The Frontier Crimes Regulations--Genesis

As mentioned in the Introduction, the FCR was born of the need of the British, at the height of their empire, to keep the various tribes that populated the area known as FATA, as a buffer between British India on the one hand, and Afghanistan and the Central Asian states on the other, where Russian encroachment was feared. The FCR encompassed “substantive and procedural law relating to criminal and civil matters” (Amnesty International 2008:………), and the intention was to establish the writ of the colonizers’ power which aimed to protect the interests of British India. The FCR “basically explains the relationship between the state and the tribes on the one hand through an indirect form of governance; and on the other lays down procedure for dealing with inter-tribal matters” (Khan 2008:….).6 The FCR, also known as ‘jackpot justice’7 were designed to tackle bad elements and pacify the angry tribes in the tribal areas on the Afghan border (Bangash 1996).8 In order to keep the tribal leaders happy, some of the customs and traditions prevailing in the region were retained in the FCR. (SPARC 2004, Hussain 2005 & Khan 2006)9 However, “such customs and traditions were twisted to suit the government plan of securing convictions” (Hussain 2005:……)

Before 1901, the colonial government had divided the tribal areas into six Frontier districts and regulated these under the civil and criminal laws applicable to the whole of British India. However, the tribes rebelled against these laws and to pacify them, the colonial machinery formulated the FCR.

The FCR was enacted as a special law in 1871 and new provisions and offences were subsequently added in due course (PLD 1958: 7310 & Hussain 2005)11 . When the law was amended in 1887, a seven-year sentence was introduced for a particular crime whereas previously the offence had only earned a fine. The law was enforced against both Pathans and the Baloch (Alaiwah 2008).12 In the amended FCR, Pushtun tribes were allowed to govern their society according to their own laws and customs. The tribal areas were given a semi-autonomous status subject to their compliance to colonial rule. The tribal elders (maliks) were made bound to “keep the border passes open for trade and strategic purposes in return for allowances and subsidies they could distribute among their tribes. Nevertheless, the tribal areas showed some of the strongest anti-British resistance on the subcontinent during British rule” (Rakisits 2008). After the ‘Tribal Wars’ in 1897-98, when the frontier tribesmen continued to attack the British Indian Army and criminal activities were on the rise, a Close Border Policy was adopted and implemented whereby a number of tribal agencies were established (including Mianwal) under the FCR of 1901, which were enclosed by a chain of posts and cantonments where the Pakhtun tribes were allowed to govern according to their own laws and customs (PLD 1958: 73 & Rakisits 2008). Much later, in 1944, questions had arisen about its application, and in 1946, validation of the FCR was challenged in the High Court of Lahore (Alaiwah 2008).13 Application of the FCR was also effectively challenged in Mianwali district and the noxious laws were removed from the area (PLD 1950: 221).