There is no ‘honour’ in killing

HP, though you bring an interesting perspective but what do you say on this:
1. If there were problems in land reforms elsewhere, does that mean that the land reforms have no value AT ALL?
2. Is the lesson from those experiences is that let the feudal lords keep the progress a hostage?
3. How otherwise we can move forward? (Even for the growth of Capitalism, landlords' grip has to be loosened. It happened naturally (intrinsically) in the West. It cannot happen that way in the East anymore.)
4. What is the road to progress otherwise - even to capitalism?

The political philosophers and economists have to come up with solutions. We cannot just say that it is of no use.

HP, well I was just commenting that it's a little unfair to talk about the failure of land reforms only with respect to USSR and China. A better example would be land reforms in Japan and Korea carried out by Gen. MacArthur after WWII. They are supposed to have been quite successful and drastically changed the land ownership patterns. But I really doubt that these conditions could be reproduced for Pakistan today and probably land reform through tax reform is a better approach.

hp,

.... you know that i am a simple minded guy and not much for high falutin discussions, so please bear with me and forgive me if my solution sounds simple minded.....

.... the only cure for feudalism is capitalism which, in my simple mind, is that fairest system of all - it took mankind thousands of years to stumble on it ......

“show me how they would end feudalism in Pakistan and what plans they have to deal with the ensuing unrest and the social upheaval that would follow the land taken over by the state.�- HP

Rabia and Asadi- You have not answered my question above. The CFR article that Asadi quoted pretty much confirms my narrative of the events. Veng I think does not even understand the poverty in the Indian village is mostly due to fragmentation of lands, and peasants not owning enough lands to sustain them economically. These are generally the results of thoughtless land reforms of limiting the holdings to a smaller number. Thus resulting in the further fragmentation in the next generation and leaving not enough cultivable area for a family. Only the Fruit farms and Mango orchard owners were points of success in the Indian land reforms. Currently only 23% own most of the arable land in India. (I have not researched this 23% part. just from the memory)

Asadi where is my apology to feudal? I am raising a legit question as to how you are going to end feudalism based on the facts that I showed and the CFR article endorsed from the historical data available from many countries. I wrote that late last night and I did not have a chance to research it but cfr article mostly supports my conclusions and not yours.

“Feudalism was successively weakened in Europe and then finally crushed with various revolutions, which are not so different than a revolution through legislation. In Russia it ended in 1917 through a revolution. Criticizing its effects because those that took on the reform did so halfheartedly is no defense.�

Actually both statements above are factually incorrect.
The five principal Feudal European countries, England, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain never went through any land reforms. There are still I believe no limits on land holdings there.

Feudalism disappeared from only France and Germany due to the first and the second ww. In France, the social upheavals after several failed adventure to conquer colonies resulted in political loss of power for feudal. Germany as we know was conquered twice and was under immense political and economic trauma for almost the first fifty years of the 20th century and that resulted in the elimination of big land holding and not some government actions.

England, Spain, and Italy still have large landowners though they are not feudal due to the nature of the civil laws in these countries.

Blaming the halfhearted ideologues in Russia is just ridiculous when in Pakistan we expect people with no ideology at all to end the feudalism.

#48 rabiawsti writes "I dont think it makes sense to associate the success or failure of land reforms in general with that of Soviet collectivization"

True, they are both different ends of the spectrum, one converts the state into a mega feudal lord (collectivization), the other distributes land, small farms among the peasant farmers and breaks up feudal estates that suck on the blood of the people. That is what made the manufactured case against land reforms in #42 so nincompoopish.

Thank you for your time and kind attention,
TNI Masadi

#42
well, land reforms predated the Russian Revolution, and Stolypin's land reforms during Nicholas II's times were considered to be quite effective. I don't think it makes sense to associate the success or failure of land reforms in general with that of Soviet collectivization

Venga writes "HP, this is unexpected nincompoop from you"

TNI agrees, very unexpected and sadly nincompoopish....

Have a nice day

TNI Masadi

Here is an article on land reform by the CIAs well loved Council on Foreign Relations. As you will note even this conservative think tank gives a higher grade to land reforms that HP sahib will allow..

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9475/land_reform_revisited.html

HP writes "were large feudal states and moved from the feudal economy to industrialization through a long process that included some colonialism and exploitation of countries outside of Europe. But never by taking over lands and abolishing feudalism by decrees..."

Salam and greetings of peace HP sahib. Raazi Baazi?
Why are you becoming an apologist for the feudals now? It is hard to understand you at times. Feudalism was successively weakened in Europe and then finally crushed with various revolutions, which are not so different than a revolution through legislation. In Russia it ended in 1917 through a revolution. Criticizing its effects because those that took on the reform did so halfheartedly is no defense. What happened to the freed slaves after emancipation in the US was bad too, but that doesn't mean emancipation was a failure so slavery should have continued. If the feudal tyrants who have been stripped of their illegal land ensure afterwards that the peasants to whom the land is give fail and the state just leaves them alone after distribution without initial help with input and what not, then of course the results will be bad. Leaving feudalism to its natural process in countries like Pakistan where the bourgeoisie are weakened by being part of a subordinate system will ensure that it continues indefinitely. We definitely need legislation to undertake land reform and first of all to break the feudal army and take its land away from it.

HP sahib, very disappointing post from you which plays fast and loose with history, you have a keen creative insight in manufacturing it like the CIA. Do you or did you ever work for them?

Have a nice day,

TNI Masadi

And Zamindars exploited the poor labours to the hilt...

"Within a generation, a thriving countryside in these states turned in to a cesspool of poverty. Hordes of people left small villages and created major social and economic issues/crises in the Indian cities. Studies would prove that more Indian villagers were forced to leave their villages from 1960 to 1990 than any time in the Indian History."

HP, this is unexpected nincompoop from you. Urbanisation happened for two reasons:

1. Agriculture failure due to failed monsoons
2. Thriving business/opportunity in urban centers

You just cant buy now whatever you bought out of selling 1kg of rice 20 years back. Prices of agriculture produce has not appreciated because of the governments price control efforts. More to write but gtg...

I often see posts from people on this and many other Pakistani sites that feudalism and tribalism are the source of problems in Pakistan. The demand always is to abolish feudalism and miraculously all social and cultural problems will be resolved.

Okay, fine feudalism is bad but how do you end it?
Mostly the solution is to take away lands from the feudal and distribute to the landless peasants. Appears to be a very noble gesture and a good solution, I totally endorse that. The problem is that taking over lands and distributing to the landless peasants has never been successful in any country in the world. Most of the present day industrialized nations in Europe, were large feudal states and moved from the feudal economy to industrialization through a long process that included some colonialism and exploitation of countries outside of Europe. But never by taking over lands and abolishing feudalism by decrees.

The Russians were the first to introduce this unique scheme for pseudo economic and social progress--which to this date our friends think would end social evils in the country-- after the communist revolution in 1917. The Communists just did not know what they were getting into. The first purpose of their land Nationalization was to destroy the political opposition as most of the land owners were czarist. So, the Russian land nationalization had more political than economic or social motives. Well, the announcement plunged Russia in to a bitter civil war. In fact, this one act of extreme political and economic stupidity started the later plunge of Russia into the bureaucratic control under Stalin and the socialist dream died within years of its birth.

The initial communist idea was to take over the land and distribute that amongst the landless. Soon they realized their folly and tried to bring the land control under the government and hired peasants to work in the collective farms. That too proved to be a fatal error. The agriculture produced dropped and the country for more than ten years just lived of potatoes that people were mostly growing in their backyards. The ensuing civil war lasted for over 20 years and millions of Russians died. The 2nd WW helped end the civil war but not before millions had died, the countryside was totally destroyed and the millions were butchered and some more millions were sent to Gulags and Siberia! Some people ought to read books or at least one book by Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago to really figure out the horrors of the society shaken by the stupid actions of a few.

Chinese revolution was actually a peasant revolution and they understood how the mechanism worked. By the time Mao and the CPC took over, China was already devastated by 2nd ww and the civil war. The agrarian economy was already destroyed and most of the feudal had died at the hands of the revolutionaries or Japanese and some just left their lands to save their lives. Still the Chinese land reformed managed by the peasants themselves, wrought havoc in the countryside.

Land distribution and collective farms both failed and Chinese suffered one famine after another from 1949 to almost the 1980s. The system finally begun to stabilize when the country started to switch to mechanized farming, forced birth control in rural areas and later a limited ownership of lands transferred to the peasant. China also made some smart moves in opening up its economy to attract foreign capital and reduce the dependence on agriculture.

I would mention one more country before I finish and ask learned posters to show me how they would end feudalism in Pakistan and what plans they have to deal with the ensuing unrest and the social upheaval that would follow the land taken over by the state.

Congress supported land reforms in India and after years of struggling with the political opposition, finally managed to destroy big landowners and feudalism in some Indian states, such as Bihar, UP, and AP. These reforms completed in 1960, when the upper limit for land holding was reduced to approx 200 acres maximum and that too for the fruit orchards. Within a generation, a thriving countryside in these states turned in to a cesspool of poverty. Hordes of people left small villages and created major social and economic issues/crises in the Indian cities. Studies would prove that more Indian villagers were forced to leave their villages from 1960 to 1990 than any time in the Indian History.

The three Indian provinces that I mentioned are still the basket case of the Indian economy. AP has made some progress due to IT industry recently.


That is all I have to say on this issue and I hope people will respond to my questions after their blistering attacks on feudal and feudalism has left me speechless!

Re: # 35
nb...
Laws are quite OK in India. Problem is implementation is very slack.

Re: # 39 by quin
You highlight a very important factor that is a major contributor to prevalence of such culture and traditionalism.

Feudalism in all forms as existing in Pakistan is one of the biggest curses which was never dealt with by any govt. throughout the history of this nation, like you mention instead it has always been promoted and provided safe-heaven and definitely the beneficiaries have been the ruling few since they did not need to worry about controlling the masses in entireity and through the feudal lords in whom they confide the powers to control masses at the root level are assigned to these feudal lords who are free to use and abuse masses under their control.

The feudal lords come with many titles, the Nawabs, Sardars,Gaddi Nasheens, Murshids, Peers, Waderas, Chaudries and many more while they treat masses in a manner alike slavery and go to the extent of micro-managing their complete living systems like domestic affairs, marital affairs and even in matters of seeking education.

No one ever asked where these lords got their unlimited rights over the masses they assume to be ruling and micro-managing but it is quite evident that by allowing this system to work those who rule Pakistan have an easier time since they don't have to worry to listen to or provide for the masses ruled by the feudal lords instead the rulers are able to conduct themselves much easily by consolidation of masses under smaller controlled groups and the feudal while reaping the benefits rightfully belonging to masses submit to the rulers as if they are collective bargainers.

Now these less than humans like Zehri are even insisting to legitimize their shameless and heinous acts in the name of culture and traditions and admonishing the Parliament & Senate to stay out of these matters and "not create a fuss about these affairs! such characters should be brought to justice and eliminated altogether for their corrupt mindset.

Honour killings and women treated as cattle has not much to do with politics (even if a politician is involved) or with religion (even if mullahs are involved in that). It has more to do with the society as whole and culture of that society.
Ours is a deeply feudal society which has not been able to get itself free from the shackles of values of a medieval mindset. Even the people living in cities or educated in universities belonging to our society display one form or other of that mindset.
The elite of military and industry all basically comes from a deeply feudal background and culture. Ancient feudal values are ingrained in their genes. This clutching hold of feudal values is everywhere with different intensities. In cities and even so called liberated classes, it is in a different form. That can be observed for example the way some interacts happen here on Chowk.
But of course, in the real backward rural areas, its atrocious grip is deadly. This hold has never been broken because - because the backbone of feudal lords has never been broken by any government in Pakistan.
All these bastard feudal lords have been supported by consecutive military regimes as well as so called civilian governments – no government abolished feudal system – rather allowed it to prosper. So the culture of brutality and humiliation of masses, at the peril of Pakistan’s stability and welfare flourished. On top of that, religion has been used to justify or defend such gender based atrocities.
For Pakistan to move forward the first and fundamental step to take is to abolish feudalism - to put limit to how much land one can hold. This is not an old socialistic idea – every sensible nation in modern times knows importance of this fundamental step for progress. Only this step can release the energy of 80% or so rural population of Pakistan. Only this step will eliminate that power which hold people hostage to ancient traditions. That fundamental step will start the process of fundamental change. No one talks about this important principle.
These incidents remind us to look deeply into the root cause of our problems. We must examine and analyze things to get at the root cause of these things. We must spread education, spread ideas which are useful and informative and talk about possible solutions at same time we talk about the problems and the reasons for the problems. We may differ but we must have debates and dialogues about solutions as well as problems.
Hail to the writers who bring up such important topics for information and discussion. Hail Beena Sarwar.

HP I agree that balochis for the most part are not generally religious radicals but religion is not the only reason for crimes against women. Tradition is equally to blame as in this case.

What is a FACT is that this heinous crime took place and some kutta called israr zehri standing for the BNP stood up in the senate and DEFENDED IT.

Whatever you may think of the political struggle of the baloch people this is not propaganda its a real problem and has to be acknowledged. Lets not be ostriches.

I am a little shocked and pleased that the NWFP assembly (not known for open mindedness) condemened israr strongly and called him mentally ill.