On the Miltary Farms, Okara

I was expecting some comment from you on the issue regarding the blatant dis respect being showed by the tenants to the implementation of the court order in okara as illustrated by the following paragraph.

``The citizens of any country in my view dont have any right to agitate againt implementation of a particular order or law by any means. True they have all the right to disagree and agitate against the law in principle but when it comes to the implementation of the law.......no reason in this world should allow them the liberty to take matters in their hands and stop the government and its machinery from carrying out their orders. Agitating and protesting against a law is one thing and refusing to obey court orders is another. Do you agree with this ? ``

As for the point about rangers.....its simple.......okara is a border district(contrary to your claim) plus the government didnt have enough troops at its disposal to deploy in okara.


As for your complete article i would love to read it later on.





cheers
raza

Raza,

As I saw it when I wrote the article (and as I see it even today), there are three main relationships in the land dispute: That between the tenants and the Military Farms, between the Military Farms and the Government and between the Tenants and the Government. Now, you have to understand that, when one writes a piece like this one (which was tailored to fit into the Friday Times` 1300 word limit)m certain decisions about what to include and omit need to be made. It is for this reason, and you can check this in paragraph 2 of the article, that I specifically restricted myself to that segment of the various arguments which dealt with the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1865 (other facets, other than those mentioned above, are the deployment of the Rangers and the inordinately high number of criminal cases registered against the tenants in the preceding months). My decision not to discuss the High Court decision was not motivated out of any sense of misrepresentation (in fact, I am preparing a report on all facets of the controversy, and shall post it here for you when I am done), but of editorial sacrifice. I hope you understand. For my part, I would have written 20 thousand words on the subject (including a stab or two at the badly organized agitations taking place in Okara and the total incompetence of the press in reporting the matter). However, to be be fair, when I write in the future, I will insure not to omit things like court decisions.

This, dear Raza, is known as the outcome of a constructive debate.

As for the Rangers, I must disagree with you. The argument that the state was too impecunious to employ its troops in Okara during the stand-off with India is not impressive. Two wrongs do not make a right. If the Rangers do not and cannot have it in thier competence to enforce the law (other than to curb smuggling, and that too in aid of the local police`s efforts), then any action taken outside their jurisdiction is illegal. It`s like condoning a policeman asking for a bribe (which is not prescribed as part of his duties) on the grounds that he doesn`t get paid enough.

In any case, I have met with people who visited Okara in June. They were smuggled into the outlying Chaks, as the Rangers have contructed a blockade around the City. And they had to be smuggled out (one claims to have jumped between two moving cars, but I find that hard to believe).

Regards,
Rafay Alam

Re : rafay:
My apologies for the earlier totally unnecessary (potshots). But your ommission of the high court decision and a bit of misrepresentation from your side of facts in this case kinda heightened my frustration about the campaign againt the Army by the media. In almost every article i came across, the same things would be repeated with the high court decision and the real owners of the land being not refered to. I am just appalled at this sudden new craze of being anti establishment by everyone while benefitting from the same system themselves (not refering to you over here)
Anyway i apologize again. Now that you mention it i do get the real estate point. Sorry i totally forgot about it when reading your post the first time. Coming back to the point as i said in my post even the fact that two lives were lost is too big a cost for this whole crisis. But the responsibility lies with both sides. Not just rangers alone. The citizens of any country in my view dont have any right to agitate againt implementation of a particular order or law by any means. True they have all the right to disagree and agitate against the law in principle but when it comes to the implementation of the law.......no reason in this world should allow them the liberty to take matters in their hands and stop the government and its machinery from carrying out their orders. Agitating and protesting against a law is one thing and refusing to obey court orders is another. Do you agree with this ?

Moving on to your point about rangers.....if you recall this crisis started at the height of indo pak border tensions. With the result that Most of the pakistani army was deployed at the eastern and western borders. This was the reason which made the establishment deploy the rangers in Okara. Furthermore the Land is Government of Pakistans and not the military`s. Hence the interior ministry in affect could deploy rangers when it felt that the police force was unable to do a particular job. Plus it would do you good to check the map sometime. (no offense meant) but Okara IS a border city with the usual incidents of border smuggling going on over there......hence the need for rangers over there. So that nullifies your argument about the rangers being used.

As to your point about rangers killing people illegally. I from a firsthand perspective can tell you that wasnt the case. In the particular incident when the rangers opened fire at the protestors the Colonel commanding the ranger wing had already been attacked by the mob followed by a gunfire from distance at the ranger positions. So lets not get into that debate yet. Plus why do you forget that Rangers are enforcing a LEGAL DECISION given by a HIGH COURT and unless the law in question which you claim to be wrong is removed......that decision remains binding. You as a citizen only have the right to protest against the law after judging it to be wrong.....but not resist its implementation as the tenants are doing. I guess that justifies your own argument about legal and just agitation againt the law. Since when did it become legal and lawful to resist implementation of the law. If the tenants think the law is unjust....they can go on the streets.....protest againt the law. try to lobby for its removal but they HAVE NO right to FORCEFULLY occupy the land without paying the rent until a new law or order comes into place. It amounts to the same thing as paying taxes. Tommorrow if you find a particular tax unjust you will still pay it as long as it remains in place. Till that time period you have all the right to lobby and protest against the particular law but you do have to pay it till then.

Just as I think toll taxes are totally unjustifed, impractical and uneconomical in the long run. But that doesnt mean that i dont pay them. I sure write against them in the newspapers and try to convey my feelings about them. But if someone refuses to pay them for the same reason then i would find that person at wrong...not the government. I hope you get my point of view. The tenants are doing just that in this case. So why villianize the rangers for implementing court orders when the illegal action is being done by the tenants in the first place. So in okara`s case the tenants should try to change the tenancy law through proper means rather then try to become illegal occupants demanding special treatment from the government. That my suggestion. I hope that other people on their side would suggest them this as well rather then making them start an illegal campaign againt the government.



cheers
raza


( i would love to attend the meeting, that is if i havent left till then) thankyou for suggesting that to me.

Raza,

``In the German concentration camps, Jews wore yellow stars while homosexualists wore pink triangles. I was present when Christopher Isherwood tried to make this point to a young Jewish movie producer. ``After all,`` said Isherwood, ``Hitler killed six hundred thousand homosexuals.`` The young man was not impressed. ``But Hitler killed six million Jews,`` he said sternly. ``What are you?`` asked Isherwood. ``In real estate.```` (Gore Vidal, ``Pink Triangle and Yellow Star`` - The Nation 14-11-1981.) I hope you get the point.

Why, Raza, do you insist on taking personal pot shots at me? First, there was ``having done law from abroad and teaching it at a two bit college doesnt make one an authority on Law which is apparent from your excerpts and quotations from english law books and lack of legal justification to prove your point.`` Then there was an oblique reference to another interactor`s accusation that I am from a landed family (see post 9 and your post 12). Do I know you?

To clarify: My family lives in a home alloted to my grandfather when he chose to migrate to Pakistan at Partition. I have a law degree from the University of London and am qualifed under Pakistani law to practice law in the Civil, District, Sessions and High Courts of Pakistan (as well as various other courts, legal tribunals and commissions). I practice law as a profession (which means I cannot, under any circumstances, be called an ``amatuer``), teach for gratification of soul (I agree that the institution where I teach could be better, and I am taking steps which will, hopefully, see an improvement in its standards) and write as a past-time.

There are ways of winning arguments, but since it`s only you and me interacting at this stage, I don`t see how resorting to cheap rhetoric will improve your case. You have to confront me head-on. On the issue. Which I have repeatedly stated is the fact that the land laws of Pakistan are brutal, and perpetuate a fuedal system of land-ownership which is universally condemned. What justification is there to Pakistan if the system we live under is no different from the one Colonial England thrust upon us centuries ago. To repeat: A man has the right to own land. The concept of ownership is dynamic and flexible (to which extent, I believe, my arguments are correct), and title should belong to those people who has used the land in the most economic (comparatively speaking) way. On the other hand, I freely concede (if not actually support the idea) that there should be finality in transactions, otherwise the administration of justice would falter. To this extent your argument is also correct. The Military (or the Provincial Government) is the owner of the land in the eyes of the law.

But my point here is that the law is unjust (I have given some reasons in the article). If this is the case, then the Military (or the Provincial Government) does not have a claim over the ownership of the land. Here, the Judgment of the High Court may be referred to. It is the duty of a judge to apply the law, unless it is challenged. The Punjab Tenancy Act, 1865 was not challenged when the two peasants who were the litigating tenants took their case to the High Court. As such, the veracity of the Act was not in question. Acting in accordance of their duty, the Honorable Judges (though the reference may not have a nexus with the reputation of Malik Muhammad Qayoom) applied the law as it stands and decided against the tenants. But again, if the law they applied was bad, it is my duty as a citizen of Pakistan (not, mind you, as a lawyer), to object to them and agitate against them using legal means (in this case, propogation through Chowk and a national weekly - both, I conceed, may be futile attempts). I believe, just as strongly as you do to the contrary, that the the Military is oppressing the tenants of Okara. But I have not made any personal attacks against you. I will take the moral victory in this battle, if you will.

As a lawyer, I have a duty to OBEY the law. But, as a citizen, I have the right to agitate (using legal and lawful means) against those laws which I feel are bad (you may refer to another article, ``On Women and Divine Decrees`` where I discuss the contradictions in today`s banking laws). I have not been engaged by any party or person to express my views. They are entirely my own. Had I been engaged to fight this case, I could not, under the norms of legal ethics, used my words to further the cause of my clients. Again, in the arena of the legal profession and ethics, I claim (with authority) greater knowledge than you.

You mention in your article the fact that some people (let`s not quibble over numbers; we are not in real estate) have been killed by the Pakistan Rangers. And that`s another story. The Pakistan Rangers, under the Pakistan Rangers Act/Ordinance (can`t recall which) 1958 are specifically a border security force employed to ensure that smuggling is curbed. Under the legislation, the provincial governments can request the Rangers to serve inland, but a construction of the legislation reveals that, in such a case, their duties will be limited to assisting other security forces in the elimination of smuggling. Furthermore, the Pakistan Rangers are not ``Armed Forces`` within the meaning of the Constitution (which allows the Armed Forces to assist the civil machinery in cases of emergency). This is further evidenced by the fact that the Pakistan Rangers fall under the control of the Interior Ministry and not the Ministry of Defence (where control of the Armed Forces rests). Okara is nowhere near the border. There is no declared emergeny in Okara. So why are the Rangers there? (this argument also applies to Rangers deployment in Sindh and other parts of Pakistan).

In any case, I believe the Rangers have no jurisdiction to patrol the Okara area. As such, any casuality incurred by them is illegal and amounts to murder. It`s not a question of numbers, Raza: If the Rangers kill even one person illegally, heads should roll. I think you would agree in principle at least.

There is a meeting on the Tenants Issue sponsored by the Center for Policy and Development Alternatives (I can`t claim I know the NGO), which will be held at the Pakistan College of Law (Tipu Block, New Garden Town, Lahore - and one of the best law schools in Pakistan) on 02-09-03 at 4:00pm. According the invite I have received today, it will be attended by the Anjuman, Members of the Bar Councils, senior academics and civil society groups. I am going to attent. I suggest you do too.

Best regards,
Rafay Alam

Re: rafay alam:

Does my being in real estate make any difference ? As far as i can see your being an amateur lawyer hardly does that since you claim to know more about law then judges of high courts and refuse to accept and respect their decision which should be the basic duty of any lawyer. I admit you know more about law then i do and perhaps your arguments might be true....though they are always so many opinions about such cases. But the fact remains that these peasants approached the court themselves. They were not taken to the court by the military. They asked the judicicary to decide their case which it did. Now they along with the NGO`s , pressure groups and lawyers backing them should have the honesty and integrity to accept the court`s decision. If they did not want to accept the courts decision why did they approach the courts in the first place.
Its a matter of principle. It is not for you or them to decide that the high court decided wrong. It should be the supreme courts prerogative. Agreed ?
If everyone started rejecting the courts decision on their own then we would have a state of anarchy wouldnt we.......with everyone refusing to accept the decision when it goes against them. This might actually put your community that is the lawyers out of business. I hope you get my point of view. So let courts decide such matters and not pass value judgements on them.
Furthermore as i earlier said there are so many squatters and trespassers along with peasants occupying government land all over Pakistan.......why should the peasants of Okara get any special treatment. As for the Minister of defense promising them this land. that amounts to nothing. Its not his land to give or promise as a candidate member.... nor should have made any promises in the first place. State land is not a bag of peanuts to be distributed among a members potential voters for personal gain. Plus his changing loyalties from pppp to patriot group show his calibre.

About the gift request.....there are scores of such requests being forwarded by the army to the government in order to make plots and houses for the army elite. I wish you people could protest against that (bandar baant ...sorry for using such a word but i couldnt come up with a better word for that) instead of protesting against a case which has already been decided and plus a land and perhaps the only military land which is used for the benefit of the ordinary jawaan or soldier serving at the front in siachen where all the product of these military farms go.

Again coming to the rent debate.....since you happen to be interested in the issue so much i can only request you to go and check how fair is the rent being asked from these tenants. i.e. 1/3rd of the market rate. So instead of making a joke out of it just think wherelse do peasants get such rent structure in Pakistan.
It would also do you good to check how certain individuals i.e. the gang leaders of these peasants have taken up land on rent from these peasants and now possess more holdings then even large land lords do. It is these miscreats who are exploiting the peasants. This would be very easy for you to find and check.

At last i would also suggest to you to rethink your claim of dozens of people having lost their lives. The actual figure stands at 7 with only 2 person being directly shot at by the rangers deployed there. True even 2 deaths is too high a price for this affair but this issue has been strecthed too far by the people leading these peasants and whatelse do you expect the government to do...........sit back and hand over all its land to anyone out there who claims its possession.


cheers
raza

Razz,

What are you? In real Estate?

The point is not the revenue of the Military or the Government. It`s about the fact that, in this land of ours, the fuedal system of land ownership still exists. And this is despite article of the Consitution, which states the state will be governed by one principle: From each according to his own, from each according to his ability (this was probably inserted by J.A. Rahim while Bhutto was experiencing a moment of clarity).

The peasants in Okara have, for years, been promised the ownership of the land which they have tilled for generations. The current MNA from Okara (Defence Minister Rao Sikandar) made this promise part of his election campaign. The fact that he has stopped visiting Okara reveals his constitutients` feelings towards him.

The High Court decision was made by a two member bench comprising of Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum and Mr. Justice Saqib Nisar (to my mind, one of the finest Judges this country has ever produced), and written by Malik Myhammad Qayyum. It is only a few double spaced pages long. It does not answer the main question: What is the nature of property rights in Pakistan. How can such a decision be right? And, further, our High Courts and Supreme Court are not infallible. I think you would agree with me on this.

There are also questions as to the legal title of Military Farms over the lands in question. A 30 year lease was executed by the Crown in 1913, but the original document has since been lost (I refer to offial correspondence, which I have in my possession). One cannot say for sure, but the Military`s lease may have expired. Why else would the ecretary Defence write to the Governor of Punjab in 1999, requesting him to ``gift`` the land to the Military?

Best regards,
Rafay Alam

Re rafay_alam:

Well i dont know how the EDO letter came up with the figure of 60000 but it seems to have been a mistake. As to the reason for not mentioning the high court decision. Well what can i say to that. The way you think you alone know more then a Bench of High Court judges speaks for itself. Who can argue with that reasoning.
Moving on to the issue at hand. The fact over here is that the Military itself does not own the land. It has been taken on lease from the Pakistan Government by the military. So the military can not hand over something to the tenants something which is not theirs to give in the first place. So now this becomes a dispute between the tenants and the Pakistan goverment rather then the military and i am sure you know how much land of the Pakistan Government is being used by tenants, squatters and trespassers all over pakistan. If the same principle were to be followed then hundreds of thousands of acres all over pakistan would be claimed by their tenants which is not exactly an ideal solution to the problem is it.
Furthermore the new system being put into place by the military requires a tenant to pay around 1/3rd to 1/4th of the standard market rate being asked for the same land. I believe its 2500 to 3000 rs per acre as compared to the market rate of 8000 to 10000 Rs. I guess this is a fair rent. I am sure you know this already though you failed to mention this in your article since its one of the most important facts of the case in favour of the military.

have fun
raza

In re Razzz No. 12

Since I don`t have any details of myself about chowk, I assume you have picked them up from other sources. The prejudices you bring to the forum notwithstanding, I have a few comments to make:

1. The figure of 60,000 is not mine. It is quoted from a letter from the EDO Okara dated 21.09.01 (mentioned in the article). In any case, we are not speculating as to the degree of atrocity, but the fact of it.

2. I refrained from mentioning the Lahore High Court decision mainly because I think it was wrong. The case (and I have copies of the case file), hinged on the Military authority`s power and ability to affect new contracts on the expiry of old lease agreements. But this is not the point. The entire Tenancy Act needs to be torn down.

3. I am also well aware that the Punjab Tenancy Act (and various provincil manifestations of the the same) also governs every other tenant in rurual Pakistan. And, if I were pressed to comment, I would say that this law is partially responsible for the fuedal nature of Pakistani society.

The Military has no business holding land. Their argument that the Military Farms are needed in order to produce fodder for the army cannot sustain itself. The land should be given to the tenants who have tilled it their entire life. The army can outsource the produce it needs. It may be a little expensive, but I`m sure that if plans to build the next Retired Officers Building Scheme were put off for a year or two, the costs could be defrayed.

Rafay Alam

in Response to post # 12 by razzzz

Well, RAZZZZ, you may have disagreement with the writer, but the language you used in your interAct is not acceptable. Instead of insulting the writer, you should have brought your arguments against his point of view.
I dont know the legal intrcicacies involved in the case, but I myself visited the OKARA military farms, and have seen the misery being inflicted on the tenants. The total seige, harrassment and terror, all this I saw with my own eyes. It seemed the Rangers were not dealing with compatriots but some war combatants were being handled.
Some of the women were given dips in the canal by rangers men. Electricity supply was cut off, not a single school was working there, and the girls studying in the city colleges were so much harrassed that they had stopped going to college.
All the legal complications aside, this is not a treatment that should be handed out to 25000 Pakistanis.
Another thing that i noted was that all the men establishment posted there were Pakhtoon. the rangers colonel Saleem was a Pakhtoon, the SSP was a Khattak, and the ISI man was also pakhtoon. What is this...? Wont this create hatred for Pakhtoons among Punjabis....? What a way to develop National Integrity!

First of all having done law from abroad and teaching it at a two bit college doesnt make one an authority on Law which is apparent from your excerpts and quotations from english law books and lack of legal justification to prove your point. Furthermore what you neglected to mention over here is that this whole matter was taken to court and the court decided in the favour of the Punjab Government and the Military who has taken the land from the government on lease. So are you claiming that you know more law then a high court bench or you just have visions of morality ?
Please dont try to use your anti establishment critique over here cause that wont get you any sympathies. Thirdly the population affected is 25 thousand not 60 thousand. Get your facts right. This is a serious issue which is something beyond your comprehension since you are more likelier to turn up at an Anti Iraq War rally with the bomb pakistani cricket banner which reflects your intellectual level and your level of seriousness and sincerity to the cause. Apart from this next time try to include all the details of the case instead of picking and choosing some of them like you completely forgot to mention the legal decision which has been given in this case and how the peasants are being misled by some local miscreants who have taken large amount of the concerned land for cultivation on lease from these peasants and are unwilling to share their profits with the army which has leased out the land. Why should the army compromise over here since this would set a bad precedent for the whole country and how will the government retain ownership of other lands in its possession. Learn to respect the rights of the tenants. These are not the only peasants in the whole of pakistan who are being asked to cultivate their lands on these conditions. The whole of southern and central punjab follows the same practices. Why dont the rest of the peasants complain ? .
On the issue of how the cash rent system encourages more yield per acre....read some economics concerning agriculture produce incentives before commenting on that. Then you will realize how economic theory and empirical evidence justifies that argument.
In the end thanks to Ijaz gul who has shed some light on your own situation which just reflects how vested interests and the desire to be counted as a somebody make complete fools write on matters they dont know about. way to go Mr ijaz.

raza

Sorry to keep on reappearing, but in re Ijaz Gul #9:

The property allotted to my family after Partition was, before Partition, in the ownership of one Bawa Natha Singh. His, son-in-law, who lived on the premises, was (ironically), a judge of the Lahore High Court. Incidentally, Martand Khosla, G.D. Khosla`s grandson lives in Delhi and is one my closest friends. He has promised, once the India-Pakistan visa issues are resolved, to come back and claim back-rent from 1947. I`ll deal with him when he comes.

Rafay Alam

Rafay, I appreciate you for your campaign for the downtrodden. Well charity begins at home. How about handing over some of the farmlands allotted to your family to which you are a legal hier to tenents who tilled them before they were alloted. Many amongst us have the habit of cutting the very hands that feed us.

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

Thank you for your comments.

I would, however, like to say a few things. Cherry (#6): You are correct to question the nature of ownership. What indeed of the original owner? But it is my belief that the ownership of property should depend not on original title alone, but a combination of economic usage of land as well as title. In other words, title (or ownership) of property depends on who uses the land the best. If there is an absentee landlord (as there is, in effect in Okara), then a peasant who tills the land for generations should be entitled to ownership of the land (or, at the very least, entitled to some legal protection for his labors). This, you will be surprised to know, is not a new idea. It is the foundation of what in law is known as adverse possession. It also places economic ideas into the concepts of law. If Pakistan is to emerge from its current fuedal attitude to land ownership (where serfs never reveive any legal rights in the land) to some other form of land ownership regime, the principle of adverse possession must be embraced.

Also, I find it dissapointing that Studebaker has dismissed the military`s handling of the Okara affair as something which is not important. One needs to realize that dozens of people have been killed (and many more have and are being tortured) to date. If one does not raise a voice against such brutalities, then all is lost.

Rafay Alam

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

[Its time that sense prevails and lets not make these farms an excuse for military bashing. The best way to bash the Army is that the politicians behave more responsibly and never give a chance for military interventions. Two smooth tenures of clean political governance would do the trick. ]

exactly. im somewhat confused at all the furor that is being kicked up.
it seems to me all this commotion was started with some vested interest. what i gathered is that this is like saying, ``since i have been working on your land for 100 years, is it my right that this land should now belong to me``. well, what about the right of the person who owns the land?
it could be just an excuse for military bashing....or it could be a cover for something more sinister that is brewing.
but then again...i could be wrong.
as usual, studebaker`s posts still dont make sense to me :)