01.09.2013 The creation of Swat State
This obsession with a straight-jacket definition of a ‘Pakistani’ and ‘Pakistani nation’ has mired us in a complex web of, simply put, catastrophes, but we are still oblivious to its fatal effects
By Yaqoob Khan Bangash
The more I study Pakistan the more fascinated I get by the diversity and complexity of its regions, peoples and cultures. Unfortunately, for most of Pakistan’s history the focus of the central government has been to ignore and suppress regional identities, rather than make them an integral part of the national identity.
Therefore, we had the failed experiment of the One Unit system which tried to wipe away any distinctions between the different provinces of Pakistan; we still try to impose Urdu as the ‘national’ language and practically ostracise regional languages; and, most dangerous of all, we still attempt to impose one version of Islam on the whole country.
This obsession with a straight-jacket definition of a ‘Pakistani’ and ‘Pakistani nation’ has mired us in a complex web of, simply put, catastrophes, but we are still oblivious to its fatal effects. I shall spare the reader the obvious comparison with India, and its comparatively successful experiment with diversity and multiple expressions of nationhood and ‘Indian-ness,’ to focus on the creation of one erstwhile princely state in Pakistan — Swat.
Today Swat is simply a district in our northern province, and only became newsworthy recently due to the Taliban takeover there a few years ago, but till March 1969 it was a princely state and internally autonomous. It was a fascinating state since not only was it the last state to be formed and recognised in the British Indian Empire, it was a peculiar example of state formation in this region. What follows below, therefore, gives us an insight into the complex state and social structure inherited by Pakistan, and should, I hope help us to appreciate the diversity of our country.
Swat State was a creation of the lack of centralised control in the aftermath of the fall of the Afghan and Sikh empires. The history of the Swat is inextricably linked to its neighbouring states of Dir, Chitral and Amb, and the adjoining tribal area, but its foundation was very distinct from the other states. Whereas in the other Frontier states, chiefs of locally powerful tribes rose to such prominence that they became the rulers of the state, in Swat, the rulers did not consolidate the state on the basis of tribal leadership alone.
At the time of the British occupation of Peshawar in 1849, the Swat valley was mainly inhabited by Yusufzai Pathans who were enjoying virtual independence after the demise of the Durrani Empire. The Sikhs had not ventured into the area and so the administration of the area was on primitive tribal lines. When the British sent an expedition to pacify certain border tribes in the Swat valley, the Swatis responded by creating a joint front of tribes against the British attack. The tribal jirga also ‘elected’ Syed Akbar Shah as ‘King of Swat’ in 1849, creating, for the first time, some form of unitary government and authority in the valley.
Syed Akbar Shah immediately set upon organising a revenue and administrative system in the state and created a standing army. However, soon it was clear that these unifying measures were unacceptable to the local population and resentment grew against the ruler. As stated by Abdul Wadud, the later ruler of Swat, ‘the people, who were accustomed to self-willed, independent ways and disorganised life for quite a long time, found it difficult to submit to the checks and restrictions imposed by the new government.’ In 1857, therefore, this unwillingness to be ruled brought about the effective end of the first ‘State of Swat.’
The real power broker in the Swat valley, however, was not the elected king, but the ‘Akhund’ [a type of a religious leader] of Swat, affectionately called Saidu Baba. It was due to the influence of the Akhund that Akbar Shah was elected in 1849 and it was again through his influence in 1857 that Akbar Shah’s son was expelled from Swat and the state collapsed. The later rulers of Swat were then descendants of the Akhund.
The Akhund ‘whose real name was Abdul Ghafur, was born in 1784 of Safi Mohammad parents, probably in Upper Swat. He emigrated at an early age to the Yusufzai tract of British India, where he acquired great reputation for sanctity with the title of Akhund.’ As attested to in government documents, the Akhund was the leading man in Swat throughout his life ‘a position he owed rather to his great spiritual reputation than to any attempt to exercise temporal authority.’
After the death of the Akhund in 1877 the valley relapsed into factional fighting with a section led by his eldest son, Abdul Hanan, called the Miangul. Swat also got embroiled in the power struggles in Dir and Chitral. The end of the Chitral Expedition of 1895 and the restoration of Sharif Khan as the Chief of Dir did not end factional fighting and now the grandsons of the Akhund began jockeying for power in the valley. Meanwhile, in 1915, the tribes of Upper Swat elected Sayed Abdul Jabbar Shah as their ‘king’ mainly to fight against the Nawab of Dir. Abdul Jabbar Shah did manage to oust the Nawab of Dir from most of Swat in 1915, but could not defend the territory in a counter attack in 1916. Chaotic anarchy then ensued resulting in a jirga being called in September 1917 in Upper Swat, which decided to oust Abdul Jabbar Shah as king and appointed Miangul Abdul Wadud, one of the grandsons of the Akhund, as king.
Miangul Abdul Wadud spent the next three years consolidating the state, part of which was still under the control of the Nawab of Dir. He inflicted a crushing defeat on the Nawab of Dir in August 1919 in the Adinzai Valley, but the British political authorities prevailed upon him to abandon the Adinzai valley in favour of Dir through a tripartite agreement in 1922. Thereafter, Miangul Abdul Wadud focused on Buner and Chakesar and successfully annexed that territory from the Nawab of Amb in 1923.
Despite being in control of most of the Swat area by 1923, the GoI still had not recognised Miangul Abdul Wadud as a ruler, and Swat formally as a princely state. This was only sanctioned in March 1926, and in May 1926 the Chief Commissioner of the NWFP visited Swat and held a public Durbar at which the Miangul was proclaimed the Wali of Swat with an annual allowance of Rs10,000 from the Government of India. It is significant that even though Miangul Abdul Wadud was elected ‘king’ and locally known as ‘Bacha’ or ‘Badshah,’ the GoI only granted him the title of ‘Wali,’ which meant a religious ruler. This was obviously with reference to his descent from the Akhund of Swat.
Miangul Abdul Wadud wanted to retain the title of ‘Badshah’ or ‘Bacha’ but this was flatly denied by the political authorities on the basis that no ruler in India was a ‘king,’ and that only the King-Emperor in Britain had the right to be styled in such a manner. Miangul Abdul Wadud again petitioned the government for the title of ‘Bacha’ in December 1927, but the request was again declined.
Swat was a very peculiar state in terms of its origin and rulers. It was the only state in the Indian subcontinent which had thrice elected its own ‘king,’ and deposed two of them on account of unsatisfactory rule. While the use of the title ‘king’ was also certainly distinctive in India, as no ruler after the Mughals [bar the Oudh Nawabs very late in their rule] had employed that title, it is clear that the tribal jirga which elected these kings was not conferring full sovereignty on the thus chosen king.
The ‘king’ was to exercise power subject to the jirga, which was seen as the highest sovereign and judicial body. The title of ‘Wali’ which signified a religious connection was also singular in its application as even in Hindu principalities, where the religious and secular role of the prince was often inextricably linked, such a title or a similar one, was never used. In practice, however, none of the Wali’s of Swat indulged in religious affairs.
Despite the late recognition of the state, anthropologist Barth, who worked extensively in Swat, emphasises that “It is a notable fact that the state was an indigenous, not a colonial creation; it reasserted previously unsuccessful efforts of centralisation during the nineteenth century and seems to have arisen without external support and subsequently to have relied only marginally on colonial and post-colonial national establishments.”
The small state of Swat survived the Transfer of Power in India in 1947 and acceded to Pakistan in late 1947. Since its ruler, Miangul Abdul Wadud, and later his son, Miangul Jehanzeb, were very loyal towards Pakistan, the central government allowed them a large measure of autonomy. As a result, Swat became a model of development in the then-North West Frontier area.
For example, in education the central government’s Inspector of Schools had noted in 1957: “I am glad to remark that the educational progress of the State in all its activities under the able guidance and sympathetic patronage of its talented Wali is really appreciable…” As a result the literacy rate of the state increased from below 2 per cent in 1951 to nearly 12 per cent in 1961. However, soon the life of the state was cut short and it was merged in the erstwhile NWFP during the martial law regime of General Yahya Khan (for more details on the Swat State see my forthcoming book on the princely states, and that of Sultan-e-Rome on Swat).
Therefore, yet again, a ‘different’ state formation, a ‘different’ way of doing things came to an end in Pakistan, despite the fact that in terms of welfare provision (not democracy though) the state was well ahead of its peers at that time.
When will our obsession with uniformity end, I wonder....
The writer is the Chairperson of the Department of History, Forman Christian College, and tweets at @BangashYK. He can be contacted at: yaqoob.bangash@gmail.com.