On the Inside

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..........

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....?

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

very apologetic!

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?