On the Miltary Farms, Okara

In his celebrated essay “The Path of the Law”, published in 1897 (but originally delivered as a speech to the students of Harvard Law School), the great American jurist and judge of its Supreme Court, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., declared that “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simple persists from blind imitation of the past . . .” No better words can be employed to describe the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.

This Act governs the legal relationship between the landlords who own and the peasants who occupy rural land in the Punjab. However, given the well publicized goings on at the Military Farms, Okara and the reportedly heavy-handed treatment meted out by the Pakistan Rangers to the mizareen peasants occupying and tilling the land for the Military authorities, it is surprising that there has been very little has been little debate on the subject.

Without going into the provisions of the Tenancy Act (which was amended, once, in 1952), it is clear that the framers of this legislation sought to enforce a regime of tenancy control over a society which, at the time (1887), knew nothing of ideas such a democracy, universal franchise and the right to self determination. Certainly, rural Punjabi society at the time did not have any inkling about other 20th century ideas, now accepted as a minimum norm, like Fundamental Rights and the power of judicial review. One can only wonder at the wisdom of a state which seeks to enforce an archaic law and the equally archaic social equations it creates. After all, the function of any legislation creating enforceable rights is to recognize the norms prevalent in society and then to regulate the way society behaves or ought to behave. The fact that no one has objected to the regime of property rights the Act perpetuates speaks volumes of our ignorance.

Essentially, the Tenancy Act divides the peasants who occupied lands in the Punjab, and divides them into two categories on the basis of whether or not such peasants (referred to in the Act as “tenants”) have a statutorily conferred right to occupy the land. Tenants who do not have a statutory right to occupy the land they till occupy the land on the basis of a contract with their landlord (technically, their rights stem from the contract and do not attach themselves to the land), and therefore do not have any enforceable right or interest in the land. On the other hand, tenants who do have a statutorily conferred right to occupy the land they till (referred to in the Act as “occupancy tenants”) have the benefit of an enforceable right to occupy their land.

On the basis of this distinction between simple tenants and occupancy tenants, the Tenancy Act proceeds to set out the rights and obligations the peasants and their landlords in the Punjab. Most crucially, a simple tenant can be evicted from land when his contract with his landlord expires or for other reasons (set out in the Act). On the other hand, occupancy tenants – and peasants must pass a stringent test laid out in the Act before they can claim such a status – can only be evicted by a decree passed by a court of law. For a 19th century quasi-feudal Colonial government, such a distinction seems unremarkable. But to declare today that a man who has lived on and tilled certain land all of his life for an absentee landlord has nothing more, if he is lucky, than a claim to remain on the land is to stand in ignorance of the Constitutionally protected rights to life, property and profession. The existence of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 in today’s statute’s books is nothing but an indictment of the Pakistani State’s view on the concept of private ownership of land.

The decision to unilaterally implement a “cash rent” system for all classes of tenants occupying the 17,013 acres of land which comprise the Military Farms, Okara, was made by GHQ in Rawalpindi some time in early 2000. Till then, most of the mizareen peasants (who have been tilling land for the Ministry of Defence for generations) paid their rent in kind, known as the bittai system. This system of rent payment, recognized in the Tenancy Act, envisions a division of the produce of land in a pre-determined ratio, with the landlord taking the a portion of the harvest and the tenant keeping the remainder for his own use. The Act also lays down the stipulation that during such divisions, which are to be carried out in the presence of the tenant and his landlord, the landlord cannot collect more than 43% of the produce. I mentioned this because, in practice, the Military authorities were (and are) extracting a percentage as high as 60% and have been (and are) carrying out divisions without the tenants present. The new “cash rent” system does away the Tenancy Act and with rent paid in kind, and envisions cash payments of rent, imposed on the basis of contracts, at fixed intervals throughout a year. No doubt, such a system is more streamlined and suffers from far less red tape than the bittai system of rent.

What is interesting to note here is that the Tenancy Act already allows for and deals with rent paid on the same “cash rent” basis the Military authorities are attempting to impose. The question then becomes: what has motivated the Military authorities to impose a “cash rent” system independent of the Tenancy Act amidst well-publicized protests and controversy? They could have done the same quietly under the Tenancy Act. The answer is this: Under the Tenancy Act, “cash rent” can only be levied against occupancy tenants (who cannot be removed except by the decree of a competent court). The new contractual “cash rent” system sought to be imposed seeks to relieve the Military Farms, Okara from the tedium of dividing produce, but does not provide their tenants with the occupancy rights they would be deemed to have had such a “cash rent” system been implemented under the Tenancy Act. In other words, the Military authorities are trying to impose of streamlined system of rent collection without the nuisance of giving tenants a right to occupy the land they till. Talk about trying to have your cake and eating it as well.

The motivation behind the Military authorities decision to impose the “cash rent” system is made clear by a memorandum written by the Executive District Office, Okara to the Board of Revenue, Punjab (letter No. 45/DOR/TSC dated 22.09.01) after the mizareen peasants in Okara first raised their voices in protest over the imposition of the new agreements they were being forced to sign. The EDO summarized the Ministry of Defence’s position as follows: “The Military Farm Authorities explained that the decision of switching over from previous ‘Bittai System’ to ‘Cash Rent System’ was taken by the GHQ at the best interest of both the parties. It would not only generate more funds for the Govt. but also save the management and the tenants from many corrupt practices. It would be rather more beneficial for the present tenants as they would be able to get more yield by using more inputs and more labor.”

The Military authorities’ reasoning is flawed on several grounds. To begin with, it does not take a genius to figure out that the productivity of land cannot be increased by changing the way rent is collected on it. Also, it is more or less accepted that incentive-based systems (like the bittai system), wherever they are implemented, usually yield better results. Furthermore, to suggest that the “cash rent” system will “save the management and the tenants from many corrupt practices” is to ignore realities: One of the complaints the mizareen peasants have been repeatedly making is that the division of produce has been carried out by the Military authorities behind their backs. If this is the case, then any “corrupt practices” would be the sole responsibility of the Military authorities. It seems that the Military authorities are attempting to remove their own corrupt practices at the expense of mizareen peasants’ rights.

To put this whole picture into perspective, one must not be unmindful of the quantities of money involved (which would give an idea of the magnitude of the revenue which the Military authorities are so concerned about). In 2000, the Tehsildar for the area comprising of Military Farms, Okara reported that a sum of Rs. 12,237,000/- was collected from the receipt of 16,316 bags of wheat collected from the mizareen peasants who tilled the land. That’s roughly 10 new Toyota Corolla cars. And to think that scores of people have already lost their lives in the violence which has followed in the wake of the Military authority’s new policy.

The Government’s inaction in the face of the reported brutalities carried out by the Military authorities and Pakistan Rangers in forcing the tenants of the Military Farms, Okara to execute the new “cash rent” system is criminal. (Is it a coincidence that the Rt. Hon. Member of the National Assembly from Okara is none other than Rao Sikandar, the Defence Minister?). To quote from Justice Brandies, dissenting in Olmstead v. United States (1928), “Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example . . . To declare that, in the administration of the . . . law, the end justifies the means . . . would bring terrible retribution.” The EDO writing to the Board of Revenue, Punjab must have had similar auguries of retribution, for he ended his memorandum thus: “As regards stern/drastic action against such a large number of tenants would create serious law & order situation, chaos and unrest among the tenants at large as the District Administration will have to face the reaction of about 50 to 60 thousand inhabitants of [the lands belonging to the Military Farms, Okara].”