ASSINGNMENT OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

TOPIC: INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT CASE STUDY OF SWAT IDPs

SUBMITTED TO: Ms Asma Awan

SUBMITTED BY: Namrah Arooj Khan

Internally displaced person

Recognition of internal displacement emerged gradually through the late 1980s and became prominent on the international agenda in the 1990s. The chief reasons for this attention were the growing number of conflicts causing internal displacement after the end of the Cold War and an increasingly strict international migration regime. The phenomenon of internal displacement, however, is not new. According to United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) (2003) the Greek government argued to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1949 that people displaced internally by war should have the same access to international aid as refugees, even if they did not need international protection. India and Pakistan repeated this argument after partition. Internally displaced persons (IDPs) are people forced to flee their homes but who, unlike refugees, remain within their country's borders. At the end of 2006 estimates of 24.5 million in some 52 countries. The region with the largest IDP population is Africa with some 11.8 million in 21 countries. In 2007, approximately 24.5 million people worldwide were internally displaced because they had been forced to leave their homes as a result of conflict. Many millions more have been displaced by natural disasters and development projects. Unlike refugees, they remain within the borders of their own countries and are called internally displaced persons ('IDPs'). IDPs remain entitled to the same rights as other citizens within their own country. However, in reality, the fact of displacement can increase their vulnerability to human rights violations, including rape, exploitation and forced recruitment, and also their needs, including for shelter, replacement documentation and restitution of property. IDPs may also face administrative, institutional and procedural obstacles to achieving their rights. IDPs who have lost their documentation, for example, may not be able to take part in elections, they may be turned away from hospitals and/or schools. Responsibility for the protection of IDPs rests primarily with national governments. One step governments can take to meet this responsibility is to develop a legal or policy framework on internal displacement based on the Guiding Principles. Already several countries have done so. In the event that the national authorities are unable or unwilling to provide such protection, international humanitarian organizations and other appropriate actors have the right, and many would agree they have the responsibility, to protect and assist the internally displaced. Many national and international non-governmental organizations protect and assist IDPs. From the provision of shelter to monitoring and reporting on the circumstances of their displacement, NGOs play an important role in the protection of IDPs. Regional intergovernmental organizations also play an important role. Several have agreed to promote the application of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement within their member states and have appointed an institutional focal point or Special Reporters to monitor the situation of IDPs in their region and. The African Union has started to develop its own regional standards on internal displacement. At the international level, no single United Nations agency has responsibility for the protection of IDPs. According to the 'cluster approach', adopted in 2005, responsibility for responding to the needs of IDPs is shared among several UN agencies, each of which is designated a specific role in the humanitarian response mechanism. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is responsible for Camp Coordination and Management, Emergency Shelter and Protection for conflict-generated IDPs. Other

agencies with cluster lead responsibilities include: World Health Organization (Health), United Nations Development Programme (Early Recovery) and the United Nations Children's Fund (Nutrition, Water/Sanitation). UNICEF shares the education cluster lead with the Save the Children Alliance. The Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons ('RSG') represents another important international mechanism. The RSG is mandated by the former Commission on Human Rights and now by the Human Rights Council to engage in dialogue and advocacy with governments and other actors concerning the rights of IDPs, to strengthen the international response to internal displacement, and to mainstream human rights throughout the UN system. One of the principal activities of the RSG has been the dissemination and promotion of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Presented to the Commission on Human Rights in 1998, these restate and compile existing international human rights and humanitarian law relevant to the internally displaced. They also attempt to clarify gray areas and gaps in international instruments with regard to issues of particular relevance to the internally displaced. IDPs and refugees The main difference between IDPs and refugees is that the internally displaced remain within the borders of their own country. Refugee status entitles individuals to certain rights and international protection, while being an IDP is not a legal status because IDPs are still under the jurisdiction of their own government and may not claim any rights additional to those shared by their compatriots (Hathaway 1991, Vincent 2000). However, IDPs are often in need of special protection, not least because the government responsible for protecting them is sometimes unwilling or unable to do so, or may itself be the cause of displacement. Despite the differences in legal status and of entitlement to aid from the international humanitarian community, the causes of displacement and the experience of being displaced are often similar for both IDPs and refugees. Much like refugees, IDPs often feel like strangers in their place of refuge, where the local population may be from a different ethnic and/or religious group and/or may speak another language. Consequently, IDPs may not feel welcomed, despite sharing the same citizenship as the host population.

Definition
There is no legal definition as there is for a refugee. However, a United Nations report, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement uses the definition: Internally displaced persons are persons or groups of persons who have been forced or obliged to flee or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence, in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict, situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or natural or human-made disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border. While the above stresses two important elements of internal displacement (coercion and the domestic/internal movement) it is important to note that rather than a strict definition, the Guiding Principles offer a descriptive identification of the category of persons whose needs are the concern of the Guiding Principles. Thus, despite the non-exhaustive reasons of internal displacement, many consider

IDPs as those who would be defined as refugees if they were to cross an international border hence the term refugees in all but name is often applied to IDPs.

IDP populations
It is very difficult to get accurate figures for IDPs because populations are constantly fluctuating: some IDPs may be returning home while others are fleeing, others may periodically return to IDP camps to take advantage of humanitarian aid. While the cases of IDPs in large camps such as those in Darfur, western Sudan, are relatively well-reported, it is very difficult to assess those IDPs who flee to larger towns and cities. Thus, the 24.5 million figures must be treated as an estimate. Additionally, most official figures only include those displaced by conflict or natural disasters. Development-induced IDPs often are not included in assessments.

IDP Statistics
The largest IDP populations can be found in Colombia, , Iraq, Sudan and Turkey each with IDP populations of over one million. It has been estimated that between 70 and 80% of all IDPs are women and children.

Causes
Causes of conflict-induced displacement can be divided into root causes and proximate causes. Root causes are those which initiate a conflict and its displacement, although these can be hard to isolate as most of todays conflicts must be understood as self-perpetuating and their resulting displacement can be seen not only as an effect of the conflict but also eventually as a cause of its continuation. There is a considerable body of knowledge about the root causes of displacement. We know for instance that very few internally displaced are uprooted by inter-state conflicts. Most conflicts causing internal displacement are a combination of internal fighting and direct foreign military intervention, most often linked to civil war. The causes are fuelled by deep structural problems, often rooted in acute racial, ethnic, religious and/or cultural cleavages as well as gross inequities within a country. During the Cold War, these differences, tensions, oppressions and repressions were often supported by the control mechanisms behind the two superpowers. The end of the Cold War removed these external interests and resulted in the intensification of many internal conflicts and related displacement flows.

Countries with significant IDP populations

y y y

Afghanistan has 132,000 - 200,000 IDPs, mostly in the south and west parts of the country, due to fighting between NATO and Taliban-allied fighters. Iraq has over 2.5 million IDPs due to forced displacement during Saddam Hussein's regime, and fighting between the Multi-National Force and Iraqi insurgent groups. India - 50 million people were internally displaced since 1950 due to haphazard industrial projects. o About 600,000 Kashmiri Pandits from the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir have been internally displaced due to the ongoing violence. Israel has 150,000 - 420,000 Internally Displaced Palestinians and Bedouins, most of whom are Arab citizens of Israel. o Gaza and the West Bank have almost 2 million IDPs due to the multiple Arab-Israeli conflicts, starting in 1948.

Pakistan has more than 400,000 IDPs at the end of 2008 due to ongoing conflicts in three regions of Pakistan. Currently one million people have displaced in NWFP province due to military operation.

Protection and Assistance

The problem of protecting and assisting IDPs is not a new issue. In international law it is the responsibility of the government concerned to provide assistance and protection for the IDPs in their country. However, as many of the displaced are a result of civil conflict and violence or where the authority of the central state is in doubt, there is no local authority willing to provide assistance and protection. It has been estimated that some 5 million IDPs in 11 countries are "without any significant humanitarian assistance from their governments." Unlike the case of refugees, there is no international humanitarian institution which has the overall responsibility of protecting and assisting the refugees as well as the internally displaced.. A number of organizations have stepped into the breach in specific circumstances.

Solutions to internal displacement

There are considered to be three durable solutions to situations of displacement voluntary repatriation, resettlement in a third country, and local settlement (also termed local integration). The main idea behind the durable solutions, originally devised by the UNHCR in relation to the plight of refugees, is to help the displaced to become self-sufficient, independent from aid, and to enable forced migrants to participate fully in social and economic life, either in their new home or back where they fled. For both refugees and IDPs, the most accepted solution to displacement is considered to be repatriation, since most crises of displacement, even protracted ones, are regarded as temporary. However, due to limited prospects of a safe return, repatriation is often a poor alternative in many of the protracted conflicts generating internal displacement and the emphasis on repatriation as the preferred solution may create false expectations with long, frustrating and dangerous waiting games in which uprooted people insist upon their right to return. We have also experienced - for instance in the South Caucasus - situations where the focus on return is strong amongst both the authorities and the IDPs themselves, but where the reasons for this differ greatly. The authorities encourage return as a political tool for reclaiming territories, while the IDPs seek only to reclaim their homes and livelihoods. When return is possible, returnees often face a number of challenges relating to land and property rights, infrastructure and social services. Socio-economic status and livelihood opportunities have often suffered as a result of displacement, and new disputes between social groups have emerged. People do not generally return to the exact life and community they left behind, thus making return an ambiguous solution. Because of the numerous protracted situations of displacement, many IDPs find themselves in circumstances where their needs cease to be addressed long before a satisfactory durable solution has been identified. In such cases, when people can neither return nor continue to live in the dire camp or other temporary shelter conditions, resettlement to a new and safe area within the country could be a third alternative. A main question arising from discussions of the solutions to internal displacement is when does displacement end? Unlike for refugees, for whom the cessation clauses contained within the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees detail the circumstances in which their need for international protection comes to an end, there is no formal process for recognizing that IDPs are no longer regarded as displaced. Peace is a precondition for the end of internal displacement. However, it does not in itself guarantee its end.

CASE STUDY OF SWAT VALLEY

Introduction Swat (Pakhto: ) is a valley and an administrative district in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan located 160 km/100 miles from Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan. It is the upper valley of the Swat River, which rises in the Hindu Kush range. The capital of Swat is Saidu Sharif, but the main town in the Swat valley is Mingora. It was a princely state (see Swat (princely state)) in the NWFP until it was dissolved in 1969. With high mountains, green meadows, and clear lakes, it is a place of great natural beauty that used to be popular with tourists as "the Switzerland of Pakistan. In December 2008 most of the area was captured by the Taliban insurgency and it is now considered dangerous for tourism. The Islamist militant leader Maulana Fazlullah and his group Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi have banned education for girls and have bombed or torched "more than 170 schools along with other government-owned buildings." The Pakistani government in late May 2009 began a military offensive to regain control of the region. Swat is now cleared of Taliban.

Tourist Attractions

PTDC Motel at Malam Jabba Ski Resort. There is a popular ski resort in Swat at Malam Jabba, 40 km north east of Saidu Sharif, closed in 2007 due to the decreasing ability of the Pakistani government to maintain security in the region. In June 2008, the ski resort was burned down by militants.

Administration
The region has gone through considerable changes over the last few years since the dissolution of the Swat (princely state) in 1969. Members of the former Royal family have been elected to represent the area in the Provincial Assembly and National Assembly on occasion since then.

Taliban insurgency
By January 2003, there was a notable increase in violence as militant groups in the Swat valley, led by radical cleric Maulana Fazlullah, began attacking and killing civilians as well as police checkposts in Swat. In 59 villages, the militants set up a "parallel government" with Islamic courts imposing sharia law. By 2009 the region was largely under effective militant control, despite the presence of 20,000 Pakistani troops. Local opponents of the militants have been harshly critical of Pakistani civil society for its lack of

concern for their plight as well as critical of the military and provincial government for their ineffective measures for controlling the tide of militancy. After a four-month truce ended in late September 2007, fighting resumed. The paramilitary Frontier Constabulary was deployed to the area, but initially was reported to be ineffective. On November 16, 2007 Militants were reported to have captured Alpuri district headquarters in neighbouring Shangla. The local police fled without resisting the advancing militant force which, in addition to local militants, also included Uzbek, Tajik and Chechen volunteers. In late November 2007, Pakistani regular forces threw out Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi militants from its stronghold in the Kabal District of north-western Swat. About 250 militants died in two weeks of fighting according to Pakistani authorities and the militants retreated into the mountains. By December 2007, the militants were on the run, with the valley "largely cleared". Pakistani officials stated at that time that it would take four months to re-establish functioning institutions in the area, in the wake of Islamist ruin.

Developments in 2009
A January 21, 2009 issue of the Pakistan daily newspaper The News, reports Taliban enforcement of a complete ban on female education in the Swat district. Some 400 private schools enrolling 40,000 girls have been shut down. At least 10 girls' schools that tried to open after the January 15, 2009 deadline by the Taliban were blown up by the militants in the town of Mingora, the headquarters of the Swat district. "More than 170 schools have been bombed or torched, along with other government-owned buildings." In a stated attempt at bringing peace to this region, the Pakistani Government on 16 February 2009, signed a peace accord with the Taliban and agreed to the imposition of Sharia law in Swat and suspension of military offensives against the Taliban. This agreement invoked mixed reactions from the locals: some are relieved on the prospect of relative peace, while others are more skeptical about the Talibanisation of this scenic paradise and the push that this accord would give to the spread of Taliban's movement in Pakistan. International concern primarily stems from the rigidity with which the Taliban is seen to be imposing Sharia. Others point to the impact such an accord will have in empowering radical Islamists and the jihadi movement in Pakistan and elsewhere.

February 2009 ceasefire

The Pakistani government announced on February 16, 2009 that it would allow Sharia law in the Malakand region. In return, Fazlullah's followers agreed to observe a ceasefire negotiated by Sufi Muhammad. NATO feared that the agreement would only serve to allow militants to regroup and to create a safe haven for cross-border attacks into Afghanistan. Amnesty International expressed concern that the agreement would legitimize human rights abuses in the region. The people of Swat have welcomed this peace-agreement as welcome respite from the fighting that had brought their lives to a standstill. However, reports from the area suggest that this agreement has been accepted by them out of fear of continuous fighting that has destroyed the once scenic tourist haven. With the imposition of Nizam-e-Adl, some colleges and schools, including those for women, have reopenedHowever; women have to conceal themselves from head to toe as per the Islamic law or

Shariah. Furthermore, Pakistanis were then scared that this deal may only serve to embolden militants to spread their influence into more settled parts of Pakistan. Despite the reported ceasefire, the Taliban have refused to lay down their arms. Various international political and security analysts are opining that this deal and refusal to lay down arms may have devastating effects on the stability of Pakistan. April-May 2009 Pakistani offensive Through a media broadcast, the Pakistani government announced in late April that it would fight the Taliban in the Swat Valley; this war is called swat operation. This led to a humanitarian crisis. The United Nations Commissioner for Refugees announced that between 150,000 to 200,000 civilians had fled the war zone. The Pakistani military took back multiple Taliban strongholds, such as Rama Kandhao ridge in Matta and a Taliban headquarters in Loenamal. On the 8th of May, the Pakistani military announced that around 80 Taliban fighters had been killed and two Pakistani soldiers had been injured. Air strikes, artillery bombardment and rocket attacks by helicopter gunships are being undertaken extensively. As of 11 May, the military spokesperson of the ISPR report that as many as 200 militants had been killed in the fighting with Pakistan Army troops, also those Pakistan helibourne commandos had been inserted in the area which is the main stronghold of these militants. By early June 2009, most of Swat was freed from Taliban and Mingora, the main town of Swat, was in complete government control and then Pakistan government started focusing army on South Waziristan. 'Current Situation swat has again established itself a tourist destination, all Taliban forces have been removed from Pakistan. Subsequent Operations In between, Pakistan Army launched various operations to defeat the militants, but had to bow down to political pressure, which demanded for peace. Operation Rah-e-Haq II was launched in July 2008. This time the military operation relied on both air power as well as artillery. Soon the Taliban, led by Faqir Mohammed, started playing havoc in Bajaur Agency. So the Army started Operation Sherdil. The Army launched Operation Rah-e-Haq III in January 2009 to secure the main supply lines and consolidate Swat District. Frontier Corps troops provided help to four army brigades. The last week of January saw intensive aerial and artillery bombing. The forces regained Mingora and were poised to push the Taliban out of the district when Sufi Muhammad was released and Shariah was introduced in Swat and Malakand. The provincial government was confident of the outcome of the peace deal. When the situation went out of hand, the provincial government requested the center to ask the Army to provide help. Events show that the Army never avoided taking decisive action but bowed to political pressure from the center and provincial government. However, it did so at an extremely high cost. Despite the victory by the Pakistani army, Taliban militants slowly re-entered Swat over the following months and started engaging security forces in battles that lasted throughout 2008. By early February 2009, the Taliban had managed to regain control of most of Swat and at least 80 percent of the district was under their control. The Second Battle of Swat also known as Operation Rah-e-Rast, began in May 2009 and involved the Pakistani Army and Islamic militants in a fight for control of the Swat district of Pakistan. The first Battle

of Swat had ended with a peace agreement, widely criticised in the west, that the government had signed with the Taliban in February 2009. However, by late April 2009 government troops and the Taliban began to clash once again, and in May the government launched military operations throughout the district and elsewhere to oppose the Taliban. Fighting commenced in the largest and main city of the district, Mingora, between elite Pakistani commandos and about 300 Taliban militants positioned in deserted buildings and continued until 23 May 2009, when a major Pakistani offensive retook much of the city. Amid heavy street fighting, the Pakistani Army captured large parts of the city, including several key intersections and squares. The Army's chief military spokesman announced that "we want to eliminate the entire [Taliban] leadership". The Pakistani army claimed the death toll to be 1,200 Taliban fighters and 90 Pakistani soldiers. There were believed to be 200,000 people in Mingora as recently as a week prior to the eruption of hostilities. Following the lifting of a curfew, as of 23 May a large exodus left what was believed to be only 10,000-20,000 civilians in the town. After retaking the town of Mingora the military moved on to Malam Jabba . On June 4, 2009 it was reported that Sufi Muhammad, the founder of Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-eMohammadi or TNSM, was arrested in Amandarra along with other militant leaders. In the coming days there was confusion over this claim since the Taliban themselves said that Muhammad was missing. However, several days later it was confirmed that Sufi Muhammad was not captured and was in hiding, while two of his aides were captured by the Army. On June 12, in response to a bomb explosion at a mosque that killed 38 civilians, local Pakistani militia numbering between 1,000 and 1,500 surrounded almost 300 militants. On June 12, the Pakistani army captured the town of Chuprial in a fierce battle. 39 Taliban fighters and 10 Pakistani soldiers were killed. On June 14, Pakistani soldiers began to clear the last pockets of resistance. On July 15, clashes throughout the Swat valley left 11 Taliban militants and 1 Pakistani soldier dead, with the heaviest fighting taking place in the town of Kabal. The refugees that had fled their homes also began to return on July 15. By August 22nd, 1.6 million of 2.2 million returned home, as per UN estimates.. On January 11, 2010, Hayatullah Hamyo one of the TTP commanders in Swat was captured in Orangi Town in Karachi where he was keeping a low profile by working for PTCL (Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd).

2009 refugee crisis in Pakistan

The 2009 refugee crisis in Pakistan is the massive displacement of civilians in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) of Pakistan that is occurring due to Operation Black Thunderstorm. Since the beginning of Operation Black Thunderstorm against the Taliban over 1.2 million people have been displaced in across Pakistan's NWFP, joined by a further 555,000 Pakistanis uprooted by fighting since August 2008. The refugees are known in Pakistan as Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). Most of the 1.2 million people who have escaped the violence are staying with relatives or friends, placing tremendous strain on the country, while over 300,000 others are seeking refuge in UNHCR-supported camps. By August 22, 1.6 million of 2.2 million returned home, as per UN estimates.

Background UNICEF is responsible to provide WASH facilities at camp level. In this regards they have selected IDP's to fulfill their works in camps. Special Support Group (IDPs) In order to give full support to the government of NWFP to manage and arrange all the matters pertaining to Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), Special Support Group (IDPs) was formed at the federal level. Special Support Group (IDPs) has been helping the provincial government to arrange: Registration Medical Cover Camp Management Distribution of relief goods

International response
Country Response

People's Republic of China's Ambassador to Pakistan Luo Zhao Hui had called on Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in Islamabad on Saturday People's Republic of China and presented him a cheque of $1 million for refugees. Pakistan's Ambassador to China Masood Khan said that China s total contribution for assistance to the IDPs had now reached $5.4 million. Non-state entities Organization Response The United Nations made an international appeal for Pakistan IDPs and has so far received one-third of the $150 million it has sought. United Nations The UN agencies have provided for 780,000 IDPs as they expand their relief operations.

Effects
The fighting since August has so far left up to 2 million displaced.

Weather conditions
The federal government is considering shifting the internally displaced persons (IDPs) from the refugee camps set up in Mardan, Nowshera, Swabi and other hot areas of NWFP to Abbottabad and Mansehra districts, as they are reportedly not acclimatised to hot weather. Managing Director Zumurrad Khan of the Pakistan Baitul Maal said that scorching heat in Mardan and other areas of NWFP was unbearable for the IDPs of Swat and Malakand Division.

Event Summary
Pakistans military operations in the countrys Swat Valley have displaced several million people. In recent weeks, Comprehensive Disaster Response Services (CDRS) Pakistan, an emergency relief organization, has deployed medical teams to assist internally displaced persons (IDPs) from the districts of Swat and Buner in hospitals, camps, schools, and homes. CDRSs executive director, Todd Shea, recently returned from Pakistan, where he coordinated CDRSs response and visited several IDP camps. On June 18, at an event organized by the Wilson Center's Asia Program and co-sponsored by the Center's Global Health Initiative, he gave a sobering and candid account of the troubled state of the IDPs and of efforts to help them. Shea said that while approximately 3 million Pakistanis have been displaced, only about 300,000 are in IDP camps. The other 2.7 million have been absorbed by host communities, with the majority based in Mardan, a district near Swat and Buner. Shea lambasted large relief agencies for overlooking these 2.7 million IDPs and the internally affected persons who are serving as hosts. The host communities, most of them impoverished and struggling to secure basic resources even before the arrival of the IDPs, are now stretched to the limit. Many homes in Mardan have taken in as many as 40 IDPs, and schools have been closed to accommodate the influx of refugees. As for the IDPs themselves, Shea did not mince words. Supplies are running out, and the threat of disease is high. According to Shea, 60,000-70,000 displaced women are expected to give birth in the next three months. He expressed concern about the well-being of these pregnant women, who are approaching their delivery dates in hot, crowded environments with limited nutrition and hygiene. Meanwhile, significant numbers of IDP families fled Swat without fathers and husbands. A respected elder with whom Shea spoke in an IDP camp said that families are afraid to return home because they still fear the Talibans presence. Shea contended that general relief efforts have been woeful. One reason for this poor response is the provincial government of Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP), the restive area of Pakistan where the IDP tragedy has unfolded. The NWFP government, Shea argued, is completely inexperienced in disaster response. The efforts of other relief organizations are hampered by the inability of this central agency to do its job effectively.

The NWFP governments limitations lead to a second explanation for the insufficient response: coordination problems. Some of Sheas harshest criticism centered around the disconnect between small organizations such as CDRS and the larger responding agencies. He asserted that there is precious little coordination between Pakistans army, the UN agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the NWFP government. And he suggested that until someone is in charge who can coordinate the activities of all these groups, the plight of IDPs in Pakistans northwest will only worsen.

Conclusion
As mentioned above the issue of IDPs has been dealt by various NGOs and organizations in order to provide them with basic necessities of life. The guiding principles on internal displacement fully o protect empowers the IDPs with their rights to question any kind of discrimination and inhumane act. It is on the government to provide IDPs with proper resident facilities along with proper food, education, security, clothing and cleanliness and there should be no discrimination of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, legal or social status, age, disability, property, birth, or on any other similar criteria. Certain internally displaced persons, such as children, especially unaccompanied minors, expectant mothers, mothers with young children, female heads of household, persons with disabilities and elderly persons, shall be entitled to protection and assistance required by their condition and to treatment which takes into account their special needs. The government should try its level best to avoid such situations that lead to internal displacement. Their residence should be protected and incase of destruction they should be provided with a proper replacement of their residence. Womens security should be assured as they are in majority. NGOs should also coordinate with government. It is the responsibility of the government to make sure that the displaced people reach their homes safe and sound without any major losses and the ones who have suffered from family tragedies and do not have a place to return back should be helped by the government and organizations. There are still many displaced people in search of their home and it is time for the government to take initiative for them and help them.

References
http://pakistaniat.com/2009/05/13/idp-swat-buner/ retrieved on 20th march 2010. http://www.internaldisplacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpCountries)/D927619B0A8659BB802570A7004BDA56?Ope nDocument. Retrieved on 20th march 2010. http://www.chowrangi.com/swat-crisis-internally-displaced-persons-idps-in-pakistan-need-ourhelp.retrieved on 21st march 2010 http://www.reliefweb.int/ocha_ol/pub/idp_gp/idp.html retrieved on 19th march 2010. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internally_displaced_person retrieved on 19th march 2010. http://www.internaldisplacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpDocuments)/6D7AE421B588E156C1257656004C5585/$file/ Swat+Youth+Front-+May+2009+Appeal+for+the+Humanitarian+Assistance+to+IDPs+in+NWFP+Pakistan.pdf retrieved on 18th march 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swat,_Pakistan retrieved on 20th march 2010 http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=116811&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id= 537556 retrieved on 20th march 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Swat retrieved on 23rd march 2010.

Balochistan http://criticalppp.org/lubp/archives/2441 http://www.ipcs.org/article/pakistan/the-current-situation-in-balochistan-1824.html

communication http://www.odu.edu/al/jpjones/EPch1.pdf.