On the Inside

You say you are not feudal ``However, I refuse to call my family “feudals” because we do not act like feudals`` but then you contradict yourself by saying ``we feudals will be no more in a generation or two....``. From your article it seemed like you do take a lot of pride in being one.

Re: # 36

Romair,

A similar comment I heard in a Wilbur Smith novel Golden Fox where one of the persons who is shown as buying minerals from a sanctions hit Rhodesia tell the heroine (his sister) ``I am a white knight of capitalism by buying from them at a lower pice I am slowly eroding them and weakening them any structure that gives privilege based on your skin colour is wrong`` and then even advocates that blacks should be educated and made part of the economic pie so that they have a vested interest in education and preserving the system and not become Bolshies like ANC. Considreing smith is a South African and the book was written in the 70`s it tells you volumes about the negativeness of Feudalism.

Also correct me if I am wrong is not the Mullah also part of this game in Rural areas telling the peasant it is a crime against Allah to rebel against whose salt you have eaten or run away from a master whose ``loan`` you have not paid back. I know a feudal in Delhi Nawab of Najibabad Shahid Hamid who was telling very proudly about such things

feudals are gentle, sweet, and benevolent. 99% of them basically exist because they sold out to the brits. once the gora left in 47, the feudals kept their original role of keeping the plebs in line!

Re: # 44

Ahmedmadani......what are you sniffing?.And, if your pride gets pricked by having to import vegetables from india, then DON`T.We don`t care.We`re getting rid of our excess produce and making money off it.Otherwise it wil probably go to feed livestock or used as mulch.False pride doesn`t get anyone anywhere.You guys can`t even feed yourselves and you call yourselves a country.

Dear MS. Shah,

Your essay in needless and misses all the points. The truth is: Feudalism is here and is the root cause of almost all the political and social ill in the feudal-belt(s). But as you say, education and awareness is spreading (no thanks to the feudals) and shall take its course.

On the issue of urbans asking for bloody uprisings against the lords. Pray tell me, how many such revolutionary advocates have you come accoss?

From pure logical prospective, on can understand the motives of your piece, but do we really need another ``apologist`` for our feudals lords.

MAV

Re: # 41 Mr.Romair this land reform will make problems. Those workers have no management experience and they can not do good decisions. Agriculture is difficult job at management level due to lots of problems. Bogus fertilizers to water to harvesting marketing etc. Those working hands can not do justice. Also land will be broken up in pieces of worthless size as those workers breed like crazy mices and every 20 years with 6 to 7 children their land will be reduced to nothing. You can not use modern machinary to produce wealth from land. Also it will become like India and these farmers will go socialist ways breaking everything and creating nothing and will lead to godless socialist type politics like in India. And there will be famile like India. We are getting little signs in our land as socialist slogans are hurting us. It is shameful to bring food from India like Onion , tomatos, Garlick, cattle now Sugar and Mollasis also and all of above wheats about 1 million tonne. You have just Idea what will happen when land distribution starts like India and commies and socialist ideas etc. Present situatation may be bad but land reforms will look them great. Most are not good, they have freedom to whatever job they can find but they have zero skills. They should not be over romanticised poor have problems.
What I do not like people having industry just make target of landowners to divert attention.
People like yourself of YLH in electonics , computer and out sourcing and computer prgramming employers will not give same justice to computer coolies working for your companies.
As you have said earlier Indians have no management skills so employ as accounts or engineers in usa in your organization. It will not be right to make manager some south Indian computer man working in factyory batch of Intelligence workers. He will not be able to make proper decision. Same way just they work for you does not mean you need to distribute your wealth to all south Indians as you propose for land reforms. That little Indian feels just like farm hand I work I should have equal share and its wrong. Manager needs to manage.
Now Indians have 12 companies on American markets and that cheat Mittal Steel (MT) is there . How can MT hsa 3.5 P/E ratio. One of natures distribution scheme is good for us. If they had management skills we had ``BIG`` problems.
We do not need commie reforms. If some body wants then let it be for industry and Hightechy industry also. Some times I feel there is no money in high or lowtek but more mone in NO Technology. Look from housing to tanker water providers and teaching classes.
Again let system work its way.

I do not like partisian attitude. Landlords have their land just like factory owners have factory. If you want to confistacate land why not do same with factory. Both should have right to their property and protection. If you take away lands from landowners why not take all money and factory to workers. If YLH, ROmai etc people in High tech making and owning business and nobody says their factory given to all workers why landowners are not provided same laws. Social progress will happen with time and economic progress.

More cruelity will done in name of helping poor. If it is only poor people then why not allow free trade so we can get all cheap goods from china and India.

Landowners is just object of attacks by everybody as most are poor and will not get anything even if all land is taken only there will be famine and no food.

Pakistan could use a few Cesar Chavezs...........

``Chávez was born near Yuma, Arizona. He became a migrant farm worker at age 10.... He attended over 30 schools, but ended his formal education with the eighth grade.......While on leave he sat in the white section of a movie thearter and refused to move, forshadowing his future exploits.......... in 1962 to form the National Farm Workers Association, which became the United Farm Workers.

In 1965, Chávez and the NFWA led a strike of California grape-pickers in demand of higher wages, along with a national boycott of California table grapes, which, five years later resulted in the first major victory for US migrant workers......

He became an American labor rights hero for supporting labor rights for Mexican migrant farm workers. Chávez was also an ethical vegetarian and a strong proponent of nonviolence.........

UFW:

``The United Farm Workers of America were founded in 1962 by César Chávez and Dolores Huerta. This union changed from a workers` rights organization that helped workers get unemployment insurance to that of a union of farmworkers almost overnight, when the National Farm Workers Association went out on strike in support of the mostly Filipino farmworkers in Delano, California in 1965. The NFWA, soon renamed the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee and then the United Farm Workers, launched a boycott of table grapes that, after five years of struggle, finally won a contract with the major grape growers in California. The union then brought in thousands more lettuce workers in the Salinas and Imperial Valleys and orange workers in Florida employed by subsidiaries of Coca-Cola.

The union publicly adopted the principles of non-violence championed by Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Chávez used fasts both as means of drawing public attention to the union`s cause and to assert control over an often unruly union. However, it also resorted to both sabotage and violence, including such things as nail ``stars`` scattered over roadways and throughout crops to flatten tires, two-by-fours straddled off either side of vehicles running between rows of grapes destroying the crops, mobs blocking roads and crop rows, attacking people in their vehicles and other such violence typical of the 1930`s union fights. These measures were used not only against large corporate growers in Tulare, and Kern Counties, California, but also against small ``mom & pop`` family farmers with less than 10 acres (40,000 m²) in places such as Parlier.``

A question for Bina:

``workers` rights organization that helped workers get unemployment insurance``

Do you provide unemployment insurance to your employees (sharecroppers)?............

Aha_Snark #39: ``No matter how humane the treatment of sharecroppers, it is a flawed relationship because continued humane treatment is not a right of the sharecropper but a boon of the landlord.``

You have hit the nail on the head.......

People tend to only look at the size of the land, and comment that Western farms are much larger than Pakistani feudals` landholdings. More important than the size of the land is the control over the employee. In the West, agricultural is basically an industry. And the legal system is so strong, that any landonwer cannot exploit the worker. This is a far cry from the pre-civil war days, when the plantation owner could keep slaves. Eventually a civil war had to be fought, to break the back of the plantation owner........

The only sharecroppers left in the USA now are the Mexican illegal immigrants who come in to pick strawberries and apples. And they do get exploited. However, even they have some legal rights and unions supporting them............

In Pakistan, the legal system cannot be developed nor enforced in favor of the sharecroppers. Because the political offices are dominated by landowners, themselves. This is why landowners are always in politics, in any country of the world. They want to ensure that the labor is not liberated.

People had been writing about the strikes at the privitization of PTCL. Why are there no strikes in the feudal areas? Why are the sharecroppers not able to form powerful unions and demand rights, facilities, etc. Why are they still dependent on the mood of Bina Shahs of the world? The average employee of PTCL has many times the rights of the average sharecroppers. The heads of some of these labor unions in Pakistan, specifically the govt. owned companies, are as powerful as the Vice-Presidents of the company............

Even if we assume Bina Shah`s statements about the benevolence of her family are accurate, as long as the structure for exploitation remains, sooner or later someone in her family will go off the track, and will start using it to carry out all types of crimes against the labor............

There is only way to solve this problem. Give the land to the person tilling it, and get rid of sharecropping and the exploitations that go around it. And then provide enough stability to the sharecropper to allow him to establish his farm. This does not mean every single one will get land. That will divided the land into tiny pieces. But the distribution should be enough to ensure that no one can dominate the life of the laborer.........

Otherwise, Bina Shah`s daughter will go to Harvard and write articles on Chowk. While her sharecroppers` daughters will still be a sharecropper, dependent on the mood swings of Bina`s relivatives............

In my home state, Kerala, which had the first democratically elected communist government in the world, many many decades ago, land reforms were carried out with vigour. Some of my richer relatives also owned excessive land and this land was duly redistributed. The palatial bungalows and imported 1950s American cars decayed slowly year after year. Some would calle that sad. Yet, the fact that a manual labourer, a tapper of rubber, who now owned his own sliver of land, and still works for my relatives, was educated enough to have life insurance, send his daughters to medical school and discuss world politics with his friends is cause for some amount of joy.

In states such as Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh in South India, land reform was never carried out with any sort of vigour and therefore, large landowners and bonded labour[1] has persisted to a large scale in those areas.

No matter how humane the treatment of sharecroppers, it is a flawed relationship because continued humane treatment is not a right of the sharecropper but a boon of the landlord.

regards,
A_S

[1] http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1716/17160450.htm

Romair,
Thank you for sharing your ideas. Very useful!

Regards

Bina,
The backlash against Feudalism in this country (and indeed any country) is a simple case of a reaction against too much political, financial and psychological power that naturally tends to accumulate into the hands of a feudal family. There is really no mystery to it: Power corrupts - it is human nature - and every society tries to do its best to safe-guard the collective interest of its people by dissolving this power through land-reforms and land value taxes etc.

It`s nothing personal against the feudalist - merely a case of a society trying to protect itself.

Faithless-Pakistani,
http://pakistan-sucks.blogspot.com/

Zakk #35: ``Omair your observations are accurate but only to a pointin economic terms what a landlord represents is a monopoly.``

The observations are not just mine. They are internationally recognized and accepted. There is not a country in the world, which views feudalism as a positive. And there is not a country in the world, which has built successful first world economies, based on feudalism. Even, in South Asia, the countries that had the opportunity to remove it, like India, did so immediately............

The landlord represents more than a monopoly. The term monopoly is primarily used in the economic context. A person who owns all the textile mills in a city has a business monopoly. A feudal has a business monopoly, as well. But he also has a social monopoly. He controls the livelihood of the employee, because he owns the land that the employee lives on, and the complete social structure around it.

It would be the equivalent of a textile magnate who owns all the textile mills and the land of the city in which the mills are located. He could not only fire the employee, he could kick the empolyee out of the city...........

Omair your observations are accurate but only to a point..in economic terms what a landlord represents is a monopoly. Pakistan is filled with monopolies...while you say the Legharis could get a dog to win..that is not true the Legharis have suffered several famous reversals at the polling booth..the dynamic changes when the establishmet gets involved..Pakistans ruling class ( very Mughalesque..) creates new family dynasties at will..

Your comment about the Jatt biradri..surley voting for someone on the basis of biradri or tribe is the same? Pakistans ruling establishment ..despise political parties and prefer creating candidates elected on the basis of biradri, feudal agrarian/Industrial strength. The solution is far more radical and is not solely restricted to land owners..I know families who own land ..have not sent their kids overseas..and while having relatives in politics they may not be on friendly terms with them or those people may not be very influential in politics..do they constitue feudals?

Also the Sharifs hold over Lahore is considerable..they swept most of the seats from Lahore and many of the people left who were elected had very little in the sense of political name...

The key factor is development..Imran Khan has been pouring in funds into Mianwali and because of that he defeated the Shadikhel-Rorki alliance against him in 2002..in Swat the old ruling class while influential are not guaranteed to win electorally.

Bina, thanks for this fascinating, candid, and of course very personal insight. I do (did) not know too much about the feudal structure in Pakistan but always suspected that it would be similar to what we had in Bihar (let me hasten to add, before I was born). I think you are more in tune with the reality than some of these “professor-types” who grace these pages.

Several generations ago, Bihar had many, many zamindars. When that system was dismantled and land ceilings imposed, many such individuals simply cooked the books and divided up their land holdings under names of other (real or non-existent) family members. So, while the ex-zamindars were officially no different from other citizens, their economic clout remained the same and they continued to dominate their localities. Mistreatment of poor people was relatively rare (most of these ex-zamindar were individually benign despots at a local level and many in their next generations became members of the intelligentsia and had a quite liberal outlook) but mistreatment of “commoners” did occasionally take place, partly because there were no checks and balances of any kind. This situation continued for approximately two generations until their own families grew large enough to divvy up the economic power and simultaneously the clout of Marxist-type outfits rose. Unfortunately, very few of these families thought of switching to an industry mode (like your family seems to have done), or Bihar would not have been in such dire straits (at least in my view) as it is now; but the mindset was very different back then (and continued to remain so, until perhaps very recently).

In any case, I see no reason for you to be forced (or to feel a need) to defend what your family members or forefathers may or may not have done. A person’s life and work must speak for itself and for nobody else’s. Pure and simple! If anyone disagrees, just ask them to take a hike!

Notes:

[I have seen my father and my uncle and cousins travel to the lands for days, standing in the fields in 110 F heat, … week in and week out, in the heat, in the cold, whether or not they`re sick….]
The farmers’ lot is a hard one – all over the world! (Yes, including the U.S.A.)

Re: # 32
I agree with Most of what Romair has said.... its a pretty good Insightfull Observation.

I aslo agree with his analysis about the compostion of Military..... but then thats another topic..

....... It all boils down to One factor..... the desire for Power /privilages/and control...
No one Once in power.... likes to loose it.....

The other thing.... i want to add is... they are pretty adaptable.... like romair said....
they have recognized ......and have elevated themselves....to the More advanced ..and more worldly crowd..... thus actually widening the advantage gap......
During Nawaz ERA many even tried their Hands at becoming Industrialists..... as that was another way to consolidate and keep their relative advantage intact....


....But I would like to point out a New phenomenon..... It deals with the so called most middle .... most educated....and most literates...... claimnts in Pakistan...which are concentrated in a WELL called Karachi....
...especially Altaf Hussain of MQM.... this urban phenomenon is also driven by the same desire.... to OWN .... and Control Lives of people....
....The Path he took is debatable......and needs more analysis..... unbaised....scrutiny..and clear analysis..... But then thats another Topic....
The bottom Line is..... He too now enjoys the Same position.... ... which the feudals
enjoy...... that is complete control and complete immunity regarding that control over the Lives of the Subjects.....
........LIke Feudals.... who perpetuate their control using the FEAR factor....and denial ..... this Phenomenon also does the SAME........and I can safely Call that...
A New Blood sucking Plant....in the Jungle where Older Blood sucking Plants like
feudalism..... Army......and Industrialists.... live.....

..... what intrigues me......... a hari.... is at best hazily aware of his rights....and has no concept or awareness of any way to escape ..... Yet... here in this urban phenomenan..... .... most of them are willing to be.... exploited and killed and blinded
by It......infact .... they jealously gaurd their inability


Any insight on that....?

aslam644: ``jehlum did you live there?. ``

Yes. I lived there, and know it like the back of my hand (at least the Jehlum of fifteen years ago). Also have some family relations there. I have ridden on buses and wagons through most, if not all, of Punjab.....Lived in Sargodha for three years or so, also.......

Did you know that legend has it that Dina is named after Athena - the Greek goddess of wisdom, war, the arts, industry, justice and skill, from Alexander`s days......

If one starts driving from Kashmir, southwards through to Southern Punjab, the level of progressiveness decreases. As does the level of literarcy. As does the level of women`s rights. As does personal and political freedom. As does human rights. As does law and order........

The moment you cross Jhang in central Punjab and go down past Multan, the backwardness starts. Towards Dera Ghazi Khan, and towards Sind. And increases, as you go furthur South. I lived about 100 miles outside Multan for two years also.........

There is one thing that increases, as you travel South. And that is the influence of large landonwers. In Punjab, they are now limited to Southern Punjab. There is an exact relationship between the size of land holdings and the backwardness of the areas. This is despite the fact that Jehlum and the surrounding Potohar area has poor land, and not much resources, other than Salt Mines etc. It basically has nothing; far less than Southern Punjab.........

It is just free from the control of large landowners..........

This is a clear example of a contradiction of the theory presented by Bina, that land reforms and an end to sharecropping, by giving people the land they till, will lead to violence and a situation where the sharecroppers will suffer the most........

Jehlum and the surrouding areas have not suffered. There are zero feudals or large scale landholders in the area. Every village family has some land and they till it, while some members join the military and some go abroad (Kashmir is the same). In fact, the area has gone through a political revolution, where the historically wealthier and powerful Raja families no longer run the show. They have been displaced by the historically more middle class and poorer Jatt biradari (of various sub-biradaris). All the MNAs, etc. are Jatts, since they are larger in numbers.......

In fact, if you look at Punjab, as a whole, barring the South, the Jatt biradari is running everything in govt.......And Punjab is generally progressing. Except in the Southern areas, where large landowning feudals like Leghari etc. are keeping everyone backwards........while getting themselves appointed President and their kids appointed Minister of IT..........

The less the number of large landonwers in an area in Pakistan, the more progressive it will be..........This is not a coincidence..........

romair
you seem to be quite knowledgeable about jehlum did you live there?. due to mangla dam we moved to dina jehlum, i lived there for couple of years some of my extended family were allotted land in jhang, sargodha and gujranwala, so i visited all these places. you are right jehlum did seem to be most progressive of all these places.

#20 by anil
Anil,
Your post got lost in Romair`s spam. I will try and answer that depending on time and if I am able to put something worthwhile togather.

Thanks.

Nothing against landlords (or landladys!) or feudals per se; some of them are rather delightful people (including yours truly). But defending the Sindhi feudal system...

Re article

Reminds me of the Ghalib line `Dil ke bahlane ko yeh khayal achcha hai`

Re NHK #9

Identical to the argument of Southerners pre-Civil War that slavery was actually a relationship of mutual benefit and the slave much better off than the factory worker of the North. Pity.

Bina.

After a long time, I have come across an interesting article from your end. I think since it is based on `` On the Inside`` therefore it seems and sounds more interesting.

Zakk/HaroonElahi #: ``Btw Romair, industrialists control the lives of thousands of people directly via their factories, and indirectly the lives of alot more who are also involved in indirect changes brought about the certain factory.``

There is a huge difference between control of labor amongst Industrialists and Feudals. This goes back to the concept of Free and Unfree labor. We can discuss this, in detail, if you would like. Industrialist exploitation of labor cannot last forever. It is a transitionary stage. Feudalistic exploitation of labor is a permanent state. It can only be removed through external factors, like NGOs, civil wars, revolutions etc. The labor, itself, cannot on its own, imlicitly, become powerful enough to correct the feudal system. While in every industrialized nations, the labor has, itself, eventually acquired the power to gain its rights............Or is in the process of doing so...........

In layman`s terms, Nawaz Sharif - arguably the biggest industrialist in Pakistan - can lose an election in his constituency of Lahore, quite easily. However, Farooq Leghari can never lose an election in Leghari-istan. Even Leghari`s pet dog would win (seriously speaking). For Nawaz Sharif to have the same control over his workers/voters, as Leghari does, Nawaz would need to own all of Lahore.......

This is why industrialized societies, in the long run (and even in the short run) are always more prosperous and stronger than feudal societies. I will repost the part from Hamza Alvi, which addresses your argument. Many of his ideas are Marxist, yet even he supports Capitilism over Feudalism:

``I would indeed go a step further and conceptualise what I would call `The Simple Reproduction Trap` that keeps landowners in the grip of `Simple Reproduction`. It arises from the fact that in the case of industrial capitalism, with capital accumulation the number of production units in industries are extended or multiplied, thus providing an outlet for accumulated capital. In agriculture, on the other hand, the basic input is land. It cannot be multiplied like industrial production units. The available land is relatively fixed for the landlord class as a whole, extended marginally by irrigation schemes. Other inputs like farm mechanisation etc. are marginal. Land is the determining factor. Capital accumulation cannot take place in agriculture in the same way as in industry. The landlord class is necessarily a parasitic class, `trapped` in the circuit of `Simple Reproduction`, consuming the bulk of the surplus. The landowner remains necessarily parasitical. ``

In layman`s terms, Allah Rakha - the textile worker in your textile mill - can tell you to get lost (relatively speaking) leave your mill and go out and open his own cigarette shop. And then grow and eventually start his own mill. Even if he cannot do that, at the very least his kids can study in the govt. school, next door, from which you cannot kick them out.......

Allah Rakha - the sharecropper on Bina Shah`s land - cannot start another farm. There is only a limited amount of land available, and Bina`s dad owns it all. And Bina`s dad is never going to sell it to him. Nor will Allah Rakha be ever paid enough by Bina`s dad that he can buy it, anyways. Allah Rakha will have to first migrate outside Bina`s land and then start a cigarette shop. However, to do that he needs to have his own assets, i.e a small piece of land, which he can get a loan against, etc. He does not have that, once again, because there is a limited amount of land, and Bina`s dad owns it all..........

At the moment, the only chance Allah Rakha - the sharecropper - has is, if Bina, in a moment of extreme benevolence gives him some money to start his own shop. Or her dad, in a similar moment, allows him to open up his store on his (dad`s) land..........At the same time, if tomorrow, Bina is in a bad mood, she could kick Allah Rakha off her land, all together............At which point, he would starve........i.e. he life is totally dependent on Bina`s mood.

You on the other hand, can only kick your Allah Rakha out of the textile mill. You can fire him. That`s it. You cannot kick him out of Faisalabad. Infact, he could open up his shop right next to your mill. Not to mention the fact, if he is part of a labor union, he could cause even more problems. And if he has critical skills, it maybe impossible for you to replace him in a growing economy..........

This is a simplistic example and industrialist can exploit the labor more and do, but I hope you get the idea................

Hamza Alvi is one of the best recognized researchers on the subject of feudalism in Pakistan. He has been published internationally. Anyone who wants to understand the differences between Capitalism and Feudalism, as well as the problems in both, should read his work. Also, people should study how Capitalist forces in Europe and North America defeated the Feudal forces. And how these forces then defeated the feudal forces in South Asia. And then reconstituted the feudal structure again in South Asia. Pakistan has inherited from the later.

This is not to say that Capitalism does not involve exploitation. It definitely does. While the European Capitalists were colonizing foreign lands, they were keeping their own local European laborers in poverty, as well (Pakistani industrialists do that today, to some extent). However, they were unable to do so indefinitely, because Capitalism, unlike Feudalism, inherently allows upward mobility for the poor. In addition, in non-feudal systems, the powerful elite do not own the complete livelihood of the labor class. The labor class has some assets of its own.

“ The issue of feudalism is a most important political issue for us Pakistanis …… The erstwhile feudals played a leading role in British Government but they were subject to the structural imperative of British capitalism. That was not quite the case in colonial India. Indeed great landlords were valued by the colonial rulers as their allies and therefore protected and privileged. In India feudalism was to be abolished only after independence by a powerful national bourgeoisie represented by the Congress. In Pakistan landed magnates are a dominant force in the State. The feudals inherited the new state of Pakistan at the time of the Partition whereas our bourgeoisie, such as it is, is extremely weak. Dissolution of feudalism in Pakistan is our primary and most immediate task.

I would indeed go a step further and conceptualise what I would call `The Simple Reproduction Trap` that keeps landowners in the grip of `Simple Reproduction`. It arises from the fact that in the case of industrial capitalism, with capital accumulation the number of production units in industries are extended or multiplied, thus providing an outlet for accumulated capital. In agriculture, on the other hand, the basic input is land. It cannot be multiplied like industrial production units. The available land is relatively fixed for the landlord class as a whole, extended marginally by irrigation schemes. Other inputs like farm mechanisation etc. are marginal. Land is the determining factor. Capital accumulation cannot take place in agriculture in the same way as in industry. The landlord class is necessarily a parasitic class, `trapped` in the circuit of `Simple Reproduction`, consuming the bulk of the surplus. The landowner remains necessarily parasitical.

In India a powerful industrial bourgeoisie managed to subordinate the landlords. Their political problem now stems from the rise of `Rich Peasants` who have demands of their own. In Pakistan that is not the case. Parasitical landlords are at the centre of our political system. Great land magnates dominate the electoral process. There may be room for mere scholastic arguments whether in strict scientific terms we can still call our landed magnates a `feudal class`. But that would be an argument about names and labels rather than substance. We have to recognise that they are not `capitalists` in the same sense as industrial capitalists.

Words are not immutable. There is no need not restrict the meaning of `feudalism` to its classical (and scholastic) sense. We do need a label for that parasitical and powerful class and the word `feudalism` will serve the purpose better than any other that I can think of, for it is essential that we distinguish them from Industrial Capitalism. Moreover, it is a highly charged word, with commonly understood meanings connoting parasitism and arbitrary power.

To say that feudalism was dissolved by metropolitan capitalism would be a only half-truth, a most misleading statement. That would conceal the crucial aspects of the political economy of our landed class today. I would therefore argue that feudalism does exist in Pakistan and its elimination, not least from the political arena, should be our first priority, without which we cannot advance far. We need to emancipate our country from their stranglehold.

More from Human Rights Watch:

``About 30 kilometers east of Tando Allahyar...is a fort like structure. Its walls, 14 feet high, are strategically covered with barbed wire....The residents of the area have long known that the building, commonly referred to as a kot, is a private prison where the all-powerful landlord of the area, Haji Ghulam Khokhar, incarcerated his haris [peasants]. The armed guards deployed in the bunkers to keep watch over the inmates were also familiar sights....There was cause for the heavy security and secrecy: the inmates of the kot - haris who worked on the lands from dawn to dusk - were physically chained with iron fetters weighing up to 25 kgs when they were brought back to the prison in the evenings. Women, who either worked alongside the men in the fields or in the wadera`s [landlord`s] haveli [mansion], were often raped by the wadera`s guards, as a result of which many illegitimate children were born in the kot.24

Such private jails are an extreme form of coercion in a system where the sustained exploitation of bonded labor is widespread. The ability of workers to address their exploitation is limited in two crucial ways..........``

I don`t have the time or the ambition to engage in this lambhi chori debate on this page, which will not really make a difference in the real world.

But, I must say that land-lords have started to realize since the late 1970`s that their ultimate destiny lies in an industrialized Pakistan, where they continue to hold their large assests of land.

I do not see any harm in them keeping their land assests, as long as feudalism and(or) the retrogressive concept of feudalism is not reinstated.

The roots of feudalism are in the times when Mughal emperor was ruling from Delhi with its subedars at Dehli, Sarhind and Lahore. An appointed Zamindar collected revenue for Mughal Subedar. Since Pakistan and India are both republic states now this old system must be outlawed. It has been outlawed in Indian provinces of Punjab and Haryana. It remains to some extent in Rajasthan, Bihar and UP.

Before Partition my grandparents (both nanke and dadke) were middle/small feudal from Sheikhupura and Narowal district owning 600-1000 acres of land. One of the relatives of my grandparents even tried to convert to islam to keep land but was hauled across the border by his mother.

Now since feudalism was gone everybody in my family (both sides ) looked towards other avenues (education) and jumped into service/military sector and are much better off then their semi-feudal muslim cousins (we keep in touch) across the border.

In 1970s Governments of Punjab and Haryana passed a ``Land Ceiling Act`` under which one person can only keep maximum of 18 acres. This really broke the back of Feudalism in Indian Punjab and Haryana where dwindling land holdings have moved people to different professions.

I think to genuinely understand feudalism, specifically in South Asia (now only in Pakistan, since India and Bangladesh have moved beyond it), one has to study its historical conflicts with Capitalism. One also has to understand how the British, simultaneously, battled and favored feudalism, in India…..

When the East India Company started establishing itself in the Sub-Continent, India was one of the wealthiest nations in the world. The Mughal king was one of the most powerful men in the world, and sat on a goldmine (Sonay ki Chiria). The Sub-Continent would be a first-world country, of those days. People only talk about Persians, Central Asians etc. who came into South Asia. When, in fact, there were Europeans who came also, and were employed by the govts. The Mughal king(s) had up to 20,000 Europeans in their military, alone. This does not include civilians, like diamond cutters, engineers etc. who came from Europe. Tipu Sultan was fluent in European languages, legal system, economics, and had a close relationship with French leadership. Ranjit Singh’s army was one of the most modern in the world. He had doctors from Belgium, military advisors from Germany, some of the latest military equipment designers from Europe etc. Bengal, circa Sirajudullah was one of the wealthiest areas in the world, when the British invaded it, and defeated him. After the East India Company took it over, the local ruler then had to pay a gigantic sum (300 million pounds??; not sure) as tax to the Company. This lead to massive famines and poverty of the locals, from which the area has yet to recover…………

The reason the East India Company was able to control and then, through the British military, take over a wealthy first world Sub-Continent was because Britain was a Capitalist society and Sub-Continent was a feudal society. It was a victory of Capitalism over feudalism. A war, the Capitalist countries will always win……….The establishment of Capitalism, in Britain, itself, was a victory over its own feudalism…….

Feudal societies will, thus, always, be weak and feeble. They can never compete in a competitive world, even if they are wealthy (like the Sub-Continent, circa Mughals), much less if they are poor (like Pakistan today). The reason is that feudalism concentrates power within a wealthy family elite and the expense of the peasants. It does not provide any venue for upward mobility, other than being part of the Lucky Sperm Club, i.e. until feudalism is removed, Bina Shah will always remain wealthy and her kids will go to Harvard. While the sharecropper will always remain poor, and his next generations will never go to Harvard (unless they migrate and can detach themselves from Bina Shah`s lands, somehow, by moving to the city).

In fact, if one studies the British rule in South Asia, one would notice that the number of Englishmen in the Sub-Continent only was between 10,000 to 100,000. Yet they ruled the area. Why? Because the locals were fed-up of feudal control over their justice systems, and lands. All the British had to do was provide justice and they won over the locals…….Something the feudal never provided………

So the British defeated the resident feudals (Mughals, Maharajas etc.). And took their land and country. However, they weren’t there in large enough numbers to control all of the area. So they re-constituted the feudal system. They allocated their favorite locals, who had supported their invasions, large tracs of land, and created a new class of feudals. It is interesting to note that much of the current feudal families (if not all) actually received their family lands, by co-operating with the English invaders, way before Pakistan was created. Many continued to support the British, even when Pakistan was being created.

So if you track the history of the Legharis, Tonk Nawabs, etc., you will see that they were given their lands, by young English Lieutenants and civil servants (most in their 20s and 30s) for helping them control the native population. Now they have shifted that expertise, of controlling the locals, onto Pakistan………….

Feudalism has to be eliminated to create a Capitalistic society. One can have one or the other. The USA had to fight a civil war to break the back of the plantation owner. Europe had to go through centuries of wars and battles to reach Capitalism. India removed it immediately after independence, but had been in its grip for centuries. Pakistan is now one of the only countries in the world, whose complete politics is still dominated by the feudal class. And a gigantic chunk of its population still lives an existence of sharecroppers on the lands of large landowners…….

One would truly hope that the new generations of this feudal group, would be enlightened enough to encourage the dismantling of this system. Unfortunately they are not. And as long as they support it, regardless of how much they write in support of the Mukhtar Mai’s of the world, they are actually part of such problems, since they enable it. And not part of the solution……………

It is quite incorrect to say that there are only a, ``handful`` of feudals in Pakistan. Historically, uptil the last election success of maulvis, landowners have constituted around 60-66% of Pakistan`s National Assembly. This is, by a gigantic margin, the largest % of any group. After landonwers, businessmen and lawyers (and now maulvis) come a distant second, third and fourth.

In the election, before last, out of 217 seats, there were only 2 seats that went to MMA. While around 130 went to landowners!! Most of these seats are their, ``family`` seats. Once dad dies, the son or daughter takes over. While nieces and nephews get the provincial assembly seats........

So, if there are only a, ``handful`` of them, how in the world do they own the National Assembly. There are a, ``handful`` of professional ice hockey players in Pakistan. Due to which, you will probably not find too many, if any, in the National Assembly. There are only a, ``handful`` of Swahili poets in Pakistan. Due to which there aren`t any in the National Assembly.......

If we assume that there actually are only a, ``handful`` of feudals in Pakistan, and they still end up constituting such a high % of the elected bodies, then the situation is even worse. A, ``handful`` of families are controlling all of Pakistan.............

I have some feudal second generation individuals as friends, classmates etc. They tend to perfectly fit the profile of the author. In fact, I had described this profile in an earlier reply, on another thread, and the author thought I was talking about her.......They all have certain trends in common:

- They all say feudalism is a state of mind, and not something related to land
- They are all foreign-educated
- They are all generally friendly nice guys
- They all return to Pakistan after their foreign education
- They have some relatives in politics
- They, themselves, live in lahore, karachi and islamabad, while their incomes are generated in rural lands
- Their female family members are active in NGOs
- They write a lot about honor killings, women`s rights, etc.
- They are all secular and Westernized
- They all say, there are only a handful of feudals left, and they are dying out
- They all say, while honor killings, haris, exploitation etc. occurs in feudals lands, their own family is very enlightened
- They all present their own family as a benevolent ruler trying to help the peasant masses on his land
- They all try to state that if changes are brought about, it is the peasants on their lands who will be the biggest losers
- They all have certain royal habits, i.e families of peasants coming to their homes for justice, etc. Yet they say, their family doesn`t participate in that any more
- Their main source of incomes remains feudal, despite all their efforts to explain they are industrializing

And, most of all, come hell or highwater, regards of how many Human Rights reports and statistics one presents to them, they will always argue in favor of feudalism. In fact, they are one of the only groups left in the world, which still supports it.........Anyone of them could have written this article..........

One thing I cannot figure out, if every single feudal family is so good for its area and so benevolent, then why are all the feudals areas so poor, underdeveloped and filled with ancient regressive customs.........Where are the bad feudals, if everyone`s own family is so good?

What would be great is if one of the sharecroppers on their land was given the opportunity to write his/her point of view..........I always wonder if they would share their landowners views...........Having lived in a feudal area for a few years, I highly doubt it...........

The best card that the feudals have played is that they have completely occupied the secular spectrum of Pakistani politics. They, thus, try to pass on all of Pakistan`s problems onto the maulvi. Due to this, they have a lot of support amongst wealthy urbanites, who see them as a better option than the mullah brigade. This group, thus, completely ignores all the exploitation, feudalism, as a policy, carries out of the poor rural folk............

While, I have never met a feudal off-spring who opposed feudalism. I have also never met a peasant sharecropper who supported it.............The worst existence in Pakistan has to be that of a feudal laborer.............He/she is far worse off than an Army sepoy, a textile worker, a street-cleaner etc.............

Bina & HP:

Two interesting perspectives. I have a question for both of you. What quantitative tests - economic, social, and education - should the society apply to determine if develop through fuedals is being achieved, and resources are not wasted in overcoming the resistance?

Anil Kapuria

Re: # 18

Yeah.Assuming feudals have money, i would like to know if the writer would give up her inheritance and distribute it among the serfs?.I think this is a fair question.I do not know or purport to be an authority on the internal social structure in pakistan and i`m sure it varies acc. to region.I am just curious , having read this article.Also, everytime there is communal strife or a social struggle in India, paks seem to have the last word and are vociferous in flaying India.Why do they get all defensive and uppity when we indians do the same?.Yesterday, a muslim cleric was shot dead in broad daylight in pakistan.And, paks pride themselves on being an `islamic` country.What gives?

very apologetic!

very apologetic!

I agree with you HP.
Bina, I can`t understand how an educated urbanite like you fall for such feudal sentimentalism? This reminds me of Hamida Khuro, the former Sindh minister who used to write all these apologist articles regarding feudalism in the papers.

Another observation in this context is that like in civil system the middle class group which is approaching lower middle class and are just tagged with the nomenclature the feudal system which is getting stronger on upper levels.In media too I saw that the ZameenDaar are addressed as Kashtkar…Cultivator
So the actual definition of Kashtkar in Pakistan is altered to the credit of the Land Owner and the peasent level has gone so much down under poverty line that diminished to exist to address in a formal way and deplored as Haris.
The privileges and the rights that should be accessible to peasants are inherited uproot by the Feudals.
This is an observation which I noted as I grew…
Remember :
First we used to listen for peasent policies: Kisan Bhayio.n kay liye Paigham
Now we listen: Kashtkaro kay liye Paigham

In this article the author desperately tried to defend her family from the feudalism tag even admitting being one of those, in a very ridiculous manner, I don’t know why? . Almost every line of the article represents her own feudal thinking, what can we say about her family. All praise for father represents only what he did for his own family and nothing is there what he did for the people. He stood in heat really a unique thing, he didn’t traveled in air conditioned jeeps I fancy what a brave thing to do, he sent his own children to study abroad what good does it carry for the haris. Did he provide fans and electricity to haris? Did he give them their due part of earnings so that they can get a decent life? Did he open schools to educate them? All of that is mentioned is only for his family in a typical feudal way. Sending their siblings abroad is also a matter of pride among some open minded feudal. Just the following sentences are enough to represent the feudal mentality of the author herself.

``But if you saw some of these people and how they lived, you would realize that owning their own land is an economic proposition that not only would be out of their reach, but would destroy the farming system of the entire nation.``

Where does his father earn from? Of course the lands and then invests that money on the lands to get more profit. What does make those people to live “the way” they lived? They lived so shabbily even working hard day and night because all of the profit is taken by the land owners. They will not live definitely “the way” if they are given their due part in profit. I agree that giving the ownership of the lands to haris definitely does not resolve the whole issue. It needs multidimensional long term reforms from the government to create the new working cycle. It involves education and training with initial funding to the haris to cultivate their own lands. Then of course these people will also live ``the way`` the respected author and her family live and she will be able to consider them humans.

Fuedalism would have been proved to be a progressive institution by now if children of all landowners (read fuedals) were good writers like Bina.

re: Bina

I am sorry, but I will have to disagree with you on this issue. Please forgive my boorishness, but the fact that a rape can be argued as an act of love, does not make it an act of love! Feudalism is wrong. Period.

re: HP # 1 & 11

Good posts. Feudalism cannot be justifed and it will only be abolished once it starts to be considered as a sin against humanity. Presently, most of the politicans are representative of this class and even if they are industrialists or business professionals as Haroon Ellahi correctly states, they still have the enough nostaglic traditionalism left to seek its continued existence. There is no will or wish to end feudalism, but there is every indication to prolong it as seen in the behavior of the asemblies on the issue of honor killings and attempes to ban it.

re: haroonellahi # 6

Haroon, factually your post is accurate, but my concern is that itself does not spell an end to the institution of feudalism, as much as it explains the mutation of feudalism into a different form.

Ciao

#9 by nazarhayatkhan

I am afraid there is no need to present even the mid size landowners as saints. They do horrendous things and majority of Hari live in deplorable conditions because of the Zamindar and his shenanigans.

There really is no excuse for the current system. We can argue about it as much as we want but the reality is no matter how small these land holders are, they attempt to perpetuate a system that is based of graft and utter disregard of human dignity.

Hari suffer throughout their lives and Zamindar small and large attempt to keep them tied down to the land by fake loans and as someone mentioned bonded labor based on loan system.

On the other side, many hari and their families have begun to take advantage of the free schooling and NGO’s presence in the areas to move for a better life. If this trend continues the system would reverse itself over a period of time.

Bina Shah:

By reading your article I don’t seem to have a clear possible solution to get rid of Feudalism and miseries associated to the poor labors and workers Hari who are stick and bound to self created miserable traits. By making yourself a worthy Landlord who has awareness that things are not going on right but fiscally attached to the same wheel of making money which makes poor 10 feet away more poor is good romantically not honestly.

And your argument that Pakistan is turning into industrialization by Land Owners is not a true statement. Exporting the rich breeds outside country whilst implementing some test control systems for quality insurance rather assurance to meet the international trends of the global market of even Asia to earn Capita still makes the Feudal richer and thus making an average Pakistani deprived from good food.

And the situation doesn’t become good even if a Feudal drops his crown and becomes a Hari him/herself. The thing is that there should be a struggle to ensure land reforms thus utilizing efforts by government of Pakistan to establish rules to eliminate feudalism and take the land in its own custody and then all farmers are facilitated by adopting the modern techniques for irrigation. And given jobs and the money cashed from crops should be equalized between them. The farmers with basic education should be sent abroad to earn higher education in their technicalities and then they implement plans in there area with R&D support organization helps.

Bina

I agree with you. You are an insider and are factualy correct.

`Fuedalism` is one of those cliches/slogans that refuses to die. Just like `Pakistan was created for Islam`.

Ayub reduced the land holdings to 20 squares. Bhutto reduced them to 6 squares. However, the calculations were based on the Produce Index and it was done during the British days when Sind was a desert. It was never revised. Canals came to Sind making it green. So Sind did end up with bigger land holdings than Punjab.

There are no more fuedals in Punjab. There are a few big land holders in Sind but they can be counted on the finger tips. They are certainly not the biggest problem that Pakistan is facing.

And with every generation, the cake automatically keeps becoming smaller automatically. Zamindar-Muzzarah is a centuries old system. It is a dying a slow natural death. Let it die the natural way. Or do the people prefer a cultural revolution and kill a million innocent souls?

Most of the criticism comes from the city dwellers who see a Zamindar in starched white clothes with a few servents around driving a shiny new car. These city dwellers do not realize that the car was bought through a tractor loan and those servents are the simple folks who love to move around and hang out for free. Zamindar-Muzzarah relationship is not of an employer-employee. It is more of a social relationship of obligation and kinship. The Muzzarahs get free housing or at least land to make their house. Wood for roof is provided by the Zamindar. In most cases, they get the fodder free from the Zamindar for cattle. Zamindar helps them out in their marriages. He provides them medicine. Even pays fees for their children in schools. He gets them jobs in the cities. Zamindar is a part of the social system that is value-based and not cash-driven.

The Muzzarahs in villages live a much fuller life than the city poor. They live in clean air, drink pure milk and water and eat fresh food. They live in a familiar friendly community and have a social support system unlike the lonely life of the city poor in the shanty towns.

Back to the wealth of a Zamindar. That Zamindar in starched clothes with servents can be purchased a couple of times by that small realter at the corner of the street or the Aharti in the Jooria Bazaar. Every owner of the multi-storey building along the miles and miles of the Shahrah Faisal is many times richer than these Zamindars.

The Zamindar puts all the equity into his profession unlike the industrialist who puts only 30% or less. The Zamindars have twice gone through these land reforms giving away their property for free. How would you like if the State took away 50% of your bank balance just to reduce the size of your bank balance or took away half of your shops, industry or business!

Only those Zamindars/Fuedals have spare cash on hand who are into the industry or business or lucrative professions.

As you said, it is a mindset. It is pointless beating this `fuedalism` horse again and again. The only thing they have is `Votes` provided they are worth it.

Having said all the above, there are indeed some rascal Fuedals - just as there are some rascal industrialists, businessmen, beauracrats, faujis etc etc etc.

nhk

Thank you! Zak, for that thought-provoking reply.

The `feudal-mentality` is a mindset, which is a cancer to our society. It needs to be eradicted. Nepotism, cronyism, patronage system, and a multitude of other such retroggressive practices all need to be stamped out.

I was gonna write how Omair was gonna kick up a storm over this article..but he`s already done that!

Anyway a comment I have always made goes like this: Feudalism is a mentality..a culture of impunity that comes from power restricted to that specific family or by it`s extension relations or friends, used for the purposes of patronage. This is not unique to landlords..(and landlords while influential are no longer the be all and end all of Pak politics) ..you have Industrial Feudals (Nawaz Sharif and the Chorys of Gujrat being excellent examples) you have military feudals (Okara, Fauji Foundations heads?, Military heads of cantonment boards?), Civil servant feudals (previously DC`s and Commissioners)

Bina Shah, as long as the `feudals` reject `feudal-mentality`, they are no longer feudals and hence are simply land-owners.

Have you seen the nature of the estates in the U. S. of A? Their Pakistani counterparts look like chicken-feed in comparision.

Btw Romair, industrialists control the lives of thousands of people directly via their factories, and indirectly the lives of alot more who are also involved in indirect changes brought about the certain factory.

The fact of the matter is, the land-lords of Pakistan are our citizens, and scape-goating them is only going to result in more turmoil. They are our citizens, and they have every right to maintain their lands, as long they do not undermine the supremacy of the Pakistani constitution and the federal.

Any one who undermines that, irrespective of his caste, creed, religion, or ethncity, should be brought before our judicary.

Look, the thing is that we can not focus on one thing and blame it for all our ills. European farms are relatively small sized compared to Australian and American farms.

I don`t agree with Bina Shah that the land-lord class will finish in a generation or two. Their power has been reduced significantly as of late but I think they have received the wake up call. They are putting their childern in the best Pakistani educational institutions, and they are advising their childern to seek higher education abroad as well. The land lords, like many other groups in Pakistan ,are mostly loaded with cash, and they will invest this many in industry and other projects in order to retain their former glory. The land-lords are entering into the industrial and commerce realm as well now. They are establishing their feet in both realms, essentially increasing their stake in the development and evolution of Pakistan.

The author has tried to sugar-coat and jusfity feudalism. As will nearly all children of large landholders. Doesn`t matter what kind of social and political affiliations, they may have - secular, religious, liberal, conservative, those for honor killings and those against it, pro-USA or anti-USA etc. Somehow or the other, when it comes to their system of land ownership, they are usually all on the same page........Since it is the bread and butter of their social status...........

But before people get overly enamoured by the romantisiced picture of the foreign-educated feudal and his family, trying hard to benevolently assist their poor sharecropper, one should first see how all of this is viewed by International organizations.

Following is a report on bonded labor in Pakistan, by Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/Pakistan.htm

``II. THE NATURE OF THE ABUSE

``Reema`` and her husband ``Ali`` live in the interior of Sindh where they work on a sugarcane plantation. For most of their lives they worked for a landlord who beat them frequently. They were confined to his property because he claimed that they were financially indebted to him. ``Reema`` and ``Ali``, however, were convinced that the landlord owed them money as all they received in exchange for their many years of work was food and lodging. Whatever money was needed for basic necessities was extended as a loan from the landlord.

One day in 1990, while working in the fields, ``Reema`` was summoned to the landlord. Upon arriving at his house she was raped. She chose not to register a case against the landlord as she knew it was unlikely that the police would arrest him. Moreover, there was the possibility that by claiming that she was raped, ``Reema`` could be charged with adultery.1

Later that year, unable to live under such unbearable conditions any longer, ``Reema`` and ``Ali`` attempted escape, only to be detained by the local police and jailed in Mir Pur Khas for one month under false charges. Eventually, the police forcibly returned them to the landlord.

In 1992 the couple and their children were sold to another landlord who owns mango orchards. ``Reema`` and ``Ali,`` forced out of their original home,continue to work long hours, cannot leave their place of work, and are subject to vicious beatings. ``Ali`s`` leg was broken in one such beating.

The experience of ``Reema`` and ``Ali`` exemplifies the fate of bonded laborers in Pakistan. Their lives are marked by a consistent pattern of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment by their employers who control their labor. This exchange of labor for loans, in a context where a worker is not allowed to negotiate the length or term of his or her employment, constitutes debt-bondage.

Debt-bondage is one of the forms of slavery proscribed by the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery of 1956. Pakistani laws, such as the Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act 1992, are consistent with international laws which seek to eliminate the bonded labor system. But those laws are not adequately enforced.

Bonded labor is most widespread in agriculture, particularly in the interior of Sindh and southern Punjab where land distribution is highly inequitable. Bondage in agrarian regions involves the purchase and sale of peasants among landlords, the maintenance of private jails to discipline and punish peasants, the forcible transference of teachers who train peasants to maintain proper financial accounts, and a pattern of rape of peasant women by landlords and the police.

Bonded labor in agriculture often emerges from historically hierarchical relationships between landlords and peasants. These relationships are reinforced by contemporary agricultural policies which give landlords privileged access to land, resources, and credit. In many cases peasant children inherit the debt, and thus the working conditions, of their parents.``

Feudalism, in Pakistan, is the height of the exploitation of labor. Sharecroppers have the fewest rights of any kind of labor in Pakistan. In fact, they are generally at the benevolence of the land-owner……….

The areas in Pakistan, which have the largest landowners, invariably, are the most backwards in the country. They have the largest discrepancies between poor and rich. They have the most backward customs, like honor killings. They have the least opportunities for upward mobility. They have the lowest literacy rates. The statistics are right there for everyone to see………Most of all, they have one family, which controls the destinies of many other families. This article validates that. It actually makes an attempt to justify it. It tries to divide feudals into, “good” feudals and, “bad” feudals.

The easiest way to judge the progressiveness of an area, a system, or organization is to see what kind of possibilities of upward mobility it provides to its residents. Jehlum is an area, which has no feudalism. It has traditionally been poor. It has no good agricultural land. No industry. It is not a major (or even minor) center of commerce. And most of all it has no powerful politicians. It has small farmers based in villages.

Based on the author’s description, Jehlum should have rolled into the sea by now, without the protection of large-scale benevolent landowners, like her family. Yet it is doing fine. It has the second highest literacy rate in Punjab (higher than even Lahore). It has low crime. You will never hear of honor killings, there. When there is an election there, the candidates have to beg everyone to vote for them. No family ever goes to a landowner’s house to plead for mercy, for anything. No single landowner, bestows his benevolence on the farmers, and builds a school for them. The farmers and villagers build the schools themselves, because they own their own land……..Due to the progressive nature of the area, people have gotten educated enough to go abroad as laborers and professionals, into the Army as soldiers and officers etc.

The sole reason Jehlum has been able to do so, is because it has not large-scale (or even mid-scale) landowners trying to provide their benevolence to the peasants and farmers.

Kashmir is the same way. There are girls from my village, who have grown up there and have gone onto higher education and civil services and even abroad. Such luxuries are not reserved for just the daughters’ of the large landowners. My family is one of the wealthiest (relatively speaking) from the village. Yet when I go there, I am no one special. I don’t bestow my benevolence on the local farmers and laborers and workers. I don’t have, “notions of coming back to “lord it” over the poorer members of our society.” Not because I am a nice guy. But because there is nothing to lord over. And if I did try to lord over someone there, they would give me a good kick on my rear end. Even if they were dirt poor. We are all equals.

As long as people do not own their own assets, they will never be able to progress upwards. And the whole basis of feudalism is to ensure that no one, other than a small group, is allowed to own the assets of the area. This is why there are no areas/countries of the world, which have progressed, where feudals are a cornerstone of politics and society…………..

It is thus, quite sad, to see people defending this system, while simultaneously criticizing its consequences, like honor killings, poverty, peasantry etc. It’s the equivalent of someone defending a system, which enables rapes, and justifying their defense by stating that they and their family are not rapists………

It is often quoted that feudalism started with Mughals. The society was pretty much agarian and egalitarian before that.

Your family`s (father`s) example is not reflection of feudality. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - feudalism is no exception. There are hundreds of cases against feudals oppressions for every defense like yours.

Probably (if youre speaking truth) your father`s attitude is different towards his workers from other feudals is because of his foreign education.

If ``things in pakistan are amiss`` as the author puts it, then the two overwhelming reasons are greed and stupidity, and these traits can be found in the entire population across the board , from elite to peasant.No personal malice is involved in the above statement.The feudals are a convenient scapegoat.

Bina,
I am afraid this is a rather simplistic and feeble attempt to defend feudalism. Actually, you are not defending the feudalism but the mid to small land holding class. The mid to small land holding class though referred to as Wadera or feudal are not feudal in any way. I too belong to a mid level landholding family. I share your sentiments but there are many inequities and problems in the countryside that come from the feudal mindset of even the mid size land holding families.

There are just a few large-scale Landowners (the true Feudal) left in Sindh, all of them are heavily in debt, and their lands mortgaged to the tilt. Actually, banks own their properties. They are supporting large families but still want to look big and spend borrowed money on politics, parties, and marriage ceremonies.

Unfortunately, Sindh is so far behind in social development that sometime I feel the Sindhi land owning or even the Haris would never come out of the rut.
Whenever I go to Pakistan, I find the same set of people sitting in clubs, in their homes in Karachi or Hyderabad just drinking, looking to buy cars from loan sharks or begging bankers to get some more loans.
Most of them wanna spend time in the cities and leave the lands to Kamdaar. Of course, there are some exceptions but really very few.

Shikarpur, once the pride of Sindh is nothing more than a dirt city now. Same situation with Larkana and many other cities.

I hate to say this but Sindhi nationalism has actually hurt Sindhis the most.