Feudals and Us

Sameer:

For a `convert` himself you do take a very strong exception to `conversions`. That is laudable!

The passage that I quoted was a result of simple google search with these words `` Essence of Buddhism``.

Yes it hurts at the wrong places to see an otherwise capable mind contradicting himself in the garb of being knowledgable111

#39 nasah:

Sorry for missing responding to your earlier post regrading term ``lower castes`` and their conversion to Islam. Lower castes to me are all castes except Brahmins and I did not intend to say untouchables or shudras. The untouchable component of castes was relatively small in Punjab to begin. One world used for converts to Islam from that caste is musalli, who are poor, at the bottom, samll in numbers and still outcast. Later, remianing untouchables preferred christianity but things did not change for them. They remained almost unacceptable in all sections of society and reduced to sanitation workers in urban areas and sort of bonded labor in outside urban environment such as workers in brick making kilns.

No point for me here to respond to comments anout Buddhism, when I have repeatedly said that it is debasing of dieties from religion which makes Buddhism, as a non-theistic religion superior to others in my mind. Actually the paragraph, hellbound wrote and honorable assistant editor of Dawn agreed with is the summary of Christian missioneries telling Buddhist majority in South Korea when infiltrating for the sake of proselytizing and finally consuming Buddhism in the last 50 years. The story of South Koreans converting to evangelic Christinity in modern times has close resemblance with sufis converting desis to Islam in the past. Missionaries in South Korea enjoyed the backing of puppet governments and more than 10, 000 US soldiers stationed there and Sufis enjoyed similar support from Islamic rulers of their times.

I know that raising the curtain from the dark secrets of vastly admired and presently cherished beliefs causes convulsions and hurts at the wrong places so much that ignorance of it is a bliss.

AdamSmith:

Good poem.

M. B. Z. Asfahani:

Thanks for the comments

hellbound very well said -in both your posts -

Another missed occasion!
(a poem dedicated to chowk discussions)

There was hope
Perhaps some of us would read and understand
Possibly, the personal accusations could be avoided...
maybe we could engage on ideas
Could listen to each other?

Do we then wonder why we get nowhere?

We tried but failed
No communication was achieved
Long meandering communications which never talked to each other

Defensive postions
name and label dropping
superficial harping back to the past

Do we then wonder why we get nowhere?

no serious discussion
nothin gained

Well maybe some of us let off steam and feel good
Otherwise this has been a wasted discussion

Do we then wonder why we get nowhere?

None of us want to read and address what the other has writtten
My high pulpit is the best....
I said it all......
No sharpening of arguments...only our beliefs and biases

Do we then wonder why we get nowhere?

If you do not agree, I will jump on you
Or deride you in some way
Yes being snide and name calling is what discussions are all about
of course there are epithets I can fling at you

But never will I read or understand what you say
Nor will I even consider for a moment what you might put forward
All knowledge lies in our biases

Do we then wonder why we get nowhere?

No beautiful mind among us!

And god forbid if we have one....we will throw her out with much abuse!

No civil society can develop in this milieu whether rural, urban or in space.

``for a Buddhist, as you claim to be one, your bias and total disdain for another religion (Islam) is simply amazing. Correct me if I am wrong, the essence of Buddhism is to:``Abandon negative action; create perfect virtue; subdue your own mind. This is the teaching of the Buddha.`` By abandoning negative actions (killing, etc.) and destructive motivations (anger, attachment, closemindedness, etc.), we stop harming ourselves and others.`` Are we talking about the same religion, Sameer? ``(hellbound)

with a passage like that -- u r definitely not hellbound -- mr/ms hellbound -- call urself heavenbound for heaven sake....

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

Sameer

[I was surprised when I was asked for the reference about feudals role in Pakistan movement]

eh? who asked you to provide references to feudal`s role in Pakistan Movement. I definitely did not!!!!!

[Name any one famous Sufi involved in the conversion along the GT road from Kabul to Delhi???? ]

I will get back to you on that!!!

Lastly, for a Buddhist, as you claim to be one, your bias and total disdain for another religion (Islam) is simply amazing. Correct me if I am wrong, the essence of Buddhism is to:``Abandon negative action; create perfect virtue; subdue your own mind. This is the teaching of the Buddha.`` By abandoning negative actions (killing, etc.) and destructive motivations (anger, attachment, closemindedness, etc.), we stop harming ourselves and others.`` Are we talking about the same religion, Sameer?

#33 Romair

[Ferozek #29: ``In absence of any land reforms, the process of urbanization is the only option.``

I would tend to agree with this. However, for urbanization to occur, economic growth needs to preceed it. As cities grow alongiwth industrialization etc., more jobs will be available. This will result in peasant families sending one family member off to the cities, who can earn money independent of the feudal. This will give the peasant families leverage to take on the feudal. ]

I will be last person to oppose creation of wealth, which takes place mostly through urbanzation, industrialization, good economy, good education, manageable ``slow`` population growth, developing strong institutions, rule of law, freedom of choice and expression etc. However, feudals are not stopping and can not stop a person leaving rural environment and moving to city. Actually due to fast population growth and machination of agriculture in some areas have made surplus peasant workers who are moving fast to urban areas. The increase in the population of urban areas during the last 20-30 years is mainly due to this factor. The proportion of urban as compared to rural has gone up sgnificantly.

The land reforms as favored by you is based on insufficient knowledge of the land distribution, at least in central Punjab which produces bulk of grain. The name feudal is assigned to people with tradtional mindset with as little as 50 acres of land. Since one person can not till 50 acres alone unless machnation, few peasant families depend on that 50 acres. That is the case in my ancestral village. The largest land holding is 50 acres out of 1000 acres belong to the village. Perhaps few generations ago, the dominant family had 500 acres but through inheritance it is divided up between brothers, first cousins, second cousins and sometime even brothers dont get along with each other in typical Punjabi style. The feuds between first and second cousins is almost always there.

But when urban media talks about the land holdings, they use old data and use extended familites ( relatives) as one group or as one entity. In lower Punjab and in Sindh, some individuals do have large land holdings. I am of the opinion that no matter how efficient and fair land reforms are carried out, the ground realities wont change a bit. The surplus labor force as a result of over-population, machination of agriculture will keep moving to cities and pass throught the stage, Indian Punjab is passing through due to Punjabis migrating to cities and abroad, shortage of labor force is filled from the agriculture workers from UP and Bihar. I am almost certain that life of a landless peasant, belonging to same tribe, caste, village and long term association with local environment gets better treatment than imported agriculture workers who could be treated worse and exploited more.

Pakistani society can least afford a group of people (peasants) taking on another group (landowners) as if we already have enough groups taking on each other with Shia-Sunni taking on each other on the top.

#35 HP

I guess nobody knows where line between a small time landowner and a feudal is. That is why, I have blurred the line between rural and feudal. Belonging to central Punjab, I have seen feudal mentality among landowners of as little as 50 acres as well as very fine, ratinal individuals from 100 acres or more landowning families. That is why, I used rural, agricultural and feudal background of few famous poets. On surface it makes no difference, if one large feudal treating 1000 peasants roughly (or fairly) or 20 small feudals treating 50 peasants each badly (or decently). In many areas, the most most landholding person is not the most politically powerful. Even, Chaudhries of Gujrat are not the biggest feudals in Gujrat. Their power stems from the traditions set by Shujaat father, Zahoor Elahi, developing network of Jats thorugh intermarriages and political favors and so on.

The difference between your post and mine regarding game-theory is that I looked from the point of view of feudals delivering and you looked at it from the side of constituents demanding. I agree that urbans dont demand becasue they dont need it, but getting into politics is ideally a desire for public service although it is often used as a ladder fo power. Thus public service to the constituents is incumbent upon their representative, whether constituents demand it or nor. Georgians did not demand Senator Sam Nunn to bring defense contracts to Georgia and create jobs or most governors working hard to have car plants from big manufacturers, headoffices of big corporations to be in their state and so on. It is rsponsibity as well as necessity for better re-election chances. Same applies to representatives of Karachi, Lahore or any other rural or urban constituency in Pakistan. However, if people vote for the person, most vocal about bringing back the past glory of Islam, the rpresentative will preferably milk it instead of creating credential of public service.

First off, Josh Maleehabadi, Sahir Ludhianvi, Majrooh Sultanpuri and Kaifi Azmi were not of feudal background at all. Mostly, they were middle or lower middle class with semi-rural background. Sahir’s father was a small landowner near Ludhiana. Kaifi Azmi was from Azam Garh a small town in UP but there is nothing to suggest a feudal background.

Anyways, I think there are plenty of holes in your game theory. The issues a public rep deals from a 100% urban constituency like some in Karachi are different than the issues that a rep from the 100% rural constituency would deal with. City voters most likely would not bother with their MPA or MNA about things, which they know they themselves or with their own connections can take care off.

For a rural voter the most important issue is dealing with petty bureaucrat like the policemen or the patwari on business. That would require as we in Sindh call “Parath”- meaning connection or some sort of sifarish. In cities this would be a non starter.

In cities, it is likely that the rep is working hard to find jobs for his voters. As the roads and hospitals in a likely scenario already exist.
Now dealing with your theory that ZAB or some other feudal would likely do some more for their voters than the ones in city is not totally accurate as the challenges in rural and urban constituencies are different.
What people forget that in a constituency of 300K to 400K voters, election becomes an issue of having enough money to finance it. With no help from the political parties, in rural constituencies only feudal can muster enough resources to win elections. That also means that he needs to have many alliances with small landowners and groups that are not under his direct influence. In cities, we see middle class people elected regularly as their campaign is financed by the local businesses or the party itself.

There are two types of Urdu Speaking in Karachi. Strictly middleclass, somewhat better educated with more resources. They would always vote for JI, as the JI comes across as a party for the educated Karachiites. Most of the JI support is from Nazimabad type areas where economically successful middle class resides. The MQM is a successor of JUP of Noorani a conservative religious party. The so-called rednecks of the Urdu speaking, most likely living in Laloo Khet/Liaquaabad, Korangi or Orangi town voted for the JUP and the same people vote and support MQM. The Urdu speaking in Nazimabad still supports the JI as MQM is the party for less educated and sort of blue color of Urdu Speaking.

Why they vote conservative or communal? I think that is a residual effect of partition.

Bombay for sometime was under the influence of Shiv sena. Going by your theory, Bomay should be the most liberal city of India but often it votes very conservative, almost communal. What explains that?

romair:

The thought of feudals as allies to liberal secular against religious did not cross my mind when putting together this piece althought one may fnd some truth to it. But feudals are quite comfortable with mullahs. Only difference is that feudals dont like to see mullahs above them because in rural culture, mullah is at the mercy of land-owning people and treated as one of the artisan castes. However, village mullah is almost always on the side of feudals because his livelihood depends directly on the feudals down to two servings of bread loaves daily for the mullah. Most of the feudals including Ch. Shujaat have close relations with politically powerful mullahs. similarly within PML (N) people like Javed Hashmi, Raja Zafar ul Haque and many more are very favorable to mullahs and JI when it comes to the need of political alliances. PPP also made alliances repeatedly with JUI and in fact, this alliance played very important role in the creation of Taliban during BB`s rule.

As I mentioned above, for the cultural inferior place of mullah, few feudals join MMA component parties but, on the other hand, many feudals are serious leftists, liberals and secular. They were always present in almost every left leaning party except Mazdoor-Kisan party. Look at the committed lefties like Josh Maleehabadi, Sahir Ludhianvi, Majrooh Sultanpuri and Kaifi Azmi. These poets came from big feudal families and chose to be strong leftist.

What crossed my mind during writing this piece was game theory. As you grow older, you become more pragmatic rather than emotional idealist. I have absolutely no feudal background and rural was also limited to once a year visit to grandfather in the village. Yet , when I apply game theory, I see a win-win situation between feudal and his constituents lot more than an urban parlimentarian and his constituents. Let me say that win-win between feudal and his constituent is by no mean equally win-win situation. It is probably somewhere between 80-99 percent win for feudal and 1-20 percent win for the constituents becasue status quo and traditionalism keeps it from going into red (negative or loss). Now you compare this with the elected members from Karachi. Voting for MQM or JI is definitely a no win situatioin for the people of Karachi. They lose for almost permanently sending members to opposition benches, some of them more concerned about Islam, sectarianism and US foreign policy than Karachi or Pakistan. Chowkies from Karachi are smarter to know it and that is why almost none supports JI or MQM.

I gave you the example of Z. A. Bhutto and Manzoor Wattoo in the last post. At least loyalty to constituents is better than superfical and extra-national loyalties. Their is no service to Pakistan without service to the people of Pakistan and one`s constituents come before others when people of Pakistan is mentioned from an elected member`s point of view. One proof of this strong relation with geography, culture and the people living there is great desire of all these feudals to be buried in their native towns and villages. People like Z. A. Bhutto and Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan had strong ties to the land but Zia did not and possibly Mushaaraf would also be buried besides Zia if dies while in power. Zia was technically a Peshawar domiciled and Musharraf is Gujranwala domiciled but they have no speacial respect for these places and did nothing. Musharraf is not going to settle or run for election from Gujranwala, so how can one be great servant of the people while ignoring the group of people which comes first? They can brag as much as they want about macro level ahead of micro level loyalties but tree without roots does not have the strength to stand in the cruel winds of the world. At least at this micro level, feudals are loyal to their constituents. Yes, they win big in win-win situation but their constituents dont lose any more than what they are to lose under miliatry dictator, mullah or a non-feudal from MQM type parties.

Karachiites, being most urban should have been the leading light towards a liberal, secular and law abiding society. There was time when no such party from rest of Pakistan existed and a national level Karachi based party could have won the hearts and minds of rational Pakistanis but they chose JI, JUP and later formed MQM. MQM is not likely to win any hearts and minds of rural or urban Pakistanis elsewhere.

Ferozek #29: ``In absence of any land reforms, the process of urbanization is the only option.``

I would tend to agree with this. However, for urbanization to occur, economic growth needs to preceed it. As cities grow alongiwth industrialization etc., more jobs will be available. This will result in peasant families sending one family member off to the cities, who can earn money independent of the feudal. This will give the peasant families leverage to take on the feudal.

This is something the feudal cannot control, at a local level. He can stop schools and roads being built in his land. Which he does with a lot of vigour. It is no coincidence the feudal Pakistan has the lowest literacy rates in the country (has anyone looked at the literacy rates of the powerful PPP politicians` constituencies?). But he cannot control the migration of his peasants to the cities, directly. And that migration completely delinks that individual from the control of the feudal.

This will result in completely wiping out the hold of the feudal, someday, as you have indicated. However, this is an extremely slow process, and is dependent on economic growth in the country. And most of all, the feudal has a strategy to counter this also. He fights elections and takes control of the govt., which is to make all these decisions. Why else do feudals participate in elections?

Once he has done that, he can greatly delay the urbanization of the country. It is a fact, that feudals are the only group in the country, that do not benefit from economic growth. The industrialist benefit, the labor benefits, the military benefits, the urbanites benefits, the peasants benefit, even the mullah benefits. The feudal loses.

(Similarly, feudals and mullahs are the only two groups that do not benefit from the spread of new information and ideas in a society).

So the solution is, and always will be, to kick the feudals out of politics, thereby allowing other groups to fill the vacuum. However, this is a chicken and egg scenario, since the feudals control the politics to begin with. Why would they kick themselves out? They are infact on the forefront of any, ``democratic`` movement in Pakistan.

I think Pakistan is set for an interesting showdown between the feudals and mullahs in politics. The mullahs representing the religious side, and the feudal respresenting the secular side. The urban English-speaking intellegensia disagrees with everything the fedual does, except his secularism. However, it hates the mullah even more. Hence it may side with the feudal, as this article does.

Such a showdown can be seen in many Islamic countries. Where the representation of the upper class is in the hands of secularly inclinded, but corrupt, elitist govt. While the lower class is represented by the mullah, who, in many cases is out of step with the rest of the world. Egypt, Algeria, Iran, Iraq etc. being good examples.

Hamza Alavi, the famous Pakistani social scientist, has written about feudalism. Anyone interested in how feudalism controls the Pakistani society, would be well-advised to read his work. His analysis concentrates more on Human Development factors under the feudal, and less on the feudal`s affect on secularism and religion. Unlike this article, he seems to give feudalism an, ``F`` and not a, ``C.``:

``Feudalism works through a well-entrenched oppressive network, led by landlords who, with their lackeys, exploit landless peasants, eminent academic and social scientist Hamza Alavi said.

Lecturing on the system of feudalism Prof Alvi told the meeting, arranged by Forum for Peace and Development (FPD), that landlords, the police, patwaris (record-keepers of lands), rasagirs (cattle-rustlers) goons and other minions of the village administration were the main pillars of feudalisms edifice.

Referring to his first hand experiences about rural life and the role of landlords in Punjabs villages, Prof Alvi said that landlords had been the rulers of rural society. They got their own men appointed in civil administration to secure their hold over the lives of landless masses of people, he added.

The tenants, sharecroppers and labourers, he said, depended for their livelihood upon the will of landlords.

``Landlords are masters of landless people. They exploit their labour and honour both, and in return give them such a small quantity of food which keeps them alive for more drudgery,`` he said.`` (http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-tudies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1996/18Ap96.html)

Thanks ferozK and AdamSmith for providing sort of lessons about European feudal system and fiefdoms because I ma not knowledgeable enough to discuss the european history. As Urstruly pointed out that in a country where 70 percent people are involved in agriculture and rural population outnumbers urban population, the representative of them would almost certainly be from the same background unless people like Shaukat Aziz are offered seats from rural areas as it is going to happen. Obviously, he will need rigging to win either or both of the seats against combined opposition from PPP and PML (N). My point was that where rural conditions do not apply, the outcome is worse than rural outcome. It is subjective but I strongly believe that JI, MQM, JUP an JUI are worse in wisdom despite being smarter (educated) than rurals. The rural wisdom whatever rating one choses to award, is not detached from the local conditions, traditions and environments whereas the urban wisdom is debased from the urban conditions and needs. There is no need for sectarian based politics in places like Karachi or Jhang but SSP and Azam Tariq won in Jhang on sunni votes basis. He did nothing for Jhang, so why blame a feudal who does nothing bad for his constituents.

I give you one example. Few years back, a feudal from my ancestral constituency n the west side of river Ravi was able to put together a coalition of Jat and Rajput feudals in Punjab Assembly and became almost impossible to be removed by both BB and NS. Now he is in trouble with NAB over awarding licences for gas stattions to favorites. His name was Manzoor Wattoo. However, almost never mentioned and most chowkies dont know that he did everything poosible to develop his constituency, just like Shahbaz Sharif later did for Lahore and Model Town area. Manzoor Wattoo quickly brought electricity to all villages, built roads, opened new schools, improved towns and greatly reduced dependency on river water by putting large number of tube wells. Similarly no matter what people and history say about Z. A. Bhutto, he changed the face of Larkana, opening a Medical College, improving Mohenjodaro airport, couple of high standard hotels, good quality roads etc. You can not say same about very popular urban like Sheikh Rashid Ahmed from Rawalpindi. He has won from Rawalpindi 5-6 times, has been almost always within the government but has no feather in his cap for any service to the people of Rawalpindi. Similarly all the candidates whoever won from urban Islamabad from any platform has nothing to show for. In a parliamentary system, constituents of the parlimentarian are his foremost concern. The national level politics for them is limited to within National Assembly.

dawgusa:

My understanding about loans from Pakistani national media is that state bank can write off bad loans upon the advice and approval of president. Recently a list of laon-written off was published in which RS: 80 crore against Ch. Shujaat Hussain and his partners were written off. It is possible that write offs occur in many forms, one of which might be to forgive interest and another form of bankrupcy claim might include the creditors right over the assets bought from the loan as it happens in USA bankrupcy cases. However, to the best of my knowledge, writing off of 80 crore against Phalia Sugar Mills in Gujrat or MAndi Bahaduddin did not transfer Phalia sugar Mills to the creditor bank.

HP:

Very illuminating post. No matter what the reasons for Urbanites and Karachiites mindset are, present is always more important than the past. Either they should learn from the reasons of their mindset and change or dont pretend to be doing more for the nation towards creating a sensible and mature political climate than feudals.

hellbound:

I already went into some details about the link between risk of losing land and conversions and mentioned at least one urdu book on the topic by Sibt-e-Hassan Zaigham. Delhi Sultanates were much weaker than later Mughal and could not afford to send troops to places like southern Punjab from Delhi in case of uprising. Some big tribes like Gakkhars have the history of fighting invaders and outside rulers. Delhi Sulatnates had to come up most effective way to keep lid on any possible uprising from tribes away from Delhi and no direct route between Delhi and Multan except passing through deset areas. The road bewtween Delhi, Lahore and all the way to Kabul existed even before Sher Shah Suri and could be defended by plcing garrisons along the route. Therefore, the uprisings could be quelled and Sufis were not needed for keeping the lid on uprising though messages of peace, brotherly love and conversion to Islam. Name any one famous Sufi involved in the conversion along the GT road from Kabul to Delhi????

It actually gives a bad impression by asking refernces about the common knowledge. I was surprised when I was asked for the reference about feudals role in Pakistan movement. It created the feeling in my mind that chowkies dont have as much general knowledge as I thought they have. Just like in another artilce, Mohammaed Gill has given the reference for Hypatia episode. Come on, if a person needs or gives reference for Hypatia, the second most famous persecution after Gallileo in Christian history, the general knowledge level must be pretty low for average reader or the writer of the article. Hypatia is as well-known in atheist and ultra secular circles as Dier Yasin and Abu Gharib are in Muslim intelligent circles. Now dont ask me to provide reference for Dier Yasin, would you?

[#1 Asfand

Please do point out any material contained herein that is factually not correct.]

Sameer, could you please provide the details of: ``The coercion and sweetened deals by Sufis working as front men for rulers in the absence of land owning right carried lot more weight earlier than later when land owned by tribal elders-feudals could not be at risk``

Any name, place, event would suffice!

[Pakistanis are Pakistanis, thanks in parts to feudals’ support at that critical juncture in history. ]

Is it good or bad?

[Those who prefer to speak Punjabi with other Punjabis or prefer listening to Punjabi than Urdu music and those who don’t watch cricket are less than perfect Pakistanis. They are quick to assign bigot, racist, ethno-centric, regionalist, RAW-agent and anti-Pakistan labels to any person who deviates from their dubious narrow-minded definitions of nationalism and patriotism, particularly to those who advocate native cultures such as languages]

This is a sweeping generalization with a strong scent of a personal bias...Such is not the case. The titles such as racist, anti-Pakistani etc are used by Punjabis for ppl who advocate their native cultures and languages..such as Pashtuns, Sindhis. Surely Punjabis who speak Punjabi and promote Punjabi are looked down upon by their fellow punjabis more than anyone else..

[I am a cool, calm, peaceful and peace loving paindoo and a Buddhist.]

Does that mean that one should not question your views given that you hail from a rural background and practice Buddhism?

Please pardon my analytical skills, but this is the impression that I get from this article:

Feudals and saints facilitated mass scale conversions to Islam in order to gain concessions from the King?

Feudals gave up religion once they got titles to the lands but the saints latter day Mullah hung on to the religion and continue to do so for their personal gains?

Feudals and not the people were the major force behind the creation of Pakistan?

Feudals are capable of adapting to changing evironment and Urbanites are not, because the former gave up on religion, and latter clings on to religion?

Pakistan should let her to be managed by these feduals since they know `when to pick a fruit` and when not?

I am confused, all I read and hear is about all those horrific things that goes on in rural Punjab and Sindh which are orchestrated by the same `feudals` you so vehemently support. Is it the rural system that you are defending or a feudal system?

re: vertex # 14

I am sorry, but I did not answer the second part of your question.

The pace of urbanization, as substitute to land reforms, is an extended process and a painfully slow one.

A feudal can easily stop the process, but what the feudal is really scared of and will have a hard time to control, is the flow of information and new ideas. The spread of new ideas and information, of the life outside the sway of the feudal, will have more of an immediate impact in lessening the hold of the fedual. There is a very rationale reason behind the motive, which deems that a feudal deny the establishment of schools in his area, denial of electricity, and the denial of the people`s basic rights as to always keep them dependent on his good graces.

Trade brings new ideas and new ideas, generally speaking, challenge the established systems of political control. There can be no meaningful change or an end to feudalism, as long as the people are afraid to ask for their basic rights in the rural areas and live in mortal fear of the fedual lord. The feudals do not have just the power of politics, but they are the judge and the jury in their regions too and their naked power extends to matter of life and death over their serfs. The feudal power comes from the practice of panjiyats - village councils, and this fedual based legal system has a more powerful writ of authority than the government of Pakistan`s own laws. The law of the feudal is almighty in the village and even the instruments of Pakistani government, will not challenge them. In fact, a police officer or a SHO is often nominated on the advice of the feudal lord and owes his loyality to him and not the government of Pakistan, or the police of Pakistan or the laws of Pakistan. It is this reason, which presupposed the hesistency on the part of the police to register criminal cases against the feudals and such cases are notably involving honor killings, rape, murder and agricultural theft; illegal occupation of land.

I still favor the process of urbanization, because I see the end result of this in another 50-75 years, if and this is a huge speculative if, the present process of urbanization continues. Pakistan has drastically changed in the last 50 years and the power of feudal has not ended, but it has mutated into politics and economy. Another interesting fact, by which the feudals are slowly appreciating the subtle tact of political awareness is the lessening of blasphemy cases. In the times of the seperate electorates, feudals would use this as a ploy to get rid of their opposition, but now since the electorates have been joined, they have realized that they need the votes of the minorities and to an extent, have discouraged the mullahs from lodging such cases or adviced the police not to, preferring to settle them out of courts.

In absence of any land reforms, the process of urbanization is the only option.

Ciao

re: vertex # 14

Land reforms in Pakistan are fraught with pitfalls. There is no will to impose land reforms, as most of the members of the ruling structure in Pakistan, have their roots in feudalism via marriages and extended families. The politicans, who migrated to Pakistan in 1947 had no political constitutencies of their own, but the landlords who later dominated the governments in West Pakistan, used their feudal possessions as strong political power bases to gain power.

The decision of the Indian government to erdicate the menace of fedualism, will always shine as a credit to its foresight and political maturity to allow the growth of Indian democracy.

Ciao