Adil Najam
The Pakistan Kisan Conference met in Lahore this Sunday and (again) demanded an end to feudalism.
My first reaction to reading the news was to remember Faiz (remembering Faiz, by the way, is my default mode in just about all matters):
youN arz o talab say kab aiye dill, pathar-dil paani houtay haiN
tum laakh raza ki khoo Dallo, kab khoo-i-sitamgar jaati hai
But this was tempered immediately as I read of a new World Bank report that highlights the troubling inequity in land ownership in Pakistan.
Before saying more about both, let me just put my own views on the table. First, I think that the ‘feudalismâ €™ card is a favorite boogie of the urban educated elites of Pakistan. It is a very convenient thing to blame all our problems on. Why have we not had democracy? Feudalism. Why does the economy not flourish? Feudalism. Why did we lose to South Africa yesterday? Feudalism. Feudalism and the so-called ‘unparh, jahil awam’ are our scapegoats of choice. It is a very easy way for us urbanites to disown ourselves from many of our own sins.
Having said that, I have long held that feudalism is a critical challenge, and one of the biggest ones. It is not the problem we often make it out to be, but it is a huge problem that needs attention, and urgent attention. It is not a problem because it makes life difficult for the urban rich, it is a problem because it makes life impossible for the rural poor.
It is for this reason that I wholeheartedly support the call from the Pakistan Kisan Conference and the findings of the World Bank report.
On the Kisan Conference, it was mostly a political event but its politics and political rhetoric was uninteresting. The substance of the message, however, was spot on. According to the Daily Times (5 February, 2007):
Speakers at the Pakistan Kisan Conference on Sunday demanded the government eliminate feudalism and introduce land reforms to bring about development in the agriculture sector.
âà¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚¨ Around 5,000 farmers and labourers attended the Conference organised by the Kisan Rabita Committee at the Minar-e-Pakistan in collaboration with the National Workers’ Party (NWP)…. The speakers said feudalism was a hurdle to the farmers’ interests. They said land reforms could help strength the agriculture sector. They urged the farmers to adapt to the innovations and changes taking place in the agriculture sector. 
ââ ¡Ã‚¬Ã‚¨They urged the government to provide land to the landless farmers. “Allocating agriculture land to the military and civil officers should be stopped,â€Â? they said, adding that the government should give ownership rights to the tenants at the military forms in Okara and Khanewal.
On the World Bank study, the Daily Times (5 February, 2007) reports:
Pakistan has extreme inequality in land ownership and the enforcement of several laws on tenants’ eviction, says a World Bank (WB) study. The study also says that sharing of crop outputs and costs between a landowner and tenant is practically non-existent. Authored by Hanan G Jacoby and Ghazala Mansuri, the WB Policy Research Working Paper says the fraction of tenanted land is high. More than one third of the land is tenanted and about two-thirds of land is under sharecropping, a form of farming where outputs are shared by the landowner and tenant… Sharecropping is the predominant form of tenancy in Sindh where the land ownership distribution is particularly skewed. According to the study, a median landlord in Sindh owns 28 acres of land, whereas nearly 80 percent of the share-tenants are landless farmers. Big landlords in the province often employ labour supervisors (kamdars) to manage their tenants. In Punjab, tenancies are split more evenly between share and fixed rent contracts. Landlords in Punjab are much smaller than those in Sindh, with a median holding of only seven acres of land, and are more likely to be residing in the same village as their tenants, the study says.
Is it time for a new set of meaningful land reform with a view to stamping out the residuals of feudalism? Yes, it is and it has been for quite some time.
The least important reason to do so is that it will rid the urban elite (i.e., urban feudals) of their favorite boogie and hopefully force them to accept their own responsibility. The most important reason is that it will make a real difference in the lives of the rural poor; the poor that no one even talks about anymore.
Thank you for bringing up this key issue. I do think we in the so-called middle class have to raise our voices. The feudals themselves wont speak up and the rural poor cannot. So it is up to us. Yes, Musharraf has done nothing but if we and newspapers started making noise I think he might see that land reform is politically useful for him and economically good for the country. So, lets write to newspapers and urge our journalists friends to take this up.
bhutto socialism was a ruse – ironic even considering his feudal background. furthermore he appointed as chief ministers mumtaz bhutto and khar, both of whom belonged to the leading feudal families of pak. bhutto’s goal in nationalisation was to eliminate threat posed by industrial elite to the feudals. bhutto further tried to marginalise the influence of karachi which was the industrial heart of pakistan by imposing sindhi on karachites. this lead to the language riots and opened a whole new can of worms in karachi politics. its also important to remember that up until that time pakistan’s economy was among the best performing in the developing world and if pakistan had grown at even 1/3rd the rate of south korea, pakistan’s gdp per capita currently would be around $6,000 rather than around $900 today. pakistan’s economic growth in the first 25 years of its existence was an impressive achievement considering there was minimal industry in pak at the time of its existence. if bhutto had not destroyed pakistani industry, pakistani entrepreneurs would be taking over foreign companies rather the other way around which is the trend these days.
the extent to which bhutto succeeded can be gauged from the fact that while agriculture constitutes 20% of pakistan’s gdp, the sector contributes practically nothing to tax revenue. in contrast a mid ranking employee of a private sector corporation will pay about 25% of his or her salary in taxes. interestingly according to daily times, cbr wants to go after agriculture sector but are being prevented by musharraf:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007 %5C01%5C14%5Cstory_14-1-2007_pg7_1
Musharraf unlikely to allow tax on agricultural income
..The government’s reluctance in approving the measures was also attributed to the fact that 2007 was election year, and such a move could seriously jeopardise the prospects of the ruling coalition, particularly the PML-Q, they added. During fiscal year 2006, the agriculture sector’s share in GDP was 21.6 percent when its growth decelerated with harvests of major crops, such as cotton, sugarcane and wheat, falling below the set targets.
Adil you brought a very important topic on ATP. I had an oppurtunity to participate in Kisan Conference two years back when it was held in Toba Tek Singh. Of course it is a great effort by the activist who are seeking the rights of small and landless farmers. No doubt land reforms is one of the key area which will not only reduce rural poverty but will also bring down the unequal distribution of wealth in the country. It will also facilitate to undermine the power of feudal system in our country by empowering the poor and landless in the rural areas.
Unfortunately, the Board of Investment adopted the policy of Corporate Agriculture Farming to attract foreign investment rather than distributing government lands to the landless poor. (You can see the details of this policy in an article which I wrote in the News back in 2003. Here ).
Ironically none of the mainstream political parties in our country have Land Reforms on their agenda. Even most of the politicians and political parties supported the cause of Anjuman Muzareen in Okara and Khacha Khoh, but when they came to power the joined the other camp.
Musharraf has shown no interest in land reforms and the political governments aren’t going to do so for obvious reasons.
It therefore seems that the emergance of a larger middle class and a bourgeois elite is the only route for the fading away of feudalism.
Pakistan had a growing bourgeois class in the 1960s, but the nationalization by Bhutto stopped its development and dealt a serious blow to Pakistan’s industrial development. With that also went a growing threat to feudalism.
Bhutto was a popularly elected leader with an undeniable mandate and tremendous street following. Musharraf led a coup against a democratic government after Nawaz Sharif tried to remove him thanks to the clusterf**k that was Kargil.
The bad taste left by the Bhutto and Sharif governments and the uptick in economic fortunes since 9/11 mean people are more or less happy for him to stay, but he can’t do whatever he wants.
The last thing Pakistan needs is the violence and turmoil caused by revolution. What it needs is continued evolution towards an affluent society. Once\if the middle class gains critical mass, then and only then will necessary change be pushed through.