Land reforms: Is it flogging a dead
horse?
By Jawaid Bokhari
Despite the stout defence of the rural gentry that the
existing pattern of land ownership, income distribution and
cultural practices not only make farming a legitimate
professional like any other , the demand for land reforms
does not appear to be subsiding.
The latest to join the" chorus" are two eminent economists
of the IMF based in the Fund's Islamabad office. Speaking at
a World Bank function in the federal capital, IMF's country
representatives director Henri Lorie and Zafar Iqbal called
for land reforms to boost productivity in agriculture. They
maintain that land remains under-utilized and the market
structure in the rural areas remains weak.
The two officials were expressing their personal opinion
though the international lending institutions do not hold
different views as expressed by them from time to time. It
is perhaps the current political sensitivity of the issue
that they chose not to involve their institutions.
As far back as October 2002, the World Bank in its Pakistan
Poverty Assessment report had observed that "the deepest and
the most pervasive poverty in the country is rural and it is
the worst in areas that have been traditionally considered
as feudal, such as rural Sindh.... there is a disconnect
between agricultural growth and trends in rural consumption
and poverty .... understanding the distribution of asset
ownership is a crucial step in understanding rural poverty."
So far, the unsuccessful official efforts to" reform" the
agriculture sector has been focused on inviting foreigners
for corporate farming for which million of acres of state
land have been earmarked.
There is a strong opposition from those who are convinced
that small farms enhance productivity faster than large
ones. And it is feared that many of these small productive
units would be ultimately taken over corporate entities.
The distribution of state land to land less tillers is
moving at a snail pace. There is no move to further limit
ceilings of landholdings beyond those prescribed by earlier
land reforms in 1959 and early 1970s.
Incidentally, the call of the IMF officials for land reforms
coincides with the publication of a special issue on
"Feudalism in Pakistan" by Pakistan Study Centre, University
of Karachi in which eminent scholars, economists,
researchers and eminent farmers have contributed.
The popular belief that feudalism is an important cause
behind our economic and social development has become a
pervasive belief, says Dr Syed Jaffar Ahmed. The main thrust
of the debate is on" feudalism: myth or reality", the title
of an article written by Dr Abdul Ghaffar Jatoi reproduced
from Dawn in May 2000.
Jatoi argues that the urban intellectuals have "created an
imaginary and fictitious character whom they call feudal
lord and jagirdar" and use the jargon " feudal mindset" to
malign the landowner. The so-called feudal lord (jagirdar)
died a long time ago-1958.
Land reforms means different things to different people. To
the urbanite it means" snatching the land from the
landowner, fragmenting it into small pieces and then
distributing it to the landless peasants."
Jatoi defines the feudal lord as one who was given large
estates (fiefs) free of cost in return for supply of
workers, soldiers (serfs), horses, mules, food and fodder to
the rulers in times of war and peace."
Currently, the zamindar is engaged in a profession in which
he shares 50 per cent of his gross income with the
sharecropper. The zamindar pays all the expenses of
maintaining tractors, implements, tube wells, workshop,
autaq, seeds, water courses and taxes. And he asks whether
such a partnership was possible in any other sector of the
economy.
The assertion that feudalism is dead finds support in
theoretical work of Professor Hamza Alavi on colonial social
formation. It dissolved pre-colonial feudal structure, that
separated the peasants from their means of production.
The farmers were integrated into the peripheral capitalism.
And the peasants were left with no option but sell their
labour (at cheap rates) and serve a market for colonial
production.
The eminent historian Dr Mubarak Ali however tends to
differ. In actual practice, the institution of feudalism has
changed with the changing realities but prevails despite
land reforms.
After the Federal Shariat Court judgment declaring land
reforms unIslamic, some of the feudals got back their lands
from the peasants. The colonial tradition of giving
agricultural lands to high military officials after their
retirement has created new landlords. The support of the
army makes the system strong and unbreakable. Even Bhutto
had to exempt army from land reforms.
On cultural practices Dr Mubarak adds: In feudal societies,
women's status is below that of man. In Sindh, one sort of
exploitation is to keep private jails and force peasants to
work on minimum wages Economist S.M. Naseem argues that the
elitist nature of the Pakistani estate and its apparatus
have played a significant role in shaping the pattern of
development.
While land reforms were weak in terms of implementation,
they proved ineffective in ensuring the security of tenure
for the tenants. Share tenancy has been completely
eliminated from northern Punjab and is limited to 20-30 per
cent area in other parts.
In Punjab, the landlords have tended to increase
self-cultivation of land. In Sindh, however, tenancy still
prevails in about 70 per cent of the cropped area. Empirical
evidence has shown that in villages where landed power is
high, educational attainment is generally low.
In support of views journalist Thermize Khan quotes
historian M.S. Kerejo as follows: The urban Sindhis prefer
to call feudalism which keeps the peasants under bondage and
prevents the growth of a Sindhi middle class; while many
rural Sindhis call it land ownership, diluted into
partnership between the Zamindar and the hari regulated by
tenancy laws. Khan does not attribute the country's under
development to landed gentry but to the failure of the
state.
Economist Mahnaz Fatima strongly disagrees that feudalism
has ceased to exist as there has been a transformation from
the feudalistic to the capitalist mode of production." Mere
deployment of capital and technology is not all that it
takes to make a mode of production free from feudal
characteristics.
Referring to Professor Hamza Alavi's first criterion that in
feudalism, labour is unfree as opposed to free labour in the
capitalist mode of production she says "In Pakistan's rural
setting, the tenants and sharecroppers are obliged to serve
the landlord as well as they did their feudal lord ever.
" While there is an element of surplus extraction, the
entire modern managerial emphasis is on getting the
"surplus" voluntarily... Modern management is more
manipulative." In the absence of avenues of employment in
modern economy, free labour is not that free.
Another criterion used to define feudalism is the
extra-economic coercion for the extraction of the surplus.
In the rural setting, extra-economic coercion exercised by
all its inhabitants is widely known. The tribal and clan
value system is designed to keep the low- income classes
subdued, subordinated and usurped in every possible way.
In addition, the virtually and in some cases, the actually
captive workforce also serves as a captive vote bank for the
landlords most of whom wish to get to the legislative halls
to influence political decision-making.
Pakistan is neither able to legislate effective land reforms
or meaningful agricultural income taxation. Neither could
the foundation be laid for the country's rapid economic
development nor could a base be prepared for national
resource mobilization. The upshot is political, economic and
social deficits.
The parallel judicial system of panchayats and jirgas are
nothing but organs of the local politico-economic leadership
to legitimize their illegal and illegitimate actions. This
is third criterion of feudalism.
Dr Mahnaz however recommends the fourth criterion of
feudalism about self- sufficient (subsistence) economy for
agricultural and eventual industrial/national development,
albeit, with small -property owning farming classes.'
Capital and technology has added power to the power of the
landlord without adequately facilitating power-sharing with
the labour. Rural labour remains powerless facing formidable
hurdles over their lives.
The economy is further trapped in a virtual simple
reproduction mode which is the fifth criterion of feudalism.
Under feudal mode of production, economy and society
reproduce at the existing level as the surplus is largely
consumed by the exploiting class instead of accumulation and
investment.
Under the capitalist mode of production, surplus is
accumulated and re-invested to enhance production
capacities. Even a premature obituary of feudalism cannot be
written yet in Pakistan. The issue of feudalism is not
behind us but actually it continues to engulf us.
Courtesy: The DAWN
|
Pakissan.com;
|