Land Reforms: A Landlord's Perspective

Sameer #36
Your post is very interesting. What you describe is very much like the interlinked caste structure in rural/semi rural India. A family member was describing how in family weddings( in an ordinary service or businessman family), jewellery got made for even who? the barber`s wife, because the barber was traditionally an important functionary in carrying out a wedding, arranging things, carrying messages. And it was a daily routine for portions of food cooked for the family to be given to sweepers, bhistis and others who worked in the streets outside the home, who were also rewarded during festivals and family functions.

But the mindset governing social dynamics has to be changed if the bhisti is to stand for local mayor, if his son is to go to school with everyone else and if his nephew is to work in IT! But the risk is that the bhisti will lose his traditional support which sustained as well as restrained him and he will not be able to send his son to school either because the government didnot deliver on its promises and due to lack of capital, his nephew will have to migrate to a large town and live in squalid conditions looking for a unskilled job. Those are the pitfalls of all changes. This is one reason why Gandhiji wanted a self contained village economy which didnot altogether ruin the interlocking relationships.

``I can built a nice house there without paying for the price of land. ``
Sameer, thats right. But I am curious, is the set up such that you can you go back and make a livelihood say farming on that land, without the local landlord`s consent? Or for example, can you buy and sell property in that area, open a shop, form a cooperative society, set up a school, stand for election, can you realise any of these rights related to your connection with that land without his explicit consent? If not, then perhaps only ownership of land or acceptance of villagers` social activism by the landlord can bring those rights ?

As for land reform, there seem to have been all varieties of reform in Asia. Compulsory rent reduction, sale of public lands and ``under the Korean land reform, landlords whose plots were expropriated were compensated for their land loss with land bonds or financial assets which could be reinvested elsewhere. The government encouraged the use of these land bonds for industrial capital formation through the purchase of vest nonagricultural enterprises. The land bonds constituted an important vehicle of the capital formation that was needed for Korean industrialization, and many landlords, especially the largest ones, profitably used land bonds to become industrial captialists``

mohar11 #43 Please re-read what I wrote: I was talking about mob killings. You get a trophy for so cleverly avoiding the issue.
As for honor killings and those other murders you mention in Pakistan, if I had a penny for every time jay or someone like him mentioned murders in Pakistan I would be a rich man. I understand that murders just dont take place in India. That tens of thousands of brides are not burnt each year in India (far greater in absolute as well as relative terms than all the murders you and jay and so forth constantly talk about) by greedy husbands and loving mothers-in-law; that christian missionaries (and their young children) have never been burnt alive by hindu zealots; that robberies and rapes are unheard of in India.
But thanks for your deep concern about the future of Pakistan. It is really very self-sacrificing of you to ignore your own problems and worry about ours. You must be a disciple of jay thackeray, who (like mother teresa) has devoted his life to pointing out to us pakistanis the fact that we have crimes take place in Pakistan and therefore we are doomed.

dulla bhatti #42 I think you make an excellent point when noting that it is ``too many people with no means or skills other than tilling the land (and that too very un-skillfully)`` and that ``there got to be a better way of up-lifting their lives other than satisfying ourselves with the generous act of giving them 10 acres for once and posteponing their suicides for 20 years.``. Land is quickly subdivided among children over a couple of generations and disappears. Unless new lands are brought under cultivation - as used to be the case, but the land frontier has by now basically been reached in both India and Pakistan and that is not possible.
However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the feudals in many parts of pakistan (sindh and baluchistan and southern panjab, as I mentioned earlier, which caused a poster to wonder if I was anti-sindhi, baluchi, panjabi!!) are a roadblock to human development (they enslave entire families of peasants, wont allow schools in their area). To keep things in perspective, this would not affect more than a small percentage of society (given the rapid urbanization and given that feudalism is not present at the same scale in many parts of NWFP and panjab). But nevertheless, where we do have such feudalism we should dismantle it. Not for the land, but to free the peasants to give their children a chance for getting education and moving to non-agricultural jobs.

#39 by tahmed32 on October 26, 2002 4:30pm PT
//..In pakistan we dont have mobs that rip apart people...//

of course you don`t. The massacre of christians, stoning of ``blasphemy`` convicts/rape victims, killing of shia doctors, honour killing of adulterous women are all done by pious muslims, just going around ful-filling their religious duties for Allah. The whole country is awash with pious mullahs carrying Kalashnikovs and koran preaching peace and brotherhood to the whole world.

Having grown up and from a peasant family, I understand most of the problems faced by agricultural labor and small land owners but I have not seen the land onwership of many villages by one family or person and its effects on the workers. East Punjab does not have feudalism as it exists in the west punjab but that does not mean their problems are any different. In the west Punjab context, in principle it makes perfect sense and good thing to do to distribute the land to the tillers who have been farming it for years on the other hand I know it won`t improve their lives any way. Most tillers lease land in small lots. 10 or 20 acres. Their economic life won`t improve any if they owned that land rather than lease. may be a pride of ownership for one generation and then they will be back to owning 2 or 3 acres each brother..which is no better than driving a rickshaw in Chandigarh or Lahore...and certainly much poorer than any of your corner rehRi wala anywhere in the sub-continent. Distributing the land to the tillers also would mean to snatch it from the ownership of the land lords...that may be the only pleasing out come of this for many of us. It won`t give me any pain if that happens but I don`t have any illusions that it will solve economic problems of millions of farm workers.

The issue of distributing land from the rich feudals and giving it to tillers is thus mostly political in nature. My understanding of the issue from reading various Pakistani posters for years is that biggest proponents of this are urban, non-farming background and anti-regional affection(for lack of better term) people. They have nothing in common with the farm worker and don`t have any idea of his problems. They feel that feudals control the rural vote bank thru land ownership and urbanites have been unable to break this voting in blocks. They want to divide it and spread it more evenly amongst opponents and brighten their own politcal muscle.

The farming is a losing business. Hard work, large investment and poor net income. It has ben that way for long time except during the green revolution of 60s and 70s it has lifted standard of living of the people involved..the standard that can not be sustained on the farming for very long. It was kind of one time gain in production due to new fertilizers and machinary technology. Now that period of gains is over. Small land owners owning lands 10,20, 50 acres are going bankrupt, losing the lands to banks and aRhtiyas. Many are committing suicides. If Pakistan distributes its land evenly to all, their fate won`t be any different after one generation. It will certainly ruin few feudals but it won`t change the fate of the tillers for very long.
Simply speaking there are too many people with no means or skills other than tilling the land (and that too very un-skillfully). There got to be a better way of up-lifting their lives other than satisfying ourselves with the generous act of giving them 10 acres for once and posteponing their suicides for 20 years.
Just a rambling.

pakistani logic,

``The primary reasons for low productivity are; lack of mechanization, irregular supply of water, expensive pesticides and fertilizer and reluctance on the part of the farm worker to use modern farming techniques and mechanization.``

In any share cropping practice through out asia, the tiller has to pay for the inputs. The feudal takes fifty percent of the revenue. Hence for the farming to be profitable to the tiller, his profit margin has to be more than 50 percent. Now an educated pakistani, shahzad, turns this around and says that the tiller is allowed to keep 50 percent, and this is great for the tiller, this is better than the rpofit sharing.

In the baove exa,mple, one can see the working of the pak mind, similar to the support for the jihadists, and the creation of uncountables. No pakistani ever cares to talk of the pakistanis killed in afghanistan. Only this they have talked about is that indians have shipped some pakis from pakistan to india to provide proof of pak infiltration.

What the posts on chowk shows is the swelling of the insidious jihadic values all through the educated of pakistan. Finding virtues in feudalism, in jihad.

mohar11 #38 In pakistan we dont have mobs that rip apart people. I guess you cant say as much for the mobs in India (Gujrat), can you.

mohar11 #38 (second para of your post): Your (irrational) opinions about pakistanis are duly noted and filed at the bottom of the barrel (which may then be scraped by any comedian who has run out of jokes).

#33 by tahmed32
//..the fundamentalists ... are rushing to prove their secular (!!) credentials in hopes of gaining power...//
Mullahs are ``rushing`` to be secular. ok - don`t let the mullahs know you said this - they will rip you apart. Who are you kidding Ahmed Mian!!! Calls to implement sharia, no co-ed schools, islamic banking are NOT secular thoughts. And what do you think - Ahmedis are going to get their basic rights back? Will shias be considered normal muslims? Even the mainstream parties will not do this. Even almighty Mushy cannot dare be anything near secular. Heck - he can`t even go out with his dogs in public. Mullahs have tasted blood - from now it is all the way up for them. They have the islamised Pakistani Army with them to see them thru.

//...I have no doubt that Pakistanis will prove their mettle despite the unspeakable crimes committed against them by their own military leaders, by the landlords, and by other scum....//
Well - I am not too optimistic about this. As I said before - so many times pakistanis have willingly given up their rights to choose their own rulers - they have cheerleaded military desperadoes everytime they take over pakistan - yet everytime they have been cheated and trampled and manipulated and denied their rights. This has happened 4 times in last 50 years. So when are the pakistanis going to prove their ``mettle``??

rafay_alam 35 There is indeed a link between land and education, but the causal relationship is opposite of what you indicate. That is, education eliminates dependence on land for livelihood. The implications of this link, if only people realized them, are I think far-reaching. Not the least of which is that countless disputes related to land (ranging from family feuds in the rural areas of Pakistan, to the india-pakistan dispute over kashmir to the israeli-palestinian mess) are no longer necessary: people would be much better off if they were as emotional about giving their children as much opportunity for education as they are wehn it comes to land. Even the landlord-peasant problem in Pakistan will I think be ultimately be solved this way (peasants move to cities, and a generation or two down the road their children get educated and finally freed from this dependence on land). It would be better if the landlords were kicked off the land today, but given that doesnt seem about to happen given the power structures in Pakistan.

sadna: The principle can in writing or widely practiced without in writing. Two examples would be British constitution and marriage. Many people have families or living together without having the principle of marriage in writing. The principle governing owner-tiller in villages is mostly unwritten or traditional. The property in writing is owned by owner but in practice tillers have been living on the property for generations. If this was not the case, a large number of peple would have had nomadic lifestyle and that is not the case in Punjab. The tennants are not evicted from the land in famines, poor crops or floods. The housing in village is free of cost because residential land in village is more ancestoral and not bought. This is one of the reason of feudals being able to exhibit better lifestyle than thier counterparts in the cities with equal income. It is no housing cost and overall lower cost of living when in village.
For example, I can go back and claim my grandfather`s home that is lying vacant despite nobody in my family owns even an acre of land there or living there anymore. It has no market value. I can built a nice house there without paying for the price of land. This is all because of unwritten tradition turned into unwritten principle.
The relationship between owner-tiller is also caste or tribal identity based except for corporate and miilitary officers owned land. A Jat or Rajput have tillers from the same identity and that binding is a powerful one when things are not good. It is similar to ummah concept at a small local level. That is why, the tillers are not coerced into voting their owners as widely believed. They vote for the similar reason, an Islmaist votes for MMA.
The case of Okara is different. It was an attempt to turn tillers into temporary workers (in urban type businesses) and as I mentioned, identity card did not apply in that case. Many corporate farms with tillers or employees are doing exceptionally good without any problem. Very close to troubled Okara farms is another well-managed farm known as Mitchell`s Fruit Farms. The workers there are taken well care of, from healthcare, housing and education for children. The productivity is good and the produce is often processed at the farms into Mitchell`s products such as jams, drinks etc.
The boded labor which tahmed pointed out is often limited to areas of poor farming lands. The land is often bad, requires additional work every year to cultivate and water in short supply. The bonded labors do not belong to the owner`s identity group, in Sindh, not even to owner`s religion. That issue must be dealt with on priority basis much before land reforms. It is a matter of basic human rights of a fringe minority group known as Bhel and Haris. However, not all landowners treat them in the same way. I do not know if majority are treated like animal or not. It is like Punchayat system. There are hundred or thousands of Punchayats making decision all the time and often not bad decisions but once they do things like Meerwala gang rape case, it must be dealt as gang rape case rather than passing a judgement in a hurry on the punchayat system which may or may not be a bad idea.
Same goes for private jails. They must be eliminated wherever they are found but to punish a landowner in Lyallpur for somebody having a private jail in Bahawalpur or Sanghar is not fair.

I`m sorry, but I haven`t read all the replies before making this submission:

The right to own land is one of man`s most valued pre-political right, asserted, in recorded history, as early as the Magna Carta. It was certainly protected as early as the advent of Islam.

Pakistan`s landlords own their land by virtue of an ancient system of zimandari and jagirdari, which dates back to the Mughals. SO efficient was the system in providing for the landlords income that even the British were reluctant to change the tilling system. Even today, land law in Pakistan is referred to as ``Revenue Law.``

In the West, two centuries ago, the aristocricy was all landed. Becasue of important land reforms (carried out in no small part due to economic necessity), the social structure of the West has dramitically changed. Take England for example, after the intorduction of new land laws in 1925, an examination of the current ``aristocricy`` in the UK reveals very few of the old ``landed`` aristocrats. New money comes from trade, from the ownership of shares, from free trade and commerce. In short, the velocity of capital (including land).

Another example is Kerala. In the 1950s, the cocialist/communist government equalised land holdidng in the state. Although Kerala is still weak economically, it does have the highest literacy rate in India. This may seem weak cause-and-effect logic, but I think there may be a link between the satisfaction of being the owner of land, and the desire to improve oneself through something like education.

Pakistani`s need to understand that peasants tilling their fields would buy things like fertilizer and pesticides. It`s just that the landlords over them have foreever prevented them from doing so. They have prevented them by doing so by preventing them from holding any share in the land that they till. In my eyes, there are few injustices greater than this.

Rafay

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

mohar11 #30 The reason I have confidence that Pakistanis will come through OK in the end is because I have faith in the average man in Pakistan - he may be poor, but he/she has a basic dignity and pride that no amount of misfortune will take away. While people from India on chowk often make much of religious fundamentalism in Pakistan, the fact is that religious fundamentalists have always been far less successful in elections in Pakistan than in India (where BJP was, even before it came to power, the second largest party after Congress if one does not count the different communist parties as a single party). In Pakistan, even in the latest elections, despite getting a huge helping hand from the military which suppressed the mainstream parties, the fundamentalists hold on power is shaky at best and they are rushing to prove their secular (!!) credentials in hopes of gaining power.
Granted that we have had the misfortune of power-hungry military and political leaders, whereas India has had some fine individuals as prime ministers (not the least of whom was Nehru). But, knowing Pakistanis, I have no doubt that Pakistanis will prove their mettle despite the unspeakable crimes committed against them by their own military leaders, by the landlords, and by other scum.

Sameer #27

Agreed. As you say, the aim shouldnot be to bring in a system worse/inefficient in more respects than before.

Actually I am more concerned with the principle than the method. When anyone proposes a law or brings in an overnight amendment for tackling a landed feudal system, what widely accepted fundamental principle would it be evaluated against, by the obeying or disobeyng public?

The mindset and optimum method of reform if the basic principle is that economics of farming is the first priority would be very different from the mindset and optimum method of reform if the basic principle is that people living on the land are the first priority.

Given the fundamental principle the method of best achieving that can be debated on merits as you were doing in your post and its clear where you yourself stand, but reading various other posters/newspaper articles over a period of time and Mr Hoodbhoy`s article about the attitude to Okara farms dispute, it is not clear which is the majority`s or politicians or military`s first priority, A. land rights of owners or B. justice and just options for the landless or C. economics of farming.

btw, I am curious why there are no India/Nepal like Maoist-type armed movements( touch wood) among the landless in Pakistan inspite of large landholdings. Is it because the land is productive enough that even the landless and bonded labor are not in real want or is it that people have feudal attitudes toward the landlord.

Aamir

Your reply does not make sense. In case the land is taken from landlords, which is above certain ceiling level, then what we do with the land. Will goivernment own that land or it will be divided equally among peasants? and how will it be divided/ for example if there are six adult males in a peasant family then will each male get his equal share? what about women, will they get any. But in case the formula of division is per family, usually a dhok or jhok consists of at least 25-30 families who are directly involved in agriculture. An important question also arises as to on what basis the minimum ceiling will be selected - will it be equal to land producing revenue equal to the household of an average Paksitani family?