Daily Times

Habeas corpus is a Medieval Latin term that means the court demands that the detainee be brought before the judge. In the UK, it became law in 1679, under the reign of King Charles II. This 27th of May marked its 340th anniversary. The intent is to determine whether the custodian has a lawful authority to detain the prisoner and ensure that no one is held in custody unlawfully. Winston Churchill described it as “the difference between civilisation and tyranny.”

Every subject is endowed with an inalienable right of the preservation of life, liberty and property. Habeas corpus suggests it is the primary right of every individual to resist all authority that crosses this boundary of fundamental rights.

“The state is for man and not man for the state.”

The law of habeas corpus is governed in Pakistan by Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The unfortunate incident at the Kharqamar check post in Boya, North Waziristan, has sparked a discussion about the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement. Without going into details of the incident, of which much is redacted, the pressing need of the hour is to address the issues facing the region. These have been broached time and again by the PTM. One of the principal issues is linked to the habeas corpus law. I find it quite absurd that a demand to uphold the law of the land is being smeared ad nauseam with illegitimacy on mass media.

Eight students of Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, founded the movement in 2014, as an initiative for removing landmines from Waziristan. Pakistan military blames the Taliban for planting these improvised explosive devices in the area and officially recognises it as a treacherous and dicey issue. Since the de-escalation of conflict, the military has declared safe zones for civilians to return to. But according to an Al-Jazeera report, casualties have continued due to these undiscriminating explosives, even in safe zones. Global figures suggest that whenever landmines are used in a conflict, 80 per cent of the casualties are civilians. Children are the most affected age group. No further argument is needed in support this demand,. Further efforts are definitely needed to clear the area.

“Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth tiny ripples of hope, crossing each other from a mission of different centres of energy and daring, and those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.”

Then there is the issue of collective punishment, in what used to be Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The practice was permitted under the Frontier Crimes Regulation, a set of colonial laws enacted in the 19th century by the British Empire to manage the Tribal Areas. It is a form of retaliation where the entire sect, tribe or village linked to the suspected perpetrator, is scalped. In the current conflict, this issue first came to light when during Operation Zalzala on May 20, 2008, Pakistan Army bulldozers and explosives, turned Spinkai’s village bazaar into a mile long pile of rubble, as collective punishment against the village for harbouring the Taliban and allowing the militants to operate in and from the village. The military justified its actions under the FRC. The PTM asked for the practice of collective punishment to be abolished. Without going into details of other incidents or justifications, this was a righteous and just appeal, both legally and morally. Historically, collective punishments have resulted in the most infamous atrocities against innocent civilians. They are a violation of the Geneva Conventions, which outlawed the practice in 1949. Morally, it is the same as blaming a whole race for crimes of a few. It mushrooms hatred, bigotry and racism. This was followed by the laudable repeal of FCR by then President Mamnoon Hussain on May 28, 2018, only to be replaced by a FATA Interim Governance Regulations, necessitating the need for a long-term solution.

ThePTM, formed in 2014, gained prominence in January 2018, after the death of young Naqeebullah Mehsud in a said fake encounter, staged by police officer Rao Anwar. The incident sparked fury and outrage, not only in the Mehsud tribe, but also among the Pashtun communities elsewhere. Their voices rhymed with the movement’s demand for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to be formed for an investigation into all extra-judicial murders and missing persons. This demand was echoed by a multitude of activists in the social and political sectors.

The demand for the formation of the commission is likely the least tolerable to the establishment. Over the last few decades, numerous such commissions have been formed, in regions troubled by conflict across the globe. The first truth commissions, though under a different name, were formed in Latin America, aimed to unearth the human rights violations under military regimes. More were formed over the years in Bolivia (1982), Uganda (1986), Argentina (1983), Nepal (1990), El Salvador (1992), Guatemala (1994), Germany (1992), Congo, Sierra Leone (2003), Chile (2003), Canada (2008) for an inquiry into the disappearance of persons and conflict-related humanitarian crisis. A well-known commission in South Africa was formed in 1995 in the aftermath of apartheid. To any sound mind, forming a Truth and Reconciliation Commission comprising civil judicial authority, with parliamentary oversight, comes as a fine idea. Executing such a plan in Pakistan may prove to be a bit onerous, as the concept of a security agency presenting its case in front of a civilian court or commission is inconceivable. So what is there to be done?

These differences can only be sorted out through dialogue. I fail to understand the role or entire lack of it, of our politicians and members of parliament in this matter. Are they not the ones supposed to facilitate dialogues? Instead, the issue is being ‘solved’ by force and propaganda. While the legislators are lacking, the role of mainstream media, with a few exceptions, has been utterly pathetic.

A common accusation against the PTM leaders is that of being supported by foreign funding. If you ever get a chance to see a gathering organised by the PTM, though it may be arduous due to the unbiased and impartial media coverage, you may find up to 50,000 odd Joe Bloggs. The reason for public support of such scale is that they can relate to people like Manzoor Pashteen, the man who first entered the list of internally displaced people in 2004, at the age of nine, when military operation first started in Waziristan. Like him, thousands have been displaced several times and many have gone missing. The common Pashtun at these gatherings can relate to these issues. “It is our suffering that brings us together. It is not love. Love does not obey the mind and turns to hate when forced. The bond that binds us is beyond choice. We are brothers. We are brothers in what we share. In pain which each of us must suffer alone, in hunger, in poverty, in hope, we know our brotherhood.”

It would be naïve to think that innocent lives were not lost in a decade-long war. According to the figures released by Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, based in Geneva, Switzerland, since 2009, approximately 5.2 million people have been displaced due to the conflict in Pakistan’s northern areas. Grievances that follow are a natural outcome. These must be addressed and not brushed under the carpet with the label of collateral damage. Allegations of treason, against anyone who raises these issues, accomplish nothing more than alienating a whole community and creating division. Such divisions have led to regrettable consequences in the past. We should need no reminders, but unfortunately, we seem to be repeating the same mistakes.

In the words of John Donne,

“Any man’s death diminishes me;

Because I am involved with mankind;

And therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls,

It tolls for thee.”

The writer is based at Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK