Land Reforms: A Landlord's Perspective

#25 by tahmed32 on October 25, 2002 8:33am PT
//...Never fear, Pakistanis will muddle through anyway. Sorry to disappoint you.//

I do fear. How long can they manage to ``muddle through`` ? What happens when they can`t go on like this any more? An islamic revolution - right ? When that happens - which bogeyman the ``revolutionaries`` will beat against - Americans, Jews, Hindoos - right? And how do you fancy nukes in hands of the ``revolutionaries`` ?
You sure disappoint me. You being part of the elite - the masses ``muddling through`` the morass does not bother you - does it?

Tahmed32 #28. First of all I disagree with your point (a) and dont know where you get your data from or what agricultural experience you have. As far as (b) and (c) are concerned there are limited cases of opression but should not be extrapolated and genaralized to cover all landlords.

It seems that you have a bone of contention with Sindhi`s, Balauchi`s and Punjabis and are simply stating your prejudices here. I wonder where this superiority complex stems from.

sameerJB #27 The problem with feudalism is two-fold: (a) it is a hurdle to improved land productivity; (b) it constitutes oppression on peasants that no civilized society should tolerate today (e.g. sindhi landlords keep entire families in bondage), and (c) it is also a hurdle to human development (e.g. tribal leaders in baluchistan, I am told by NGOs who have worked there, stop schools from being opened since they realize that education is the ticket to freedom for the peasant).
While (a) may conceivably merit experimentation, there is no reason at all why (b) and (c) should be permitted one more minute. If I had my way, the peasants would be free today, and the sindhi, baluchi, and south panjabi landlords brought to court to face criminal charges for kidnapping (which is what their ``private jails`` amount to), rapes, and payment of past wages for slave labor. I believe the charges would be enough, per the pakistan penal code, to hang many of these landlords and to divest the rest of them off the shirts off their backs.

sadna and mohar11: Feudalism is bad. But to turn an unfair system into a just sytem for all has to follow a systematic approach so as not to turn an unfair system into a disaster in the name of undoing the unfairness. That was the gist of my previous post giving the example of landless majority.
This is often ignored if you follow too much of field marshall`s bashing of feudals as the ultimate culprits of all social, political, moral and economic evils. For a country like Pakistan where cheating is name of the game at every level, more devolution of power or land without a system in place to cope with the consequences of abrupt changes creates nothing but disorder. Thhis is what happened to devolution plan of Musharraf with too many nazims and councillors looking for their own interests without a system and institutions to control the unlawful practices.
The best option to me seems to go through a scientifically honest pilot plant study. Select a district or sub-district for implementing land reforms, another for sharia and stuff another for extra liberal/ secular practices, another one for full 50 percent women empowerment in the affairs and so on. Analyze the results every few months and perfect the system if possible or discard if not possible. Musharraf getting up one day and announcing major change in the unfair system is more likely a recipe for disaster than a step towards just society.

Sameer (20), the sketch you draw violates the fundamental principles of economics, that is of invisible-hand and specialization. Further, in the current system of barter trade in villages, which you imply, one cannot ``cheat`` and receive something for nothing, that violates the human nature, for those at the not-receiving end will not survive, and nor would the ones receiving something for nothing, this cannot go on for too long. In this scenario, only a system of oppression would exist, something similar to serfdom, as it did in Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution. From what I understand, that is precisely the system that exists in the interiors of Sindh and Punjab.

Moreover, the problem of ``cheating`` you cite is very true but is also fundamentally human. My question is how other societies overcame this? What are the economic models, tried and tested, out there that successfully addressed this issue? What are the factors that contribute to increased productivity that would maximize the benefits to all those, not just a few, living off the land?

Increasing the productivity through mechanization brings up the issue of who would do the investment? This becomes an acute issue even in a win-win situation: by your investment, if you gain a Toyota Camry and the other person (who did not invest anything) gains a BMW, then you rather not have a Camry just because it would make the other guy gain a BMW.

Pakfin (19), what is stopping the landowners in investing in the land to increase productivity? Why aren’t the tillers motivated? I don’t think their laziness is the answer.

mohar11 #23 you write ``I have a sinking feeling that there is really no hope for people of Pakistan. ``
You mean buoyant feeling. Never fear, Pakistanis will muddle through anyway. Sorry to disappoint you.

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

pakfin #16
If it was a real apartment, then somebody built it, and hence presumably owned it before anyone could live in it and your term ` illegal occupation` works.

But if you are using the analogy of land as the apartment, the land was always there and humans lived on it and off it without needing ownership papers right from, let me see, Adam and Eve, much like animals live on land without any concept of ownership. Until that is, the concept of land ownership came along. You need to check up on how people became landlords and claimed ownership over large tracts of land which already had people living on them.

My question still holds, is the economy of farming more important or the the people who have always lived on that land?

It is so tragic that ``educated`` people are actually defending landlordism - such a medieval concept. ( for some reason - the elite in pakistan are always defending all kinds of medieval practices - sharia / islamic banking / jihad against infidels etc....)

I have a sinking feeling that there is really no hope for people of Pakistan. With fundos(MMA) all set to bring back sharia with added bonus of islamic banking , the army continues guzzling up the resources , elites opposed to land reform ( some guys here have equated land reform to communism !!! ) , intellectuals on retreat as fundos march ahead. I guess common pakistanis are now getting squeezed from all sides. Well - that`s what happens when you willingly give up your right to choose your own gov`t by cheer-leading army desperadoes whenever they fancy taking over elected gov`ts.

godot: In every village, more than half the population is neither landowner nor tiller. They own no land at all and yet survive due to a distribution mechanism. This is the artisan class, the mochi, tirkhan, mullah, nai, shop keepers, mirasis and musallis etc. All of these people are compensated rather honestly based on the production per acre of land. In any land reform effecting the owners and tillers, the fate of majority with nothing at stake hangs in balance. If you take away land from owner and give it to tillers, the power of tillers goes up so much that they can refuse, without any consequence, share of artisans. The law and order has to improve in devolution of land, so that landless majority keeps getting their share of the crop in exchange for services. In the current set up, owner keep an eye on tiller against cheating and tillers keep their eyes on owners for the same purpose because both parties have stake in the exact production. Once the crop production can not be cheated by either party, the landless majority is able to get their fair share for the services. The cheating will be the biggest problem once only one party owns and tills the land. A person owning and tilling 10 acres has every reason to show less production so that he has to give away less to landless artisan class. The mutual check and balance is the best guarantee against cheating.
Same goes for applying income tax to agriculture output. Given the less policing in countryside, everybody will have vested interest in showing less income than actual which will crush the landless dropping them from minimum sustenance level they have now.
A land reform without taking care of all these things is a recipe for disaster in exchange for possibly slightly better yields. The best way to improve yields is machinization of agriculture industry.

pakfin #19 you write ``The worker typically wants to plant the crop that uses the least labour and does not necessarily give the best profits. ``
I assume you are more industrious than this typical worker, and make the above statement after studying the evidence, and did not just make it up while idling around the computer. And I trust you will be industrious enough to share your evidence and that that evidence will be more than your (no doubt unbiased) personal opinion.

Godot seee my answers to your questions:

1. The output is currently not maximized. There are a numebr of reasons for this; insufficient use of technology/fertilizer, manual labour vs. use of equipment, improper/insufficient use of pesticides, hoarding of water by upstream provinces/farmers and lack of drive on part of the farm worker. Even when the tiller of the land has become the owner, the typical result has been the sale of the land and then spending the money gained while doing nothing.

2. Thre is no major issue of distribution of income to the persons cultivating the soil. The issue is the lack of timeliness in carrying out various actions on part of the farm labour. When the farm worker owns a pair of oxen and uses these to till the land, he gets 50% of the produce, while the rest of the inputs are the farmers`. The issue here is the lack of ambition on part of the farm worker. The worker typically wants to plant the crop that uses the least labour and does not necessarily give the best profits.

pakfin,

Common sense (serious) questions:

1. Is the output of the land cultivated in Pakistan maximized, ie, is the cultivation efficient? If not, then why not? Would making the tillers of the land also owners increase the productivity of the land? Is there a model for it? What does China’s experience along the same line show?

2. Currently, how equitable is the distribution of the proceeds received from the land to those cultivating it?

To me, the above questions are central to so-called land reforms in Pakistan.

Land Reforms in my view is a socialist practice of forcibly taking away assets from the ``haves`` and not necessarily giving these to ``have nots``.

Sadna, if you were already in the apartment but did not own it then you were an illegal occupant in the first place. Are you claiming squatters rights to ownership or are you a proponent of communism/socialism?

Could someone please tell us what the phrase ``Land Reforms`` mean to them - especially those people who consider feudalism/landownership the mother of all evils (other than religion). I understand the commie philosophy, which meant that the state owns the land, but since this religion is dead now, then what is land reform means now - No bile or acerbic vitriole plz (if you could help it). Thank you.