Hegemony of the Ruling Elite in Pakistan

Feudalism in Colonial India/Pakistan

In his book, Elite Politics in an Ideolgical State, Asaf Hussain (1979) identifies three land tenure systems in Colonial India: the zamindari system, the ryotwari system, and the mahalwari and bhaichara system. Hussain writes:

``In the zamindari system, sole proprietary rights were bestowed on individuals who in turn paid a fixed revenue to the government. This class of landlord was particularly loyal to the British Empire. In the ryotwari system, the ryot was merely an occupant of the land so long as the he paid land revenue to the government. In the mahalwari and bhaichara system a group of villages formed a collective body of co-sharers who were treated as landlords, and the lambardar (headman) was responsible for the payment and land revenue to the government. All these colonial land tenure systems were essentially political strategies for entrenching colonial power in the sub-continent so that colonial rule could be imposed without constant force. They were also intended to prevent a repetition of the mass uprising of 1857 headed by the Muslim and Hindu royalty and nobility which had revolted against the British`` (Hussain, 1979: 45-46).

Hussain`s excerpt suggest that there was a geography of land tenure in Colonial India. What kind of land tenure systems exist in present-day Pakistan? What it means when people call for the abolition of feudalism? Does it mean abolition of all forms of land tenure system? Would the abolition entail confiscation of land by the Government of Pakistan? What right does the state of Pakistan has to confiscate anybody`s property? How would the government re-allocated the land? What should be the basis of such re-allocation?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

hamidm,

I am convinced that you are the `hamid` of the yester years, your sharp wit and humour is verymuch needed in the new millinium. You claimed to know tehsin, he is the only noble soul ever to grace this chowk and hope to see/read him.

Regards

Jay

Bilal:

Thanks: that is the most relevant quotation. It (war) is an evil that men of prudence and wisdom are known to indulge in to advance their ideals and longings. Why evil? Because sometimes its origins are whimsical not ideological.


Oh, relating to the thrust of this article, did you read the News Op Ed piece by Roedad Khan? It was Dec 21 or thereabouts.

rgds

t

OVERTHROW OF THE NAWAZ REGIME AND THE ASSAULT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

- While there is no question that the ``anatomy of the Nawaz regime`` did not present a particularly attractive site, it is important to examine who the regime veered from its political agenda.

- The Nawaz regime did come into power on the basis of an agenda that aimed at removing restraints to trade, rollback of the state bureacracy and an environment conducive to industrialization.

- As is usual with such regimes the man and his team became individually greedy and the daily struggle for survival left the regime without a compass course. With the onset the economic crisis that started in Benazir`s regime the Nawaz government became more beleaguered with the IMF knocking the door and the military and civil bureaucracies - the real leaches -unwilling to control their pillage.

- The basis of the destruction of the regime really originated in the subtle propaganda campaign against the private sector aimed at putting Mr. Sharif`s original core constituency in disrepute. The anti defaulter campaign was part of it. They extorted 9 billion but let the economy contract by 50 billion in the end.

- The proof in the pudding is that not a single civil servant has been arrested. Not a single inspector has been arrested for amassing criminal wealth. Musharraf has himself admitted having 15 crore rupees of wealth - legally acquired - so just imagine the funds with corrupt civil servants who take 50,000 rupees to recruit a driver in a government department.

- They will NOT strike at these people because it is the same establishment. Same uncles and cousins and the entire pollution of the country`s economic environment and demeaning of its business class was designed to sidetrack the nation from the thievery of the civil and military bureaucracies. I cannot accept the children of corrupt civil servants and sons in laws of corrupt generals expressing indignation at unpaid bank loans.

Jay,

Centuries ago Khushal Khan Khattak, the Afghan warrior-poet, had the Taliban or Osama`s hordes in mind when he wrote this :

As I look on I am amazed

At this world`s denizens,

Just seeing what these dogs will do

To satisfy the flesh.

Such dealing as are brought about,

Men being what they are,

Satan himself could not devise,

Still less consider fair.

They place before them the Koran,

They read aloud from it,

But of their actions not a one

Conforms with the Koran.

It may be that in other lands

Good men are to be found

But they are few and far between,

I know, among Afghans.

Unfortunately these denizens and not-good men have found safe haven in Pakistan from where they wage war against infidels and windmills. Not that I am opposed to dislodging India from Kashmir, by force if necessary, but it is a job that is best done by a professional army and not by bands of fanatical and half-crazed ghazis seeking shahadat, infidel women and booty. These holy, but not too competent, warriors after they have been soundly spanked and roundly thwacked by the Indian army, will continue their rampage in Pakistan. There is a lot of burning, looting, raping and pillaging to be done in Karachi - the home of the not-so-true-muslim muhajirs from the land of Hind; in Rabwah - the hell-on-earth bastion of the heretic Ghulam Ahmed; in Jhang - where the followers of the Prophet`s misled grandsons and nephew disgrace His name; in Hunza where a half-breed great-grandson of the Agha Khan is leading Muslims astray with that poisonous Hunza Water; in Lahore - where that woman of ill-repute, Asma No-Last-Name and her tout, Imran Jew-Married, are leading women and cancer patients astray; and of course Islamabad, where farangi-inspired youth celebrate the Kafir New Year drinking only-for-sufi bhang and dancing the dhamal to the tunes of Iqbal-desecrating Junoon.

So, Jay, you Indians have nothing to fear and a lot to celebrate. We Pakistanis, in our typical philistine manner, perhaps the result of generations of first-cousin marriages, have created this monster which has, and will, turn on us sooner than later.

In response to temporal (Reply # 107)

Dear temporal:

Here is one by Clausewitz:

War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of politics by other means. Karl Von Clausewitz (1780-1831), Prussian soldier, strategist. On War, Preface (1832).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal:

You missed one relevant quotation on war.

I think it was either Clausewitz or Bismarck, quoted by Kissinger-- war is an instrument of foreign policy, or words to that effect.

rgds,

t

internationalising kashmir.

One of the alleged motives for kargill was to bring kashmir to international attention. Kashmir is the frontier of the expanding Ummeh, there are 13 countries involved in the fight as this report from indian express shows.

``MERCENARIES: AS many as 1,121 foreign mercenaries belonging to 13 countries were killed and 136 apprehended in the proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir between 1991 and December 1998, Defence minister George Fernandes said.``

In response to sadna (Reply #: 101)

Dear Sadhna:

War is an optimally intense expression of otherness. Much more than that, it is simply the failure of human beings to realize their unlimited capacity to avoid war. War is a failure of our intellect which we don`t believe to possess.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Now let us see what some learned people have said about war:

The chief reason warfare is still with us is neither a secret death-wish of the human species, nor an irrepressible instinct of aggression, nor, finally and more plausibly, the serious economic and social dangers inherent in disarmament, but the simple fact that no substitute for this final arbiter in international affairs has yet appeared on the political scene. Hannah Arendt (1906-75), German-born U.S. political philosopher. Crises of the Republic, sct. 1, ``On Violence`` (1972).

It takes twenty years or more of peace to make a man; it takes only twenty seconds of war to destroy him. Baudouin I King of Belgium (b. 1930), from 1951. Address, 12 May 1959, to joint session of U.S. Congress.

Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think hard before starting a war. Otto Von Bismarck (1815–98), Prussian statesman. Speech, Aug. 1867, Berlin.

``Let there be light!`` said God, and there was light!

``Let there be blood!`` says man, and there`s a sea!

Lord Byron (1788–1824), English poet. Don Juan, cto. 7, st. 41

We used to wonder where war lived, what it was that made it so vile. And now we realize that we know where it lives, that it is inside ourselves. Albert Camus (1913–60), French-Algerian philosopher, author. Notebooks, vol. 3 (1966), entry for 7 Sept. 1939

A ``just war`` is hospitable to every self-deception on the part of those waging it, none more than the certainty of virtue, under whose shelter every abomination can be committed with a clear conscience. Alexander Cockburn (b. 1941), Anglo-Irish journalist. New Statesman and Society (London, 8 Feb. 1991).

War is not a life: it is a situation,

One which may neither be ignored nor accepted.

T. S. Eliot (1888–1965), Anglo-American poet, critic. A Note on War Poetry, st. 5.

Morality is contraband in war.

Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869–1948), Indian nationalist leader. Non-Violence in Peace and War, vol. 1, ch. 268 (1942).

War has been the most convenient pseudo-solution for the problems of twentieth-century capitalism. It provides the incentives to modernisation and technological revolution which the market and the pursuit of profit do only fitfully and by accident, it makes the unthinkable (such as votes for women and the abolition of unemployment) not merely thinkable but practicable. . . . What is equally important, it can re-create communities of men and give a temporary sense to their lives by uniting them against foreigners and outsiders. This is an achievement beyond the power of the private enterprise economy . . . when left to itself. E. J. Hobsbawm (b. 1917), British historian. Observer (London, 26 May 1968).

All quotes from the Columbia Dictionary of Quotations.

Feudalism in Pakistan

A lot of people in Pakistan think that abolishment of feudalism is necessary for the future development and prosperity of Pakistan. What is fedualism? How does it affect the people of Pakistan? Should we distinguish between the good feudals and the bad feudals? Is there a geography of feudalism? What would we gain and/or lose by abolishing feudalism? How justified the state of Pakistan would be to take a unilateral action against it? Why India was able to take care of its problem of zamindari system? Why this oft-talked problem still haunts Pakistan? Why our previous land reforms were not successful? All these questions require a discourse on feudalism in Pakistan. Let me start with an excerpt from Benazir Bhutto`s Daughter of Destiny (1989:

39). Bhutto writes:

``Before the first land reforms in 1958, the Bhuttos were among the largest employers of agricultural workers in the province. Our lands, like those of other landowners in Sindh, were measured in square miles, not acres. As children we loved to hear the story of the amazement of Charles Napier, the British conqueror of Sindh in 1843. ``Whose lands are these?`` he repeatedly asked his driver as he toured the province. ``Bhutto`s lands,`` came the inevitable response. ``Wake me up when we are off Bhutto`s lands,`` he ordered. He was surprised when some time later he woke up on his own. ``Who owns this land?`` he asked. ``Bhutto,`` the driver repeated (p. 39).``

What kind of questions does this paragraph raise? Any comments?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

sadna #101

No one can deny that war is a terrible thing and we would be better off if we could evolve out of this primal instinct. Unfortunately, we have a better chance of turning lions into vegetarians and monkeys into professors.

Once we accept the fact that war is a natural state for us, then we can get on with the business of making sure that it doesn`t get out of hand, like it almost did in WW-II and during the Cold War. It is obvious that everyone is preparing for it and there are still a lot of romantics around who will go to battle with tears in their eyes like Achilles and Hector - pround, gallant, chivalrous and yet ready to kill.

Someone said, war is the old-fashioned way of solving problems and that business and commerce is what really wins wars. Sure? Most wars, including ancient conflicts like the war between Troy and Mycenea, and modern ones like the one with Iraq are over trade and commerce. John McCain and Bush Jr., Gore and Bradley, all advocate a strong defense and a tough stance towards China, Russia and other assorted enemies of the Free World. Nothing wrong with that - if one really believes in the underlying principles of the state, then it is worth fighting ( and dying) for. War is not outdated .... just look at the last decade or so : Iraq-Iran, Allies-Iraq, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Malvinas (Falkland), Kargil, Angola, Arab-Israel, Bosnia, Kosova, Sri-Lanka,... and the list goes on. And yes these wars did solve some problems ... It was Egypt`s military performance in 1973 that brought the Isralelis to the negotiating table and the Argentinians have left man and sheep alone on the Malvinas since the British kicked their posteriors. I doubt very much that superiority in Wireless Internet technology or Pottery would have helped any of the combatants win these wars. Inspite of Nokia`s amazing techology I don`t think Finland can defend itself if the Rusiians decide to move in with vintage T-72s. The Americans will have to intervene with technology developed by Boeing, Texas Instruments and GE to defend the poor Finns and their cute cellular phones.

I wish there was a better way, but based on history the Hare Krishnas and other assorted flower-children have never been able avert wars and battles wrought by real men - men who, once the carnage is over, turn swords into ploughs to be later converted into better swords (or micro-chips).

Sun Tzu :`` Let your rapidity be that of the wind, your compactness that of the forest.In raiding and plundering be like fire, is immovability like a mountain.Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.``

Cavalry major in `Apocalaypse Now`:`` I love the smell of napalm in the morning !``

hamidm #79, #100

I thought you were just kidding when I read your post #79 (I must tell you that I am very envious of your writing skills. It’s always a pleasure to read your posts). After I read your post #100, I got little worried about the content though.

I agree with you that basic human instincts (e.g., aggression, acquisition) have not changed and will never change. However, where the game has changed is how do we channelize this source of energy. If we stay within old paradigm (zero sum game), we can keep on killing each other on some pretext (e.g., religion, ethnicity, race) and keep spinning our wheels at the same place. These killings, wins or defeats will generate equal reaction and after a few decades, the grieved parties will start on their revenge cycle. We in the sub-continent have perfected this operating model to a science.

The other option is western model where these energies can be channelized into business expansion or capturing markets as you mentioned. It’s true that more aggressive ones will still have upper hand and produce higher value goods and the subjugated ones will produce shoes and shirts. I still like this win/win model since the guys who are making shoes and shirts are still better off than before. Moreover, if they are truly smart they can move up the ladder as Asian tigers did earlier and India is on its way through IT. No one is killed and every one’s lot is improving. If people still have excess aggression and killer instincts let them take it out in cricket, football or hunting sports or some thing similar.

No one knows what would happen when every one on the planet becomes very smart and has the capability to contribute at higher level. What would we do with our aggressive instincts? Hopefully, we would be looking for aliens on Mars so that we can have a good game of football or whatever they play.

Regards.

I would appreciate if some one can explain how the business models work without paying or charging interest. There must be precedents in other Islamic countries. Thanks.

News Item from “The News (Jang) 12/23/1999”

Supreme Court declares interest un-Islamic

(Updated at 1830 PST)

LAHORE: The Supreme Court on Thursday declared the charging of interest on loans un-Islamic and ordered the government to make the economy interest-free by the year 2001, said reports.

The verdict was given by a full bench of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court, the reports added. Riba, or the charging of interest, was declared an un-Islamic practice under the Islamic Sharia law by the Federal Shariat Court, in 1991. But the government, led by then premier Nawaz Sharif, appealed against the verdict.

hamidm #100

``Actually war is perhaps the most noblest of human endeavours, if conducted properly and with chivalry. Unfortunately weapons of mass destruction make it difficult in the conventional sense, but new rules of engagement can be drawn up.``

``I hate to sound like a pessimist but it is impossible to change man`s base natural instincts.``

A little contradictory, perhaps?

Anyway, let me guess, as long as somebody else gets killed, or loses as arm or a leg, or is blinded or suffers the rest of his life from shell shock and mental breakdown from witnessing the butchery of war, as long as someone else`s wife is widowed and children orphaned and left to fend for themselves, as long as someone other person, instead of investing in his future, his home, his family and his community, goes away never to come back, (and maybe does so in the name of his religion, even better)war is `noble`, war is another age-old boardgame pandering to man`s baser instincts.

I understand.

Sadhana

concerned, you said-

``however, hamidm, the old –fashioned way of settling disputes (a la ww2) is, well... old. The new-fashioned way to settle disputes is increasingly becoming knowledge/economic power. It is quite possible, indeed hoped, that the already powerful nations in these aspects would make sure that the old-fashioned way of settling disputes is never revived``

Sun Tzu said - ``No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique. Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life``

I beg to differ with you and agree with the long-dead and still revered military and business guru, but some things never change. Man has been fighting and killing each other since Cain and will continue to do so - war is a natural state. I don`t know if you have noticed but even the world of business uses terminology from the battle field. Frontal attacks, tactical alliances and flanking moves are used by Microsoft to pulverise its enemies (competition). Actually war is perhaps the most noblest of human endeavours, if conducted properly and with chivalry. Unfortunately weapons of mass destruction make it difficult in the conventional sense, but new rules of engagement can be drawn up.

And please don`t fool yourself: the ``already powerful nations`` are still busy arming themselves to the teeth so that they may protect their ``strategic interests`` and ``way of life`` . Nothing wrong with that, as long as we are not lulled into dropping our defenses. Do you think, for a moment, that the US will allow China, or for that matter Japan, to roam freely in the Pacific ? What do you think would happen if China ``captured`` half the world market for all manufactured goods and controlled all the major banks. Remember what happened when they didn`t allow ``free-trade`` in opium.

I fully agree with you that a strong economy, universal education and modern industrial base is necessary - only because it is required to wage war effectively when the time comes. I hate to sound like a pessimst but it is impossible to change man`s base natural instincts. But, as always we have to make sure that the objective is clear before we plunge into battle :

``Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical``

Happy war-mongering !

Jay:

Can you please tell me your job description? Considering the amount of ``borrowed`` material you put up here, I sincerely hope you have a life outside the confines of the monitor :-)