Our Landlord System...Good or Bad?

Dear Interlocutors,

Your learned opinion is required at a thread I started at Chowk unplugged in Civic Center folder.


Thanks.

I skimmed through this article and I think author has never been to a rural area in his life. Nevertheless, this article may serve as an impetus for a debate.

Pakistani intellectuals need to think honestly to solve this problem. Blanket denunciations of feudals serve no purpose.

No doubt, feudals have significant material power. But material power does not survive by itself. Ultimately, it is a society`s intellectual environment which either sustains or transforms its existing power structure.

In Pakistan, feudals do not create that intellectual environment. So, simple analysis tells us that the problem is deeper, or lies somewhere else.

From my casual observation, I see the macro situation in Pakistan as follows (a highly eccentric, layman`s view, which may have nothing to do with reality):

There are three main ``power groups`` in Pakistan. As an Indian, I see them as the three Brahmin castes of Pakistan,-each automatically assuming that they have the right to rule over others.

1. The feudals (traditional local landowners) in areas such as Sindh and Balochistan, 2. The military-mullah group, sustaining and legitimating each other by a combination of violence and religious emotionalism, and 3. the mohajirs (my bhai bandhu) whose cultural heritage has been declared to be the cultural heritage of Pakistan.

The military can not bring about serious reforms since it itself covets Pakistani land. So long as the generals and brigadiers can get land, the military has little incentive to make any large changes.

That leaves discussions of land reforms primarily in the hands of two parties with completely different interests - the original holders of land in areas like Sindh and Balochistan, and the mohajirs who currently don`t have land, and unlike the military, can not easily snatch it from current landholders.

Given the radically different social positions of these two groups, their mutual dialogue consists mainly of promoting their self interests under the garb of ``the national interests of Pakistan.`` This kind of dialogue can hardly be compelling.

So, instead of promoting constitutional changes in land ownership-which are unlikely to happen any time soon- other avenues must be found. Could, for instance, a consistently higher economic growth rate make issues of land-owership moot over time? What could be done to promote consistent economic growth? What should be done to promote social mobility? How can a widespread scientific and progressive spirit be cultivated so that people develop sources of thought, power, and influence other than the old perennials - religion, violence, and land?

These challenges are all about creating a specific intellectual environment. And intellectual environment, unless I am quite mistaken, is created primarily by the military-mullah combine, and my brother mohajirs.

Ultimately, then, the responsibilty for effecting changes being sought lies with these two groups of power players. Will they do the hard work needed to make the change? Or, will they continue to look for easy short cuts aimed merely at strengthening their own positions?

Rozaibaji

Thank you for your insights. Countries always go SOMEWHERE - I was wondering, truth be told, that since Pakistan`s focus was not going to be land reform, the growing population might not tend to urbanise and provide the basis for greater industrialisation - meaning if there is a work force, eventually SOME industry finds it profitable to use it (albeit at wages which may not be the best) - in the long run, surely that will be good? Anyway, regards and best wishes (to both you and Pakistan).

temporal:

lay off him temporal. if everyone could write fabulous poetic pieces in ten minutes, then your poems would no longer stand out.

ZafarA:

for all intents and purposes, because the tightly knit exitence of armed forces with the feudals and other members of establishment (ie the agricultural department itself), there can be no re-distribution of land.

the establishment was shaken with the devolution plan initiated by musharaf. but it turned out to be a farce. the ties amongst the thieves (army, landlords and establishment) are too strong to break as all parties have deep interest in keeping things the same.

the industrial sector in pakistan has been given heavely tax breaks and incentives to develop but it has not been able to advance much.

if we try to find out why, it`s not very difficult. on the one hand, few would be willing to invest in country with an unstable political atmosphere that constantly goes to the brink of war. because of the high level of debt, there is no money left to dole out toward industrial loans. compared to the level of financing avaibale say in the sixties, there is very little today. so no matter how many tax breaks are given, as long as the creditors can`t find confidence, there will be no significant investment.

the faujis continue to live off of the budget which forces the government to take out loans from the banks which should ideally go toward the private sector in activities which even if they fail are a thousand times more productive than a wasted soldier and a retarded general.
kashmir is an albatross the fauji fuks have placed on the neck of people. nawaz sharif was right, the indians were right. trade first, kashmir later.

to sum up your query, pakistan can go no where.

unless of course, that is if they be so kind, America signs a free trade pact and awards pakistan the most favored nation status getting rid of all quotas and signing off a few more billion dollars of debt.

Hmmm. OK, the landlords are wicked folk - but where does all this lead to?

I`d be interested in hearing some opinions of where Pakistan can or should go from this stage.

Some things which seem relevant to me include:

1 Enclosures
2 Industrial Revolution
3 The relative contributions of primary, secondary and tertiary (??) production to GDP in different countries (ie poor ones and rich ones)
4 Food security and Zimbabwe`s current situation.
5 ``City air smells of freedom``

Am I barking up the wrong tree(s)?

Regards

(T-ji, pleeeeease don`t trash my spelling/grammar - I`m doing the best that I can.)

ummm.. t ji, does it really matter if there are spelling errors if the content has substance to it? u could have also pointed out the errors without the caustic tone..

Ana

feudal system has only been beneficial for the rulers. and currently it benefits the Armed Forces of Pakistan.

It`s really very simple. There are plenty of proposals out there to get rid of the feudal system. Distribute land amongst separate folks with no land area exceeding 100 acres and MAKE sure that the current feudals don`t end up buying it back by signing contracts with the separate individual folks. The problem with all prior land reforms had been that the land was distributed to within family members and even if it was distributed to those outside, the feudals would buy the land back after a while. (the proposal i heard from a member of agricultural dept)

But the worst feudals today are the Armed forces of Pakistan with their schemes of federally funding brazend lands for irrigation and then handing it out FREE to retarded Fauji fuks. ie 40,000 acres irrigated in cholistan in the name of helping the poor there only to be given to those in stinky khaki suits.

like nothing else about faujiz makes sense, neither does this. provincial harmony doesn`t inccrease when a punjabi brigadier is getting fat off the land given to him in Sindh.

ps) the panchayat system i think is older than feudalism whose foundations were placed by the armed forces of Britain and taken over by the armed forces of Pakistan. the latter embraced feudalism in many forms including having their officers married within families of the Brutus` of Pakistan like chaudhary shujaat and pervez illahi. the brits could not have done as good a job of obtaining and getting self serving opportunists to join in bed.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Junaid sahib:

Four silly and easily avoidable errors in the first three sentences (that a scan with spell check would have spotted right off the bat) are enough to turn me off any page one submission…BUT…having plodded on would like to ask you one question if you do not mind…bhai sahib…imtihaanouN main aap ko angrezi main kum number miltay thay ya urdu main?…i have made a bet with a cyber friend and your truthful answer would perhaps enrich one of us…that would be just about the only benefit…needless to say…

…t