the battlefield and hope to win honor and respect. Those who stay behind are considered cowards and ostracised by their age group. The number of contestants grows in geometric proportion by the rhetoric of religion super imposed on a youthful audience. There is no shortage of religious teachers who provide rigorous arguments of sacrifice leading in case of death to heaven. As if this was not by itself a formidable combination, further super impose an Islamist organizing principle and we have a recipe for a permanent resistance, which will last as long as there are youthful participants available, and there is an ‘enemy’ like the US or NATO troops nearby in Afghanistan. It is therefore very likely that there will be continuous blood shed because the tribal customs and religious motivation generates the demand to confront the enemy.

Sir Denys Bray, the Indian Foreign Secretary was partly right, when he said in 1923, while speaking of civil pacification of Waziristan: “It is the inaccessibility of these mountains which breed more than they can feed, that lies at the root of the problem”, (Warren: 59)[83]. More than inaccessibility and high population are involved if Waziristan, if pacification has to succeed. It is a combination of social customs, Islamic tradition, lack of employment and an absence of well-rounded education, which makes the tribes of Waziristan such accomplished fighters and a fierce obstacle to anyone who wants to control them. The presence of an opportunity next door in Afghanistan in the form of foreign troops acts as a fuel for this fire.

The conclusion is that the introduction of the military into FATA in 2001 was a mistake. The need is for the normal system of control exercised by the political agents to be pursued for the control of the tribes. It is the only effective method. Use of force radicalizes the tribes more.

Additional support to political agents by providing reinforced scout units and better intelligence would have done the trick, leading to arrests of Al-Qaeda and maintenance of control through the tribes. Unfortunately, when the military moved into the political agent’s administrative space, two things happened. The political agent was disempowered, since the military commanders assumed the role of superior authority. Secondly no balanced advice was available to policy makers as the senior military commander occupied this space and excluded the political agent. The eclipse of the political agent was weakened the whole edifice of collective responsibility used for maintenance of control in tribal areas, when it was most needed. When the tribal system of control diminished, it created space for the religious right in FATA to coalesce into support for the Talibans. It was easy since, the ground was already fertile.

Other Issues In Waziristan

Taliban in Waziristan are on their way to primitive state formation. They have introduced a simple tax system, which is providing them resources to recruit a paid bureaucracy. They have also introduced a dispute resolution system based on Sharia and aspects of traditional (Riwaj).[84]

Information avilable from North Waziristan indicates the following system in vogue. It has been indicated that a similar system is in operation in South Waziristan. According to the informants, taxes are collected from the following assets: houses, cars, buses, trucks, petrol pumps, shops, water mills, dispensaries etc. Anyone who has a dispute can deposit a fixed sum of money in the Taliban office. Notices are served, adjudicators are appointed as a Jirga; they give decisions, which are stamped by the local Taliban head and enforced. The Taliban have vehicles and paid security personnel to ensure law and order. They check the roads and ensure order. But things are not as rosy. Most of those who work for the Taliban receive a monthly salary ranging from Rs. 3000 to Rs. 15000 per month. It has been reported that the Taliban organization has also been penetrated by criminal elements. There have been reports of dacoities, kidnapping and murder in the Daur valley of North Waziristan. It may also be underlined that there is no uniformity of jurisdiction; respective religious or Jihadi strong men have created their own groups and jurisdictions. A warlordism pattern has come about in Waziristan.

On the 20^th of January, as a result of missile strike on Baitullah Mahsud’s camp at Zamazolla a few days earlier, he descended into North Waziristan with about 30 men including Uzbeks. This created a crisis. Baitullah is a Mahsud of South Waziristan and his arrival in Mirali in North Waziristan was not tribally correct, when Baitullah announced that he wished to take revenge from the government by attacking its installations in that area. A Mirali, Turi Khel tribesman, Alim Khan warned Baitullah to refrain and that if he was such a strong man he should take his revenge in his own South Waziristan. The cold reception forced Baitullah to go back from Mirali. It may also be noted that an autonomous and un-orchestrated momentum is gathering force in South Waziristan not to take up hostilities with the government. As a result since late 2004 no large scale tribal attack has occurred against government outposts.

It has been stated by many informants that the killing of the Peshawar police chief along with fourteen other police officers a couple of weeks ago was the work of an Uzbek suicide bomber, who came from Baitullah’s group and had association with an Egyptian Arab known as Abu Nasir, who leads the Uzbeks in South Waziristan. In Mirali another foreigner is the Iraqi Abu Akash who has his own gang operating independently of tribal support, except his hosts in Mirali, who use this group to generate incomes from criminal activities.

Another worrying aspect is the lack of students in government schools. For example in government high school Datta Khel in North Waziristan the total number of students is 96 as compared with more than 200 students in the Datta Khel madrassa. Interestingly, another nearby madrassa in Datta Khel, which teaches English and computer science the number of students, is about 600. One reason for the poor attendance in government schools is the fee of Rs. 100 per month charged as compared with free education in madrassas and Rs. 50 per month in community schools.

Government’s propaganda and advocacy suffers because of poor radio coverage and low standard of programmes broadcast. In North Waziristan, the majority of people listen to the BBC, Khost Radio, VOA and All India Radio. Waziristan is a highly bigoted and closed society; so closed that human bombers before departing are given small chits of paper prescribed by the “Qalima” in Arabic as a recommendation from the learned mullah for entering heaven. Obviously, well planned religiously oriented programmes can go a long way in changing attitudes.

Some local FM stations have been installed in Miramshah, Razmak, Wana and other sites in Waziristan. Unfortunately, the locals who do the talk shows cannot speak against the Taliban. If powerful repeaters are placed in Waziristan and good programmes broadcast from Peshawar or Islamabad, there is a greater likelihood of success. Secondly, the extension of an efficient mobile phone network would really assist. It will increase security. Secondly steps need to be taken to provide broadband IT links to open up the minds and assist in ending isolation. Thirdly, the government for some reason avoids the extension of the Political Parties Act to tribal areas. It has created a political cartel for the JUI (F), which is the only party allowed to operate. It has won almost all the legislative seats from Waziristan. By permitting other political parties to operate will open the dynamics of tribal rivalry, which can only diffuse the strength of the Islamists. In case Pakistan fails to do so, this indifference will lend more credence to the charge that the MMA Islamic alliance is actually President Musharraf’s ‘B’ team.

Demographic trends from the 1998 household survey show that the size of an average household in Waziristan is 8.6 persons. International experience shows that youth require employment and status. Normally, employment normally creates status. However, the rate of unemployment in Waziristan will not be less than 40% of the employable labour force. The Pakistan Labour Force Survey defines employable labour as between the ages of 10 years and 60 years old who wish to work. Waziristan has a population growth rate of 2.3% per annum. Recent projections show that there are 80,000 males in the age bracket of 18-25 years who seek employment. International research in conflict ridden societies show, that one in every sixth household is radicalized in a conflict zone such as Sierra Leone or Uganda. If the same yardstick is applied, we need to provide 13,000 Jobs in Waziristan to turn the tide of jobless vying for employment in the ranks of Taliban for Rs. 15,000 a month (Kfir: 4)[85]. Job creation through skill development and vocational training is the immediate need for defeating the insurgency.

It is good to note that President Musharraf has also identified some of the problems faced by the people in his TV address of 3^rd Feb 2007, (Musharraf)[86] yet much remains to be done if the initiative has to be wrested from those who are turning Waziristan into desolation and thereby damaging Pakistan. If the present trend continues, can one be faulted for predicting the rise of a Hamas like organization in Waziristan? Dynamics of tribal society preclude such a formation but the possibility must not be ignored.

A test of sovereignty of a state is its monopoly over the use of legitimate coercion within its territory and also to be free of threats from other states in pursuing its strategy (Bobbitt: 336)[87]. Pakistan today fails in both these tests. Its monopoly over the use of coercion for the execution of its laws is tested in Waziristan, on the contrary the Talibans, are administering large swathes of territory. The army is challenged and the situation becomes worse with the support that is provided by local tribesmen to the Afghan Talibans fighting the U.S and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Recommendations For Solution Of The Waziristan Crisis

This report has reviewed comprehensively the reasons for the rebellion in Waziristan. These reasons can be classified into four broad categories. Firstly, it is evident from this research that owing to weak capacity in security, reliance was placed on using proxy warriors from Waziristan. It trained persons who now possess the skill to confront the military. This has weakened the state. It was a wrong policy and should have been scuttled, when capacity had developed in the military. In this connection the state must stop the training and arming of all groups, irrespective of factors like Kashmir. What good is possession of Kashmir when in the process Pakistan is harmed irreparably?

Pakistani reliance on religiously motivated groups in Afghanistan from 1978-2001 was wrong; instead burden should have been placed on the traditional Afghan society to defeat the Soviets, exactly as it was done for the replacement of King Amanullah by Nadir Khan in 1929; of the 23 uprisings, which arose spontaneously on the arrival of the Soviets in Afghanistan in 1978, 18 were started by traditional leadership and only 5 were begun by Islamists. Hizb leadership, which became the spearhead of the ISI supported Jihad had preached Hijrat (emigration from an area controlled by unbelievers), instead of resistance, (Rubin B: 186-187)[88]. Had traditionalists been supported, we would have avoided the international radicalization of Islam; it would have prevented the rise of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the Taliban and perhaps stopped 9/11; what a heavy price has been paid for this lapse in judgment.

Creon, the king of Thebes in Sophocles play Antigone, punishes his nephew, Polynices after the later’s death by prohibiting his burial according to Theban religion. The prohibition sets in motion events, which ultimately destroy King Creon. The play at one level shows how a lack of judgment can cause chaos and destruction. Pakistan and the world are now paying the price of that misjudgment by not creating a broad based government in Afghanistan after 1992, although there were many opportunities.

A connected conclusion that follows is that foreign assistance to the Pakistan military has made them autonomous from the national society. Instead, the security apparatus has become an adjunct of other countries. By doing so the military has lost autonomy in decision making in security matters. In the absence of true democracy it becomes difficult to keep sovereignty intact. This has made the process of achieving peace through tribal agreements in Waziristan an uphill task. Secondly, the extensive use of military in Waziristan has radicalized the tribes and provided space to the Islamists to dominate many southern districts. Their movement is gradually extending into Punjab. The use of suicide bombers will hurt development and foreign investment in Pakistan.

The US officials are projecting a spring offensive by a revived Taliban in Afghanistan. There are 150,000 U.S, Afghan, NATO and Pakistani troops confronting the Taliban. The stage is thus apparently set for a bloody fighting in the next few weeks. What is remarkable is the resilience and strength of the Talibans. They obviously have the peoples’ support to exist and grow under such conditions.

It is now pretty obvious that Pakistan after having failed to subdue the Taliban in Waziristan, after fighting them for more than two years, has now realized that the approach to contain them must change. The pressure for this shift to my mind has come from the dynamics unfolding within the military rather than the demands of strategy. Many have begun to question the wisdom of Pakistan’s security policy handling. More than five hundred soldiers have been killed and many others injured. A much larger number of tribesmen have perished under the euphemistic definition of “collateral” deaths. Serious problem of discipline have eroded the morale within the military. The Taliban of Waziristan has expanded their range of operation and is coordinating with other terrorist organizations. They have now begun their activities in Punjab. With all this violence can business confidence remain? Unfortunately the answer is no. It is now clear that the existing approach needs revision.

Another aspect of the presence of the military in Waziristan has been the weakening of the political agent. Because the military uses force, no space is left for the political agent to exercise tribal dynamics. The only language that is used is that of force. This can only lead to escalation of violence. In this context it may be noted that the use of intelligence services in tribal negotiations weaken the political agent and rebounds on government. It is thus clear that the military approach is not a solution. It is only a short-term measure; therefore the recommendations emerging from this set of issues are the following;

1. There should be no interaction of the administration and military with the Islamist. Only intelligence operations should be undertaken and through the political agent.

2. The Scouts should be strengthened and provided with heliborne capacity till this problem is controlled.

3.The army should be concentrated in Wana, Razmak and Mirali.

4.The administrative layers of assistant commissioner, deputy commissioner and commissioner need to be revived. They will have no dealings with local government, which will continue to remain with Nazims. Their role will be to coordinate against insurgency by mobilizing civil society. The administrative tier will coordinate with the police functionaries. It will shift the reliance from intelligence counter measures to policing. This will force the state to deal with the insurgency through law.

5.The Coalition should not take any unilateral action in Waziristan. Actions should be sourced through the political agent.

6. Waziristan tribes feel that their identity is at stake. It is crucial if peace is to return that the Afghan army takes over duties from Coalition forces opposite the Waziristan boundary. In the long run, foreign forces should not remain in Afghanistan, because the invite resistance.

7.Traditional forces of society destroyed by years of neglect need to be re-constructed for stability. It is an uphill task but must be undertaken.

8. Drugs and warlords are a de-stabilizing factor and must be eradicated, if Afghanistan is to stabilize.

9. Capacity building of district police and Frontier Constabulary must be accelerated to reverse the poor security situation in southern NWFP. All Frontier Constabulary platoons, which are in other provinces, must be returned to NWFP forthwith.

10. An informal council of religious elders should be instituted for guidance of the Governor and the political authorities. This used to be normal practice in the past.

The second broad category of proposals relate to dealing with unemployment. A massive programme of skill development, which will compete with Taliban generated employment, should be launched. It is projected that there are about 80,000 male unemployed youth in the age group 18-25 years old. Assuming that 1 in 6 households in Waziristan support the Taliban, then we would need to create 13,000 jobs immediately. A proposal in this behalf is on the table with the government (RIPORT)[89], it should be implemented. It is a huge task but must be undertaken, if Pakistan is serious about finding solutions in Waziristan.

The third category of proposals, deal with the use of political dynamics to pry open the lid over electoral politics in Waziristan and FATA. In this connection the Political Parties Act should be amended and tribal areas opened to all political parties. This will generate internal tribal dynamics and bring into play balancing forces. Its effect can only be beneficial. Simultaneously, the local councilors be given greater powers. They are presently councilors on paper.

The fourth set of recommendations relate to development. It is proposed that isolation must be battled on many fronts. In addition to construction of roads and opening up tribal areas to more economic penetration through exploitation of its mineral and other resources, the government should spread broad band internet and cellular telephone network in FATA. It will defeat isolation far more rapidly and with lesser costs than road and security networks.

There is a comprehensive development strategy being planned for FATA, which includes Waziristan. Innovative steps like creating task forces and working groups should be undertaken to reduce incubation time for policy and programme formulation.

Waziristan suffers from weak capacity in official manpower. Plans need to be made to build capacity. The emasculation of the district service cadre through local bodies’ reform created this unintended consequence. It will be difficult to find good political officers in the future, after the old trained hands retire. However, in case it is decided to revive the assistant and deputy commissioners as proposed above, then this capacity draw down could be reversed.

It is proposed that a middle level tier of regional administrators supervising the political agent should be made available at the field level. Such a senior officer could also coordinate matters between districts and tribal areas. It will be the duty of the regional coordinator to curb the expansion of lawlessness in southern NWFP and a similar resurgence, which is beginning to take shape in Swat and Malakand.

It is clear that dealing with the population through a genuine democratic process has much greater chances of strengthening Pakistan. The time has come to monitor the indicators relating to state survival and discussed in this report. One of the justifications for a military government has always been its claim to provide law and order. Since this is no longer the case, the time has come to consider other options.

The Afghan army must be rebuilt quickly and the government in Kabul must make efforts for a meaningful engagement with its Pukhtun population. The force facing Waziristan should comprise only of the Afghan army.

There is a lot of truth in what the Fakir of IPI said in his twilight years, when asked whether his long Jihad against the British was fought for religion or freedom? After pondering for a moment he stated that his struggle was for freedom rather than religion (Warren: 264)[90]. This is a hopeful message for those, who wish to get their act of nation building and international peace together. There is yet hope.

Notes & References

[1] Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

[2] Rashid, Ahmed. “TALIBAN: Islam, oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia”, I.B. TAURIS, London, 2000.

[3] Creveld, Van Martin. “ON FUTURE WAR”, Brassey’s, London, 1991

[4] This doctrine states that those who live in areas controlled by government and assist non Muslims should be treated under the laws of “futhat”, (conquest), including execution of adult males who resist and enslavement of women and children. Islamists define the people of Pakistan in this category because of its support to the U.S

[5] Rubin, Elizabeth. “In the Land of the Taliban”, New York Times, Oct 22^nd 2006.

[6] Grare, Frederic. “Pakistan: The Myth of an Islamic Peril”, Policy Brief no 45 Feb 2006, Carnegie Endowment, Washington.

[7] ICG. “PAKISTAN’S TRIBAL AREAS: APPEASING THE MILITANTS”, Asia Report 125, 11^th Dec, 2006, www.crisisgroup.org

[8] “Nato Secretary General’s warning to Pakistan to stop militants”, The News, Islamabad, 18^th Jan, 2007, P.1.

[9] Shahzad, Syed Saleem. “Talibans’ call for jihad answered in Pakistan”, Asia Times. http:// www.atimes.com, 1^st Feb, 2007.

[10] Pai, Nitin. “THE CLASH OF CONVICTIONS AND THE REMAKING OF THE WORLD OF WARS”, http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/009279.php, 11^th Dec, 2006.

[11] Behan, W. Richard. “From Afghanistan to Iraq: Connecting the Dots with Oil.” Editorial. Truthout http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020707P.shtml, 5^th Feb, 2007.

[12] Sarila, Singh Narendra. “Creation of Pakistan”. The Times of India. New Delhi, 17^th March 2000, P. 1,

[13] Ibid(12)

[14] Ibid (12)

[15] Munir, Muhammad. “FROM JINNAH TO ZIA”, Vangaurd, Lahore, 1980

[16] Jalal, Ayesha. “THE STATE OF MARTIAL RULE”, Sang-e-Meel, Lahore, 1999,

[17] Burke and Ziring Lawrence. “Pakistan’s Foreign Policy: An Historical Analysis”. Oxford, Karachi, 1973.

[18] Ibid (17)

[19] Khattak, Mohammad Aslam. “A PATHAN ODYSSEY”, Oxford, Karachi, 2005

[20] Gauhar, Altaf. “Ayub Khan: Pakistan’s First Military Ruler”, Oxford, Karachi, 1996.

[21] Ibid (17)

[22] Ibid (16)

[23] Ibid (16)

[24] Ibid (17)

[25] Saleem, Farrukh Dr. “U.S aid and our GDP growth”, The News, Islamabad, 16^th July, 2006, P. 4

[26] Rubin, Barnett. “The Fragmentation of Afghanistan”, Oxford, Karachi, 2003.

[27] Ibid (16)

[28] Bobbit, Philip. “The Shield of Achilles,” Penguin, London, 2002

[29] Shahzad, Syed Saleem. “Cracking open Pakistan’s jihadi core”, Asia Times. http://www.atimes.com/, 12^th Oct, 2004

[30] Naqvi, M.B. “Maulana Says it”, “The News”, Islamabad, 27^th Dec, 2006, P.4

[31] Ibid (16)

[32] Coll, Steve; “Ghost Wars, the Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and bin Laden”, London, 2004.

[33] Ibid (2)

[34] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php=United_Jihad_Council

[35] Abbas, Ali: “Shias have become a victim of Pakistan’s foreign policy”, http://www.shianews.com/hi/reports/politics/0000108.php, 8^th July 2001.

[36] Musharraf, Pervez. “IN THE LINE OF FIRE: A Memoir”, Simon & Schuster, London, 2006

[37] Baabar, Mariana. “Boucher fends off spy chief bouncer”, The News, Islamabad, 13^th Jan, 2007, P.1

[38] “London’s embarrassment & Pakistan’s ISI,” Editorial. “Daily Times, Lahore, 30^th Sept 2006, P.6”

[39] Cloud, S. David. “U.S Says Attacks Are Surging in Afghanistan”, The New York Times. at http://www.truthout.org.docs, Jan 16, 2006.

[40] Personal knowledge gained while Commissioner in the 1980’s

[41] Ibid (2)

[42] Ibid (2)

[43] Ibid (26)

[44] Ibid (26)

[45] Ibid (2)

[46] Ibid (2)

[47] Ibid (31)

[48] Ibid (2)

[49] Ibid (6)

[50] Sattar, Abdul. “Pakistan’s Foreign Policy 1947-2005, A Concise History”, Oxford, Karachi, 2007.

[51] Ibid (50)

[52] Babar, Nasirullah, “Interview with Gen. Babar”, The News on Sunday, Islamabad, 18^th Feb. 2007, P.IV

[53] Ibid (7)

[54] Mariana Baabar, “Boucher fends off spy chief bouncer”, The News, Islamabad, 13^th Jan. 2007 P.1

[55] “Nato warning to Pakistan”, The News Islamabad, 18^th Jan 2007, P.1

[56] Ibid (39)

[57] “US allegations of abetting Taliban preposterous: Musharraf”, The News, 25^th Jan 2007.

[58] Warren, Alan. “Waziristan:The Faqir of Ipi and the Indian Army”, Oxford, Karachi, 2000.

[59] Caroe, Olaf. “The Pathans 550 B.C.-A.D. 1957” Oxford, Karachi, 1975.

[60] Ibid (59)

[61] Means revenge.

[62] “2006 Failed State Index” http://www.fundforpeace.org/prorams/fsi/fsindex206.php

[63] The principal civilian head of one of the tribal agency, within FATA.

[64] Khan, Aamer Ahmed, “Pakistan fights its own Taliban,” BBC News, http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/world/southasia/4779476.stm, 6^th March, 2006

[65] Ibid (7) (P.14)

[66] Aziz, Khalid. “Return of the Taliban”, The Friday Times 6^th– 12^th Oct, 2006, Lahore, P.4

[67] Ibid (58)

[68] Ibid (59)

[69] Ibid (58)

[70] Ibid (58)

[71] Ibid (58)

[72] Ibid (58)

[73] Ibid (58)

[74] A tribal warring party.

[75] Ibid (58)

[76] Ibid (58)

[77] Ibid (58)

[78] Ibid (58)

[79] Ibid (58)

[80] Ibid (58)

[81] A recognised forum for tribal problem resolution.

[82] Oracle. “Counting coup”, http://troop212.cary.nc.us/coup.wwcoup.html, 13^th Feb, 2007.

[83] Ibid (58)

[84] Means Pushtun customary law, which is separate from Sharia law of Islam in many respects.

[85] Kfir, Isaac. “THE PARADOX THAT IS PAKISTAN: BOTH ALLY AND ENEMY OF TERRORISM.” The Middle East Review of International Affairs, vol 10 no:1 report 6, Herzliya, March 2005.

[86] Musharraf. “Thus spake General Musharraf”, The Daily Times, 4^th Feb, 2007 Lahore, P.6

[87] Ibid (28)

[88] Ibid (26)

[89] RIPORT. “Employment Generation in Waziristan through Skill Development”, Peshawar, Feb, 2007.

[90] Ibid (58)

CQ Politics Election Index

Sunday, January 25, 2009

REBELLION IN WAZIRISTAN: Part II: Analysis Detail and Documentation

Table of Contents

CAUSES OF REBELLION IN WAZIRISTAN

CAUSES OF REBELLION IN WAZIRISTAN

Notes & References

No comments:

Post a Comment

Sign The Petition

One Tough Democrat