On the Miltary Farms, Okara

Rafay,

My post below turned out to be prophetic, TNT has has got 34 shias in a suicide bomb attack in quetta. From karachi to quetta, to kashmir to kabul, the children of TNT are making its creator proud.

Rafay,

Once again futile words with no attempt to situate the problem in the overall context to give a better understanding and probable solutions.

Look at the concept of human values in pakistan. Thousands have been killed as jihadic fodder in kargill invasion and in afghanistan. Now mushy has signed a deal for 1.5 billion to contain terrorism, read kill taliban. The generals got money to create taliban, now there is more money to kill taliban. The military survives by the jihadists, by creating and disposing them off. So what chance and who cares about farmers. If they are kicked out, probably they will join the jihadists, more money to kill them.

Now one can ask, how did this jihadic version of islam took root in pakistan, while at partition it was more of the sufi version. Trace that to TNT, the idea that muslims cannot live with the others. After ethnic cleansing the hindus, the TNT has to find the next victims, and ahmadias and shias were created. Add in a few for the kashmir and afghanistan and chechniya. So the fundamnenta l issue is TNT> What pakistan needs is a cultural revolution, remove the photos so that the ghost will not come out at night, sipping sherry.

I feel that the entire fiasco of the military farms is infested with vested interests. Every occupant of these farms knew for over a century that they were tilling under the patronage of the military farms and that they were badly off in relation to tenants on other government lands that gave them the propriety rights. Over a period of time, many men living in these farms had become the employees of these farms working in fodder units, milk processing plants, clerical staff and inspectors. With time the control of military authorities had become periferal as the staff reporting to them belonged to the same class as the reported. Hence a complete loop of corruption came into being resulting in pilferage.

It has to be noted that when the Okara Cantonment came into being, many of the residents of these chaks were displaced and there was no furor. Under the new logic will this cantt have to be dispensed with?

As for the socio development, most tenants benefit from the dispensaries set up for humans as well as the animals.Over time a number of schools of high standard education have come up like the convents in 10 Chak, Renala Kurd and the huge complex led by a Catholic priest on the Dipalpur road.Its a pity that none of the so called custodians of the ideological frontiers ever moved into this sector. If they had there wpuld have been militancy.

Much before the Punjab Revenue letter that created so many doubts came to the fore, the intentions of some of the occupants with vested interests were malafide. What this letter has done is to provide a causes belli.
If this precedence is accepted that soon the fiels firing ranges in Choolistan, Feroza, Pishin,
Sibi and training areas will also become contentious.
Its time that sense prevails and lets not make these farms an excuse for military bashing. The best way to bash the Army is that the politicians behave more responsibly and never give a chance for military interventions. Two smooth tenures of clean political governance would do the trick.
By the way who has killed the Catholic Priest Fr. George at the Renala Kurd Church on 4 july 2003. I know for sure that there were more than one attacks on the priests and nuns at Renala and 10 Chak since 1992. There are people who not only eye military and goverment lands but also the christian premises and places of worship in the area.

It is really sad to read the attitude of Pakistan Army against its own citizens. When the army is losing its image in the country due to other political factors, this situation is adding more to the hatred of the institution. How can you expect that an army officer will prove to be a good manager? He has been trained to fight, not to manage. The lives of thousands of residents of Okara farms are at the whims of army officers enjoying all the comforts of GHQ. But this is an irony that every retired army officer is getting the highest administrative position. May God save my country from the enemy`s army and its own army!

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

[Its time that sense prevails and lets not make these farms an excuse for military bashing. The best way to bash the Army is that the politicians behave more responsibly and never give a chance for military interventions. Two smooth tenures of clean political governance would do the trick. ]

exactly. im somewhat confused at all the furor that is being kicked up.
it seems to me all this commotion was started with some vested interest. what i gathered is that this is like saying, ``since i have been working on your land for 100 years, is it my right that this land should now belong to me``. well, what about the right of the person who owns the land?
it could be just an excuse for military bashing....or it could be a cover for something more sinister that is brewing.
but then again...i could be wrong.
as usual, studebaker`s posts still dont make sense to me :)

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

Thank you for your comments.

I would, however, like to say a few things. Cherry (#6): You are correct to question the nature of ownership. What indeed of the original owner? But it is my belief that the ownership of property should depend not on original title alone, but a combination of economic usage of land as well as title. In other words, title (or ownership) of property depends on who uses the land the best. If there is an absentee landlord (as there is, in effect in Okara), then a peasant who tills the land for generations should be entitled to ownership of the land (or, at the very least, entitled to some legal protection for his labors). This, you will be surprised to know, is not a new idea. It is the foundation of what in law is known as adverse possession. It also places economic ideas into the concepts of law. If Pakistan is to emerge from its current fuedal attitude to land ownership (where serfs never reveive any legal rights in the land) to some other form of land ownership regime, the principle of adverse possession must be embraced.

Also, I find it dissapointing that Studebaker has dismissed the military`s handling of the Okara affair as something which is not important. One needs to realize that dozens of people have been killed (and many more have and are being tortured) to date. If one does not raise a voice against such brutalities, then all is lost.

Rafay Alam

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

Rafay, I appreciate you for your campaign for the downtrodden. Well charity begins at home. How about handing over some of the farmlands allotted to your family to which you are a legal hier to tenents who tilled them before they were alloted. Many amongst us have the habit of cutting the very hands that feed us.

Sorry to keep on reappearing, but in re Ijaz Gul #9:

The property allotted to my family after Partition was, before Partition, in the ownership of one Bawa Natha Singh. His, son-in-law, who lived on the premises, was (ironically), a judge of the Lahore High Court. Incidentally, Martand Khosla, G.D. Khosla`s grandson lives in Delhi and is one my closest friends. He has promised, once the India-Pakistan visa issues are resolved, to come back and claim back-rent from 1947. I`ll deal with him when he comes.

Rafay Alam

First of all having done law from abroad and teaching it at a two bit college doesnt make one an authority on Law which is apparent from your excerpts and quotations from english law books and lack of legal justification to prove your point. Furthermore what you neglected to mention over here is that this whole matter was taken to court and the court decided in the favour of the Punjab Government and the Military who has taken the land from the government on lease. So are you claiming that you know more law then a high court bench or you just have visions of morality ?
Please dont try to use your anti establishment critique over here cause that wont get you any sympathies. Thirdly the population affected is 25 thousand not 60 thousand. Get your facts right. This is a serious issue which is something beyond your comprehension since you are more likelier to turn up at an Anti Iraq War rally with the bomb pakistani cricket banner which reflects your intellectual level and your level of seriousness and sincerity to the cause. Apart from this next time try to include all the details of the case instead of picking and choosing some of them like you completely forgot to mention the legal decision which has been given in this case and how the peasants are being misled by some local miscreants who have taken large amount of the concerned land for cultivation on lease from these peasants and are unwilling to share their profits with the army which has leased out the land. Why should the army compromise over here since this would set a bad precedent for the whole country and how will the government retain ownership of other lands in its possession. Learn to respect the rights of the tenants. These are not the only peasants in the whole of pakistan who are being asked to cultivate their lands on these conditions. The whole of southern and central punjab follows the same practices. Why dont the rest of the peasants complain ? .
On the issue of how the cash rent system encourages more yield per acre....read some economics concerning agriculture produce incentives before commenting on that. Then you will realize how economic theory and empirical evidence justifies that argument.
In the end thanks to Ijaz gul who has shed some light on your own situation which just reflects how vested interests and the desire to be counted as a somebody make complete fools write on matters they dont know about. way to go Mr ijaz.

raza

in Response to post # 12 by razzzz

Well, RAZZZZ, you may have disagreement with the writer, but the language you used in your interAct is not acceptable. Instead of insulting the writer, you should have brought your arguments against his point of view.
I dont know the legal intrcicacies involved in the case, but I myself visited the OKARA military farms, and have seen the misery being inflicted on the tenants. The total seige, harrassment and terror, all this I saw with my own eyes. It seemed the Rangers were not dealing with compatriots but some war combatants were being handled.
Some of the women were given dips in the canal by rangers men. Electricity supply was cut off, not a single school was working there, and the girls studying in the city colleges were so much harrassed that they had stopped going to college.
All the legal complications aside, this is not a treatment that should be handed out to 25000 Pakistanis.
Another thing that i noted was that all the men establishment posted there were Pakhtoon. the rangers colonel Saleem was a Pakhtoon, the SSP was a Khattak, and the ISI man was also pakhtoon. What is this...? Wont this create hatred for Pakhtoons among Punjabis....? What a way to develop National Integrity!

In re Razzz No. 12

Since I don`t have any details of myself about chowk, I assume you have picked them up from other sources. The prejudices you bring to the forum notwithstanding, I have a few comments to make:

1. The figure of 60,000 is not mine. It is quoted from a letter from the EDO Okara dated 21.09.01 (mentioned in the article). In any case, we are not speculating as to the degree of atrocity, but the fact of it.

2. I refrained from mentioning the Lahore High Court decision mainly because I think it was wrong. The case (and I have copies of the case file), hinged on the Military authority`s power and ability to affect new contracts on the expiry of old lease agreements. But this is not the point. The entire Tenancy Act needs to be torn down.

3. I am also well aware that the Punjab Tenancy Act (and various provincil manifestations of the the same) also governs every other tenant in rurual Pakistan. And, if I were pressed to comment, I would say that this law is partially responsible for the fuedal nature of Pakistani society.

The Military has no business holding land. Their argument that the Military Farms are needed in order to produce fodder for the army cannot sustain itself. The land should be given to the tenants who have tilled it their entire life. The army can outsource the produce it needs. It may be a little expensive, but I`m sure that if plans to build the next Retired Officers Building Scheme were put off for a year or two, the costs could be defrayed.

Rafay Alam

Re rafay_alam:

Well i dont know how the EDO letter came up with the figure of 60000 but it seems to have been a mistake. As to the reason for not mentioning the high court decision. Well what can i say to that. The way you think you alone know more then a Bench of High Court judges speaks for itself. Who can argue with that reasoning.
Moving on to the issue at hand. The fact over here is that the Military itself does not own the land. It has been taken on lease from the Pakistan Government by the military. So the military can not hand over something to the tenants something which is not theirs to give in the first place. So now this becomes a dispute between the tenants and the Pakistan goverment rather then the military and i am sure you know how much land of the Pakistan Government is being used by tenants, squatters and trespassers all over pakistan. If the same principle were to be followed then hundreds of thousands of acres all over pakistan would be claimed by their tenants which is not exactly an ideal solution to the problem is it.
Furthermore the new system being put into place by the military requires a tenant to pay around 1/3rd to 1/4th of the standard market rate being asked for the same land. I believe its 2500 to 3000 rs per acre as compared to the market rate of 8000 to 10000 Rs. I guess this is a fair rent. I am sure you know this already though you failed to mention this in your article since its one of the most important facts of the case in favour of the military.

have fun
raza

Razz,

What are you? In real Estate?

The point is not the revenue of the Military or the Government. It`s about the fact that, in this land of ours, the fuedal system of land ownership still exists. And this is despite article of the Consitution, which states the state will be governed by one principle: From each according to his own, from each according to his ability (this was probably inserted by J.A. Rahim while Bhutto was experiencing a moment of clarity).

The peasants in Okara have, for years, been promised the ownership of the land which they have tilled for generations. The current MNA from Okara (Defence Minister Rao Sikandar) made this promise part of his election campaign. The fact that he has stopped visiting Okara reveals his constitutients` feelings towards him.

The High Court decision was made by a two member bench comprising of Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum and Mr. Justice Saqib Nisar (to my mind, one of the finest Judges this country has ever produced), and written by Malik Myhammad Qayyum. It is only a few double spaced pages long. It does not answer the main question: What is the nature of property rights in Pakistan. How can such a decision be right? And, further, our High Courts and Supreme Court are not infallible. I think you would agree with me on this.

There are also questions as to the legal title of Military Farms over the lands in question. A 30 year lease was executed by the Crown in 1913, but the original document has since been lost (I refer to offial correspondence, which I have in my possession). One cannot say for sure, but the Military`s lease may have expired. Why else would the ecretary Defence write to the Governor of Punjab in 1999, requesting him to ``gift`` the land to the Military?

Best regards,
Rafay Alam