AFP Image
According to news agencies, about 130 relatives (25 families) of suspected Taliban militants have been expelled from their homes in Swat Valley and are currently “living in a camp guarded by the military.”
Here’s the interesting part – the families were not “banished” by the Pakistani military. They were ordered to leave by Swat’s local jirga (council) “because their relatives failed to surrender” to security forces, reported the AFP on Tuesday. Colonel Akhtar Abbas, an army spokesman in Swat, told reporters, “A jirga expelled these people because there is a fear that they are still providing support to the militants and targeted killings started in the area.”
According to BBC News, “The military has put them up at a camp previously used by Afghan refugees in the Malakand area.” After guards at the camp reportedly stopped reporters from talking to people there, Col. Abbas told the BBC, “We are not hiding anything, we will take media persons to the camp when the time is right.” Although Abbas said the Army is providing these families “food, drinks, and other necessities,” news agencies noted there are “unconfirmed reports that people in the camp have had their mobile phones taken away.”
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan have condemned this development, claiming it was unlawful to expel militants’ families. The organization asked the government to take action against the tribal council, telling reporters, “We are against the law of collective responsibility. If someone becomes a militant, his family should not be punished. No lashkar (local militia) or tribal council has the authority to expel or punish anyone and the government should take action against it.” HRCP, in the statement, added, “If anyone is suspected of wrongdoing, he or she can be kept under observation in their own areas as well.”
This situation is interesting because it delves into issues of collective responsibility and guilt by association. In Israel, for example, the country’s military (IDF) has used a house demolition policy since 1967, ultimately destroying Palestinian homes “to deter Palestinians from acting against Israel and its citizens.” According to the organization Diakonia, “[I]t appears that the main motivation behind these demolitions, referred to as punitive demolitions, is to punish the Palestinian society for acts committed against Israelis. The demolished homes belong to families of Palestinians that have either carried out or are suspected of having carried out violent actions against Israelis.” Such actions are essentially in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states, “No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed, and ‘collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.’”
In the case of the Swati families with alleged associations to Taliban militants, here are some interesting questions:
- Should the expulsion of 130 individuals from Swat Valley to a military-administered camp be considered collective punishment, if all families refused to surrender their Taliban-linked relatives? Is this action then ultimately a violation of international law?
- Even if the families didn’t give up their relatives, should they be banished to refugee camps and made IDPs? Or could the situation have been handled without this expulsion?
- Now that they are in these camps, how long are they expected to stay there? Will they be welcome to return home in the long-term?
The development raises important questions that should be asked in an asymmetric war where the lines between good and bad are more blurred than polarized. Moreover, given Pakistan’s still-pertinent IDP (Internally Displaced Persons) situation, it seems problematic to actively add more people to camps, seemingly without a strategy to return them home. Although many IDPs have since returned to Swat since last year, numbers of people in the country continue to be displaced due to military operations. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated last month that there are roughly 1.24 million IDPs in Pakistan, (The recent landslide in Hunza has displaced more people, and about 1300 people are currently housed in a camp in Altit village).
For the now displaced relatives, the ramifications of this perceived collective punishment should also be taken into consideration. Such actions are certain to fuel more discontent among these populations, which is problematic. Moreover, although the military has said the decision was made at the hands of the local jirga, it is likely they at least had some influence in that policy. Ali Dayan Hasan, the South Asia researcher with the NY-based Human Rights Watch, told me that there has been “a pattern of abuse by local jirgas and militias at the request of the military,” a phenomenon HRW has been tracking in Swat Valley. He added, “The state authority should ensure that these people can return to their homes in safety and remain secure upon return.”
I wonder though whether the damage has already been done.
(Many thanks to Gregg for background help on Israel’s house demolition policy!)
I belong to Swat and for all I know, during the peak of Taliban, their families fully supported them.
One of the commanders, who used to slaughter people and is now hiding, his wife was heard saying that : she’ll pass bullets to her husband if he is in a war.
Point being, nobody is unhappy that this happened to them. The atrocities that others suffered because some people decided to make a government of their own and their families helping them can’t just be laid aside.
Thanks for your perspective USL. I can imagine that, being from Swat, u have a pretty deep insight of what’s going on on the ground.
My question relates specifically though to the issue of collective punishment – I am sure a number of families are related to militants, I’ve read accounts where some families will be related to both someone in the Frontier Corps and someone who joined the Taliban – the situation is so blurred and complex. So the questions that remain are 1) Should ALL those families be held collectively responsible for the actions of their family members? and 2) What about the families among those numbers that ARE innocent?
The problem with blanket policy is that it doesn’t take into consideration the nuances of this issue. More importantly, was putting them in IDP camps the only solution?
I’m leaving those questions open-ended because I can see both sides of the situation.
1. All of them should be held responsible. They had control over their family members, no? They let it happen and propagated the nuisance further. Most of them enrolled other family members in the taliban after one person joined.
2. As far as I know, those Taliban who have surrendered, there families are still living there. So it’s only the ones that are hiding. Is there any other way to capture them?
All in all, it was a collective crime and it should meet a collective punishment. Or at least, that’s what I think, after all that happened.
Oh and do you think they don’t know where their relatives are?
Some people around our house went to Khi to beg their son. The Army was looking for him. They asked him to surrender. When they were bringing him back, he ran away from the station.
When they got back, they were ordered to leave to the camp. It serves them right.
[...] Pakistani military. They were ordered to leave by Swat’s local […] Read more at: CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan abbas, afghan refugees, army spokesman, collective responsibility, food drinks, guilt by [...]
I can understand military and Jriga’s knee jerk reaction for what they have been through at the hands of taliban. It is going to take a macho courage to filter good IDPs from bad ones. I wonder if its better for those families to live seperately otherwise they might be subject to hatred and abuse by other swatis. You can well judge it by USL’s comments
I am not from Swat nor am a human rights expert, hence my comment may not amount to anything, but just wanted to say great analysis and good questions!
@ Kalsoom, The news comes as shock; it is a common practice in Pakistan to apprehend the family of the criminal if you cannot get hold of him! This abuse of power and it defies the basic rights of the citizens. While as one your readers has commented that the families of militants in Sawat have supported them at the time of their peak but this support can be held accountable, make laws which prohibits to harboring terrorists and then hold them accountable. Segregating them into camps brings back the memories of holocaust. By the virtue of this every family has a “nutcase” so we are going to put all the members in segregated camp? Also who gave the jirga the right to do so?
I think your last question is particularly pertinent – one would assume the local jirgas are made up of tribal leaders, though USL may have more insight. It is interesting though that both HRCP and HRW have been tracking the abuses of jirgas and local militias to collectively punish people. I do see USL’s point above, but I do think it’s problematic if there are people who are innocent involved.
hay, its relay nice column
To be honest, I’m not surprised by their move.
We as a society tend to punish the people associated with the guilty party. For example if a woman is accused (rightly/wrongly) of adultery, she has shamed the entire family…Her father, brother, sister, etc are shunned by society unless they pay in some way or the other. Hence, we need to change the thought process, otherwise we are in danger of worsening the condition more. These families may have individuals who don’t support their relatives, however the treatment they receive from their community might result them to approach the radical side.
USL maybe these people were helping their families, but guilty without proof or based on hearsay is not a good step forward. A more appropriate way to deal with it would be to tackle each family one by one and based on solid proof, charge the family members (if they are found guilty)
Moreover, just shunning their family and sending them to IDP camps is not resolving the issue as a whole. Swat jirga is indicating that we don’t want to deal with them, someone else can deal with them.
We need to remember, we are ONE country and we need to address issues collectively–not ignore them, or let some other person/authority deal with/resolve them.
I agree – good points Bilquis!
I disagree with this totally. Just because someone’s son is involved with terrorists doesn’t means he is supported by his father or family for that matter. You cannot deprive someone of his basic rights based on his associations.
Though it would be a right move by the Jirga and security forces to bring normalcy in the volatile valley of Swat but it would also be better to use the relatives of Taliban for tracing the Taliban rather to make them captive in a camp. This act is not only against the fundamental rights and also received criticism from the society rather to praise.