Golden Words

Following article which got published in the opinion section of the daily dawn of feb 16, 2008 is worth writing with gold:

It mentions about the pioneer of new Pakistan , Ms Ayesha Siddiqa and her book , Military Inc., which is a must read.

Article starts:

Feudalism: a state of mind

By Javed Hasan Aly

RECENTLY, Ayesha Siddiqa wrote a very thought-provoking article (Dawn, Feb 1) initiating a debate on feudalism. She always invigorates our thinking processes, and a contextualised discussion on feudalism in the Pakistani perspective needs more dilation.

Our march into this century of freedoms of all variety notwithstanding, the lord, the vassal and the fief have not vanished into the recesses of history.

The manifestations of feudalism are more than physical now, more deeply pervasive. It persists, as Ms Siddiqa observes, as a social attitude. Not only are the 17th century ingredients of feudalism still visibly present in our society, they also manifest themselves as a state of mind.

We all recognise the pernicious influence of feudalism on our body politic; how it inhibits the development of freedom, of institutions and even of happiness. Though it lies at the root of our failures, in more than half a century we have not succeeded in reducing its fracturing role in social development. Its protagonists have guarded themselves well, fortifying their insulated power bases.

It is all about power and strength. The feudal drives and exercises power through his control over the lives of the weak who are made subservient through perennial coercion and exploitation. It is not power through influence and affection that a compassionate and sincere populist leader may enjoy. The modern-day feudal weaves a complex web of debilitation around his target population where all escape from such socially and economically claustrophobic detention is in the hands of the feudal lord — for a fee, or submission or both.

As a historical progression, we need to study feudalism in three distinguishable time-frames. For the purposes of simplification, we will not confuse it with tribalism. While there are feudals amongst tribal chiefs, there is a queerly democratic relationship between the tribe and its chief, which sets it apart from the possibly multi-tribal complexion of the tillers — or economic subjects — subservient to one feudal lord.

The colonisation of barren lands around the Indus and Punjab rivers, post canal irrigation systems developed by the British, is a landmark of the second half of the 19th century bringing in economic development and social change. So there are the pre-colonisation feudals, the feudal products of colonisation who enjoyed the political heyday between the 1860s and 1960s, and the neo-feudal of the last 40 years.

Come 1947 and the pre-colonisation feudals in the agricultural plains were few and far between. Many of these old feudals migrated to Pakistan from what now remains as India, retaining some political influence but little else. These nabobs and chiefs exercised plenty of political clout in the earliest years, mostly for emotional reasons. But their power waned soon and their value was confined to being a showpiece in the wealth-flaunting parties of the nouveau-riche.

The feudals of the irrigation system have enjoyed constant power over the lives of the common people, and still retain a considerable hold in the rural areas. With decreasing incomes from absentee landlordism, many have ventured into industry. These sugar barons manipulate supply and prices in flagrant disregard of the needs of the very people whose lives they preside over.

Illegitimate governments need these feudals as a façade of populist support and hence the state machinery does not bar or contain their illegalities, and the enforcement of the law has been in the form and measure allowed by the wadera, sardar or chaudhry — howsoever the lord of the manor is known. They jealously guard their control over the lives of the common people, and the good they do in benefaction to their vassals is more to keep the herd inside the pen of their authority than to empower them, or free them from the shackles of slavish acquiescence.

In 1947, the lack of education was generally perceived as the reason that allowed feudal influence to dominate. But time has proved that it was not just influence, but actually control over the lives of the poor, sustained through the manipulation of state policies, that has enabled these feudals to retain their power. The opinion of the common man is disenfranchised and the state is allowed to recognise the feudal as the sole voice of the rural areas.Insensitive and unaccountable governments have done little to ensure the universal provision of education, as guaranteed by the Constitution, particularly in the rural areas. Thus the minds of the poor are not freed from traditional bondages.

But quality western education acquired by a new generation of scions and progenies of the colonisation era feudal reveals no demurring on their part where historical mindsets and the controlling of the lives of others through exploitation are concerned. Thus these latter-day Makhdooms, Syeds, Shahs, Legharis, Qureshis, Tiwanas, Noons et al proudly retain and flaunt their feudal power and pride in their heritage of subjugation of the people.

The graduates of foreign private universities, this new breed may dress differently from their forefathers but carry the same soulless bodies in their new garb. The ordering of their own lives, inbreeding within the feudal complex through inter-marriages, these feudal lords keep a tight grip over their large niche of authority — and keep the masses far from the realisation of the dream of equal opportunity that democracy promises.

To compound the tragedies of the people, we now have a strong class of neo-feudals, a product of the last 40 years or less. These people managed meteoric socio-economic uplift through personal brilliance, wealth by stealth, chance or circumstance. Coming from humble or middle-class beginnings, they came to occupy positions of authority — in bureaucracy (generally military), politics (urban rather than rural), business and industry.

In their newfound positions, these power lords exercise control over the fortunes of many rather than the lives of a few. Usually uncomfortable with their backgrounds, they socially unhinge themselves from their roots and align themselves with the old club. Those from the middle classes feign feudal connections and in the exuberance of their new status are more ruthless than the older feudals, having no vassals to protect, only coffers to fill.

These new feudals now occupy the corridors of power, clinging to their positions with distorted moral undertones. They have devised devious methods to protect their turfs. Well-trained mafiosi with gun sights always tested are in command of the lives of the populace on behalf of these neo-feudal overlords. Private militias, generally called ‘forces’ with one adjunct or the other, are the brigades of coercion that keep the new feudals aloft. Unlike the older ones, they reveal not an iota of compassion.

So here we are, having been subjected to three waves of feudal control, with each succeeding wave more dangerous in manipulatively denying the masses the benefits of equality before law and opportunity. It has strengthened the stranglehold of the elite — whether older or new — over the resources of the country, both human and material. It is only be through quality education and the sentinel functions of civil society that we can become an inclusive polity in the foreseeable future.

The writer is a retired federal secretary.

jha45@yahoo.co.uk

Daily Dawn, Feb 16, 2008